DIALOGVE 5.

C. Doe they teach any thing else contrary to the Creede?
M. Yes: The sixth Article saith, that Christ ascended into
Heauen, &c. And the Scriptures say, that the Heauens must
containe him, &c. Acts. 1. 11. 3. 21. They teach contrarie
hereunto, namely, that Christ is corporally present in the
Sacrament, and that in many places at once: The which is
contrary to the nature of a true body, and contrarie to the
nature of the Sacrament, which is a remembrance of
Christ. Virgilius against Eutyches. lib. 4. saith thus: When it
(that is the flesh of Christ) was on earth, it was not in heauen:
and because it is now in Heauen, it is not on earth.
This is the Catholike faith and confession. It is an Article

of faith to beleeue the Catholike Church: and faith is the
euidence of things not seene, Heb. 11.1. Therefore the Catholike
Church is alwaies vnto the world inuisible, and not
to be espied but by the eyes of faith: because things seene are
not beleeued. The Papists teach that the Catholike Church
is, and hath bin alwaies visible. Rhem. on Mat. 5. Sect. 3. The
Church is said to be Catholike, that is, vniuersall, because it
is not tyed to any one speciall place, but is spred abroad ouer
the face of the earth. They tye it to Rome alone, which can
be but a particular Church, & not vniuersall, In the Church
there is a Communion of Saints: and these are they that
are sanctified by the bloud and Spirit of Christ, hauing the
perfect holines of Christ put vpon them, by imputation of
faith, and the quality of imperfect holines powred into their
heart by the Spirit of sanctification. And such are the Faithfull
here on earth, 1. Cor. 1. 2. Psal. 16. 2.
The Papists acknowledge none to bee Saints, but such as
are in heauen. They teach that the Pope can canonize
Saints: whereas to make one a Saint, is onely the worke of
God, 1. Cor. 1 1. The Pope hath canonized many, that indeede
were neuer true Saints of God, but wicked men, and
ranke Traitours to their Princes, as Becket, with many others.
This canonizing of Saints was never heard of with the
Fathers, vntill the yeere 880. and then Adrian tooke vp this
authoritie. And Alexander the Third, after him, confirmed
it in his decrees.
In the Creede we professe, to beleeue the forgiuenesse of
sinnes, that is, I beleeue that God, for Christ his sake, doth
freely forgiue the sinnes of his Elect, and my sinnes also. And
herein consisteth our iustification, namely, in the free forgiuenes
of our sinnes, and the imputation of Christs righteousnes
to vs. The Papists teach many things contrary to
this Article. First, that men are to make satisfaction for
their sinnes. Now, satisfaction for sinnes, and forgiuenes of
sinnes, are contraries. If we satisfie in our own person, wee

B2

are not iustified freely: if we be iustified freely (as most certainely
we are, Rom. 3. 23.) then we make no satisfaction at
all. If a man can satisfie and pay a debt, then he needes no
forgiuenesse: but if the debt bee forgiuen him, then it is
plaine, that there is no satisfaction made. The satisfaction
for our sinnes was made by Christ, and not by vs.
C. Did not the ancient Fathers teach men to make satisfaction for
their sinnes?
M. The satisfaction which they maintained, was an ecclesiasticall
and publike mulct, or penalty imposed vpon notorious
offenders, thereby to testifie their repentance, and to
satisfie the Church whom they had offended, Perkins.1. V.
577, &c 2 vol 165.2 D. 166.
The efficient cause of our iustification, is God alone. It
is God onely that forgiueth our sinnes. Esa. 43. 25. Mar. 2. 7.
Ro. 8. 33. They teach that the Pope can forgiue sinnes, and
we know that he giues pardons, not only for the time past,
but also for the time to come: yea they teach that priests
haue right to remit sinnes, and they alleadge these places to
proue it: Math. 16. 19. Ioh. 20. 23. Now we are to note this,
that as none can forgiue a debt, but the party to whom the
debt is due: so none can forgiue sinnes, but God onely, against
whom the sinne is committed, Ps. 51. 4. The power of
binding and loosing committed to the Apostles & Ministers
of the Word, is, by declaring the will and pleasure of GOD
out of his Word, both to pronounce forgiuenes of sinnes to
all that are truely penitent: and the retayning of them to
the impenitent. The Pope and his Clergie are neuer able to
proue themselues to bee the true Ministers of Christ: and
they cannot so much as challenge this latter authoritie and
power to themselues, much lesse the former which is proper
to God onely. The motiue or impulsiue cause, which moued
God to iustifie vs, was not any thing in vs, but onely the
grace of God, that is the free good will and pleasure of God,
Rom. 3. 24. Eph. 2. 8. Tit. 3. 5, 7. They teach that wee are not
iustified by grace onely, but by workes also, that is, by the

merit of our works. And to this end they haue (of late yeeres)
deuised a first & second Iustification. The first is, when a sinner
(of an euill man) is made a good man: and this (they say)
commeth onely of Gods mercy by the merit of Christ. The
second is, when one (of a good or iust man) is made better
and more iust: and this proceedeth from workes.
But we are to know, that there are not two kinds of iustification,
a first and second; but one and the same iustification,
considered in different respects. In respect of Gods actuall
acceptation of mans person, iustification is absolute: but
in respect of the actuall application, and manifestation of
Gods acceptation vnto a mans conscience, iustification is by
parts and degrees. (M. Scudder on the Lords Prayer, pag. 303.
to 309.
And further we are to note, that the Papists second iustification,
is no other then sanctification, which is an effect & fruit
of iustification: the which is imperfect, & not able to iustifie
vs before God The materiall cause of our iustification, is the
actiue and passiue righteousnesse and obedience of Iesus
Christ, his inherent holinesse, his fulfilling of the Law, his
death, sacrifice, and full satisfaction.
The formall cause, or the forme of iustification, is the righteousnesse
of Christ, imputed of God vnto vs, Rom. 5. 19. Rom.
4, 5, 6, 7, 8. 1. Cor. 1. 30. 2. Cor. 5. 19, 21. Phil. 3. 9. The Papists deride
this doctrine, that Men are iustified by the imputation
of the righteousnesse of Christ: which righteousnesse is not
in vs, but in Christ. The Rhemists call in a new no-iustice, a
phantasticall apprehension of that which is not. Rhem. on Ro. 3.
Sect 7. They hold them accursed that so affirme and teach:
And they teach, that the onely formall cause of our iustification,
is the iustice of God, whereby wee are not reputed and
accounted iust, but are made iust indeed: and this iustice is
that which euery man hath within himselfe, and is inherent
in him, Concil. Trid. Seff. 6. can. 10, 11. Rhem. on Phil. cha. 3. Sect. 3.
The instrumentall cause of iustification, on our part, is a true
and liuely faith, whereby wee receiue and apply vnto our

B3

selues the mercy of God, Christ Iesus and all his benefits,
resting vpon him alone for saluation.
They teach, that faith doth not iustifie, as an instrument in
apprehending the righteousnesse of Christ, but as a proper
and true cause, it actually iustifieth by the dignity, worthinesse
and meritorious worke thereof, Bellar. l.1. de iustificat. cap.
17. They teach also, that faith is not the onely cause of our
iustification, but that there are other also, as hope, charity,
almes-deeds and other vertues: yea, they say, that workes
are more principall then faith, in the matter of iustification:
and pronounce him accursed that shall say, a man is iustified
onely by faith. Rhem. on Rom. 8. Sect. 6. and on Iam. 2. Sect. 7. Belliar.
l. 1 de iustif. c. 13. Concil. Trid. Sess. 6 Can. 9. These and other such
like things they teach, contrary to the doctrine of iustification,
which is a maine ground of Religion. And if there were
no more points of difference betweene vs, these were sufficient
to keepe vs from vniting of our Religions: for heereby
the Church of Rome doth raze the very foundation.
C. You said before, that we are iustified freely: I would know how
this can be, if we be iustified by the righteousnes, and for the merit of
Christ.
M. Because the Degree of God the Father for our Redemption
is free, and we pay nothing againe to God of our
owne. And therefore by the word (freely) our merits are excluded,
but not Christs. By which it appeareth, that in respect
of our selues, we are iustified freely of Gods meere mercy
and grace, without any respect of our owne righteousnesse
or worthinesse, but yet through Christ, and for his righteousnesse
and obedience imputed to vs: both which are signified
by the Apostle, Rom. 3. 23, 24.
C. Shew me (I pray you) what in meant by (Merit) what the doctrine
of the Papists is concerning merit, and whether that our workes be meritorious
or no.
M. By (Merit) wee vnderstand any thing, or any worke
whereby Gods fauour and life euerlasting is procured; and
that for the dignitie and excellency of the worke or thing

done. Now the true merit whereby wee looke to attaine the
fauour of God, and life euerlasting, is to be found in the person
of Christ alone, in whom God is well pleased. The Papists
make two kindes of merit: the merit of the person, and
the merit of the worke. The merit of the person is (as they
say) a dignitie in the person, whereby it is worthy of life euerlasting.
The merit of the worke, is a dignitie or excellency
in the worke, whereby it is made fit, and inabled to deserue
life euerlasting for the doer of the worke. See Rhem. on
Rom. 8. Sect. 5. We now doe renounce our owne personall merits,
and all merit of our owne workes, and rely onely vpon
the merits of Christ, and we hold that no workes of ours can
merit. That no man by any workes of his can merit, may bee
proued by the properties and conditions that must bee in a
worke meritorious, and they are fiue.
First, the worke must be absolutely perfect: but all our
workes are vnperfect, as well in parts, as in degrees of accomplishment.
In parts, because we omit many things which
the Law prescribeth, and doe many euill things which the
Law prohibiteth. In degrees, because the works of the Saints
are vncleane, Esay 64. 6. Phil. 3. 8.
Secondly, a man must doe the worke of himselfe, and by
himselfe: for if it be done by the helpe of another, the merit
doth not properly belong to the dooer. But the good workes
which we doe, are not ours, but are wrought by God in vs.
Thirdly, a man must doe the worke, of his owne free will
and pleasure, not of due debt: for when we doe that which we
are bound to doe, we doe no more but our duty. But whatsoeuer
we doe, we doe it as poore debters; nay, wee are worse
then poore debters; we are miserable bankerupts, wee haue
nothing; we haue lesse then nothing to pay, Luke 17. 10.
Fourthly, the worke must be done to the benefit and profit
of him from whom we looke to be repayed. But no man by any
worke of his can bring any profit vnto God, Iob 22. 2. 35. 7.
Psal. 16. 2. 50. 12. We may benefit men, but we cannot benefit
our Maker, from whom we haue receiued life and limb, soule

B4

and body, and all that we haue: wee can giue him nothing,
and therefore can deserue nothing from him, Rom. 11. 35, 36.
Lastly, the worke and the reward must be in proportion equall:
for if the reward be more then the worke, it is not then
a reward of desert, but a gift of good-will. But there is no
proportion betweene our workes, which are altogether vnperfect,
and the excellency of those great blessings, and benefits
which the Father giueth vs freely in his Sonne, Rom. 8. 18.
And therefore in this and the former respects, there can be
no merit in any meere man: wherefore it is no lesse absurd
to say, that we merit saluation at Gods hands by good works,
then if one should say, Thou haft giuen mee an hundred
pounds, therefore thou oughtest to giue me a thousand.
C. Was not this doctrine of merit taught in the times of ancient
Fathers?
M. Merit being taken in his proper sense, for due & iust
desert, was neuer allowed of the sound Professors for a thousand
yeeres after Christ, Perkins 1. Vol. 574, 575. second Vol.
535, 536. Such therefore as will be iustified and saued by their
owne workes, and challenge eternall life by their merits, doe
shew themselues to be most proud and vnthankefull persons,
and deserue most iustly to be condemned eternally.
C. The Papists at their end, doe renounce their owne merits, and
professe that they looke to be saued onely by the merits of Christ.
M. If there were nothing else but this, it were enough to
proue their doctrine of merit, to be a false doctrine: for if it
were a truth, then a man is not onely in his life time to professe
it, and maintaine it, but also in his death, yea rather to
dye for it, then to deny it. But seeing they in their life professe
it and maintaine it, but at their death renounce it; it is
a manifest argument, that euen they themselues doe know,
that it is not a true, but a false doctrine.
C. If they know that it is not a truth, what makes them then in
their life-time so stiffely to maintaine it?
M. It serues greatly to maintaine and vphold the Popes
kingdome: for they teach, that the ouer-plus of Christ merits,

and of the merits of Saints and Martyrs, is the treasure
of the Church, which being gathered together, and put into
a store-chest, is in the Popes custodie, and he alone hath the
plenary opening and shutting of this Chest, and the ordering
and disposing of these merits: By vertue whereof, hee
giues out Indulgences and Pardons when and to whom hee
will: So that such as haue not merits enow of their own, may
haue them from thence. And so hereby hee maintaines and
vpholds his kingdome: for hereby comes in infinite wealth
and reuenewes, Perkins 3. vol. 1. part. pag. 165 2. D. 2. vol. 590. 2. d.
In these and many other particular points, the Papist teach
contrary to the Articles of the Creed, and therefore are no
true Catholikes, neither doe they belong to the Catholike
Church, as is thus proued: Whosoeuer haue not the Catholike
faith, doe not belong to the Catholike Church: but the
Papists haue not the Catholike faith; therefore they doe not
belong to the Catholike Church. That they haue not the
Catholike faith, is plaine by that aforegoing.

DIALOGVE 6.

C. Doe they teach any thing contrary to the doctrine of the Sacraments?
M. Yes, many things. Christ ordained but onely two Sacraments.
The Church of Rome hath added to them fiue
more; namely, Confirmation, Penance, Matrimonie, Orders,
and extreme Vnction.
C. Are not these Sacraments indeed?
M. No surely: for there are foure things necessarily required
to make a Sacrament. First, the authoritie of Christ commanding
it. Secondly, the element or outward signe, as the
matter of it. Thirdly, the word of institution, as the forme.
Fourthly, the end and vse, to be a seale of our faith, for remission
of sinnes. These foure things are not to be found in
their fiue latter Sacraments, and therefore they are no Sacraments
indeed. Master Attersoll on the Sacraments, pag. 119.
to 150. Synopsis Papis. Controu. 14, 15, 16.
C. May not the Church then institute and ordaine Sacraments?

M. None may ordaine a Sacrament, but onely the Lord.
As none may put a signe and seale to a mans last Will and
Testament, but onely the maker of the Testament: so none
may ordaine Sacraments (which are signes and seales of the
new Testament and couenant of grace) but onely the Lord
which made the couenant. And therefore the Church of
Rome, in doing the contrary, proues her selfe not to bee the
true Church of Christ, but rather the Church of Antichrist.
They doe also in many other things teach contrary to the
doctrine of the Sacraments. As;
First, that the Sacraments doe giue grace, and namely, remission
of sinnes, ex opere operato, by the worke wrought,
Rhem. Acts 22. Sect. 1.
Secondly, that not onely faith doth iustifie, but the Sacraments
also, Rhem. Rom. 6. Sect. 5. Whereas Sacraments are
signes and seales of iustification, Rom. 4. 11.
Thirdly, that Infants dying without Baptisme, cannot bee
saued, Rhem. Ioh. 3. Sect. 2. They haue also added many idle
ceremonies to Baptisme, as Creame, Tapers, Salt, &c. with an
opinion of saluation and worship annexed vnto them: yea
in times past they baptized Bels, but now they begin to be ashamed
of it, and say that they were but onely hallowed and
consecrated to holy vses, Bellar. l. 4. de Pont. Rom. c. 12. Synopsis Papismi,
Controu. 12. Quest. 5. Concerning the Lords Supper, they
haue likewise most grossely abused it in many things.
First, they take away the Cup from the Laity: whereas the
Church of Rome for aboue a thousand yeeres after Christ,
vsed both signes in the Communion. The Communion vnder
one kind, was decreed, defined, and determined as a publike
Law in the Councell of Constance, about the yeere
1114. Perk. 2. Vol. 554.2. b.
Secondly, they reserue the Bread in boxes, pixes & other
vessels of the Church, for dayes, weekes, and moneths. They
shew it to the people, the Priest lifting it ouer his head, and
going with it in procession. All this is contrary to the Sacrament:
for it is no Sacrament, vnlesse there be a giuing, receiuing,

eating, and drinking, M. Attersoll on the Sacraments,
386, 387.
The reseruation of the Sacrament was not allowed of, but
rather found fault withall by the Fathers, Perk. 2. vol. 557.
Thirdly, they adore, fall downe and honour the Sacrament
with diuine worship, calling it their Lord and God. A
thing neuer heard of among the heathen Idolaters, namely,
to worship a piece of bread, or rather, a thin Wafer.
The adoration in the Sacrament belongeth vnto Christ
sitting in heauen: and is an inward worship of the heart, or
lifting vp of the minde, being stirred vp with the outward
signes. Pope Honorius the third (in the yeere 1220.) was the
first that euer instituted the adoration of the Sacrament. And
after him Vrban the fourth ordained a feast in honour of the
body of Christ. Perk. 2. Vol. 564. Attersoll on the Sacraments,
388, 389.
Fourthly, they turne the Sacrament into a sacrifice for the
quick & the dead, abolishing the fruit & remembrance of the
death of Christ, disannulling his Priesthood, giuing him to
his Father, whereas the Father hath giuen him to vs, &c. ibid.
page 390.
Fiftly, they maintaine Transubstantiation. These are their
very words: If any man shall say, that there remaineth the
substance of Bread and Wine in the Sacrament, after the
words of consecration, or shal deny that the whole substance
of Bread and Wine is changed and conuerted into the bodie
and bloud of Christ (the formes and shewes onely of Bread
and Wine remaining: which singular and miraculous conuersion
the Church calleth Transubstantiation:) let him be accursed.
Con. Trid. Sess. 13. Can. 2. This their doctrine of Transubstantiation,
is a very fable to mock fooles withall, and it ouerturneth
both the nature and vse of the Sacrament, Attersoll on
the Sacraments, page 45, 46, & page 365. to 369. If there were
a miraculous conuersion (as they say there is) of the Bread
an Wine, it would appeare to the outward senses. For al true
miracles are wrought openly, cleerely, & euidently to mens

25

senses, Ioh. 6. 26. But the Bread and Wine, by the iudgement of
all the senses, remaineth and appeareth to be the same in
substance which it was before, of the same quality, quantitie,
colour, taste, handling, smelling, vertue and nourishment:
there is not any one sense, or all the senses together, that can
iudge otherwise of it, then it did before. If a man should bee
called in, when the Bread and Wine is set on the Table, and
bidden to consider well what he there seeth, smelleth & tasteth,
and then is willed to goe forth, and to come in againe,
after the Consecration is ended by the Priest, and to do the
like: and then is asked what he thinketh of it: he, no doubt,
will answere (vnlesse feare of persecution make him to conceale
the truth) I see, feele, smell, and taste the same wafercake,
and wine that I did before: I can perceiue no naturall
and substantiall change therein. And therefore it followeth,
that there is no miracle wrought, and consequently, no transubstantiation,
at all. The difference that is, is in the end & vse
onely. Before consecration, it was common bread and wine,
ordained for the nourishing of our bodies. After consecration,
it becommeth holy Bread and Wine, sanctified by the
Lord, not so much to feede the body, as the soule.
C. Did not the ancient Fathers hold this doctrine of Transubstantiation?
M. They knew nothing hereof, for at least 800. yeeres after
Christ. Afterwards begun the disputations of Transubstantiation,
but not approued as an Article of faith. The
Church for a whole thousand yeeres taught no other then
spirituall receiuing of Christ. In the yeere 1215. Transubstantiation
was decreed and determined in the Councell of
Lateran, vnder Pope Innocent the Third, and made a maine
matter of faith, Perk. 2. vol. 558, 559.
C. What say you then of their Transubstantiated, or consecrated host (as
it is called) or the bread in the boxe carried in procession & worshipped?
M. Surely it is nothing else, but a wheaten, or breaden
god, or rather an Idol, nothing inferiour to Aarons Calfe, or
Ieroboams Calues, or the Nehustan, and piece of brasse that Ezechias

brake in pieces: nay, as vile and detestable as an Idoll
among the Heathen. And for a conclusion of their doctrine
of Transubstantiation, I will heere set downe a wittie conceit
which one shewed me not long since: I haue kept the
matter, but changed the meeter, to make it sound somewhat
the sweeter.
The Priests doe make Christs body and bloud,
Hereof none must once doubt:
They eate, they drinke, they box him vp,
They beare him all about.

DIALOGVE 8

C. Shew me, I pray you, in particular, what things they teach contrary
to the Commandements?
M. I could plainely proue vnto you, that they doe both
teach and practise many things contrary to euery one of the
Commandements: but I will onely set downe the chiefest,
and such as most men know to be true.
The first Commandement concernes the inward worship
of God: the ground of which worship is the true knowledge
of God; and without which, none can truely worship and
serue him: for such as our knowledge is, such is our worship,
1. Chron. 28. 9. Psal. 9. 10. Ier 9. 24. The Papists teach, that
ignorance is the mother of deuotion: but the truth is, it is
the mother of superstition and idolatry, Gal. 4. 8. The Papists

therefore being ignorant, and without the true knowledge of
God, cannot truely worship him, but must needs bee Idolaters,
worshipping they know not what. The first Commandement
requireth that wee haue the true Iehoua for our onely
God. They make Christs body to be God, because they hold
that it may be in many places at once, which thing is proper
only to God. They make the Pope to be God, & that in plaine
words. Christopher Marcellus said to the Pope, Thou art another
God vpon earth: and the Pope tooke it to himselfe,
Concil. Later. Sess. 4.
They giue the power to the Pope, which is proper to God,
and so make him to be God. As, that he can make holy that
which is vnholy, pardon sinnes, &c. Perkins I. vol. 400. 1.
and they giue diuine worship to creatures, and so make them
their Gods. The second Commandement concerneth the
outward worship of God, or the forme & manner of his worship.
This Commandement they haue cleane put out of the
Decalogue, and to fill vp the number, they diuide the last into
two. The scope of this Commandement is, that no Image
is to be made of God, nor any worship performed to
him in an Image, Deut. 4. 15, 16. But they teach it lawfull to
make Images of the true God, and to worship him in them,
and that there is a religious worship due to them, Belarm. de
imag. sanct. lib. 2. cap. 21. And in the second Nicen Councell it
was decreed, that the Image of God should be worshipped
with the same worship that is due vnto God. Their practice
is answerable to their doctrine: for they worship the Images
of God, of Christ, the Saints, the woodden Crosse, yea, a
piece of bread.
C. They say, that they doe not worship the images, but God, Christ,
and the Saints in the image.
M. Suppose that this were true, yet in so doing, they commit
grosse idolatry, and the same that the people of Israel
did, for which God plagued them greatly, Exod. 32. 5, 28. I
thinke there is none so very a Calfe, as to thinke that they
did worship the Calfe it selfe.The Calfe was but a representation

of God; and yet they sinned greatly in making it, and
worshipping God in it. The Heathen in times past could say
as much for themselues, concerning their worshipping of Images,
as the Papists now doe: and yet as they were Idolaters,
so are the Papists: for as touching their superstition and
idolatry, bloud ca~not be more like to bloud, or an egge to an
egge, then the one of them is to another. The Heathen had
for euery Nation and Prouince, some peculiar god. Among
them, the Elements had their seueral gods to rule ouer them.
The Heathen had a certain god assigned to their cattell. The
Heathen had peculiar gods for learning and learned men,
and for handi-crafts men. And all these haue the Papists likewise.
The Heathen erected Altars, ordained Priests to offer
sacrifices, fell downe before their idols, &c. So the Papists
deck and adorne their images, goe on Pilgrimage to them,
fall downe vpon their knees before them, and make their
prayers vnto them. And what is all this, but to worship the
very images themselues, the which is most grosse idolatry?
Musculus on Psa. 16. ver. 4. page 139.140. Virels grounds, pag. 87. to
92. Attersoll on Philemon, pag. 63. 64.
C. They say, that there be degrees of religious worship, the highest is
latria, and this is due vnto God: the lowest is Dulia, proper to Saints,
&c. Bellar. de imag. Sanct. lib. 2. cap. 25. The Scripture acknowledgeth
one onely kinde of religious worship, and that due onely to God,
Math. 4. 10. Reu 22. 9. And this distinction of theirs was not known
and receiued into the Church, till 400. yeeres after Christ, Perk. 1.
vol. page 696. 2. vol. 530.
C. Was not the making and worshipping of Images approued of by
the ancient Fathers?
M. There was no vse of Images among Christians, specially
in their Churches, for 379. yeeres after Christ. Adoration
of Images was neuer publikely authorized till 788. yeres
after Christ, in the second Councell of Nice, Perk. 1. vol. page
696. 2. vol. 421.
If you be disposed to see more at large when images first
came vp, how they were forbidden and condemned by Fathers,

C

Emperours and Councels, and how all that the Papists
can say for them, is answered: then read the booke of Homilies
against perill of idolatry: for I know none that hath
written more soundly, fully and plainely thereof.
C. Doe they teach and practise any thing else against the second
Commandement?
M. Yes: to the right worshipping of God, there is required
a reuerend vse of the meanes of Gods worship and seruice,
the which are sincere prayer, preaching, hearing of
Gods Word, and the vse of the Sacraments. Concerning
prayer, it must be made with vnderstanding, 1. Cor. 14. ver. 15.
Contrary hereunto is their praying in an vnknown tongue.
In the purest Churches for the space of 800. yeeres at the
least, diuine prayer was neuer performed in a tongue vnknowne
to the people, Perk. 2. vol. 557. Concerning the Sacraments,
they doe not rightly administer and receiue them,
but haue added and taken from them at their pleasure.
The helps and furtherances of Gods worship are specially
two; vowes and fasting. The Papists make these to be parts
of Gods worship: yea, they make fasting to be a worke of satisfaction
to Gods iustice, for the temporall punishment of
sinne, and a meritorious worke, Rhem. on 1. Cor. 15. Sect. 7. Perk.
1. vol. 596. Synopsis Papismi. The sixt generall Controuersie,
quest. 3. 4. The 19. generall Controuersie, quest. 8. In a word, all
their carnall ceremonies, deuised by men, and wherein they
place the worship of God, are contrary to the second Commandement.
The most of which ceremonies, they haue borrowed,
partly, from the Iewes, partly from the Gentiles, Willet
on Iude, pag. 215. 216.