THE GOLDEN BALANCE OF TRIAL. Wherein the Reader shall plainly and briefly behold, as in a Glass of Crystal; aswell by what rule all controversies in Religion, are to be examined, as also who is, and of right aught to be the upright judge in that behalf. Whereunto is also annexed a Counterblast against a masked Companion, terming himself E.O. but supposed to be ROBERT PARSONS the traitorous jesuit.  
Vos Vnctionem habetis a sancto, & nostis omnia.  1. joh. 2. v. 20. 
Determinatio solius Papae in his quae sunt fidei, non obligat ut precise est talis, ad credendum alioquin staret in casu, quod quis obligaretur ad contradictoria, vel ad falsum contra fidem. Gerson prim. part. de examinat. doctrinarum, consider. secunda.  
LONDON. Imprinted by john Windet, for Richard Bankworth, dwelling in Paul's Churchyard, at the Sign of the Sun. 1603.   
THE GOLDEN Balance of Trial.  

CAP. I. Of the Uncertainty of judgements, of all Bishops severally in themselves.  
THE Prophet David showeth plainly the uncertainty of judgement, 
Psal. 116. v. 11  when he telleth us, That all men are liars: The Prophet jeremy crieth aloud, 
jere. 16. v. 19.  that the Gentiles in the end of the world shall come to him, and shall freely confess, that their forefathers inherited lies and vanity. 
Rom. 3. v. 4.  S. Paul confirmeth the same, telling us, that only God is true, and every man a liar. The Prophet Malachi showeth the whole matter, 
Mal. 1.8.  to have been verified in the Priests of the old Law: His words are these: The priests lips shall keep knowledge and they shall seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the Lord of Hosts: but ye are gone out of the way, ye have caused many to fall by the law: ye have broken the covenant of Levi, 
Ezech. 7 v. 26 & cap. 22. v. 26  saith the Lord of Hosts, yea this is it, that the Prophet Ezechiel saith, Then shall they seek a vision of the Prophet, but the Law shall perish from the priest, 
Esa 28. v. 7.  & counsel from the Elders. The prophet Esay saith, The priest and the prophet have erred by strong drink, they are swallowed up with wine, they have gone astray through strong drink, they fail in vision, 
Micah▪ 3. v. 11.  they stumble in judgement: this is it, that Michah saith: The Heads thereof judge for rewards, and the priests thereof teach for hire, & the prophets thereof prophesy for money: This is it that the prophet Sophonie sayeth; 
Soph. 3. v. 4.  Her prophets are light and wicked persons, her priests have polluted the Sanctuary, they have wrested the law.  
This uncertainty of judgement cannot be denied: For Tertullian erred, Montanizinge, Cyprian, Rebaptizinge, Origen, Cerporizinge, Nazianzen, Angelizinge, Eusebius, Arrianizinge, Lactantius, Millenizinge, and the like may be verified of all the Residue.  
The sentence of two learned papists, highly renowned in the Church of Rome, shall conclude my Theme. 
Roffensis. art. 32. advers. Luth. pag. 420.  john Fisher the late Bishop of Rochester, hath these express words: Nec Augustini, nec Hieronymi, nec alterius cutuslibet auctoris doctrinae sic ecclesia subscripsit, quin ipsi locis aliquot ab iis liceat dissentire, nam in nonnullis ipsi locis se planè monstrarunt homines esse, atque nonnunquam aberrasse.  
The Church hath not so subscribed, either to the doctrine of Austen, or of Hierome, or of any other Writer, but that we may sometime dissent from their opinions; for themselves have plainly showed themselves to be men, and that they wanted not their errors: the jesuit Ballarmine hath these words; Sine dubio singuli Episcopi errare possunt, 
Bellarm. de conciliis lib. ●. cap. 2.  & aliquando errant, & inter se quandoque dissentiunt, ut nesciamus quisnam eorum sequendus sit.  
Without doubt, all Bishops severally may err, and do sometime err indeed, and do also sometime so dissent one from another, that we cannot tell in the world, which of them we may safely follow.  
Out of the words of these Writers, whereof the one was a learned Bishop, and a popish canonised Martyr, and the other a jesuit and Popish Friar, who did dedicate his Book to the Pope himself; I gather these singular documents. First, that the Church of Rome giveth every one liberty to dissent from Augustine, Hieromie, and other Writers whosoever. Secondly, that the Fathers have plainly showed themselves to be men, and to have had their imperfections accordingly. Thirdly, that many errors are to be found, in the writings of the Fathers. Fourthly, that the Fathers do so dissent one from another, that we cannot tell whom we may safely follow. These Fathers therefore severally may not be judges in all matters of faith and religion.   

CAP. II. Of the uncertainty of judgement of many Bishops, even when they employ their wits and learning to teach one and the self same doctrine.  
WE find in holy writ, that the chiefest of the Priests and people trespassed wonderfully, 
2. Par. 36. v. 14.  according to all the abominations of the Heathen, and polluted the house of the Lord▪ which he had sanctified in jerusalem. 
Hos. 9 v. 10.  The Watchmen of Ephraim, saith Hoseah, should be with my God: but the prophet is the snare of a fowler in all his ways, and hatred in the house of his God. The Prophets saith jeremy, 
jere. 14. v. 14.  prophesy lies in my name, I have not sent them, neither did I command them, but they prophesy unto you a false vision, and divination, & vanity, and deceitfulness of their own heart.  

jere. 6. v. 13.  The same Prophet saith again in an other place after this manner; From the least of them to the greatest, every one is given to covetousness, and from the Prophet to the Priest, they all deal falsely.  

Esa 56. v. 10.  Their Watchmen saith Esay, are all blind, they have no knowledge, they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark.  
Many of the old writers taught with uniform consent, that the souls of the faithful departed do not see God, until the day of general doom. To recite the words of a few may suffice for this time.  
Lactantius hath these words; 
Lactaned. lib. 7 cap. 21.  Nec tamen quisquam putet, animas post mortem protinus judicari, omnes in una communique custodia detinentur, donec tempus adveniat, quo maximus judex meritorum facit examen.  
Yet may not any man think, that the souls of the just shall forth with after death, have their judgement, for they are all kept in one common prison until the time come, when the great judge shall discuss every man's deserts.  
justinus Martyr hath these words; 
justinus, q. 60 & q. 76. ad Orthod.  Neque enim ante resurrectionem, vitae cuique peractae retributio contingit. Iterum, utilitas latroni quod Paradisum sit ingressus, haec finite, quod fidei commodum re ipsa percepit, per quod dignus reputatus est, qui sanctorum caetui adiungeretur, in quo usque ad diem resurrectionis & remunerationis reseruatur.  
No man hath his reward before the day of resurrection: The Thief by going to Paradise, had this benefit, that he received in very deed the fruit of his faith, by which he was reported worthy of the Fellowship of saints, where he is reserved until the day of resurrection and remuneration.  
Victorinus hath these words: 
Victor. in apocalypse.  Sed quia in Novissimo tempore sanctorum remuneratio perpetua, & impiorum ventura est damnatio, dictum est eyes, expectate.  
But because in the last time, Saints must receive their rewards, and the wicked their damnation, it is said unto them, Expectate, ye must expect, or do ye expect a while.  
I could allege the words of Ireneus, of Euthymius of Oxigenes, and others to the same effect, and yet the doctrine taught by these Fathers, is this day holden for a flat heresy▪ even of the Papists themselves.  
Caietanus a learned Papist, and sometime Cardinal of Rome, (for which respect he must perforce be of great credit among them) doth gravely advise the Reader in his commentaries upon the Pentateuch of Moses; 
Caietan, in quinq. lib. Mosis.  willing him to contemn nothing rashly, but to examine all things by the holy scripture, and to embrace that which is agreeable thereunto: although it swerver from the opinion of never so many Fathers. His words are set down at large in my book of Motives.  

Canus lib. 7. cap. 1. de locis.  The great schoolman  and renowned popish Bishop Melchior Canus confesseth very plainly, that the consent of many Bishops and learned men, doth not yield a sound argument for man's conscience to rest thereupon.  
The same Canus in an other place avoucheth boldly, 
Canus, lib. 8. cap. 5.  that though all the Thomists with the Scotists, & late writers with the old take part against him; yet must he perforce have the victory, because reason is on his side: his words are set down at large in my Book of Motives. 
Argumentum ad hominem.   
What need long periods? Austen, Ambrose, Bede, Chrysostome, Remigius, Eusebius, Bernardus, Bonaventura, Maximus, Erardus, Bernardinus, Aquinas, Hugo, and almost all the rest affirm with one consent, alleging express texts of Scripture for their opinion, that the blessed Virgin Mary was conceived in original sin, and yet doth the late hatched nest of Jesuits with other Papists this day avouch the contrary for a truth if any man be desirous to know more of this point, he may find it at large in my books of Motives and Survey, lo, these cannot always be judges in all matters of faith and religion.   

CAP. III. Of the uncertainty of the Pope's judgement, whose faith say the Papists, can not fail.  
ALbeit the Pope's Canons, and popish glosses thereupon tell us, 
Causa 17. q. 4. cap. si quis suadente.  that it is sacrilege to reason of the Pope's power, yet by his holiness favour, I hope I may set down without offence to any godly man what I find in his own popish decrees. and that I may proceed sincerely and plainly for the better satisfaction of the Reader, I will distribute this Chapter into several sections.  

The First Section. Of the manners, lives, and conversation, of the late Bishops of Rome.  
ALthough the Bishops of Rome be now a days termed by the name of Holiness, yet have the lives and manners of many Popes been most wicked, most notorious, and most scandalous to the Christian world. I will pass over Pope Stephanus, 
Carranza in summa consiliorum.  who disannulled all the Acts of Pope Formosus, degrading those whom he had made Bishops and priests: a rare and strange Metamorphosis in the Church of God. Pope Romanus did reprove and abrogate all the Acts of Pope Stephanus and Pope Sergius the third did so hate the name of Formosus, 
Platina in vita Sergii. 8.  that he caused his body to be beheaded, after it was buried, and laid in the ground, yea, he commanded his dead corpse to be cast into the river Tiber, as unworthy to be interred in Christian sort.  
Pope Bonifacius the eight, entered into his popedom as a Fox, 
Carranza ubi supr. fol. 369.  reigned in it as a Wolf, and died in the end, as a dog.  
Pope Christopher was deprived of his pontifical dignity, and enforced to be a Monk. Pope Bonifacius the seventh, and Sylvester the second, aspired to their popedoms by Necromancy and Diabolical means. Sylvester the third obtained his popedom by sedition, 
Platina in vitis Pontificum & Carranz. ut supr.  and Damasus the second was made pope by violent means, without consent either of the Clergy, or of the people, pope Gregory the fifth was by sedition thrust out of his throne, and pope john the 18▪ by tyranny, occupied the popedom.  
But I may not let pass to speak at large of Pope Sylvester the second of that name: the story is most memorable, well worthy for edification sake to be engraven in golden letters: of the truth thereof no man can stand in doubt. For Martinus Polonus, the popish Archbishop of Consentina, and high Penitentiary, as also the chief Chaplain to the Pope's Holiness, hath published the same in writing to the view of all the world. Which thing doubtless, he world never have done, 
Martinus Polonus in Chroni. an. 1007.  if he had not thought it a thing necessary to be known. Thus therefore doth he write; Pope Sylvester the 2. was first a Monk, a Frenchman borne, Gilbertus by name: he promised homage to the Devil, so long as he did accomplish his desires, which his request the Devil undertook to bring to pass: he being very ambitious did so often express his desire to the devil, as he made homage unto him: the Devil procured him to be made Archbishop, first at Rheims: then at Rauennas: and at the last to be Pope of Rome: for the Devil knowing his ambitious mind, brought him to honour by degrees, being made Pope, he would needs know of the Devil, how long he should live in his Pontifical glory, the Devil answered him that he should live so long, as he did not say Mass in jerusalem: the Pope receiving that answer, was very joyful within himself, thinking that he was as far from death, and from the end of his worldly pomp, as he was far of in his mind, from going on pilgrimage to jerusalem beyond the Sea. But what will ye more? The Pope in Lent said Mass in the Church, Sanctae crucis, which they call in jerusalem, myself know the place. Yet the Pope as it seemeth, infatuated with pride, and excessive desire of honour, had quite forgot the name. While he was at Mass (O holy sacrifice) he heard a great noise of Devils, and so remembered not the place only, 
The Pope in his Pontificalibus forgetteth the name of his churches  but also his death to be at hand. He therefore wept (though he were afore most wicked) disclosing his offence to all the company, & nothing doubting of God's mercy, withal he commanded to cut away from his body, all the members with which he had done sacrifice to the Devil. This history I have truly set down as I find it recorded by the said Martinus Polonus Archbishop of Consentina, a man most dear unto the Pope: so as no Papist can without blushing deny the truth thereof: & me thinks it is an unfit thing, that the faith of all the Christian world should depend upon the resolution of such wicked Popes.  
Benedictus the ninth, (as writeth the said Polonus) appeared to a man going by a Mill, 
Polonus. an. 1042.  in the likeness of a monstrous beast, who had a head and tail like an Ass, and the rest of the body was like a Bear. And when the man that saw the Monster fled away for fear, the monster cried after him, in these words: Fear me not, 
Repent ye Popes of Rome.  for I am a man as thou art: but I show myself in this likeness, because I lived like a beast when I was a wicked Pope. Much like stuff I could recite, but I study to be brief. He that desireth to know more hereof, may satisfy himself, by reading my Survey. In these holy disholy Fathers, no sound judgement can be found.   

Sect. II. Of the Schisms and conflicts which have been among the Popes, or Bishops of Rome.  
POpe Benedict the ninth, was deprived of his popedom, and the Bishop of Sabina, who after that was called Sylvester, 
Martinus Polonus an. 1042  became Pope in his room. This Sylvester was afterward expulsed, & Benedict restored to the popedom again. After that, the same Benedict was yet again expulsed, and the popedom was given to john Archdeacon of S. john ante portam Latinam, who was after that called Gregory the sixth. This pope being altogether unlearned, caused an other Pope to be made jointly with him, that he might execute the Ecclesiastical function, which himself was not able to do. Which thing displeased many, and therefore the third Pope was appointed, who alone should supply the places of the other two. One therefore contending against two, and two against one for the Popedom, and Gregory being dead: Henry the Emperor came to Rome against the two, and deposed them by canonical and imperial censure, 
This solemn promise was not long kept  and placed Sindegerus the Bishop of Babemberge in the popedom. At which time the Romans promised by solemn oaths, that they would never elect the Bishop of Rome, without the consent of the Emperor of Rome.  
Many Schisms have been in the church of Rome and amongst our Romish Bishops, even for many years together. And thereupon it followeth evidently that the succession of the latter Popes, can never be proved constantly, to have descended without interruption from the former.  
The great Papist Onuphrius Panuinius maketh mention of no less than thirty Schisms, 
Onuphr. in Chron.  which were all in the Church of Rome.  
Bartholomeus Carranza a learned Writer & popish Friar, 
Carranz. in summa council. p. 370. & p. 373.  reckoneth up two most notable Schisms in the Church of Rome. The former Schism saith he endured for the space of 64 years, during all which time, their godly Popedom was at Avignon in France, and not one day at Rome, though at Rome (as they prate) God placed their holy seat. In the latter schism three of their holy Bishops were Popes at one, and the self same time: to write, johannes, 24. of that name, Benedict 13. & Gregory the 12. From which three striving and contending, like Dogs fight for a bone, I would gladly learn how they can derive their holy so supposed succession: of which succession I have spoken more at large in my book of Survey.  
Of this Romish Schism, speaketh their own dear Abbot Bernarde egregiously: 
Bernard ad Gauf. epist. 125  these are his words: Tempus faciendi, etc. It is now high time to do good for they have trodden underfoot God's law. The beast mentioned in the Revelation, to whom was given a mouth, speaking blasphemies, and to make wars with the Saints, sitteth in Peter's chair, like a Lion ready to take his prey.  
Now I ween, that all wise men well observing and pondering with themselves, these manifold and notorious Schisms in the Church of Rome, which have continued above fifty years together, and in which sundry Popes contending who should be the Pope, no one could truly be discerned to be Pope; will be fully persuaded therewith, that if God's holy pleasure had been, to have tied all people in the world, to hang & depend wholly upon the Bishops of Rome from time to time, in matters touching faith and their everlasting salvation, as upon those persons whose faith should never fail: that God (I say) would have provided for the security and common good of his people, that the same Bishops should have been more honest and godly in their lives: more peaceable among themselves: more free from doing homage to the devil: more constant in their seats: and not so doubtful and uncertain in their succession: that God's people were many times at their wit's end, which Pope they should take for Peter's successor. These men, therefore can not be judges in Religion.   

Sect. 3. Of the privileges falsely supposed, to be granted from heaven to the Bishops of Rome.  
AVgustinus de Ancona, a religious Friar, 
August, depotest. ecclesiast. q. 45. in quaest. 2.  hath these words: Papa Vicarius jesu Christi, vice Dei viventis in toto orb terrarum spiritualium & temporaliium habet vniuer salem jurisdictionem. The Pope being the Vicar of jesus Christ, hath in steed of the living God, universal jurisdiction of all things spiritual and temporal, throughout the whole world.  
Bartholomaeus Fumus a famous popish Friar, and renowned Canonist, 
Fumus in aurea armilla verbo Papa. 7.  hath these words: Omnis potestas jurat fidelitatem Papae & obedientiam recognoscens ab eo omne quod habet. Et si aliquando aliquid imperator dovauit Ecclesiae, ut de Constantino dicitur, non fuit donatio, sed restitutio. Every power sweareth fidelity and obedience to the Pope, acknowledging themselves to have from him all that they have, and if any Emperor, as Constantine gave any thing to the Church, it was no gift, but restitution.  
john Gerson sometime the Chancellor of Paris, 
Gers. de potest. eccles. consid. 12. part. 3.  singeth the same song, in these words: Consurgit ex adverso, etc. There starteth up on the contrary side, fair spoken and crafty adulation, whispering in the ears of clergymen, specially of the Pope. Oh how great, how great is the majesty of thine ecclesiastial power? For as all power was given to Christ, in heaven and on earth; so Christ left all the same power to Peter, and to his successors. Wherefore the Emperor Constantine gave nothing to Pope Sylvester, which was not his own before; but only restored that, which was unjustly detained from him. Further, as there is no power but of God, 
Oh, what a blasphemy is this.  so is there neither any temporal or Ecclesiastical, Imperial or Regal, but of the Pope; in whose thigh Christ hath written, the King of kings, the Lord of lords.  
The Pope's own decrees tell us plainly, 
Grat. dist, 40. cap. si Papa.  that though the Pope be never so wicked, and carry to hell with himself never so many people, yet may no mortal man reprove him for the same. And the reason thereof is this; because forsooth he may judge all, but none may judge him, neither great nor small.  
The Popish parasites, 
Glossa. lib. 1. decretal. tit 7. cap. 3.  the interpreters of the Canons, do ascribe titles yet more magnifical to the Pope; yea, titles plain divine, and proper to God alone. These are the express words, in the popish Gloss upon the Decretals; Sic (Papa) dicitur habere coeleste arbitrium, & ideo etiam naturam rerum immutat, substantialia unius rei applicando alii; & de nihilo potest aliquid facere. So the Pope is said to have celestial arbitrement, and therefore doth he alter the nature of things, by application of the substantial parts of one thing to another; and he can make of nothing something.  
To have recited these absurd and profane assertions, may be a sufficient confutation of the same. 
Victor. de potest. papae & concil●●. p. 151.  Only Victoria a very learned popish Doctor, shall conclude this section. His words are these: Paulatim ad hanc, etc. By little and little we are brought to these inordinate dispensations, and to this so miserable state, where we are neither able to endure our own griefs, nor remedies assigned for the same. Give me Clements, Lines, Sylvester's; and then I will commit all things to their charge. But to speak nothing grievously against these latter Popes; they are doubtless inferiors to Popes of old time, by many degrees. Here is falsehood enough but certainty of judgement none can be had.   

Sect. FOUR Of the Pope's private errors.  
THat the Bishops of Rome may become heretics, yea that they have been heretics de facto, it is so clear a thing, as I shall not need to stand long about the same.  
Many Popish decrees tell us, that Popes may be deposed, 
Grat. dist. 40. cap. si Papa.  when and so often as they serve from the Christian faith, and become heretics in deed. Which Decrees perforce must presuppose that the Popes may be heretics; otherwise they should be frustrate, and to no end at all. These are the words; Cunctos ipse (Papa) iudicaturus, à nemine est iudicandus, nisi deprehendatur a fide devius. The Pope judgeth all, and must be judged of none; unless he serve from the faith, and be an heretic. Lo the Pope's own Decrees do plainly grant, that the Pope may be an heretic; and than God be thanked, he hath a superior and judge upon earth. So he may lawfully be controlled, yea condemned; unless he keep the Christian faith better, than many pope's have done.  
Again in another decree I find these express words; 
Caus. ●. q. 7. cap. oves.  Oues quae suo pastori commissae sunt, eum nec reprehendere, nisi á fide exorbitauerit, nec ullatenus accusare possunt. Sheep which are committed to their pastor, may neither rebuke him, nor in any wise accuse him; unless he depart and forsake the faith.  
Dominicus Soto, a great Papist, 
Soto in 4. s. d. 22. q. 2. art. 1  hath these express words: Quamuis Papa ut Papa errare non possit, hoc est statuere errore nequeat tanquam articulum fidei, quia spiritus sanctus id non permittet; tamen ut singularis persona errare in fide potest, sicut alia peccata committere. Albeit the Pope, as Pope cannot err, that is to say, can not set down any error as an article of our faith, because the holy Ghost will not that permit; nevertheless, as he is a private person, so may he err even in faith, as he may do other sins.  
Pope Anastasius, Pope Honorius, Pope john, 
Canus de locis & Viguerius de virtute fidei.  and others, have been heretics, as Viguerius, Melchior Canus, Alphonsus, and Adrianus, who was Pope himself, confess; and no wise papist, will or can deny the same.  
Nicholaus de Lyra a very learned and famous papist, hath these express words. Ex quo patet, 
Lyra in 16. cap. Mat.  quod Ecclesia non consistit in hominibus, ratione potestatis vel dignitatis, Ecclesiasticaevel secularis. Quia multi principes & summi pontifices, & alii inferiores, inventi sunt apostatasse a fide. Whereby it is evident, that the Church doth not consist in men, by reason of power or dignity, either ecclesiastical or secular, because many princes and pope's, and others of the inferior sort are found to have swerved from the faith, and to have been flat Apostates.  
josephus Angles, a famous popish Bishop, 
josephus Angles in. 4. s. par. 2. q. de excom. art. 4. dific. 1.  and religious Friar, in his book dedicated to the Pope himself, confirmeth this matter in these words; Papa haereticus aut apostata, ab universali concilio deponi potest; & ratio est, quia sicut nullus potest esse alicuius religionis praelatus, qui non sit in illa religione prosessus, ita neque potest esse Papa, si fide Ecclesiae careat. The Pope being an heretic or apostata, may be deposed by a general council; and the reason is, because as none can be a Prelate of any Religion, which is not professed in that religion: so neither can he be Pope, that holdeth not the faith of the Church.  
Thus it is clear, even by popish Doctors and Decrees, that the Pope as a private person, may forsake the Christian faith, teach false doctrine, and become a flat Apostata. The Pope therefore in his private person, can not be a competent judge.   

Sect. V. Of the Pope's public errors, in his general and definitive Decrees and constitutions.  
DOctor Gerson, a famous Papist and Chancellor of Paris, teacheth so plainly, that Popes may err in their public doctrine of faith and manners, as none can doubt there of that ponder well his words; 
Gers. in serm. de paschat. part. 3.  thus therefore doth he write: Hos fecit latroni, qui veri similiter nondum compleverat poenetentiam pro omnibus peccatis suis, qui fuit illa hora propria beatisicatus, & vidit Deum facie ad faciem, sicut sancti in Paradiso: propter quod insuper apparet falsitas doctrinae Papae johannes 22. quae damnata fuit cum sono buccinarum, coram rege Philippo per Theologos Parisienses, & credidit potius Theologis Parisiensibus, quam curiae. This did he to the thief (which by likelihood had not yet accomplished penance for all his sins,) who was blessed in that very hour, and saw God face to face, as do the Saints in Paradise; by reason whereof appeareth further the falsehood of the doctrine of Pope john, which was condemned by the sound of Trumpets, before King Philip by the divines of Paris, and the king believed rather the divines, than the court (of Rome.)  
Out of these words, the indifferent Reader will easily note with me these important points. First, that the thief crucified with Christ, did see God face to face in that very hour, and so was blessed. Secondly, that he reproveth the false doctrine of Pope john. Thirdly▪ that his doctrine was condemned with the sound of trumpets, in the presence of the King of France. Fourthly, that the king gave more credit to the Divines of Paris, then to the judgement of the Court of Rome; that is, then to the Pope and his Cardinals. A point well worthy to be noted. Fiftly, that neither the king, nor the learned Papists, did in those days grant such authority to the Pope, as now a days the Pope challengeth to himself. Whereupon it followeth consequently, that the Pope taught false doctrine, even in a weighty matter of faith. To which is consectary, that his doctrine was public; as which was publicly condemned at Paris, in the presence of the king.  
Pope Adrian testifieth the same truth, as witnesseth the zealous Papist Alphonsus, in these express words; Novissime fertur de johann. 22. quod publice docuit, 
Alphon. a Castro. lib 3. adverse. haeres. prope finem.  declaravit, & ab omnibus teneri mandavit, quod animae purgatae ante finale judicium non habent stolam, quae est clara & facialis visio Dei; & untuersitatem Parisiensem ad hoc induxisse dicitur, quod nemo in ea poterat gradum in Theologia adipisci, nisi primitus hunc errorem iurasset se defensurum, & perpetuò ei adhaesurum. Last of all, it is reported of Pope john the 22. that he publicly taught, declared, and commanded all men to hold, that the souls of the just before the day of judgement, have not the stole, which is is the clear and facely vision of God. And he is reported, to have induced the University of Paris to this: that no man should take degree in the same, but he that did first swear to defend this error, and to adhere to it for ever.  
Thus writeth Adrian, who was himself Pope of Rome. And Alphonsus a man of good credit with the papists, after he had reckoned up five heresies, setteth down this for the sixth heresy, (that the souls of the just do not see God till the day of doom, 
Alphons. ubi supra. ) ascribing the said heresy to the Armenians, as to the authors thereof, & to the Greeks together with pope john, as to the patrons and defenders of the same.  
Here the simple Reader must note well, that he may the better understand this verity, 
Bellarmin de-Rom. pontiff. lib. 4. cap. 14.  and not be seduced with the colourable Gloss of the jesuit Bellarmine, who seeing the force of this testimony to overthrow the highest point in popery, bestirreth himself more than a little in defence of popish faith. He telleth us forsooth, if we will believe him, that Pope john (with all obeisance to his holiness be it spoken,) erred in deed, as is here said: but he did that as a private man, 
A subtle, but falsely coined distinction.  (sayeth our jesuit) not as Pope of Rome. Which distinction doubles, wanteth not only a good foundation, whereupon it should be built: but also it flatly destroyeth the plain Text. The reason is evident to every child. First, because pope Adrian faith, Docuit, he taught. Secondly, because he faith, Publicè, publicly. Thirdly, because he sayeth, Mandavit, he commanded all to hold it. Fourthly, because none could be made Graduates in the schools, which held not this opinion. Fiftly, because every Graduate was sworn to defend it, and to hold it for ever. So then, the pope may err, and hath erred de facto; even in his public decree of faith, as well as an other man. And that even by the consent of Adrian, who was pope himself: yea, who for learning and knowledge, was one of the rarest pope's that ever were at Rome.  
Melchior Canus, 
Canus, de locis lib. 6. cap. 5. in fine.  though otherwise he be a great papist, telleth us plainly, that Gerson, Almaigne, and Thomas Waldensis, do all hold this for a constant position, that the pope may err, as is already said.  
pope Celestine the third of that name, erred as pope and public person, in his judicial sentence, 
Alphonsus. lib. 1. cap. 4. adverse. haeres.  and public decree. This to be so, Alphonsus above named, is a constant witness in these express words; Celestinum Papam errasse circa matrimonium fidelium, quorum alter labitur in haerisin, res est omnibus manifesta, neque hic Celestini error talis fuit, qui soli negligentiae imputari debuit, ita ut illum errasse dicamus, velut privatam personam, & non ut Papam, qui in qualibet reseria definienda consulere debet viros doctos, quoniam huiusmodi Celestina definitio habebatur, in antiquis decretalibus, in cap laudabilem, titulo de conuersione infidelium. Quam ego ipse vidi, & legi.  
That Pope Celestine erred about Matrimony of the faithful, 
Lo the Pope erred publicly, not as a private person.  whereof the one is fallen into heresy, is a thing so manifest, as all men know the same: neither was this error of Pope Celestine such, that it can be imputed to sole negligence, so as we may think him to have erred as a private man, & not as Pope, who ought in the decree of every serious matter, to ask counsel of learned men. For that definition and decree of Celestine, was in the old Decretal Epistles, in the Chapter Laudabilem, which I myself have seen and read.  
Out of these words of Alphonsus, who was a man highly renowned among the papists, I note many worthy observations. First, that Pope Celestine erred, and that not as a private man, but even as Pope and public person. Secondly, that he erred in a very serious matter, even in a matter of faith: to wit, that Matrimony was so dissolved by reason of heresy, that the faithful man or woman might marry again, the heretical party living. which thing sayeth Alphonsus, was manifest to every man to be an heresy. And the late Council of Trent hath defined it to be so. Thirdly, that this decree and definition of Pope Celestine, was in those days enroled in the Pope's Decretals. Fourthly, that Alphonsus saw and read the same Decree. Fiftly, that the said decree cannot this day be found, among the Pope's Decretal Epistles. 
Note this well, it is a point of weight.  Where I wish the Reader to note by the way, that the Decrees of our holy Fathers the Popes, have been such and so much against late Popery, that they are ashamed to bring them now to light. If any man desire to know the Pope's errors more fully, let him read my book of Motives. But now it remaineth, that I answer to sundry important objections, whereupon the Papists would build the supposed Privileges of their Popes, as that their Faith can not fail, and such like. The decision whereof God willing, shallbe performed in the Chapter following. The Pope therefore in his public person, is no infallible judge.    

CAP. FOUR Containing the answer to sundry objections, by which the Papists labour to prove, that the Pope's faith can not fail.  

The First objection.  
CHrist prayed for Peter, that his faith should never fail, 
Luke 22. v. 32  therefore the Bishops of Rome's faith cannot fail, nor the Pope err in his judicial decrees.   

The Answer.  
I say first, that Peter's faith quailed, when he denied Christ, swearing that he knew not the man. For these twain are the chief fruits of faith, 
Rom. 10. v. 10.  to believe with the heart, & to confess with the mouth. And where either of these two is wanting, there cannot be a right faith. For he that putteth away a good conscience, 
2. Tim. 1. v. 19  maketh shipwreck of his faith.  
I say secondly, that Christ prayed aswell for all the elect, as he did for Peter. I pray not saith Christ, for the world, 
joh. 17. v. 9  but for them which thou hast given me, for they are thine. Again he sayeth, I pray not for these alone, 
joh. 17. v. 20.  but for them also which shall believe in me through their word. And consequently, seeing Christ directed not his words to Peter, as to one private man, but as to one representing the whole Church: it must needs follow, that what soever Christ did or said touching Peter's faith, must perforce be understood of the faith of the whole Church. Which faith, as I have copiously proved in my Book of Survey, shall never fail indeed. This my answer is confirmed, in these words of S. Austen: 
August. in quaest. mixed is, q. 5. to. 4.  Quid ambigitur? pro Petro rogabat, & pro jacobo & johann non rogabat, ut caeteros taceam? manifestum est in Petro omnes contineri, quia & in alio loco dicit; ego pro his rogo, quos mihi dedisti pater, & volo, ut ubiego sum, & ipsi sint mecum.  
What doubt is there? did he pray for Peter, and did he not also pray for james and john: to say nothing of the rest? it is clear, that in Peter all the rest are meant: because he sayeth in an other place, I pray for these O Father, which thou hast given me, and desire that they may be with me, where my self am.  
Origen a learned and very ancient father, affirmeth in a large discourse upon S. Matthew, 
Origen hom. in mat.  that all things spoken of Peter touching the church & the keys, are to be understood of all the rest. And the collection of Origen is evident, even by natural reason. For if Christ prayed not aswell for the rest, as he did for Peter, 
A reason insoluble, let it be well marked.  of small credit were a great part of the holy scripture. A reason doubtless insoluble, for all Papists in the world. For if they could fail in their faith, they could also fail in their writing: and yet that they could not so fail, was by virtue of Christ's prayer.  
This my answer is farther confirmed, by the testimony of learned and approved Papists. Panormitanus was their skilful Canonist, their religious Abbot, and their renowned Archbishop: and consequently, his authority must needs gall, and confound them all. His words are these: 
Panormit. apud sylvest de fide § 9 & de cone. §. 3.  Et pro hactantum Christus in evangelio or avit ad patrem, ego rogavi pro te.  
And for this, (he meaneth the universal Church,) Christ only prayed to his Father in the gospel, when he said: I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not. Behold here gentle Reader, and yield thine indifferent censure. When Christ (saith the great Papist Panormitane,) prayed that Peter's faith should not fail: he prayed for the faith of the universal Church, whose faith shall never fail indeed. And the said Panormitane proveth his opinion directly and strongly, by many texts of the Pope's Canon-law, De Elect. Cap. significasti.  
Alphonsus a Castro a religious Popish Carthusian, 
Alphons. lib. 1. de haeres. cap. 4.  hath these words: Non dubitamus, an haereticum esse, & papam esse, coire in unum possint▪ infra: non enim credo aliquem esse adeo impudentem papae assentatorem, ut ei tribuere hoc velit, ut nec errare, nec in interpretatione sacrarum literarum hallucinaripossit. We doubt not, whether one man may be both a Pope and an Heretic together. For I believe, there is none so shameless a flatterer of the Pope, that will ascribe this unto him, that he can neither err, nor be deceived in the exposition of the scriptures.  
To these I must needs add, that all the doctors of the famous University of Paris, 
Bellarm. lib 4. cap. 3. de. Rome Pontif.  as our jesuit Bellarmine freely granteth, do expound Christ's words in S. Luke, even as I have proved out of Panormitane. That is, that Christ prayed for the faith of the whole church, or for Peter's faith, as he did represent the whole church. And therefore our jesuit doth easily reject their exposition, without all time and reason. And he telleth us forsooth, that Christ in his prayer obtained two Privileges to Peter: the one, that his faith should never fail: the other, that neither Peter, neither any in Peter's seat, should ever teach false doctrine. But wise men I hope, will believe Bellarmine's words▪ when he shall bring good proofs for the same. For first, myself have proved most evidently, even by manifest Popish Testimonies; that many Bishops of Rome have taught false doctrine, and become flat Apostates. Secondly, Bellarmine himself confesseth freely, that Peter's Successors perhaps wanted the former prerogative, and sometime became Heretics; but the latter saith he, they had undoubtedly. Which Exposition is easily retorted against himself: because the former may as well if not better, be gathered out of the text, as the latter. And therefore Bellarmine presumeth to much upon his own credit, when he will without all reason, enforce us to expound Christ's Gospel, as he listeth.   

The second Objection.  
Christ commanded the people to do, 
Mat. 23. v. 2. 3.  what soever the Scribes and the pharisees willed them to observe: and this he did only, because they sat in Moses' chair. But doubtless, if they sitting in Moses' chair could have erred, Christ would not have commanded, so strictly to observe their doctrine.   

The Answer.  
Our Saviour Christ seeing many things amiss in the Scribes and pharisees, 
What it was to sit in Moses chair.  thought it meet and convenient to give the people warning thereof. And he wisely tempereth his admonition, lest they should reject the good together with the evil. For to teach the Law and the Prophets, which was to sit in Moses' Chair, or to execute Moses' authority, (which was all one in effect,) was a thing very honest and lawful. Therefore Christ commanded the people to obey them, and to do whatsoever they did bid them do. But this must be understood, with this limitation so long as they taught and commanded, Ex Cathedra, that is, agreeably to God's law, not otherwise. This to be the true sense and meaning of Christ's words, I will prove evidently, both by the Fathers, and by the Testimonies of Nicholaus de Lyra, and Dionysius Carthusianus, two zealous and learned Papists.  

August. tract. 46. in johan. in med. tom. 9  S. Austen hath these words: Sedendo Cathedram Moysi, legem Dei docent, ergoper illos Deus docet: sua vero illi si velint docere, nolite audire, nolite facere. Certè. n. tales sua quaerunt, non quae jesu Christi.  
Sitting in the Chair of Moses, they teach the Law of GOD, 
Priest's must only be obeyed, when they teach God's law.  therefore God teacheth by them. But if they will needs teach their own opinions, and fantasies, then hear them not, do not as they bid you do. For doubtless such men seek to please themselves, and not to accomplish the will of jesus Christ.  

Hilarius, in ps. 158, Pag. 698.  S. Hilary hath these words: Cum igitur doctrina pharisaeorum ob id probabilis esse docetur, quia ipsi in Mosi Cathedra sederunt, doctrina necessariò significatur in Cathedra. Seeing therefore that the doctrine of the pharisees, is for that proved to be probable, because they sat in the Chair of Moses: therefore by the Chair, must doctrine of necessity be signified.  
Thus writeth this great learned and ancient Father: by whose judgement it is plain, that the chair of Moses, and the doctrine of Moses is all one. And consequently, that not they which occupy the room of Moses, or Peter, are to be followed: but they that teach the doctrine of Moses and Peter, are to be heard, and their commandment must be done.  
Lyra hath these words: Omnia quaecunque dixerint vobis, facite. 
Lyra in 23. cap Mat.  Quia praelatis etiam malis est obediendam, nisi in his quae sunt manifestè contra Deum. Do all things that they shall say unto you, because we must obey even those prelate's that be evil, unless they teach plainly against God.  
Dionysius Carthusianus hath these words: 
Carthus. in 23 cap Mat.  Hoc non est absolute, & universaliter intelligendum, quia Scribae & Pharisaei multa superstitiosa & falsa docuerunt, corumpentes scripturam, & irritum facientes verbum Dei per suas traditiones. Intelligendum est ergo de praedicatoribus eorum non contrariis legi Mosi. Mali. N. à presidentibus ebeniendum est, quandiu non docent, nec iubent contraria Deo. This must not be understood absolutely and universally, because the Scribes and pharisees taught many superstitious and false things, corrupting the Scriptures, and making frustrate the word of God with their traditions. We must therefore understand it of their Preachers, which teach nothing contrary to the law of Moses. For we must obey evil rulers, so long as they neither teach nor command against God. See more hereof, and to this effect, in the answer to the next objection.   

The third Objection.  
God commanded to obey the Priests, and not to serve in any one jot from their doctrine, 
Deut. 17. v. 9.10.11.  by turning either to the right hand, or to the left. And it will not serve to say, 
A very weighty objection, see the answer.  that this must be done, so long as they teach the truth: for the text saith plainly: Indicabunt tibi judicii veritatem: They shall show thee the verity of judgement: that is, they shall not err.   

The Answer.  
I say first, that the Priests of the law of Moses, both might err, and did err de facto, as is already proved of the Scribes and pharisees. For they were not only wicked men in life and conversation, but they also seduced the people, taught false doctrine, and corrupted the pure word of God. Which point because it is a thing of very great importance, I will endeavour myself by God's help, to make it plain unto the Reader. And because nothing is or can be of greater force against the Papists, then to confute their doctrine by the testimony of their own approved Doctors: I will as my wont manner is, ever allege the express words of the best approved Papists, who were ever most dear unto the Pope, wishing the Reader to markewell my answer: 
Note the second objection.  made already to the objection next afore going. The words of the great papists, Lyra and Carthusianus already alleged▪ might sufficiently satisfy any indifferent reader: but that nothing may be wanting, I will add their words more abundantly. Lyra hath these words: Vae vobis Scribae, hic ostendit qualiter corrumpebant veritatem doctrinae, 
Lyra. in. ca 23▪ Mat.  in his quae pertinent ad salutem. Dicebant n● quod observare legem erat necessarium omnibus ad salutem, quod est falsum; quia multi gentiles sunt saluati, ut job & plures alii. Ex suppositione autem huius falsi, discurrebant aliqui in doctores Hebraei per diversas civitates & castra, ut possent convertere aliquos de gentilitate ad judaismum. Et hoc est quod dicitur: qui, etc. Woe to you Scribes. Here he showeth, how they did corrupt the truth of doctrine, even in those things which pertain to salvation. For they said, that the keeping of the law was necessary for all men unto salvation, which is false: because many Gentiles are saved, as job and sundry others. Of this false supposition, some Hebrew Doctors did wander through diverse Cities & Towns, that so they might convert some from Gentility to judaism. And therefore doth the Gospel say: woe unto you Scribes and pharisees, hypocrites, for ye compass sea and land to make one of your profession: and when he is made; ye make him two fold more the child of hell, than you yourselves are.  
Again, the same Lyra saith thus: 
Lyran. ubi supra.  Vae vobis duces caeci. Hic consequenter ostendit, qualiter corrumpebant veritatem doctrinae, in his quae pertinent ad actum latriae▪ Cuius actus est jurare modo debito, & iuramentum obser vare Pharisaei. n. & Scribae ex cupiditate moti dicebant, quod illi qui iurabant per Templum Dei, nec peccabant, nec erant in aliquo obligati: sed illi qui iurabant per aurum Templi, erant obligati ad soluendum Sacerdotibus certam portionem auri. woe unto you blind guides. Here he showeth consequently, how they corrupted the verity of doctrine, in those things which pertain to the pure worship of God. The act whereof is to swear after a due manner, and to perform the oath. For the Scribes and pharisees moved with covetousness, said: that they which did swear by the temple of God, neither sinned, neither were bound to do any thing: but they that did swear by the gold of the Temple, were bound to give some portion of gold to the Priests.  

Dionysius Carthus▪ ubi supra.  Dionysius Carthusianus hath these words: Non sinitis intrare. Quia falsa doctrina & pravis exemplis pervertitis eos. Sequitur: qui dicitis; quicunque iuraverit per Templum, nihil est. Id est, solvere non tenetur; & si peieret, non erit criminis reus. You do not suffer them to come in. For you pervert them with false doctrine, and evil example. You say, who so ever sweareth by the Temple, it is nothing. That is to say, he is not bound to keep his oath: and if he be forsworn, he shall not be guilty of any crime.  
Thus we see, or may see, if we be not blind, that by the judgement of these great Papists, the Bishops and Priests of the old law, did not only scandalise the people with their wicked life, but also taught false doctrine, and corrupted the holy Scripture. I say secondly▪ that the very words of the law, if we mark them well, do plainly express the true meaning thereof. To wit, that we must then obey the Priests, when they teach according to God's law, and not when they wrest and corrupt God's word. The words are these: Et facies quodcunque dixerint, 
Deut. 17. v. 10  qui praesunt loco quem elegerit Dominus, & docuerint te juxta legem eius. And thou shalt do whatsoever they shall say, which are over that place which the Lord hath chosen, and shall teach thee according to his law. Lo, this condition is required, that the priests do teach God's law. See S. Hieroms words, in the answer to the fourth Objection.   

The Reply.  
The words import no condition, but a mere assertion and promise, that they shall not err: 
Malach. 2▪ v. 7  so saith the Prophet Malach: Labia sacerdotis custodient scientiam, & legem requirent ex ore eius. The Priest's lips shall keep knowledge, and they shall seek the law at his mouth.   

The Answer.  
I answer, that the words in Deuteronomie do import a conditional precept. The precept is continued in these words, Qui praesunt loco, which are set over that place. The condition is employed in these words: Et docuerint, and shall teach according to the law. The words in Malachi import a flat commandment, of that which the Priests ought to do: but no promise, that they shall do and perform the same. Which thing I will prove many ways. First, by the words of the very texts: then by the testimony of Saint Herome: thirdly, by the exposition of great learned Papists. Touching the words in Malachi, the sense appeareth evidently, in the words which follow immediately, which are these: Vos autem recessistisde via, & scandalizastis plurimos in lege: irritum fecestis pactum Levi, dicit Dominus exercituum. But you are gone out of the way, and have scandalised many by the law: ye have made frustrate the covenant of Levi, 
Malac. 2. v. 6  saith the Lord of hosts. Now, of Levi it is thus said in the same place: Lex veritatis erat in ore eius: The law of truth was in his mouth. And what was the law of truth? S. Hierome telleth us in these words: Lex veritatis, hoc est, doctrina populorun, quae in Sacerdote nullo debet mendacio deturpari, sed tota de veritatis font procedere. The law of truth, that is, the doctrine of the people, which in the Priest ought not to be stained with any lie, but wholly to proceed from the fountain of truth. By which exposition we see plainly, that the priests lips should indeed keep knowledge, but for all that are often void of all knowledge, and teach falsehood instead of truth.  

Deu. 17. v. 9.10 Bellarmine de Pontif. Rom. lib. 4. cap. 1. Deut. 16. v. 18.  Touching the words of Deuteronomie, the sense and true meaning is plainly gathered out of the very text itself. For first, the text in the 17. chapter speaketh as well of the political and civil judge, as of the Priest, which thing Bellarmine himself cannot deny. And yet that the civil Prince may err, all both Jesuits and other Priests will confess. Again, in another place of the law, the same promis that is here made to the Priests, is made generally to all civil judges and officers. These are the words: judges and Officers shalt thou make thee in all thy Cities, and they shall judge the people with righteous judgement. Where I note by the way, the falsehood of the Latin Vulgata editio, which the late Council of Trent extolleth above both the Greek and the Hebrew. For in the 16. chap. the text saith thus: Vt iudicent populum, that they may judge the people. But in the 17. chap. it is thus: and they shall teach the people. And in Malachi, thus: and the Priests lips shall keep knowledge. 
Note this point well.  And yet in the Hebrew text, which is the fountain and original: the word (and) is in every place, which the papists guilefully, change into the word (that,) in the 16. chapt. so to make their matter good, if it would be. But let (ut) be made (&) as it is in the Hebrew, and the question will be at an end.  
Melchior Canus a famous learned papist, hath these express words: Fatemur Sacerdotes non esse audiendos, 
Canus, lib. 3. cap. ult. p. 108.  nisi docuerint juxta legem Domini. We grant (saith he) that the priests ought not to be heard or obeyed, unless they shall preach and teach, according to God's law. Oh sweet jesus? How can any papist deny that which we affirm, seeing the best learned and most renowned Papists confess the same: even in their written books and printed Commentaries, published to the view of the world.  
Lyranus in his Commentaries, 
Lyran. in 17. cap. Deut.  hath these express words: Hic dicit glossa Hebraica: si dixerint tibi quod dextra sit sinistra, vel sinistra dextra, talis sententia est tenenda, quod patet manifestè falsum. Quia sententia nullius hominis cuiuscunque sit authoritatis est tenenda, si contineat manifestè falsitatem vel errorem. Et hoc patet, per id quod praemittitur in textu. judicabunt tibi judicii veritatem. Postea subditur: & docuerint te juxta legem eius. Ex quo patet, quod si dicant falsum, & declinent à lege Dei manifestè, 
Lo papistry is confuted by papists, even of the best sort.  non sunt audiendi. Here sayeth the Hebrew gloss, if they shall say to thee, that the right hand is the left, or the left hand the right, such sentence is to be holden: which thing appeareth manifestly to be false. For no man's sentence of how great authority soever he be, must be holden or obeyed, if it manifestly contain falsehood or error. And this is manifest by that, which goeth before in the text. They shall show to thee, the verity and truth of judgement. It followeth also: and they shall teach thee, according to his law. Hereupon it is clear, that if they teach falsely, and serve from the law of God manifestly, then are they not to be heard or followed.  
Out of these words, well worthy to be engraven in golden letters, I note first, that our Papists now a days are as gross and senseless, as were the old jewish Rabbins: as who labour this day to enforce us to believe the Pope, though he err never so grossly, telling us that chalk is cheese, and the left hand the right. I note secondly, that Nicho. de Lyra a great learned papist, (whose authority is a mighty argument against the papists,) doth here expressly condemn the gross error of the Hebrew doctors, & in them the impudent error of all jesuits, & Romish parisites: who to satisfy the humour of their Pope, 
Note well gentle Reader.  and to uphold his Antichristian tyranny, do wrest the holy scripture from the manifest truth thereof. I note thirdly, that we must neither believe Bishop nor Pope, nor any other living man of what authority soever, if he teach us contrary to the manifest truth of God's word. I note fourthly, that Lyra doth gather out of the Text itself, 
The high priest of the old law erred.  that the High Priest might err, and teach false doctrine. And consequently, that the jesuit Bellarmine doth but flatter the pope's Holiness, when he be stirreth himself to prove out of this place, that the Bishops of Rome cannot err, because the jewish Bishops had the like privilege, and could not teach against the truth.  
I note five, out of Lyra, Carthusianus, and Melchior Canus, whose words are already set down, that the Priests of the old law erred grossly, and taught false doctrine. And that all the world may see the falsehood of Romish Popery, I will add a notorious and most execrable error of the High Priest himself. Caiphas the High Priest pronounced before a great multitude, that Christ blasphemed, when he thus spoke. 
Mat. 26. v. 64. 65. 66. 67.  Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man, sitting at the right hand of the power of God, and come in the clouds of heaven. Now I ween neither the jesuit, nor any other papist in the world will or dare call this blasphemy, which Christ jesus spoke of himself. If they dare so say, the scripture is a plain testimony against them, and all the world will cry, fie upon them. 
Note well this Dilemma.  If they neither will nor can so say, then is the controversy at an end: then hath the High Priest erred judicially: then may their Pope also err, as he hath done indeed: then was not Christ jesus guilty of death, 
Leu. 24. v. 14  has the high Priest and the people affirmed him to be. Mark the answer, to the next objection.   

The fourth Objection.  
If the people may control the Priest, then in vain, are the Priests commanded to teach the people. And it is absurd, that the sheep should rebuke the shepherd.   

The Answer.  
I say first, that when the Priests command the people, to do against God's law: then may not the people do thereafter, 
Act. 5. v. 29. Act. 4. v. 19  but remember the doctrine and Apostolic rule: that they must rather obey God, then man. I say secondly, that though the Priests be appointed to teach, and the people to hear: the Priests in God's name to command, and the people to obey: yet must all this be done, juxta legem Dei, according to God's law. Neither shall the people, for all that contemn the authority of the Priests, but with humility admonish the priests, and tell them why they cannot so do. This lesson if the Papists cannot be content to learn of me, yet I hope, they will not disdain to learn it of S. Hierome: seeing their Pope in their Collect upon his festivity, termeth him Doctorem maximum, their greatest Doctor. His words are these: Si Sacerdos est, sciat legem Domini: si ignorat legem, 
Hier. in 2. cap. Aggaei.  ipse se arguit non esse Domini sacerdotem. Sacerdotis enim est scire legem, & ad interrogationem respondere de lege. Sequitur: discant legem Dei, ut possint docere quod didicerint: & augeant scientiam, magis quam opes, & non erubescant a laicis discere: qui noverint ea quae ad officium pertinent sacerdotum. If he be a Priest, let him know the law of God: if he be ignorant of the Law, he accuseth himself, that he is not the Priest of God. For the priests office is to know the law, and to answer to questions of the Law. Let the Priests learn God's law, that they may teach that which they have learned: and let them increase knowledge, rather than riches: and let them not be ashamed to learn of the Lay people, which know those things that pertain to the priests office.  
Out of these words of S. Hierome, I note first, that many Popes are no Priests, 
The Pope's now a days do not preach at all  and consequently no Popes indeed, though falsely supposed so to be. S. Ieromes reason is plain to every child, because many Popes are very unlearned, and know not the law of God, neither preach his word, which is the chiefest office of a Priest. 
1. Cor. 1. v. 17.  And who will or can think, that Christ jesus, if he had appointed the Bishops of Rome, to rule his whole Church throughout the world: and all nations to hang their Faith upon the pope's faith: would in these dangerous times suffer them to live dissolutely, to be as dumb dogs that bark not, and never to preach and teach his word? none doubtless, that have any wit, sense, 
Esa. 56. v. 10.  or reason. I note secondly, that Priests must know the law of God, to this end that they may teach the same. And consequently, that the Bishops of Rome, who never preach the word of God, cannot be the true Priests of God. I note thirdly, that the Bishops of Rome, if they were true Priests indeed, both should and would increase their knowledge in the law of God, rather than their wealth and possessions. I note fourthly, that the true Priests of God, must not disdain to learn of the Laical sort, which are better learned than themselves. I note five, that sheep so called Metaphorically, such as Christian people are, who have sense, reason, and learning, 
joh. 10. v. 4. 1. Pet. 2. v. 25.  and know the voice of the great shepherd Christ jesus, as himself telleth us may with all humility forsake those shepherds, who either for their ignorance cannot, or for malice will not, feed them with the pure word of God, as they ought to do. For wise sheep will not eat that meat, which they know to be deadly poison to them. For this cause do the Popes own Canons grant liberty to the sheep, to reprove and accuse their Pastor: yea though he be the Pope himself. The express words of the Canon are these: Oues quae suo Pastori commissae sunt, 
Caus. 2. q. 7. Cap. oves.  eum nec reprehendere, nisi a fide exorbitauerit, nec ullatenus accusare possunt.  
The sheep which are committed to their Pastor, may neither rebuke him, 
Lo, the sheep may rebuke & accuse the shepherd.  nor in any wise accuse him, unless he forsake the faith. Lo, this Canon made of Pope Eusebius himself: telleth us two things: First, that the Pope may err, and forsake the Christian faith. Secondly, that when he doth so err, the sheep may then reprove him, and also accuse him. And I am well assured, that if the sheep may reprove and accuse the Pope, as the Pope himself alloweth to be done: much more may the sheep reprove and accuse other Bishops & priests, which are far inferior to the Pope. See the answer to the second objection.   

The fifth Objection.  
If the Pope had not authority from God himself, to rule the universal Church, and to decide all controversies in the same: all the Christian world would never have yielded themselves unto him, in matters of Faith and everlasting salvation.   

The Answer.  
I say first, that when Constantinus the Emperor departed from Rome to Constantinople, the Pope then began to put out his Horns, and to challenge the Imperial authority in the west parts of the world. 
Dist. 96. cap. Constantinus.  And his flattering Parasites and greedy sycophants, by false Pamphlets and glosses, laboured to confirm his Lordly Titles. These are the words of the Canon: Constantinus Imperator coronam & omnem regiam dignitatem, in urbe Romana, & in Italia, & in partibus occidentalibus Apostolico concessit. The Emperor Constantine granted to the Apostolical man (the Bishop of Rome,) his crown and all royal dignity, aswell in the City of Rome, and in Italy, in all the west parts of the world. Lo, this was the first step to that Lordly Primacy, 
The very original of Popery.  and Antichristian tyranny, which the Bishops of Rome this day challenge in the Christian world. This I say, was the original of Popery, though it be a very fable, and void of all credit. For Eusebius, Theodoritus, Socrates, Sozomenus, Eutropius, Ruffinus, Victor, and other approved Writers, (who all have written the Acts of Constantine most diligently,) do not only make no mention of that gift, but withal say plainly, that the whole Empire was divided among the three Sons of Constantine, and that one of them had all Italy for his part. And Ammianus Marcellinus writeth, 
Ammianus. lib. 15.  that Constantius had the dominion of the City of Rome, and that Leontius was his Lieutenant there.  
Laurentius Valla hath written both learnedly & largely, against the false Donation of Constantine, wherewith a great part of the world hath been seduced. To this I could add many arguments, but that the Reader may find them, in my motives and Book of Survey.  
I say secondly, that the Majesty of the Roman Empire, and that liberality which the Romans exhibited to the Martyrs in Exile, and otherwise afflicted, gave no small honour to the City and church of Rome. For the Counsels had ever great respect to the dignity and excellency of Cities, in the distribution of Episcopal and Patriarkall seats.  
I say thirdly, that the church of Rome kept & defended a long time, the pure and sincere doctrine of Christ jesus. For Saint Paul was beheaded there: Saint Peter crucified there: and many Bishops of Rome there put to death, for confessing & defending the Christian faith. And hereupon it partly came, I will it not deny, that the West and Occidental Churches did so greatly reverence the Church of Rome, and many times to appease controversies and dissensions, had recourse to it, 
The Church of Rome, was once the true nurse of the faith.  as to the Mother Church and ancient Nurse of the Faith. But for all this, they never ascribed this prerogative to the Bishop of Rome, that he could not err: neither ever did they acknowledge him to be the sole and only judge, in questions and controversies of religion. This to be so, one only testimony will suffice. For S. Cyprian an ancient Father, a very learned Bishop, and blessed Martyr, although he greatly honoured the Church of Rome, and the Bishops thereof, for respects above mentioned: yet was he so far, from acknowledging the supposed prerogative of the Bishop of Rome, that his faith could not fail: or that he was the sole and only judge, 
Vide epist. Cyprian. ad Pompeium.  in questions and controversies of religion: that he flatly rejected his opinion, contemned his definitive sentence, and derided his judicial decree, calling him blind buzzard, and arrogant Prelate. The controversy was this, whether they which were baptised of Heretics, aught to be rebaptized, or not. The matter, and Saint Cyprians words, are set down at large, in my Book of Motives. And the matter itself is partly already proved, in the Chapters afore going: and shall be more fully confirmed, in the Chapters following.    

CAP. V. Showing that Provincial Counsels may err.  
THAT Provincial Counsels may err, even in matters of Faith, it is so clear and manifest, that famous and very learned Papists affirm the same: to wit, Adrianus who was sometime Pope himself, johannes-gerson sometime Chancellor of Paris, 
Bellarm. lib. 4. de Rom. pontif.. cap. 2.  Almainus and Alphonsus, both of them renowned Papists. For they all hold, as the jesuit Bellarmine granteth, that the infallibility of judgement touching matters of faith, resteth solely in the church and general Counsels. this assertion being confessed by great learned Papists, were enough to satisfy the indifferent Reader, if more could not be said.  
Saint Cyprian assembled in council together with fourscore learned bishops, defined against the truth: 
Concil. Carthag. sub Cypriano.  that such as were baptised of Heretics, aught to be baptised again. This decree is extant in the first tome of Counsels, and is this day reputed for a gross error, throughout the christian world.  
The Provincial Council holden at Iconium, decreed with Saint Cyprian and his fellow Bishops, 
Euseb. hist. eccles. li. 7. cap. 6  that rebaptisation was lawfully ministered, to those that were baptised of Heretics.  
The Council of Sardis erred grossly, 
Aug. ep. 163. & lib. 3 contra Cresconium, cap. 34. tom. 7.  condemning two Catholic Bishops. julius the Bishop of Rome, and Athanasius the Bishop of Alexandria.  
The third Council of Carthage, decreed the Apocryphal books of Tobias, judith, Baruch, 
Concil. 3. Carthag. can. 47.  Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and the Maccabees, to be Canonical. But the Council of Laodicea (which was confirmed in the sixth general Council) condemned that decree long before it was made, 
Conc. Laodic. can. 59  and denied the said books to be Canonical.  
The Council of Varmes decreed, 
Con. Varmac. can. 3.  that secret theft should be known and tried, by the delivery and receiving of the holy Eucharist. 
Aquinas. p. 3. q. ●●. a●. 6. ad. 3  Which is a notorious error, and a wicked decree, as the great papist Aquinas witnesseth, in his Theological sum.  
The Council of Rome celebrated by Pope Stephanus, 
Platina, Sigebertus. & palmerius.  disannulled all orders given by Pope Formosus: and the Council of Rauennas, called by Pope john disannulled the Acts of the Council under Pope Stephanus.  
In fine, a Council holden at Rome under Pope Nicholas, 
De consecrat. dist. 2. cap. eg● Berengarius.  decreed and enforced Berengarius to confess the same; that the true body of Christ was broken with the Priests hands, and consumed with the teeth of the faithful. And yet is this a notorious error, manifest to all the world. Wherefore the Popish Gloss, to save the credit of the decree of the Pope and Council, if it would be; addeth these words for explication sake Nisi sanè intelligas verba Berengarii, in maiorem incideshaeresim, quam ipse habuit: & ideo omnia referas ad species ipsas. Nam de Christi corpore partes non facimus. Unless thou understand sound the words of Berengarius, thou wilt fall into a greater heresy, than he had: and therefore thou must refer all things to the forms. For of Christ body, no parts are made. Lo, the Popish gloss saith plainly, (which is the truth in deed,) that Christ body cannot be broken, or divided into parts. And for all that, the Pope with his popish Council, enforced Berengarius to believe the contrary, and to confess the same. The Apostles words are these: 
Rom. 6. v. 9  Christ being raised from the dead, dieth no more: death hath no more dominion over him. But certes, if the true body of Christ jesus be broken in deed, and torn in pieces with man's teeth: then doubtless must it be corrupted, and Christ himself must die again. This verity doth so gall the Papists, that the jesuit Bellarmine, (who is the mouth of all the Papists,) is enforced will he, nill he, to confess the truth unawares. 
Bellarmin de council. lib. 2. cap. 8. in fine. Col. 917.  These are his own words, which I wish the Reader to mark attentively. Certum est & semper fuit, Christi corpus incorruptibile nunc existens, non posse frangi, & teri, nisi in signo sive sacramento; ita ut dicatur frangi ac teri, cum signum eius, id est, species panis frangitur & teritur. Sequitur: verum Christi corpus ibi praesens existens, frangitur & teritur, non tamen inse, sedin signo. It is and ever was certain, and without doubt, that Christ's body now being incorruptible, cannot be broken and torn, but in the sign or Sacrament: So that it may be said to be broken and torn, when the sign thereof, that is to say, the form of bread is broken and torn. The true body of Christ there present, is broken and torn; yet not in the body itself, but in the sign thereof. Thus writeth our jesuit most Christanly, but unawares against himself, if his words be well observed.  
I therefore note first, that by Bellarmine's own confession, Christ's body is now immortal and incorruptible. I note secondly, that Christ's body can not now be broken in deed, but only in the sign or Sacrament thereof. I note thirdly, that Christ's body is truly said to be broken, (as our jesuit affirmeth,) because the sign of his body is truly broken. Out of whose words and grant, 
O reader, mark this point well, for the love of God.  this proposition is inferred of necessity: to wit, that Christ body is truly said to be present to the faithful, and to be truly eaten of them; when the sign of Christ's body is truly present, and truly eaten of them. Again, it must needs follow upon the Jesuits grant, and exposition of the Romish faith, (which is a wonder to be heard;) that when Christ uttered these words to his Apostles, (this is my body;) his meaning and the true sense of the words, was this. This is my body, that is to say, this is the sign and Sacrament of my body. The reason hereof is evident, because, Christ's natural and true body, can no more be truly eaten, than it can be truly broken. And consequently, as we are enforced to grant, that when we say Christ's body is broken, then is but the sign of his body broken: even so likewise are we enforced to grant, that when Christ said: This is my body, he gave only the sign and sacrament of his body. The reason is evident, because his body can no otherwise be eaten, than it is broken; that is to say, sacramentally, or in a sign; or if you will so say, figuratively or spiritually, which is all one. Here then is no certainty of judgement to be found.   

CAP. 6. Showing that general Counsels may err.  
THat general Counsels may err, and de facto have erred, even in matters of faith: it is so plain, as nothing can be more plain, when the truth thereof shall betold, as it is in deed.  
In the great and general Council of the jews, in which were present, (as Christ's Gospel telleth us, 
Mar. 14. v. 53. ) all the Priests, the Scribes & the Elders, together with the high Priest: Christ jesus was condemned to death, because he named himself the son of God. Yea, Caiphas the high Priest with the consent and assent of the whole Council, pronounced openly that Christ blasphemed, 
Mat. 26. v. 65.  when he called himself the son of God. And yet is it evident to all Christian people, and all Papists will and must confess the same; that the high Priest Caiphas erred perniciously, and uttered most execrable blasphemy: when he denied Christ to be the son of God, and true Messias of the world.  
The great and famous Council of Lateran, holden under Innocentius the third, in which were present the patriarchs of Jerusalem and Constantinople: metropolitans, 70: Bishops, 400: Abbots, 12: Priors Conuentuals, 800: the Legates of the Greek and Roman Empire: the Orators of the Kings of Jerusalem, France, Spain, England, and Cypress: either erred notoriously about the creation of Angels, or at least made it evident to all the world, that the decree of general Counsels, is not an infallible rule of faith. I prove this to be so, by two important reasons. First, because the Council hath these words: Firmiter credimus & simpliciter confitemur, quod unus est solus Deus verus, creator omnium, visibilium & invisilium, spiritualium & corporalium; 
Concil. Later. 1. cap. de fide Cath. 1.  qui simul ab initio temporis utranque de nihilo condidit creaturam, spiritualem & corporalem, angelicam scilicet & mundanam. We firmly believe and simply confess, that there is one only true God, the creator of all things, visible and invisible, spiritual and corporal: who from the beginning of time created of nothing both creatures together, the spiritual and the corporal, that is to say, the angelical and the terrestrial.  
Secondly, because great learned men and most renowned fathers, 
Basil. hexa. hom. 1. Ambr. hexamer. lib. 1. cap. 5. tom. 4. August. lib. 11 de civitate, ca 32. Aquinas, 1. p. q. 61. art. 3.  Gregorius Nazianzenus, Basilius Magnus, Ambrose, Hieronimus, Damascenus, do all hold constantly, that albeit the Angels had a beginning, yet were they before the world was made. And this their opinion is deemed probable, both to Saint Austen, and to the great School-doctor Aquinas. Which Aquinas lived after the said Council of Lateran, and had read the same, & had also written Commentaries upon this very Canon; and consequently, he did not repute the decree of the said Council, to be an infallible rule of faith. Lo, the general Council held constantly, and firmly believed, that the Angels were created at one and the same time with the world. But the holy fathers and the great Papist Aquinas, thought the contrary opinion to be probable, notwithstanding the decree of the Council. Whereupon it followeth of necessity, that that is not alway the undoubted truth, which is decreed by a general Council. For which end and purpose, Melchior Canus a learned popish bishop hath written most excellently in these words: Non satis est, ut Conciliorum & Pontificum judicia firma esse credantur, 
Canus de locis, lib▪ 5. cap. 5 pag. 169 The popish so supposed divine service▪ may not safely be believed.  in divino officio publicè à tota etiam Ecclesia celebrari. It is not enough, to make the judgements of Counsels and Popes firm, so as we may safely believe them, to celebrate the same publicly in divine service, throughout the whole Church of God. These are golden words, they may not be passed over rawly and negligently, but we must firmly imprint them in our hearts. And in so doing, we doubtless shall reap commodity more than a little. For, if we cannot safely give credit to the Popish service, which is publicly done in their Churches: how can they, or how dare they avouch their doctrine, to be agreeable to God's word? Nay, it is a world to hear, that the Pope is not ashamed to enforce the world, as much as in him lieth: to embrace and believe that new no Religion, lately start up Popish doctrine; whereof the best Popish writers, can give no better reasons.  
The general Council of Constance decreed firmly, 
Concil. Constant. sess. 13.  that it was lawful to debar the lay-people from the one part of the Eucharist: to wit, the cup. 
Concil. Basil. sess. 30.  And the general Council of Basill affirmeth constantly, that so to hold and do, is not against the holy institution. And yet is it undoubtedly true, that the lay-people ought by Christ's institution, to receive both the kinds. Saint Paul writing to the unpriested Corinthians, 
1. Cor. 11. v. 25  may be a sufficient proof hereof. For he telleth them, that they ought according to the commandment which he received of the Lord, to drink of the cup, as well as to eat of the bread. The matter is so plain, as I deem it a thing needless, to stand long upon the same.  
The Council of Trent, (a famous general council by Popish judgement,) hath flatly decreed that to be no matrimony, which was ever approved matrimony in the Catholic Church, and is this day perfect matrimony by Christ's institution. The words of the Council are these: 
Conc. Trident sess. 8. de reformat.  Dubitandum non est, clandestina matrimonia libero consensu facta, rata & vera esse matrimonia, quamdiu ecclesia ea irrita non fecit. There is no doubt, but clandestine and secret matrimonies made with free consent, were perfect and true matrimonies, so long as the Church did not disannul the same. Yet so it is gentle reader, that such secret matrimonies are this day to be reputed no matrimonies at all. Of which kind of matrimonies I have written more at large, in my book of motives.  
That general Counsels may err, the sole and only testimony of Panormitanus, is sufficient and of force enough against all papists: 
Panormit. de elect. cap. Significasti, prope finem.  because he was their famous Canonist, their most reverend Archbishop, & their renowned Cardinal. His express words are these: nam in concernentibus fidem, etiam dictum unius privati esset preferendum dicto Papae, si ille moveretur melioribus rationibus novi & veteris testamenti, quam Papae. Nec obstat, si dicatur quod concilium non potest errare, quia Christus oravit pro ecclesia sua ut non desiceret quia dico, quod licet concilium generale representet totam ecclesiam universalem, tamen in veritate ibi non est vera ecclesia universalis, sed representatiuè; quia universalis ecclesia constituitur ex collectione omnium fidelium; unde omnes fideles orbis constituunt istam ecclesiam universalem, cuius caput & sponsus est ipse Christus. Papa autem est Vicarius Christi, & non verè caput ecclesiae, ut notat glossa in Clem. ne Romani, de elect. Quae notabiliter dicit, quod mortuo Papa ecclesia non est sine capite, & ista est illa ecclesia quae errare non potest.  
For concerning matters of Faith, even the judgement of one that is a mere Lay-man, aught to be preferred before the sentence of the Pope, if that Lay person, could bring better reasons out of the old and new Testament, than the Pope did. And it skilleth not if one say, that a Council cannot err, because Christ prayed for his church, that it should not fail. For I say, that although a general Council represent the whole universal Church, yet in truth there is not truly the universal Church, but representatively. 
Note this doctrine well.  For the universal Church consisteth, of the collection of all the faithful. Whereupon all the faithful in the world, make this universal church, (which cannot err,) whereof Christ himself is the head. The Pope is the Vicar of Christ, but not truly the head of the church, as noteth the Gloss upon the Clementines, which saith very well, that when the Pope is dead, the church wanteth not then an head, and this is that Church which cannot err.  
Out of these words I note first, that by the opinion of the great Papist Panormitan, a mere lay man's judgement even in matters of faith, aught to be accepted and received before the Pope's constitution, if that Lay-man bring better reasons, then doth the Pope.  
I note secondly, that through the wonderful providence of God, even the enemies of the truth (the Papists I mean,) are enforced to testify the truth against themselves, in their own printed books. For doubtless, this Testimony of this Papist is the foundation of that doctrine, which is this day established in the church of England, and in all other reformed churches throughout the Christian world.  
I note thirdly, that a general council may err, because it is not the Catholic or universal church indeed. A general council therefore, yieldeth not any infallible judgement.   

CAP. VII. Showing that the holy Scripture, is the sole and only infallible rule of truth.  
IN the former Chapters I have showed first, that all Bishops may err severally▪ secondly, that many Bishops may err jointly together, when they teach one and the self same thing. Thirdly, that the Pope or Bishop of Rome may err, not only in his private opinion, but also in his public sentence and definition. Fourthly, that Provincial Counsels may err. Fiftly, that general counsels may err. It therefore now remaineth, 
See the last end of the second Chapter.  that I find out and set down some such rule, as is infallible and will not in any respect, point, or clause: deceive them that follow it, and lean thereunto. Which rule (say I,) is the holy scripture, the sole and only written word of God. And I prove the same briefly: first, by the written word itself, which telleth us plainly, that the holy scripture was written by the instinct of the holy Ghost, 
Deut. 1. ●. Deut. 31. ver. 19.24. Deut. 9.10. jos. 1. v. 8. 2. Tim. 3.16. 2. Pet. 1.21. Num. 23.19.  even as God himself appointed it to be done. That prophesy came not in old time, by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke, as they were moved by the holy Ghost. That God is not as man, that he should lie: neither as the son of man, that he should repent.  
I prove it secondly, 
Dionys. Areopag. de divinis nominib. cap 1. in initio.  by the testimony of S. Dionyse Areopagita, whose words are these: Omnino igitur non audendum est, quicquam de summa abstrusaque divinitate aut dicere aut cogitare, praeter ca quae nobis divinitus scripturae divinae enuntiarunt.  
In no wise therefore may we make bold to speak or think any thing, of the high and ineffable divinity: but that only, which holy writ hath revealed to us from above.  
I prove it thirdly, by the verdict of S. Austen in these words: 
August. Epist. 19 ad, Hier.  Ego solis eis scripturarum libris qui iam canonici appellantur, hunc timorem & honorem didici defer, ut nullum eorum authorem scribendo aliquid errasse firmissime credam. Alios autem ita lego, ut quantalibet sanctitate doctrinaque praepolleant, non ideo verum putem, quia ipsi ita censuerunt, sed quia mihi, vel per illos auctores canonicos, vel probabili ratione quod a veritate non abhorreat, persuadere potuerunt.  
I have learned to give this fear and honour, to those only books of scripture which are called Canonical, that I firmly believe no author thereof to have erred in any point: but yet I read others so, that how holy or learned soever they be, I do not by and by think it true, because they say so: but because they persuade me by those Canonical Writers, or by probable reason, that that is true they say.  

August. de bono viduitatis, cap. 1. tom. 4.  The same S. Austen in an other place, telleth us plainly, that the holy Scripture is the rule of faith. These are his words: Sancta scriptura nostrae doctrinae regulam figit, ne audiamus sapere plusquam oportet.  
The holy Scripture setteth down the rule of our doctrine, that we presume not to be wiser, than it is meet and convenient.  

Bellarm. de verbo Dei non scripto, lib. 4. cap. 12. tom. 1. col. 196.  The jesuit Bellarmine (whose words are most forcible against Papists, because he is the mouth of all Papists,) confesseth plainly, that the word of God is the rule of faith, & that the written word, because it is the rule, hath this prerogative, that whatsoever is contained in it, is of necessity true, and must be believed: and whatsoever is repugnant to it, is of necessity false, and must be rejected. But because it is a partial rule, and not the total rule of faith, thereupon it cometh, that something is of faith, which is not contained in the same. Thus writeth the jesuit. Out of whose words every child may gather, that the scripture is the infallible rule of faith. For although the jesuit would make unwritten traditions, to be a joint rule together with the written word, (whose opinion I have disproved in my Book of Motives:) yet neither doth he, neither can he deny, but that all must be rejected, whatsoever is repugnant to the holy scripture.  
By this my discourse hitherto, it is clear and evident to every indifferent Reader: that neither Fathers, Popes, nor counsels, provincial, or general, are or can be the infallible rule of faith, but the sole and only written word of God: that is, the holy Scripture. But now remaineth a most intricate and difficult question, who must be the judge of the Scripture: that is, who must determine and set down, what writings, 
Who is the judge of the Scripture.  what opinions, what preachings, what doctrines, are grounded upon the Scriptures, and are consonant to the same: again, what opinions, what writings, and what doctrines, are not grounded upon the Scriptures, nor are agreeable to the same. Hic labour, hoc opus est. I therefore proceed to the next Chapter, hoping by God's grace, to use such perspicuity in handling this difficult question, as shall be to the contentment of all indifferent Readers.   

CAP. VIII. Showing who is the right judge, of the holy Scripture and word of God.  
ALbeit the holy Scripture be the infallible rule of Faith, 
Some judge must be appointed, for unity sake, and external peace of the church.  and the true Touchstone, by which all doctrines are be examined and tried, as is already proved: yet will controversies never have a peaceable end, unless some special judges be appointed to decide and determine the same. For as the old Proverb saith: So many heads, so many wits. Out of one and the self same Scripture, one man gathereth one sense, an other man an other sense. For the perspicuous understanding whereof, I put down these Paragraffes.  

The first paragraph.  
The examination of doctrine is of two sorts: the one is private, the other is public. Private examination is that, upon which every man doth build and 'stablish his own faith. 
Abakuk. cap. 2. v. 4.  For as the Prophet sayeth: The just man shall live by his faith. And as the great Popish Doctor Aquinas writeth: 
Aquinas, 2.2 q. 1. art. 1. & 3.  the former object of our faith, or that which we formally believe, is God himself, or that which God hath revealed to us: and not that which man telleth us. For sayeth he, faith doth not yield assent to any thing, but because it is revealed of God. The public examination of doctrine, pertaineth to the common consent of the Church, for the peaceable governance thereof. For GOD is not the Author of confusion, 
1. Cor. 14. v. 33.  but of peace.   

The Second paragraph.  
As the examination of doctrine is of two sorts: so are the examiners and the judges of two sorts also: that is to say, public and private. The Public judges are all the Ministers of the Church, by what name or title soever they be called. The private judges are all the faithful severally by themselves, in all matters pertaining to Faith and the salvation of their own souls. That all the faithful are private judges, it may be easily proved, by many texts of holy writ. First, by this text of S. john: believe not every spirit, but try the spirits, if they be of God. Secondly, 
1. john. 4. v. 1. 1. Thess. 5. v. 21 1. Cor. 2. v. 15.  by this text of S. Paul: try all things, and keep that which is good. Thirdly, by this text of the same Apostle: the spiritual man judgeth all things. These texts, the two famous Papists, Nicholaus de Lyra, and Dionysius Carthusianns, 
Lyra & Car. thus. in comment sup▪ 1. Cor. 2  expound of things pertaining to salvation: which say they, all the faithful are able to try. And which is to be wondered at, the jesuit Bellarmine unawares confesseth the same. These are his express words: Duo vel tres congregati in nomine Christi, obtinent semper quod petunt a Deo: 
Bellarm. lib. 2. de concilii● cap. 2.  nimirum sapientiam & lumen quod sufficit eis ad cognoscenda ea, quae ipsis necessaria sunt. Sequitur: itaque sive pauci, sive multi, sive privati, sive Episcopi congregentur in nomine Christi, omnes habent Christum praesentem, & adiwantem, & obtinent quod eis convenit obtinere.  
Two or three gathered together in the name of Christ, 
A point worthy to be marked.  do at all times obtain that of God, which they desire at his hands: to wit, Wisdom and understanding which is sufficient for them to know those things, which are necessary for them. Therefore whether few or many, whether Private persons or Bishops be gathered in the name of Christ, they all have Christ's presence, they all have Christ's help, they all obtain that, which is meet and convenient for them. Thus sayeth our jesuit. And doubtless it is meet for every one, to know all things necessary for his salvation: it can not be denied.  
Out of these words I note first, that whosoever are gathered together in Christ's name, they all obtain of GOD so much understanding and knowledge, as is necessary for Salvation.  
I note secondly, that God is as well present in the assembly of private men, as in the Synod of Bishops.  
I note thirdly, that God helpeth private men, and is present with them at all times, even as he is with Bishops. Whereupon I must needs infer, that the things concluded by secular persons, 
See the words of Melchior Canus, in the end of this discourse.  in their assemblies for matters pertaining to their soul's health: do no less proceed from GOD, then do the Decrees of Bishops. And consequently, the jesuit, will he, nill he, must perforce confess, that private, secular, and mere Lay-men, can and may judge, in matters of Religion: in matters of Faith: in matters concerning their own soul's health. And all this is nothing else in deed, but even that which Christ himself hath plainly taught us. 
Mat. 18. v. 18.  Where two or three (saith Christ,) are gathered together in my name, there am I'in the midst of them.  
I prove the same doctrine, because Christ's sheep, as Christ the great shepherd telleth us, 
john. 10. v. 4.  know his voice, and follow him, but will not follow a stranger. This place doubtless doth convince. For if the sheep know the voice of the shepherd, as Christ saith they do; then must the sheep perforce, judge of the voice of the shepherd. For otherwise it will follow, that a man cannot discern that which he knoweth.  
Melchior Canus faith plainly, 
Canus de loc● lib. ●. cap. 8. p. 29.  that the holy Ghost teacheth every one, all things necessary to salvation. This verity is confirmed, by an other testimony of our Lord jesus: if any man, saith he, 
john. 7. v. 17.  will do his will, (the will of God,) he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. Lo, the knowledge of God's word, proceedeth from the doing of his will. But the doing of Gods will pertaineth to all, both great and small, as well to private laymen, as to ecclesiastical persons, though they be the Bishops of Rome. And for this cause, saith the great Papist Panormitan, (his words you may read in the sixth chapter of this discourse, 
Vide. sup. cap. 6 ) that the judgement of a mere lay-man, must be preferred before the judgement of the Pope; if that private lay-man have better reasons, gathered out of the old and new Testament, then are the reasons of the Pope. See the answer to the Objection in the fourth paragraph, and note it will.  
To conclude holy Writ telleth us, that the Bereans did search the Scriptures, 
Act. 17. v. 11.  to see if they were according to Saint Paul's doctrine. And let this suffice, for the judgement of private persons, and meerlay-men. Now that all ministers, Archbishops, Bishops, and other pastors of the Church, may judge of the sense of the holy Scripture, it is a thing so clear and manifest, as little or nothing need be said thereof. 
1. Tim. 1. v. 3.  For Saint Paul saith, that Bishops (by which word he understandeth all the Ministers of the Church,) must have great care, that false doctrine be not taught. This the Papists freely grant of Bishops, denying the same in other inferior ministers of the Church. But I will prove the assertion to be verified, of all ministers in general. First, because Saint Paul committeth the government of the church, to all the ministers in differently, calling them Bishops, that is, overseers of the flock, or superintendents. Take heed (saith he,) to yourselves, and to all the flock, 
Act. 20. v. 28.  over the which the holy Ghost hath made you Bishops, or overseers. Lo, he termeth the Ministers of the city Ephesus, Bishops. For of one only city, there could be but one only Bishop, or chief Minister. But let us hear, what a great popish Doctor telleth us.  
Nicholaus de Lyra, hath these express words: Vos spiritus sanctus posuit Episcopos, 
Lur. in Comment. in hunc locum.  id est, ministros. Sub nomine enim Episcoporum, intelliguntur alii Ecclesiae ministri. unde Episcopus Gracè, superintendens est Latinè. The holy Ghost hath placed you Bishops, that is to say, Ministers. For under the name of Bishops, the other Ministers of the church are understood. Wherefore a Bishop in Greek, is superintendant in Latin. Thus writeth Lyra the great papist, whom sir Thomas Moor a famous popish so supposed Martyr, termed a great Clerk, and he was so in deed; but our late Romish papists cannot abide, that their Bishops be called Superintendents. Secondly, because Christ himself spoke the same words to all his Apostles in general, which he said to Peter in the person of all. He made them all Apostles, as well as Peter: they had all equal power, not only of order, but of jurisdiction also, as well as Peter had the same. This their own great learned school-doctor Victoria, affirmeth to be so. These are his express words: 
Victor. de potest. ecclesiae relect. 2. Conc. 3. & 4. p. 84.  Apostoli omnes habuerunt aequalem potestatem cum Petro; quam sic intelligo, quod quilibet Apostolorum habuit potestatem Ecclesiasticam in toto orb, & ad omnes actus ad quos Petrus habuit. All the Apostles had equal power with Peter; which I thus understand, that every one of the Apostles had power ecclesiastical in the whole world, and to all those acts to which Peter had the same.  
Saint Cyprian hath these express words: 
Cyprian. de simplic. Prelate. p. 113.  Hoc erant utique & caeteri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus, pari consortio praediti, & honoris, & potestatis; sed exordium ab unitate proficiscitur, ut Ecclesia una monstretur. The same were the rest of the Apostles doubtless, that Peter was, endued with equal fellowship, both of honour, and of power. But the beginning proceedeth from unity, to show the Church to be one.  
The Papists would wrest these words, to be restrained only to the power of consecration. 
Victor. ubi supra.  But hearken I pray you, how the the same doctor confuteth them. Nec audienda est glossa, dicens hoc debere intelligi, in ordine & dignitate consecrationis▪ non in potestatis plenitudine; ut patere potest ipsam epistolam divi Cypriani legenti. Neither must we hearken to the Gloss, which saith that this to be understood, in the order and dignity of consecration, not in the fullness of power; as it is evident to him, that shall read the epistle of S. Cyprian.  

Covart. tom. 1 part 2 § 9 p. 242. Col. 4. prope finem.  Couarruuias the Pope's famous Canonist, albeit he would very gladly defend the Pope's pretenced power, & make only Peter's power ordinary and independent; yet can he not deny, that our Lord jesus gave equal power to all his Apostles. These are his express words: Etenim juxta Catholicorum virorum authoritates, & communem omnium traditionem, Apostoli parem ab ipso Domino jesu cum Petro potestatem ordinis & jurisdictionis acceperunt; ita quidem, ut quilibet Apostolorum aequalem cum Petro habuerit potestatem ab ipso Deo, in totum orbem & in omnes actus quos Petrus agere poterat. For according to the authorities of catholic Writers, and the common traditions of all men, the Apostles received from our Lord jesus himself, equal power with Peter, both of order and jurisdiction: insomuch doubtless, as every Apostle had equal power with Peter from God himself, and that both over all the world, and to all actions that Peter could do.  
Out of these grave testimonies, I note first, that all the Apostles had equal authority with Peter.  
I note secondly, that all the Apostles had power over all the world, even as Peter had.  
I note thirdly, that what art soever Peter could do, every other Apostle could do the same.  
I note fourthly, that the jurisdiction of every Apostle, did extend as far as Peter's did.  
I note five, that Christ's speeches to Peter in the singular number, did argue no superiority of jurisdiction, but did only signify the unity of his Church.  
I note sixtly, that the late Bishops of Rome do falsely and insolently arrogate to themselves, plenitudinem potestatis, the fullness of power.  
I note seventhly, that all this is connfirmed by the opinion of Catholic Writers, and by tradition of all generally. For all these seven points are expressly contained, (if they be well marked,) in the authorities already alleged.  
The self same doctrine is confirmed by the testimony of Saint Austen, in sundry places of his works.  
In one place, he hath these words; 
Aug. in serm. Petri & Pauli apud Canum. Aug. in lib. de agone Christi, cap. 30. tom. 3.  Clauses non unus homo Petrus sed unitas accepit Ecclesiae.  
Not one only man Peter received the Keys, but the unity of the Church.  
In an other place, he writeth thus; Ecclesiae Cutholicae personam sustinet Petrus, & cum ei dicitur, adomnes dicitur; amas me? pasce oves meas.  
Peter representeth the person of the Catholic Church: and when it is said to him, it is said to all: Lovest thou me? Feed my sheep. This point is proved more at large, in my book of motives.   

The third Paragraph.  
Although Counsels both may err, and de facto have erred, as is already proved: yet to avoid dissension, and to establish peace in the Church; free and godly general Counsels, are and ever have been the ordinary way and mean; to condemn heresies, errors and superstitions crept into the visible Church, and to decide controversies in Religion; at such times, and in such places, as they could safely and lawfully be assembled, & brought together.  
I say first, (free and godly general Counsels,) such as were the Council of Nice, the Council of Ephesus, the Council of Constantinople, and the Council of Chalcedon; which Counsels, the Church of England doth highly reverence, and christianly admit, as agreeable to the holy Scriptures; wishing that Counsels might this day be assembled with like freedom, 
Socrates' lib, 1. cap. 6.  and called or summoned by the like authority. For the Nicene Council was appointed by the authority of Constantinus surnamed the great, to condemn Arrius, who denied the consubstantiality of our Lord jesus the son of God, affirming him to be pure man.  
Theodosius the younger called the Council of Ephesus, 
Euagrius. lib. 1. cap. 3.  to confound the cursed heretic Nestorius; who affirmed▪ Christ to have two persons, and the blessed Virgin to be only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the mother of Christ, 
Sozomen. lib. 7. cap. 7. Theodoret. lib. 1. cap. 7.  but not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the mother of God. The Council of Constantinople was called by the authority of the Emperor Theodosius the elder, to confound Macedonius, who denied the divinity of the holy Ghost. 
Sigebertus. an. 386.  And the Council of Chalcedon was assembled at the command of Martianus the Emperor, to condemn Eutiches, who affirmed Christ to have but one only nature, after the union hypostatical: albeit he granted him to have had two natures, before the said ineffable conjunction. This to be so, most renowned Historiographers and Chronographers, will testify with me.  
I say secondly, (at such times and in such places, as they might safely and lawfully come together,) because in these latter days, neither can a plenary and general Council meet together with security; neither will the late tyrannising Bishops of Rome permit that freedom to be their used, which hath been granted in former times. Hereof none can stand in doubt, that will seriously peruse my book of Motives.  
The great pillar of Christ's Church Saint Augustine, 
August. epist▪ 162. p. 472.  confirmeth this whole discourse in these golden words: Putemus illos Episcopos qui Romae iudicarunt, non bonos judices fuisse; restabat adhuc plenarium Ecclesiae vuiversale Concilium, ubi etiam cum ipsis judicibus causa possit agitari; ut si malè iudicasse convicti essent, eorum sententiae soluerentur.  
Let us imagine, that those Bishops which gave sentence at Rome, were not good judges; there yet remained a plenary universal Council of the Church, where both the cause might be examined, and the judges also; that there sentences might be disannulled, if they were found to have given evil judgement.  

Aug. de Baptis. cont. Donat. lib. 1. cap. 7. tom. 7.  The same Saint Austen sayeth again in an other place▪ that great Doctors of the Church thought diversly of rebaptisation, and that without all prejudice of faith, until the question was decided in a plenary general Council. Lo, a free and godly general Council, was in Saint Austin's time the end of all controversies in religion. But now there remaineth a great and most important question: to wit, what remedy must be sought to appease controversies, when a free, godly, and lawful general Council can not be had. To which question answer shall be made, in the Paragraph next following.   

The fourth Paragraph.  
I have proved at large in my book of Motives, that the decrees of general Counsels in these latter days, are nothing else but a mere mockery and sophistical subtlety, to deceive and delude the World. To which book I refer the reader▪ that shall expect a larger discourse in this behalf. I say now for the present, that seeing general Counsels cannot be gathered together, in such manner and with such freedom, as they have been in former times of antiquity; and seeing withal, that some judges must be designed of mere necessity, to appease, end, and decide, doubts, difficulties, and controversies in religion, lest the Church should be vexed, turmoiled, and swallowed up, with schisms, heresies, and variety of opinions: every Emperor and Empress, every King and Queen, and every other civil Magistrate independent, by what title or name soever he be called, must before all things have a vigilant, Christian, and religious care, to settle, establish, and plant, within their kingdoms, Realms, Precinctes, common weals, territories, and dominions, where they have the chief and independent sovereignty immediately under God, the pure and sincere religion of jesus Christ, and to abandon, extirpate, and utterly abolish all schisms, heresies, errors, and superstitions whatsoever. This hath ever been the religious care of all godly and zealous Princes, aswell before Christ in time of the old testament, as since Christ in time of the new testament. Holy Moses took the molten Calf, which Aaron the High Priest to please the people had made, burned it in the fire, 
Exod. 32. v. 19▪ 20.21.22.23.  bet it to powder, strewed it in the water, and made the people to drink thereof. He reproved Aaron for his offence, who calling him Lord, laboured with humble obeisance to excuse himself.  
joshua commanded the Priests and levites to do all their ecclesiastical functions, to bear the Ark, 
joshua. 5.6. ●  to carry trumpets, to circumcise, to set up Altars, to offer sacrifice, and to read the book of the law to all the people. yea, the same joshua was appointed to go out and in before the people, and to lead them out and in, 
Nomb. 27. v. 17.  lest the congregation of the Lord should be as sheep without a Pastor.  
King David ordered, disposed, and reform the Priests and levites, in their offices and functions ecclesiastical. He appointed how the Ark should be borne; 
1. Par. 24. 1. Par. 25. 1. Par. 26.  he ordained Psalms, Singers, Instruments, Officers, and all other things, for the setting forth of God's true religion and service.  
King Solomon appointed the Priests to bring the Ark into the temple: 
1. Reg. 8. v. 63. 1. Reg. 4.  he instituted the dedication of the temple: he offered sacrifice: he directed the Priests, Levites, and other Church officers, as his father had done afore him. He deposed Abiathar the high Priest, 
1. Reg. 2.  and placed Sadocke in his room.  
King josaphat appointed in jerusalem Priests and levites, 
2. par. 19  and Princes of the Families of Israel, that they might judge the judgement and cause of the Lord, to the inhabitants of the land. And he used these express words unto them; Sic agetis in timore Domini, fideliter & cord perfecto. Thus shall ye do in the fear of the Lord, faithfully & with a perfect heart.  

4. Reg. 18.  King Ezechias took away the high places, broke the images, cut down the Groves, and broke in pieces the brazen serpent, 
2. Par. 29.  that Moses had set up. He purged the Temple, 
2▪ Par. 10.  reform the Priests, and commanded them to do their duties, in cleansing themselves and in offering their sacrifices. He renewed the Passeover. He appointed the courses of the Priests and Levites by their turns, both for the burnt offerings and peace offerings, to minister and to praise God in the Temple. 
2. Par. 11,  He also commanded, that sufficient maintenance should be given to the Priests, that they might be encouraged in the law of the Lord, and not be entangled with provision of worldly things. And (which is to be noted, 
2. Par. 29. v. 11. ) he called the Priests and Levites his sons, in regard of his royal power and estate, in which respect he was the Father of all his people: for otherwise, he was but a Child, and for years might have had many of them to have been his father.  
King josias broke the Altars of Baalim, 
2. Par. 34.  destroyed the Groves, burned the bones of the idolatrous Priests upon their altars, and purged juda and jerusalem from idolatry.  
This religious care had the noble Emperor Constantine the Great, who, (as reporteth Eusebius, 
Eusebius caesarians: de vita Constantini. ) thought nothing to pertain more to his royal charge, then to plant true religion throughout his realms and dominions. S. Austen proveth the facts and examples of the Kings of the old Testament, 
August. epist. 48. ad vincent.  to have been figures of the new Testament; and consequently, that it is the duty of all kings in this time of grace, to have special regard to the service and true worship of God; to abandon all false worship, idolatry, errors, heresies, and superstition; and to plant the Gospel of Christ jesus in all the parts of their realms and dominions.  
The same S. Austen in an other place, among many golden sentences, 
August. epist. 50. add Bonifac.  (which I now omit in regard of brevity,) hath these express words; In hoc ergo reges serviunt Domino, in quantum reges sunt, cum ea faciunt ad seruiendum illi, quae non possunt facere, nisi reges.  
In this therefore do kings serve God, as they are kings, when they do hold those things, which none can do but only kings. Where me must seriously observe this reduplication of S. Austen, (kings as kings,) as a point of great importance. For kings (as the same father teleth us,) serve God two ways: as they be men, and as they be kings. As men, they serve God in living a Christian and godly life: but as king, they serve God in making godly laws, for the punishment of blasphemers, idolaters, heretics, and all kind of malefactors. And this is that, which S. Austen saith, none can do but kings, as they are kings.  
Yea, this is that, which the Prophet Esay telleth us, 
Esa. 49. v. 23.  when he saith, That kings shall be the nursing Fathers of the Church, and Queens her nurses. For albeit the Ministry of feeding, of preaching the word, and administration of the Sacraments pertain only to the ministers, neither may the mere civil Magistrate in any wise meddle therewith: yet for all that, it is most true, that the provision for the food, the oversight that the children of God be duly fed, and that the Ministers do exercise their functions in vigilant & dutiful manner, belongeth to the civil, independent, and absolute Princes. For this respect is it, that kings and Queens have the name of Nurses, not to nourish their children in civil matters and corporal food only; but as in civil, so also in spiritual, that is, In lact verbi Dei, in the milk of the word of God. For though the execution pertain to the ministers, yet the provision, direction, appointment, care, and oversight (which is the sepreme government,) belongeth only, solely, and wholly to the Prince, as is already proved.  
Now to the question proposed in the former paragraph, uz. What remedy is to be had, 
The answer to the question proposed in the third paragraph.  when a free and lawful general Council cannot be had. To this question I answer, that when any controversies shall arise to the disturbance of the Peace of the church, than every absolute and independent civil Magistrate, must command his Archbishop, Bishop, and other learned Ministers within his territories and dominions, to come together, and to celebrate a national Council or Synod, and then and there to debate, discuss, and decide the controversy in religion. And he must charge them, (as did the religious kings, David, Solomon, josaphat, Ezechias, josias, and the rest, of whom mention is already made:) to have the fear of God before their eyes, and carefully to examine all doubts, difficulties, contentions, and controversies in religion, according to the infallible rule of the holy scripture. This done, the same civil independent magistrate, must call together his wife and grave Counsellors, and after mature deliberation had with them, confirm whatsoever shall tend to the advancement of God's glory, and the peace of his church. And withal, he must publish sharp penal statutes against all such, as shall with disloyal contumacy violate and transgress the same. Thus did the good kings Reccaredus, and Constantinus, and this is this day most prudently and christianly observed, in the church of England, God be thanked for it. For first, the Archbishops, Bishops, and other learned Ministers, come all together in the Convocation-house, and there dispute, discuss, determine, & set down, what they find convenient for the Peace of the Church, and correspondent to the infallible rule of God's word. Secondly, this done, they present the same to her most excellent Majesty, most humbly craving her royal assent for the confirmation thereof. Thirdly, her Majesty after consultation had with her grave Counsellors, doth confirm and authorize by virtue of her royal and princely prerogative, whatsoever seemeth expedient for the godly government of her loving subjects, and withal enacteth necessary penal laws, against the insolent contumacy of seditious and disloyal people.  
This godly and most christian manner, of proceeding in religious causes: is so lively set down before our eyes, in the honourable fact of the Noble Spanish king Reccaredus, as it is able to penetrate the very heart, and thoroughly to persuade every one, that shall ponder the same seriously, and in the fear of God. This religious king Reccaredus in the year of our Lord, 585. commanded all the Bishops with in his dominions of Spain and Galicia, to come together in his royal City of Toledo, to confute and condemn the Arrian heresy. When they were come thither, 
In ipso initio concilii tolet. tertii.  the king sat down in the midst of them, and declared the cause that moved him to call them together. After that he enacted a public Edict, for the inviolable observation of all the decrees of the counsel, straightly charging aswell the Clergy as the Laity, to obey and keep the same. Lastly, he subscribed his own name, and that before all the Bishops, who in their due places subscribed after the king. These are the express words of the king, set down in the end of the said Edict: Flavius Reccaredus rex, 
Habentur in a Tomo conciliorum.  hanc deliberationem quam cum sancta definivimus Synodo, confirmans, subscripsi. I Flavius Reccaredus the king, confirming this consultation, which we have defined with the holy Synod, have subscribed thereunto. The next that subscribed after the king, was Mausona the Metropolitan Bishop of the Province of Lusitania. After him subscribed Euphemius, the Archbishop of Toledo. 
Ecclesiae Emeritensis Metropolitanus.  The residue followed in order, as in the Council is to be seen. These particular subscriptions I note, as a matter of great moment against the Papists: who will grant no prerogative, or royal place to kings, in time of ecclesiastical Synods.  
Out of these words contained in the kings subscription, I note first, that the king confirmed the council. Secondly, that the king subscribed to the Decrees of the Council. Thirdly, that the king subscribed before all the Bishops. Fourthly, that the king decreed and defined the controversies, together with the Bishops. To which I add for the complement in the fifth place, that the council was called, and the Bishops assembled, at the kings commandment. For so saith the Council. Cum pro fidei suae synceritate idem gloriosissimus princeps, omnes regiminis sui Pontifices in unum convenire mandasset, etc.  
When the same most glorious prince for the sincerity of his faith, had commanded all the Bishops within his dominions, do come together to Toledo, etc.  
This was the practice of godly Princes, above a thousand years ago; when royal Prerogatives were not brought into thraldom, by popish tyranny.   

An Objection.  
The counsels which the Emperor called together, were plenary and general: but those which you speak of, are but Provincial or National. The latter may err, the former are ever directed by the holy Ghost.   

The Answer.  
I say first, that general counsels both may err, and de facto have erred, as is already proved.  
I say secondly, that the holy Ghost doth direct two or three gathered together in his name, aswell as he doth a general council: which thing I have already proved.  
I say thirdly, that the great popish Archbishops Panormitanus telleth us, (as is already proved, 
Gerson. prim. part, de examinat. doctrinar. consider. 5 ) that a private man's judgement is better than the Popes. To which I must needs add the words of doctor Gerson the Chancellor of Paris, and a renowned popish writer, which are these: Quilibet homo doctus potest & debet toti concilio risistere, si videat illud ex malitia, vel ignorantia errare. Every one that is learned, may and aught to resist and stand against a whole Council, if he perceive that the Council erreth, either of ignorance, or of malice. Lo, all that I say is true, even by the popish doctrine. And so no Papist can with reason, deny or gainsay the same. For first, you see by Gersons doctrine, that a general Council may err. Secondly, that a private man, both may and aught to withstand the Council, when the general Council would decree against the truth. Thirdly, that laymen have ever been present in Counsels, and there delivered freely their opinions. Which freedom by late popish tyranny, is this day banished out of the Church. I say fourthly, that Melchior Canus a famous school-doctor and popish Bishop, shall conclude and knit up this discourse. These are his express words; Praestanti quod in se est, Deus fidem ad salutem necessariam non negat. Sequitur; non. n. unctio quemcunque simpliciter docet de omnibus, sed quemque de his quae sunt ei propria, & necessaria. Sequitur; concedimus, liberaliter, doctrinam cuique in sua vita & statu necessariam, illi fore prospectam & cognitam, qui fecerit voluntatem dei. Sicut. n. gustus bene affectus, differentias saporum facile discernit, sic animi optima affectio facit, ut homo doctrinam Dei ad salutem necessariam discernat, ab errore contrario qui ex Deo non est. To the man that doth what in him lieth, God never denieth faith necessary to salvation. For the unction doth not simply teach every one every thing, but it teacheth every one so much, as is proper and necessary for him. And we grant freely, that doctrine necessary for every man's life and state, is sufficiently known to him, that doth the will of God. For like as the well affected taste, doth easily discern the differences of savours or tastes; so doth the good affection of the mind bring to pass, that a man may discern the doctrine of God necessary to salvation, from contrary error which is not of God.  
Thus writeth the gravest and rarest Papist for learning, in the universal world; and consequently, it is and must be of great force against the Papist, whatsoever hath passed from his pen. And I protest unto thee gentle Reader, that nothing hath more estranged me from popery, and set me at defiance with it; then the clear and perspicuous doctrine, of the best learned and most renowned Papists. For whosoever will seriously peruse, the books that I have published to the view of the world: shall therein find confirmed by the doctrine of the best approved Papists, every point of settled doctrine in the Church of England.  
Out of these words of this learned Papist, I note first, that when S. john saith, the unction teacheth us all things, 
1. john. 2. v. 27  he meaneth not the difficult questions in Religion, but all such points as are necessary for every man's salvation.  
In note secondly, that no man wanteth this knowledge and judgement of doctrine, but he that is willingly ignorant, and will not apply himself to attain the said knowledge.  
I note thirdly, that every private man, is able to-iudge and discern true doctrine from falsehood and error, so far forth as is requisite for his salvation; as well as a sound and good taste, is able to discern the differences of tastes. Hereupon I infer this necessary consequent of popish doctrine, against the Pope himself. uz. that many wise, godly, and learned Bishops with other ministers of the church, assembled in a national Synod, at the command of their natural Sovereign; are able to discern so much truth from falsehood and error, as is necessary either for their own soul's health, or for the public peace of the Church. God grant, that this doctrine may take deep root in the hearts of the readers: to his glory, the good of their souls, and the peace of the Church. Amen.   
FINIS.   

A COUNTERBLAST: AGAINST THE VAIN BLAST OF A MASKED Companion, who termeth himself, E. O. but thought to be ROBERT PARSONS, that traitorous jesuit.  
LONDON Printed by john Windet, for Richard Bankworth, dwelling in Paul's Churchyard at the sign of the Sun. 1603.   

To the right worshipful my approved good friend, Master John Bennet Doctor of the Civil law, and one of her majesties Council in the North parts of England.  
IF I should take upon me (right worshipful,) to discourse at large, of the plots, practices, dealings, and proceedings, of our Jesuits and jesuited persons; time doubtless would sooner fail me, than matter whereof to speak. I have very lately published a discourse of this argument, entitled The Anatomy of Popish tyranny. In it the Reader may view at large, the doctrine, the Religion, the manners, the natures, the conversation, the practices, and the whole proceedings, of the English traitorous hispanized Jesuits. So that now to recount the same, were actum agere, and a thing altogether needless. One of these Jesuits hath lately published a most scandalous and railing Libel, against the reverend and learned man of God, master Doctor Sutcliffe: as also against master Willet. In which Libel, the said masked companion terming himself E. O. hath obiter disgorged some part of his bitter gall against myself. For the confirmation whereof, (that all the world may see his folly, and consequently the folly of all the Jesuits, who combine and conjoin in this affair,) I have addressed this Counterblast; in which the indifferent Reader may plainly behold, that the Jesuits and Seminaries can say nothing in deed, to the doctrine contained in my Books; howbeit they bestir themselves with might and main, to dazzle the eyes of the simple and silly Papists, that they shall not see the Sun shining at noon tide. The work (such as it is,) I dedicate unto your worship, in token of that gratitude which is due unto you, for your worship's manifold kind courtesies towards me. Accept I pray you the present in good part, not respecting so much the gift, as the mind of the giver. The Almighty bless your worship, with many happy years; to his glory, the good of his Church, and the benefit of your own soul. From my study, this 14. of February, 1602.  
Your worship's most bounden, THOMAS BELL.   
A COUNTERBLAST, against the vain blast of a masked Companion, who termeth himself E. O. but thought to be Robert Parsons, that traitorous jesuit.  

CAP. I. Of the manner of jesuitical Proceeding, in all their seditious and scandalous libels.  
THE Jesuits (as the secular priests report in their writings,) are grievously offended with them, because they will not consent to their unnatural attempts, for invasions, treacheries, rebellions, & most cruel Spanish conspiracies: wherein themselves being entangled and plunged over head and ears, they endeavour to set the Lay-Papistes on like mad dogs, to bark, bite, and devour their ghostly fathers, and dear friends. They term the secular Priests, Malcontents, factious, seditious, irreligious, Apostates: yea, knaves, villains, and rebels (forsooth) to Prince George Blackwell, king Henry Garnet, and Emperor Robert Parsons. And all this is done, for not allowing (say the Priests) of a Traitorous Archpriest, set up in prejudice aswell of the Church of Rome, as of the common Weal of England. And no marvel, 
Import. consider. p. 14.  seeing, (as the said Priests do write,) the Jesuits came into England, by the instigation of the Devil. These Jesuits make it an usual practice, to publish scandalous libels, and traitorous Pamphlets, either without names at all, or under the names of others, or at least by such two letters bare lie, and nakedly, as may be applied to many indifferently, and no ways to the true authors of the libels. In which kind of coggery, Robert Parsons the jesuit (whom the secular Priests term a notorious liar, a brazen faced Friar, a known cozener, a sacrilegious Bastard, an incestuous villain, a cursed Fairy bratte, and bloodthirsty traitor) seemeth to excel all others. This goodly Friar Parsons, (of whose sactimony more at large in my Anatomy of Popish tyranny) hath lately published, or caused to be published, a most scandalous libel, against a godly, learned, and very famous man, M. D. Sutcliffe: as also against M. Willet, a very learned and grave Writer. Which railing Libel, the said worthy men, as I hear, have already confuted to the Libelers everlasting shame and confusion, if he do not repent in time.  
In the said scandalous libel and ridiculous Pamphlet, the Libeler termeth himself E. O. like a masked counterfeit Companion, as he is indeed: and doth in the said impudent libel, combine my silly self, to my disparagement (as he supposeth,) with those worthy men. But I repute it to my great credit: as who freely acknowledge, that I am altogether unworthy, to be coupled with such famous and worthy Writers. That which he imputeth to me, may justly and with all facility be retorted against himself, as in due place (God willing) shall appear.   

CAP. II. Of the resolution and determination, of the masked Companion, E. O.  
THE swaggering divine, and hot spurmate, E. O. telleth the Reader in his Preface, that he was once determined to have adjoined me poor soul, to the virtuous, grave, and famous Writers, M. D. Sutcliffe and M. Willet: but he altered his purpose, (if we may believe him,) for these two respects. First, for certain considerations to himself well known, (as ye must suppose,) but may not in any wise be disclosed to the world. Secondly, because the confutation of my worthy works, (as he scoffingly termeth them,) is already undertaken, and must be published, if it shall be thought necessary. Thus discourseth this counterfeit companion, remember well his words. Concerning this determination, I think it very expedient to notify to the Reader, these five material adjuncts. First, that I published in Print to the view of the world, my book of Motives, in the year, 1593. my survey of Popery in the year, 1596. and my hunting of the Romish Fox, in the year 1598.  

In my Motives lib. 2. cap. 1.  In the first of these Books, I offered public dispute with what Seminary in England soever, no one or other excepted whosoever: protesting in the same work to proceed so sincerely, as if I could by the adversary be convinced, either to allege any Writer corruptly, or to quote any place guilfully, or to charge any author falsely: I would never require credit at the Readers hands, neither in that book, nor in any other.  
I protested likewise in the said book, that if any Papist in England, or else where in Europe, could truly and substantially confute the same: I would once again embrace the late Romish religion, though I did then, and still do hate and detest the same, as the mortal poison of my soul.  
Secondly, that about two years after the publication of my Motives, I did essoones in my Survey of Popery, challenge all English Jesuits and Seminaries, to answer my said Books: promising unfeignedly under my hand, that if any of them could yield a sufficient answer in their defence, I would doubtless subscribe unto his doctrine.  
Thirdly, that all Jesuits and Seminaries, notstanding all the former challenges, have been silent above eight whole years, and never yet durst adventure to frame any answer, to any one of the said books, and to publish the same to the view of the world.  
At the last, in the end of the year, 1602. a shameless Pamphlet, and scurrilous libel is published, by an odd masked companion, who naming himself E.O. hath set a broach, a rude lying hodge-podge of Omnigitherum, I know not well how to term it, or what to make of it. But I hope in God to turn it topsy-turvy, ere I make an end.  
Fourthly, that if the Jesuits or Seminaries, could have framed any true and sincere answer: nay, any likely or colourable answer, to all, or to any one of the said Books: they would have done it undoubtedly, and that many years ago.  
Fiftly, that when the said counterfeit E O. beareth the world in hand, that now at the last in the year 1603. the confutation of the said books is undertaken: he doth but bestir himself with might and main, to dazzle the eyes of the simple Readers and of others, that shall hear thereof: that they may still be seduced with Popish Legerdemain from time to time, and not behold the Sun shining at noon tide. Who all must receive in the end, the just reward of their folly: even the flap of a Fox tail. I prove it, by these evident and insoluble reasons. First, because he saith, the confutation must be published, if it shallbe thought necessary. For I pray you, is not this a merry jest? The Jesuits and seminaries Priests, have consulted now for the space of eight years fully complete and ended, and have all that time devised how to frame some colourable answer at the least, to all or some of the said books: and in the end of the year, 1602. have undertaken the confutation thereof: but for all that cannot yet tell, whether it be expedient to publish the said confutation, or no. Oh sweet jesus? are these men the great Statists of the world? are these men the skilful Politicians, that must manage all Europe? are these men our learned divines? are these men they indeed, upon whose doctrine and guiding all Lay-Papistes do depend, and on their shoulders do hang their souls and their salvation? doubtless, they may preach this goodly sermon to Wisemen, and repute themselves for very noddy and stark fools. Secondly, because after E. O. and his complices have tossed and turned, volved and revolved, all the parts of all my books, and played all their tricks, and fetched all their friscoles: their crests are fallen, their spirits rampant are become couchant, and all that they can devise to object against me, is nothing else in the world, but one silly falsely so supposed contradiction. For can any Wiseman think, if they had any better stuff, which could better serve their turn, or give more credit to their cause, or be more likely to satisfy the people's long expectation: that they would conceal it for my sake, and the love they bear to me? No, no, (my dearest,) they mean nothing less. They will never while I live, publish any such confutation. Their own consciences condemn them, they know they are not able to perform it. I would most gladly, (I protest before God and the world,) once see any such confutation during my life: & therefore here once again, I challenge Robert Parsons that traitorous jesuit, (whom I take to be this masked E. O.) George Blackwell that seditious Archpriest, as the seculars term him: and all other English Jesuits and Seminaries, whosoever and wheresoever: daring them all to publish the confutation of my said books. They are many in number, and they busy themselves with publishing other needle's books, Pamphlets, and libels: and consequently, they must of necessity, and will undoubtedly, accept of this challenge, now after so many years, and after so long consultation, and mature deliberation: aswell for their own credits sake, as for the consolation of their silly seduced popelings, if they dare take the matter in hand. But alas they have said all they can, and done what they were able possibly to perform.   

CAP. III. Of the notorious lies of E. O.  
POpe Siricius (as Thomas Bell affirmeth, 
Preface, p. 10. ) was seduced by Satan, published wicked doctrine, and taught the flat doctrine of the devil. These are the express words of E. O. whom (as it seemeth) the Devil did even then possess, when he uttered them. For not one of these words, (taught the flat doctrine of the Devil,) can be found in my Survey, in the place which E. O. hath quoted: but these words, which he of purpose did omit: (prohibited marriage as an unlawful thing.) This therefore is a notorious, and a most malicious lie. 
The first lie of E. O.  It is a lie in grain, and that a knocker, (to use his own words else where:) adorned with the name of the Devil, to give the more grace unto it. And that worthily, because the Devil is the Architect and chief workman, in that art and occupation. Where I wish the Reader to observe seriously, that my proceeding in all my books hath been such and so sincere, as the adversaries for the space of eight whole years, can but espy one only (falsely so supposed) contradiction: neither that, but by belying me, and by falsifying my words. So then, it is hereby most apparent to all the world; that if they had any just matter against me, they would load my back till my bones should crack. This is E. O. his first lie.  
The second lie of E. O. is contained in these his words; 
P 37. The second lie of E.O.  both Bell and Gough give the lie to master Sutcliffe, denying prayer to Saints to be ancient; and Gough to Bell, affirming that it was not known, till the year of our Lord, 370. For both Origen and Saint Cyprian lived before that time. This is an other notorious lie, as shall be cleared by an evident demonstration.  
I therefore say first, that Vitium Scriptoris, the negligence, ignorance, and oversight of the Printer, hath been & often is the cause of many faults extant in my books, which I note here once for all, wishing the reader ever to have the same in remembrance. This is apparent two ways: first, because this number of 370. should have been 350. as is evident by the sixth Canon. Secondly, 
Survey. p. 338.  for that the number of 274. in my survey, is otherwise in my book entitled (the hunting of the Romish Fox:) viz. 1215. and so the indifferent Reader may easily perceive, that the calumniation and cavil of E. O. proceedeth of mere malice against the truth.  
I say secondly, that the famous popish writer Aquinas, surnamed the Angelical doctor; will confess with me against E. O. to his everlasting shame in this combat. These are his express words: 
Aquinas. 2. ●. q 98. art. 1. ad. 3.  Actus morales procedunt a voluntate, cuius obiectum est bonum apprehensum. Et ideo si falsum apprehendatur ut verum, erit quidem relatum ad voluntatem materialiter falsum, formaliter autem verum. Si autem id quod est falsum, accipiatur ut falsum, erit falsum & materialiter & formaliter. Si autem id quod est verum, apprehendatur ut falsum, erit verum materaliter, & falsum formaliter. Moral acts proceed from the will, whose object is good apprehended. And therefore if falsehood be apprehended as truth, it being related to the will shall be false materially, but true formally. But if that which is false be taken as false, it shall be false both materially and formally. But if that which is true be apprehended as false, it shall be true materially, and false formally.  
Again in an other place, the same Author hath these words: 
Aquinas 2.2. q. 110. art. 1.  Si ista tria concurrant, scilicet quod falsum sit id quod enunciatur, & quod adsit voluntas falsum enunciandi, & iterum intentio fallendi; tunc est falsitas materialiter, quia falsum dicitur▪ & formaliter, propter voluntatem falsum dicendi; & effective, propter voluntatem falsitatem imprimendi. Sed tamen ratio mendacii sumitur à formali falsitate ex hoc scilicet, quod aliquis habet voluntatem falsum inunciandi. unde & mendacium nominatur ex eo, quod contra mentem dicitur. Et ideo si quis falsum enunciet, credens id esse verum, est quidem falsum materialiter, sed non formaliter; quia falsitas est propter intentionem dicentis, unde non habet perfectam rationem mendacii. id enim quod praeter intentionem dicentis est, per accidens est. If these three things concur: to wit, that the thing be false which is uttered, and that there be also a will to utter falsehood, and withal an intention to utter falsehood; then there is falsehood materially, because falsehood is avouched; and there is falsehood formally, because there is a will to speak falsely; and there is also falsehood effectively, for that there is a will to imprint falsehood, (in the hearts of others.) But for all that the formality of the lie, 
The formality of a lie.  is derived from the formal falsehood: in that forsooth, that one hath a desire to speak falsely. Whereupon a lie hath the name of this, that it is spoken against the mind. And therefore if any man utter a falsehood, thinking it to be the truth; then is it a lie materially, but not formally; because the falsehood is beside his intention that speaketh it, and so it hath not the perfect nature of a lie. For that which is beside the intention of the speaker, is mere accidental.  
These are the words, and this is the doctrine of that famous Papist, whose works two Popes Vrbanus and Innocentius, have confirmed plenitudine potestatis for authentical. Whatsoever therefore proceedeth from this fountain, the Papists must perforce receive it, as pure and wholesome water. And for this end I have employed my labours, to set down his words at large.  
Out of these golden words and sound doctrine of this grave Writer, a very learned man in deed, (though elsewhere in sundry points he showeth man's imperfections,) I note first, that a man may speak the truth, and yet be a liar; to wit, when he thinketh that truth which he uttereth, to be a lie.  
I note secondly, that a man may speak falsely, and utter an untruth, and yet be no liar at all. The reason of both the assertions is evident, by the doctrine of this famous Papist; (whose doctrine herein is also the constant doctrine of Saint Austen, as shortly shall be proved,) Because forsooth, the formality of a lie doth precisely and properly consist, in the intention of the speaker. This point is yet more apparent, by these words of the self same Writer: Si vero aliquis formaliter falsum dicat, habens voluntatem falsum dicendi; licet sit verum id quod dicitur, in quantum tamen buiusmodi actus est voluntarius & moralis, habet per se falsitatem, & per accidens veritatem. unde ad speciem mendatii pertingit. If a man shall utter a falsehood formally, being minded to speak falsely, then although it be true which he saith, yet seeing such an action is voluntary and moral, it implieth falsehood per se and of it own nature, and truth but only accidentally. And so it reacheth, to the nature of a lie.  
This doctrine is confirmed by the testimony of Saint Austen, that worthy Father and mighty pillar of Christ's Church. These are his words: Non omnis qui falsum dicit, 
August. lib. de mendacio. cap. 3. ad Consenti. tom. 4.  mentitur si credit aut opinatur verum essequod dicit. Quisquis autem hoc enuntiat, quod vel creditum animo, vel opinatum tenet, etiamsi falsum sit, non mentitur. Sequitur; ex quo fit, ut possit falsum dicere non mentiens, si putat ita esse ut dicit. quamuis non ita sit; & ut possit verum dicire mentiens, si putet falsum esse, & pro vero enuntiat, quamuis renera ita sit ut enuntiat. Ex animi enim sententia, non ex rerum ipsarum veritate vel falsitate, mentiens aut non mentiens iudicandus est. Potest itaque ille qui falsum pro vero enunciat, quod tamen verum esse opinatur, errans dici & temerarius; mentiens autem non recte dicitur, quia cor duplex cumenunciat, non habet, nec fallere cupit sed fallitur. Not every one that uttereth a falsehood, is a liar, if he believe or think that to be true, which he saith. For whosoever saith that, which he either believeth, or thinketh in his heart, although it be false, yet doth he not lie. Whereupon it cometh, that one may utter a falsehood, and be no liar, if he thinketh it be as he saith, though it be not so in deed. And likewise that one may speak the truth, and be a liar, if he think it be false, and uttereth it for a truth, though in very deed it be as he saith. For one must be judged a liar, or not a liar, of his own mind and meaning, not of the verity or falsehood of the things in themselves. He therefore that affirmeth falsehood for truth, which he thinketh to be the truth, may truly be said to err, and to be temerarious: but he can not rightly be called a liar, for that he hath not a double heart when he uttereth the falsehood, neither desireth to deceive others, but is deceived himself.  
I note thirdly, that it is impossible for me to have given the lie, to the reverend, worthy, and godly learned man, master Doctor Sutcliffe; as E. O. that shameless calumniator, doth most impudently affirm. The reason is evident, if the foundation which Saint Austen and Aquinas have laid, be well remembered; because forsooth, I published my Survey many years before master Doctor Sutcliffe's new challenge, whereof E. O. speaketh in his Detection. And consequently, I could not have any intention (as the world knoweth,) once to think of that future challenge, which then was not in esse; much less could I have intention to give the lie, to that reverend and worthy man, for any thing contained in the same.  
I note fourthly, that the foul-mouthed swaggering Divine E. O. is both materially and formally an impudent liar in very deed. I prove the same many ways.  
First, because he doth not only avouch a falsehood, but also hath a mind and intention so to do; wherein consisteth the formality of a lie, and without which none can be a liar, as is already proved. But this silly Divine E. O. who so bestirreth himself to give the lie to others, seemeth not to understand or know what a lie is in very deed: but hath need to go again to the School, to learn the true nature and essence thereof.  
Secondly, because I affirm the very self same thing in effect, which master Gough doth affirm; who for all that, (as this impudent liar E. O. avoucheth, but with a brazen face,) doth give the lie to me. For I prove and show by degrees, how late popish invocation of Saints crept into the Church, and I have put down seven Canons with six conclusions to that effect. In the fourth Canon, I prove that in the days of Origen, the first seed of invocation of Saints began to be sown. In the fifth Canon, I prove that about twenty years after Origen, it became a settled doctrine, which in the days of Origen was but opinative and disputable. In the sixth Canon, I prove that about an hundred years after Saint Cyprian, some of the Fathers by Rhetorical apostrophees, did apply their Orations to the dead, as if they had been living. Who though they did but invocate the Saints figuratively, and of a certain excessive zeal; yet did such their invocations minister occasion to the Papists, of all their superstition in that behalf. And in my answer to an objection of the seventh Canon, I say plainly, that late Popish invocation had in the year 400. after Christ, gotten deep root in the hearts of the vulgar sort. Whereupon it is most apparent to all indifferent Readers, that the swaggering Divine E. O. is condemned in his own conscience, when he affirmeth master Gough to be opposite to me, touching my doctrine of invocation of Saints. For I do affirm uniformly with master Gough, that invocation of Saints was in some degree, even in the days of Saint Cyprian, and of Origen afore him. Albeit I truly say withal, that it took not deep root in the people's hearts, for many years after them.  
I note five, that master Doctor Sutcliffe, (if I be not deceived,) doth by the ancient Church understand the primitive Church, which is most truly and properly called the ancient Church. Which Church doubtless, knew no Popish invocation of saints, as I have proved in my Survey. For answer to which book, or to any of the rest, published now many years ago, neither this hotespurre mate E. O. nor any other English jesuit, or jesuited Seminary, dare for their lugges encounter with me. So then, there is a sweet harmony, but no discord at all: in the writings of master Sutcliffe, of master Gough, and of myself.  

P. 44. The 3. lie of E.O.  In an other place, this Libeler saith, that I hold auricular confession, to have been established in the year 254. and do but prove it by my bare word only. This is a lie with a witness. For I have proved it in the second book of my motives, and that by the testimony of josephus Angles a Popish Friar and Bishop of Bosana, 
Lib. 2. cap. 9 conclu. 5.  even in the second to me of that work, which he dedicated to the pope himself Sixtus Quintus. These are the express words; 
jos. Angles in 4. s. q. de conses. P, 255.  Ante Concilium Later. erat Haereticum negare necessitatem confessionis, negantes tamen non erant Haeretici. Ratio est, quia nondum erat ab Ecclesia declaratum. Before the Council of Lateran, it was heretical to deny the necessity of confession: but they were not Heretics that denied it. The reason is, because the Church (of Rome) had not declared it, to be an article of faith.  
In the said second book of Motives, in the ninth Chapter and fifth conclusion, the Reader shall find these express words: Albeit popish auricular confession be so magnified with Papists, that every one is commanded under pain of damnation to believe the same, as instituted by Christ himself; yet was it not an article of popish faith, for the space of one thousand and five hundred years after Christ. These are my express words in that place.  
Here I heartily desire all people that are careful of their salvation, especially such as are devoted to the Jesuits: and I crave it for the tender mercy of God in the bowels of Christ jesus, to mark attentively what I shall sincerely deliver, as I will answer God at the dreadful day of general doom.  
I therefore say first, that the author of this lewd Pamphlet, and scurrilous libel, entitled the detection of untruths, who concealeth his name not daring to avouch it to the world, (but seemeth to be Robert Parsons the jesuit, alias Bastard Cowbucke, expelled out of Balliol College in Oxford, for his illegitimation, libeling, and factious dealing, who will affirm or deny any thing, as his own dear brothers the secular Priests write of him,) hath incurred the censures of their church, and is become an excommunicate person, for publishing this lewd libel and slanderous Pamphlet. I prove it, because the general council of Lateran celebrated in the year 1515. prohibiteth under the pain of excommunication, to print or cause to be printed, any book or scripture whatsoever, in any City or Diocese wheresoever, unless the same be first diligently examined by the Bishop of the same Diocese, or by his Deputy, and subscribed by their own hand. And it will not serve the Jesuits turn, to say or pretend for his excuse, that the pope hath dispensed with their sect, to print books and libels at their pleasure. For a general council hath power to make constitutions, which the Pope is bound to obey: but the Pope hath no such power over the council, to which he is and must be subject. This doctrine is flatly decreed, in two famous popish general Counsels, Constance and Basill. Yet to this day was it never heard of in the world, that an inferior could make laws to tie his superior, or by his own power exempt himself or others, from the obedience he oweth to the laws of his superior.  
I say secondly, that this shameless jesuit must of necessity, condemn himself in his own conscience, when he sayeth, that I affirm auricular confession, to have been established in the year 254. and l prove it by an evident demonstration. For, though I made mention of the time in three several books: to wit, in my Motives, in my Survey, and in my hunting of the Romish Fox: yet did I that but obiter in the two latter books, referring the Reader to my first Book, that is, to my Book of Motives. In which book I handled the question indeed, and decided it by popish approbation: there affirming in express words, that Popish auricular confession was not an article of Popish faith, for the space of one thousand & five hundred years after Christ. Which number is set down without figures in that place, and so less subject to falsehood, or corruption. But in the other books the number is put down in figures, and so more easily subject to alteration: especially, seeing myself was distant from the Press, well near two hundred miles.  
I say thirdly, that to object to me my revolt from falsehood, and my return to God with remorse for mine errors, which this libeler recounteth for want of better matter: doth nothing else but argue his own imperfection, and insufficiency to defend the matter he took in hand.   

CAP. FOUR Of the finding out of the ends of the Gordian knot.  
I Say first, that Gordius as stories do relate, was first a poor husbandman, and afterward elected to be the king of Phrygia, by the oracle of an Idol, who being made king, caused his yokes to be hanged up in the temple of jupiter, and the cords to be knit in such knots, that it seemed a thing impossible, to untie or loose the same.  
I say secondly, that this masked libeler, E. O. or if ye will Parsons that traitorous jesuit, seemeth greatly to favour Gordius his knot: because forsooth, as Gordius by the help of an Idol, became of a poor husbandman a mighty Prince: so he by treasonable plottings with the King of Spain (forsooth,) one day of a poor Friar to be made the Viceroy of England. For which end he bestirreth himself, to devise such knots of bloody treacheries, as he thinketh man's power not able to resist or untie.  
I say thirdly, that all the difficulty in untying this knot, consisteth precisely, and specially in this: because▪ forsooth, I say in my Survey, that the Bishops of Rome were godly men till S. Austin's time, and long after him; and yet withal, I do charge Pope Siricius to have published wicked doctrine, and Pope Sozomene to have falsified the council of Nice. This is the knot, that as our jesuit E. O. thinketh, cannot be untied. If I can find out the ends of this knot, a more large subject (saith he,) must be provided for my learning to work upon. A worthy reward of so mighty a parsonage, for the unfolding of one silly knot. Well, I undertake in God's name, to find out the ends of this knot: expecting that E. O. will for his credits sake, perform his promise made herein. For the clearing of which difficulty, and unfolding of which knot, I desire the gentle Reader to observe these points with me. First, that it is one thing to publish wicked doctrine; an other thing, to teach wicked doctrine publicly. The case is clear and evident.  
Sccondly, that Ministers of the Church may be called godly men, either in respect of their public doctrine and preaching, or in regard of their good life, and holy conversation. For this cause did our Saviour Christ command the people to observe and do, 
Mat. 23. v. 3.  whatsoever the Scribes and pharisees did preach unto them, but not to do after their works. And he added the reason thereof, because saith Christ, they say & do not. Lo, Christ reputeth the Scribes and pharisees, both godly and wicked men. Godly, in respect of their public doctrine: wicked, in regard of their sinful lives. For doubtless, Christ did not command the people to obey wicked men, as they are wicked, but as they are godly: that is to say, as they delivered godly doctrine to them. Even so do I say of Pope Siricius and Pope Sozimus, that they were godly Bishops in respect of their public doctrine, as who neither taught nor decreed publicly, any material point of doctrine, contrary to the doctrine of S. Peter. This answer is confirmed, by the usual practice of all Papists every where. For they term every Bishop of Rome, their holy Father the Pope. And this notwithstanding, they freely grant, as I have proved in my book of Motives: that one Pope entered into the Popedom, as a Fox: reigned in it, as a Wolf: and died out of it, as a dog. That an other Pope gave himself to the Devil, that so the devil might effect his designments. They also grant, that every Pope may err in his private person, and become an Heretic, an Idolater, an Atheist, and whatsoever else. And so they cannot all be termed holy Fathers, in respect of their lives, or personal doctrine taught private lie. They must therefore term them holy, in regard of their public doctrine, agreeable to the doctrine of their predecessors: though they be very often wicked, in respect of their lives and conversations. So were Siricius and Sozimus good Popes, secundum quid, but not simpliciter. Thirdly, it is the usual course of holy Scripture, to speak of many, as of all: to term all wicked, when the greater part is wicked: and all godly, when the greater part is godly. This is the constant doctrine both of S. Austen, 
Aug. de unit. eccls cap. 12. Canus de locis. p. 137.  and of your renowned Papist Melchior Canus. But because your Cardinal Bellarmine is the mouth of all Papists, I am content to set down his express words, so to stop your mouths at this time. These are your Cardinal's words: Neque movere nos debet, quod Esaias loqui videatur ita generatim, ut omnes homines comprehendat. 
Bellarm. de iustific. cap. 20. col. 2235·  Est enim iste scripturae mos, ut loquatur de multis, quasi de omnibus. Neither ought it to move us, that Esay seemeth to speak so generally, as if he comprised all. For it is the manner of the scripture, so to speak of many, as of all.  
I say fourthly, that I speak of the Popes until S. Austin's time and long after, not generally, but in indefinitely: and consequently, my words are and must be true, notwithstanding the bad dealing of Siricius and Sozimus.  
I say five, that 18. Bishops at the Nicene council were of a different opinion from the rest, & yet are the decrees termed the decrees of the Bishop's in general. So in your last council of Trent, the decrees are published under the names of the Bishops there: and for all that, there were three Bishops that would not agree thereunto.  
I say sixtly, that the Jesuits and Seminaries are at their wit's end, and know not in the world what to answer to my books. The reason is evident to every child: for that now after many years, they can find out nothing at all in any of my Books, saving one only contradiction falsely so supposed. And yet to make a fair show of something, they have huddled up, and jumbled together, three places far distant one from another. Which supposed contradiction, if it were as they imagine, would be too dear of a button. If they could have picked out of all my books▪ any one thing of moment; they would not for shame have published in a printed Book, such a silly obection as this. But the truth must prevail, and will have the upper hand. I doubt not, but all indifferent Readers will be better persuaded hereafter, to believe the doctrine contained in my books: especially, seeing the adversaries can say nothing against them in so many years: but only, that I have contradicted myself, in saying in one place, that the Popes were godly men till S. Austin's time, and in an other place, that two Popes were wicked men. For besides that, this is so sufficiently cleared many ways, as the indifferent Reader cannot but perceive the same: it must needs be most apparent to the world, that if the Jesuits or seminaries Priests, could frame any colourable answer to all my books, or to any of them: they would not doubtless pass over with silence, all the Articles of Popish faith, with the confutation thereof set down in my books, and busy themselves about one only silly contradiction: and that no contradiction indeed, but as they falsely or rather maliciously pretend unto the Reader. Where the Reader, (if he be wise and indifferent,) must perforce condemn them and their religion, in that they dare not adventure to encounter with my doctrine, which doth touch them and their holy father the Pope so narrowly, that many perceiving it, have renounced both him, them, and their religion. And I nothing doubt, but these silly evasions and poor shifts, which they are driven unto: will be a mean under God, to cause many more to renounce all Popish faction, every day more than other.  
To show the insufficiency of the Jesuits and Seminaries, and that they know not possibly what to say, or how to deal concerning the answering of my books: I have thought good to insert in this place, the words of a letter, which the Provincial of the Jesuits in England Henry Garnet by name, addressed to his fellows being then in consultation, how to frame some kind of answer to my books. These are the express words of his letter, which by a friend of mine came very lately to my hands.  

The words of the jesuit Garnets' letter, sent to the rest of his fellows.  
COncerning the answer to the wrangler, I am even as I was before, uncertain, what were expedient. The man desireth nothing but wrangling; and besides that which I fear most, is that which I have seen by experience in other his writings, that is, exceeding and outrageous choler. Whereby he will be moved to utter, not only all imperfections which he knoweth of our fellows, but also those things which ought to be most surely sealed up, the man being past all grace and shame. Nevertheless for this matter, as you shall all agree, for I doubt not, but so many and such will see what is best. If it be done, it must be very short, and rather made to describe the man, then to unfold at large his doctrine. For if it be long, neither the time, nor commodity of transporting up and down, nor the security of doing it can be correspondent. That shall be done on my part, which may be. This gentle Reader, is there whole narration, which (for the exact examination and confutation thereof,) I will repeat by particular members, one after an other, ever adding a particular several answer to the same.   

The jesuit.  
Concerning the answer to the wrangler, I am even as I was before, uncertain what were expedient.   

The Answer.  
To these words I answer first, that the Jesuits have been long buzzing about an answer to my books, and have used as great speed therein, as he that should drive a snail from Paris to Rome. For after my books have been eight or nine years in their hands, and under their malicious censure; they are still at the same point, where they began. That is to say, they neither have made, neither can they make any answer to my books.  
I answer secondly, that though the Papists be greatly troubled about my books, and do often consult among themselves, how to frame some answer thereunto: yet can they not this day tell, what is expedient for them to do in that behalf. But every wise man can easily discern, that if the truth were on their side, and that they could confute the doctrine laid down in my books, they would undoubtedly perform the same.   

The jesuit.  
The man desireth nothing, but wrangling. And beside, that which I fear most, is that which I have seen by experience in other his writings: that is, exceeding and outrageous choler.   

The answer.  
To these words I answer first, that if I did but wrangle, they might with facility have answered me so, many years ago Secondly, that the Priests and Jesuits are of a very shallow judgement, and small reach; if they can not tell in eight whole years, what to answer to a wrangler, or wrangling disputation. Thirdly, that the jesuit (as is confessed already,) can not yet tell, what is expedient to be done in that matter. Whereupon it followeth of necessity, that it is a matter of great moment, and of no small importance. For otherwise, a man of rare wisdom, and deep judgement, (such as our Jesuits usually be, especially those Jesuits, who are elected to be provincials, and rulers of all others within a whole Province,) could not but know in much less time, then 8: or 9 years: what were fit, meet, & expedient to be done, concerning the answering of my books. And yet, as this great father of wisdom freely granteth, he is still as uncertain as he was afore, what answer were best to be made. Fourthly, that our father jesuit lieth flatly upon his head, when he saith, that he feareth nothing more, than my exceeding and outrageous choler. For first, he and his brethren do not spare at all, to write against their own brethren the secular Priests; who show more choler in one leaf of paper, than I have done in all my Books. Again, he and the other Jesuits do disgorge more choler against the Seculars, in the least page they have written, than myself have done in all my books. Hereof none can be ignorant, that shall seriously peruse my book, entitled the Anatomy of Popish tyranny.   

The jesuit.  
Whereby he will be moved to utter, not only ull imperfections which he knoweth of our fellows; but also those things, which ought to be most surely sealed up.   

The Answer.  
I answer first, that hereby every one may see, that the Jesuits and their fellows, are full of notorious imperfections, which they fear shall be made known unto the world. Secondly, that if the Jesuits be guilty in their own consciences, of greater crimes & offences, than the secular Priests have discovered to the world; then certes, they are so far from being Saints, that they are more like the Devils of hell. Thirdly, that they have damnable practices among them, which must be sealed up, and not be made known unto the world. But hereof Watson the secular Priest, seemeth to have spoken sufficiently in his Quodlibets. My book of Anatomy, will tell them more. Fourthly, that the jesuit doth unawares, confess me to be an honest man. For, it must needs be the part of an honest man, to speak nothing of his enemy; but only that, which he knoweth to be true.   

The jesuit.  
The man being past all grace and shame.   

The Answer.  
I say first, that it is no marvel, if this lewd jesuit write thus of me to his fellows covertly; seeing both he and his fellows write most bitterly and impudently, against their own brethren the secular Priests, men of better deserts by many degrees than themselves. Secondly, they are arrant traitors, cruel murderers, impudent liars, notorious coozeners, full of envy, pride, malice, and all vices under heaven, as the secular Priests write of them; and consequently, this Jesuits tongue can not, or at least ought not, to be of credit against any man. Thirdly, all that this railing impudent companion can truly say of me, is nothing else in deed, but that I have renounced lately invented popish Religion. For the old Roman religion practised in the primitive church, I allow and defend in all my books, and will persevere in the same God willing, unto my lives end. It is the superstition and Idolatry of latter years, crept into the Church of Rome by little and little, (the original whereof I have proved in my book of Survey, against which proof this proud jesuit can say nothing,) that I impugn, & condemn in all my writings. Fourthly, this railing fellow hath granted already, that I will utter nothing of them but known truths; & consequently, I must have some grace and honesty left by his own confession.   

The jesuit.  
Nevertheless for this matter, as ye shall all agree. For I doubt not, but so many, and such, will see what is best.   

The Answer.  
Lo, they that have consulted, how to answer my books; are not only many in number, but also of the best judgement and reputation among them. For you hear his words; (so many and such, will see what is best.) And yet these men, so many and so worthy, have not in so many years, found out any answer to my books. But as he truly saith, they see what is the best to be done. As if he should have said; the best is, to pass over the matter with silence, as we have done heretofore. For his doctrine is sound, grounded upon the Scriptures, Counsels, Fathers, and the practice of the ancient Church: and we are not able to gainsay the same. It is better to sit still, then to rise up and fall.   

The jesuit.  
If it be done, it must be very short, and rather made to describe the man, then to unfold at large his doctrine. For if it belong, neither the time, nor commodity of transporting up and down, nor the security of doing it, can be correspondent. That shall be done on my part, which may be.   

The answer.  
I say first, that here the jesuit granteth unawares, that he and his fellows are but wranglers, and flat coozeners; as who will post over the answer to my books with cunning shifts, and impudent leasings, not daring to intermeddle with my doctrine. For ye see, he putteth a caveat, not to unfold my doctrine. But it is the doctrine indeed, that they should unfold, and not to stand upon the person of the man. But the doctrine is, Noli me tangere: they dare not deal with it. I say secondly, that they said before, I was a wrangler, and therefore they would not, or list not, to deal with me. But now, they think it better to revile my person, then to dispute against my doctrine. Truth is, they list to deal with neither of both; and for this cause is it, that whatsoever be done herein, must be very short. That forsooth, they may send it up and down from one place to another secretly, as they did this letter; and tell their silly seduced popelings, that they have done this and that, & I cannot tell what. But plain dealing were better. Farewell gentle Reader.   
FINIS.