THOMAS BELLS MOTIVES: CONCERNING ROMISH FAITH AND RELIGION. Exod. cap. 8. vers. 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Printed by john Legate, printer to the University of Cambridge. 1593. And are to be sold at the sign of the Sun in Paul's Churchyard in London. TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE MY very good Lords, the Lords of her majesties MOST HONOURABLE PRIVY COUNSELL. IF Tertullian (right honourable) erred montanizing: if Cyprian rebaptizing: if Origen corporizing; if Nazianzen angelizing; if Eusebius arrianizing; if Hieronymus monogamizing; if Ambrose millenizing; if S. Paul gentilizing; if Augustine retracted many things; if Aquinas, Navarrus, Victoria, and many others best learned papists, have often changed their opinions; if all this I say, be true, as true it is indeed: it will not I trust, (for it can not justly I wot) be imputed as blameworthy: that I upon better advice submit myself to my undoubted Sovereign, most gracious and bountiful Queen Elizabetb: that I recognise mine errors, that Ireclaime my former unsoundly conceived opinions, as best learned writers have done before me. Which alteration he hath mercifully and wonderfully wrought in me, (qui attingit à fine ad finem fortiter, & disponit omnia Sapient. 8. 1. suaviter;) Our merciful God, I mean, who hath of late revealed in time, that which in his eternal purpose, he ordained before the world was made. For our good God, who according to his common course of proceeding, directeth things inferior by superior, and useth human means in producing visible external effects: first inclined my heart to peruse more seriously, some learned papists before studied; and that done, to provide and revolve other most renowned papists, which before I had neither read nor seen. By means whereof God illuminating mine understanding, I have by little and little perceived the pope's own doctors, to impugn his Romish religion, and so detested all popish faction. As who at this hour (God be thanked for it,) behold as in a glass of crystal, the false, erroneous, and execrable doctrine of the Church of Rome. And because omne bonum est sui diffusivum, as saith Areopagita: neither Dionys. Ar●●▪ pag. de divinis nominibus, c. 4 can I with safe conscience hide that light under abushell, which God of his great mercy hath bestowedon me, no doubt as well for the benefit of others as of myself: I have thought it worth the labour to set down my chiefest motives, by which and through which next under God, I was persuade to renounce the Romish faith and religion: as who persuade myself constantly, that what soever papist in the whole world, shall with an indifferent judgement peruse the same, having are solved mind to embrace the truth when it appeareth: that self same papist will utterly renounce with me, the false, erroneous, & execrable doctrine of the Church of Rome. For I will prove the said Romish doctrine by God's holy assistance, to be of such quality as is already said; not only by scriptures, authorities, and reasons, (though such proofs I purpose to use:) but (which is most forcible against papists,) by the evident testimonies of best learned papists, and who are of best account: even in the Church of Rome. And consequently, that great learned men of all ages since popery began, yea, in the very altitude of popedom and in the Church of Rome: have approved, holden, and defended, weighty and important points of doctrine: contrary to the doctrine of the Church of Rome. Which thing so soon as I once understood, my mind and will was by and by alienated from the Church of Rome. This rare methodical discourse (my right honourable good Lords all,) as in which papistry is effectually confuted and confounded by papistry itself: I have presumed to dedicate unto your honours, for two especial considerations. First, that so I might exhibit some sign of a grateful and dutiful mind, for your Lordship's most honourable countenances and rare great good wills towards me. Secondly, because this my discourse, will not want many potent and mighty adversaries; and so stand need of honourable, wise, and grave patrons, for the honest and lawful approbation of the same. The Almighty grant unto your Lordships many joyful and happy years, with much increase of zeal in true religion: to his eternal glory, the faithful service of her Majesty, and the common good of our native country most noble England, Amen. From Cambridge the third of November, 1593. Your Lordships in all dutiful manner, THOMAS BELL. The Preface general to the Christian Reader. ALbeit I will not now dispute, whether the Bishops of Rome be that Antichrist, of whom the Apostle speaketh 2. Thess. 2. v. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 to the Thessalonians, or no? (notwithstanding the affirmative be the judgement of sundry great learned men;) yet dare I, and do I boldly avouch, that Bishops of Rome have for many years past, been the precursors and forerunners of that very Antichrist, whereof mention is already made: which to hold and think, many weighty and important reasons have moved me. For first, 1 who but Antichrist, or his precursor, will either ascribe, or suffer to be ascribed unto him: such power of majesty, and titles of Deietic, as are proper and peculiar to God alone? And yet is this to be verified of the pope undoubtedly, by the pope's own doctrine, and his popish doctors. The pope (if we will believe him) telleth us: that God, when he instituted two great lights in the firmament: to wit, the Sun and the Moon: signified thereby, the authority of pope's and of kings: giving us to understand, that the pope is as far above a king in authority, as is the Sun above the Moon in excellency: yea, he addeth further; that Kings and Emperors have no power, to draw the sword against popish bishops & priests: as who forsooth, are not subject to their jurisdiction. And lest I should be thought, to father untruths upon the pope: I will (which is my wont manner throughout my whole book,) allege his own words, which are these: Ad firmamentum Greg. 9 lib. 1. decret. tit. 33. cap. 6. coeli, hoc est, universalis ecclesiae, fecit Deus duo magna luminaria, id est, duas instituit dignitates, quae sunt, Pontificalis autoritas, & Regalis potestas: sed illa, quae praeest diebus, id est, spiritualibus, maior est: quae vero carnalibus, minor: ut, quanta est inter solemn & lunam, tanta inter Pontifices & Reges differentia cognoscatur. To the firmament of heaven, that is, of the universal Church, God made two great lights: to wit, ordained two great dignities, which are the authority of the Pope, and the power of the King: but that power, which ruleth spiritual things, is greater: and that which ruleth things carnal, is lesser: that so great difference may be known between Popes and kings, as is between the sun and the moon. The popish gloss in the same place, setteth down Glossa. ibid. precisely, how far the King is inferior to the Pope, in these words: Restat, ut Pontificalis dignitas quadragesies septies sit maior regali dignitate. It therefore remaineth, that the pontificality of the Pope is seven & forty times greater, than is the regality of the king. Pope Gregory Gregor. ubi supra. saith further, in this express manner: Intelligendum non est, quòd Rex vel Imperator super bonos & malos gladii acceperit potestatem; sed in eos solummodò, qui utentes gladio eius sunt iurisdictioni commissi. We must not understand, that the King or Emperor hath received power of the sword over the good and the evil; but only over them, who using the sword are committed to his jurisdiction. Behold, how the Scripture is tossed and wrested: to take from kings, that power which God hath given them. The popish parasites, the glossators of the Canons, ascribe more magnifical and plain divine titles unto the Pope; even such as no way can be denied, to be proper and peculiar to God alone. These are their express words: Sic (Papa) dicitur habere coeleste arbitrium, & ideò Glossat. lib. 1. decretat. tit. 7. cap. 3. etiam naturam rerum immutat, substantialia unius rei applicando alij; & 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; & he can make of nothing something. Thus verily do they write, and yet no greater blasphemy can be uttered. joannes Gerson, though otherwise a great papist, maketh rehearsal of intolerable dignities, and titles ascribed to the pope; which notwithstanding the pope himself hath acknowledged as pertaining to him, but the said Gerson them reproveth & derideth. These be his express words: Consurgit ex adver so blandiens & Gerson. de potestat. eccles. consider. 12. part. 3. subdola adulatio; & ad aures Ecclesiasticorum praecipuè summi Pontificis insusurrans; o quanta quanta est sublimitas ecclesiasticae potestatis tuae? quonians sicut Christo collata est omnis potest as in coelo & in terra, sic eam Christus omnim Petro suisque successoribus dereliquit. unde nec Constantinus quicquam Sylvestro papae contulit, quod non esset priùs suum; sedreddidit iniustè detentum. Porrò, sicut non est potest as nisià Deo, sicnec aliqua temporalis velecclesiastica, imperialis, velregalis, nisià Papa: in cuius foemore scripsit Christus, Rex regum, Dominus dominantium; de cuius potestate disputare, instar sacrilegij est; cui neque quisquam dicere potest, cur ita facis? mentior si non inveniantur haec scripta, ab illis etiam qui sapientes sunt in oculis suis. There starteth up on the contrary side fair-spoken and crafty adulation: whispering in the ears of Clergy men, especially of the pope; Oh how great, how great is the Majesty of thine Ecclesiastical power? for as all power was given to Christ, in heaven and on earth; So Christ left all the same power, to Peter and his Successors. Wherhfore 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, 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, and Lord of Lords; of whose power to dispute, is as mere sacrilege; to whom no man may say, Why dost thou so? I am a liar, if these things be not written: even of them, who are wise in their own conceits. These are Doctor Gersons words: who though he were a great Papist, yet could he not digest these Antichristian blasphemies, neither hide or conceal them within his breast. Nevertheless Pope Bonifacius did not only acknowledge them, but with great pleasure practised the same, as witnesseth the said Gerson in these words: Hanc existimationem habuisse, visus est Bonifacius Gerson ubi supra. octavus in quadam decretali: putatur ab alijs, depositio unius Regis Franciae per Papam Zachariam hic esse fundata; tanquam Papa sit, qui trasferre possit Reges & regna. Pope Bonifacius the eight of that name, seemeth in a certain decretal, to have had this opinion of his own authority. Others think, that the deposition of (Childericus) the French King by Pope Zacharias, was grounded in this (Antichristian and godless conceit:) as if for sooth the Pope were he, that could depose Princes, and translate their kingdoms. And our jesuite Bellarminus, is so far from blushing at this most detestable fact of Pope Zacharie: that he yieldeth the reason si dijs placet, for the justification thereof. Childericum (inquit) deposuit Papa, & in eius Bellarminus de Rom. Pont. lib. 5. cap. 8 locum Pipinum Caroli magni patrem Regem creari jussit: cuius causa fuit, quia propter socordiam Childerici, & Religioni, & Regno in Gallia, extrema ruina imminere videbatur. The Pope (saith our jesuite) deposed Childericus, and commanded to place Pipinus father to Charles the great, in his throne. The cause whereof was this; because forsooth through the negligent government of Childericus, the Kingdom and Religion of France seemed to be in great danger. Thus saith the Pope's vassal; out of whose words I gather first, that so much may be truly verified of Popes, as Gerson hath avowched. 1 I gather secondly, that the Pope challengeth both sword, and himself to be not only universal Bishop, but universal King 2 also over all the world. I gather thirdly, that the jesuits (howsoever they dissemble by their fond imagined equivocation,) think of our most gracious 3 Sovereign Queen Elizabeth, and mean to do with her most excellent Majesty, as the Pope thought and did with Childericus; and for that end saltem secundariò, are so many jesuits sent seditiously into Secundò principalitèr. this land. Secondly, my L. Abbot their own dear Bernard, saw in his time such tyranny and Antichristian dealing in the Church of Rome, as he was thereby and therewith enforced to exclaim in these words: Tempus faciendinunc, quia dissipaverunt legem. bestia illa de Apocalypsi, Bernar. ad Gaufridum, epist. 125. cui datum est os loquens blasphemias, & bellum gerere cum Sanctis, Petri Cathedram occupat, tanquam Leo paratus ad praedam. It is now high time to do good, for they have trodden under foot God's Law. That beast mentioned in the Revelation, to whom was given a mouth speaking blasphemies, and to make wars with the Saints: sitteth in the chair of Peter, as a Lion ready to take his pray. Thirdly, the Pope doth not only take upon him, to depose kings and Emperors himself; but he avowcheth further, that Subjects 3 may and are bounden to depose their dread Sovereigns, whensoever they decline to infidelity: which certes is by popish interpretation, when any King or Queen embraceth sincerely the holy Gospel of Christ, and denieth Romish popery. For thus writeth Bellarminus, whose doctrine the Pope hath lately approved; At si isti ijdem principes conantur avertere populum a fide, omnium consensu possunt Robertus Bellarminus lib. 5. de Rom. Pontif. cap. 7. & debent privari suo dominio. But if these Princes go about, to avert the people from the faith (of the Church of Rome:) then by the consent of all, they may and must be dispossessed, of their Sceptres and Regalities. Again, in the second Chapter he saith thus: Quòd si Christiani olim Bellarm. cod. cap. non deposuerunt Neronem, & Diocletianum, & julianum apostatam, ac Valentem Arianum, & similes; id fuit, quia deerant vires temporales Christianis. If the Christians in times past, deposed not Nero, Diocletian, julian, Valens, and such like Emperors; the cause thereof was, for that they wanted power and force, and were not strong enough for that attempt. Again, a little after he hath these words: At non tenentur Christiani, immò nec debent cum evidenti periculo religionis, toler are Regem Bellarm. cap. codem. infidelom. But Christians are not bound to tolerate a King, that is an Infidel, (or not a Papist;) nay, they must not tolerate such a one, with the evident danger of Religion. And our said jesuite yieldeth this reason hereof; because forsooth saith he, De iure humanoest, quod hunc aut illum habeamus Regem. For it is by the Law of man, that we Bellarm. ubi supra. have this or that man to our King. This is the doctrine of our Popes, and lately hatched jesuits: out of which most disloyal and unchristian assertion; I infer first, that the Pope and jesuits would most willingly, deprive our most gracious Sovereign of her Royal throne and Regality; 1 if they were of force and power so to do. I infer secondly, that our jesuite doth here approve peremptorily. 2 First, the diabolical excommunication of Pope Pius. Secondly, the disloyal fact of Murton, who brought the same into this Realm. Thirdly, the publishing thereof by Felton. Fourthly, the practising of the curse by Sanders, Fitz-morice, Ballard, and others their seditious complices. Fiftly, the renewing of the print, and dispersing of the copies in Rome, by our jesuits, Persons, and Campion; as a compendious preparative, for their commodious entrance into this land. I infer thirdly, that all subjects are by this doctrine, stirred up and encouraged to manifest rebellion; & to have no scruple of conscience 3 therein. The reason hereof is evident, because if kings receive their authority from man, as this jesuit avoucheth: then may kings indeed be displaced by man, as Romish parasites, and irreligious politics bear the world in hand. yet Solomon the wise replenished with holy inspiration, teacheth us another doctrine: Per me inquit, reges regnant, Prou. c. 8. 15. & legum conditores justa decernunt. per me principes imperant, & potentes decernunt justitiam. By me (saith God in Salommon) kings reign, and princes decree justice. By me princes rule, and all nobles, and judges of the earth. And the Apostle saith: Omnts anima potestatibus Rom. c. 13. v. 1. sublimioribus subdita sit: non est enim potestas nisia Deo. Let every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but of God. But hereof more at large, in the sixth chapter and third conclusion of the second book. fourthly, Sylvester Pryeras that great popish Thomist, telleth 4 us roundly and malapertly: that empires and regalities are not from God immediately, but from God by means of the pope. And he saith further, that royal power is so subordinate to popery, or papacy: as is the Moon unto the Sun. These are his own words: Nec obstat, quod potestas imperialis est a deo concessa secundum multa Sylvest. de papa. para. 2. iura: quia est a Deo, mediant papa: quia eam concedit non ut homo, sed ut vicarius Det. Nec sunt sic distinctae potestates, spiritualis scilicet & temporalis: quin una alteri subalternetur, ad instar lunae & solis: nec sunt distinctae, quasi semper sint in diversis: sed quia sunt ordinatae ad distincta, scilicet spiritualia & temporalia: & in uno eodemque summo pontifiee, est utraque in summo. It skilleth not, that many laws affirm imperial power to be of God. For it is from God, the Pope being the mean, who granteth it not as man, but as the vicar of God. Neither are the two powers, (the spiritual and the temporal,) so distinct: but that they remain subordinate the one to the other, after the resemblance of the sun & moon. neither are they distinct as being always in diverse subjects, but as ordained to distinct things, spiritual and temporal. For they both are in one and the self same pope, even in the highest degree. fiftly, such as is the ruler of the city, (saith Bellarminus our jesuit,) 5 such are the inhabitants thereof: But pope Boniface the eight entered Bellar. derom. pontiff. lib. 5. cap. 7. into his popedom as a Fox, reigned in it as a wolf, and died out of it as a dog, as I have proved in my 2. book, in the 3. chapter & second conclusion: ergo all the citizens of Rome in his time began as foxes, continued as wolves, and ended their days as dogs: and consequently, the whole church of Rome during the time of Pope Boniface: was wicked, diabolical, and mere antichristian. what shall I say of kissing the pope's foot? of bearing the pope upon men's shoulders? of the pope's dispensing with the law human, the law of nature, and the law divine? these may suffice, to teach us to walk warely, to look about us withal circumspection, to be very careful what doctrine we embrace: and ever to set before our eyes, the admonitions and premonitions of our saviour jesus Christ. Attendite, inquit Dominus, a fermento Pharisaeorum quodest hypocrisis. Beware saith our Lord, of the leaven of the Pharisees, that is, their false doctrine, infected Luc. 12. 2. and infatuated with the traditions of men: as it is expounded in another place of the gospel. We must therefore here observe, that in the scribes and Pharisees rested in those days the ordinary external face, power, regiment, and jurisdiction of the church. For so saith our saviour, in another place of the gospel: In cathedra Mosis Mat. 16. 13. sedent Scribae & Pharisaei: omnia ergo quaecunque praeceperint vobis servare, servate & facite. The Scribes and Pharisees sit in the chair of Moses: therefore, whatsoever they shall command you to keep, that keep Mat. 23. 3. and do. Wherhfore since our Lord commandeth us, to beware of the hypocritical doctrine of the Pharisees, who had the primacy in the visible Church of that age: and since Christ commanded this for no other end, but because they had corrupted the sacred & pure word of God, with the mixture of their own foolish traditions: for that Christ objected against them, saying: Quare & vostransgredimini mandatum Dei, propter traditiovem vestram: why do you transgress God's commandment, for the accomplishment of your own Mat. 15. 3. tradition? and in another place: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: But in vain do they worship me, teaching Mat. 15. 9 doctrines the commandments of men: since I say, our saviour thus commandeth us: it followeth, that we must refuse, reject, and contemn, all prelate's, all bishops, all priests, and all whosoever have any administration in the church, by what name or title soever they be called: if they deliver to us the word of God impurely, or mixed with traditions of men: and consequently, that we must reject and renounce, the pope, and all the rabble of popish clergymen: as who do either not deliver the word of God at all, or at least so mingled, so pestered, so corrupted, so adulterated with man's traditions: as no part there of remaineth sound, pure, and entire. It than standeth us upon, to employ our whole care, study, and industry, that we may live secure from the leaven of these Pharisees: that is, of these pope's and popish vassals: who in steed of christian doctrine, do hypocritically deliver unto us, yea with threats of fire and faggot enforce upon us, the present poison of our souls. For if he that sitteth in Peter's chair be Antichrist, as witnesseth their own Bernard: if the bishops of Rome have written in their thighs, the king of kings and Lord of Lords, as their Gerson avoucheth: if all power aswell civil as ecclesiastical be challenged of pope's, as their Silvester affirmeth: if pope's can place and displace kings and Emperors, and dispossess them of their regalities, and royal seats, as their jesuit Bellarmine boasteth: if the bishops of Rome be as far above kings in authority, as is the Sun above the Moon in excellency, as pope Gregory teacheth: if no king can draw the sword against any of his subjects, being clergymen without the pope's good licence and favour, as the said Gregory telleth us: if the pope be taken to be greater than any king by seven and forty fold, as the popish gloss proclaimeth, nay, if the pope apply the substantial parts of one subject to another: if the pope take upon him to make of nothing something, as affirmeth another gloss: then doubtless doth it necessarily follow, that if the pope be not that Antichrist, whereof S. Paul. speaketh to the Thessalonians: yet is he perforce that Antichrist, where of Saint john writeth in these words: Omnis spiritus qui solvit jesum, ex Deo non est: & hic est antichristus, de quo audistis quoniam venit, & iam in mundo est. Every spirit that dissolveth jesus, is not of God: and this is Antichrist, of 1. joh. 4. 3. whom you have heard, that he is already come, and is even now in the world. For not only they dissolve jesus, that deny his divinity, or his humanity, or the hypostatical union of the same: but they also that derogate in any point from the office authority, and power of Christ, (who is our eternal king, our head, our prophet, our priest:) and in like manner, all they that by any means depress or obscure the same: as do the papists, in innumerable particulars: to wit, in their real inherent justice, in their condign merits of works, in their congruent dispositions, in their massing sacrifice, in their carnal presence, in their accidents without subjects, in their lordly papal primacy, in their purgatorie-purifications, in their satisfactory supplements, in their disholy supererogations, in their pharisaical flagellations: & in many other like superstitions, fond reputed holiness. these things are partly proved already: but more fully & exactly, throughout the whole discourse following, peruse it therefore gentle reader willingly, mark it attentively, judge of it friendly, condemn nothing rashly, revolve the authorities seriously, approve the truth constantly, reject falsehood zealously; and if thou shalt perceive thyself, to reap any spiritual commodity by this my labour: then vouchsafe to commend me in thy hearty prayers, to the father of all mercy: to whom with the son and the holy ghost, be all honour, power, glory, and dominion, now and evermore, Amen. The preface special, to the simply seduced Papists. LIke as the soul surmounteth the body, in original dignity; so do the diseases of the soul exceed the diseases of the body, in all impiety. And consequently, greater consideration ought to be had in providing remedies for the soul, then for the body. Nevertheless so it is, that none will or can in deed provide a remedy for that sore, whereof he hath no feeling or intelligence at all. In regard whereof, especially because papistry is of papists reputed no disease or sore; I have employed that small talon, which God of his mere mercy hath bestowed on me, to the end that all papists who shall seriously peruse this my brief discourse; may with all facility perceive such to be grievous diseases of the soul, as heretofore they deemed to be none. But as they that are ignorant of their disease, neither do nor can provide a sovereign remedy for the same: in like manner, neither can they at any time be perfectly cured, who though they know both the disease and the medicine for the same, yet will they not apply that medicine unto their sore. Even so in the subject matter: that papist who will not once read this short volume, which unfoldeth the abomination and manifold deformities of popery: and that by most lively and evident demonstration, deduced out of the bowels of popery itself: must perforce still remain in the agony of his said disease. Again, if any papist shall read it, but with a resolved mind to contradict it, and so either rashly to contemn it, or without just trial to discredit it: Such a papist (as many I fear will be found by sinister persuasion of seditious seminaries,) can not for want of due application, attain the expected effect otherwise correspondent thereunto. And that thou beloved papist whosoever thou art, mayst with more alacrity read this little book; I do assure thee, that my proceeding in the discovery of popish superstitions, vanities, enormities, falsehoods, dissensions, errors, heresies, and blasphemies, is such and so sincere; as upon a salvo conducto (as they term it) granted from any king christian, and licence procured of my gracious dread sovereign; I am and will be most willing, to repair into any province in Christendom; there to give an account, and to make trial of the same. Let therefore no popish censurers, comminations, or excommunications, terrify thee from beholding the dangerous wounds of thy soul. Let no sinister persuasions, of such as are wedded to their own imaginations, dissuade thee from the reading of this discourse. Let no wilful conceit so take place in thine heart, as thou wilt rashly condemn it, before thou make due trial thereof. Call to mind for jesus Christ his sake, and for the salvation of thine own soul; that thou art not this day more zealously affected to Popery, than I myself was of late years. Add hereunto for God's love, that the perfect and exact knowledge of popery, which I have attained by God's grace and painful study; hath so lively set before mine eyes the popish enormities, superstitions, absurdities, errors, impieties, and blasphemies; as upon the due consideration thereof, I could not but loath, detest, and abhor all papistry; and stand at open defiance with the same. Especially, because at length I perfectly understood, that papistry in all ages, had civil wars against itself. Which thing is made so clear and manifest by this little book, as more shall not need to be wished. I have charitably and faithfully penned it, principally and chief for thy sake. And I nothing doubt but through the power of God, it will so sufficiently persuade thee, to use the ordinary means of thy salvation; that is, humbly to read the holy scriptures, which hath not heretofore been thy custom; diligently to frequent godly sermons, which are now common in this Realm, God be thanked: and often to confer with zealous preachers, for thy better instruction and sound confirmation; as thou wilt shortly be a greater enemy to popery, than thou wast before a friend thereunto. For in this small volume thou shalt perceive evidently, that not only popish monks, friars, and jesuits; but also their schoolmen, their Summists, their canonists, their Thomistes, their Scotists, their Abbots, their Bishops, their archbishops, their Cardinals, yea, and their greatest pope's themselves, have all in their domestical dissensions and civil wars, so battered and made equal with the ground, the bulwarks of their popery; as no foreign enemy shall henceforth need, either to stand in fear of their fortresses, or to make assaults against the same. So surceasing to speak of their muttering upon beads; their prayers in strange tongues; their consecrations of bells, Churches, altars, chalices, patens, corporals, copes, vestments, albes, girdles, tunicles, chesibles, mitres; their exorcisms or incantations over oils, chrismes, ashes, palms, candles, salt, water, bread; their sacrificing upon such altars, in such Churches, before such relics; to which their sacrifices such sanctimony and merits are ascribed, as that seminary is deemed best disposed for English long intended invasion; who hath occupied himself most busily, in that their superstitious kind of doting; their reservations of their bread-gods, often putrefied, and now and then of mice devoured; their idolatrical adoration of relics, especially of their so termed vultus sanctus: surceasing I say, from speaking of these and like popish deliraments, and instantly wishing thy christian conversion in Christ jesus, I bid thee hearty farewell. The names of the ancient writers and holy fathers, alleged in the treatise following. DIonysius Areopagita. Irenaeus. Tertullianus. Origenes: Cyprianus. justinus. Lactantius. Athanasius. Hilarius. Eusebius Caesariensis. Basilius. Ambrose. Hieronymus. Augustinus. Chrysostomus. Beda. Euthymius. Ruffinus. Platina. The names of popish writers alleged in this volume, who all are of great estimation amongst the papists, and highly renowned in the church of Rome. Popes, or Bishops of Rome. Clemens. Gregorius magnus. Adrianus. Innocentius. Cardinals, to the pope's or Bishop's of Rome. Caietanus. Turrecremata. These were popish archbishops of great learning. Antonius. Panormitanus. Popish Bishops excellently well learned. joannes Roffensis. Ambrose Catharinus. Melchior Canus. Popish Abbots. Rupertus. Bernardus. Popish canonists. Gratianus. Angelus. Navarrus. Covarruvias. Popish summists. Sylvester. Fumus. These were popish monks or Popish friars. Alphonsus. Victoria. Dionys. Carth. Carranza. joseph. Ang. Bellarminus. Popish schoolmen. Lombardus. Albertus. Alensis. Richardus. Bonaventura. Aquinas. Durandus. Dom. Soto. Paludanus. Mayro. Popish writers, who though they were not equal in dignity, yet not inferior in learning to the rest. Lyranus. Gersonus. Almaynus. Cusanus. Abulensis. Viguerius. Snoygoudanus. Burgensis. Ben. Arias. Mathias Thoring. joan. de Combis. Bryto. These were popish Synods. Conc. Constantinopolitanum. 6. Conc. Constantinop. 8. Conc. Basiliense. Conc. Lateranense. 1. Conc. Later. 2. Conc. Tridentinum. Catholic Counsels. Concilium Nicaenum. Conc. Chalcedonense. Popish constitutions, or books equal with popish synods. Decreta. Decretalia. Liber sextus. Missale Romanum. Popish commentaries of great account in the Romish Church. Glossa decretalium. Glossa decretorum. Glossa ordinaria. Glossa interlinialis. THE FIRST BOOK CONTAINING CERTAIN preambles for the better satisfaction of the simply seduced Papists; as also that the motives in the other book following may be read with greater profit. The first Preamble. IN the church of Rome for many years together, were learned and godly bishops, who lived orderly; preached the word of God sincerely, and fed their flock carefully: but in success of time, by little and little the Romish bishops did degenerate from the godly life and holy doctrine of their ancestors, and became wolves unto their flocks, tyrants unto the world. This is proved at large by the testimonies of approved popish doctors, in the second book and third chapter in the 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. conclusions. The great popish schoolman and Spanish Friar Victoria, writeth in this manner; by little and little, not all at once, we were brought to this in ordinat course, and to this so miserable state, that now we are neither able to endure our griefs, nor such remedies as the church of Rome assigneth for the same. but if we had this day such good bishops or Popes, as Clemens, Linus and Sylvester were, then might we commit all things safely unto them: but alas to say the best of them, because I would not willingly reprove them, the Popes now are far inferiors to the ancient bishops of Rome. Read Victoria his own words, in the fourth conclusion of the fift chapter: in which chapter the reader shall find much other worthy matter to the like effect; as that the dissolute practice of the church of Rome is now so intolerable, that the world is not able to endure it; that not only the simple sort, but even the best of all are greatly scandalised therewith; that none seek for dispensations, whether it be for marriages, or for irregularities, or for spiritual benefices, but they roundly obtain their suits; that not so many keep the law, as are dispensed to break the la: add hereunto the seventh preamble for more perspicuity. The 2. Preamble. Blind Byardes, that neither had any thing neither knew any thing, desirous to speak placentia, and to flatter the Popes for their own preferment, began to write glosses upon the popish law, and therein to ascribe lordly and more than royal titles to the Pope: so doubtless saith their religious Friar Victoria. Read his words in the sixth chapter, and third conclusion. So then through ignorance and poverty, our holy father aspired to his tyranny. The 3. Preamble. THe Pope hath no power coactive over any king, but is the emperors subject, and oweth him obedience: Pope Gregory surnamed the great, doth confess no less, read the sixth Chapter. The 4. Preamble. POpe john was enforced to recant his false doctrine, before the king and the learned at Paris. Read the third chapter, and the fift conclusion. ergo Peter's faith failed in the Pope. The 5. Preamble. THe Pope in S. Cyprians time, was esteemed but as fellow and companion to other bishops: for which cause S. Cyprian contemned his opinion, and rejected his determination, though set down by the consent of a provincial council: which doubtless S. Cyprian would never have done, if he had acknowledged or granted any such authority to the Pope, as the Pope this day challengeth to himself. Nay S. Cyprian thought himself every way the Pope's equal, and the African counsel to be of as good authority, as the Italian or Romish synod, and therefore reproved the Pope very sharply both of pride and ignorance. read the third chapter and last conclusion. The 6. Preamble. ALl the Apostles had not only the same power and authority, but jurisdiction also, as wholly, largely, effectually, and in all respects as Peter had. Read the sixth chapter and first conclusion. The 7. Preamble. POpish purgatory was invented by Popes and Popish parasites, neither was it ever admitted, liked, or believed of the greek church until this day. Read the 7. chapter and 2. conclusion. and here I will allege the very words of our Roffensis sometime bishop of Rochester, a man so renowned not in England only, but through out the world amongst papists, as his words may carry credit sufficient with them. thus he writeth, I will not alter or change one word. Sed & graecis adhunc usque diem, non est creditum purgatorium esse. legate qui velit Graecorum veterum commentarios, & nullum quantum opinor, Roffensis count assertion: Luther. art. 18. prope initium. aut quam rarissimum de purgatorio sermonem inveniet. sedneque latini simul omnes ac sensim, huius rei veritatem conceperunt. & paulo post; non absque maxima sancti spiritus dispensatione factum est, quod post tot annorum curricula purgatorij fides, & indulgentiarum usus ab Orthodoxis generatim sit receptus, quumdiis nulla fuerat de purgatorio cura, nemo quaesivit indulgentias. nam ex illo pendet omnis indulgentiarum existimatio. si tollas purgatorium, quorsum indulgentijs opus erit? his enim si nullum fuerit purgatorium, nihil indigebimus. contemplantes igitur aliquandiu purgatorium incognitum fuisse. deinde quibusdam pedetentim, partim ex revelationibus, partim ex scripturis fuisse creditum, atque ita tandem generatim eius fidem ab orthodoxa ecclesia fuisse receptissimam, facillime rationem aliquam indulgentiarum intelligimus. quum itaque purgatorium tam sero cognitum ac receptum ecclesiae fuerit universae, quis iam de indulgentijs mirari potest, quod in principio nascentis ecclesiae nullus fuerat earum usus? caeperunt igitur indulgentiae, postquam ad purgatorij cruciatus aliquandiu trepidatum er at. The Greeks' to this day, do not believe that there is a purgatory. read who will the commentaries of the ancient Grecians, and he shall find either very seldom mention of purgatory, or none at all. for neither did the Latin Church conceive the verity of this matter at one time, but by leisure. neither was it done without the great dispensation of the holy ghost, that after so many years Catholics both believed purgatory, and received the use of pardons generally. so long as there was no care of purgatory, no man sought for pardons. for of it dependeth all the estimation, that we have of pardons. if thou take away purgatory, to what end shall we need pardons? for if their be no purgatory, we shall need no pardons: considering therefore how long purgatory was unknown, then that it was believed of some by little and little, partly by revelations, and partly by the Scriptures, and so at the last believed generally of the whole church, we do easily understand the cause of pardons. since therefore purgatory was so lately known and received of the universal church, who can now admire pardons, that there was no use of them in the primitive Church. pardons therefore began after the people stood in some fear of purgatory. these are the words, of this popish bishop. which words, if they be well marked with all the circumstances, are able without more ado, to persuade any man to detest the Romish religion, for which cause I have alleged them at large. 1 First therefore we learn here, that the greek church never believed purgatory to this day. 2 Secondly, that the Latin church and church of Rome did not believe the said purgatory, for many hundreds of years after S. Peter's death, whose successor the pope boasteth himself to be. 3 thirdly, that this purgatory was not believed of all the latin church at one and the same time, but by little and little. where note by the way, that popery crept into the church by little and little, & not all at one time. which is a point that galleth the papists, more than a little I ween. 4 Fourthly, that purgatory was believed in the latter days, by special revelation of the holy ghost. 5 fiftly, that pardons came not up, till purgatory was found out. for in purgatory resteth the life of pardons, as which there being no purgatory, are not worth a straw. 6 Sixtly, that purgatory was a long time unknown. 7 Seventhly, that purgatory could not be found in the scriptures, of a long time. 8 eightly, that it was not wholly found out by the scriptures, but partly by revelations. 9 Ninthly, that pardons were not heard of or known to the primitive church. 10 Tenthly, that then pardons began when men began to fear the pains of purgatory, Behold now gentle reader, what a worthy fisher was my popish Lord of Rochester? he hath caught with his net at one draughtten goodly fishes, that is to say, ten worthy observations for Christian edification. Further than this, out of the seventh and eight observations, I gather three special documents by a necessary and irrefragable consecution. First, that the second book of the Maccabees is not Canonical, or penned by the holy ghost. For if that book were of canonical authority, which the papists purgatory could not but have been known, so soon as that book was known, which yet Roffensis denieth. The reason is evident, because purgatory is very effectually & plainly contained therein. secondly, that the Church of Rome (for of that church speaketh the Bishop) reputeth the works of God unperfect, albeit Moses avoucheth the contrary. Dei, inquit, perfecta sunt opera. The works Deut. cap. 2. vers. 4. of God, saith he, are perfect. I prove this, because as the Bishop saith, the scriptures made purgatory known to the church, but unperfectly: yet the truth is, that if God make purgatory known by the scriptures, than purgatory is made known perfectly by them, or else God's works, that is, the holy scriptures, must be unperfect. but I will rather believe Moses the holy prophet of God, than my lord our fisher, though the pope's canonised martyr. thirdly, this Bishop for this his doctrine, must either come again to retract his opinion, or else will he nile he, condemn the pope and church of Rome. This I will prove, by a most plain and evident demonstration. For the better understanding whereof, I shall desire the gentle reader to observe three things with me. First, that the church of Rome preacheth now and did in this Bishop's time, that the books of Maccabees are canonical scripture, and penned by the holy ghost. secondly, that the church of Rome neither believed nor knew purgatory, for many years together after the receipt of holy scripture, and these books of Maccabees. thirdly, that purgatory is effectually and plainly contained in the second book of Maccabees by popish estimation, in that their Latin vulgata edition, which their tridentine council hath most straitly charged all christendom to observe, as all papists now a days repute the same a stable bulwark for their purgatory. the words are these: sancta ergo & salubris est cogitatio pro defunctis exorare, ut à peccatis solvantur, it is therefore a good and godly consideration 2. Machab. cap. 12. vers. 26. to pray for the dead, that they may be cleansed from their sins. these words are so plain and so easy, as not only the whole church, but my lord Bishop, yea and every scholar that but meanly knoweth the latin tongue, must needs understand the same. And consequently must needs know purgatory by them, if he can use any discourse at all, as my lord of Rochester could do right well. upon these observations than I infer first, that the church of Rome not knowing purgatory for many years, after she had received the scriptures, in which purgatory was so plainly and effectually contained as they now grant, did not repute the books of Maccabees for canonical scriptures, and consequently did not believe purgatory mentioned therein. For this indeed is most true, of the old and good church of Rome, as Roffensis hath proved against his will. I infer secondly, that the church of God never had or can have other scriptures or other faith, than the apostles had, and believed in their time. For the latter church never had nor ever shall have authority, to coin any new scriptures or new faith. The church of Rome therefore taught most wicked doctrine in my L. Bishop's time, which he well perceived and acknowledged in his own conscience, or else was in that point infatuated & become a very fool, according to this saying of the Gospel, Confiteor tibi pater domine coeli & terrae, quia abscondisti haec à sapientibus Matt. cap. 11. vers. 25. & prudentibus, & revelasti ea parvulis. I give thee thanks, O Father Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and men of understanding, and revealed them unto babes. The 8. Preamble. ALbeit the papists do reprove others bitterly, when they reject some authotities, though upon important and grounded reasons, yet themselves with all liberty reject & contemn authorities at their pleasures. They reject the fourth book of Esaias, as Bellar. lib. 1. de verbo dei. cap. 4. Bellarminus confesseth. They reject the last clause of the Lords prayer, as Arius Montanus witnesseth. They reject the 65. canon of the Apostles, as granteth Bellarminus in these words: Respondeo canonem Aries Montanus in cap. 6. Matt. Bellar. lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. cap. 27. istum supposititium videri, solum. n. quinquaginta canones apostolorum ecclesia recipit. I answer that this canon is a counterfeit, for the church (of Rome) receiveth only 50. canons of the apostles. Mark gentle reader, that this canon reproveth the practice of the Church of Rome, and so the church, si dijs placet, will not receive it. They reject the sixth general council, because forsooth it prescribeth limits to the bishop of Rome, and denieth his usurped jurisdiction. That they reject this solemn and universal council, Bellarminus avoucheth stoutly: but pope Adrian reputed a most grave writer by the learned papists, received and reverenced the said council. Bellar. ubi sup. for these are his words, cited in their own canon law: Sextam synodum sanctam cum om nibus canonibus suis recipio. I receive the sixth holy Dist. 16. cap. 6. synod, with all the canons thereof. Lo, the Pope himself and their own canon la, confirm this council to be of good authority. Read the next chapter in the said canon lavy, for there is large matter uttered for the approbation, of the same. They reject that part of the council of Constance, which Pope Martin would not allow. And why would not he allow that part, as well as he approved the other parts? because for soothe it denieth the Pope's authority, to be above the council. but because I will not rip up Bellar. lib. 2. de conciliis, cap. 19 popish licentious liberty to the bottom, I will rest with recital of that only liberty, which Bellarminus useth in defence of popish mass: these are his words; Porro epistolae duae quae circumferuntur Bellar. lib. 2. de Missa. cap. 16. de hac re, Damasi ad Hieronymum & Hieronymi ad Damasum, supposititiae sunt. Furthermore the two epistles which are carried about, of Damasus to Hierome, and of Hierome to Damasus, are counterfeit. But the absurdest Epistles, Canons, and writings that ever were or can be, are very authentical with them, and most currant, so they make for our holy father the pope his usurped jurisdiction. For proof of this point, I will content myself with two examples for brevity sake. For by them and the disproof thereof, the reader may have a sufficient conjecture of the rest. The former example, Epist. 1. Clementis ad Jacobum fratrem dom. 1. council. is taken out of S. Clement's epistle to S. james. in this and the other epistles following put forth in the name of S. Clement, is commended unto us, auricular confession, the sacrifice of the mass, the subjection of kings to bishops, the primacy of S. Peter and such like, for which respects the said epistles are currant and authentical amongst the papists. but magna est veritas & praevalet, great is 3. Esd. cap. 4. vers. 42. the truth and it prevaileth, for the very words of the epistle betray and bewray the same, and make it manifest unto all the world, that it is a counterfeit. These therefore are the words: Clemens jacobo domino, episcopo episcoporum regenti Hebraeorum sanctam ecclesiam Hirosolymis, sed & omnes ecclesias quae ubique Dei providentia fundatae sunt, cum patribus & diaconibus, & caeteris omnibus patribus, pax tibi sit semper. Clement to lord james the bishop of bishops, that governeth the holy church of the Hebrewes at Jerusalem, as also that governeth all churches founded by God's providence throughout the world, with the fathers and deacons, and all other fathers, peace be to thee alway. Now gentle reader thou hast heard the words, and so beholdest no doubt the vanity thereof: for if S. james were not only bishop of Jerusalem, but the bishop of bishops, and the governor of all Churches in the christian world, as this epistle affirmeth; then doubtless was S. james the pope and supreme head of the church, & not S. Peter; and yet doth the self same epistle avouch, that S. Peter was the head of the church, and that S. Peter lying sick in his bed called S. Clement unto him, and told him that his hour of death was at hand, and that therefore he appointed the said Clement to be his successor, and to sit in his chair at Rome. But S. james succeeded Christ himself at Jerusalem, who was indeed the head of holy Church: and therefore S. james should rather be Pope then S. Clement, if there were indeed any such pope at all. the latter example is taken out of that work which is fathered upon S. Augustine, of true and false repentance. which book, because it seemeth to approve confession of sins to priests, is good and authentical with papists; but as God would have it, the self same book confuteth itself so plainly, as none with reason can esteem it worth a straw. For in that very book the author thereof (who soever Aug. dever. & fals. poenit. cap. 17. he were) allegeth S. Austin's opinion, and confuteth the same. These are the words: quod quam vis licet de eius salute Augustinus potuit dubitare, credo quidemilli qui dixit; quacunque hora peccator ingemuerit, & conversus fuerit, vita vivet. because although S. Augustine doubted of his salvation, yet do I believe him that said: at what hour Ezech. 33. soever a sinner shall repent and be converted, he shall live. These are the words of this writer, which doubtless cannot be S. Augustine's, because S. Austen would never speak of himself as of a strange third person, and purposely confute himself, as this author confuteth Augustine. Besides this, S. Augustine in his books of confession doth utterly condemn confession of sins unto Priests, as I have proved in the chapter of auricular confession, but alas, the Papists as they have but one only place of the Maccabees for their forged pugatorie, so have they but only this place of S. Augustine for their popish confession. And therefore no marvel if they invent poor & miserable shifts, to have them both reputed authentical if it would be. The 9 Preamble. THe chiefest and principal thing that seduceth and maketh so many wilful papists, is this (gentle reader) for certainty. when so ever any one of what degree, calling, or condition soever, shall become a papist and yield himself to the slanedome of popish religion, that person must buy and buy profess ipso facto, to believe and embrace all the pope's decrees of faith and manners, as the very self decrees of the holy ghost, and also to obey his ordinances and censures, as the laws of God and not of man: their reason whereof is, because as they say, the holy Ghost doth so direct, couduct, and guide the Pope's tongue and pen, that he can neither define, command, or write any thing in judicial and difinitive manner, but it must perforce proceed from the holy ghost: out of which falsely supposed ground, two most pernicious evils follow of necessity. The one, that whensoever any difficulty, doubt, or controversy ariseth about any matter of religion, then by and by the Papists consider first of all what the pope holdeth (whether it be in the decrees, decretals, the sixth book, Clementines, extravagants) and that done, they will coin one distinction or other, by which they will rack the meaning of the question, difficulty, reason, father, or scripture propounded, to agree with that which the pope holdeth. For they will never examine the pope's decrees by the scriptures, fathers or counsels: but the fathers, or counsels, & scriptures, See the 13. orticle of dissension, cap. 8. and the words of Covarruvias in the 5. chap. & 1. conclusion. by the Pope's faith, constitutions, & practise. for if any can once say, the Church, that is, the pope holdeth so, then is the controversy at an end, he shall be deemed an heretic that proceedeth one jot further. for their canon law hath made it sacrilege, to dispute, of the pope's power. Read the first chapter. the other, that none may or dare read, either the scriptures translated into their vulgar tongue, or any expositors upon the latin Bible, or any book of controversies, or any writer whosoever in any matter of religion, popish writers only excepted, unless they first have a licence from the pope: which licence is never granted, but to special persons & upon special considerations. And out of this sharp, unchristian, and diabolical prohibition, issueth the third evil; to wit, that not one papist among ten thousand knoweth any thing pertaining to religion, save only a few special points of popish doctrine. For they are taught, that to believe as the fable of the collier teacheth them, is sufficient: the devil as cardinal Hosius reporteth, disputed with a poor collier, ask him how he believed, I believe, said the collier, as the church believeth: then the devil demanding how the Church believed, the collier answered in this manner: I believe as the church believeth, and the church believeth as I believe, & there he rested, and would not remove one jot. At the same stay are all papists this day, who believe as the church of Rome believeth, though they cannot tell how it believeth, but only in a general and gross manner, and so they often times believe they know not what. Marry our English papists for fear of the statute, dare not stand upon this belief, (though it be their stay indeed,) but flee to another bulwark as they deem it, to wit, it is against my conscience, when yet in very deed, they can no more tell what conscience is, than they know what the romish church believeth. The 10. Preamble. THe religion this day established by godly laws in this realm of England, is the ancient, christian, catholic, and apostolic doctrine, which was taught by Christ and his apostles, practised in the primitive church, & ever continued in the hearts of the faithful until this hour, and shall no doubt to the world's end. And though the common people for the greater part, call it the new religion: yet is that a mere childish vanity, and the popish doctrine the new religion in very deed. For the old Romish religion, is this day holden and observed in this Realm. which thing is proved at large, These Capuchenes are yet in Rome. throughout my second book: for example, the profession of the romish Capuchenes is not a new profession in religion, but the old franciscan profession newly reform: and therefore do they term themselves the reformed franciscanes, which yet the other corrupt, and dissolute franciscans will not acknowledge, and even so in our case, the religion now established in England, is not a religion opposite to the first old Romish religion, but the old Romish religion newly reform, and purged from the corruptions and abuses crept into the same. From which ancient and pure religion the pope and his adherents are departed, like as the franciscans are also gone from their old popish franciscan profession. The 11. Preamble. THe ignorant papists (that is, all papists or very few excepted) do greatly loath and abhor the christian catholic religion, now established in this land by godly laws in a godly manner. And this they do upon a ground falsely so supposed, by reason of their ignorance therein. their falsely conceived ground is, that our religion contemneth good works, and justifieth the most wicked livers upon earth: which if it were as they imagine, than were it indeed a great motive to dislike of our religion. But gentle reader, it is a most notorious slander doubtless, as I shall evidently prove unto thee. Hieronymus Zanchius writeth thus: Primi affectus Zanch. de nature. dei lib. 5. cap. 2. part. 2. q. 6. regenerationis ac spiritus, sunt amor justitiae, legisque divinae, & odium peccati: The first affects or fruits of regeneration and of the spirit, are love of justice, and of the law divine, and hatred of sin: and a little after he saith thus; Fily Dei & diligunt & faciunt justitiam, filii autem diaboli, & amant & faciunt peccatum. The children of God both love and do justice, but the children of the devil both love and do sin. and again, Manifestum fit studium bonorum operum effectum esse preaestinationis: It is manifest, that study to live well, and to do good works, is the effect of predestination: and an hundred such like places the same author hath, which I let pass for brevity sake. neither doth any other of the learned amongst us: hold contrary to this doctrine. nay all the pulpits God be thanked, found out and extol the praise of good works, yea which is more to be admired of the papists, who think so basely of our religion, we affirm the good works of the regenerate to be so acceptable in God's sight, that he will not suffer the least thereof to be unrewarded. & further we teach & affirm in our religion, that the regenerate & children of God can not continued in god's favour, unless they detest sin, strive against the concupiscence of the flesh, & do good works. yet further we avouch constantly, that none can beleeùe truly in Christ, which doth not love Christ, & which doth not employ his whole care, study, & industry, to do the will of Christ, and to keep his commandments. And that this is the faith and doctrine of the Church of England very many God be thanked for it, have left to their posterity lively testimonies of the same: whereof I will only name one, who as he did inwardly in his heart believe the gospel, so did he outwardly in his life profess it, and after his death confirm the same, with a most charitable and christian testimony of immortal memory. I speak of that honourable and zealous christian Sir Walter Mildmey, the late founder of a most famous college in the university of Cambridge, which he termed not after his own name (as the greater part useth,) but Emanuel, that is, God with us: giving us to understand thereby, that as he believed and loved God, so he would testify the same to all posterities by that, worthy act, as by the effect and fruit of a lively faith. Now then how do we differ from the papists herein? Zanchius shall answer. Atque hic est unus ex praecipuis usibus bonorumoperum, quod ijs non tanquam Zanch uti supra. salutis causis, sadtanquam effectis predestinationis & fidei, tum nos, tum proximi, certiores fimus nostrae electionis, eoque & salutis. And this is one of the chiefest uses of good works, that both we and our neighbours are assured by them of our election and salvation, not as by the causes of salvation, but as by the effects of predestination and of faith. But the papists will say: if good works cannot merit glory nor justify: wherefore then must we do them? I answer, that we must live well and do good works, for the love and duty we own to God, and because so is his holy will and good pleasure. so saith the Apostle, in these words, ipsius enim sumus factura, creati in Christo jesu in operibus bonis, quae preparavit Deus ut in illis ambulemus. for we are his workmanship created in Christ jesus unto good works, which God hath ordained that we should walk in them. so then, we think as reverently and esteem as worthily of good works, as doth any papist in the world. for we grant that none can be saved or sanctified without good works: and further, that none is truly justified which hath not good works: & yet for all that do we constantly affirm, and that by the authority of holy writ, that no man is or can be justified, by virtue of his good works: & the error of the Papists consisteth in this, that they do not distinguish between sanctification and justification. the truth of our doctrine (which is the verity grounded in the sacred scriptures,) is this, that sanctification & iustificatió, are inseparably united in one & the same subject, in eodem instanti tëporis nonnaturae, as the schools speak, that is: we are freely justified & sanctified also in the same instant of time, but first justified in priority of nature: for example, fire and the heat are both at one and the same time, though fire be before in priority of nature: that is, though fire go before: as the cause of every thing is before the effect of the same, and as fire is not before heat in time, and yet the cause of that heat, so is our justification not before our sanctification, or our inherent justice in time, and yet is it the cause of our sanctification, of our inherent justice, and of all the good works we do: which thing if the papists would once seriously observe, they would not differ from our opinion in this behalf, unless they have fully resolved, to oppose themselves desperately against the truth. The 12. Preamble. WHo so ever will but even superficially consider the uncertainty of popish doctrine, shall thereby without further discourse find sufficient matter to abhor and detest the same, as most frivolous, most ridiculous, most irreligious. For example, in the sacrament of the altar as they term it: if certain questions be propounded unto them, the best learned know not what to answer, but so simply and so sottishly, as every child may espy the folly of their doctrine. If any papist can truly and without blushing say the contrary, let the same be notified by his answer, to these my brief demands. 1. First, I demand how they excuse the people that adore with divine worship, the thing elevated over the priests head at Mass, from idolatry, from heresy, from false belief. For if either the Priest want intention to consecrate (which often chanceth by reason of wandering imaginations,) or of purpose meaneth not to consecrate, or of negligence omitteth any word of consecration, then by popish religion the thing adored, is but pure bread, & so the adorers thereof become idolaters, worshipping a piece of bread for Cap. dubium de haeret. Navarr. cap. 11. parag. 18. Barthol. fumus de haeres. parag, 17. the everliving God. And if the people either refuse to adore, or doubt if they may adore, they are deemed heretics ipso facto for their pains, because as the Pope's disholy canons tell us, he that but doubteth of Romish definitions, concerning faith and manners, is an heretic. 2 secondly, I demand what it is that the priest receiveth and delivereth to the communicants, when he having 40. breads before him, supposeth them to be but 38. or 39 and so intendeth to consecrate no more? for beyond the priests intention, consecration cannot extend, as all wise Papists grant, neither is his intention more limited to one bread then to an other, and therefore can no more consecrate one bread then another. 3 thirdly, I demand which part of the host as they term it, is the popish made God, when the sacrificer intendeth indefinitely to consecrate the one half of the said host, and how there in adoring they can avoid idolatry. 4 Fourthly, I demand how many gods, or how many times God is made in one and the same host, in and at that Mass, when all the newly made priests do consecrate, in their Romish Church Latheran? for they are all appointed to consecrate, they do all pronounce the words, they are all bounden to have intention, and yet when the principal author, to wit, the Bishop, is at the last syllable, some of the rest be in the midst, some in the beginning, some in one place, some in another, never a one jumping with other in that instant, in which they should their breadgod make: for of this matter are three solemn dissonant opinions, amongst the great Romish Rabbins. Pope Innocentius josephus Angles, in 4. s. q. 7. de Eucharist. 8. diffic. holdeth, that all do consecrate: Durandus avowcheth that that Priest only consecratetth, which with greatest speed first cometh to the end: but Cardinal Caietan hath another consideration. 5 Fifthly, I demand concerning their words of consecration, what is in the priests hand when he hath uttered all the words save one? if they answer the body of Christ, then doth it follow, that the principal word of their consecration is needless, that their words of consecration be uncerten, and that their consecratory words so called, be not causative of their falsely supposed effect: if they say it is pure bread, or bread in substance but altered in quality, then doth it follow necessarily, that the consecration consisteth of the last word only, and that all the rest are mere extrinsical to their imagined transubstantiation: if they say it is neither Christ's body, nor bread, but an unknown substance, or as they term it sometime, individuum vagum, we may truly tell them, that their certainty of their idolatrous sacrament, is as uncerten as the weathercock. 6 Sixtly, I demand of them how Christ's natural body being large, is contained in around cake being little, since Christ's body is a true organical body, which hath diverse parts every one distant from another: if they say that Christ's body is there without dimensions, their own angelical, and famous Doctor Aquinas is against them: if they say, that though it can not be so by natural power, yet can God miraculously Aquinas. p. 3. q. 76. art. 4. bring so much to pass: to that I answer, that so to say can not serve their turn, for by the confession of all learned men, yea, even of all popish schoolmen and Doctors, there be many things which God can not do, or rather many things which can no way be done: for example, God can not sin, God can not make time passed not to be passed, God can not make that a blind man remaining blind, do not want his sight, though he can give sight to the blind: God can not make that a dead man remaining dead, have life, though he can restore life to the dead: in fine, God can do nothing that implieth contradiction: and yet doth not this want of doing argue impotency in God, who is omnipotent; but defect in the thing that should be done. Now so it is, that this imagined being of Christ's body in a little round cake implieth in itself contradiction, & consequently, can not possibly be done. For example, no power can bring to pass, that a body being six cubits long, and two cubits broad, remaining still so long and broad, shall be contained in another body, being only three cubits long, and one cubit broad: and the reason hereof is, because so to contain, and be contained, implieth contradiction. And this is the case now put, of Christ's body in the round popish cake. Let all the papists in England or else where solve this reason, and I will be their bondman. And if they can not solve it, (which indeed is impossible to be done,) then must they perforce confess which they would not, that their doctrine is ridiculous, impossible, and execrable. Seventhlie, I demand how they can defend Christ's body from being broken and divided, when they break and divide their round cakes, since by their doctrine Christ's body is really contained in the same? Eightly, I demand how they can distinguish division of the bread from consecration of the same, or how they can deny it to be of equal force with consecration thereof? for by consecration of one bread, Christ's body is but in one place: but by division of one bread, his body is locally in many places at once. Here endeth the first Book. THE SECOND BOOK: Wherein are confuted the principal grounds of all Romish religion. CAP. I. Of the principal grounds of all Romish faith and religion. TWO things there be which mightily keep all Papists in a certain external uniformity of Religion: as all, whosoever deeply ponder the same, must perforce acknowledge with me. Th'one is the severe punishment & sharp tortures, executed upon all persons whatsoever without exception, of what degree, state, or condition soever, that do but once whisper against the least jot of Popish religion: for better success and Cap. Quicunque de haeret. lib. 6. more free passage of the said Romish religion, the laical people are prohibited by Popish canon law, under pain of excommunication, not to reason at all in matters of faith; and the learned not to examine or discuss, how far the Pope's power doth extend; whatsoever or howsoever, he appoint them to believe: which their own Popish friar Franciscus a Victoria did not dissemble, when out of their own Canon law, he uttered these express words. Non spectat ad subditos determinare aut examinare, quid possit Victor. relect. 4. de potest. Papae, & concilij, proposit. 16. Papa, aut quid non possit, & quomodo teneantur parere vel non, quia sacrilegium est disputare de potentia Principis, & praecipuè Papae. It belongeth not to Popish vassals, to determine or examine what the Pope may do, or what he may not do. For his law hath made it sacrilege, to dispute of the Pope's power: yea, this their irreligious manner of proceeding is executed in such strict sort, as neither any of the laity nor of the Clergy, can under Pius 4. in bulla synod. Trident. pain of Popish excommunication, read either the Old or New Testament, translated into the vulgar tongue, or any other book of controversy, or Divinity, set forth by any not professed vassal unto the pope, unless such person or persons be specially licenced from the pope thereunto. All which is confirmed by daily practice of the Romish church: in so much, as if any utter any one word, that may any way sound or be racked to the dislike of popish doctrine, that man shall buy and buy be cast into their disholy inquisition, and shortly after be burnt with fire & faggot, unless he both swear and subscribe to every article, of their erroneous romish religion. And further, unless he also protest by oath, to disclose whom soever he knoweth then, or shall know afterwards, to hold any opinion against the said romish religion. Nay, though a man be never so sound a papist, yet if he be but found in company with his dear friend, who in affection is opposite to the romish religion, that self sound papist shall be put into the inquisition, and there abide with hard usage, until he pay the last farthing▪ this to be so, M. Massey of Audforth in Cheshire must witness with me, who is this day in Chester jail for his wilful seditious behaviour: for he (though at that time fled into Italy for popish zeal,) was yet thrust into the romish inquisition with young master Dutton now his son-in la: where how long they remained, what was their entertainment, to what they did swear, and so forth, before they were dismissed, atatom habent, let them answer for themselves, they are yet living: it is needless for me to tell their tale. One Aldcorne likewise a citizen of York, was cast into the laid Romish disholy inquisition, upon a very light or rather no suspicion, and there used very hardly a long time, though he were in deed a Papist, and had no language save only his vulgar English tongue. This man is yet living in York, let him say if it be not as I do write. I myself was a mean for his dispatch, and so am notignorant of his case. A thing more strange than the rest: If one pass by an image, or their house of inquisition (which they term the holy house) and do not reverence thereunto, it is enough to cast that man into the said disholy prison. which kind of sharp correction, if it were upon just causes executed within her majesties Dominions, shortly few or no disloyal subjects, would be found in England. Neither is this my bare opinion, but the constant resolution of that most grave, wise, learned, and holy father S. Augustine, who though sometime he had been of the contrary opinion, was nevertheless taught by long experience to acknowledge it: these ate his express words. Donatistae nimiùm inquieti sunt, quos per ordinatas à Deo potestates Aug. epist. 48, ad Vincent, Tom. 2. cohiberi atque corrigi mihi non videtur inutile: nam de multorum iam correctione gaudemus, qui tàm veracitèr unitatem Catholitam tenent, atque defendunt, & a pristino-errore se liberatos esse laetantur, ut eos cum magna gratulatione miremur. qui tamen ne scio qua vi consuetudinis nullo modo mutari in melius cogitarent, nisihoc terrore perculsi. & paulopost: nam mea primitus sententia er at, neminem ad unitatem christianam esse cogendum, verbo esse agendum, di sput atione pugnandum, ratione vincenaum, ne fictos catholicos haberemus, quos apertos haereticos noveramus. Sedhaec opinio mea non contradicentium verbis, sed demonstr antium super abatur exemplis nam primò mihi opponebatur civitas mea, quae cum tot a esset in part Donati, ad unitatem catholicam timore legum imperialium conver saest. The Donatists are to to unquiet, and therefore I think it convenient, that they be restrained and corrected by powers ordained of God. for we already have joy of many, by reason of their correction, who keep and defend catholic unity so sincerely, and A point worthy to be well considered, as which greatly respecteth our case in England. so rejoice, that they are delivered from their old error, as we with great congratulation do admire them who for all that I know not by what force of custom, would never once think of reforming themselves, but only through this fear and terror. My former opinion was, that none should be constrained to christian unity, that we should strive with the word, contend with disputation, and overcome with reason: lest we should have them counterfeit catholics, whom we had known to be open heretics. But this my opinion was over ruled not with words of contradiction, but with examples of demonstration. For first of all mine own city was objected unto me, which standing wholly upon Donatists, was for all that brought to catholic unity, by sharp imperial laws. Thus far S. Augustine. The other thing is a point of so great importance, as none can be more. for if it were true, as the papists with tooth and nail avouch it to be, than were all other religions false, & theirs only true: for there is but one God, one faith, one baptism, one religion; yet if it be false, as false it is indeed, (which by the power of God I shall prove by evident demonstration, and that even by the testimonies of the best learned popish doctors:) then must their religion of necessity be nought, how soever others be. this great and weighty point is, that the Pope can not err in his definitive sentence, whether he define concerning faith or manners. For (say they) Christ committed his church to saint Peter, praying that his faith should never fail: and consequently, he prayed that the Pope as Pope should never err, because the Pope is Saint Peter's successor, and Christ's vicar general upon earth. I say, the pope as pope with reduplication in way of my sincere dealing with the papists, because by the uniform consent of all learned papistes Albertus Pighius only excepted: the Pope in his own private person may be a judas, a fornicator, a simonist, an homicide, an usurer, an atheist, an heretic: and for his manifold iniquities be damned into hell. that this is the doctrine of all papists, as well concerning the pope's private person, as touching his judicial definitions, is confessed by Robertus Bellarminus, Bartholomeus Carranza, Melchior Caws, Dominicus Soto, Thomas Aquinas, Antoninus, Caietanus, Covarruvias, and others: but that the pope as pope and public person can err, that all the said papists with their complices constantly deny: as which one only point once cofeffed, would utterly confound them, and make frustrate their whole religion. For in all difficulties, doubts, and distresses, the papists have ever recourse unto this point, as unto the divine oracle of great god Apollo: that is to say, the church of Rome teacheth so: ergo we must believe so. This point, as it God grant that others may perceive it, as I havedone. maketh many others to be papists, so made it myself one, and kept me one, until by Gods holy inspiration, I perceived the absurdity thereof. This point therefore shall by God's help, be so effectually proved throughout the chapters following: as if any papist in England, or elsewhere in Europe, (I speak a big word for the confidence I have in the justice and verity of the cause,) can truly and substantially confute the same: I will once again embrace his religion, which notwithstanding, I abhor & detest as the poison of my soul. And my proceed throughout this whole treatise shall be such, and so sincere: as if I can be convinced by the adversary, either to allege any writer corruptly, or to quote any place guilefully, or to charge any author falsely: I will never require credit at the reader's hand, neither in this work nor in any other, that I shall publish at any time hereafter: requesting the adversary, that shall perhaps reply upon me, (which is but reason:) to use like sincerity, and to covenant in like manner with me. which if he refuse to grant and observe, he shall condemn himself in every wise man's judgement, before he begin. The second Chapter, of the Pope's pardons, with the quantity, quality, and original thereof. WOnderfully have the pope's or bishops of Rome seduced God's people, many and sundry ways: but never more grossly infatuated or bewitched them, then by their ridiculous, monstrous, and execrable pardons: as which are foolish, uncertain, absurd, new, and the deadly wounds of all popish doctrine. For plain and evident demonstration of this assertion, I put down these conclusions following. The first Conclusion. THe pope's pardons are too too foolish, as which are repugnant to common sense and reason. My proof standeth thus: all relaxations being larger than any man living or dead doth or can need, are too too foolish, but the pope's pardons are such: ergo the pope's pardons are to to foolish. The consequence is good, and the consequent directly and truly inferred upon the premises, as which is in prima figura, and modo darij, as the Logicians term it: the proposition is so evident, as none can or will deny the same: so the difficulty resteth only in the assumption, which I prove three several ways. First, by the huge and infinite numbers of pardons, hanged up in pardoning tables at the pillars of every church for the most part in Rome. which not only myself have seen and read, but many thousand besides me. secondly, by pardons containing many thousand years, expressly set down in old English primars: whereof the papists seem now at length so ashamed, that the like is not to be found in the new tridentine primars. Thirdly, by a little pamphlet of the marvelous things of Rome, which is commonly to be sold every where, one of which I brought from thence myself, and have at this hour. For in all these three, pardons are granted prodigally, (I would say charitably,) for many thousands of years. yea, in the little romish pamphlet to omit other churches, are granted every day to S: john Evangelists church, 6048. years of pardon. Now, lest any be so sottish as to imagine; that a man can need so many years of pardon: that I will disprove sundry ways. First, because it is against the holy scripture, that any man should live so long. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The days of our years in them 70. and if they be of strength 80. years. which words saint Hierome glosseth in this manner: Vbi sunt mill anni? in feptuaginta annis contracti sumus, si autem multum, octoginta. Si autem plus vixerimus, i am non est vita sed mors. Hier. in psa. 99 Where are the thousand years (that they lived of old?) we are now brought to seventy years, and if we endure long, to eighty. but if we live longer, then is it not life but death. 2 secondly, because no man can abide so long in purgatory. And lest some papist reply, and say, that one may be so long in purgatory, I will prove mine assertion by the best popish doctors. Bellarminus in his defence of the pope thinketh that opinion very probable, Bellar. lib. 3. de Rom. pont. cap. 3. which holdeth, that the world shall not henceforth endure above 400. years at the most. And of his opinion are great learned men, Ireneus, justinus, Lactantius, and others. yea Saint Augustine and S. Hierome, are not dissonant from that supposition. the Thalmudistes likewise had a prophecy of Elias, as they say: that the world should continue 6000. years, to wit, 2000 before the la, 2000 in the la, and 2000 after the la: that is, from Christ's incarnation until the second advent, or doomsday. Dominicus Soto commenting upon the master of sentences, holdeth as a stable and constant ground, that no soul in purgatory abideth the pains thereof above ten years. and doubtless, if the pope's pardons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Soto in 4. lib. Petr. Lombardi. dist. 19 quaest, 3. arg. 2 were of force. So to his opinion could not be false. the reason thereof is evident, because all that will may upon small suit (if not without suit,) have not only for themselves but for their friends also, so many thousands of pardons as they shall desire: which liberality in pardoning, pope Gregory bestowed on our disloyal captain Stukley, when he employed him to invade his natural country England. but as the pardons were counterfeit, and Stukeleys heart disloyal: so was the Pope's intention frustrate, and Stukley rewarded accordingly: that is, justly slain for his proud attempt, while myself was at Rome. The 2. Conclusion. THe virtue and efficacy of Pope's pardons is so uncertain and doubtful, and that even amongst the greatest popish doctors: as themselves can not tell, what in the world to say or think thereof. This conclusion I prove thus: Angelus de Clavasio a famous canonist and religious Friar, reciteth 6. several and dissonant opinions Angelus de indulgentia. concerning the virtue of pardons, and after he hath confuted them all, he setteth down the seventh for his own, and the best, which as he saith is true, it is therefore no doubt substantial, as shortly shall be seen. The first opinion (saith our holy Friar,) holdeth that the Pope's pardons only remit that punishment, which God appointeth to be imposed in another world, for a supply unto those, who have done penance only according to the Canons, but doth in no case remit that penance, which is imposed and taxed by the Canons. The second opinion holdeth, that the Pardons only forgive that penance, which is taxed by the law and penitential Canons; but not that pain, which Gods justice appointeth to be imposed. The third opinion holdeth, that Pardons forgive pain due for sin, aswell before God as before his Church: but this opinion addeth a clause so sharp, as our holy Father doth not brook it, to wit, that the Pope is bound to do penance, for that person whom he pardoneth. The fourth opinion holdeth, that the pain of hell is partly remitted by the Pope's pardons, as which becometh thereby more tolerable. The fift opinion holdeth, that that penance only is pardoned, which the party omitted of negligence, not of purpose or contempt. The sixth opinion holdeth, that the Pope's pardons remit not only penance imposed by the Priest, but that also which is taxed of God: marry this opinion hath one limitation, which forsooth is this: that the Priest must be content therewith, or else the Pope can not work his will. The seventh opinion holdeth, that Popish pardons forgive, and are worth so much, as the words of the Pardons do sound: that is to say, if the Pardons contain an hundred thousand years, than the party obtaining such pardons at the Pope's hands, must have remission of so many years. Thus gentle Reader standeth the doctrine of Popish pardons, amongst the greatest Doctors of that faction. He that listeth to peruse the place quoted by me out of Angelus, shall find every thing as I have set it down. The rehearsal of the variety and uncertainty of these opinions, is a most sufficient confutation of the same. Sylvester Prieras a great Sylvester de indulgent. Thomist, and sometime Master of the sacred palace, reciteth three several opinions, and disliking them all, setteth down the fourth for the truth. Antoninus sometime the Archbishop of Florence, allegeth three opinions, and scarce knoweth which of them he should prefer. Bellarminus in his written disputations abridged by Robert Persons his brother jesuite, defendeth and approoveth another opinion plain opposite to all yet rehearsed, and maketh in deed the Pope's pardons not worth a button: which is the cause (as I probably conjecture,) that the third and last part of his disputations, is not permitted as yet to come abroad: and either will never be published, or wholly omitted, or at least changed before it come abroad. The Council of Trent speaketh very slenderly and coldly, of the Pope's pardons. The third Conclusion. TO give pardons as the Pope doth, is a strange and new doctrine of a most damnable Religion, which neither Christ nor his Apostles ever taught or practised. This I will prove, as I do other things, by the express testimonies of the Popes own renowned Doctors: that so all the world may perceive and behold, Papistry confuted and confounded, by papistry itself. Sylvester reputed, and as it were surnamed absolutus Theologus, hath these very words: Indulgentia nobis per Scripturam minimè innotuit, licet inducatur illud Apostoli, (si quid donavi vobis,) sednec per dicta antiquorum Sylvester de indulg. Doctorum, sed modernorum. The Pope's pardons (saith the Pope's own dear Doctor,) were never known to us by the Scriptures, although some allege Saint Paul for that purpose: neither were they known by the ancient Fathers, but only by late writers. Antoninus in his first part hath the very words already cited, and holdeth the self same opinion with friar Sylvester. Petrus Lombardus, who with great diligence collected into one volume, all worthy sentences of the ancient fathers: and therefore was surnamed the Master of sentences, maketh no mention of the Pope's pardons at all; as which he could not find, notwithstanding his painful Antoninus' part. 1. rit. 10. cap. 3. Lombardus: could not find the Pope's pardons in the holy fathers. industry employed in that kind of exercise. For as Sylvester truly writeth, the old writers were not acquainted with any such thing. The like may be said of S, Cyprian, S. Augustine, S. Hierome, Nazianzene, and others of antiquity: for which cause Durand, Cajetan, and sundry other schoolmen, affirm the pope's manner of pardoning, to be a new thing in the Church of God. Neither can Dominicus Soto deny the same indeed, albeit he busieth himself more than a little, in the Pope's defence if it would be. Yea, the original of popish pardoning is so very young, as their famous martyr and bishop, M. Fisher in his answer to M. Luther's articles: was enforced to admit the newness and young age of the same, and to yield this reason in defence Soto in 4. sent. dist. 21. quaest. 1. art. 3. Roffensis contra artic. Luther. thereof: to wit, that purgatory was not so well known at that time to the Church, as it is now. which saying I ween is true indeed, because purgatory and pardous were not heard of in old time, and now only known by vain, gross, and sensual imaginations. O worthy pardons? O brave purgatory? O holy pope of Rome? what strong reasons, what forcible arguments, what grave authorities, are alleged in your behalf? Let us hear with attention the final resolution hereof, set down by Sylvester and Antoninus for their holy father the pope. Quia inquiunt, Ecclesia hoc facit & servat, credendum est ita esse. Sylvester & Antoninus ubi supra. Because the Church this doth, and thus observeth, we must believe that it is so. Lo, a short and sweet conclusion: as if they should say, though we can prove the pope's pardons, neither by Scriptures, nor by fathers, nor by reasons, yet must we believe them, because the Church, that is, the pope saith so, who can not err: which saying, (gentle Reader,) both hath been, and is, the sole and only foundation of all notorious Papistry. The 4. Conclusion. THE Pope's manner of pardoning, argueth aswell inordinate affection of filthy lucre, as also want of charity. His want of charity is proved, and convinced, in that he can deliver (as his religion teacheth,) all souls out of purgatory with his word: and nevertheless suffereth them to abide most bitter torments, so many years in that affliction. For the papists hold, that the pains of purgatory are as great and painful, as be the torments of hell: and that they differ accidentally in this only, because the pains of purgatory shall once have an end, but the pains of hell, never. Thus writeth Sylvester Prieras. Sicut potest (Papa) liberare à poena peccatorum debita in hoc mundo Sylvester ubi supr. Par. 7. omnes qui sunt in mundo, si faciant quod mandat, etiamsi essent millies plures quàm sunt: it a liberare potest omnes qui sunt in purgatorio, siquis pro eis faciat quod jubet. As the Pope can deliver all in this world, from pain due for sin in this world, if they do that which he appointeth, though they were thousands more than they be: even so can he deliver all that are in purgatory, if any do that for them which he commandeth: and lest any man should think that impossible, or a very difficult matter, which the Pope requireth to be done: Sylvester in another place telleth us, that it is a thing most easy. These be his words: Indulgentiae simplicitèr tantum valent, quantum praedicantur, Sylvester ubi supr. Par. 7. modò exparte dantis sit autoritas, ex part recipientis charitas, & ex part causae pietas. Pardons are simply worth so much as they are preached, so there be authority in the giver, charity in the receiver, & piety in the cause or motive. But so it is, that the souls in purgatory be in charity by popish confession, for else they could not be out of hell: and that the pope hath authority, as also that he granteth his Pardons for good and godly causes, I suppose no Papist will deny: if they do, my argument is the stronger, and myself shall easily agree there to. Bartholomaeus Fumus confirmeth this point, when he thus writeth. Barthol. Fumus de Papa. Par. 11. Papa posset liberare omnes animas Purgatorij, etiamsiplures essent, si quis pro eis faceret quod iuberet, peccaret tamen indiscretè concedendo. The Pope could set at liberty all the souls of Purgatory though never so many, if any would do that for them which he appointed: marry he should sin by his undiscreet pardoning. And the popish schole-doctor Viguerius proceedeth further, and avowcheth it to be neither inconvenient, nor against the justice of God: these are his express words. Nec est inconveniens quòd Papa Purgatorium posset evacuare, non enim per hoc aliquid detraheretur Divinae justitiae. Viguerius de Sacrament. ordinis in fine. Neither is it inconvenient that the Pope can harrow hell, for that doth nothing derogate from the justice of God. Now to say that he can this do, but yet doth it not, to keep himself from sin: is altogether vain and frivolous. For first, he should no more sin in delivering all, than he doth in setting one only at liberty, as is already proved by Sylvester and Viguerius. Again, plenary Pardons are so common at the hour of death, as none that either have friends or money, are or can be destitute thereof: which yet is a point more undiscreet than the other, by their own doctrine. Thirdly, the three conditions required for the legitimation of Popish Pardoning, concur as sweetly in delivering all together jointly, as in delivering one by one severally. His inordinate affection of lucre is convinced in this, that albeit he can with one only pardon set open the gates of Purgatory, and so set all the prisoners at liberty: yet will he not extend that compassion to them, but taketh this course with them, that they shall appoint Pia Legata by their last wills and testaments, for Masses, Diriges, and Trentals to be said yearly, or rather perpetually, (if their ability will extend so far:) with which Masses, Diriges, and Trentals, his pardons shall concur, and so deliver them by discretion. By reason of which ungodly policy, we may this day behold with our eyes, so many altars erected, so many Churches sumptuously decked, so many Priests richly maintained, especially in Saint Gregory's Church at Rome. For which Masses, Diriges, and Trentals, huge sums of money are given, daily, yearly, perpetually, not for the Masses formally concedo, but yet formally for the priests pains, and materially for the Masses, constanter assero. The 5 Conclusion. THE foundation of the Pope's pardons is wicked, blasphemous, and derogatory to the most precious blood of Christ, shed for man's redemption. This is the proof of this conclusion: the Pope and many of his popish Doctors tell us, that the foundation Sylvester de indulg. Pat 4. Soto in 4. sent. dist. & art. 2. of their popish pardons is this, Thesaurus meritorum Christi, & Sanctorum eius: the treasure of the merits of Christ, and of his Saints. For say they, not only Christ, but many of his Saints also, suffered much more than was due for their own sins: which works of supererogation or satisfactions, they call the treasure of the Church: and because (say they,) Gods Saints did not apply those their superabundant passions to this or that person, the Pope therefore must make application thereof at his pleasure, as one that hath Christ's full authority, or plenitudinem potestatis, being his Vicar general upon earth. And here note by the way (gentle Reader,) that for the execution of this Vicar's office, there be ever in Rome two Vicars general, and one substitute Vicar, whereof two neither preach, teach, or execute any priestly function usually: but the poor substitute, must do all that is done. So in my time, Gregory the fourteenth was Vicar general to Christ, si dijs placet, Cardinal Sabello vicar-general to Gregory, and our Goldwell, sometime Bishop of Saint Assaph, substitute to Sabello: which poor Bishop took all the pain, and had the least gain. For it is not the usual manner of Popes and Cardinals in these latter days, to say Mass, to preach, to teach, and so forth, (I speak of Cardinal's resiant at Rome,) but to join living to living, benefice to benefice, promotion Here would I learn, why the Queen's May estie may not employ Abbeys to the maintenance of the whole Realm, with suppression of abuses: as well as the Pope may bestow the same, upon irreligious and idle Cardinals. to promotion, and which is more absurd in their own religion, to be so lordly Abbots, or rather so idle Lubbards, that they will take and snatch all the commodities of the whole Abbeys unto themselves, and neither grant sufficient food and raiment for the Monks, nor competent allowance for the necessary maintenance of the house itself, for their Mass, Matins, and service: Such is their charity to their neighbours, zeal to their office, & reverence to their own religion. This is also true, as if any Papist will deny the same, his own breath will witness against him. For to omit others, S. Laurence and S. Pancratius their Abbeys and Churches are so poor and beggarly (through the pilling and polling of Cardinals their Abbots,) that when priests come thither to say Mass, (as the usual manner there is,) they can neither find wine nor candles without money: which default when any one objecteth as a disgrace to their profession and Religion, the poor Monks answer in this manner; Alas, we can not do withal, my L. Cardinal hath all the living, and alloweth us a small portion, not able to fill our bellies. But to leave this digression, and to return to the scope and matter in hand: this foundation of pardons to be the superabundant merits and satisfactions, not only of Christ, but of his Saints also, holdeth Thomas Aquinas, Dominicus Soto, Sylvester Pryeras, Antoninus, and others. Sylvester hath these words: Sylvester de indulgent. Par. 4. Ratio quare valere possunt indulgentiae, est unitas corporis mystici, in qua multi supererogaverunt admen suram debitooum suorum, & multas tribulationes iniustè sustinuerunt patientèr, per quas multitudo josephus Angles in 4. sent. quaest. de indulg. holdeth the self same opinion. poenarum poterat expiari, sieis deberetur: quorum meritorum tantaest copia, quòd omnem poenam debitam nunc viventibus excedunt, & praecipue propter meritum Christi. The cause that pardons are of force, is the unity of the mystical body, in which many have supererogated in the works of penance, to the measure of their own demerits, and have sustained patiently many unjust tribulations, through which the multitude of pains might be purged, if it were due unto them: of whose merits there is such plenty, that they exceed all pain due for those that now be living, and especially for the merit of Christ. This is the testimony of Sylvester, and Aquinas Tho. Aquinas in supplem. quaest. 25. art. primo. their angelical Doctor proceedeth further, and sayeth thus: Christus poterat relaxare, ergo & Paulus potuit, ergo & Papa potest, qui non est minoris potestatis in Ecclesia, quàm Paulus fuit. Christ could pardon, therefore Paul could pardon, therefore the Pope also can pardon: as who is of no meaner authority in the Church, than Paul himself was. So then à primo ad ultimum The Pope's power as great as Christ's. by Aquinas his doctrine, the Pope can do as much as Christ. He can make the deaf to hear, the dumb to speak, the lame to walk, the blind to see, and the dead to arise to life: which I must first see, before I believe it, howsoever their holy Aquinas write: and yet should this follow necessarily, if Aquinas his reason were good. And doubtless, this which Aquinas here attributeth to the Pope, is not far from the peculiar mark of Antichrist, but I will not now stand upon that point. We see evidently the foundation of Popish pardons, confessed by the best learned Romish doctors. which manner of establishing popish pardons, to be blasphemous and derogatory to the blood of Christ, I prove many and sundry ways. First, by the testimony of holy writ. Advocatum habemus apud Patrem jesum Christum justum, & 1. johan. 2. 2. ipse est propitiatio pro peccatis nostris. We have an Advocate with the Father jesus Christ the just, and he is the propitiation for our sins. And as it is said more significantly in the Greek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He is the atonement and reconciliation for our sins: it is he, through whom we are accepted of God. Of him only said the voice from heaven, This is my beloved Son, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in whom I am well pleased. Again, Matth. 3. 17. Si autem in luce ambulemus, sicut ipse est in luce, societatem habemus ad invicem, & sanguis jesu Christi filii eius emundat 1. johan. 1. 7, 8. nos ab omni peccato. If we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of jesus Christ doth cleanse us from all sin. Again, una oblatione consummavit in sempiternum sanctificatos. With one only oblation hath he consummate for ever, those Heb. 10. 14. that are sanctified. Again, Ego Dominus Deus tuus ex terra Aegypti, & Deum absque me nescies, Osee. 13. 4. & salvator non est praeter me. I am the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no God without me, and there is no Saviour but myself. Again, Ego sum, Ego sum ipse, qui deleo iniquitates tuas propter me. I, even I am he, that blot out thine iniquities for mine own Esa. 43. 25. sake. Which is most significantly uttered in the Hebrew phrase. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I, even I mine own self wipe away, and utterly destroy thy rebellious transgressions, for none other cause but for mine own sake. Again, Ipse vulneratus est propter iniquitates nostras, attritus est propter Esa. 53. 5. scelera nostra. He was wounded for out iniquities, he was torn for our offences. By which manifold places of holy Scripture it is evident, that Christ did both merit eternal glory for us, and also did offer to his Father eternal satisfaction for our sins. Which S. Augustine declareth finely, in brief and pithy words. Dominus noster jesus Christas mori venit, peccare non venit, Angser. 141. de tempor. Tom. 10. communicando nobiscum sine culpa poenam, & culpam solvit & poenam. Our Lord jesus came to die, he came not to sin, communicating pain with us without sin, he cleansed both the sin, and the pain of sin. I prove the same secondly by the evident testimonies of the Popes own Doctors, because no better arguments can possibly be alleged against them, than such as themselves have made and approved. Angelus writeth thus: Angelus de indulgent. Par. 9 Communis opinio tam Theologorum, quàm Canonistarumtenet, quòd indulgentia sunt ex abundantia meritorum, que ultra mensuram demeritorum suorum sancti sustinuerunt, & Christus: sed ego teneo cùm Francisco de Mayrone, quòd cùm merita sanctorum sint ultra condignum Mayro in 4. sent. dist. 19 remunerata à Deo, & sic exhausta, quòd solùm dantur ex merito Christi, & passionis eius. The common opinion aswell of Divines as of canonists, holdeth that pardons be granted of the abundant merits, which Christ and his Saints here suffered, far above the measure of their demerits: but I (saith Angelus) hold with Francis Mayro, that since God hath remunerated the merits of his Saints above their condign deserts, and so they are exhausted, nothing remaining unrewarded, that pardons only are given of the merit of Christ, and of his passion. Durandus also a famous popish Doctor, holdeth the self same opinion with Durand. in 4. sent. dist. 20. Angelus: for albeit he admitteth the treasure of Christ, yet doth he deny the treasure and supererogations of Saints: and that, because as Angelus and Mayro teach, Saints have received remuneration far above their deserts: which opinion of Durandus, Angelus, and Mayro, S. Paul confirmeth in his Epistle to the Romans, in these words. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Rom. Cap. 8. vers. 18. For I count, that the afflictions of this present time are not worthy of the future glory, which shall be revealed towards us: in which words, the Apostle confuteth manifestly that foolish distinction of the Papists, unto which they flee as to an holy sanctuary, so often as they feel themselves galled in defence of the Pope's pardons. They say forsooth, that Saints have received full remuneration as their works be meritorious, but not as they be satisfactory, or penal. Saint Paul (I say) reproveth this their vain and ungrounded distinction, by the word (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) passions, afflictions, or penalties. for he saith, not the merits: of this time, but the passions of this time, and that those passions of ours are unworthy of the glory Mark well the word Passions. to come: which point Durandus, Mayro, and Angelus perceived right well, and therefore would not in any wise admit the treasure of saints, though they were great Papists all three. Their own popish gloss confesseth the same in the comment upon the text rehearsed, to wit, that our passions or satisfactions (as papists term Glossa interlin. ibidem. them,) are not worthy sidistricte nobiscum ageretur, if God should deal with us according to justice. But as the said gloss addeth wisesely, facit spiritus quod merita non possunt, the holy ghost supplieth that which wanteth in our merits. And their clerk Nicolaus Lyranus can not deny the same, for these be his words: Lyranus in cap. 8. ad Rom. Ratio consistit in hoc, quod praemium excedit incomparabiliter meritum nostrum in tolerantia passionum, propter quod patienter sunt meritò tolerandae. The reason saith Lyra, for which the apostle moveth us to bear patiently the afflictions of this world, consisteth chiefly in this, that the reward which God will bestow on us, doth infinitely exceed the worthiness of our afflictions, or the condignity of our passions: and for that respect, we ought worthily to endure them with patience. Nevertheless, Lyra would gladly have our work to be meritorious, and for that end he distinguisheth them as they proceed of free will, and as the holy Ghost worketh them, these are his words: Sciendum tamen, quodpassiones istae dupliciter possant consider ari. uno Lyranus ubi supra. modo ut acceptantur à libero arbitrio, & sic loquitur hic apostolus. alio modo, prout spiritus sanctus movens liberum arbitrium, est huius acceptionis principium: & sic est meritum de condigno, quia principium meriti est eiusdem dignitatis cum praemio. We must know for all this saith Lyra, that our afflictions may be considered two ways: one way, as they are accepted and received from our free will: and so the apostle speaketh, when he saith, they be unworthy. Another way, as the holy ghost moving our free will, is the beginning of this acceptation. And so there is merit of condignity, because the beginning of merit, is of the same dignity with the reward. These are the words of Lyra, Note well the confutation of Lyra his distinction. cited with all advantage for that cause, that he being once directly & fully confuted, all other papists may be confuted in him: as who doubtless being all joined in one, can lay no more than he hath done, in behalf of their merits and supererogations. I therefore say first, 1 that Saint Paul affirmeth with me, that our afflictions or passions are not worthy the glory of heaven. I say secondly, that Lyra himself granteth so much, as his own words already alleged do witness. 2 I say thirdly, that their gloss is on my side. 3 I say four, that if all were granted which Lyra saith, yet would it little or nothing help his purpose. 4 For first, our passions are no way ours, but as they proceed from 1 our free wills: omnis enim actio humana est voluntaria: yea so voluntary, that as Saint Augustine truly saith: if it were not voluntary, it should not be man's: and yet our afflictions or passions considered, as they proceed from our free will, are not worthy of the glory to come by Lyra's own grant. Again, when the holy ghost, and man work both one and the same act: that which the holy ghost doth, can no more be reputed man's act, then that which man doth can be deemed God's act. But so it is, that that which man doth can not be deemed the holy ghosts deed: ergo neither that which doth the holy ghost, can be deemed man's deed. The assumption wherein consisteth the difficulty, (if there be any at all,) is proved by man's sinful actions. For the most cruel and wicked fact that can be imagined, is not done without the concourse of the holy ghost, as all learned papists do and must confess: and yet are man's sinful acts so far from being deemed God's acts, as the deformities and irregularities thereof be only man's, and never Gods: and yet doth God concur more to those wicked acts, in that he is the principal agent of the real and positive entities of the same, than man doth or can concur to any act of Gods: that is to say, to any good act that he himself doth. For as S. james saith, every good thing that man doth, is of God. jacobis. v. 17 thirdly, because great absurdities do follow upon this opinion, to wit, that many sins freely remitted and forgiven in this life, should be punished eternally in the world to come. greater then which, no absurdity can be thought upon. the reason of the consequent is yielded by Thomas Aquinas, Dionysius Carthusianus, Dionysius Aquinas, p. 1. q. 114. ar. 3. ad 3, Dionys. Carthus. lib. 1. orthod fid. ar. 156. Areop. de divin. nominib apud Carthus. Areopagita, and others. Who all do hold, (neither is holy writ dissonant to their opinion,) that the devils concur if not to all, yet to the greater part of sins, committed in this life by sinful mortal men. whereupon I infer first, that the devils sins are man's, and man's sins the Devils: if lyra's distinction were of force the reason of the consequence is evident, because the devil and man do both one and the self same act. I infer secondly, that the sins forgiven to penitent sinners in this life, are punished in the devils world without end. For what reply so ever the adversary can make, or what evasion so ever he shall use in this point: the same can I make, and the same shall I use against himself, in the passions and merits of saints. Let what papist as will, begin when he will, to make trial thereof: For no effectual disparity doubtless, can ever be yielded in that behalf. Another absurdity is, that God should hereby be the author or partaker of sin. The reason hereof is evident, because as man's acts be meritorious, for that God concurreth to them: in like manner God's acts must be demeritorious, for that man concurreth to the same. For God and man concur no less to that self same act, which is sin: then they do to that act, which the papists term of condign merit. that there is no comparison between man's deserts and glory eternal, Saint Bede showeth pithily and plainly in these words: Ipse dicit qui patiebatur & sciebat pro quo nomine patiebatur, & quo Beda in c. 8. ad Rom. fructu patiebatur: non sunt condignae passiones huius temporis ad futuram gloriam, quae revelabitur in nobis. appendo quod patior, contra id quod spero, hoc sentio: illua credo, & tamen plus valet quod credo, quam quod sentio. He saith, who suffered, and who knew for whose sake he suffered, & with what fruit he suffered: the sufferings of this life are not worthy of the future glory, which shall be revealed in us. I weigh in the balance that which I suffer, against that which I hope for: this I feel, that I believe, and yet that is of more force which I believe, then that which I feel. yea, as their own durand telleth them, Christ himself could not satisfy in rigore justitiae as he was man, but only Durand. in 3. sent. dist. 20. & in 4. d. 15. in respect of hypostatical union: & therefore is it impossible that satisfaction of pure man, I say of corrupt and sinful man, shall any way be equivalent or perfect: for as the pope's dear monk Dominicus So to granteth: Perfecta satisfactio est illa, cuius valour & pretiuntotum emanat a debitore, Soto de nat. & great. lib. 3. c. 6. nulla vel preueniente vel interveniente gratia creditor is: taliter visit redditio aequivalentis alias indebiti voluntary. Perfect satisfaction is that, whose valour and price wholly. proceedeth from the debtor, without either preventing or interventing grace of the creditor: so as the reddition be of that, which is equivalent and not otherwise due. This is truly said of Soto, which Aristoteles perceived by very natural discourse, teaching that we cannot make condign satisfaction to God and our parents. in the description Arist. lib. 8 ethic. cap 7 of our Friar Soto, we have to note 4. things. First, that the valour of satisfaction must proceed wholly from the debtor. Secondly, that there must be no preventing or interventing grace of the creditor. thirdly, that there must be equivalent restitution. Fourthly, that that equivalent reddition must be a work, otherwhise not due. which four when any papist in the world, can prove to be in any satisfaction made by pureman, (neither shall the pope's holiness be excepted,) I will be a papist once again. For our satisfaction is so unperfect indeed, as no one of the 4. conditions here required, can be found and approved therein. For first, what act soever proceedeth from ourselves, as of ourselves, is loathsome in God's sight, according to this saying of the Prophet: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Esai. c. 6●. v. 6. All our righteousness is as a filthy clout, nothing pure or clean. 2 Secondly, what act so ever proceedeth from us without Gods preventing grace, cannot possibly be void of sin: for as the apostle saith: Non sumus sufficientes cogit are aliquid a nobis, quasi ex nobis, sed sufficientia 2. Cor. 3. v. 5 nostra ex deo est. We are not able to think one good thought of ourselves, as of ourselves, but all and every part of our sufficiency is of God. And again he saith: Nemo potest dicere dominus jesus, nisiin spiritus sancto. No man can say Lord jesus, but by the power of God. We own of duty to God, more than possibly we can ever perform, 1 Cor. 12. v. 4 and therefore can not justly, nay therefore can not without the note of intolerable pride, smelling of more than pelagianism, term any of our best works, a work not due to God, or a work of supererogation. For Christhath taught us another lesson: Cum fecerit is omnia quae precepta sunt vobis, dicite, servi inutiles sumus, quod debuimus facere fecimus. Luk. cap 7. vers. 10. when ye have done all things which are commanded you, say, we are unprofitable servants, we have done that which we were bound to do. 4 Fourthly, concerning equivalent satisfaction, their own angelical D. Aquinas shall answer them, whose words are these: Dicendum, quo daliqua satisfactio potest dici dupliciter sufficiens: Uno modo perfectè, quia est condigna per quandam adaequationem ad recompensationem culpae commissae, & sic hominis puri satisfactio sufficiens Aquinas in 3. part. q. 1. ar. 2. 2 m esse non potuit pro peccato; alio modo potest dici satisfactio hominis esse sufficiens imperfect, scilicet secundu acceptationem eius, qui est ea contentus, quavis non sit condigna. Et hoc modo satisfactio puri hominis est sufficiens. We must answer, that satisfaction may be called sufficient two ways: one way perfectly, because it is worthy by a certain adequatio nor equality to the compensation of the fault committed: And so the satisfaction of pure man, can not be sufficient for sin. Loc, here is a mystery, for not sufficient is sufficient. Another way unperfectly to wit, according to his acceptation who is content with it, although it be not worthy: and this way the satisfaction of pure man is sufficient. This is the answer of Aquinas, whose doctrine is confirmed for authentical, by papal authority. Now mark it well, for Christ's love. This great doctor was so busied to defend popish pardons, and the ground or foundation of the same, (which is the supererogation of man's deserts, as we have heard,) that he had no other shift in the world, but to coin a new no distinction of double sufficient satisfaction. which distinction for all that, if I do not prove it to confute and make frustrate itself, I will desire no credit of the reader. Satisfaction (saith Aquinas) may be called sufficient, either because it is indeed sufficient, as which is an equivalent compensation: or it may be called sufficient, not because it is equivalent and sufficient indeed: but because it is accepted and admitted, albeit it be not worthy. Now what I pray you, can be more foolishly spoken, or more against a man's own assertion? he would establish a sufficient satisfaction, and yet is enforced to acknowledge a satisfaction not sufficient, but accepted as if it were sufficient. which is the very same that I would never deny, and which overthroweth all popish doctrine: For it proveth in deed, that no works of the regenerate are good and without sinew, though they be accepted and imputed for good and without sin: and consequently, if the papists would be constant in their own doctrine, we and they would soon agree. But what? doth not our holy father the pope tell us, that though Christ pardon a penitent sinner, yet must he suffer temporal pain in purgatory, and so to need the pope's pardons? yes doubtless as you have heard, and the pope and papists glory in the same. And yet this notwithstanding, if a man can get a plenary pardon from the pope for the hour of his death, he shall come to heaven with all speed, and never once enter in at purgatory gates. If any credit not my words, let him yet credit their doctout Sylvester, who writeth in this manner: Sylvest. de indulg. par. 33. Qui plenariam indulgentiam ritè assecutus est, si eo instanti moreretur, evolaret statim ad coelum. He that hath lawfully gotten a plenary pardon, if he should die at that instant, should incontinently go to heaven. The pope's pardons then, are so far from being such as they are preached to be: that they do not only not yield us any remission of pain, but greatly increase our pain when we believe them: as which derogate no little from Christ's passion, and from the verity of his sacred word. For indeed saints can no more satisfy for us, than Soto in 4 sent. d. 21. q. 1. ar. 2. prope finem. they can merit for us: and yet dareth not Dominicus Soto avouch their merits for us, though he be the pope's doctor dear. For which cause wisely and gravely saith Augustine: Vaeetiam laudabili vitae hominum, siremota misericordia discutias eam. Aug. lib. 9 confess. ca 13. Woe even to the laudable life of men: if thou discuss and examine it, thy mercy set a part. which thing their own friar john de Combis did well perceive, when in his Theological abridgement he affirmeth itto be a maxim with God, ever to reward us above our well doings, and to punish us less our evil demerits. His words be these: Et hoc patet quia Deus semper remunerat supra meritum, sicut punit citra condignum. Io. de Combis lib. 5. theol. verit. cap. 11. And this is evident, because God ever rewardeth above our merits, and punisheth us less than we be worthy. so than we see it manifest, that even by popish doctrine, there is no place for popish pardons. The sixth Conclusion. Pope's usually give many pardons, affirming most impudently in the same, that whosoever shall pray in such manner, say mass over such relics, visit such a Church, or contribute so much to such an end, shall deliver a soul from purgatory. which kind of pardons, Pope Gregory granted often during my abode at Rosse: as to the bishop of Rosse, in the behalf of the Scottish Queen: to Stukley, for the treacherous practices he should have contrived against England: to Alphonsus the jesuite, for the success of English complots, and such like. This notwithstanding, these solemn and glorious pardons be nothing else, but mere fabulous and lying grants. For first, there is no purgatory after this life as shall be proved hereafter, and consequently the pope can deliver no soul from thence, though he grant never so many pardons. Secondly, because to give pardons is an act of jurisdiction, as appeareth by the Scripture which they allege, and consequently Mat. 16. v. 19 that act can not be exercised but upon the pope's subjects, and therefore not upon the souls in purgatory, who are exempt from his jurisdiction. All which their own school doctor Richardus de Mediavilla proveth out of their canon-law in these words: Richard. de Mediavilla in 4. sent. dist. 3. q. 3. dist. apud mag. 20. extra de pe. & re. Indulgentiae non prosunt illis qui non sunt de iurisdictione illius qui eas concessit, extra de pe. & re. illi autem qui sunt in purgatorio, non sunt sub jurisdictione praelatorum Ecclesiae, quod satis datur intelligi, cum dixit dominus Petro: quodcunque solveris super terram. addendo enim super terram, videtur referre collationem huius potestatis tantum superviventes hac vita mortali. Pardons do not profit them, who are not of his jurisdiction that granteth them: but they who are in purgatory, be not under the jurisdiction of our prelate's of the church. which is sufficiently given to be understood, when our Lord said to Peter: (whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth:) for adding upon earth, he seemeth to refer and extend this power, only to the living here on earth. Now, if answer be made as is used by the wiser sort of papists, that the pope pardoneth in purgatory only by way of suffrage, then do I reply, that that is petitio principij, and that that kind of pardoning is uncertain and fallible, and so still I have my purpose. For the preachers of the pardons, and the pardons also tell us: that whosoever visiteth such a church, saith mass at such an altar, or contributeth to such an end, shall deliver a soul from purgatory. and yet by way of suffrage no such thing can be assured, no more than when an other devout papist shall offer up his prayers for them. which thing seemed so to trouble Bellarminus, that in his written dictates he knoweth not well what to hold or write, concerning romish pardons. Thirdly, because the pope can not apply Christ's satisfaction more effectually to them by his pardoning, than the same is applied to them by the saying of mass, as which by popish religion is the self same sacrifice really, that was offered upon the cross: and yet doth no papist say or think that our saying of mass, can or will deliver his friend's soul from purgatory. For otherwise, there would not be so many masses said so many times for the self same persons, as hath been and is daily seen, amongst the papists. For to this end do they celebrate and observe yearly anniverssaries, for souls departed 10. 20. 30. 40. 60. years before. which the pope, cardinals, and monks had taught the people to frequent, as most necessary for their friends souls in purgatory. Fourthly, because it cannot be proved, that after God hath pardoned our sins and the eternal pain due for the same, there still remaineth some temporal pain, remissible by the pope's pardons. Fiftly, because all the three things required of papists in popish pardoning, are most firm, certain, and ready, in the souls of purgatory: to wit, authority in they giver, charity in the receiver, and the cause of piety. For first, the souls of purgatory be in charity, as all papists confess: as who otherwise, could never be saved. 2 Secondly, it is mere cruelty not to help the faithful in such woeful case. thirdly, if they deny the pope's authority, I will willingly deny it with them: though he accurse me as he hath already done, for my pains. For I nothing doubt, but God of his great mercy will convert his curse, to my greater joy and bliss. And here, because the Seminaries never cease to boast in corners amongst the simple: that none in this realm dareth to dispute with them, I offer public dispute with what seminary in England soever he be, no one or other excepted who soever: so it may stand with the honourable licence and good liking of higher powers, whose minds I am of duty bound to obey in that behalf. For I nothing doubt, if my option may be granted: but that it will tend to the glory of God, the service of my sovereign, the honour of my country, the edification of the auditors, and the comfort of mine own soul. The reason is, for that I know very sufficiently, the foundations, grounds, authorities, and reasons, of both sides: and withal behold as in a glass of crystal, the evident confutation of all whatsoever, can possibly be said in defence of papistry: which if I had not first seen, I had never departed from popish doctrine. The 7. Conclusion. IF the pope's pardons be not of so great force, and worth so much as they are said and preached to be: then is the pope's religion vain, and of no credit at all. This proposition both is and must be granted of all papists, if they will defend their now professed Romish religion. Thomas Aquinas (whose doctrine and books diverse pope's have approved for good and godly,) writeth thus: Ecclesia praedicando indulgentias non mentitur, & ita tantum valent quantum praedicantur: sicut enim dicit Augustinus, si in sacra A quin. in supplement. 3. part. q. 25. art. 2. in corpore. Scriptura deprehenditur aliquid falsitatis, iam robur authoritatis sacrae Scripturae perit. Et similiter si in praedicatione ecclesiae aliqua falsitas deprehenderetur, non essent documenta Ecclesiae alicuius autboritatis adroborandam fidem. The Church preaching pardons doth not lie, and so they are worth no less than they are preached. For as Augustine saith, if in holy Scripture any falsehood be found, even than the full authority of holy scripture perisheth utterly. And in like manner, if in the preaching of the Church any falsehood should be found, the doctrine of the Church should not be of any force to establish our faith. These are the words of their canonised saint and renowned doctor Aquinas, which show unto us so plainly, as more plainly nothing can be told: that if the Church of Rome err in any one point, as in giving pardons or such like, then must we give no credit to it in other points of religion. Neither is this the opinion of Aquinas only, but their other great Thomist Dominicus Soto singeth the same song. These be his words: Alij dixerunt indulgentias nihil prorsus valere, nisi quantum unusquisque devotione sua faciendo quodindulgentia praecipit, moeretur. Soto in 4. sent. dist. 21. q. 2. art. 1. Attamen isti seu blasphemi non sunt audiendi, sanè qui authoritatem Ecclesiae infringunt: si enim de hac re nos Ecclesia seduceret, nulla ei esset in reliquis adhibenda fides. Some said that pardons were no more worth at all, than every man doth merit by his own devotion. But these fellows are to be rejected as blasphemous, because they infringe the authority of the Church: for if the Church should in this point seduce us, than were there no credit to be given unto it in other points. These are the express words of the Popes own and best Doctors, Aquinas, and Soto: whose testimonies, with that which is said in other conclusions: disable altogether the authority and religion of the Church of Rome. For if the Church of Rome deceive us in her pardons, (as is sufficiently proved that she hath done:) then is she not to be credited in other things, as both Aquinas and Soto tell us: whose doctrine the pope, yea, sundry Popes of Rome have confirmed. THE COROLLARY. FIRST therefore, since the Pope's pardons be foolish and repugnant to common sense: Secondly, since the verity and efficacy of pardons be so uncerten, as the best learned Papists, can not tell what to say or write thereof: Thirdly, since to give pardons, as the Pope doth, is a strange and new thing: as which, neither Christ, nor his Apostles ever taught or practised: Fourthly, since the Pope's manner of pardoning, (ordinary popish practice considered) is most absurd: Fiftly, since the Pope's pardons in Romish doctrine, are reputed equivalent with holy martyrdom: Sixtly, since the Pope's pardons be not such, nor so forcible, as they are preached to be: Seventhly, since the foundation of Popish pardons, is blasphemous and derogatory to Christ's passion: Eightly, since the Pope taketh upon him by his pardons, to deliver souls from purgatory, which he can not perform: ninethly, since, Aquinas, Soto, and Sylvester, his own renowned Doctors do affirm, that if the Pope preach falsely in his pardons, all his other doctrine is false and nought: I conclude, that it is a sufficient motive for me to renounce the Romish religion, as false, erroneous, and pernicious doctrine. Thus much of the first Motive. THE THIRD CHAP ter: Of the Pope's manners, Faith, and Religion. ALbeit concerning Sanctimony of life, and honest conversation among men; the learned Papists will not defend their Popes, whom they use to term by name of holiness: yet do they all persist in this, that none of them can err in their judicial decrees, concerning either faith or manners: for better examination whereof, I put down certain conclusions. The 1 Conclusion. THE lives and manners of Popes have been most wicked, most notorious, and most scandalous to the world. This conclusion I will only prove, by the testimonies of great Romish doctors, that so my words may be of better credit therein. Hear therefore what Bartholomaeus Carranza writeth of them. Stephanus Sextus magno odio persecutus est nomen Formosi, cuius Carranza in summa Conc. fol. 354. & fol. 355. & ordinationes omnes rescidit & damnavit: iam enim tunc coeperat Pontificum & virtus & integritas desinere. Pope Stephanus the sixth persecuted the very name of Formosus, all whose ordinations, or giving of orders, he disannulled and condemned: for even then began, the virtue and integrity of Popes to fail. Romanus universa acta Stephani improbat & abrogat. Pope Romanus doth reprove and abrogate, the whole acts of Pope Stephanus. Sergius Tertius Formosi nomen prosequitur, cuius corpus humatum truncari capite jussit. Res plena horroris, at videas quantum degener abant Pontifices à maioribus suis: ne cui mirum sit, interim si qui abusus & perversae opiniones in Ecclesiam irrepserunt. Pope Sergius the third doth persecute the name of Formosus, Lo, the Popes own dear Doctor, can not deny errors to be in the Church of Rome. whose body after it was buried, he commanded to be beheaded. A thing very doleful, that thou mayest see how much the Popes in these days did degenerate from their ancestors: lest any marvel if in the mean time, abuses and perverse opinions be crept into the Church. johannes 13. venationibus, magis quàm orationibus vacabat: & multa alia auditu indigna de eo dicuntur. Pope john the thirteenth was more addicted to hunting, then to prayer: and many other unworthy facts are reported of him. This is the censor of Bartholomaeus Carranza, a learned Thomiste, and Dominican Friar: and therefore hath he not said more against the Popes of Rome, than the force of verity induced him unto. Platina affirmeth no less than Carranza, of the wicked lives of Popes: but I will only allege one place or two, omitting all the rest for brevity sake. Nihil enim aliudhi Pontifices cogitabant, quàm & nomen & dignitatem Platina in vita Rom. primi. pag. 147. maiorum suorum extinguere. For these Popes went about no other matter, but only how to extinguish the name and dignity of their ancestors. And in another place the said Platina writeth thus: Vide quae so, quantùm isti degenerarunt à maioribus suis, illi enim utpote Platina in vita Sergii 3. pag. 148. viri sanctissimi, dignitatem ultrò oblatam contemnebant, orationi & doctrinae christianae vacantes: high verò largitione & ambitione pontificatum quaerentes, & adepti, posthabito divino cultu, inimicitias non secùs ac saevissimi quidam tyranni inter sese exercebant: suas posteà voluptates securiùs expleturi, cùm nullibi extarent qui eorum vitia coercent. Behold, I pray thee, how much these bishops do degenerate from their ancestors: for they, as most holy men, contemned dignity offered them, giving themselves to prayer, and Christian doctrine: but these pope's, seeking and attaining their popedoms by bribes and ambition, (Gods divine worship set aside,) did exercise enmities among themselves, as most cruel tyrants: thinking after to enjoy their pleasures more securely, when there should be none to reprove their vices. Thus saith Platina a very learned Papist, who was abbreviator Apostolicus to the church of Rome. The second Conclusion. MANY Popes have aspired unto popedom, by most naughty and ungodly means. Pope Christophorus the first, shall first begin this proof, of whom thus writeth Platina: Christophorus, cuius patria & cognomentum ob ignobilitatem ignoratur, pontificatum malis artibus adeptus, malè amisit; septimo enim Platina in vita Christopheri primi. mense dignitate ac meritò eiectus, monasticam vitam unicum calamito sorum refugium obire cogitur. Pope Christopher, whose country and surname by reason of his baseness is not known, came naughtily by his Popedom, and lost it as naughtily. For before the seventh month was fully expired, he was deprived of his Pontifical dignity, and enforced to be a Monk, the sole and only refuge of all distressed persons. Carranza reporteth this to be true, which Carranza in summa conciliorum, fol. 354. Platina hath set down. Pope Bonifacius the seventh, and Sylvester the second, aspired to their popedoms by Necromancy, and Diabolical means. Sylvester the third, attained his Popedom by sedition: and Damasus the second, was made Pope by violent means, without consent, either of the Clergy, or of the people. This to be so, witnesseth both Platina & Carranza. And Platina addeth these words Eò enim tum Pontificatus devenerat, ut qui plus largitione & ambitione, Platina in vita Sylvestri 3. non dico sanctitate vitae & doctrina valeret, is tantummodò dignitatis gradum bonis oppressis & reiectis obtineret, quem morem utinam aliquando non retinuissent nostra tempora. For to that pass was Popedom now brought, that who so could more in giving bribes, and in ambition, (I say not in good life and doctrine,) he only should have the degree of honour, and good men should be rejected: which custom, would to God, it had never been in our time kept. And the said Platina saith in another place: Adeò enim inoleverat hic mos, ut iam cuique ambitioso liceret, Petri Platina in vita Damasi 2. sedem invadere. For this custom did so increase, that now every ambitious fellow, might invade Peter's seat or chair. Gregory the fift, was by sedition thrust out of his throne, and Pope john 18 by tyranny occupied the Popedom: so say Carranza and Platina. Yea, Platina proceedeth Carranza ubi supra fol. 355. further, and saith thus: Qua quidem beatitudine joannes caruit, fur certè in Pontificatu, & Platina in vita joan. 18. latro: non enim ut par fuerat, per ostium intravit. Which happy life Pope john wanted, as who was a thief and a robber: for he entered not in by the door, as he ought to have done. And to be brief, Pope Bonifacius 8. shall sound the trumpet for the rest, of whom thus writeth Carranza: Intravit ut vulpes, regnavit ut lupus, Carranza ubi supra fol. 369. mortuus est ut canis. He entered as a fox, he reigned as a wolf, he died as a dog. Thus he did, and thus he lived, after he had gotten his Popedom by deceitful means, as is already proved. The 3. Conclusion. POPE'S may not only err, and hold false opinions, but also become most notorious heretics; and for their heresies, be deprived of their popedoms. This conclusion may be proved, both by the testimonies of great learned papists, and also by the flat decrees of many Popes. Dominicus Soto hath these words: Quamvis Papa, ut Papa errare non possit, hoc est, statuere errorem nequeat tanquam articulum fidei, Soto in 4. sent. dist. 22. q. 2. art. 2. quia spiritus sanctus idnon permittet: tamenut singularis persona errare in fide potest, sicut aliae peccata committere. Albeit the Pope as Pope, can not 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: and for full proof of this point, only Sylvester Prieras is sufficient, who albeit he extol the Pope's power above Kings, and Emperors, and Angels in heaven their authority; yet doth he confess, that our holy father the Sylvester in Papa. Par. 4. Pope, in casu haeresis, both may be judged and deposed: yea, this point is very manifest in many texts of the popish Canon-law, for in one place it is thus written: Oves, quae suo pastori commissae sunt, eum nec reprehendere, nisi à fide exorbitaverit, 2. Quaest 7. cap. Oves. nec ullatenus accusare possunt. The sheep that are committed to (the Pope) their Pastor, neither can reprove him, nor any way accuse him: unless he shall swerve from the faith. In another place it is said, that though the Pope be never so wicked, (though he carry thousands with himself headlong Dist. 40. cap. si Papa. to hell,) yet must no man judge him, unless he be an heretic. Quia cunctos ipse iudicaturus, à nemine est judicandus, nisi deprehendatur à fide devius. Because (saith the Pope's law) he must judge all, and none judge him, unless he be found to have forsaken the faith. josephus Angles, in his book which he dedicated to the Pope himself, confirmeth this matter in these words: Papa haereticus ut apostata, ab universali Concilio deponi potest: & joseph. Angl. in 4. sent. part. 2. quaest. de excommunicate. art. 4. diffic. 1. ratio est, quia sicut nullus potest esse alicuius religionis praelatus, qui non sit in illa religione professus: it a neque potest esse Papa, si fide ecclesiae careat. The Pope being an heretic, as also an apostate, 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. The 4. Conclusion. MAny Popes have de facto forsaken the Christian faith, and become flat heretics. This proposition, though it seem strange to many, shallbe proved (God willing) effectually, and that by the express testimonies of great popish doctors. For it is so certain, that Pope Honorius was an heretic, as their eight solemn Council holden at Constantinople, can not deny the same. Melchior Canus giveth this sentence of the said Honorius: 8. Conc. Constant. act. 7. Canus de locis Theolog. lib. 6. cap. ult. At Honorium quomodo ab errore vindicabit? quem haereticum fuisse tradit Psellus in carmine de septem synodis, Tharasius ad summos Sacerdotes Antiochiae, Alexandria, Sanctae urbis, ut septima Synodo act. 3. scriptum est: Theodosius cum Synodo sua Hierosolymitana, in confession fidei quae habetur eadem actione 3. Epiphanius respondens haereticis in conspectu Concilij eiusdem, act. 6. Tota demùm ipsa septima synodus actione ultima, & in Epistola ad omnes sacerdotes & clericos. But how will (Pighius) deliver pope Honorius from error? whom to have been an heretic, witnesseth Psellus, in his verses of the seven synods: Tharasius to the patriarchs of Antioch, of Alexandria, & of the holy city, as it is written in the 7. Synod: Theodosius with his Synod at Jerusalem, in the confession of their faith: Epiphanius answering to the heretics, in the sight of the said Council: finally, the seventh Synod wholly in the last action, and in their Epistle to all priests & Clergy men. Viguerius holdeth for a constant position, that pope Anastasius erred in an article of the faith: his words be these: Si dicamus, quòd summus Pontifex errare potest, & in animo suo concipere aliquem articulum orthodoxae fidei contrarium, & etiam privatim Viguerius de virtute fidei. cap. 10. Par. 3. vers. 13. proffer, ut legitur de Anastasio 2. dicendum quòd summus Pontifex, ut privata persona errare potest, non tamen ut est summus Pontifex. If we say that the pope may err, and conceive in his mind some article contrary to the Catholic faith, and pronounce the same also privately: answer must be made, that the pope may err as a private person, but not as he is Pope. Nicolaus Lyranus uttereth this matter As we read of Anastasius. so plainly, as no man can long stand in doubt thereof: these be his words: Ex quo patet, quòd Ecclesia non consistit in hominih. ratione potestatis, vel dignitatis, ecclesiasticae, vel secularis, quia multi principes, & summi Lyranus in cap. 16. Matt. Pontifices, & alij inferiores, inventi sunt apostatasse à fide: propter quod Ecclesia consist it in illis personis, in quibus est notitia vera, & confessio fidei, & veritatis. 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 Popes, and other of the inferior sort, are found to have swerved from their faith: for which cause the Church consisteth in those persons, in whom there is true knowledge, and confession of the faith, and verity. Lo, the judgement of their own Doctor: not they that sit in S. Peter's chair, are the true and lawful successors of S. Peter: but they that confess, and preach S. Peter's faith and doctrine. We therefore impugn nothing in popish proceed, but the self same, which popish Doctors reproved before us: and that in their public writings, published to the world. The 5. Conclusion. MANY Popes have erred, in their public doctrine of faith and manners. Pope john the 22. of that name, as witnesseth Okam, Erasmus, Alphonsus, Adrianus, & others, taught the people that the souls of the just do not see God, before the resurrection: yea, Gerson that great popish doctor, (who sometime was Chancellor of Paris,) affirmeth this matter in these express words: Hoc fecit latroni, qui verisimilitèr nondum complever at poenitentiam pro omnibus peccatis suis, qui fuit illa hora propria beatificatus, & vidit Deum facie ad faciem, sicut Sancti in Paradiso: propter quod insuper apparet falsitas doctrinae Papae joannis 22. Quae damnata fuit cum 10. Gerson. in ser. de pasch. tom. 4. sono buccinarum coram Rege Philippo per Theologos Parisienses, & credidit potius theologis Parisiensibus, quàm curiae. This he did to the thief (which by likelihood had not yet accomplished Of Pope john 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, further appeareth the falsehood of the doctrine of pope john, which was condemned by the sound of trumpets before K. Philip by the divines of Paris, & the King believed rather the divines of Paris, than the court. In which words, we have to note first, that Gerson a voucheth the thief: crucified with Christ, to have seen 1 God face to face in that hour, & so to be blessed. Secondly, that he reproveth the false doctrine of Pope john, Thirdly, that his doctrine was 2 condemned with the sound of trupets, in the presence of the king of 3 France. Fourthly, that the K. gave more credit to the divines of Paris, then to the judgement of the court of Rome. Fiftly, that neither the 4 K. nor the learned papists, did at that time grant such authority to the 5 Pope, as now the pope challengeth. whreupon it followeth consequently, that the pope taught false doctrine in a weighty matter of faith: which thing not only Gerson affirmeth, as you have heard: but Pope Adrian himself testifieth the same, as recordeth the zealous papist Alphonsus in these words: Sexta haeresis docet nullam animam ante diem iudciij esse beatam, quum (ut ait) nulla anima ante illum diem videt Deum. Huius haeresis auctores sunt Armeni, eandem etiam tuentur Graeci, post istos surrexit johannes 22. huius nominis pontifex. Sed ne verbis meis aliquis in hac part deroget, Alphonsus de Castro. lib. 3. adversus haereses. prope finem. verba Adriani papae referam, qui in suo 4. sententiarum in calce cuiusdem questionis de Sacramento confirmationis, it a ait: Novissimè fertur de joanne 22. quòd publicè docuit, declaravit, & ab omnibus teneri mandavit, quod animae purgatae ante finale judicium non habent stolam, quae est clara & facialis visio Dei: & universitatem Parisien sem ad hoc induxisse dicitur, quod nemo in ea poter at gradum in Theolog. adipisci, nisiprimitus hunc errorem iurasset se defen surun, & perpetuòei adhaesurum. haec Adrianus. The fixed heresy teacheth no soul to be in bliss, before the day of judgement, because (as it saith,) no soul before that day seethe God. The Armenians are the authors of this heresy and the Greeks hold the same. After these rose up pope john, the 22. of that name. But least any man distrust my words in this point. I will recite the words of pope Adrian, who in his 4. book of sentences in the end of a certain question of the sacrament of confirmation, sayeth this: 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 lust, before the day of judgement, have not the stole which is the clear and facely vision of God. And he is reported, to have induced the University of Paris to this: that no man could take degree in the same, but he that first did swear to defend this error, and to adhere unto it forever. Thus saith Adrian, who was himself pope of Rome: and thus reporteth Alphonsus a popish Friar. And it will not help to say, as Bellarminus doth, in defence of popish faith: to wit, that pope john erred as a private man, but not as pope: for that distinction doth not only want a good foundation, whereupon it should be built, but also it flatly destroyeth the plain text: the reason hereof, is evident to every child. First, because Adrian saith, docuit, he taught. 1 Secondly, because he saith, publicè, publicly. Thirdly, because he saith, 2 mandavit, he commanded all to hold it. Fourthly, because none could 3 be made graduate, which held not this opinion. Fiftly, because every 4 graduate did swear to defend it, and to hold it forever. So then the 5 pope may err in public decree of faith, aswell 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 was at Rome. Canus telleth us, that Gerson, Almain, & Thomas Waldensis, do all hold, that the pope may err, as is said. Pope Celestine erred not only as a private man, (but even as pope and public person,) in his public decree of matrimony. This to be so, witnesseth the said Alphonsus, in these very words: Coelestinum papam errasse Alphons. lib. 1. cap. 4. advers. haereses. circa matrimonium fidelium, quorum alter labitur in haeresim, res est omnibus manifesta. neque hic Coelestini 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 Coelestini definitio habebatur in antiquis decretalibus, in cap. laudabilem, titulo de converse. infidelium: quam ego ipse vidi, & legi. That pope Celestine erred about matrimony of the faithful, whereof th'one is ●● Pope Celestus. fallen into heresy, is a thing so manifest, as all men know the same: neither was this error of Celestine such, as it ought to be imputed to negligence, so as we may think him to have erred as a private man, and not as pope, who ought in the decree of every serious matter, to ask counsel of learned men: for that definition of Celestine was in the old decretals, in the chap. laudabilem, and in the title de conversione infidelium, which I myself have seen & read. By this assertion of Alphonsus, it is clear that pope Celestine erred in the decree of faith. For first he saith, that Celestine erred, not as a private man, but as a pope, & as a public person. Secondly, he called it the decree 1 of a serious matter. Thirdly, he termed it a definition, enroled in the 2 pope's decretals. he therefore erred, as a public person, in the public 3 definition & decree of faith. Pope Nicholas their. taught baptism given only in the name of Christ to be of force and good, which is not only an error, but a flat heresy, neither will it help the papists, to say as Bellar minus doth, that the pope did not define any Of pope Nicolas. thing, but only uttered his own opinion as a private doctor. For if they will deny the pope's public resolutions set down in their own cannon law, to be decrees, and definitions: they may with as good reason call white black, and black white, good evil, and evil good: and say the pope cannot err indeed in their sense. But let us examine the pope's words, who writeth thus, as is to be seen in their own la: A quodam Iudaeo nescitis utrum christiano an pagano, multos in patria vestra baptizatos asseritis, & quid de ijs sit agendum consulitis: high de consecrat. dist. 4. cap. a quodam judaeo. profecto si in nomine S. trinitatis, veltantum in Christi nomine, sicut in actibus apostolorum legimus baptizati sunt, (unum quip idemque est ut sanctus exponit Ambrose) constat eos non esse denuo baptizandos. You say, many in your country were baptised of a jew: but ye know not whether that jew be a christian or a pagan, & ye ask counsel of me, what is to be done in that case. doubtless they must not be rebaptized, if they were baptised either in the name of the holy trinity, or only in the name of Christ, as we read in the acts of the Apostles: for it is all one, as saith S. Ambrose. Bellarminus confesseth this sentence of Nicholas to be false indeed, but he denieth it to be heretical, because the church, that is, the pope hath not so defined it. Which answer of Bellarminus, doth not defend that prerogative in decrees of faith, which the pope challengeth unto himself, 1 For first, this was a public decree, because the Bulgarians asked the pope's judgement, as appeareth by the word (consulitis) ye require my counsel. 2 Secondle, he erred herein, as Bellarminus is enforced to grant, and consequently in his public decree. 3 Thirdly, this his decree was contrary to the Gospel, as pope Pelagius defineth in the said canon la. & therefore is Bellarminus his distinction frivolous, when he granteth the pope's definition to be false, but not heretical: as if forsooth an opinion repugaant to christs gospel can not be heretical, unless the pope's holiness so appoint it. 4 Fourthle, it is enough, that the pope hath erred in his decree of faith, whether they grant it to be heretical or no. 5 Fiftly, pope Pelagius, pope Zacharie, and a provincial counsel of England holden in time of papistry, have decreed his sentence to be heretical. Pope Pelagius hath these words: De consecr. dist. 4 cap. multi. Multi sunt qui in nomine solummodo christiani, una etiam mersione se asserunt baptizare, evangelicum vero praeceptum ipso deo et domino saluatore nostro jesu Christo tradente, nos admonet in nomine trinitatis, trina etiam mersione, sanctum baptisma unicuique tribuere. There be many that say, they baptize only in the name of Christ, with one mersion also: but the commandment of the gospel delivered by God himself, and our saviour jesus Christ, doth advertise us to baptize evety one in the name of the trinity, with three mersions. Pope Zacharie hath these words: In synodo Anglorum decretum et judicium firmissime praeceptum, et diligenter demonstatum esse digno scitur: ut quicunque sine invocatione trinitatis mer De consecr. dist. 4. cap. in synodo. sus fuisset, sacramentum regenerationis non haberet. quod omnino verum est, quia silotus in font baptismatis quis fuerit sine inuocatione trinitatis, per fectus christianus non est, nisi in nomine patris, et filii, et spiritus sancti fuerit baptizatus hoc quoque observari in praedicta synodo sacerdotes volverunt ut qui velvnā de trinitate personam in baptismo non nominaret, illud baptisma esse verum non posset. quod pro certo verum est, quia qui unanex sancta trinitate confessus non fuerit, perfectus christianus esse non potest. It is well known that it was decreed in a council of England, and that judgement was given most constantly, and exactly proved, that who soever was baptised without the invocation of the trinity, he could not have the sacrament of regeneration: which is altogether true: because, if that any shallbe washed in the fountain of baptism, without the Invocation of the trinity: he is no perfect christian, unless he be baptised in the name of the father, & of the son, & of the holy ghost. This also the priests in that synod would have observed, that who so should omit but one person of trinity in baptism, that baptism could not be true. which thing is true for certainty: because, he that shall not confess one person of the trinity, can not be a perfect christian. by which testimonies being not only of pope's, but of english papists also assembled in council, we have to note 2. things: the one, that the resolution of pope Nicholas was a public decree, & no private opinion: the other, that his decree was false, erroneous, & contrary to the gospel of Christ jesus. josephus Angles, a learned popish Friar, in a book dedicated to the pope, showeth this whole matter distinctly in these words. Si baptismus modo in nomine Christitantum, vel sanctissimae trinitatis implicit conferatur, non erit sacramentum. definita est a Gelasio josephus Angles de forma baptismi, ar. 4. conclus. 3. papa in canon sirevera, & in canon si multi, ubi dicuntur agere contra praeceptum evangelicum sic baptizantes, & baptismum esse reiterandum. If baptism this day be given in the name of Christ only, or in the name of the holy trinity, but not expressly, it shall not be the sacrament of baptism. this is defined by pope Gelasius in the canon sirevera, & in the canon si multi, where they are said to do against the precept of Christ's gospel, that baptize in that manner, & that their baptism must be iterated and done again. in fine, it is wonderful and almost incredible, what gross, shameful, & unchristian constitutions many pope's have made, aswell in decrees of faith as of manners. But I surceasing from recital of huge numbers, will content myself with only 3. to wit, Stephanus the 6. john the 9 & Sergius the 3. For first, pope Stephanus made frustrate Platina in vitis pontificum. and of none effect, the orders received of pope Formosus his predecessor. but shortly after, pope john disannulled & made frustrate the acts of pope Stephanus, & approved the acts of pope Formosus. yet after all this, pope Sergius undid again the acts of pope Formosus, & of pope john, & approved the acts of pope Stephanus the sixth. These shameful and erroneous constitutions & facts of these three pope's are so true, as not only Baptista Platina, a grave popish historiographer, but Carranza also, yea & Bellarminus himself do all confess the same. wherein we have first to consider, that amongst the papists order is an holy sacrament, & impresseth in the receiver, an indelible character: by virtue whereof once a bishop must ever he a bishop by popish doctrine, how soever jurisdiction be taken away: and consequently, since For nosus was once a bishop: to wit, episcopus Portuensis, as Argumentum ad hominem. saith Platina: and by virtue thereof had their indelible character, and power to give orders: it was a most manifest error in faith, and most wicked fact in manners, to decree as pope Stephanus, and pope Sergius did: that orders given by pope Formosus were not true orders, but none at all: and thereupon to command with the notorious scandal of all the world: that all such as were made priests by him where is now their character indelibilis? should take orders again, as if they had been of the mere laical order. The 6. Conclusion. NOt only the pope as pope may err in his public decrees, when he alone defineth matters of faith or manners: but also when he so defineth, with a provincial romish council. This conclusion is certain and undoubtedly true, even by the testimonies of best learned papists. And because Bellarminus dorh not deny this to be so, I will allege his words, which be these: Secunda opinio est, pontificem etiam ut pontificem, posse esse hereticum, Bellarminus lib. 4. de Rom. pontifice cap. 2. & docere haeresim, si absque generali concilio definiat, & de facto aliquando accidisse. hanc opinionem sequitur & tuetur Nilus in suo libro aduer sus primatum papae. eandem secuti sunt aliquot Parisienses, ut Gerson, & Almain in libris de potestate ecclesiae, nec non Alphonsus de Castro libro primo, capit 2. contra haereses, & Adrianus sextus papa in question de confirmatione: qui omnes non in pontisice sed in ecclesia, sive in concilio generali tantum, constituunt infallibilitatem dicij de rebus fidei. 2 The second opinion is, that the pope even as pope, may be an Lo the doctrine of the best learned papists is good, and altogether against the popedom. heretic, and teach heresy: if he define without a general council: and that this hath in very deed sometime chanced so. this opinion doth Nilus follow and defend, in his book against the pope's primacy. The same opinion have some of the university of Paris followed, as Gerson & Alma in in their books of the church's power, and of their opinion are also Alphonsus, and pope Adrian: who all do not ascribe the infallibility of judgement to the pope, but to the church or to a general council only, in all matters of faith: out of which words I note: 1 First, that the pope as pope may err when he alone decreeth any matter of faith. 2 I note secondly, that the pope, as pope may err, when he defineth any matter of faith without a general council: and consequently, that he may err with a provincial council. 3 I note thirdly, that pope's as pope's, that is as public persons, have erred already, and de facto: when they have decreed without a general council. 4 I note fourthly, that all this is testified by four great learned papists, whereof one was pope himself. These testimonies are important, doubtless, & very sufficient to establish my conclusion. But I will allege yet another proof, so excellent, so evident, and so irrefragable, as more cannot be wished. The proof standeth thus. Pope Stephanus, with a council of all the bishops and priests of Italy, defined flatly against rebaptisation. which decree of council with the pope's assent thereto: Saint Cyprian contemned, after it defending his former opinion constantly. yea he was so far from acknowledging that prerogative in pope's, which they of latter days challenge unto themselves, that he would not take pope Stephanus for his superior, or to have any jurisdiction over him, but termed him, superbum, imperitum, & caeeae ac pravae mentis, proud, ignorant, blind, and naughty, as is evident to such as read his epistle to Pompeius. Out of which I note: 1 First, that Cyprian was an holy martyr, & now a saint in heaven.. 2 I note secondly, that he was a very ancient father and a great learned clerk. 3 I note thirdly, that he knew what the pope and his council had decreed. 4 I note four, that he judged a romish council to be of no greater force than a Council African. I note fiftly, that he judged the Council of Italy to be of no greater force for the Pope's consent, than was 5 the Council of Africa for his own consent. I note sixtly, that provincial 6 Counsels are of no greater authority for the Pope's confirmation, than for the confirmation of another bishop: all which points are necessarily deduced, out of Saint Cyprians fact, and writings. And Bellarminus Bellarm. lib. 4 de Rom. Pont. cap. 7 answer hereunto is frivolous, and not worth the rehearsal. The Pope defined not the controversy as a matter of faith (saith Bellarminus) because he did not excommunicate Saint Cyprian: A sweet dish of a mess of mustard. The Pope utterly disliking Saint Cyprian his opinion, and deeming it repugnant to Christ's Gospel, and for that end convocating all the Clergy men of Italy, did define the controversy, but not Bellerminus is confuted. as a matter of faith, saith Bellarminus. The controversy was about rebaptisation, which was either flatly with the Gospel, or flatly against the same. If it were flatly with the Gospel, than erred the Pope and his Council egregiously: If it were flatly against the Gospel, and the Pope decreed it, than decreed he against it, as against a matter of faith, or else opinions against the Gospel are not against faith. The Corollary. First therefore, since the Pope's lives have been most wicked, most notorious, and scandalous unto the world: secondly, since Popes have aspired unto their popedoms by naughty and ungodly means: thirdly, since Popes may not only err, and hold false opinions, but also become notorious heretics, and for their heresies be deprived of their Popedoms: fourthly, since many Popes have de facto forsaken the Christian faith, and become flat heretics: fiftly, since many Popes have erred in their public doctrine of faith and manners: sixtly, since not only the Pope, as he is Pope, may err in his public decrees, when he alone defineth matters of faith and manners, but also when he so defineth with a provincial Council: I conclude, that it is a sufficient motive for me to renounce the Romish religion, as false, erroneous, and pernicious doctrine. Thus much of the second motive. THE FOURTH CHAPTER. Of the authority of general Councils in these our days. I Have sometimes had the decrees of general Councils, aswellatter as former in great admiration, thinking them the determinations and resolutions of the holy Ghost: but of late years I have changed my opinion upon sundry weighty motives, the chiefest whereof I will set down by way of conclusions. The first Conclusion. THe decrees of general Counsels in these latter days, are nothing else but a mere mockery and sophistical subtlety, to deceive God's people withal. For although there be before every general Council, solemn convocation, sumptuous preparation, and chargeable peregrenation: and before the end, long, costly, and tedious abode, yet neither do or can the Fathers of the counsels determine any thing there, which the Pope hath not before concluded, sitting in his chair at home. This may seem strange unto thee (gentle Reader,) as sometimes it did unto myself: but I shall (God willing) unfold the obscurity with such evident perspicuity, as never man henceforth can stand in doubt thereof. This shall be performed, if I prove 4, things: First, if I prove that the decrees of Counsels be of no force with papists, unless the Pope's Legates consent unto the 1 same. secondly, if I prove that though the Pope's Legates agree unto the decrees of Counsels, yet are the said decrees of no force: if the legates 2 shall consent unto any one jot, contrary to the Pope's appointment. thirdly, if I prove that the pope cannot delegate his authority, unto the Legates 3 whom he sen death to the Council. fourthly, if I prove that he will not come to the Counsels himself, but determine every thing at home 4 in his chamber. the proof hereof shall be the flattestimonie of Melchior Canus, a most profound Schoolman in reasoning, a most reverend Bishop in dignity, a most sound papist in opinion and sometime the chiefest and most excellent pofessour of Divinity, in Salmantica. This Canus writeth in this manner: Si Legatus contra instructionem agit, non censetur ex potestate delegata Canus lib. 5 de auctor. Conc, cap. 5. agere, atque adeo non est, cur eo modo act a superioris auctoritate probata esse credantur. Et paulò pòst? Decreta igitur quae à Legato contra sedis Apostolicae traditionem approbentur, non habent Romanae Ecclesiae authoritatem, nec aliter se habent, quam sià Concilio sine Lega. 'tis prodijssent. & paulò pòst. Solidam auctoritatem, quam in confirmandis & fratribus & dogmatibus Petrus habet, in Legatos transferre non potest. If the Legate do any thing contrary to instruction given him, he must not be deemed to proceed of power delegate, and so there is no cause why the pope shall be thought to approve the decrees: The decrees therefore, which the Legate shall approve against tradition of the Church To what end are Counsels, when every thing must be as the Pope saith at home. of Rome, have no authority from the Church of Rome, neither are they of any more force, than if they had proceeded from the Council without consent of the Legates: The sound authority therefore, which Peter hath in confirming his brethren and decrees, he cannot transfer unto his Legates. These are the express words of Canus, that great pillar of popish doctrine. Out of whose words I note first, that decrees of Counsels be of no force without consent of the Legates. I note secondly, that the decrees of Counsels, even when they have the consent of the Legates: are yet of no force when the Legates condescend to any thing, against the Pope's mind. I note thirdly, that the Pope cannot translate or give his authority unto the Legate, and consequently, the Pope greatly abuseth the whole world, when he calleth together all bishops in the Christian world, and yet will allow nothing that they do: unless it be the same that he decreeth, in his chair at home. Now that he never cometh to Counsels in his own person, Bellarminus recordeth in this manner: Summus Pontifex nunquam interfuit Concilijs Orient alibus per Bellarm. lib. 1 de Conciliis. cap. 19 se, etc. The Pope was never present at the Counsels in the East Church, in his own person: and why was not the Pope present at general Councils in the East Church? Bellarminus giveth two reasons; the one forsooth, because it was not convenient, that the head should follow the members. The other, because the Emperor would ever sit in the highest Mark what the Pope's vassal saith, place: which our humble Father the Pope, could not endure. Out of whose words I note two things: the one, that the highest place in Counsels, was in old time reserved to the Emperor: the other, that the Greek Church did never acknowledge the Pope's primacy. The second Conclusion. IN these latter days since the Pope attained his usurped jurisdiction, general Councils are so destitute of the holy Ghosts assistance, (though the Papists never cease to brag thereof) that they decree altogether against the holy Ghost. This is manifest by the solemn decrees of the late Council of Trent, as after due examination will evidently appear. First therefore, the said Council decreed flatly, that to be no matrimony which was approved Matrimony, by the uniform consent of the ancient Catholic Church, and which is this day perfect Matrimony by Christ's institution: These be the words of the Council, Qui aliter quam present parocho vel alio Sacerdote de ipsius seu ordinarii licentia, & duobus vel tribus testibus matrimonium contrahere Conc. Triden. de reformatione. Sess. 8. p. 46. 9 attended abunt, eos sancta synodus ad sic contrahendum omnino inhabiles reddit, & huiusmodi contractus irritos & nullos esse decernit presenti decreto. They that shall go about to marry otherwise, than in the presence of the parish Priest, or of some other priest, by his licence, or grant of the Ordinary, and with two or three witnesses those the holy Counsel maketh utterly uncapable of Marriage, and defineth by this present decree, such contracts to be frustrate and of no force. By which words and by which decree we see plainly, that this day those persons are made uncapable of matrimony, and their marriage disannulled, whom Christ Behold here the magnificence of popish Counsels. pronounceth capable, and whose marriage he approved. For before this decree of the late Council of Trent, all papists in the world approved private and secret matrimonies, for true and perfect: yea, all learned papists do confess constantly, such clandestine matrimonies to be true marriages in England, albeit that such contracts be of no force neither in Spain nor Italy, by their religion. The reason hereof is, because promulgation of the said Tridentine Counsels decree was not yet made in England, as appeareth by the first Cannon in the eight section dereformatione. This constant opinion of all Divines, the Council itself acknowledged in these words, Dubitandum non est, clandestina matrimonia libero consensu facta rata & vera esse matrimonia, quandiu Ecclesia ea irrita non fecit. Conc. Triden. Sess. 8. de reformatione. 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. Yea, the Council of Trent acknowledgeth matrimony, to be one of the seven Sacraments of the new Testament instituted by Christ, and yet accurseth all such as believe not the Church of Rome, to have authority to dissolve the same. These be the words: Si quis dixerit matrimonium non esse verè & propriè, unum ex septem Conc. Triden. sess. 8. Can. 1 de matimon, legis Evangelicae sacramentis à Christo domino institutum, sed ab hominibus in Ecclesiam invectum, neque gratiam confer, anathemasit. If any shall say that matrimony is not truly and properly, one of the seven Sacraments of the evangelical law instituted by Christ our Lord, but brought into the Church by men, neither to give grace, accursed be that man. And in another place it hath these words, Si quis dixerit Ecclesiam non potuisse constituere impedimenta matrimonium dirimentia, vel in ijs constituendis errasse, anathemasit. Sess. 8. Can. 4 If any shall say, that the Church could not appoint impediments which dissolve matrimony, or that the Church erred in appointing them, accursed be that man. These be the decrees of the holy Council of Trent, which, as the Papists believe, had the assistance of the holy Ghost, and therefore could not err. Out of which decrees we have first, that matrimony 1 is a contract instituted by Christ himself: we have secondly, 2 that it is an holy Sacrament with the Papists: We have thirdly, that it is now no Sacrament with the Papists, which by Christ's institution is a 3 Sacrament in their religion: We have fourthly, that matrimonial contracts, made without the presence of a Priest: are true and perfect matrimonies, 4 by Christ's law and institution: We have fiftly, that such matrimonies, 5 to wit, clandestine, are disannulled and made no matrimonies, by the Pope and his Tridentine Council. neither will it help to say, as the wiser sort of Papists doth, that the Council doth not unmarie persons already married, but only disableth unmarried persons so, as their prohibited marriages cannot be of force. For, first, the Council pronounceth that to be no Marriage, by reason of man's prohibition, which 1 without such prohibition should be perfect marriage by Christ's institution: as is already proved out of the said Council. secondly, that prohibition taketh away the liberty of the Gospel, as which implieth a 2 negative precept not contained in the law of nature: for as their famous popish doctor Franciscus à Victoria writeth, Lex Evangelicalex libertatis d Christo & Apostolis vocatur, quod Victoria rele. 7. de matrim. pag. 280. solo jure naturali post Evangelium Christiani teneantur, ex omnibus quae in veteri lege erant. The law of the Gospel is termed the law of liberty, by Christ and his Apostles: because after the Gospel Christians are bound only to the law of nature, concerning all such things as were in the old Law. thirdly, because this to do, is to challenge greater authority than Christ hath, and to be above Christ. The reason whereof is evident, because an inferior cannot change the law of his superior, unless he have from his superior commission so to do: which Victoria well observed in these words: Dispensatio in lege spectat solùm ad legislatorem, vel superiorem, Victor. de potest. Papae. & Concil. relect. 4. ad, S. p. 133 vel adillum cui specialiter commiserint ipsi. Dispensation in the Law pertaineth only to the lawmaker, or to his superior, or to whom they specially grant commission: If answer be made, that the Pope hath such commission: then would I know, whether he received it by word or writing: in the mean season the said Victoria telleth the Pope, that he cannot dispense in the law divine. These be his words: Manet ergo conclusio tanquam certa & firma, quod in primo genere Victor. ubi suprà. praeceptorum Concilij, scilicet quae sunt juris divini, Papa non potest dispensare. The conclusion therefore abideth firm and sure, that in the first kind of precepts of the Council: to wit, which are of the law divine, the Pope cannot dispense. And of Victoria his opinion, are Thomas Aquinus, Anthoninus, Sylvester, Soto, Covarruvias, and all learned papists. fourthly, because that which is of more force, to wit, a simple vow, doth 4 not dissolve matrimony: for if that which is of greater force cannot disannul matrimony, much less can that do it, which is of lesser force, as both the rule of logic and experience teacheth. Now, that a simple vow is of greater force than the Pope's prohibition, cannot be denied: for it is de iure divino, as all the Papists confess, and as the Scripture recordeth. And Psal. 75 Eccl. 5 that a simple vow doth not dissolve matrimony: Angelus proveth at Angelus de mattimon. imped. 5 large, out of the popish Cannon law. fiftly, because the Pope or Council cannot change the essence or essential parts of matrimony, for so saith the Tridentine Council. And if it were otherwise, the Pope might 5 make more or fewer Sacraments at his pleasure: whereupon it followeth necessarily, that all matrimonial contracts be as perfectly matrimonies this day, as they were in Christ's time: notwithstanding the prohibition of the Pope, or of his Council. For the essence and substantial parts abiding unaltered and perfect, the matrimony must needs be perfect. sixtly, because the Priest is mere extrinsical unto the contract, and therefore cannot necessarily concur to the essential 6 constitution thereof. The Council then in this decree, was destitute of the holy Ghost. The said Council affirmeth the solemn vow of religion, to dissolve matrimony in these words: Si quis dixerit matrimonium ratum non consummatum, per solemnem Conc. Triden. de mat, Sess. 8. can. 6. religionis professionem alterius coniugum non dirimi, anathemasit. If any shall say that matrimony firm not consummate, is not dissolved by solemn profession of religion of the one party, accursed be that man. This decree likewise is flat against the holy Ghost: which to be so, I prove by sundry means. The Council itself shall first confute itself, when it saith thus: Matrimonij perpetuum indissolubilemque nexum, primus humani generis Conc. Triden. Sess. 8. in init. parens divini spiritus instinctu pronuntiavit, cum dixit: hoc nunc os exossib. meis, & caro de carne mea: & paulò post: quod deus coniunxit, homo non separet. The first parent of mankind pronounced by the instinct of the holy Ghost, the perpetual and indissoluble bond of matrimony, when he said: this is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: and a little after: what therefore God hath coupled together, let no man put asunder: These are the words of the Council: by which we see evidently confessed, even of the Council: that matrimony was indissoluble by God's The Council that dissolveth, which it confesseth to indissoluble. appointment, before the consummation (as they term it,) or before copulation carnal, which is all one. Whereupon I infer first, that matrimony before consummation, or carnal copulation: is indissoluble by the holy Ghosts appointment. I infer secondly, that the Council of Trent dissolveth matrimony before consummation. I infer thirdly, directly upon the first and second illation: that the decrees of the Council, are flatly against the holy Ghost. I infer fourthly, that that may truly be verified of the Pope and his Council of Trent: which their own Doctor Victoria soundeth out against them, in these words: Officium Apostolorum Paulus semper vocat ministerium, & certè si quis mandata Christi relaxaret, non se haberet sicut Dei minister, sed sicut Victor. relect. 4. de potest. Papae. & Con. ad. 5. Arg. pag. 132 aequalis, aut potius superior. Paul termeth the office of the Apostles always ministery: and doubtless, if any should dissolve Christ's commandments, he should not behave himself as the minister of God, but as his equal, or rather as his Supeour. The third Conclusion. ALthough the Popes of latter years take upon them to like or dislike, to prove or disproove the decrees of general Counsels at their pleasures: yet is every general Council above the Pope, yet may every general Council excommunicate, judge, and depose the Pope, yet may every general Council set down laws and decrees concerning faith and manners: which no Pope hath authority, once to alter or change. All which shall be proved, God's holy Spirit assisting me, by the flat testimonies and opinions of the best learned Papists. Victoria writeth in this manner, Si Concilium declarat aliquid esse de fide, aut de iure divino, Papa in hoc nihil potest aliter declarare aut immutare, maximè sitale ius spectet Victor. ubi suprà. concil. 2, pag. 133. adfidem vel admores Ecclesiae universalis. If the Council declare any thing to be of faith or of the law divine, in this point the Pope can nothing otherwise declare or change: especially, if such law appertain either to faith or manners of the universal Church. Of this opinion are many other learned papists, and especially, their Angelical Doctor Thomas Aquinas: that every general Council is above the Pope: great learned papists affirm constantly, to wit, Abulensis, Panormitanus, joannes Gerson, Almainus, Cardinalis Cameracensis, and Cardinalis Florentinus. Panormitanus argueth out of Pope Panorm. in Concil. Basil. num. 18. apud Vict. pag. 139. Gregory's words, that as the Pope cannot change any thing in the contents of the Gospel, so neither can he change any thing in the decrees of Counsels. Yea joannes Gerson proceedeth further, and saith, that a general council cannot only limit the Pope's power, so as he can neither Io. Gerson 1. part tract. 3. apud Vict. pag. 138. dispense nor abrogate the decree of the Council: but also that the Council may upon a reasonable cause, exempt any man from his jurisdiction. that the Council may judge and depose the Pope, as also compel him to appear, and for his disobedience excommunicate his Holiness: The Pope's own dear Friar josephus Angles Valentinus, avoucheth in these words, Concilium ecclesiae potest Papam per excommunicationem compellere, josephus in 4. sentent. p. 2. q. de excom. art. 4. diffic. 1. conclus. 3. nt redditurus rationem haeresis aut apostasiae criminis cuius accusatur, compareat, & in his duobus casibus illum excommunicare. patet, quia cumpossit in his duobus casibus papam deponere, erit tunc illo superior, & exconsequenti antequam deponatur, per excommunicationem illum ut in judicio compare at, compellere: aliter enimsi non posset Concilium Papam compellere, neque posset illum judicare. A general Council may by excommunication compel the Pope to appear, and to give an account of that heresy or apostasy, whereof he is accused: and in these two cases excommunicate him. The thing is evident, because when it can in these two cases depose the Pope, it shall then be his superior: and consequently, before he be deposed, compel him by excommunication to appear in judgement. For otherwise, if the Council could not compel the Pope, neither could it judge him. I could allege more like testimonies in this behalf, but it is needles: because many express texts in the Pope's own cannon law, do witness the same: whereof this one of Pope Zozimus may suffice for many, Contra statuta sanctorum Patrum condere aliquid aut immutare, 25. q 1. cap. contra. nec huius quidem sedis potest authoritas. To make any law, or to change any thing against the decrees of the holy fathers: this our seat of Rome hath no authority. Vict. relict. 4. de potest. papae. concl. 20. p. 149. Victoria saith thus: Bene scio quod Pavormitanus, & Gerson, & Okam defendunt, quod licet appellare a papa ad concilium. I know right well, that Paunormitaine, Gerson, and Okam do hold, that we may appeal from the pope unto a general council, Bellarminus granteth, that albeit Cameracensis, Gerson, Almain, Cusanus, Paunormitanus, Florentinus, Abulensis, (who all are great popish doctors,) do differ in the manner, yet do they all acknowledge the power of a general council, to be greater than the authority of the pope. These be his very own words: Conveniunt tamen in eo omnes, ut doceant esse hanc potestatem immediatè Bellar. de con. lib. 2. 1. 14. in ecclesia, & proinde mortuo papavel deposito vel nolente adesse concilio, concilium non propterea esse corpus imperfectum, sed perfectum & habere potest atem papalem definiendi de fide, sanciendi leges, dandi indulgentias etc. exquib. deducunt concilium esse supra papam, & posse ipsum indicare, & punire: & idem esse querere, an papasit maior concilio, ac si quereretur, an pars sit maior suototo. But they all agree in this, that they teach this power to be immediately in the church: and therefore when the Pope is dead, or deposed, or will not come to the council (as he never doth,) that then the council is not an unperfect body, but perfect, and hath papal power to define matters of faith, to make laws, to give pardons, etc. Whereupon they gather that the council is above the pope, that it can judge him and punish him, and that it is all one to demand if the pope be greater than the council, as if it were asked if the part be bigger than the whole. The council of Basill defined it for an article of our faith, to believe that the council is above the pope. These be the express words of the council: Veritas de potestate concilij generalis universalem ecclesiam repraesentantis Cont. Basilensess. 33. supropapam & quemlibet alterum, declarata per Constantiense & hoc Basileense generalia concilia, est veritas fidei catholicae. The verity of the power of a general council representing the universal church above the pope, and every other person declared by the general council of Constance, and this of Basil, is the very truth of the catholic faith. And the council addeth another clause, to wit, that whosoever denieth this verity obstinately, is to be reputed 25. q. 1. cap. unt quidam. for an heretic. In fine, Pope urbanus saith thus: Vbi apertè Dominus veleius apostoli, & eos sequentes sancti patres sententialiter aliquid definierunt, ibi non novam legem Rom. Pontifex dare, sed potius quod praedicatum est, usque ad animam & sanguinem confirmare debet. where our Lord or his apostles have spoken any thing plainly, and the holy fathers coming after them, have defined any thing judicially, There the bishop of Rome must not make any new la, but rather confirm that which is preached, with the best blood in his body. The fourth Conclusion. General and popish counsels in these days, are as a nose of wax, and the decrees thereof as uncertain as the wind. This conclusion is proved to be such, by the express judgement of great learned papists. Bellarminus writeth of counsels, in this manner: Nos dicimus, concessum episcoporum in concilijs legitimis esse verum Bellar. de conlib. 1. cap. 18. judicum concessum, & eorum decreta & leges necessario sequendas. we say, that the assembly of Bishops in lawful counsels, is the true assembly of judges, and that their decrees and laws must be followed of necessity. But in another place, the same Bellarminus hath these words: Dico igitur, concilium illud non posse errare, quod absolutè est generale, Bellar. lib. 2. de council. cap. 11. & ecclesiam universam perfectè representat: eiusmodi autem concilium non est, antequam adsit sententia summi pontificis. I say therefore, that that council cannot err, which is absolutely general, and which representeth the universal church perfectly: but such a council is not before the pope give his assent. And he saith again in the self same chapter: Idem enim est sive pontifex express concilium reprobet, sive concilium agat contra pontificis sententiam. For it is all one, whether the pope expressly disallow the council, or the council do against the pope's mind. Now in the first place Bellarminus telleth us, that bishops are true judges in the counsels, and have definitive voices in the same: and that their decrees must Mat contradiction in the jesuite. needs be followed. But in the other two places he singeth another song and telleth us, that though the Pope cometh not in person to the counsels, but sendeth his legates in his place: yet are the decrees of such counsels of no force, nor to any purpose, unless they be according to the pope's mind. They are therefore as a nose of waze, because, when the bishops have employed their whole industry, when they have used long consultation, when they have disputed the matter pro & contra: when they have invocated the holy ghost, and have with mature deliberation set down cannons, accursing such as will not obey the same: the pope notwithstanding saith, all this is not worth a straw, as which is contrary to his opinion, that cannot err, and so of none effect. For the uncertainty of the decrees of counsels, Bellarm. saith thus: Non potest fieri ut aliquando adfinem controversiarum deveniatur, nisidetur Bellarm. de council. l. 1. c. 21. locus maiori parti suffragiorum. It cannot be, that ever an end of controversies should be made, unless the greater part of voices be of force: and he saith in another place. Est autem verum decretum concilij quod fit a maiori part, alioqui nullum Idem Bellar. li, 2. ca 11. esset legitimum concilij decretum, cum semper aliqui dissentiant. For it is the true decree of the council, which hath the consent of the greater part: otherwise there should be no lawful decree made, because ever some dissent. But Melchior Canus telleth us another tale, and saith in this manner: Non itaque quod in Romanis concessionibus fit, plurium apud nos sententia praevalet: Canus li. 5. de auct. concilii, cap. 5. p. 164 Of th● pope's gravity and authority, see at large in the 3. chapter. & paulo post, non enim numero haec indicantur, sed pondere. Pondus autem concilijs dat summi Pontificis, & gravitas, & auctoritas: quae si adsit centum patres satis sunt, sin desit nulli sunt satis, sint quamlibet plurimi. Not therefore as in humane consents the voices of more are of force with us: for these things are not judged in number, but in weight: and the counsels receive their weight from the gravity and authority of the pope: which if it be once present an hundredth fathers are enough, but if it want, none are enough, be as many as they will. Now sir, Bellarminus telleth us, that more voices in councils must needs be of force: But Canus saith, it is not so: for be they many, be they few, what part the pope liketh shall be true. The decrees therefore of popish counsels, are as uncertain as the wound. For after the fathers of the counsels have fasted long, prayed much, consulted gravely, deliberated maturely, decreed soberly, commanded strictly, and accursed severely: neither others, nor yet themselves can tell, what shall be of force therein: for all must be as pleaseth the pope's holiness, & perhaps their decrees will not content his mind. The fift Conclusion. NO bishops can in these our days have voices in counsels, but such as first swear obedience to the pope, and promise to defend his canon law: which thing, though most absurd, is for all that so clear, as Bellarminus cannot deny the same. These be his words. Bellar. lib. 1. de council. cap. ultimo. Istud iuramentum non tollit epi scoporum libertatem, quae in concilijs necessaria est. iur antony's enim se fore obedientes summo pontifici, quod intelligitur donec pontifex est, & dum jubet ea quae secundum deum & sacros canones jubere potest, seanon iur ant se non aicturos quod sentiunt in concilio, vel se non deposituros eum si hereticum esse convincant. This oath taketh not away the liberty of Bishops, which in counsels is necessary. For they swear that they will be obedient unto the pope, which is to be understood, so long as he is pope, and while he commandeth those things, which he may command agreeable to God, and to the holy cannons: but they swear not, that they will not speak what they think in the council, or that they will not depose him if they prove him to be an heretic. Thus saith Bellarminus, whose only testimony is most sufficient A point worthy the observation. in all popish affairs, as who is the pope's sworn and tenderly beloved vassal: Out of whose words for more perspicuity, I note. 1 First, that all Clergy men admitted to give voices in councils, are sworn wholly to obey all the pope's constitutions. 2 I note secondly, that the said persons are sworn to believe, that the pope cannot err in his judicial decrees of faith or manners: that no counsels are of force, without the pope's confirmation: thatall counsels confirmed by him, are approved by the holy ghost: that he can excommunicate & deposeall Emperors, kings, queens, and bishops in the christian world, that he can deliver by his pardons all souls out of purgatory, and a thousand like things. For all such matters are contained in his canons, and consequently in their most lamentable oath. 3 I note thirdly, that they are sworn to admit his decrees, who as they believe, may be an heretic. 4 I note four, that they are sworn to admit his judgement in all matters of faith, whom yet they may judge and depose for heresy. 5 I note fifthly, that their fundamental article, in appointing the Pope judge over all controversies: is quite overthrown and turned upside down, in this Bellarminus his explication. For when he saith, (while he commandeth, etc.) he granteth every Bishop freedom The inconstancy of Popish doctrine, is the cause of dissenting from them. to examine and judge, when the Pope commandeth things agreeable to God and the Canons. Which liberty, if they would constantly perform: all true Christians and perfect Catholics, would agree with them. For none that believe rightly in God, will deny obedience to the Pope: when he preacheth and teacheth any thing, agreeable to God and holy Canons. But true Christians finding his canons to be disholy, and his decrees to be against God: think as Bellarminus here teacheth them, that they are not bound to obey him. For as an other great learned papist Franciscus à Victoria saith profoundly, the unjust laws of the Pope do not bind in conscience. These are his very words: Ego pro certo habeo, quod omnes leges iniustae etiam Papae, non obligant Victor. relect. 4. de potest. Papae & Concilii propos. 17. pag. 157. in foro conscientiae. I hold it for a constant and undoubted truth, (saith the Pope's learned Doctor,) that all unjust laws even of the Pope, do not bind in the Court of conscience. The Papists then, who charge us so strictly to obey the pope's laws, and withal prohibit us to examine the same, do deny us that liberty, which they take unto themselves: and that the Reader may fully understand the abomination of the oath, which all popish Bishops swear unto the Pope: I will here set down the express words thereof, as I find them in their own decretals: Ego N. Episcopus, ab hac hor a fidelis ero S. Petro, sanctaeque Romanae Ecclesiae, dominoque meo Papae N. eiusque successoribus Canonicè intrantibus. Sequitur: Papatum Romanae Ecclesiae, & regulas sanctorum patrum, adiutor ero, ad defendendum & retinendum contra omnes homines; sic me Deus adiuvet, & haec sancta Evangelia. I (john Fisher,) Bishop, will be faithful from henceforth to S. Peter, Decret. l b. 2. tit. 24. cap. 4. and to the holy Church of Rome, and to my L. (Boniface) the pope, and to his successors chosen Canonically: and I will be an helper to defend (against all the world,) the popedom, or Papal superiority, and the rules of the holy fathers; so God me help, and the holy Gospel. Lo ' hear gentle reader, open rebellion is required and by evangelical oath coufirmed, of suhiectes against their sovereigns: for the bishops of every country, are fubiects to kings of the same country, and yet do they swear to defend the pope's tyranny, and usurped jurisdiction, against their natural dread Sovereigns. For they swear to defend the pope's usurped authority against all people none excepted: which his usurped authority, (as you have partly heard, and shall hear more at large in the sixth Chapter following,) extendeth itself to the translation of kingdoms, empires, and regalities. The Corollary. FIrst therefore, since general counsels in these days, are nothing else, but a mere subtlety to deceive God's people withal. 2 secondly, since the said counsels decree all together against the holy Ghost. 3 Thirdly, since Popes take upon them, to approve or disprove counsels at their pleasures. 4 fourthly, since by popish doctrine, counsels can judge and depose pope's. 5 Fiftly, since counsels be as a nose of wax, and as uncertain as the weathercock. 6 Sixtly, since appeals may be made unto counsels from the Pope, though the pope deny the same. 7 Seventhly, since the pope's doctrine can not be maintained, but by extorted oaths. I conclude, that it is a sufficient motive for me to renounce the mish religion, as false, erroneous and pernicious doctrine. Thus much of the third motive. THE FIFT CHAPTER. Of the Pope's Dispensations THe enormities in popish dispensations, are such, so great, and so many: that if I should receipt all, time would sooner fail me then matter whereof to speak. I will therefore at this present content myself with some few, reserving the residue till more convenient time. The 1. Conclusion. THE pope usually dispenseth with professed Monks, that they may marry lawfully: which dispensation is not only against the law divine with them, but flatly against the Pope's own religion. In this conclusion, three things are to be proved. 1 First, that the pope doth dispense, as is said. 2 Secondly, that his dispensation is against the law divine. 3 Thirdly, that it is against his own religion. For the first part, Navarrus writeth in this manner: Navarrus de iuditiis, notab. 3. p. 275 Papa potest dispensare cum monacho iam professo, ut contrahat matrimonium: imò de facto multi papae dispensarunt. Consentit ipse Caietanus, Antoninus, & Paludanus. The pope may dispense with a Monk already professed, that he may take a wife and marry: for many pope's de facto have dispensed so Caietanus, Antoninus, and Palludanus are of the same opinion. For the second point Victoria writeth thus: Multitenent quod victor. de potest. papae, relect 4. ad 3. argument. Papa non potest dispensare in votis, quia dispensatio proprie est relaxatio juris. unde cum sit de ture divino, dispensatio erit juris divini relaxatio, quod sane ad papam non spectat. & utinam haec opinio non sit vera. Many hold, that the Pope can not properly dispense in vows, because dispensation properly is the relaxation of the Law. whereupon since a vow is of the law divine, dispensation must be remission of the la divine: which thing doubtless belongeth not unto the Pope: and would to God this opinion were not true. Lo, this religious Friar is so zealously affected towards the pope's credit, that he wisheth the opinion which overthroweth his practice were not true. And the Pope's famous Canonist Covarruvias, writeth to the same effect in these words: Covarruvias to. 1 c. 20. par. 11 in med. ipsius col. prima Nec me latet D. Thomam previa maxima deliberatione asserere, Rom. Pontificem non posse propria dispensatione continentiae solemn Monachorum votum tollere. & paulo post: oportet tamen primam opinionem defendere, ne quae passim fiant evertantur omnino. Neither am I ignorant, that Saint Thomas affirmeth after Necessity hath no law, the pope's mind must be obered. great deliberation; that the Bishop of Rome can not with his dispensation, take away from Monks their solemn vow of chastity: This notwithstanding we must defend the first opinion, lest those things which are practised every where, be utterly overthrown: thus saith the great Canonist and reverend The pope's doings must be defended, because otherwise popery cannot stand. popish bishop Covarruvias, out of whose words sundry things may be noted worthy the observation. First, that the papists cannot agree about the Pope's authority. Secondly, that great learned papists among whom Thomas Aquinas is one, (whose doctrine sundry Popes have confirmed,) 1 do deny the Pope's authority in the premises. 2 Thirdly, that the contrary opinion must be defended, for the honesty and safeguard of the pope's religion. 3 Fourthly, that most miserable is the Pope's doctrine, which needeth such poor and beggarly shifts for the maintenance thereof. 4 Fiftly, that the papists have no cause so to exclaim against priest's marriage, since the Pope dispenseth with his monks to marry at 5 their pleasures. For the marriage of priests is only prohibited by the Pope's law, but the marriage of monks by the law divine, as the Popes own dear doctors Victoria and Aquinas tell us. Sixtly, that Aquinas his doctrine, which the Pope hath approved, 6 confuteth the Pope's religion. For the third point, Thomas Aquinas giveth this testimony, out of the Popes own law. Abdicatio proprietatis sicut etiam custodia castitatis, adeo annexa est regulae monachali, ut contra eamnec summus Pontifex possit indulgere. The renouncing of property, as also the keeping of chastity, is so annexed to the rule of monks, that the Pope himself cannot dispense against the same: this saying of Thomas Aquinas, is found verbatim in the pope's canons, Extra destatu monachorum Extra de statu monachorum cum ad mon. cum ad monasterium. The 2. Conclusion. THe Pope often pronounceth matrimony dissolved by his dispensations, which is firm and stable by Christ's own institution. The first part is proved by Martinus Navarrus, in these words. Dividitur (matrimonium) ante consummationem, per dispensationem Papae justa de causa factam. Navarr. in enchir. cap. 22. par. 21. Matrimony is dissolved before consummation, by the pope's dispensation upon just cause granted. And a little after he hath these words: Quorum opinio adeo observatur, quodetiam ter vel quater adpetitiones consilio meo antequam in urbem venissem oblatas, Paulus 3. & Pius 4. per suas dispensationes dissolverunt quaedam matrimonia omnino clandestina nondum consummata, in remedium animarum alioquin probabiliter periturarum. whose opinion (he speaketh of the canonists who generally are of his own opinion,) is so observed, that thrice or four times before my coming to Rome upon petitions made by my advice, Lo, how readily the Pope displeaseth God, for the pleasure of man. Pope Paulus the third and pope Pius the fourth, with their dispensations dissolved certain secret matrimonies not yet consummate, for the safeguard of souls which by likelihood would otherwise have perished. And Covarruvias affirmeth Paulus the fourth and julius the third, to have dispensed in like manner: these be his words. Nec me latet Paulum quartum summum ecclesiae Pontificem, Ann. 1558. hac usum fuisse dispensatione quibusdam ex causis, quas iustissimas esse idem summus ecclesiae praesul existimavit. idem paulo ante julius Covarruvias, tom. 1. cap. 7. par. 4. n. 13. col. 1. 3. fecerat in eodem matrimonio, cum ecclesiae universali praesideret. Neither am I ignorant that Pope Paulus the 4. put this dispensation in practice, for certain causes which the same Pope thought to be most just. julius the third when he was Pope, granted in like cause the same dispensation. The second part is proved, by the uniform consent of all divines. For Bellarmine saith; Bellar. lib. i c. 5. de matrim prope finem. Non autem essentialia matrimonia (ecclesia) ullo modo mutat, aut mutare potest. But the essential parts of Matrimony, the Church neither doth change, neither can change. And doubtless if the Church can not do it, á fortiori, the Pope can not do it, which Bellarmine will not deny, and Victoria doth witness no less in these words: Communis schola theologorum negat maiorem, scilicet quod Papa Victor. in relect. 4. de potest. papae & conc. pag. 128. ad primum. possit dispensare, sed in contrarium sunt multi doctores Cannonistarum. The common school of Divines denieth the mayor, to wit, that the Pope can dispense with matrimony, but many Canonists hold the contrary. Cov arru vias likewise saith thus: Tutior ac verior est communis theologorum opinio, quae probat matrimonium Covarruv. to. t. par. 2. cap. 7. par. 4. n. 14. in medio. ratum nondum secut â commixtione carnis & sic non consummatum, minime posse dissolvi Rom. Pontif. dispensatione. The common opinion of Divines is more safe and true, which proveth that matrimony perfected by consent, but not consummate by carnal copulation, can not be dissolved by the Pope's dispensation. And the said Covarruvias addeth these words: Ipse vero non auderem à communi theologorum sententia discedere. I myself truly dared not forsake the common opinion of divines. And no marvel: for Christ himself putteth the martyr out of all doubt, when he saith: Mat. c. 19 v. 7. Quod Deus coniunxit homo non separet. That which God hath conjoined, let no man put asunder. And in another place he saith thus: Omnis qui dimittit uxorem suam, & alteram ducit, maecatur. Luc. c. 16. v. 18. Every one that putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery. And Saint Paul upon the same argument, hath these words: His autem qui matrimonio iuncti sunt, precipio non ego sed Dominus, 1. Cor. 7. v. 10. Uxorem a viro non discedere, quod sidi scesserit, manner innuptam, aut Uiro suo reconciliari, & vir uxorem non dimittat. Those that are married command not I, but the Lord, that the wife depart not from her husband: but if she shall departed, then to abide unmarried, or to be reconciled to her husband. Thus saith Christ, thus saith saint Paul, that man and wife joined by Christ, must abide during life together, or live unmarried, and nor be severed by the pope's dispensation. Neither will it help to say as Bellarm. doth, & others with him: that Christ only speaketh de matrimonio consummato, and that matrimonium ratum, with which the pope dispenseth, is not de iure divino: For first, if matrimonium ratum what an absurd answer is this? were not de iure divino: the greatest popish divines would not deny the pope's dispensation therein: as who grant him power over all laws human. 2 Secondly, Christ speaketh absolutely, and maketh no mention of copularion or popish consummation, which is all one. 3 Thirdly, with papists matrimony is a divine sacrament, and so is perfect without carnal copulation. For as their own Canus saith: Sanctus spiritus & sacramenti gratia, per coitum non datur. Canus, lib. 8. de locis theol. c, 5. p. 246. The holy ghost and grace of sacrament, is not given by copulation. 4 Fourthly, it followeth hereupon, that matrimony is not fully perfect in the popish Church, because copulation followeth a good while after. 5 Fiftly, because it is absurd to say, that it beginneth to be a sacrament by carnal copulation, and was not a sacrament by the priest's action. 6 Sixtly, it followeth hereupon, that the marriage between the blessed Virgin and S. joseph was not perfect matrimony: For there doubtless wanted popish carnal copulation. 7 Seventhly, it followeth hereupon. that there was not perfect matrimony between Adam and Eve: For their matrimony was in the state of innocency, and before all carnal copulation. 8 Eightly, because if matrimony be not de iure divine before copulation: there is no cause why both parties agreeing together, may not release the bargain, and quite dissolve the contract. For as the Vide Victor. de potest. papae. p. 128. & Soto, in 4. dist. 27. p. 48. law saith: Quisque potest suo iuri cedere: Every man may yield up his right: which thing all, both canonists and divines, admit for good in sponsalibus. The 3. Conclusion. AS the pope pronounceth, that matrimony dissolved by virtue of his dispensation, which remaineth true and perfect matrimony by Christ's institution: So doth he likewise pronounce by like dispensation that to be true and perfect matrimony, which both by the law divine, and law of nature, is no matrimony at all. The former part of this assertive proposition, is proved in the conclusion going next before. For probation of the second part, I make this supposal: that the pope hath dispensed with brothers in the marriages of their brother's wives, as the world right well knoweth to be true. This supposal made, I proceed in this manner. The la of Moses was partly judicial, partly ceremonial, and partly moral. The judicial and ceremonial parts were abrogate by Christ's passion, as witnesseth Saint Paul in these words: Translato sacerdotio, necesse Heb. c. 7. v. 12. est ut & legts translatio fiat. Translation of priesthood being made, there must also be translation of the la: but the moral and part natural is still in force, in so much as all Christians are this day bound to keep the decalogue: notwithstanding the translation of the law of Moses, even as were the Gentiles before the said la was given. For the gentiles were as much bound before the la, and we now after the law: to abstain from Idolatry, theft, adultery, & the rest, as were the jews in time of the law. For as Victoria hath well observed, the gospel is called the law of liberty, because Christians after promulgation of the gospel, are only bound to the la of nature: of all such things as are contained in the old la: and all divines are of the same opinion, as witnesseth the said Victoria in these words: Receptissimum est apudomnes theologos, & necessarium est it a tenere, ex omnibus precept is veteris legis, sola moralia integra & firma restitissein nova lege. It Victor. de matrim. sect. 2. relect. 7. p. 280 is a general opinion approved of all divines: and it is necessatie so to hold, that of all precepts in the old law only moral abode firm & entire in the new la. Thus then is it plain, that that part of Moses la which is moral, or natural, abideth still in full strength and virtue. To which I must add two things, for the exact and perfect probation of this my third conclusion. 1 The one, that the la of nature is immutable, and indispensible by the power of man: and consequently, that the pope cannot dispense therewith. The other, that all the laws prohibited in the 18. of Leviticus, especial that of marrying the brother's wife, are moral and prohibited by the law of nature. For the former part, Victoria writeth in this manner. In hoc genere decretorum aut Canonum, Victor. relect. 4 de potest. papae, prop. 1. pag. 126. papa nihil potest immutare dispensando, & multominus abrogando. Conclusio est omnium theologorum absque controversia, & potest brevitèr probari, quia ius naturale est immutabile, & ut legitur in decretis, naturale ius semper permanet. In this kind of decrees or Canons, the Pope can change nothing by dispensation, and much less by abrogation. It is the conclusion of all divines without any controversy, and it may be proved briefly, because the law of nature is immutable, and as it is in the decrees, the law of nature abideth always. Thomas Aquinas confirmeth the same in these words: Sed praecepta decalogi sunt de iure naturali, ideo nec in eyes nec in alijs, Aquin. in lib. 3. sent. dist. 37. art. 4. prout vim eorum continent, licet alicui homini dispen sare. But the precepts of the decalogue are of the law of nature, & therefore no man can dispense either with them or with others, that contain the force thereof. And the Pope's famous archbishop Autoninus telleth his holiness flatly, that his fullness of power doth in no case extend itself, to the law divine or law of nature. These are his words: Quantum verò ad illa quae sunt de iure naturali vel divino, iurisdictio seu potest as papalis non se extendit: sic vero quod ista possit mutare, Antoninus de potest. papae, part 4. tit. 22. cap. 3. par. 1. vel etiam dare eyes vim obligandi: & ratio est, quia inferior non potest mutare leges superioris: deus autem est superior ad papam. Concerning those things which are of the law of nature, or law divine, jurisdiction or papal power doth not extend itself: so to wit that the Pope can change these things, or give power obligative unto them: and the reason is, because an inferior can not change the laws of his superior, and God is the Pope's superior. I deem he be in very deed. Thus then have I proved evidently by the Pope's own doctors, that the Pope can not dispense with the law divine, or with the law of nature. It remaineth that I likewise prove, the laws prohibited in Leviticus to be the laws of nature: and consequently, indispensible by the power of man. First therefore, it is written in the self same chapter after the prohibition of the said degrees, in this manner. Nec polluamini in omnibus his, quibus contaminatae sunt universae gentes, Levit. 18. 24. quas ego eijciam ante conspectum vestrum, & quibus polluta est terra, cuius ego scelera visitabo, ut evomat habitatores suos. Be ye not polluted in all these things with which all nations are defiled, whom I will cast out before your sight, & with which the earth is polluted, whose iniquities I will visit, that it may vomit out the inhabitants thereof. By which words we see evidently, that the breach of these laws was wicked & unlawful among the Gentiles: & consequently, that the Gentiles marrying within degrees here prohibited, transgressed the law of nature. For they being free from all other laws, could not be polluted by the breach of any law, save only of the law of nature. 2 Secondly, every one knoweth, and can easily discern by natural discourse, that a brother to marry his own sister, is against the lafoy we of nature: and yet doth Thomas Aquinas affirm, that there is like prohibition in affinity. His words be these. Natural propinquity (saith he) cometh alio modo per carnalem copulam, Aquinas in 4. sent. dist. 4. ar. 2. quae est etiam actus naturae adgenerationem ordinatus, & exhac causatur affinitas, quae quidem impedit matrimonium eisdem rationibus, quibus & consanguinitas. Natural propinquity cometh another way by carnal copulation, which is an act of nature ordained to generation: and of this is caused affinity, which verily prohibiteth Matrimony by the self same reasons by which consanguinity doth. 3 thirdly, because many late popish writers do affirm the same. Victoria hath these words: Aliqui, ut Archiepi scopus Florent. 3. p. tit. 1. cap. 4. & Palud. in 4. Victor. relict. 4. de potest. papae, pag. 129. ad, 2. d. 40. Videntur tenere, quodin omnibus gradibus prohibitis in Leuttico, Papa non posset dispensare. & hoc reputat Silvester probabilius. Some, as Archbishop of Florence, and Paludanus seem to hold that the pope can not dispense, in any of the degrees prohibited in Leviticus: And this opinion Sylvester thinketh more probable: 4 Fourthly, because the common opinion of the Fathers was, that all degrees prohibited in the said Leviticus, are prohibited now by the la divine. Which josephus Angles constantly avoucheth to be so, in these words. Duae sunt opiniones, prima omnium fere antiquorum, qui affirmabant omnes gradus in Levit. prohibitos, esse etiam nunc iure divino prohibitos. joseph. Angles in 4. S. p. 1. q. 13. ar. 3. Haec fuit S. Bo. Tho. Ric. & Dur. quibus adhaesit Sylvester, affirmans Papam non posse dispensare in gradibus in Levit. prohibitis. There be two opinions: 1 The first was of all the old writers some few excepted, who affirmed that all degrees prohibited in Leviticus, are now also prohibited by the la divine. This was the opinion of Saint Bonaventure, of Thomas, of Richardus, and of Durand, with whom Sylvester took part, affirming that the pope can not dispense with degrees prohibited in Leviticus. This then is true not only by the scriptures, but even by the testimony of the pope's own doctors, and by the uniform consent of approved antiquity. Absurd therefore is Cardinal Allens opinion, and most disloyal Allens words disloyal. are his speeches: when he in his apology for the seminaries, justifieth james Laborne his opinion against the premises. The fourth Conclusion. THE pope's dispensations are as general as ungodly: his corrupt vassals daily gaping and expecting, who will ask dispensations for every jot in the law. This conclusion though strange to many men's cogitations, shall be proved by the constant assertion of the best learned popish doctor. Thus therefore writeth Victoria. Videmus quotidie a Romana curiatam largas, imo omnino tam dissolutas Victor. de potest. papae & conc. relect. 4 p. 139. dispensationes profectas, ut orbis ferre non possit, non solùm in scandalum pusillorum, sedmaiorum. We see daily so large, yea altogether so dissolute dispensations come from the court of Rome, that the world cannot endure it, neither is that to the scandal only of the weak, but even of the perfect sor●●. And in another place, the said Victoria saith thus: Sed clamat experientia in contrarium, & videmus quodnullus quaerit dispensationes, quin obtineat. But experience exclaimeth to the contrary: and we see that no man seeketh for dispensations, but he attaineth the same. And in another place he saith thus: Ego nullam dispen sationem in particulari condemno, sed video duo: primum, quod in fine anni sunt tot dispensationes factae, ut nescio an sint Vbi supra pag. 149. tot qui legem servant. Secundo, video quod omnes qui petunt afferunt dispensationes, quos mirum est habere legitimas causas, ut cum eis dispensetur in impedimentis matrimonij, & irregularitatis, & in pluralitate beneficiorum. I condemn no dispensation in particular, but I see two things: First, that in the end of the year there are so many dispensations gotten, as I know not if so many keep the law. Secondly, I see all Lo, for spiritual live & matrimony, and such like, dispensations are never denied. that ask bring dispensations, whom I marvel if they all have lawful causes, that they may be dispensed withal, in the impediments of matrimony, and of irregularity, and for the plurality of spiritual live. And in another place the said Victoria hath these words. Et paultim adhanc intemperantiam dispensationum deventum est, & hunc talem statum, ubi necmala nostra nec remedia pati possumus, Victor. ubi supag. 151. & ideo necesse est aliam rationem excogitare adconservandas leges. Da mihi Clementes, Linos, Sylvestros, & omniapermittam arbitrio eorum. Sed ut nihil gravius dicatur in recentiores pontifices, certe multis partibus sunt priscis illis inferiores. By Title and little we are brought to these in ordinate dispensations, and to this so miserable state, where we are neitherable to endure our own griefs, nor remedies a sligned for the same. And therefore must we perforce invent some other way, for conservation of the laws. Give me Clements, Lines, Silvesters: and I will commit all things unto their charge. But to speak nothing grievously against these latter pope's: they are doubtless inferior to pope's of old time, by many degrees. I could all allege many other testimonies: But this Victoria being of great credit among the papists, is a most sufficient witness in their own proceedings. The Corollary. First therefore, since the Pope dispenseth usually with professed monks, against his own canons, and religion. 2 Secondly, since the pope dissolveth by his dispensations, such matrimonies as are indissoluble by Christ's institution. 3 Thirdly, since the pope pronounceth that to be true matrimony by virtue of his dispensation: which both by the law divine, and law of nature, is no matrimony at all. 4 Fourthly, since the pope doth not only dissolve Christ's law: but also turneth his own la upside down, by his ungracious and intolerable dispensations. I conclude, that it is a sufficient motive for me to renounce the Romish religion, as false, erroneous, and pernicious doctrine. Thus much of the fourth motive. THE sixth CHAPTER. Of the Pope's authority, and jurisdiction. THe papists boast, that the pope is Christ's vicar general, that he hath fullness of power, that all ecclesiastical jurisdiction is dependent upon him: that he can excommunicate kings, depose kings, and give their kingdoms unto others: concerning which points, I will proceed by way of conclusions. The first Conclusion. THe ecclesiastical power of all the Apostles, was general over all the world, equal with Peter's, and the self same that Peter was. Christ himself proveth this conclusion, when he saith: Data est mihi omnis potest as in coelo & in terra, euntes ergo docete Mat. cap. ulc. vers. 19 omnes gentes. All power is given me in heaven and in earth: go therefore and teach all nations. In an other place he saith thus: Hoc facite in meam commemorationem. Do this in the remembrance of me. Luc. 22. v. 20. john 20. v, 23 And again thus: Quorum remiseritis peccata, remittuntur eyes. Whose sins ye shall forgive, are forgiven them. And in another place, thus: Amen dico vobis, quaecunque alligaveritis super terram, erunt ligata & in coelo, & quaecunque solueritis super terram, erunt soluta et in coelo: Mat. 28. v. 18. Verily I say unto you, what things soever ye shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever things ye shall lose upon earth, shallbe loosed also in heaven. All which sayings, Christ spoke and uttered of and to his apostles all, as well as to Peter: making them all apostles, as well as Peter. And as they were all apostles as well as Peter, so had they all equal power, not only of order, but Mat. 10. v. 1. Mark. 3 v. 14. Luc. 6. v. 14. Victor. de potest. eccles. relect. 2. conc. 3. p. 84. of jurisdiction also: which their Victoria recordeth in these words: Adofficium Apostolatus, spectat potestas ordinis & jurisdictionis. To the office of Apostleship, pertaineth both the power of order and of jurisdiction. And S. Cyprian decideth this matter in most plain and evident words, when he saith thus: Loquitur Dominus ad Petrum, Ego dico tibi, quiatu es Petrus, etc. & Cypr. de simppraelat. p. 113. paulo post; Hoc erant utique & caeteri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus, pari consortio praediti & honoris & potestatis, sedexordum ab unitate profici scitur, ut Ecclesia una monstretur. Our Lord speaketh unto Peter, I say unto thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. etc. and a little after: 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 unitre, that the Church may be showed to be one. Covarruvias their famous Canonist, albeit he would very gladly defend the Pope's pretended power, and have only Peter's power ordinary and independent: yet can he not deny our Saviour Christ to have given equal power to all the Apostles. These be his very words: Etenim juxta catholicorum virorum auctoritates, & communem omnium traditionem, Covarruvias to. 1. part. 2. §. 9 pag. 242. col. 4. prope finem. apostoli parem ab ipso Domino jesu cum Petro potestatem orainis & jurisdictionis acceperunt: it a quidem, ut quilibet apostolorum aequalem cum Petro habuerit potestatem ab ipso deo, in totum orbem, & in omnes actus quae Petrus agere poterat. For according to the authorities of Catholic writers, and the common tradition of all, the Apostles received from our Lord jesus Christ himself, equal power with Peter, both of power and jurisdiction: in so much 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 which testimonies I note first, that all the Apostles had equal 1 authority with Peter. I note secondly, that all the Apostles had power 2 over all the world, even as Peter had. I note thirdly, that what act so ever 3 Peter could do, every other Apostle could do the same. I note four, that the jurisdiction of every Apostle, did extend as far as Peter's. 4 I note fifthly, that Christ's speeches to Peter in the singular number, 5 did not argue superiority of jurisdiction: but did only signify the unity of his Church. I note sixtly, that all this is confirmed by the opinion of 6 Catholic writers, & by tradition of all generally. For all these six points are expressly contained, (if they be well marked,) in the authorities already alleged. The same are confirmed by the testimony of S. Augustine, in sundry places of his works. Claves (inquit Augustinus) non unus homo Petrus, sed unitas accepit Aug. in serm. Petr. & Pauli, apud Canun. Ecclesiae. Not one only man Peter received the keys, but the unity of the Church. In an other place, the same S. Augustine writeth in this manner: Aug. in lib. de agone Christ. cap. 30. tom. 3. Ecclesiae catholicae personam sustinet Petrus, & cum ei dicitur ad omnes 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. So then, that text of Scripture, which with the Papists is the foundation of popish primacy, to wit, Feed my sheep: maketh no more for Peter's superiority, than it doth for the supremacy of other Apostles. For as you have heard out of S. Augustine, it was as well spoken to all, as to Peter. Yea, the gross imagination of papists, concerning the building of the Church upon Peter, is lively and evidently confuted of S. Augustine in an other place, where he thus writeth: Tu es inquit Petrus, & super hanc Petram quam confessus es, super August. de verb. dom. serm. 13. 10. 10. hanc Petram quam cognovisti, dicens, tu es Christus filius dei vivi, aedificabo Ecclesiam meam. id est, super meipsum filium dei vivi, aedificabo Ecclesiam meam. super me aedificabo te, non me super te. Thou art Peter saith Christ, and upon this rock which thou hast confessed, upon this rock which thou hast acknowledged, saying, Thou art Christ the Son of the living God, will I build my Church: that is, upon myself the Son of the living God, will I build my Church. I will build thee upon myself, but not myself upon thee. Mark well these words, (gentle Reader,) with the other last rehearsed out of Saint Augustine: and doubtless, if plain and manifest exposition of the Scripture will content thy mind, thou canst not but now have thy desire. The great general Council of Constantinople, maketh the Church of Constantinople equal in Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, with the Church of Rome. These be the words: Renovantes quae à s. patribus, 150. qui in hac regia urbe convenerunt, Concil. Const. 6. can. 36. & a 630. qui Chalcedone convenerunt, constituta sunt; decernimus, ut thronus Constantinop. aequalia privilegia cum antiquae Romae throno obtineat, & in Ecclesiasticis negotijs ut illa emine at, secundus post illam existens. We renewing the Canons which were set down by the 150. holy fathers, assembled in this royal city, & by the 630. fathers gathered together in Chalcedon: do define, that the See of Constantinople have equal privileges with the See of old Rome, and that it excel as Rome in Ecclesiastical affairs, being the second after Rome. And long before all this, that famous Council of Nice distributing circuits, and assigning determinate jurisdictions to the patriarchal seats, appointed to the Church of Rome prefixed limits, as to the rest. These be the words: Mos antiquus perduret in Egypto, vel Lybia, & Pentapoli, ut Alexandrinus Conc. Nicen. can. 6. Episcopus horum omnium habeat potestatem, quoniam quidem & Episcopo Rom. parilis mos est. Let the old custom continue in Egypt, or Lybia, and Pentapolis, that the Bishop of Alexandria may have power over them all, because like custom hath the Bishop of Rome. Which Canon is reported in the Council of Carthage, and there uttered in plain terms. Antiquiores obtineant qui apud Egyptum sunt, & Lybiam, & Pentapolin, Conc. Carth. 6. can. 6. ita ut Alexandrinus Episcopus horum omnium exhibeat solicitudinem, quia & urbis Romae Episcopo similis mos est. similiter autem est circa Antiochian, & in caeteris provincijs privilegia propria reserventur metrapolitanis Ecclesiis. Let the ancient obtain which are at Egypt and Lybia, and Pentapolis, so that the Bishop of Alexandria may have the charge of them all, because also the Bishop of Rome hath the like custom. In like manner also, let the proper privileges be reserved to metropolitain Churches, about Antioch and other Provinces. By which words we see evidently, that this ancient and famous Council maketh no other account of the Church of Rome, than it doth of other patriarchal seats. Which Ruffinus himself, though reputed a great Papist, hath confessed bountifully in these words: Vt apud Alexandriam vel in urbe Roma vetusta consuetudo servetur, Ruffin. lib. 10. hist. Eccles. cap. 6. ut vel ille Aegypti, vel hic suburbicarum Ecclesiàrum sollicitudinem gerat. That the old custom may continue, and that the Bishop of Alexandria may have the charge of Egypt, as the Bishop of Rome hath charge of the Churches nigh to Rome. Lo, in Ruffinus his days, the Bishop of Rome had his jurisdiction limited, which extended only to certain special Churches of Italy. For which cause Saint Hierome, a dear friend and great favourer of the Church of Rome, confessed for all that, the Bishop of Rome to be of no greater merit, excellency, or authority, than other Bishops are: as also that the custom of Rome, could not overrule other Churches. These are S. Hieromes own and express words: Si auctoritas quaeritur, orbis maior est urbe ubicunque fuerit Episcopus, Hier. epist. ad Evagr. tom. 3. fol, 150. sive Romae, sive Eugubij, sive Constantinopoli, sive Rhegij, sive Alexandria, sive Tanis: eiusdem meriti, eiusdem est & sacerdotij. potentia divitiarum & paupertatis humilitas, vel sublimiorem vel inferiorem Epi scopum facit, caeterùm omnes Apostolorum successores sunt. Sed dicis, quomodo Romae adtestimonium diaconi presbyter ordinatur? quid mihi profers unius urbis consuetudinem? If we look for authority, the world is greater than one city. Where so ever a bishop shall be, whether at Rome, or at Eugubium, or at Constantinople, or at Rhegium, or at Alexandria, or at Tanis; he is of the same merit, and of the same priesthood. The magnificence of riches, & the baseness of poverty, doth make him higher or lower, but all are the successors of the Apostles. But thou wilt say, how is a priest made at Rome by the testimony of a Deacon? why dost thou allege unto me the custom of one only city? Thus S. Hierome agreeth with Ruffinus, Ruffinus with the Council of Nice, and the Council of Nice with other Counsels, fathers, & Scriptures. And all jointly conclude the equality of other Bishops and Churches, with the Bishop and Church of Rome. The second Conclusion. ALL the Apostles received their universal power immediately from Christ, and not from Peter at all; and consequently, their jurisdictions were no less ordinary than Peter was. This to be so, (though this day much impugned by the Papists,) proveth a great popish Doctor Franciscus a Victoria, in these words: Omnem potestatem quam Apostoli habuerunt, receperunt immediatè Victor. de potest. eccles. relect. 2 conclus. 3. pag. 84. à Christo. All power which the Apostles had, they received it immediately from Christ. And in an other place, the said Victoria hath these words: Lex iniusta Episcopi non obligat, ergo nec Papae. Antecedens est notum, Victor. de potest. Papae, & concilii, relect. 4. pag. 157. & concessum ab omnibus; & consequentia videtur not a, quia non habet maiorem auctoritatem Papa adinferendum iniuriam, quam Episcopus; circa ea enim quae sunt sui officij, & in proprios subditos, non minus potest quàm Papa. The unjust law of the Bishop doth not bind a man, ergo neither doth the unjust law of the Pope bind a man. The antecedent is known and granted of all, and the consequence seemeth manifest, because the Pope hath no more authority to do an injury, then hath the Bishop. For in those things which pertain to his office, and to his proper subjects, he can do as much as the Pope. Lo, this great learned Papist, who for his learning is reverenced of all Papists in the world, ascribeth no less authority to every Bishop in his diocese, then to the Pope himself. Again, he affirmeth that no bishop's authority is dependent upon the Pope, but is immediately from Christ: so that papistry is still confuted and confounded by itself, and that by the best doctors of greatest authority, even in the Church of Rome. josephus Angles, though otherwise he flatter the Pope and advance his authority, yet hath God's Spirit enforced him to testify the same truth. These are his words: Si comparemus B. Petri & aliorum Apostolorum potestatem ad gubernationem joseph. Ang. in 4. sent. q. de clavib. diffic, 2. conclus. prima, pag. 6. omnium credentium, tantam alij Apostoli habuerunt potestatem, quantam B. Petrus habuit, it a quod poterant quemlibet Christianum totius orbis, sicut modo Rom. Pont. excommunicare, & in qualibet Ecclesia Episcopos & sacerdotes creare. ratio est, quia omnis potestas B. Petro promissa & tradita, fuit & caeteris Apostolis collata, & hoc sine personarum, loci, vel fori discrimine. If we compare the power of S. Peter and of the other Apostles, to the government of all the faithful: other Apostles have even as much power as S. Peter had, so that they could then excommunicate every Christian in the whole world, as the Bishop of Rome doth now, and also make Bishops and Priests in every Church. The reason is, because all power promised and given to S. Peter, was also given to the rest of the Apostles, and that without difference of persons, place, or consistory. This is the sentence of fiyer joseph, who unwittingly and unwillingly Magna est veritas & praevalet, 3. Esdrae 4. 42. (such is the force of verity,) doth wonderfully advance the truth, even while he seeketh to oppugn the same. 1 For first, he granteth that every Apostle had as much authority as S. Peter. 2 Secondly, that every Apostle had then as much authority, as the Pope challengeth now. 3 Thirdly, that every Apostle had authority from Christ, to create Priests and Bishops every where. 4 Fourthly, that all this their authority was given them, without difference of person, place, or consistory. O merciful God, blessed be thy holy Name for ever: such is the majesty of thy holy Gospel, that the enemies thereof justly infatuated for their sins, do unwares even then illustrate thy truth, when they think the most to obscure the same. This I did not see, O God, when I was abandoned from thee: this I now behold, O God, when thou of thy mercy hast called me to thee. Grant, O sweet Father, that all seduced Papists may behold the same with me, to the glory of thy holy Name, the honour of thy Church, and the eternal solace of their own souls. For more than the Popes own dear doctors do teach us, we desire not at the Pope's hands. The general Counsels of Constance and Basil, decreed this matter in these manifest terms: Ipsa synodus in spiritu Sancto legitimè congregata generale concilium Const. Conc. Ses. 4. & Basil. Conc. Sess. 2. & 3. faciens, & Ecclesiam militantem representans, potestatem immediatè à Christo habet. The Synod lawfully assembled in the holy Ghost, making a general Council, and representing the Church militant, hath power immediately from Christ. Thus saith the Council, and doubtless where power cometh immediately from Christ, it can not be derived from the Pope. Thirdly, S. Paul had special authority over the Gentiles, and largely as much as Peter, if not more: and consequently, since all Christians now, were Gentiles then: the Pope if he will needs have superiority over his brethren Bishops, must reduce his succession from S. Paul. For thus saith S. Paul of himself: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Gospel Gal. 2. 7. of the uncircumcision was committed to me, even as the Gospel of circumcision to Peter. The third Conclusion. kings have power coactive over Popes, but Popes have no coactive power over Kings: albeit Popes of late days, have not only excommunicated Princes, but deposed them also. For proof of this conclusion, many texts of holy Scripture are consonant. King Solomon deposed Abiathar, and placed Sadock in his room. For so the book of Kings saith: Abiathar quoque sacerdoti dixit rex, vade in Anathoth ad agrum tuum, 3. Reg. 2. vers. 27. & 35. & quidem vir mortis es, sed hody te non interficiam, quia portasti arcam domini dei coram David patre meo, & sustinuisti laborem in omnibus, in quibus laboravit pater meus. eiecit ergo Solomon Abiathar, ut non esset sacerdos domini. & paulò post: & Sadoc sacerdotem posuit pro Abiathar. Then the King said to Abiathar the priest, go to Anathoth unto thine own farm, for thou art worthy to die, but I will not this day kill thee, because thou barest the Ark of the Lord God before David my father, and because thou hast suffered in all where my father hath been afflicted. Solomon therefore cast out Abiathar from being priest unto the Lord, and set Sadock the priest in the room of Abiathar. King josaphat appointed both Ecclesiastical and secular Magistrates, commanding them strictly to look unto their charge. These be the words of holy writ: In Jerusalem quoque constituit Io saphat Levitas, & sacerdotes, & principes familiarum ex Israel, ut judicium & causam domini iudicarent 2. Par. 19 8, 9 habitatoribus eius. Praecepitque eis dicens: sic agetis in timore domini fidelitèr, & cord perfecto. King josaphat appointed in Jerusalem, Levites and Priests, and Princes of the families of Israel, that they should judge the judgement and cause of the Lord to the inhabitants thereof. And he commanded them, saying: Thus shall ye do in the fear of the Lord, faithfully and with a perfect heart. And it followeth in these words: Omnem cau same quae venerit ad vos fratrum vestrorum qui habitant 2. Par. 19 10. in urbibus suis, inter cognationem & cognationem, ubicunque quaestio est de lege, de mandato, de caeremonijs, de iustificationibus, ostendite eis ut non peccent in Dominum. Every cause which shall come unto you of your brethren which dwell in their cities, between kindred and kindred, where soever question is of the law, of commandment, of ceremonies, of justifications, tell them that they sin not against the Lord. It followeth thus: Amarias auten sacerdos & Pontifex vester, in his quae ad deum pertinent, 2. Par. 19 11. praesidebit: porro Zabadias filius Ismaelqui est dux in domo juda, super ea operaerit quae adregis officium pertinent. Amarias the Priest and your Bishop, shall bear rule in those things which pertain to God: and Zabadias son of Ishmael captain in the house of juda, shall be over those works which belong to the office of the King. These are the express words of holy Scripture, which I have alleged at large, because if they be once applied effectually, they can not but prove my opinion fully. 1 First therefore, as the Queen's most excellent Majesty that now is, appointeth Bishops and Priests: so king josaphat appointed Priests and Levites, so king Solomon appointed Sadock. 2 Secondly, as her Majesty deposeth Priests: so king Solomon deposed Abiathar. 3 Thirdly, as her Majesty commandeth her Bishops in England: to preach the Gospel, to administer the Sacraments, to reform abuses, and to execute censures Ecclesiastical according to the Scriptures: so commanded king josaphat his Priests in jerusalem: to decide all controversies arising about the law, about commandments, about ceremonies, about justifications, and to teach his people their duty therein. 4 Fourthly, as king josaphat appointed Amarias ruler in spiritual causes, and Zabadias governor in secular affairs, distinguishing their offices, and limiting their jurisdictions: so doth her Majesty refer Ecclesiastical affairs to her clergy men, and matters of state to her secular lords, neither confounding their functions, nor disabling their persons. 5 Fiftly, as King josaphat did neither bear the Ark, nor burn incense, nor offer up sacrifice, nor initiate his priests; so neither doth her Majesty preach the Gospel, administer the Sacraments, consecrate her Bishops, or personally execute any Churchly function. And therefore are the jesuite Bellarmine his words most absurd, when he saith: Et iam reipsa Calvinistis in Anglia, mulier quaedam est summus pontifex. And now in very deed, a woman is Pope of the Calvinists in England. He might more probably have said, that a woman was once Pope to Romish jesuits his brethren. For so much he may read this day, painted upon the Church walls in Syenna: which in the late repairing of that famous Church, the Bishop would not suffer to be defaced, albeit the jesuits made such request unto him. I will omit to speak of king David, king josias, king Ezechias, and others; who all practised like jurisdiction 1. Par. 23. 2. Par. 35. 2. Par. 31. in Ecclesiastical affairs: one only text of the Scripture shallbe sufficient, with popish glosses upon the same. Thus therefore is it written by the holy Prophet, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To thee, to thee alone have I sinned. Where the gemination Psal. 51. of (to thee) after the Hebrew manner and custom, argueth the vehemency of the subjection and gravity of the trespass: that is, David being king, sinned only to the king of all kings, God himself. Which Euthimius in his gloss upon the same words, confirmeth in this manner: Tibi soli peccavi. cum sim rex & te solum commissorum à me scelerum Euthimius, in psal. 50. judicem habeam, tibi soli peccasse videor, hoc est, tibi soli judici subiicior. caeterorum enim omnium ego dominus sum, & ob potentiam meam, licere mihi videntur quaecunque libuerint. To thee only have I sinned: because being a king, and having thee only judge over my trespasses, I seem to have sinned to thee only: that is, I am only subject to thee, as to my judge. For I am lord over all others, and in respect of my magnificence, whatsoever doth please me, seemeth to be lawful for me. Raynerius Snoygoudanus and diverse others, have set down the like interpretation, upon this portion of Scripture. The popish gloss upon the same text, hath these words: Tibi soli, quia rex omnibus superior, tantum à deo puniendus est. Glossa ordin. in psal. 50. To thee only, because the king is above all men, and can only be punished of God. Nicolaus Lyranus a man of no small account with the papists, glosseth the said text in this manner: Tibi solipeccavi, scilicet tanquam judici & punire potenti. peccaverat Lyranus in psal. 50. enim contra Vriam, & alios occasione huius interfectos. tamen quia erat rex, non habebat judicem superiorem qui posset eum punire nisi Deum. To thee only have I sinned: that is to say, to thee only as to the judge and him that can punish. For he had no we sinned against Urias and others, whom he caused to be murdered by that occasion: but because he was a King, he had no superior judge that could punish him, save God alone. What can be more plainly spoken? for if none but God be superior to the King? if none but God can judge the King? if none but God can punish the King? (all which the Popes own doctors affirm, then doubtless, can not the Pope depose the King. The King therefore by popish resolution, is greater and above the Pope. Yea, which is wonderful: Thomas Aquinas, who is as it were the platform and pattern, or Idaea: according to which the Popes of late years do fashion and frame their laws, and whose doctrine is as the Gospel with the Papists, doth confirm Lyra his exposition in these words: Tibi soli peccavi: dicit glossa, quodrex non habèt hominem, qui sua fact a Aquinas, 12. quaest. 96. ar. 5. ad 3. diiudicet: sed quantum ad vim directivam legis, princeps subditur legi propria voluntate. To thee only have I sinned. the gloss saith, the King hath no man, that can judge his doings: but yet touching the directive force of the law, the Prince is subject of his own accord unto the law. Which Victoria uttereth wisely and learnedly, in these words: Leges latae à rep. obligant omnes, ergo etiam sifer antur à rege, obligant Victor. de potest. civili, relect, 3. pag. 120. ipsum regem; & confirmatur, quia in aristocr atico principatu senatus consulta obligant ipsos senatores auctores illorum: & in populari regimine plebiscit a obligant ipsum populum: ergo similiter, leges regiae obligant ipsum regem. & licet sit voluntarium regi condere legem, tamen non est in voluntate sua non obligari aut obligari, sicut in pactis; libere enim qui squis paciscitur, pactis tamen tenetur. Laws which the commonweal maketh, bind all: therefore if the King make them, they bind him also. And it is confirmed, because in the aristocratical government, the laws of the senate bind the fenatours the authors thereof: and in popular regiment, the decrees of the common people bind the people: ergo in like manner, the king's laws bind the king. And although the king make laws voluntary, yet is it not in his will to be bound or unbound, as in covenants: for every one maketh covenants voluntarily, and yet is every one bound by his covenants. Ambrose who freeth Kings from all laws made by man, shall conclude this point. Thus doth he write: Qui tenentur legibus, audent suum neg are peccatum, de dignantur rogare Ambr. l. de Apolog. David, cap. 4. indulgentiam: quam petebat, qui nullis tenebatur legibus humanis. They that are bound to laws, dare deny their sin, and disdain to ask forgiveness: which he desired, that was bound to no law of man. And again, he saith: Rex utique erat, nullis ipse legibus tenebatur: neque enim ullis adpoenam Ibidem, cap. 10. vocantur legibus, tuti imperij potestate. homini ergo non peccavit, cui non tenebatur obnoxius. He was in deed a king, he was bound to no laws: for kings being free by the power of Empire, are not punished by any laws. He therefore finned not to man, to whom he was not subject. Most impudent therefore and intolerable, is the Pope's insolency: when he exalteth himself above Kings and Emperors, threatening them that he can depose them from their sceptres and regalties, and dispossess them of their Empires and dominions. Which for all that, Cardinal Allen is not ashamed to avouch with lying lips, in the Pope's behalf: in that his disloyal pamphlet, which he published without name in defence of the Seminaries. But such flattery of feigned titles, a Pope of famous memory shall confute. Gregory surnamed the great, himself being Pope of Rome: at what time as he was appointed by Mauricius the Emperor, to publish a certain law sent him from the Emperor: did not refuse to accomplish the said emperors assignment, but acknowledged him by duty bound to execute his commandment therein: albeit he thought the law in some part: disagreeable to Gods will. This to be so, the Popes own words shall witness, which be these: Ego quidem iussioni subiectus, eandem legem per diversas terrarum Gregor. lib. 2. epist. exregist. indict. 11. epist. 62. cap. 100 parts transmitti feci: & quia lex ipsa omnipotenti Deo minime concordat, ecce: per suggestionis meae paginam, sereni ssimis dominis nunciavi: utrobique ergo quae debui exolvi, qui & Imperatori obedientiam praebui, & pro deo quod sensiminime tacui. I subject to your commandment, have caused the same law to be sent through divers parts of the land: and because the law doth not agree with Gods will: behold, I have intimated so much unto your Majesty by my epistle: I have therefore discharged my duty in both respects, as who have yielded my obedience unto the Emperor, neither concealed what I thought, in God's behalf. These are the Pope's words, besides many others in the same epistle, to the like effect. Which being uttered by the chiefest Pope, are most effectual to prove the subjection of Popes unto Kings. 1 For first, Pope Gregory acknowledgeth the Emperor, to be his lord. 2 Secondly, he confesseth himself to be the emperors subject. 3 Thirdly, he granteth that he oweth loyal obedience to the Emperor: for which duty, he durst not but publish the emperors law, though in some part, it were very rigorous: and that lest he should have been guilty of disloyalty towards his Prince. Now that Romish pontificality, and pomp of Popery, came up first by beggarly Canonists: who to advance themselves, flattered the Pope, and gave him more than princely titles: the Popes own dear Doctor, (who carrieth therefore credit on his back,) telleth us, who after he hath rehearsed many lordly titles, and more than royal power, ascribed to the Pope: hath these express words; Sed glossatores juris hoc dominium dederunt Papae, cum ipsi essent Victor. de potest. Eccl. relect. 1. sect. 6. p. 39 pauperes rebus & doctrina. But the glossers of the Pope's law, gave this dominion (and these royal titles) unto the Pope, when themselves were blind bayards, and beggarly fellows. Thus saith the Pope's Doctor: and thus we see, that poverty and ignorance, were the beginning of Pope doom. For by reason of poverty, they flattered and sought to please: and by reason of their ignorance, they avouched many things which they did not understand. The fourth Conclusion. THE Pope had no authority to give dominion of the Indians to the King of Spain, albeit many defend the spanish invasion, by virtue of that donation. The latter part hereof, Victoria showeth in these words: Secundus titulus qui praetenditur, & quidem vehementer asseritur ad instam possessionem illarum Victor. relect. quinta, de Indis. pag. 188 provinciarum, est exparte summi Pontificis. dicunt enim quod summus Pontifex est Monarcha & etiam temporalis in toto orb, & per consequens quod potuit constituere Hispaniarum reges principes illorum barbarorum, & it a factum est. The second title which is pretended, and earnestly affirmed, for the just possession of those provinces, consisteth in the Pope's grant. For say they, the Pope is a temporal Monarch, even of the whole world: and consequently, that he could appoint the Kings of Spain Princes over those Barbarians, and so it came to pass. The former part of the conclusion, Aquinas proveth in these words: Ad Ecclesiam autem non pertinet punire infidelitatem in illis, qui Aquinas 22. quaest. 12. ar. 2. in corp. nunquam fidem susceperunt, secundum illud Apostoli, 1. Cor. 5. quid mihi de his qui foris sunt judicare? But it belongeth not to the Church, to punish infidelity in them, who never received the saith, according to that saying of the Apostle; What have I to do to judge of those, that be not in the Church. Dominicus Soto is of the same opinion, whose words are these: Soto in 4. dist. 5. ar. 10. in med. art. Ad hoc autem respondetur, in primis Pontificem neque concessisse, imò vero neque (ut cum omni reverentia & obedientia de sanctissimo Christi vicario loquar,) concedere potuisse eorum suorumve honorum dominium, quasi dominium in eos ipse haberet. But to this I answer, (be it spoken with all reverence and obedience to the most holy Vicar of Christ) that neither the Pope did grant, yea neither could he grant unto the King of Spain, dominion over those Indians or their goods: as though himself had dominion over them. It followeth in the same Soto: Lex fidei dominium rerum ab infidelibus non aufert, quod sibi nature a concessit. The law of faith doth not take away dominion of possessions from infidels, which nature hath granted them. Victoria accordeth to Aquinas and Soto, in these words: Victor. in relect. 5. de Indis, pag. 193. Ex quo patet, quodnec iste titulus est idoneus contrabarbaros, vel quia Papa dederit provincias illas tanquam dominus absolute, vel quia non recognoscent dominium Papae. Whereby it is plain, that neither this title is sufficient against the barbarians: either because the Pope gave those Provinces, as being absolute lord thereof: or for that they do not recognise, the Pope's authority. josephus Angles likewise saith: Hinc neque poterit alicui regi Christiano potestatem dare, ut sibi Indorum josep. Angles, de sacram. ord. 518. regna v surpet; non enim est orbis temporalis dominus. For this cause he can not give any Christian king authority, to usurp the kingdoms of the Indians to himself: for he is not the temporal lord of the world. By which testimonies it is clear, that the Pope could not give to the Spanish King any just title over the Indians, because he could not give that which himself had not. Yet whust Emperors hold his bridle, and Kings be his footstool, if they will. The Corollary. FIrst therefore, since all the Apostles were equal with Peter in power, authority, and jurisdiction: secondly, since all the Apostles received their power immediately from Christ: thirdly, since all the Apostles had ordinary calling and jurisdiction, as well as Peter had: four, since Kings have power coactive over Popes, and not Popes over Kings: fifthly, since the Pope's pretended power, is controlled by his own popish doctors: I conclude, that it is a sufficient motive for me to renounce the Romish religion, as false, erroneous, and pernicious doctrine. Thus much of the fift Motive. The VII. CHAP. Of popish Purgatory, with circumstances thereto pertaining. THE Papists dreaming upon man's justification by his own good deeds, and consequently imagining no glorification before condign satisfaction for evil deeds: have invented a purgation satisfactory in the life to come, that so such as departed this life without complete satisfaction: may accomplish that which wanteth, in their purging fire. For confutation whereof, I put down conclusions. The first Conclusion. EVery one in what state he dieth, remaineth in the same world without end. For probation of this conclusion, Ecclesiastes writeth in this manner: Siceciderit lignum ad Austrum, aut ad Aquilonem, in Eccles. 11. 3, 4. quocunque loco ceciderit, ibi erit. If wood shall fall to the South, or to the North; in what place soever it shall fall, there shall it be. Christ himself confirmeth the same, in these express words: Et ibunt hi in supplicium aeternum, justi autem in vitam aeternam. Matt. 25. 46. And these shall go to eternal punishment, but the just to life everlasting. And in an other place, he hath these words: Beati mortui qui in domino moriuntur, amodo iam dicit spiritus ut à laboribus requie scant suis. Apoc. 14. 13. Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord, for from henceforth saith the spirit, They shall rest from their labours. Which saying S. Cyprian explicateth in most manifest terms. Qualem te invenit Deus cum vocat, talem pariter & judicat. Cypr. in serm. de mortalit. circa medium As God findeth the when he calleth, so doth he judge thee. And in another place he hath these most excellent and golden words: Hortamur, inquit, dum facultas adest, dum adhuc aliquid de seculo superest, deo satis facere, & ad verae religionis candidam lucem de profundo tenebrosae superstitionis emergere. Et paullò pòst, Quum istinc excessum fuerit, nullusiam locus poenitentiae est, nullus satisfactionis effectus. Hic vita aut amittitur, aut tenetur, hic saluti aeternae cultu dei & fructu fidei providetur. Nec quisquam aut peccatis retardetur aut annis, quo minus veniat ad consequendam salutem. In isto adhuc mundo manenti, poenitentia nulla sera est: patet adindulgentiam aditus, quaerentibus atque intelligentibus veritatem facilis accessus est. We exhort, saith he, to satisfy God while we may, while we are in this world, and to come from the depth of dark superstition to the bright light of true religion. When we shall go hence, there is no place of repentance, no effect of satisfaction. Here life is either lost or won, here provision is made for eternal life, by the service of God and fruit of faith. No man is hindered through his sins or years, but that he may attain salvation. While one is this world, no repentance is to late: the gate is open to pardon, the access is easy to such as seek and understand the truth. Saint Ambrose writeth in this manner: Qui enim hic non accipit remissionem peccatorum, illic non erit. Non erit autem, quia adaeternam vitam non poterat pervenire, quid Ambr. tom, i. lib. de bono mortis, cap. 2. vita aeternaest remissio peccatorum: ideoque dicit (David) remit mihi (peccata) ut refrigerer, priusquam abeam. He that receiveth not remission of sins here, shall not come there: and he shall not be there, because he can not come to eternal life, for that eternal life is remission of fins. And therefore saith David, Forgive me my sins, that I may be refreshed before I go hence. Saint Hierome hath these words: Dum estis in hoc seculo, horror vos agere poenitentiam. Confitemini Hier. in Psal. 105. ergo Domino, quoniam in isto tantum seculo misericors est. Hic misereri potest poenitenti, quia ibi judex est, non est misericors. Hic misericors est, ibi judex est. hic porrigit manum cadenti, ibi sedet judex. While you are in this world, I exhort you to do penance. Confess therefore unto the Lord, because he is merciful in this world only. Here he can show mercy to the penitent: there because he is judge, he is not merciful. here he is merciful, there he is judge: here he reacheth his hand to him that falleth, there he sitteth judge. Again, the said Saint Hierome writeth thus in another place: Obscure licet docemur, per hanc sententiolam novum dogma quod Hier. tom. 9 ad Gal. cap. 6. latitat: dum in praesenti seculo sumus, sive orationibus, sive consilijs invicem posse adiuvari. Cum autem ad tribunal Christi venerimus, non job, non Daniel, non No, rogare possepro quoquam, sedunumquenque portare suum onus. We are taught here though obscurely, a new doctrine that is hid: that while we are in this world, one may help an other, either by his prayer or counsel. But when we shall come to the tribunal seat of Christ, then neither job, nor Daniel, nor No, can make intercession for any man, but every one must bear his own burden. Augustine is of the same judgement in many places of his works: Tuus certe dies ultimus, long abbess nonpotest. Adhunc te praepara: qualis enim exieris de hac vita, talis redderis illi vitae, Aug. in Psal. 36. conc. 1. The last day doubtless can not be far hence: prepare thyself for it. For as thou shalt departed out of this life, so shalt thou be restored to that life. Again, in another place: Quod autem dicit adealoca in quibus torquentur impij, justos etiam sivelint non posse transire: quid aliud significat, nisipost hanc vitam ita receptis in carcere, ut inde non exeant donec reddant novissimum quadrantem, Aug. in quaest. evang. q. 38. to. 4. pag. 249. per incommut abilitatem divinae sententiae, nullum auxilium misericordiae posse praeberi à justis, etiamsi velint illud praebere. In that he saith, to those places in which the wicked are tormented, the just can not come though they would, what other thing doth he signify, but the immutability of God's sentence to be such, as the just, though most willing, can yield no help of mercy after this life to those that be so in prison, as they can not get out till they pay the last farthing. Again, in an other place: Ille autem judex novit quantam unicuique sit daturus gloriam, qui in hac vita per misericordiam gratis iustificando praevenit, quos ille per justitiam glorificare dispo suit. tempus vero acquirendi vitam aeternam Aug. de fide ad Petrum, cap. 3. circa medium. in istatantum vita deus hominibus dedit, ubi voluit etiam poenitentiam esse fructuo sam. That judge knew how much glory he would give to every one, who prevented by justifying freely in this life through mercy, whom he disposed to glorify in the other by justice but time to attain eternal life God granted to men in this life only, where he would have penance to be of force. The second Conclusion. CHRIST'S blood is the true and only purgatory for man's sins, as well quoad poenam, as quoad culpam: that is, both concerning the sin, and punishment due for the same. This conclusion S. Paul maketh plain, writing thus to the Hebrews: Qui cum sit splendor gloriae & figura substantiae eius, portan sque omnia verbo virtutis suae, purgationem peccatorum faciens, sedet ad dexter ammaiestatis in excelsis. Hebr. 1. 2, 3. Who being the brightness of his glory, and the figure of his substance, and sustaining all things by the word of his power: did by himself purge our sins, and sitteth on the right hand of majesty on high. And in an other place, he saith thus: In quo habemus redemptionem & remissionem peccatorum. Coloss. 1. 16. In whom we have redemption and remission of our sins. Again, in an other place: Hi sunt qui venerunt de tribulatione magna, & laverunt stolas suas, & dealbaverunt eas in sanguine agni. Apoc, 7. 24. These are they that came from great tribulation, and washed their stoles, and made them white in the blood of the lamb. Again in an other place: Sanguis jesu Christi, emundat nos ab omni peccato. 1. joh. 1. 8. The blood of jesus Christ, doth purge us from all sin. Again, in an other place: Is qui non nover at peccatum, peccatum pronobis fecit, ut nos efficeremur justitia dei in ipso. 2. Cor. 5. 21. He that knew not sin, suffered pain due for sin for us, that we might be made the justice of God in him. Again. Ego sum, ego sum ipse, qui deleo iniquitates tuas propter me. Esai. c. 43. v. 25 I, even I am he, that blot out thine iniquities (not for thy deserts, but for mine own sake. Again in another place: Ipse vulneratus est propter iniquitates nostras, attritus est propter Esai. c. 23. v. 5 scelera nostra. He was wounded for our iniquiries, he was torn in pieces for our offences. Again in another place: Christus nos redemit de maledicto legis, factus pro nobis male dictum. Gal. c. 3. v. 13. Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, being a curse for us. Neither will it help the papists to answer, that these texts of scripture are understood only of the guilt of sin, and not of the punishment due for the same. 1 For first, no scripture maketh that distinction between the guilt of sin & punishment correspondent to the same. 2 Secondly, no ancient writer did ever so expound such texts of scripture. 3 Thirdly, because their own doctor Aquinas avoucheth our redeemer to have suffered not only for the guilt of our sins, but also for the punishment due unto the same. These be his words: Christus dedit maximum exemplum poenitentibus, dum non pro peccato proprio, sed pro peccatis aliorum voluit poenam subire. Aquinas in part. 3, q. 15. ar. 1. ad. 5. Christ gave an exceeding great example to penitent sinners, while his pleasure was to sustain punishment, not for his own sin, (which was none at all,) but for the sins of others. And Saint Augustine writing upon the Psalms hath these words: Ergo apud te est propitiatio, nam-sinon esset apuate propitiatio, siiudex solum esse velles, & misericors esse nolles, siobservares omnes iniquitates Aug. in ps. 129. to 8. pag. 1036. nostras, & quaereres eas quid sustineret? quis ante te staret & diceret innocens sum? quis staret in judicio tuo? spes ergo una est, quoapud te est propitiatio. Therefore with thee is mercy: for if there were not mercy with thee, if thou wouldst only be our judge, and not show us mercy, if thou wouldst look into our iniquities, and seek them, who were able to abide it? who could stand before thee, and say, I am innocent? who could stand in thy judgement? Therefore there is one only hope, because with thee mercy is to be found. And the same Saint Augustine in another place, hath yet more plain words: Dominus noster jesus Christus mori venit, peccare non venit, communicando nobiscum sine culpapaenam, & culpam solvit & paenam. Our Lord jesus (saith saint Augustine) came to die, he came not to sin, communicating pain with us without sin, he loosed both Aug. ser. 141. de tempore to. 10 the sin and pain of sin. 4 Fourthly, because it would follow thereupon, that Christ's works were very unperfect: and yet doth the scripture say: Dei perfecta sunt opera. Deut. 32. v. 4. The works of God are perfect. But doubtless, he wrought not man's redemption perfectly, if man's satisfaction must concur to the perfection thereof: and yet concur it must perforce if another purgation be established in purgatory fire, besides that purgation which Christ's blood hath wrought. 5 Fiftly, because Christ's satisfaction otherwise had been in vain. For if we can satisfy for ourselves, or by the help of our neighbours in purgatory fire: then did Christ in vain satisfy for us upon the Cross: then did not Christ lose both the sin & pain of sin, as Saint Augustine avoucheth. 6 Sixtly, because our satisfaction speaking of the best, is not, nor can be infinite: and consequently, cannot make compensation for infinite transgression. For as Aquinas saith: Peccatum contra Deum admissum, quandam infinit atem habet ex infinitate Aquinas 3. p. quaest. 1. ar. 2. ad 2. divinae maiestatis tanto enim offensa est gravior, quanto maior est ille in quem delinquitur. Sin committed against God is infinite, by reason of his infinite Majesty: For so much is the offence greater, by how much he is greater against whom we sin. 7 Seventhly, because it is flatly against the opinions of the holy fathers. Thus saith Saint Augustine: Primum locum fides cabolicorū divina auctoritate credit, regum coelerum: Aug. l. 5. hypognost, ultra med. sermo. 14. de verb. apost. l. 1. c. 28. de peccatorum merit & remis. secundum gehennam, ubi omnis apost at a vel a fide Christi alienus, aeterna supplicia experietur: tertium penitus ignoramus, imo nec in scriptures sanctis inveniemus. The faith of Catholics by God's authority, believeth the first place to be the kingdom of heaven: the second place to be hell, where every apostate or infidel shall be punished everlastingly: the third place we are utterly ignorant of neither shall we find it in the holy scriptures. which assertion saint Augustine doth often inculcate, in sundry of his books. Saint Hierome likewise teacheth us, that after the separation of the soul from the body, there is no resting place, but either heaven or hell. These are his words: Quum anima vinculis laxata corporis, volandi quo velit, sive quo iure Hier. in c. 9 Amos prope med. capitis. compellitur, habuerit libertatem: aut adinferna ducetur, de quibus scriptum est: in inferno quis confitebitur tibi? aut certe adcoelestia sublevabitur. When the soul shall be loosed from corporal bonds, and shall have liberty to go whither it will, or whither it is compelled to go: either it shall be brought to the infernal spirits, of whom it is written, ïn hell who will confess unto thee? or doubtless it shall be exalted to heaven above. To conclude, their famous bishop and holy martyr Roffensis, confessing the late original of popish pardons, among other reasons, yieldeth this for one: Quarum prima est, quodolim non erat usque adeo ecclesiae notum purgatorium. Imo Graecis inquit, adhunc usque diem non est creditum. Roffensis apud Domin. Soto in 4. sent. dist. 21. q. 1. art. 3 whereof the first reason is, that in old time, purgatory was not so well known unto the church. yea saith he; the Greeks' do not to this day believe it. And doubtless, if there were any purgatory besides Christ's passion, the thief that lived wickedly to the last hour, should have had his part therein; who yet went incontinently to paradise, as saith Luc. c. 23. v. 43. the holy scripture. The third Conclusion. AFter this life is neither place to merit, demerit, or satisfaction. This conclusion is proved out of Ecclesiasticus, where it is written. Ante obitum tuum operare justitiam, qui a non est apud inferos invenire Eccles. c. 14. v. 17. cibum. Before thy death, work justice, because there is no relief to be found among the dead. Correspondent hereunto, is this saying of Aquinas: Dicendum, quod mereri & demereri pertinent ad statum viae: unde bona in Aquinas 22. q. 13. are, 4. ad. 2. & 1. p. q. 62. ar. 9 corpor. viatoribus sunt meritoria, mala vero demeritoria. in beatis autem bona non sunt meritoria, sed pertinentia ad eorum beatitudinis premium, & sic mala in damnatis non sunt demeritoria, sed pertinent ad damnationis poenam. we must answer, that to merit & demerit, pertain to the state of the way: wherefore, good works are meritorious to such as be viatores, and live in this world: and likewise evil works demeritorious. But in the saints of heaven good works are not meritorious, but appertain to the reward of their beatitude. And in like manner evil works in the damned are not demeritorious, but pertain to the pain of their damnation. Dominicus Soto commenting upon the master of sentences, holdeth the self same opinion. For which cause saint Paul exhorteth Dominic. Soto in 4. dist. 19 quaest. 3. ar. 1, ad arg. 1. us to do good, dum tempus habemus, while we have time. This the preacher confirmeth in these words: Viventes sciunt quod morientur, & mortui nesciunt quicquam, & non est eis amplius merces, in oblivione enim est memoria eorum. Gal. 6. v. 10. Eccle. c. 9 v, 5, The living know that they must die, and the dead know nothing at all, neither have they henceforth a reward, for their memory is forgotten. Upon which words saint Hierome hath this gloss: Viventes metu mortis possunt bona operaperpetrare, mortui vero nihil Hier. in 9 cap. eclesiastes. valent adid adijcere quod semel secum tulere de vita. Sed & dilectio eorum, & odium, & aemulatio, & omne quod in seculo habere potuerunt, mortis finitur adventu: nec just quip possunt agere, nec peccare, nec virtutes adijcere, nec vitia. The living may do good works for fear of death: but the dead can add nothing to that, which they once took with them out of this life. Their love also and their hatred, their emulation, and what soever they could have in this world, all is ended with death. For they can neither do well nor sin, neither addevice nor virtue. All which, Saint Cyprian comprised in these few golden words: Cypria. contr. Demetr. in fine Quumistine excessum fuerit, nullus iam locus paenitentiae est, vullus satisfactionis effectus. When we shall departed out of this life, there will be no place to penance, no effect of satisfaction. Saint Augustine teacheth the course of God's justice to be such, as we must either attain remission of our sins in this world or never to expect the same. These are his words: Morum porro corrigendorum, vullus alius quam in hac vita locus: nam post hanc quisque idhabebit, quod in hac sibimet conquisierit. Aug. epist. 54 tom. 2. in initio. There is no other place but this life to reform our manners: For after this life every one shall have that, which he purchased for himself in this life. many other like sayings the said holy father hath to the like effect and purpose: which I now let pass with silence, thinking that sufficient which is already said hereof. Most miserable therefore are the souls in popish purgatory, as who by popish doctrine can neither merit nor satisfy for their sins. For if souls in purgatory can satisfy or merit, then can they also demerit, (because the self same reason holdeth in both alike,) and if they can demerit, they can also sin mortally, and so perish eternally, contrary to popish doctrine. Again, if any mercy can be found after this life: the reason made by saint Paul to the Corinthians which was grounded upon the chiefest mystery of our Christian faith is doubtless of no force at all: to wit, when he concludeth of the faith upon Christ his resurrection from the dead. Thus standeth the Apostles discourse: they that die in the faith of Christ, are either saved or damned: who if they be saved, then is Infra cap. 9 per totum. Christ risen again, and become a true saviour: but if they be damned: then doubtless is Christ not risen again, neither become a true saviour. Now to confess a third place, where souls remain neither saved or damned, but in a perplex manner, that indeed may stand with popish doctrine, but is flat against Saint Paul's discourse. Again, to hold a third place doth overthrew another of Saint Paul's reasons, when he affirmeth the being in this body, to keep the faithful from Christ. For if popish purgatory be admitted, the souls suffering there shall be as well absent from Christ's presence, as when they were in 2. Cor. 5. v. 7. 8. Christ's body. But perhaps, saint Paul knew not how to conclude his purpose, or at least was not in love with papistry. Yet the papists will say, that it is very common with the fathers to pray for the dead. To this I say, that in very deed it cannot be denied, but that sundry of the fathers have both prayed themselves for the dead, and have also approved the prayers of others to the like end. But this will neither establish the popish purgatory, nor their manner of praying for the dead. Which objection, because it seemeth to carry a great majesty with it, and indeed seduceth many a one, (as which is plainly set down in very express terms, in many places of the ancient writers,) I purpose a little to stand upon it, nothing doubting but to satisfy the indifferent reader therewith through the power of God, so he will yield attentive ears unto my words. 1 I therefore say first, (as is proved elsewhere in this treatise,) that 1. Cor. c. 15. v. 17. 18. what writer so ever affirmeth any doctrine, contrary to that which is taught in the holy scriptures: he who soever he be, must be rejected, and his doctrine in that point contemned. Which thing I do not barely say, but I have proved the same out of the doctrine of the fathers, by the flat and express words of the fathers themselves. peruse the ninth chapter, of credit to be given to writers. 2 I say secondly, that it is a seemly, good, and godly manner, to pray for the dead: so our hearts be rightly disposed, and our prayers framed accordingly. As for example: when it is said of some friend departed out of this life, God grant him a joyful resurrection: which is the most orderly and plainest form, of praying for the dead. 3 I say thirdly, if one say God have mercy upon the soul, being well instructed for the true sense thereof: it is not to be reproved, though the other phrase and manner of praying, ought rather to be used: especially in these days, when the latter kind is commonly abused. for albeit the holy and ancient fathers, when they prayed for rest & mercy to the dead, understood nothing else but the resurrection of the body, and the complement that redoundeth to the soul by union of the same: yet have the papists taught, and this day teach the people to understand thereby, the mitigation of purgatory pains: which the souls of the dead enjoy (as they grossly imagine,) either by prayers of the faithful, or by masses, trentals, and diriges, or by the pope's pardons. So that the evil of this manner of praying, consisteth not in the phrase and prayer itself: but in the erroneous affection of the party that so prayeth. For the better understanding whereof, we must observe: 1 First, that it is lawful to pray for such things, as are very certain: but not yet accomplished or brought to pass. And consequently, that it is lawful to pray for the resurrection of the body: as also that the souls in the second advent may be united again to the bodies: that so the faithful may in complete manner, be made partakers of the vision beatifical. This observation is manifest by that prayer which our saviour himself prayed: whose actions, as writeth the apostle, are our instructions. For our Lord jesus prayed for the salvation of his elect, who neither 1 Pet. 2. v. 22. shall nor could perish by any possibility. That he prayed for them, is manifest in these words: Non pro mundo rogo, sedpro his quos dedisti mihi, quia tui sunt. Pater john. c. 17. v. 9 12. sancte, seruaeos in nomine tuo, quos dedisti mihi. I pray not for the world, but for those whom thou hast given me, because they are thine. holy father, keep them in thy name, whom thou hast given me. Yea, the very elect are commanded to pray for their salvation, because that is one of the petitions in the Lord's prayer, which appertaineth to all, especially to the elect. And that the elect cannot perish, is evident by this testimony of the holy gospel: It a ut in errorem inducantur (sifieri potest) etiam electi: Mat. c. 24. v. 24 So that the very elect should be seduced, if it were possible. 2 we must observe secondly, that in them writings of the fathers, sin is often taken for the corruption and mortality of the body: as the papists themselves do ever in their romish pardons, understand by sin the pain due for sin. which observations well remembered, all objections out of the fathers, touching praying for the dead, may be answered with all facility. For first, when the ancient churches offered up their sacrifices of thanks giving, and prayers for the dead: 2 And secondly, when the fathers do desire eternal rest unto the dead: they desire nothing less, then that such souls may be delivered out of purgatory, or have remission of their sins. which thing I will prove, by two very sound foundations. 1 The one, because such prayers or oblations were made for those, who (not only as the fathers believed, but even as the papists themselves confess) were then in heaven, where they neither needed nor could be relieved, by such prayers or oblations. 2 The other, because the fathers have ackowledged so much, by express words in their writings. 1 The former foundation is evident in the liturgy of S. Chrisostom, Chrysost. in liturg. prope finem. to. 5. p. 1377. who there offered his sacrifice of thanks giving, for the prophets, apostles, martyrs,, and for our blessed lady the holy virgin Marie. whom all I am well assured, the papists will confess to have been in heaven, long afore saint Chrysostome was borne. 2 The second foundation is plainly confessed by saint Ambrose, who in his funeral orations for the emperors Theodosius and Valentinianus with his brother Satyrus: both confesseth them to possess eternal rest in heaven, and nevertheless prayeth for eternal rest unto them. which words, though they seem to imply manifest contradiction: yet are they no less exact and sound, then godly and easy to be understood: if my rehearsed observations be well marked. For though their souls were in eternal bliss, that is, in heaven: yet neither were their bodies then, neither are they now, neither shall they be, until the second advent of our redeemer, in that eternal rest. Which rest that Valentinianus, Thedosius; and Satyrus may enjoy after the day of doom in complete manner: that is, in soul and body united in perpetual union: saint Ambrose prayed so instantly. Now for thy better instruction and satisfaction, (gentle Reader,) I will allege Saint Amhrose words, as himself hath uttered them. Of his brother Satirus he saith thus: Tibi nunc omnipotens Deus innoxian commendo animam, tibi hostiam meam affero: cape propitius ac serenus fraternum munus, sacrificium In oratione funebri pro Satyro, to. 3. in fine. sacerdotis. To thee now, O almighty God, I commend his innocent soul: to thee I offer my oblation, accept favourably my brotherly present, the sacrifice of thy priest. Of Theodosius he saith thus: Dam requiem perfectam servo tuo Theodosio, requiem illam quam preparasti In oratione funeb. pro Theod. to. 3. p. 52. sanctis tuis. Give perfect rest to thy servant Theodosius, that rest which thou hast prepared for thy saints. Of Valentinianus he saith thus: Ambr. de obitu Valent. p. 12. to. 3. Nulla dies vos silentio preteribit, nulla inhonoratos vos mea transibit oratio, nulla nox non donatos aliqua precium mearum contextione transcurret. omnibus vos oblationibus frequentabo. No day shall pass with silence, none of mine orations shall pass without your honour, no night shall slide away without some prayer of mine for you. I will frequent you with all oblations. Thus we see plainly, that Saint Ambrose both offered sacrifice of laud, and prayed for Valentinianus, Theodosius, and Satirus being dead. Let us now proceed a little further. Thus saith saint Ambrose of Satyrus: Intravit in regnum coelorum, quoniam credidit Dei verbo. He is entered into Heaven, because he believed the word of Ambt. ubi supra de sing. God. Thus saith he of Theodosius: Manet ergo in lumine Theodosius, & sanctorum caetibus gloriatur. fruitur Augustae memoriae Theodosius luce perpetua. Theodosius therefore abideth in light, and in the glory and fellowship of Saints. Theodosius of famous memory, enjoyeth perpetual light. Thus he saith of Valentinianus: Creaimus quia ascendit a de serto, hoc est, ex hoc arido & inculto loco adillas florulentas delectationes, ubi cum fratre coniunctus aeternae vitae fruitur voluptate. Let us believe, that he is ascended from the desert: that is, from this dry and untilled place to those flourishing delectations, wherein the fellowship of his brother he enjoyeth the pleasure of eternal life. These words are plain, and need no gloss. Saint Ambrose then believed, that Valentinianus, Theodosius, and Satyrus were in heaven, and enjoyed eternal rest: and nevertheless, even then prayed for their eternal rest. But doubtless his prayers had been both vain and foolish if he should have prayed for that unto them, which they had and enjoyed already. He therefore prayed, (as my observations declare,) not for the rest and bliss of the souls, which them possessed eternal rest and bliss: but that the bodies also may be partakers of that place and rest, which they wanted them, and shall until the day of doom. And for the better confirmation of this mine assertion, saint Ambrose doth in express words so expound himself: For thus he writeth: Te quae so sum Deus, ut charissimos iuvenes matura resurrectione Ambrose ubi sup. resuscites. & immaturum hunc vitae istius cur sum matura resurrectione compenses. O high and mighty God, I beseech thee to raise up most dear young youths with mature resurrection, and to recompense the unripe course of this their life, with mature and ripe resurrection. Lo here in plain and brief terms, the compendious explication Let this be well noted. of that popish objection, and doubt, which so troubleth and seduceth many a one. And so Saint Ambrose his prayer for the dead, was even this and no other: God give them a joyful resurrection. The fourth Conclusion. IF popish purgatory were admitted to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: yet would it follow by a necessary consequent, that the souls tormented there should perish everlastingly. This conclusion is thus proved. There is no salvation to be expected out of the church, as witnesseth their great council of Lateran, and the holy father's accord thereunto. But souls boiling in purgatory papistical, be neither in the church triumphant, because there is no need of purgation, neither in the church militant, because there is place for merit and satisfaction: ergo they be out of the church: And consequently without the state of salvation: and in the state of eternal damnation. And that the best learned papists stand in doubt of their salvation, it cannot with right reason be denied. For in their Masses of Requiem, the priests are commanded to pray in these express words: Ne absorbeat eas tartarus: In missa requiem pro defunctis. That hell swallow not them up and devour them. And doubtless, if they be assured of their salvation: it is a vain and ridiculous thing to pray, that they be not swallowed up of hell: And consequently, their holy Mass is farced with a bundle of vanities. Neither will it help the adversary to say, that though the souls in their purgatory can not satisfy for themselves: Yet may the living satisfy for them, which is of as much force, as if they did satisfy for themselves. For as the transgression is personal, so must the satisfaction also be. The reason hereof is evident, because to accept one's satisfaction for another: may well stand with acceptation or mercy, but never with justice. For which justice notwithstanding, popish purgatory was invented, and this day is defended: as their reverend professor of divinity Dominicus Soto, plainly testifieth in these words: Respondetur, quod licet tunc moriens satisfacere nequeat, culpa sua fuit, quod tempus adid antea non elegit: & ideo poena quae per contritionem Soto in 4. dist. 19 q. 2. ar. 5. in fine. nonfuerit ei dimissa, in purgatorio est luenda: ut ratio divinae justitiae servetur. I answer, That although he that dieth, can not satisfy for his sins: yet was it his own default, because he chose not before time for it: And therefore, the punishment which was not remitted by contrition and confession, must be punished in purgatory: that the order of God's justice may be observed. The 5. Conclusion. IT is evident even by the opinion of great papists, that many souls in purgatory shall abide there for ever: and yet is that flat against popish religion. This conclusion shall be manifest, if I prove three points. 1 First, that every sin is mortal. 2 secondly, that no mortal sin can be remitted or forgiven in popish purgatory. 3 Thirdly, that many depart out of this world, not having their venial sins (of the papists so termed) before remitted, or forgiven. For first, if every sin be mortal: and secondly, if no mortal sin be forgiven in purgatory: and thirdly, if sundry be in purgatory, whose sins be not all forgiven: it must needs follow by a necessary sequel, that such persons must continue in purgatory eternally, because they cannot come from thence until their sins be remitted wholly. 1 First therefore, that every sin is mortal, is confessed by three great papists: that is to say, Roffensis, Gersonus, and Michael Baius. For these three confess plainly, that every sin is mortal of it own nature, and only venial through Gods merciful acceptation: and therefore may it be justly punished everlastingly. Roffensis writing against Luther, hath these express words. Roffensis art. 32. advers. Luther. pag. 328. Quod peccatum veniale solum ex Dei misericordia veniale sit, in hoc tecum sentio. That a venial sin is only venial through the mercy of God (& not of it own nature,) therein do I agree unto you. Lo, my Lord of Rochester confesseth plainly, that every sin is mortal of it own nature. And joannes Gerson sometime chancellor of Paris, that famous university, though otherwise a great papist, can not deny this verity: for these are his words. Nulla offensa Dei est venialis de se, nisitantum modo per respectum ad divinam misericordiam, qui nonvult de facto quamlibet offensam imputare joan. Gers. de vita spirituali, lect. 1. p. 3. in 1. corollar. ad mortem, cum illud posset iustissime. Et ita concluditur, quod peccatum mortale & veniale in esse tali, non distinguuntur intrinsece & essentialiter, sed solum per respectum ad divinam gratiam, quae peccatum istud imputat ad poenam mortis, & aliud non. No offence of God is venial of it own nature, but only in respect of God's mercy, who will not de facto, impute every offence to death, although he might most justly do it. And so I conclude, that mortal and venial sins as such, are not distinguished intrinsically, and essentially: but only in respect of God's grace, which assigneth this sin to the pain of death, and not the other. Many other sentences to the like effect the said Gerson hath, but these may suffice to content any reasonable mind. Other papists are of the same opinion in very deed, though they do not disclose their minds in such manifest terms. Thus writeth our father jesuit Bellarminus: Respondeo, omne peccatum esse contra legem Dei non positivam sedaeternam, ut Aug. recte docet. omnis enim justa lex sive a Deo, sive ab Bellar. de Rom. Pontif. cap. 21. homine detur, ab aeterna dei lege derivatur: est enim aeterna lex, ut malum sit violare regulam. I answer, that every sin is against the law of God, not positive, but eternal, as Augustine rightly teacheth. For every just law, whether it be made by God or by man, is derived from the law of God eternal. For the law eternal is, that it is sinew to transgress the rule. And this is the common opinion, as I have proved out of josephus Angles. Neither will it help the papists to say as the Thomistes do: that venial sins are praeter non contra legem, besides the law, but not against Legendus est joseph. Ang. sup. cap. 7. ar. s the law. 1 First, because saint Augustine defineth sin generally to be a 'gainst the law of God, writing in this manner: Peccatum est dictum, vel factum, vel concupitum, contra legem aeternam Aug. l. 22. c. 27. contra faustum. dei. Sin is a saying, or doing, or coveting, against God's eternal law. Secondly, because as josephus Angles their own doctor saith: every venial sin is against right reason, and to do against right reason, joseph. Angl. in 4. sent. part. 3. p. 215. is to do against the law of nature, which commandeth not to departed from the rule of right reason. 3 Thirdly, because we must give an account of every idle word in the general day of judgement, as Christ himself telleth us: & for noother end doubtless must this account be made, but only because Mat. 12. v. 36. This reason convinceth doubtless. every idle word is against the law of God. This the papists can never deny, and yet must they likewise confess, that idle words be those sins, which they term venialles: and consequently that venial sins be against the law of God. Secondly, that no mortal sin can be forgiven in purgatory, is confessed of all papists without contradiction. Thus writeth Bellarminus: Manet ultima sententia vera & catholica, purgatorium pro ijs tantum esse, qui cum venialib. culpis moriuntur. & rur sum pro illis qui Bellar. lib. 2. de purgat. c. 1. in fine. decedunt cum reatupaenae, culpis iam remissis. The true and catholic opinion remaineth, that purgatory is only for those, that die with venial sins: and again, for those that die with the guilt of sin, after their sins be forgiven. And with Bellarminus do all other papists agree, that such as die in mortal sin, go incontinently to hell. Thirdly, that sundry having venial sins abide the pains of purgatory, appeareth by Bellarminus his words before alleged, and by Dominicus So to in these words: Qui dixerit verbum contra spiritum sanctum, non remittetur ei in hoc seculo, neque in futuro. Vbi Gregorius lib. 4. di alogorum, adnotavit aliqua Soto in 4. s. dist. 19 q. 3. levia peccata remitti in futuro seculo, per ignem purgationis. He that shall blaspheme the holy Ghost, shall neither be forgiven in this world, neither in the wosld to come. In which place, Gregorius pope of Rome, noted certain light sins to be forgiven in the world to come, by the fire of purgation. Idem habeturd. 25. can. qualis. And their Aquinas saith thus. Secundum enim quod peccata venialia sunt maioris vel minoris adhaerentiae vel gravitatis, citius vel tardius per ignem purgantur. For venial sins are purged by fire sooner or latter, according to A quini 12. q. 89, are, 2. ad. 4. their greater or lesser adherence or gravity. And for a full accomplishment of this conclusion, josephus Angles uttereth the great perplexity of papists, concerning this their purgative imagination. These are his words: Quo igitur modo remittuntur (venialia) in purgatorio? varij sunt modi dicendi. Scotus dicit in instanti mortis, idest, in primo non esse hominis, joseph. Ang. in 4. senten. de sacr. poenit. pag. 219. propter merita quae homo habuit in vita: Dur andus dicit remitti quoad culpam in purgatorio, propter displicentiam quam habent illic animae venialium, cum sint in charitate. Soto asserit remitti quoad culpam in purgatorio, propter actum chariiatis & continuam patientiam, quam dum cruciantur, habent. How then are venial sins forgiven in purgatory? divers hold diversely. Scotus saith, they are forgiven in the instant of death: that is, when man first beginneth not to be, by reason of his merits in his life time. Durand saith, the fault is remitted in purgatory, for the displicence of venials, which the souls have in that place: and that because they be in charity. Soto saith, the sin is remitted in purgatory, for the act of charity and continual patience, which they have in their torments. Whom will not this discordant theology, utterly dissuade from papistry. The sixth Conclusion. THe book of Maccabees, (which is the sole and only foundation of popish purgatory,) is of no force at all to establish the same. This conclusion shallbe evidently proved, when I shall effectually disproove the authority of the said book of Maccabees, wherewith many have a long time been most miserably seduced. Mark therefore my discourse herein. To prove that the 2. book of Maccabees, (out of which, prayer and sacrifice for the dead, and consequently purgatory is gathered,) is not Canonical, that is, not penned by the assistance of the holy ghost, I say first, that it is not in the canon of the Hebrews, neither 1 did the jews or Hebrews at any time repute it, as a part of holy & divine scripture. This S. Hierome witnesseth in these words: Sicut ergo judith, & Tobiae, & Machabaeorum libros legit quidem Ecclesia, sedinter Canonicas scripturas non recipit, sic & haec duo volumina legit ad aedificationem plebis, non ad authoritatem Ecclesiasticorum Hier. in epist, ad Chromatium & Heliodorum, de lib. Solomonis. dogmatum confirmandam. As therefore the Church readeth the books of judith, & of Toby, and of the Maccabees, but receiveth them not amongst the Canonical scriptures, so doth it read also these 2. volumes for edification of the people, but not to confirm any Ecclesiastical doctrine. S. Cyprian hath the very same words in effect, in Symb. expositione. S. Augustine doth testify the same, when he thus writeth: Cyprian. in expos. Symb. Aug. contra 2. Gaudentii epist. lib. 2. cap. 23. tom. 7. Hanc scripturam quae appellatur Machabaeorum, non habent judaei sicut legem, & prophetas, & Psalmos, quibus dominus testimonium perhibet tanquam testibus suis: dicens: oportebat impleri omnia, quae scripta sunt in lege, & Prophetis, & in Psalmis de me. Sedrecepta est ab Ecclesia non inutiliter, si sobriè legatur, vel audiatur: maximè, propter illos Machabaeos, qui pro Dei lege sicut veri martyrs, à per secutoribus tam indigna atque horrenda perpessi sunt. This scripture which is of the Maccabees, the jews repute not as they do the law, the Prophets, & Psalms, to which the Lord gave testimony as to his witnesses, saying: It behoved all things to be fulfilled, which are written in the law, in the Prophets, and Psalms of me: but it is received of the Church not without profit, if it be read or heard soberly: especially, for those Maccabees, who for the law of God as true martyrs, suffered of their persecutors so unworthy & horrible torments. And their own dear friar Bryton telleth us, that neither is it known who was the author of these books, neither did Bryto in Prologue. Mach. the east Church ever receive them. I say secondly, that this second book (out of which purgatory is collected,) was never in Hebrew: and consequently, never authentical among the jews. I say thirdly, 2 that many things found & affirmed in the books of Maccabees, 3 prove the same to be of no credit at all. For first, those for whom judas offered sacrifice & prayer, could not be helped therewith: because as 1 the text recordeth, they perished for their secretidolatry: & so saith the Gloss also. and consequently, judas erred grossly in praying and sacrificing for them, and the author of the book likewise in commending judas his fact. whereupon it followeth necessarily, that the writer was not directed by the holy ghost: because he concluded prayer for the dead, upon a notorious known fact condemned by the scriptures. Secondly, this book saith, that the jews were led captives into Persia: but they were translated indeed, not into Persia but into Babylon, as their 2 own Lyranus doth testify. Thirdly, the second book saith, that judas with 2. Mac. 1. 19 others wrote their epistle to Aristobolus in the 188 year, but the first book 3 affirmeth judas to be dead in the year 152, so that he must perforce write 2. Mach. 1. his epistle 36 years after his death. Fourthly, the first book saith, that Antiochus 1. Mach. 9 died in Babylon in his bed for sorrow: but the second book avoucheth, 4 1. Mach. 6. that he was slain in the temple of Nannea. Fiftly, because the author of 2. Mach. 1. the books of Machabes desireth pardon, if any thing be done amiss. These 5 be his words. Si been & ut historiae competit, hoc et ipse velim: si autem minus 2. Mach. 15. dignè, concedendumest mihi. If I have done well and as is decent for the history, that is my desire: but if not worthily, I must crave pardon. And 2. Mach. 14. 37. doubtless, he that writeth by the direction of the holy ghost, needeth no pardon at all. Sixtly, the wilful murder of Razias is there commended, which commendation can not proceed from the holy ghost. Seventhly, 6 the author of the Macchabees doth only conclude praying 7 for the dead, because judas offered sacrifice for the dead. Which general illation upon a particular fact, is not good in popish manner of proceeding. For as their Maxim saith, which is true indeed: Privilegium paucorum, non facit legem communem. The privilege of a few, can not establish a general law: neither will it help the papists to say, that saint Augustine and others alleged this book. For so saint Paul alleged the testimonies of Tit. cap. 1. 12. 1. Cor. 15. 33. Acts 17. 28. Ethnics, Epimenides, Menander, and Aratus: and popish divines allege now and then Esop's Fables. But in what manner & to what end S. Augustine alleged this book, I have showed out of Augustine already. Neither yet will it help to say, (which some repute for a great argument) that this book is in the corpse of the Bible. For so is the fourth book of Esdras within the corpse of the bible: & yet do the papists themselves repute it, no better than a fable. yea, which is more to be noted: they will not have the last end of the Lords prayer, to be canonical: albeit it be found in the greek original, and placed in the corpse of the bible. For the great popish linguist Benedictus Arias Montanus, telleth Aria's Mont. in cap. 6. Mat. vers. 13. the reader in his observation upon that place, that it is not of the text though he can not deny it, to be in the greek & first original. To conclude, neither did judas pray himself, neither did he will others to pray for remission of sins unto the dead: neither is it flatly so said in the Greek copy, neither did he offer sacrifice for the sins of the dead, but for the resurrection of the body, understanding by sin the death and corruption of the body, which proceedeth of sin and followeth the same. Which my interpretation may be gathered out of these words of the text itself: Bene & religiose de resurrectione cogitans. Thinking well and religiously of the dead. 2. Mach. 12. 43. And therefore is the illation of the popish latin translation, so highly commended and strictly commanded by the synod of Trent, vain, frivolous, and foolish. He that penned the story, hath without all rhyme and reason infarced the same: because no such conclusion can be truly gathered, of judas his oblation and fact. The Corollary. FIrst therefore, since there is no purgatory but Christ's blood. Secondly, since after this life there is no place for merit or satisfaction. Thirdly, since the book of Maccabees is not Canonical: I conclude, that it is a sufficient motive for me to renounce the Romish religion, as false, erroneous, and pernicious doctrine. Thus much of the sixth Motive. The VIII. CHAP. Of dissension amongst the Papists. ALthough nothing is more common with the Papists, then to charge protestants with dissension: yet is it their own peculiar badge, as will appear by due examination thereof. The first article of dissension. THe first erection of the English seminary at Rome, began with dissension, between the students on the one part, and Master Morice the Welshman on the other part. This Morris was appointed the rector of the seminary, with whom took part doctor Lewes an other Welshman, (who was archdeacon to the Archbishop of Cambrey, and referendary to the Pope at that time,) and also Cardinal Morone then the protector of the English nation. With the scholars took part, the close and politic jesuits, who would seem to do nothing in the matter openly, but in deed did all in all secretly. For the space of some days, (in which time the matter was hotly handled on both sides, daily suits being made, and supplications exhibited unto his holiness,) the Cardinal prevailed, and the pope discharged the scholars. But the jesuits laboured so forcibly (& yet covertly:) that within three days, (notwithstanding all the means that the Cardinal did and could make,) the scholars were again restored to their places. For Toledo the jesuite was commanded by the general of their society, to fall prostrate This Toledo was pope Gregory's preacher, & adviser in all important Ecclesiastical causes. on his knees before the pope's holiness, and there to make a pitiful lamentation for the overthrow of England. that is forsooth, that now were rejected the finest wits, the most toward youths, the seed of popery, and the only hope of the English nation: who now exiled for zeal in religion, and come to be his popish vassals: must either be trained up in papistry after the jesuitical manner, or else should England never be reclaimed world without end. Which sweet narration, no sooner sounded in the pope's ears: but he commanded the scholars, to be received into the College again. And shortly after by jesuitical policy, Master Morice was officiperda, and a jesuite made rector in his place. This dissension still continueth in that seminary, as in which have been four or five (to speak of the least,) notorious combats or endeavours between the rector and the students: who should expulse each other. And sometime the rector hath so prevailed by policy, that some few have been dismissed: and other-somtime the general of the jesuits hath been glad to change the rector, so to appease the dissension. The like agreement is, amongst the papists at home here in England: for I pray you, did not their holy confessor M. Sherewood, even in the time of his bonds for popery, murder his brother papist in the tower of London? I wot he did. Did not old Sir john in the kidcote at York so agree with Comberforth the priest, that they would never keep company the one with the other: though living both in one little prison, and imprisoned for the self same cause? it was so, myself was testis oculatus. Did not Wright, Fletcher, and Comberforth, imprisoned all together in the blockhouses at Hull upon Kingston, agree in dividing their contributions which were right large ones, even as thieves agree in dividing their spoils and robberies? Their mutual contumelies filled the ears of countrey-papistes, their writings were lamented of the readers. Let Padley, Norlees, and Haversiege say, if it be not so. What holy amity is between the jesuite Mushe, and other seminarie-priestes, Brothel, Dakins, Butler, and others his brother priests will witness with me. And that ye may know in one word the perfection of the English Romish seminary, you must understand, that by the jesuits their advice, the students in their supplications to the pope in their great conflict with the Cardinal, promised that they would all be romish priests, for the conversion of England to his Romish religion. Which offer and promise was very plausible in the pope's ears. For the better confirmation of which promise, all the scholars were shortly after called to their corporal oaths. All which was wrought and contrived, by the politics the jesuits: some few scholars only acquainted with the promise and oath, until the very instant in which they did swear. Which oath as it was ungodlily made, so is it and will be ungodlily performed, so long as that college can stand, by all probability. I say by all probability, because I have great reason so to think: though I can not as a God, divine of future contingents. That it is ungodly performed, too much experience showeth by so many seminaries sent daily in multitudes, oddly and disloyally into this land. The like experience we have in john Gower, who so long resisted the jesuits in refusing to be made priest, and at length was made against his will for fear: as also in Humphrey Maxfielde and Thomas Newell very proper scholars for their time, who staying in the seminary until they were urged to be priests, were at the last expulsed because they would not be priests. But now to dissensions of more importance. The second Article. BEllarminus avoucheth, that it neither is nor ever was lawful since Christ's time, for Bishops, Priests, or Deacons, to marry after taking of their orders: as which saith Bellar. lib. 1. de clericis ca 19 he, is prohibited by the apostolic law. But their Canon law telleth us another tale, for thus is it written in their own decrees: Cum ergo ex sacerdotibus nati in summos pontifices supra legantur esse promoti, non sunt intelligendi de fornication, sed de Dist. 56. cap. cenomanensen. legitimis coniugijs nati: quae sacerdotibus ante prohibitionem ubique licita erant, & in Orient all Ecclesia usque holy eyes licere probantur. When therefore, we read that they are promoted to the popedom, who were the sons of Priests: we must not understand that such were bastards, but borne in lawful wedlock and legitimate: which marriages were lawful for priests every where before the prohibition: and in the east church they are approved to be lawful until this day. And in other place of the said Canon-lawe we are told of many pope's that were priests sons: to wit, Bonifacius, Agapitus, Dist. 56. cap. Osius. Theodorus, silverius, Foelix, Deusdedit, and others. The third article. COncerning venial sins, how they are remitted in purgatory: the dissension is such and so great, as of the schoolmen each one differeth from other. Scotus saith, they are forgiven in the instant of death: that is, when man beginneth first not to be, by reason of his merits joseph. Ang. in 4. sent. de sacrament. poenit. p. 219. in his life time. Durandus sayeth, they are forgiven for the displiecence of venials, which the souls have in that place: and that because they are in charity. So to sayeth, the sin is remitted in purgatory, for the act of charity, and continual patience, which the souls have in their torments. The like dissension is about their pardons, as is said already. The fourth article. NAvarre telleth us, that we are only bound to confess our mortal and great sins; and that a papist coming to their sacramental confession, may confess some, and conceal other Navarr. ca 21. n. 34. in ench. some. These are his words: Hoc praeceptum non includit venialia, etiam si mixta sint mortalibus. Quibus consequens est posse quem si velit, confesso uno peccato veniali alterum tacere. This precept doth not include venial sins, albeit they be mingled with mortals. whereupon it followeth, that the penitent may if he list, confess one venial and conceal another. Thus Navarre. To which I add: that by this doctrine, the penitent may dissemble egregiously in confession, and deceive his ghostly father: and yet not sin at all. But the famous popish Chancellor of Paris johannes Gersonus, telleth another tale. Thus he writeth: Omne peccatum pro quanto est offensa Dei & contra legem eius aeternam, est de sua conditione & indignitate mortiferum, secundum rigorem Gerso. de vita spirituali, lect. 1. circa medium part. 3. justitiae, & à vita gloriae separativum. Ratio est, quoniam omnis offensa in Deum, potest justè ab ipso judice deo puniri poena mortis t●n temporalis quàm aeternae, imò annihilationis poena. est igitur de se mortifera. assumptum deducitur ex hoc, quod nulla poenâ talis est ita mala, quàm mala est ipsa offen sa. Et ex alio: quia potius toleranda esset omnis mors paenalis & annihilatio, quàm committenda esset quantumlibet parva offensa in deum, da oppositum, iam offensa Dei licitè fieri deberet in casu. Every sin in that it is an offence against God and his eternal law, is mortal of it own condition and indignity according to the rigour of justice, and devideth us from the life of glory. The reason is, because God may justly punish every offence done against him, as well with eternal as temporal death, and with the mult of annihilation. It is therefore mortal of it own nature. The assumption is gathered of this, for that no such punishment is so evil as the offence. as also because every penal death, and annihilation both: aught rather to be tolerated, than the least sin to be committed: Grant the contrary, and in some case sin shall be done lawfully, and be no sin at all. Thus saith Gerson, and this is a true, learned, and comfortable saying. whereof more shallbe said hereafter. The fift Article. NAvarre saith, that one may both deny in word and upon his oath, that which the judge requireth of him: so he equivocate, and make his own sense unto himself: but their learned doctor Navar. in enchir. cap. 18. n. 61. cap. 25. n. 43. Genesius Sepulveda, telleth him it may not be so. Yet all our politics, our jesuits I would say, hold with Navarre. Yea, the jesuits will now and then by equivocation, deny themselves to be Christians: as their dear brother john Mushe confesseth, in his answer to my addition. whose words Irehearsed at large, in my counterblast against him and his adherents. The sixth Article. ALL the Romish jesuits and other papists now adays avouch obstinately, that matrimony is a sacrament, and conferreth grace ex opere operato: but their own Durandus and Gaufridus, affirm boldly the contrary. Durand hath these express words: Praeter duo praedicta, sunt alia duo circa matrimonium, Durand. in 4. sent. dist. 26. q. 3. circa quae sine periculo haeresis, licitum est contraria opinari: quorum unum est theologicum, videlicet, utrum in matrimonio confer atur gratia ex opere operato, sicut in aliis sacramentis novaelegis. Secundum est logicum, videlicet, utrum matrimonium habeat plenam univocationem cum alijs sacramentis. Besides these two, there be other two things to be considered in matrimony, wherein we may without danger of heresy think the contrary. The one is theological, to wit, if in matrimony be conferred grace ex opere operato, as in other sacraments of the new law. The other is logical, to wit, if matrimony be a sacrament properly and univocally so called. And Durandus avoucheth Gaufridus with other Canonists, to be of his opinion. So then, matrimony neither giveth grace, nor yet is properly a sacrament. THE seventh ARTICLE of their Dissension. SYlvester Prieras hath these words: Papa est imperatore maior dignitate, plus quàm aurum plumho. Sylvest. de papa num. 10. The pope doth more excel the Emperor in dignity then gold excelleth lead. Again he saith thus Donavit Constantinus papae in vener ationem & recognitionem Dominij, administrationem temporalem imperij, & eandem immediatè Papa conceait imperatori in usum, & stipendium officij, pro gubernation & defension pacifica ecclesiae. The Emperor Constantine gave the pope temporal administration of the Empire, in token of his reverence and homage: and the pope gave the Emperor the same again, as the stipend of his service, for his peaceable protection of the church. And a little after he hath these words: unde dico, quod de plenitudine potestatis ex causa rationabili, potest omnes leges civiles evertere, & alias condere: nisi in quantum spectant ad Sylvest. de papa num. 14. ius naturale aut divinum, nec imperator cum omnibus legibus & populis Christianis possent contra eius voluntatem quicquam statuere. Where upon I say, that of the fullness of power upon reasonable cause, the pope may dissolve all the civil laws, and make others: neither can the emperor with all laws and consent of Christendom determine any one jot against his mind. Archidiaconus and Augustinus de Ancona, are of the self same opinion with Sylvester. But other papists are ashamed now thus to hold: and therefore write sharply against this opinion. Bellarminus saith thus: Christus ut homo dum in terris vixit, non accepit, nec voluit ullum temporale dominium: summus autem Pontifex Christi vicarius Bellar. li. 5. de Rom. pont. c. 4. A. est, & Christum nobis represent at qualis erat dum hîc inter homines ulveret. Igitur summus Pontifex ut Christi vicarius, at que adeo ut summus Pontifex est, nullum habet temporale dominium. Christ as man while he lived on earth, neither had nor would have any temporal dominion: but the pope is Christ's viear, and representeth Christ to us, in such sort as he lived here among men: therefore the pope as Christ's vicar, and consequently as pope, hath no temporal dominion. Victoria hath these words: Potest as temporalis non dependet a summo pontifice, sicut aliae potestates Victor. test. ecclesiae pag. 38. spirituales inferiores. Et paulo post: licèt assertores alterius partis communiter dicunt, quòd papa instituit omnem potestatem temporalem, tanquam delegatam & subor dinatam sibi, & quod ipse constituit Constantinum imperatorem: sedtotum hoc est fictitium & sine quacunque probabilitate, nec innititur vel ratione, vel testimonijs, vel scripturae, vel saltem alicuius expatribus, vel verè theologis, sed glossatores juris hoc dominium de derunt papae, cum ipsiessent pauperes rebus & doctrina. Temporal power doth not depend upon the pope as inferior spiritual powers do: although others of the other part commonly say, that the pope ordained all temporal power, as delegate and subordinate to himself, and that he made Constantine emperor. But all this is a mere fable, and void of all probability, neither hath it any ground, either of reason, or of scripture, or of ancient fathers, or good divine. yet the glosses of the canons gave the pope this pre-eminence, Lo, ignorance and poverty are the advancers of popedom. because themselves were beggarly follows and unlearned. Behold here the lively original of popedom, even by the testimony of the best learned popish doctor. The eight article of Dissension. THe papists this day do constantly hold and teach, as a necessary doctrine of faith: that there be venial sins which do not dissolve the amity between God and man: because they are not (say they) contra but praeter legem dei. which distinction Thomas Aquinas uttereth very plainly in these words: Peccatum veniale dicitur peccatum secundùm rationem imperfectam, & in ordine ad peccatum mortale, sicut accidens dicitur ens in ordine ad substantiam secundum Aquinas 12. q. 88 ar. 1. ad 1. imperfectam rationem entis: non enim est contra legem. quia venialiter peccans non facit quod lex prohibet, nec praetermittit jam, ad quod lex per praeceptum obligat, sedfacit praeter legem, quia non observat modum rationis quam lex intendit, A venial sin is termed sin, after an unperfect manner, & way to a mortal sin, even as accidens is called ens in order to substantia, after an unperfect reason of ens. For it is not against the law: because he that sinneth venially, doth not that which the law forbiddeth, neither doth omit that to which the law by precept doth oblige, but doth beside the law, because it doth not observe the manner of reason which the law intendeth. But this opinion is sharply reproved, and flatly confuted, by many learned papists. For Michael Baius apud Bellar. Mich. Baius apud Bellar. de purgator. l. 2. cap. 4. joannes Gerson de vita spirituali, lect. 1. circa med. & Roffensis artic. 32. cont. Luther, affirm, that every sin is mortal of it own nature & therefore may justly be punished eternally. Durandus proveth by many reasons, that every sin is against the law of God. joannes Gerson & Almain Apud Navar. prelud. 7. num. 16. hold the same. For thus speaketh joseph. Angl. of them. Tertia opinio est Gerso. & Almaini asserentium venialia & mortalia non differre ex natura rei, sed tantum ex divina misericordia, eo joseph. Ang. in 2. s. d. 37. diffic. 6, quod placuit divinae maiestati imputare ad paenam aeternam mortale, veniale autem ad temporalem. utrumque tamen ex natura sua, cum sit in Deum, esse dignum poena aeterna. The third opinion is Gersons and Almains, affirming that venial and mortal sins do not differ in the nature of the thing, but only Gerson. part. 3. de vita spiritualilect. 1. by the mercy of God: in that it pleased the majesty of God, to assign eternal pain for the one, and temporal for the other. For both of them deserve eternal pain of their own nature, because they are against God, And in another place, the same josephus writeth in this manner. Durandus tamen & alij permulti hanc sententiam impugnant, affirmantes Idem joseph. ubi supr, diffic. peccata venialia esse contra mandata: & haec opinio, videtur modò in scholis communior. But Durand and many others impugn this opinion, avouching venial sins to be against the commandment: and this opinion now adays, seemeth to be more common in the schools. where note The popish doctrine is mutable. See the 1. c. & 4. concls. by the way out of the word (modo now adays,) the mutability of tomish religion. THE NINTH ARTICLE. of Dissension. THe council of Trent, Thomas Aquinas, Bellarminus, and many other papists, affirm matrimony to be properly a sacrament of the new testament, and to confer grace. But Durand denieth it, either to give grace, or to be properly a sacrament. Durand. in 4. d. 26. quest. 3. So Alphonsus a Castro, and Petrus a Soto, deny it to be properly a sacrament of the new jaw. Apud. Bellar. l. 1. de matr. c. 6. And Melchior Canus, having sundry others of his opinion, (as he saith,) holdeth matrimony to be a sacrament, yet not every matrimony to be so: but only that matrimony, which is celebrated a ministro Canus de locis l. 8. c. 5. fol. 246. ecclesiastico sacris et solennibus verbis: by the minister of the church in sacred and solemn words. The like dissension is among Papists, about the matter and form of the said sacrament. For josephus Angles reciteth five several opinions, joseph. Ang. in 4. s. de matri. ar. 4. diffis. 1. for and concerning this one point of popish doctrine. And Melchior Canus beholdeth such variety in this matter, as he reputeth him a mad man, that will believe their sayings. whose words for better credit sake, are these: Canus de locis lib. 8. cap. 5, p, 245. Lege magistrum. D. Tho. Scotum, Bonav. Richard. Palud. Durand. caetero sque scholae theologos, & nisi statim eorum pendentes ac vacillantes animos deprehenderis, tum vero me aut stultum, aut temerarium iudicato. Name & cum quaerunt an matrimonium conferat gratiam, id quod maxime eo loco finiendum erat, non definiunt tamen: sed in his referunt quae in hominum opinione sunt posita. In materia item & forma huius sacramenti statuenda, adeo sunt inconstantes & varij, adeo incerti & ambigui, ut ineptus futurus sit, qui in tanta illorum varietate & discrepantia, rem aliquam certam, constantem, exploratam conetar efficere. Read the master, S. Thomas Bonaventure, Richardus, Paludanus, Durandus, and other school divines: & if by and by thou dost not perceive their wavering and doubtful minds, then judge me either a fool or a rash fellow. For when they inquire if matrimony confer grace, that which was especially to be defined, that define they not at all, but only tell what others think therein: and in determining the matter and form of this sacrament, they are so unconstant and various, so uncerten and ambiguous: that he may be deemed a fool, who in such their variety and dissent, will establish any constant doctrine. Here gentle reader, thou mayest behold the dissension of papists, even in their sacraments and matters mostimportant. The tenth Article of dissension. PAnormitanus, Abulensis, Gerson, Almain, Cusanus, with all the fathers of the counsel assembled at Constance, affirm every general council to be above the Pope, as I have proved in the 4. chapter and third conclusion: But all our Dominicanes, jesuits, and seminaries, do with open mouths avouch the contrary, as their writings Let not the Papists hence forth boast of their unity. and experience this day teacheth us. The eleventh article of dissension. THe jesuits and seminaries tell us, that the Church consisteth in those pope's, who sit by material succession in Peter's chair at Rome: how bad soever their lives be, and how erroneous soever be their private opinions: but their own great doctor Nich. Lyranus, doth sharply impugn that their sottish assertion: telling them that many pope's have forsaken the christian faith and become atheists, & therefore that the church doth not consist in the material succession of men, but in the faith of Peter and doctrine which he preached. Read the place & mark the words, for they are most evident. Read his words in the third chapter, and fourth conclusion. The like dissension is amongst papists, about the pope's dispensation in matrimonio ratonon consummato, as is already proved in the fifth chapter: read and peruse the chapter. The twelfth Article of dissension. MAny papists, as Aquinas, Richardus, Paludanus, Marsilius, pope Gregory, & all his canonists do hold, that a simple priest by virtue vide Bellar. & jos. Ang. de sacram. confir. of the pope's dispensation, may lawfully and effectually minister their sacrament of confirmation. Which opinion Covarruvias recordeth and justifieth in these words: Tertio probatur simplicem sacer dotem posse ex Rom. pontificis dispensatione, sacramentum hoc confirmationis ministrare, auctoritate D. Gregorij Covar. tom. 2. l. 1. c. 10. pa. 24. de sacr. consir. qui permittit & vere concedit licentiam presbyteris, ubi desunt Episcopi ministrandi sacramentum confirmationis: quod si fieri iure non posset, vir doctissimus & sanctissimus minime permisisset. It is proved thirdly, that a simple priest may upon the pope's grant, administer this sacrament of confirmation by S. Gregory's authority, who permitteth and indeed giveth licence unto priests where bishops want, to do the same. But his opinion and practice is stoutly impugned by other great vide Covarr. jos. & Bellar. de sacr. confir. papists, to wit, Bonaventura, Alphonsus, Durandus, Scotus, Maior, and pope Hadrian, who all avouch that pope Gregory was a man and therefore might err, and erred indeed egregiously, what greater and more important dissension can be then this? for confirmation is a sacrament with the papists. The thirteenth article of dissension. ALbertus Magnus, Thomas Aquinas, joannes Maior, Bonaventura, Almain, Richardus, and other papists affirm, that every vide Bellarm. & jos. Ang. of their 7. orders is a sacrament. Whereupon I might infer right consequently, that the papists have by iustnumber, 13. sacraments in all. But their Durand doth reject this common opinion, as foolish and improbable. Yea, Victoria, josephus Angles, Caietanus, and Petrus Lombardus their master of sentences, are no small patrons of Durandus his opinion. josephus Anglus writeth thus: Non est erroneum affirmare cum Dur ando, solam or dinationem sacerdotis jos. Ang. de sacram. ord. 2. diffic. 3. esse sacramentum ordinis, reliquas vero ordinationes sacramentalia esse, quia Ecclesia hactenus non declaravit oppositum, neque eius opinio scripturae sacrae & sanctorum auctoritatibus contradicit. It is not erroneous to affirm with Durande that only priesthood is a sacrament, and that the six other are mere sacramentals, because the Church hitherto hath not declared the contrary, neither is this opinion contrary to holy scripture, or to the doctrine of the fathers. Victoria hath these words: Sienim aliqui ordines non sunt juris divini ut certo constat deminoribus: non est dubitandum, quin collatio illorum committi possit non Episcopo. Victor. de potest ecclesiae, relect. 2. p. 90. For if some orders be not de iure divino, as it is certain of the lesser orders: there is no doubt but the collation thereof may be committed to him that is no bishop. And in another place the said Victoria saith thus: Opinio Durandi & Caietani est probabilissima, scilicet quod solum sacerdotium est sacramentum, vel saltem quod quatuor minores non Victor. de sacramento. ord. 119. sunt sacramentum. The opinion of Durand and Caietane is most probable, to wit, that only priesthood is a sacrament, or at the least, that the four lesser orders are not a sacrament. And a little after he telleth us, that pope Vrbanus and Innocentius are of the same opinion. These be his words: Innocentius vir doctissimus, allegans Vrbanum papam dicit: Vrbanus ait quod solum presbyteratus & diaconatus sunt sacri ordines, & Victor. ubi su-pra. quodilli solum leguntur fuisse in primitiva Ecclesia. Innocentius a very learned pope affirmeth with pope Urban, that only priesthood and deaconship are holy orders, and that they only were in the primitive Church. The fourteenth article of dissension. COvarruvias having alleged many writers touching the exemption of Clergymen from secular judgements, hath these words: Covarr. tom. 2. cap. 3. pract. quaest. Quorum omnium ea est concors sententia, quodhaec clericorum exemptio sit omnino juris divini, cut per humanam legem derogari non possit. Who all hold this opinion constantly, that this exemption of Clerks is wholly of the law divine: from which, man's law can not derogate. Yet as saith the said Covarruvias in the same place, the contrary opinion is defended of many other papists: to wit, of Aquinas, Medina, Alciatus, Innocentius and others: so doubtful is their popish doctrine. The like dissension is about the conception of our Lady: for the pope and his jesuits hold, that she was conceived without sin, and therefore do they celebrate the day of her conception: Aquinas in 3. part. q. 27. ar. 2. ad. 3. but Aquinas (whose docttine sundry pope's have confitmed) defendeth constantly the contrary opinion. And all Thomistes take part with him, some few excepted. The fifteenth article of dissension. IT is a constant position with the papists, as which is lately defined bytheir council of Trent, that no man knoweth himself to be in the favour of God: & yet doth their religious bishop Amb. Catharinus, oppose himself with tooth & nail against the same: as appeareth evidently to such as list to read them, by the bitter invective treatises between Dominicus Soto & him, concerning moral good acts. The Scotistes hold, that we can keep all the commandments, quoad substantiam operis: the Thomistes say, we can do some, but not all: their great schoolman Gregorius holds, that we can do none at all. The sixteenth Article of dissension. THat the Emperor Constantine was baptized at Rome by Sylvester then bishop there, is constantly affirmed by Damasus, Nicholaus, vide Canum de locis, lib. 11. cap. 5. p. 320. Clemens, Thomas, Platina, Marianus, Sabellicus: yea, Nicephorus avoucheth it to be so certain, as every one may think it, and securely believe it. yet is this opinion sharply impugned, by many others with them deemed papists: Hieronymus, Eusebius, Socrates, Argumentum ad hominem. Theodoritus, Zozomenus, Cassiodorus, and Pomponius. The seventeenth article of dissension. THe pope and his jesuits tell us, that in the eucharist, the substance of bread is transsubstantiated into the body of Christ, so as accidents remain there without their subjects: but my L. Abbot their Rupertus saith, that Christ is personally bread in hypostatical union by force of consecration, even as he is personally man Apud Bellar. lib. 3. de euch. cap. 11. by incarnation. The eighteenth article of dissension. THe pope and his Cardinals with the troops of jesuits, tell us, that private Mass is lawful, and that the priest may devour De consecr. dist. secunda, cap. peracta. d. 1. c. omnes, & can. 10. apostolorum. up all himself: but apostolical canons appoint all to communicate, or else to be driven out of the congregation: and pope Calixtus affirmeth the very same. The nineteenth article of dissension. POpish dissension touching the production of a substance, out of the accidents which papists imagine, to remain without jos. Ang. in 4 art. vlt. de accid. euchar. subjects in the eucharist: is incredible. Innocentius holdeth one opinion: Aquinas two, the one repugnant to the other: Richardus another, Caietane another, Scotus another. The twentieth article of dissension. THe Church of Rome teacheth it to be a matter of faith, to believe Christ's body to be in every part, when one of their consecrated hosts is broken in many pieces: but their schooledoctour jos. Angl. in 4. s. q. 1. de euch. 7. diffic. johannes Mayor, saith it is a problem. The 21. article of Dissension. TOuching the quantity of bread and wine, how much may be joseph. Angl. in 4. s. de euchar. 5. diffic. q. 1. consecrated at one mass: there are three opinions amongst the papists. Bonaventura holdeth one opinion, Cajetan another, and the third is the common. The 22. article of dissension. COncerning the bread to be consecrated: Albertus magnus holdeth, that either wheat or barley bread will suffice. Caietaine jos. Ang. in 4. de euchar. art. 3. saith, any bread what soever is used to be eaten in any country, may be the bread of consecration. 3 The third opinion holdeth, that only bread of wheat can suffice. The 23. article of Dissension. COnfirmation with the papists is a sacrament, and therefore can it not be omitted without sin, as Richardus, Durandus, Adrianus q. de confir. ar. 1. and Sylvester affirm: yet do Aquinas and pope Adrian, defend the contrary. The 24. article of Dissension. Joannes Parisiensis affirmeth the substance of bread, to Aquinas p. 3. q. 65. ar. 4. Apud joseph. Ang. in 4. sent. de converse. p. 166. be united to the body of Christ hipostatically: Durande holdeth that the substance of bread is destroyed, but the matter of bread abideth still with Christ's body. Cardinal Cajetan saith, that nothing in the Gospel enforceth us to understand these words, (this is my body,) so grossly & carnally as the papists do. The council of Trent avoucheth, that the bread neither is annihilated, neither abideth it still in the sacrament: quod qui potest capere, capiat: for if it neither abide in the sacrament, neither is annihilated, that is, become nothing: I would know what it is, and where it abideth. The 25. article of Dissension. AQuinas and Caietanus affirm, that the quantity of a popish consecrated host, may be corrupted naturally Scotus saith, that is joseph. Ang. in 4. sent. de accident. eucharist. p. 172. impossible, to every natural agent: josephus Angles holdeth, that a natural agent may corrupt the whole quantity, by division of the parts thereof: but neither by way of condensation, neither by transemutation into another form: and that forsooth, because the quantity of popish sacrament, is there without a subject: which subject is the ordinary object of every natural agent. The 26. article of Dissension. COncerning consecration of the chalice, (as the papists term it,) Aquinas holdeth, that all the words set down in the romish missal, are of the essence of the form. Alexander Alensis, Bonaventura, and Durandus affirm, that more than the one half of the said words, are mere extrinsical and not of the essence thereof. Scotus saith, that the form is not certainly known unto the Church of Rome: and therefore none can be-secure, but he that pronounceth all the words. Soto avoucheth, that if the priest have intention to consecrate by the former words, (which Bonaventure, Alensis, & Durand joseph. Ang. in 4. sent. de euchar. p. 104. teach to be the form,) then the said priest consecrateth, but committeth thereby sacrilege: because forsooth, saith Soto, peradventure the other opinion is true. And josephus exhorteth very gravely, to have intention, neither to consecrate precisely by the former words, nor yet by the latter, but to have the intention of the Church, (inmpe with the collier:) for in so doing saith he, the sacrificer shall be in no danger. Now I beseech thee gentle Reader, what horse would not break his halter to hear this melody. The 27. article of dissension. COncerning the formation of Eve, wonderful are the exclamations of Catharinus against Caietanus, and of Antonius Fonseca against Catharinus: as also of Paulus Burgensis against Lyranus, & of Mathias Thoring against Burgensis. in many other things peruse their glosses upon the old and new testament, and all this will appear. The 28. article of Dissension. IT is a great question amongst the papists, what that is which a mouse eateth, when she catcheth their reserved host. Bonaventura, & their Lombard. & Bonavent. in 4. s. d. 13. master of sentences affirm, that the mouse eateth not Christ's body: but our pope's, Cardinals, and jesuits defend the contrary, as a grounded article of their belief. The 29. article of Dissension. POpe Adrian, Richardus, and Panormitanus tell us, that a priest being contrite, may say mass before he be confessed: but by joseph. Ang. in 4. s. p. 117. the decree of our council of Trent, this fact is a damnable sin. The 30. article of Dissension, OUR pope, Cardinals, and jesuits tell us, that infidels are not joseph. Angl. in 4. s. ar. 2. de confess. bounden to their auricular confession: But Richardus, Gabriel, and Angelus, defend the contrary. The 31. article of dissension. BEllarminus avoucheth, that more voices in counsels must needs Read their words in the 4. chap. be of force: but Canus affirmeth, that the lesser part is the best, if the pope hold with the same. And yet in this point notwithstanding their good agreement resteth the foundation of their popish religion. The 32. article of dissension. THe council of Lateran, (where were present 284. persons, patriarchs, Concil. Later. can. 1. de fide cathol. Metropolitans, bishops, and abbots) defined absolutely, that angels were created at one and the self same time with the world: and yet Basilius, Nazianzenus, Damascenus, Hieronimus, Augustinus, and Aquinas, deny the same to be a matter of faith. Canus de jocis lib. 5, 169. Many other like dissensions I could easily allege, as of Cardinal caietan's dissension about divorce and such like. But because mine intent is to be brief, these for this time may suffice. For if I should touch all dissensions amongst the papists, the day would sooner fail me, than matter whereof to speak. The Corollary. FIrst therefore, since the papists are at bloody conflict, concerning the pope's civil regiment. Secondly, since they teach venial sins not to dissolve amity between God and man, their greatest doctors impugning the same. Thirdly, since some of them constantly affirm matrimony to be a sacrament: and other some deny the same with tooth and nail. Fourthly, since to hold the pope to be above the general council, is with some no article of faith nor error at all, with other some an error in faith, and flat heresy. Fiftly, since some papists maintain romish doctrine by material succession, & other some bitterly exclaim against the same. sixtly, since some do affirm, that the pope may dispense for the ministry of confirmation: and other some that it is a heinous crime. Seaventhlie, since some hold, that every of their orders is a sacrament, & some zealously impugn the same. Eightly, since many papists defend our Lady's conception without sin: & many other avouch it to have been in sin. Ninthly, since it is a constant doctrine among the papists, that Constantine was baptised at Rome, and that notwithstanding ancient fathers with uniform consent, repute the same a fable: a lie, since those & many other important dissensions, be amongst the papists: I conclude, that it is a sufficient motive for me to renounce the romish religion, as false, erroneous, and pernicious doctrine. Thus much of the seventh motive. THE NINTH CHAPTER: Of credit due unto writers. THe papists exclaim against protestants, because they reject now and then the authority of man. For whose better satisfaction in that behalf, if they will be satisfied with reason: these conclusions following may suffice. The first conclusion. THe protestants speaking of the wiser and discreeter sort, do highly reverence the holy fathers and ancient writers, diligently read their works, and gladly use them as good helps and ordinary means under God: for & concerning the exact explication of holy writ. Of this conclusion none can be ignorant or stand in doubt thereof, that seriously peruse doctor jewel, the famous and worthy bishop of Saris bury against Doctor Harding: Doctor Whitgift, the most reverend, learned, and virtuous arch bishop of Canterbury, against M. Cartwright: Doctor Cooper the reverend bishop of winchester, against the Martinistes: Doctor Reinolds, Doctor Seravia, Doctor Sutliue, and others. The second Conclusion. THE Protestants, although they speak and think reverently of the ancient fathers: yet do they neither repute their works of equal authority with the holy Scriptures: neither to be free from all errors and imperfections. wherein they nothing at all swerve from the modest estimation, which the said holy fathers had ever of themselves. For proof of this conclusion. S. Augustine writeth in this manner. Ego solis eye scripture arun libris qui iam canonici appellantur, hunc timorem & honorem didici defer, ut nullum eorum auctorem scribendo Aug. epist. 19 ad Hero. aliquiderrasse firmissime credam. alios autem it a lego, ut quantalibet sanctitate doctrinaque praepolleant, non ideo verum putem quia ipsi it a censuerunt, sed quia mihi velper illos auctores canonicos, vel probabili ratione quod a veritate non abhorreat, per suadere 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 & 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. And in another place, the same saint Augustine hath these words. Ego huius epistolae authoritate non teneor, quòd litter as Cypriani ut canonicas Aug. contra Cresconium l. 2. c. 32. non habeo, sed eas ex canonicis considero, & quoth in eyes divinarum scripturarum auctoritati congruit, cum laud eius accipio: quòd autem non congruit, cum pace eius respuo. I am not bound to the authority of this epistle, because I take not Cyprian his writings for canonical, but consider them by the canonical, and what I find in them agreeable to holy writ, that with his praise do I receive: but what is dissonant, that with his favour I reject. And again he saith of himself in this manner: Negare non possum nec debeo, sicut in ipsis maioribus it a multa esse Habetur dist. 9 c. negare 4. in tam multis opusculis meis, quae possunt justo judicio et nulla temeritate culpari. I neither can nor dare deny, but as in our ancestors, so in my works also are many things, which may justly, and without all temerity be reproved. yea the same saint Augustine opposeth only saint Paul's testimony against all the writer's Saint Hierome could Aug. epist. 19 ad Hier. tom. 2. pag. 50. allege, about the great controversy, where saint Peter was reproved of saint Paul. By which testimony it is very plain, that S. Augustine did reverence the old writers, but yet did think them men, and to have their errors: & therefore would be not admit for truth what soever they wrote but only that which he found to be consonant to the holy scriptures. And because my L. of Roch. is so highly renowned in the church of Rome, he shall make an end of this conclusion, where he writeth in this manner: Nec Augustini nec Hieronimi, nec alterius cuinslibet auctoris doctrinae sic ecclesia subscripsit, quin ipsi locis aliquot ab ijs louse at dissentire. nam in nonnullis ipsilocis se plane monstrarunt homines Roffensis art. 32. advers. Luth. p. 420. esse, atque nonnunquam aberrasse sequitur: quo fit, ut tametsi propter aliquas humanas hallucinationes, de multis (quae dicti patre, in commentarijs suis reliquerunt) dubitare liceat: sanctitatem tamen eorum haud licet in dubium revocare. The church (of Rome) hath not so subscribed to the doctrine, either of Augustine or of Hierome, or of any other writer: but that we may dissent from their opinions in some places. For themselves have in certain places showed plainly that they were men, and wanted not their errors. Wherhfore albeit by reason of humane frailty we may lawfully doubt of many things which the said fathers have left behind them in their books: yet may we not now call their holiness into question. In which words, our great popish bishop teacheth us three documents. 1 First, that their church giveth every one liberty, to dissent from Augustine, Hierome, and other writers whosoever. 2 secondly, that the fathers have plainly declared themselves to be men, and to have had their imperfections accordingly. 3 thirdly, that many errors are to be found in the commentaries of the fathers. So then our bishop is of my opinion, and so also should the rest be: if they would be constant in their own doctrine, which is published to the view of the world. The 3. Conclusion. NOt that which the greater part of the fathers or more voices agree unto, is always the undoubted truth: but often times that which the lesser part, and fewer persons do affirm. For the proof hereof, Melchior Canus writeth thus: Scimus frequenter usu venire, ut maior pars vincat meliorem scimus Canus de locis lib. 5. c. 5. pag. 164. non ea semper esse optima, quae placent pluribus: scimus in rebus quae ad doctrinam pertinent, sapientum sensum esse praeferendum: & sapientes sunt paucissimi, cum stultorum infinitus sit numerus. We know it often chanceth so, that the greater part prevaileth against the better. we know that those things are not ever the best, which please the most. we know that in matters of doctrine, the judge meant of the wise aught to be followed: for wise men be few, and fools infinite. josephus Angles, Thomas Aquinas, and Petrus Lombardus affirm it to be the opinion of the old fathers, of Basilius, of joseph. Ang. de create. rerum dist. 12. q. 1. Ambrose, of Chrisostomus, of Hieronimus, of Eusebius, of Damascenus, of Gregorius, and of others, that the world was created in 6. natural days successively, as Moses recordeth the same: yet this notwithstanding, saint Augustine holdeth opinion against them all, Tho. Aquinas 1. p. quest. 74. ar. 2. in cor. p. Lombard. l. 2. dist. 12. and saith, that the 6. days mentioned by Moses were metaphorical, not natural. Moses dividing those things which were made by parts, for the better capacity of the rude and ignorant people to whom he spoke. which opinion of one only Augustine, was ever preferred in the church, as testifieth Melchior Canus in these words: At communis hic sanctorum consensus nullum argumentum certum Canus de locis. l. 7. cap. 1 p. 116. theologis subministrat, quin unius Aug. opinio caeteris omnibus adversa, probabilis semper in ecclesia est habita. But this common consent of the holy fathers doth not yield any found argument to divines, for the opinion of one only Augustine repugnant to the rest was ever thought probable in the church. All the old writers, Augustinus, Ambrose, Chrisostomus, Remigius, Canus, ubi supra, p. 217. Eusebius, Maximus, Beda, Anselmus, Bernardus, Erhardus, Bernardinus, Bona ventura, Thomas, Hugo, and all the rest without exception, affirm uniformly citing express texts of scripture for their opinion, that the blessed virgin Marie was conceived in original sin: & yet doth the late hatched nest of jesuits, and sundry other papists avouch this day the contrary for the truth. Therefore saith their own archbishop and great canonist Panormitanus: that we ought at all times to give more credit to one only prelate whosoever alleging the scriptures, then to the resolution of the Panormit. apud. Sylvest. de conc. par. 3 pope himself, or of his council, not grounded upon the said scriptures. The 4. Conclusion. THe papists themselves do often reject the general and common opinion, and follow their own private judgements, never remembering, or little regarding, that they condemn the like in others. This writeth their own Melchior Canus. Vbi ego si Thomistae omnes cum Scotistis existant, sicum antiquis iuniores vellent contra me pugnare, tamen superior sim necesse est. non enim Canus de locis, l. 8. c. 5. p. 245. ut nonnulli putant, omnia sunt in Theologorum auctoritate. wherein, though all the Thomistes stand with the Scotistes, though the old writers with the young fight against me, yet shall I of necessity have the upper hand over them. For all things rest not as some do think, in the authority of divines. Their own Cardinal Cajetan, notwithstanding his zealous affection towards popery & his own popish estate, did for all that freely acknowledge the truth in this point: in so much that he preferreth a sense newly perceived, but grounded upon the scriptures before the old received opinion of how many fathers so ever. whose words because they are worthy the hearing and reading I will allege at large. Thus doth he write. Super quinque libris Mosis juxta sesum literalem novumque scripturae sensum quandoque illaturus sub s●matris Caietai, in sua prefat. in 5. libros Mosaicos ecclesiae aec apostolicae sedis censura, rogo lectores omnes ne precipites detestentur aliquid, sed librent omnia apud sacram scripturam, apudfidei christianae veritatem, apud Catholicae ecclesiae documenta ac mores. & siquando occurrerit novus sensus textui consonus, nec a sacra scriptura, nec ab ecclesiae doctrina dissomus, quamvis a torrent doctorum sacrorum alienus, aequos se prebeant censores. meminerint ius suum uni cuique tribuere, solis scripturae sacrae authoribus reservata est authoritas haec, ut ideo credamus sic esse quodipsiita scripserunt. nullus itaque detestetur novum sacrae scripturae sensum, ex hoc quod dissonat a priscis doctoribus. sed scrutetur per spicacius textum ac contextum scripturae, & si quadrare invenerit, laudet deum, qui non alligavit expositionem scripturarum sacrarum priscorum doctorum sensibus, sed scripturoe ipsi integrae sub catholicae ecclesiae censura. alioquin spes nobis ac posteris tolleretur exponendi scripturam sacram, nisitransferendo (ut aiunt) de libro in quinternum. Being now ready to write upon the pentateuch of Moses according to the literal sense, and purposing to bring now and then a new sense of the scripture, under the censure of our holy mother the church and apostolic seat: I desire all that shall read my commentaries, to contemn nothing rashly, but to ponder every thing with the scripture and the verity of the christian faith, and the doctrine of the catholic church. And if at any time a new sense occur, which is consonant to the text, and not dissonant from holy writ or doctrine of the church, although it swerve from the opinion of never so many fathers: yet let the readers judge thereof indifferently, and according to equity: Let them remember to give every one his right: for this privilege is only granted to the writers of the holy scriptures: that we must therefore believe it to be so, because they have written so. Let none therefore loath a new sense of holy scripture, because it dissenteth from the old doctors: but let him exactly consider the text and context of the scripture: and if he find it to agree, let him praise God, who hath not tied the exposition of the holy scriptures, to the opinions of the old doctors, but to the integrity of the scripture itself, under the censure of the catholic church. For otherwise neither we nor our posterity should have any hope to expound the scripture, but only to translate out of one book into another. Thus we hear the verdict of our Caietaine, our Thomist, our friar, our Cardinal of Rome: by whose resolution it is evident, that no sense, though never so new, no exposition though never so strange, no opinion though different from never so many fathers, aught to be rejected if it be agreeable to the scriptures. and consequently, it followeth by the said resolution, that every truth is to be tried by the scriptures and none by the fathers. For first, our Cardinal telleth us, that he purposeth now & then, to bring new senses, new Glosses, new expositions of the Scriptures. 1 Secondly, he saith, that such new senses must not rashly be contemned, but duly examined by the scriptures: and then admitted, if 5 they be found consonant to the same. Thirdly, he teacheth us this golden lesson, that God hath not tied the exposition of the scripture, to the judgement of any ancient 3 father or fathers whosoever. Fourthly, he telleth us, that the Apostles and such as only penned the holy scriptures, had this special prerogative, that they could 4 not err. All which important points, are so learnedly, so gravely, & so christianly observed by this Cardinal, as more cannot be wished: yea, in the self same preface he professeth constantly, that he will neither expound the Greek nor the Latin text: but the fountain Caiet. ubi supra. and the original, to wit, the Hebrew. And his reason is, because the Hebrew only is authentical. Where note by the way, that the Latin edition which the papists term vulgata, and which is so magnified by the late council of 1 Trent, as both the Greek and the Hebrew must give place unto the same: is of small or no authority in respect of the Hebrew, by Cardinal Caietanus his resolution. Note secondly, that this Cardinal did dedicate these his commentaries, 2 (in which all these memorable observations are contained,) to our holy father Pope Clement himself, who perused them and difallowed no part thereof: and consequently, that this doctrine of Caietane is confirmed by the pope. For so mightily hath God always wrought for the truth of his Gospel, as evident testimonies are set down even by the adversaries, and remain this day with them uncancelled, for confirmation of the same. Neither is this the opinion of the pope's Cardinal only, but of Aquinas also his angelical and best approved doctor. His words I will likewise allege at large, because, albeit they belong, yet can they not be thought tedious to such as love the truth: as which are most significant and effectual for the controversy now in hand. Thus therefore doth he write: Licet locus ab auctoritate quae fundatur super oratione humana, sit infirmissimus; locus tamen ab auctoritate quae fundatur super revelatione divina: est efficacissimus. Vtitur tamen sacra doctrina etiam Aquin. p. 1, q. 1. ar. 8. ad 2. argumentum. ratione humana, non quidem ad probandum fidem, (quia per hoc tolleretur meritum fidei,) sed ad manifest andum aliqua aliaquae traduntur in hac doctrina. Cum igitur gratia non tollat naturam sed perficiat, oportet quod naturalis ratio sub serviat fidei, sicut & naturalis inclinatio voluntatis obsequitur charitati. unde & apostolus dicit, 2. Cor. 10. in captivit atem redigentes omnem intellectum in obsequium Christi. Et inde est, quod & authoritatibus philosophorum sacra doctrina utitur, ubi per rationem naturalem veritatem cogno scere potuerunt: sicut Paulus act. 17. inducit verbum Arati, dicens. sicut & quidam poetarum vestrorum dixerunt, genus Dei samus. sed tamen sacra doctrina huiusmodi auctoritatibus utitur, quasi extraneis argumentis & probabilibus. auctoritatibus autem canonicae scripturae utitur, propriè ex necessitate argumentando. auctorit atibus autem aliorum doctorum ecelesiae, quasi arguendo ex proprijs, sed probabiliter. innititur enim fides nostra revelationi apostolis & prophetis factae, qui canonicos libros scripserunt. non autem revelationi, si qua fuit alijs doctoribus facta. Although the place of authority, which is grounded upon man's reason, be most weak and infirm: yet the place which is grounded upon divine authority, is most sure and effectual. nevertheless, sacred doctrine useth also man's reason, not indeed to establish faith, (for so faith should lose it merit,) but for the manifestation of some other things which are delivered in this doctrine. Since therefore grace doth not destroy nature, but doth pervert the same, it is expedient that natural reason be servant unto faith, even as natural inclination of the will is servant unto charity. whereupon the apostle willeth us, to bring our understanding captive to the obedience of Christ. And from hence cometh it, that sacred doctrine useth also the authorities of philosophers, when they could by natural reason have knowledge of the truth, as Saint Paul alleged the saying of Aratus. yet sacred doctrine useth such authorities, as arguments which are external, and only probable. But useth the authorities of canonical scripture, as arguments that are proper, and which conclude of necessity. as for authorities of the doctors of the church, it useth them as proper arguments: but which are only probable, and do not conclude necessarily. For our faith is grounded upon revelation made to the apostles and prophets, who wrote the canonical scripture: but not upon revelation of any other writers, if any were made unto them. Thus saith Aquinas. Out of whose words I gather First, that the authority brought from man, is ever insufficient. 2 I gather secondly, that that ground whereupon we must build, as upon an undoubted truth, is only and solely the authority of the scriptures. 3 I gather thirdly, that man's reason may never be used, to establish any point of doctrine. 4 I gather fourthly, that the fathers are to be read reverently, and their authorities to be used as probable reasons, but not as necessary demonstrations. 5 I gather fiftly, that feigned romish revelations are not authentical. And consequently, that all revelations divulged under the name of Saint Bridget and others, are either meereillusions, or of small force, and which can yield no sound argument in matters of faith. Victoria in very brief words, uttereth this point effectually. Licet in hoc omnes conveniant, non est tamen mihi certum. Victoria de sacram. p. 118. Although (saith he) all agree in this, yet do not I make it certain. Navarre singeth the same song in many places, whereof I will recite only one. Tum quod fundamentum principale ipsius est; quod communis tenet Navar. in enchir. cap. 7. paral. 4. oppositum, quodip sum etiam ipse assero: sed non obstat, quia a communi recedendum, quum pro contraria est textus velratio, cui non potest satis bene responderi. Because also his principal ground is, that the common opinion is to the contrary: which thing I myself also grant. But that is not of force: for we must renounce the common opinion, when there is either text or reason, which can not be sufficiently answered. In fine, their own gloss in their decrees rejecteth saint Augustine roundly in these words: Cum enim salva sua pace, Augustinus non bene opponit istis, & it a dormit 27. q. 1. c. nupr. avit hic Augustinus. Where saint Augustine by his favour doth not well object against this: and so Augustine here was a sleep. Lo, when the fathers speak not placentia, every beggarly popish gloss rejecteth them at pleasure. And yet must we under pain of excommunication admit their authority, when they seem to make for popery. albeit, they speak never so flatly against the holy council. later. 2. sess. penult. scriptures. yea their late council of Lateran chargeth all preachers under pain of excommunication, that they expound the scriptures according to the old doctors, received in the church of Rome. The Corollary. 1 FIrst therefore, since the ancient fathers may err, and have also erred de facto. 2 secondly, since Saint Augustine admitteth the opinion of fathers, no further than they agree with the scriptures. 3 thirdly, since that which is holden of the greater part of the fathers is often false and disagreeable to the truth. 4 Fourthly, since the papists them-selves prefer the opinion of one before many: Fiftly, since Caietanus, Canus, Navarrus, and others, do all roundly reject the common opinion, when it disliketh them: 6 Sixtly, since their own gloss maketh no account of S. Augustine, when he speaketh not placentia: I conclude, that it is a sufficient motive for me to renounce the romish religion, as false, erroneous, and pernicious doctrive. Thus much of the eight Motive. The X. CHAP. Of Traditions written and unwritien. THe Papists bear the world in hand, that many things necessary for man's salvation, are not contained in the written word: and consequently, that none can be saved, but such as believe their unwritten traditions. Wherein, that truth may plainly show itself, after mine accustomed manner, I put down conclusions. The first conclusion. THe written word or holy scripture, containeth in itself every thing necessary for our salvation. For proof of this conclusion, S. Paul writeth unto Timothy in this manner: Quia ab infantia sacras literas nosti, quae te possunt instruere ad salutem per fidem in Christo je su. 2. Tim. 3. 15. Because thou hast known the Scriptures from thy infancy, which are able to instruct thee to salvation, through faith in Christ jesus. Now, if the scriptures be able so to instruct one, as he may thereby attain his salvation: it can not doubtless be denied with reason, that every thing necessary for man's salvation is contained therein. For which cause the Apostle addeth these words: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Cap. cod. vers. 16. The whole scripture is given by the inspiration of God: and is profitable to doctrine, to redargution, to correction, to instruction, which is in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, prepared to every good work. In which words the holy vessel of God Saint Paul, confirmeth that which he said before, to wit: that the holy scripture is able of itself, to instruct us fully unto salvation. And the Apostle declareth this by an argument drawn from the sufficient enumeration of those parts, which are required unto our salvation: and withal he commendeth the scripture, of the sufficient cause, end and use thereof. The cause is, in that he saith the scripture is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is to say The cause. given by the inspiration of God. The use is four fold, whereof the two former pertain to doctrine: the two latter to life and manners. The use. 1 For first, it is profitable to the doctrine of faith, and holy obedience. 2 secondly, to the refutation of errors, contradictions and false opinions. 3 thirdly, for the correction of abuses as well public as private. 4 fourthly, for instruction unto righteousness, that is, to lead a godly and holy life. The end. The end is, that the man of God, to wit, he that is the true worshipper of God may be sound, perfect, and most absolute furnished in all kind of goodness. which being so, we must needs confess, (if we will not obstinately deny the manifest truth,) that the scriptures contain all things necessary for christian doctrine, and for the full accomplishment of eternal life. Neither will it help the papists to answer, (as their wont manner is,) that the greek word (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) signifieth every, not all: so as the Apostle should say, not the whole scripture, but every scripture. For first, every scripture is not so copious or fruitful, as it can afford us all those goodly affects, which saint Paul here rehearseth. Again, the self same greek word (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) is used for the whole, by saint Paul's own interpretation in another place of holy scripture, where he hath these express words. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 1. Cor. c. 13. v. 2 And if I have all and the whole miraculous faith, so that I can remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. In which place the papists can not possibly interpret the self same greek word, though they would never so gladly, but for all & the whole, because otherwise the sense would be most absurd. as which would prove saint Paul to speak of every kind of faith, and consequently of the justifying faith with the rest: albeit, it is most clear: that he speaketh of the miraculous faith only, which is often in the very wicked. The same greek word in two several places of saint Matthew, is likewise taken for the whole. For in the second chapter it is thus written. When king Herod heard, he was troubled and the whole city of Jerusalem with him. Mat. cap. 2. v. 3. 4. Where if the greek word (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) were interpreted every, and not the whole, the sense would be absurd: to wit, every city of Jerusalem, being yet but one only Jerusalem in all. but (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) being taken for the whole, the sense is plain and easy: to wit, the whole city of Jerusalem. So in the sixth chapter it is thus written. Mat. c. 6. v. 29. Neither was Solomon in all his glory, arrayed like one of these. Where if the word (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) be taken for every, the sense is not currant, because Christ compareth his bountiful providence over herbs and flowers, not with a piece of salomon's glory, but with all and the whole. For whosoever shall otherwise interpret the greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, shall no little derogate from the magnificence of Christ his providence, as also frustrate his comparison. Our holy father Abraham in matters of salvation, doth not send us to traditions, but to the scriptures of Moses and the prophets. For thus it is written: Habent Mosen & Prophetas, audiant illos. They have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them. Luc. c. 26. v. 29. As if he had said, now the law is not studied, now the prophets are contemned: now God is not heard speaking in his word: Some would have angels come down from heaven: some desire miracles, other some the dead to rise again: But to hear Moses and the prophets, that is, to read the scriptures, is the true and only way to attain eternal life. And doubtless, if the scriptures be means to bring us to salvation, (which the papists dare not deny,) then must they be sufficient for that end, or else Christ's works should be unperfect. For which cause Saint john writeth thus: Haec autem scripta sunt, ut credatis quod jesus est Christus filius Dei, joan. c. 20. v. 30. & ut eredentes, vitam habeatis in nomine ipsius: But these things are written, that ye may believe jesus to be Christ the son of God, and that by belief, ye may have life in his name▪ Lo, Saint john affirmeth so much to be written, as is sufficient for our belief, through which we must be saved. The popish gloss upon the same text hath these words: Haec quae fecit jesus & ante resurrectionem et post, dicit se scripsisse Glossa ordin. super cap. 20 joannis. ut fidem astruat qua vita habeatur. The things that jesus did before and after his resurrection, he caused to be written, for the establishing of that faith which giveth life. Nicolaus Lyranus their own dear doctor, confirmeth the same in these words. In nomine eius. i. per fidem nominis Christi, quia secundum quod dicitur Act. 4. neque enim aliud nomen est sub coelo datum hominibus, in quo nos oporteat salvos fieri. Lyran. in c. 20. joannis. In his name, that is, through faith of the name of Christ, because as is said in the acts: there is no other name under heaven given unto men, in which we can be saved. S. Hierome, though so much liked of the papists, is not for all that dissonant from the rest. For thus doth he write. Ergo nec parentum, nec maiorum error sequenáus est, sed auctoritas scripturarum, & Dei docentis imperium. Hier. in 9 cap. jer. tom. 5. Therefore we must neither follow the error of our parents, nor of our ancestors: but the authority of the scriptures, and the commandment of God that teacheth us. S. August. that grave father, that glistering beam that strong pillar of Christ's church, doth avouch the same truth in words yet more manifest, writing in this manner: Cummulta fecisset Dom. jesus, non omnia scripta sunt: electa sunt autem quae scriberentur, quae saluti credentium sufficere videbantur. August. in joan. tract. 49. to. 9 in initio. where as our Lord jesus did many things, all were not written, but so much was appointed to be written, as was thought sufficient for the salvation of the faithful. What more forcible words can be wished? what more effectual narration can be expected? what more sensible speeches can be used? yet if it be possible to say more herein, the self same Augustine will perform it in another place, where he hath these express words. In his enim quae apart in scriptura posita sunt, inveniuntur illa omnia quae continent fidem more sque vivendi, spem scilicet, atque charitatem. Aug. de doctri na Christ. li. 2. c. ●. tom. 3. For in those things which are plainly set down in the scripture, are found all those things, which contain our faith and manners, that is, hope, and charity. Lo, all things that concern faith, hope, and charity, are plainly found in holy scripture. where it is diligently to be observed, that Saint Augustine doth not only say, that all things containing faith, hope, and charity, are to be found in the scripture: but he doth further say, that all such things are plainly set down in the scriptures. Whereupon I infer this notable document against popish doctrine, that albeit many things in many places of the scripture be obscure and intricate, (which I willingly grant unto the papists,) & consequently, that the same surpass the capacity and judgement of the vulgar sort: yet are all things concerning our belief, concerning our manners, concerning our hope, concerning our charity, concerning our salvation so plain and so manifest, as every one even of the meanest judgement, may easily perceive, and understand the same: and this the papists must perforce grant unto me, neither will I require more at their hands. This is confirmed by my Lord of Rochester, their learned Bishop and reputed martyr. For these be his words, as he himself hath uttered them: Scriptura sacra conclave quoddam est omnium veritatum, qua Roffensis art. 37. advers. Luth. p. 411. Christianis scitu necessariae sunt. The holy scripture is a cellar, parlour, or storehouse of all truths, which are needful to be known of Christians. NOW gentle reader, by this bishop's confession it is evideut, that popish unwritten traditions are not needful or necessary for christians: and so with no reason can they be thrust upon us. Dionysius Areopagita, who lived in the Apostles time, is of the same mind: These are his words: Omnino igitur non audendum est, quicquam de summa abstrusaque divinitate aut dicere, aut cogitare, praeter eaquae nobis divinitus scriptae Dionys. Areopag. de divinis nominib. cap. 1. in initio. divinae enuntiarunt. In no wise therefore may we make bold to speak, or think any thing of the most high and ineffable divinity: but that only, which holy writ hath revealed unto us from heaven. Melchior Canus, albeit he labour with tooth and nail to prove the consent of the fathers, to yield us an undoubted argument of Canus de locis l. 7. c. 3. pag. 228. the truth: yet can he not deny that the scripture is perfect and most sufficient in everierespect: These are his words: Sedquaer at hic for sit an aliquis: cumsit perfectus scriptur arum canon, sibique adomnia satis superque sufficiat: quid opus est, ut ei sanctorum & intelligentia iung atur & auctoritas. But some man happily here will demand: that since the canon of the scripture is perfect, and most sufficient of itself to every end, and in every respect: what need have we to join with the same, either the exposition or the authority of the fathers. Thus saith Canus, not denying the sufficiency of the holy scripture: but requiring the commentaries of the fathers, for the better understanding of the same. whose opinion in that respect I do not wholly dislike, as is already declared in the ninth chapter. This being so, it followeth by a necessary consequent: that neither young nor old, rich nor poor men nor women, learned nor unlearned, aught to be debarred from reading of the scriptures. which my doctrine was altogether practical, in the ancient and primitive church. For confirmation whereof, no greater testimony can be had, than the old vulgar translations of the bibles. In which behalf, I saw very lately to my great comfort in the library of Emmanuell college in Cambridge, an English Bible of such antiquity, as I could not understand perfectly the greater part of the words. which is an evident demonstration, that bibles were in old time translated into the vulgar tongue, so as the common people might read them. Thomas Aquinas, (whose person the church of Rome hath canonised for a saint, and his doctrine for authentical,) teacheth us not to believe any thing concerning God, save that only which is contained in the scripture expressly, or at least significantly. These be his words: Dicendum quod de deo dicere non debemus, quod in sacrae scripture a non Aquin. p. 1. q. 36. ar. 2. adprimum. invenitur, velperverba, velper sensum. we must answer, that nothing is to be verified of God, which is not contained in holy writ, either expressly, or else in sense. And in another place, the same Aquinas saith thus. Quicquid enim ille (Christus) de suis factis & dictis nos legere voluit, Aquin. p. 3. q. 42. ar. 4. ad 1. hoc scribendum illis tanquam suis manibus imperavit. For whatsoever Christ would have us to read of his doings and sayings, that he commanded his Apostles to write, as if he had done it with his own hands. In which words Aquinas avoucheth most plainly, that all things necessary for our salvation, are contained in the scriptures. For in Christ's deeds, are contained his miracles, his life, his conversation: in his sayings are contained his preaching, his teaching, hic doctrine. If then this be true as it is most true, (for the papists neither can nor will deny Aquinas,) that whatsoever Christ would have us to know, of his miracles, of his life, of his conversation, of his preaching, of his teaching, of his doctrine, the same is now written in the scriptures: no man doubtless, but he that will cum ratione insanire, can deny all things necessary for our salvation, to be contained in the holy scriptures. with Aquinas agreeth their own renowned professor and dear friar Franciscus Victoria, whose words are these: Non est mihi certum licet omnes dicant, quòdin scriptur a non continetur. Vict. de sacram. p. 120. I do not think it certain, albeit all writers say so, because I can not find it in the scripture. Again in an other place, he writeth in this manner. Propter quas (opiniones) nullo modo debemus discedere a regula & synceritate Victor. relect. 8. de augmen. charit. p. 308. scripture arum. For which opinions we must by no means departed, from the rule and sincerity of the scriptures. I could say much more herein, but nothing can be more effectual against the papists, then to confute them by their own approved doctors. And my desire also is to avoid all superfluous words. The second Conclusion. ALL persons ought to read the scriptures diligently, because out of them even the simplest of all may gather so much, as shall be necessary for their salvation. This I say, against that popish ridiculous, unchristian, and pestilent abuse, in which they deliver by way of tradition to the people, the scriptures, sacraments, and church service, in a strange tongue to them unknown. which their ungodly and intolerable dealing. S. Chrisostome most sharply reproveth in many places, whereof I will only allege some few. In his commentary upon Saint Paul, he hath these words: Et vos itaque silectioni cum animi alacritate volueritis attendere, nullo Chrysoft. in proaemio epist. ad. Rom. alio preterea opus habebitis. verus enim est sermo Christi, cum dicit, quaerite & invenietis, pulsate & aperietur. verum quia plures exijs qui huc convenere, & liberorum educationem & uxoris curam gubernandaeque domus in sesereceperunt, atque ideo non sustinent totos se labori isti addicere, saltem ad percipienda quae alij collegerunt excitamini, tantum ijs quae dicuntur audiendis impendite diligentiae quantum colligendis pecunijs. tametsi enim turpe sit non nisi tantum a vobis exigere, tamen conenti erimus, sivel tantum prestetis. nam hinc innumera mala nata sunt, quod scripturae ignorantur. hinc erupit multa illa haereseon pernicies, hinc vita dissoluta, hinc inutiles labores. quenadmodum enim qui luce ista privati sunt, recta utique non pergunt: ita qui adradios divinarum scripturarum non respiciunt, multa coguntur continuo delinquere, utpote in long peioribus tenebris ambulantes: quod ne nobis usuveniat, oculos ad spelndorem apostolicorum verborum aperiamus. If therefore you will read the scriptures with alacrity of mind, you shall need no other help at all: for Christ's word is true. when he saith: Seek, and year shall find: knock, and it shall be opened unto you. Mat. 7. But for that many of you are charged with wives, children, and domestical regiment, and so cannot wholly addict yourselves to this stndie: and yet at least be ready to hear what others have gathered, and bestow so much diligence in hearing what is said, as you do in scraping worldly goods together: for although it be a shame to ask no more of you; yet will I be content, if ye do so much. For this is the cause of infinite evils, that you are ignorant in the scriptures. From hence springeth the manifold mischief of heresies, from hence dissolute life, from hence vain, and unprofitable labours. For even as they that are deprived of this light, can not go on the right way: so they that do not behold the beams of holy scripture, are enforced incontinently to offend in many things, as walking in far greater darkness. This is the censure of saint Chrysostome: out of which I note, 1 First, that whosoever studieth the scriptures seriously, and with alacrity, shall find therein, and understand so much, as is necessary for his salvation. And consequently, that our disholy father the pope, debarreth us of the ordinary means of our salvation: when he upon pain of excommunication, inhibiteth us to read the scriptures in our vulgar tongue, unless we have his licence and dispensation so to do. 3 I note secondly, that if it be a shame for such as are charged with wives, children, and families, only to hear sermons, & not to study the scriptures withal: much more is it a shame for others that be more free, not to read them diligently: and greatest shame of all for a bishop to approve them that will not so do. I note thirdly, that heresies, dissolute life, and all other evils, proceed of ignorance, and not reading the scriptures. Again, the said Chrysostome in another place hath these words. Propterea obsecro, ut subinde huc veniatis, & divinae scripturae lectionem diligenter auscultetis: nec solum cum huc venitis, sed & domi Chrysost. in c. 9 Gen hom. 29. tom. 1. divina biblia in manus sumite, & viilitatem in illis positam magno studio suscipite. & paulo post: tantum igitur lucrum oro, ne per negligentiam amittemus, sed & domi vacemus divinarum scripturarum lectiooni; & hic praesentes non in nugis & inutilibus colloquijs temporis decoquamus. I beseech you therefore, that you come hither now & then, and attend diligently the hearing of holy scripture: neither only when ye come hither, but at home also take the holy bibles into your hands, & with great study receive commodity which is in them contained. I pray you therefore let us not negligently lose so great gain: but when we are at home, let us then apply ourselves to read the holy scriptures: and being here, let us not spend our time idly & vainly. And in another place he speaketh in this manner: Hoc igitur pacto, si scripturas diligenter scrutari voluerimus, salutem assequi poterimus: sipenitus in eyes ver sabimur, & doctrinam rectam & Chrisos. hom. 52. in cap. 8. joannis. vitam erudiemur. Et paulo posi: Non enim fieri potest, ut qui Deum & audiat, & alloquatur Deum assequatur utilitatem. sequitur: vacemus ergo scripturis dilectissime, et saltem evangelijs, ea frequenter pertractemus. By this manner then if we will search the scriptures diligently, we shall attain salvation: if we shall be wholly conversant in them, we shall be taught both right doctrine and good life. For it can not be but he shall get profit, that both heareth and talketh with God. Let us therefore study the scriptures, (my dearest,) and at the least let us often read the holy gospels. In and by which words (as we see most evidently,) SaInt Chrysostome greatly lamenteth, that the people in his time were so negligent, in reading the holy scriptures. what therefore would that holy father say, if he lived in these our days when the pope burneth such scriptures as the people understand? when the pope commandeth all things to be done in strange tongues? when the pope excommunicateth all lay persons be they never so well learned, that reason in matters of their faith? What would he say, if he heard priests pronounce absolution in 6. decret. l. 5. c. quicunque. their popish sacrament of penance, which neither the penitents, nor the priests themselves do oftentimes understand. Nay, what would he say, if he were this day in romish churches, where they do not only read their church-service in Latin, but also Latin homilies, or sermons unto the vulgar sort, which yet they teatme, an exposition of the scripture? Which thing is done in every festival day of nine Lessons in the time of Matins. In fine, what would he say, if he knew the rude vulgar sort commanded to hear the gospel read in Latin: and withal should see them listening with their ears, lest any word should not be heard, though impossible to be understood? would he not, and might he not justly say with the holy Apostle, that they were mad? Ves doubtless. Origen, who lived above a thousand and three hundred years sithence, doth not only exhort the people seriously to read the 1-Cor. 1. 14. vers. 24. Orig. hom. 4. super Levit. propesivem. scriprures: but withal showeth plainly, that in his time, they were read in the vulgar tongue. These are his words: Certe si non omnia possumus, saltem ea quae nunc docentur in ecclesia, vel quae recitantur, memoriae commendemus. Doubtless, if we can not bear away all things contained in the scriptures, at the least let us remember those things, which are taught, & read in the Church. In which words he speaketh not only of sermons, but also of the gospels, epistles, prayers, lessons, and histories of the bible. For sermons are contained in the word (decentur) which are preached, and the rest in the word (recitantur) which are read or rehearsed. And if such things had been read in a strange tongue, the vulgar sort could not have committed them to memory. Saint Augustine doth not only exhort to read the scriptures, but also giveth great encouragement thereto, avouching that the scriptures may be understood with all facility. Magnifice igitur & salubriter spiritus sanctus ita, scripture as sanctas modificavit, ut locis apertioribus fami occurreret, obscurioribus Aug. de doctr. Christi lib. 2. cap. 6. autem fastidia detergeret. The holy ghost hath so magnifically and healthfully measured the holy scriptures, that in the obscure places loathsomeness is taken away: and with the places that be plain and easy, our hunger is satisfied. And his reason hereof followeth in these next words. Nihil enim fere de illis obscuritatibus eruitur, quod non plani ssime dictum alibi reperiatur. For almost nothing is contained in obscure places, which is not most plainly uttered in some other place. so then by the testimony of this holy father, so ancient for antiquity, so holy for virtue, so grave for authority, so profound for his judgement, so rare for his Lo, the scriptures are plain & easy. wit, so renowned for his learning, that the papists hitherto have admired his doctrine as an oracle from heaven: the holy scriptures are easy to be understood: and whatsoever is obscurely spoken in one place, the same is plainly told in another. To conclude, the practice of those godly Christians, of whom we read in the Acts of the Apostles, decideth this controversy sufficiently: as who being mere laymen, did notwithstanding study the Act. 17. v. 11. scriptures most seriously. The 3. Conclusion. TRaditions are to be examined by the holy scriptures the true touchstone of verity: and to be admitted, when they are found consonant to the same. This conclusion is evidently proved, by the judgement practical of saint Cyprian. For he being required by Stephanus then bishop of Where was the magnificence of popedom then? Rome to yield unto traditions, did not term the said Stephanus by the title of Pope, or holiness, (as now the romish manner is,) but by the name of fellow or brother, and calling him blind byarde (not Saint Peter's successor, who could not err) did contemn & utterly reject that tradition, which the said Stephanus requested him to yield unto. His very own words are these: Nihil innovetur, inquit, nisiquod traditumest? unde est istae traditio? Cyprian ad Pompeium, pag. 228. vtrumne de dominica & evangelica auctoritate descendens, an de Apostolorum mandat is atque epistolis veniens? ea enim facienda esse quae scriptae sunt, Deus testatur, & proponit ad jesum Nave. dicens: non recedet liber legis huius ex ore tuo, sed meditaberis in eo die ac nocte, ut observes facere omnia quae scripta sunt. item, Dominus apostolos suos mittens, mandat baptizari gentes & doceri, ut observent omnia quae cunque ille praecepit. Si ergo aut in evangelio praecipitur, aut Apostolorum epistolis, aut actibus continetur, ut a quacunque haeresi venientes non baptizentur, sedtantum manus illis imponantur in paenitentiam, observetur etiam & haec sancta traditio. Let nothing be renewed, saith Pope Stephanus, but let that be done which was received by tradition. from whence came this tradition? whether doth it descend from the authority of our Lord & of his gospel, or cometh it from the epistles, or acts of the Apostles? For God testifieth that those things must be done which are written, and propoundeth them unto Nave, saying: Let not the book of this law departed out of thy mouth, but meditate in it day & night, that thou mayest observe to do all things that are written. Our lord also sending forth his Apostles, chargeth them to baptise the gentiles, and to teach them to do all things which he commanded them. If therefore it be commanded in the gospel, or in the epistles of the apostles, or acts, that such as came from any heresy should not be baptized, but only receive imposition of hands for penance, then let this holy tradition be observed. Thus we see, that this ancient father, canonised by the pope for an holy and blessed martyr, will indeed admit traditions, (as the wiser sort of protestants do admit with him,) but yet no other traditions, then are found constant to the scriptures: By which scriptures saint Cyprian examineth the verity of all traditions, admitting those that be consonant, and rejecting such as be dissonant from the same. At what time the Arrians would not admit the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,) because it was not found in the scriptures, the fathers of the council did not then allege traditions for proof thereof, neither did they say, that many things must be believed, which are not written. But they answered simply, that though that word were not expteslie written: yet was it virtually, and effectually contained in the scriptures. which thing is evident by the testimony of Athanasius, who writeth in this manner. Sed tamen cogno scat qui squis est studiosior is animi, has voces tametsi in Athanasius de decret. nic. synod. to. 2. prope finem. scriptures non reperiantur, habere tamen eas eam sententiam quam scripturae volunt. Although the words be not found in the scripture, yet have they that meaning and sense which the scripture approveth, and intendeth, as every one that studieth the scripture seriously, may easily understand. Origen giveth counsel to try all doctrines by the scriptures, even as pure gold is tried by the touchstone. Thus doth he write. Debemus ergo ad testimonium omnium verborum quae proferimus in Origenes in Matth. hom. 25. doctrina, proffer sensum scripturae, quasi confirmantem quem exponimus sensum. sicut enim omne aurum quodquod fuerit extra templum, non est sanctificatum, sicomnis sensus qui fuerit extra divinam scripturam (quamvis admirabilis videatur quibusdam:) non est sanctus, qui non continetur a sensu scripturae, quae solūet e sensum solum sanctificare quem habet in se, sicut templum proprium aurum, Non ergo debemus ad confirmandam doctrinam nostram nostram nostras proprios intellectus iur are, & quasi testimonia assumere, quae unusqui sque nostrum intelligit, & secundum veritatem aestimat esse: ni ostenderit eos sanctos esse ex eo, qui in scriptures continetur divinis quasi in templis quibusdam Dei. Stulti ergo & caeci omnes qui non cognoscunt, quin templum, idest, lectio scripturarum, magnum & venerabilem facit sensum, sicut aurum sacratum. We must therefore allege the sense of scripture, for the testimony of every word we utter in doctrine, as which confirmeth the sense of our exposition. For as all gold which is without the temple is not sanctified: so every sense, which is without the holy scripture (albeit it seem to some wonderful,) is unholy, because it is not contained in the sense of scripture: which only sanctifieth that sense which it hath in itself, as the temple sanctifieth the gold. we must not therefore for the confirmation of our doctrine, swear to the sense, which every one of us understandeth, and conceiveth to be true, unless we can show it to be divine, because it is contained in the divine scriptures: as in the temple of God. Foolish therefore and blind are all those, who know not that the temple, to wit, the reading of scriptures, maketh the sense great and venerable, as hallowed gold. In another place, the said Origen hath these words: Querimus verba quae dicta sunt, juxta personae dignitatem exponere: Origen. hom. 1. in 1. c. jere. quapropter necesse est nobis scripture as sanct as in testimonium vocare. Sensus quip nostri & enarrationes, sine ijs testibus non habent fidem. We seek to expound the words rehearsed, according to the dignity of the person: wherefore we must of necessity, call the holy scriptures to witness. For our judgements and expositions without those witnesses, are of no credit at all. Thus we see, Origen his judgement, and that nothing can be of credit, which is not grounded upon the scriptures. But what? is Origen only of this opinion? no verily, for all ancient, grave, and learned fathers, are of the self same mind. Saint Augustine writing against Petilianus, hath these words. Proinde, sive de Christo, sive de eius ecclesia, sive de quacunque alia re quae pertinet ad fidem vitamque nostram, nos aut angelus de coelo Aug. count litter. Petilian. l. 3 cap. 6. tom. 7. vobis annunciaverit preterquam, quod in scripture is legalibus & evangelicis accepistis, anathemasit. Wherhfore, whether we speak of Christ, or of his church, or of what other matter soever, which appertaineth to faith or manners, whether we, or an angel from heaven shall announce otherwise than ye have received in the scriptures of the law and the gospel, accursed be that man. The same saint Augustine in another place hath these words: Nemo mihi dicat, O quid dixit Donatus, aut quid dixit Parmenianus, Aug. de unit. ecclesiae, c. 10 non long abi nitio. aut Pontius, aut quilibet illorum. quia nec catholicis episcopis consentiendum est, sicubi forte falluntur, ut contra canonicas Dei scripture as aliquid sentiant. Let no man say to me, Oh what said Donatus, or what said Parmenianus, or Pontius, or any of them: because we must not consent to catholic bishops, if they chance to err in any thing, and speak against the canonical scriptures. saint Chrisostome agreeth uniformly unto the rest, writing in this manner: Cum videritis haeresim impiam quae est exercitus antichristi stantem Chrysost. in c. 24. Mat. ho. 49 in locis sanctis ecclesiae, in illo tempore qui in judaea sunt fugiant ad montes, idest, qui sunt in Christianitate conferant se ad scripturas. & quare jubet in hoc tempore omnes christianos conferre se ad scripturas? quia in tempore hoc ex quo obtulit haeresis illas ecclesias, nulla probatio potest esse verae christianitatis, neque refugium potest esse christianorum aliud volentium cognoscere fidei veritatem, nisi scripturae divinae. when you shall see wicked heresy, which is Antichristes army, standing in the holy Church: at that time they that be in jury must flee to the mountains, that is, they that are Christians must flee unto the scriptures. And why commandeth he at this time all Christians to flee to the scriptures? because at that time, when heresy hath yielded up the churches, no proof can be had of true christianity, neither any other refuge is left to christians desirous to know the verity of faith, but only the holy scriptures. Again, the said Crisostome saith in an other place after this manner: Neque enim quicquam dicere oportet sine testibus solaque animi cogitatione nam si quid dicatur absque scriptura, auditorum cogitatio claudicat, Chrysost. in Psal. 95. prope finem. tom. 1. nunc annueus, nunc haesitans, & interdum sermonem ut frivolum aver sans, interdum ut probabilem recipiens. verum ubi è scriptura divinae vocis prodijt testimonium, & loquentis sermonem, & audientis animum confirmat. Neither must we say any thing without witnesses, and upon our own cogitation only. For if any thing be spoken without the scripture, the cogitation of the auditors halteth, sometime granting, sometime doubting, sometime rejecting that which is spoken as frivolous, and sometime accepting it as probable. But when testimony is brought out of the scripture of God's word, than it confirmeth both the words of the speaker, and the mind of the hearer. And yet the said Chrysostome hath an other place, well worthy to be written in golden letters. Thus he saith: Quomodo autem non absurdum est propter pecunias alijs non credere, sedipsas numerare & supputare, pro rebus autem amplioribus aliorum Chrysost. in 2. cor. ca 7. hom. 13. in fine. sententiam sequi simpliciter: presertim cum habeamus omnium exactistissimam trutinam, & gnomonem ac regulam, divinarum inquam legum assertionem. Ideo obsecro & oro omnes vos, ut relinquatis quidnam huic vel illi videatur: deque his a scriptures haec etiam inquirite, & veras divitias discentes eas sectemur, ut & aeterna bona assequamur. How is it not absurd for money not to credit others; but to tell the money ourselves, and yet for more important matters, to follow simply the judgement and opinion of others: especially, when we have the most exact balance & rule, I mean the assertion of all divine laws. I therefore pray & beseech you all, that you let pass what this man, or that man thinketh, & search all things out of the scriptures: and learning true riches let us follow them, that so we may attain eternal beatitude. Behold here a most godly exhortation, and grave advise, given us by this holy father. As we will not saith he, trust others to tell our money, but tell it ourselves: much less should we trust others, depending upon them in matter of our salvation, but should ourselves learn and know the same▪ by diligent reading of the scriptures. Neither must we believe and do what this or that man saith, but what we find to be true, by painful study of the scriptures. For which cause, wisely and gravely said Tertullian: Idesse verum quodcunque primum, id esse adulterum quodcunque posterius. Tertul. advers. praxe: in initio. That is: that to be true, watsoever was first, and that to be counterfeit whatsoever came after. And for the same end said the holy Prophet: Lucerna pedibus meis verbum tuum, & lumen semitis meis. Thy word is a lantern unto my feet, and a light unto my path. Psal. 1. 119. nun. As if he had said, of ourselves we are but darkness, and can not see, except we be lightened with God's word. And consequently, if we desire to have our sight, our chiefest and principal sight, the inward and spiritual sight of our souls: we must employ our whole industry in reading the holy scriptures, and with all humbleness of mind study them day and night. The fourth Conclusion. POpish traditions are so uncertain and doubtful, as the best learned papists are at great contention about them, and can not possibly be accorded therein. For the exact proof of this conclusion, that intolerable & endless strife, which was a thousand and four hundred years sithence between Victor then bishop of Rome, and other Bishops of Asia, may suffice if nothing else were said. For on both sides tradition apostolical was alleged and stoutly avouched, for and concerning the celebration of Easter. Of this matter, thus writeth Eusebius Caesariensis. Episcopis autem in Asia coactis, qui morem iam olim ipsis a maioribus troditum sedulo observandum constanter asseverabant, praefuit Polycrates. Euseb. caesarians. l. 5. c. 23. hist. eccles. qui in ea epistola quam ad Victorem & ecclesiam Romanam scripsit, traditionem ad ipsius usque tempora deductam, his fere verbis exponit. Nos diem paschatis integre in corrupteque recolimus, neque addendo quicquam, neque detrahendo. The bishops of Asia assembled in council, Polycrates being precedent, affirmed constantly, that that custom ought to be observed, which they of old time had received by tradition. which tradition to have been continued until his days, the said Polycrates in his epist. to Victor and the church of Rome, showeth plainly in these words: We keep easter entirely, and incorruptly: neither do we add or detract any thing And in the same epistle he telleth us, that Philip one of the seven deacons, Saint john the Evangelist, Saint Polycarpe, Saint Papirius, Saint Melito, and others, did all observe the same tradition. These be his words. Isti omnes diem paschatis 14. die lunae ex evangelij prescripto observarunt, nihil ab eo instituto ac more plane digressi: sed secundum regulam & normam fidei eum assidue tenuerunt. All these have observed Easter the fourteenth day of the moon after the prescripr of the Gospel, declining nothing at all from that custom and ordinance, but daily retained it according to the rule and analogy of faith. But Victor and other bishops with him, defended bitterly a contrary tradition. For thus writeth the said Eusebius of him: Victor qui tum Rom. ecclesiae praeerat, totius Asiae ecclesias cum alijs finitimis, tanquam alterius fidei & opinionis, simul omnes (ut complectar brevi) à Euseb. l. 5. c. 24. hist. eccles. communi unitate ecclesiae amputare conatur, & in eos per literas graviter invehitur. Victor then governing the Church of Rome, endeavoureth to cut off from the common unity of the Church, all the Churches of Asia together with others adjoining, and very bitterly inveigheth against them by his letters. Which fact of Victor, Irenaeus and other Bishops sharply reproved in their letters to the said Victor. Which thing Ruffinus plainly testifieth, in these words: Sed hoc non omnibus placebat Episcopis, quin potius & è contrario scribentes Ruffinus, in sua trans. ei iubebant, ut magis quae pacis sunt ageret, & concordiae atque unanimitati studeret. denique & extant ipsorum literae, quibus asperius obiurgant victorem, velut inutiliter ecclesiae commodis consulentem. Yet this his dealing pleased not all Bishops, but contrariwise they wrote unto him, bidding him to practise rather that belonged to peace, and to study for concord and unity. Finally, their letters are also extant, in the which they sharply chide Victor, as one that respected unprofitably the good of the Church. Thus saith Ruffinus. In like manner, (though with more modesty,) dissented Anicetus an other bishop of Rome, from S. Polycarpe bishop of Smyrna. Of which variance, thus writeth Eusebius: Neque tamen Anicetus Polycarpo poterat persuadere, ut suum observandi Euseb. l. 5. c. 24. hist. eccles. morem deponeret, neque Polycarpus Aniceto persuasit, ut consuetudinem Asiaticam ullo modo observaret. Neither could Polycarpus persuade Anicetus, to keep the custom and tradition of Asia. Now, gentle Reader, what need more to be said, for the uncertainty of traditions? 1 For first, these Bishops that thought thus diversely of traditions, lived within one hundred years of Christ: at what time the Church was in good estate, and stained with very few or no corruptions at all. 2 Secondly, the one side doubtless, was seduced with false traditions. 3 Thirdly, S. Polycarpe and other holy bishops of that age, made no more account of the bishop of Rome his opinion, or authority, then of an other man's. 4 Fourthly, they were so far from acknowledging him to be the supreme head of the Church, that they all reputed themselves his equals: and controlled him as sharply for his doctrine, as S. Paul reproved S. Peter for his conversation. 5 Fiftly, if S. Polycarpe had cause in his time, being the flourishing age of the Church, to doubt of Romish traditions; much more have we cause in these latter days, to stand in doubt thereof. For now hath iniquity the upper hand, now are corruptions more frequent, no we do errors in every place more abound. Let us therefore follow S. Augustine's advice, let us admit nothing rashly, let us examine all doubtful traditions and doctrines, by the touchstone of verity, the holy Scriptures. And lest any man think S. Augustine to be of another mind, these are his own express words: Non audiamus, haec dico, haec dicis: sed audiamus, haec dicit dominus: sunt certe libri dominici, quorum ant horitati utrique consentimus, utrique credimus, utrique August. de unitate eeclesiae, cap. 3. tom. 7. servimus: ibi quaeramus ecclesiam, ibi discutiamus causam nostram. Let us not hear, I say this, thou sayest that: but let us hear, this saith the Lord: for our Lord hath books, whose authority we both admit, we both believe, we both obey: let us there seek the Church, let us there decide our cause. But what need many words? For either popish unwritten traditions, are repugnant to the Scriptures, or consonant to the same. If they be repugnant, then is there great reason to reject them: if they be consonant, that must be tried by comparing them to the Scriptures, which is the conclusion I defend. But the Papists, perceiving themselves to be convinced by the Scriptures: tell us plainly, that they must have their cause tried by other means. For so writeth my L. of Rochester, in these express terms: Contendentibus itaque nobiscum haereiic is, nos alio subsidio nostram oportet tueri causam, Roffensis, verit. 4. advers. art. Lutheri. quam Scripturae sacrae. When therefore heretics, (he meaneth all, not Papists,) dispute with us: we must use other help in defence of our cause, than the Scripture. Lo, they dare not be tried by the Scripture. Which if a papist had not spoken, who would have believed it? The Corollary. FIrst therefore, since the written Word containeth in itself, every thing necessary for our salvation: secondly, since no traditions are to be admitted, but such as are consonant to the holy Scripture: thirdly, since Papists load us with huge numbers of traditions, without warrant of the written word: four, since popish traditions were in old time, most doubtful and uncertain; I conclude, that it is a sufficient motive for me to renounce the Romish religion, as false, erroneous, and pernicious doctrine. Thus much of the ninth Motive. CHAP. ix. Of Popish auricular confession. ALthough popish doctors do wonderfully magnify their auricular confession, persuading the vulgar sort, that they can not attain salvation without the same: yet is it in deed a mere invention of man, the bitter torment of conscience, and the ready way to desperation. For manifest probation whereof, I proceed in this manner. The first Conclusion. ALL Christians must confess their sins to God, with internal contrition of heart, with full purpose to amend their lives, and with steadfast hope of remission by the mercy of God, through the merits of Christ his Son our sweet redeemer. Of this kind of confession, the Scripture speaketh abundantly. Delictum, meum cognitum tibi feci, & iniustitiam meam non abscondi. dixi Psal. 32. 5. confitebor adversum me iniustitiam meam domino, & tu remisisti impietatem peccati mei. I have made my sin known unto thee, and mine injustice I have not hid. I said, I will confess to the Lord my injustice against myself, and thou hast forgiven the impiety of my sin. Qui abscondit scelera sua, non dirigetur: quiautem confessus fuerit & reliquerit ea, misericordiam consequetur. Prov 28. 13. He that hideth his offences, shall not be directed: but who shall confess and forsake his sins, shall attain mercy. Sidixerimus quoniam peccatum non habemus, ipsi nos seducimus, & veritas in nobis non est. si confiteamur peccata nostra, fidelis est & justus ut remittat 1. joan. 1. 8, 9 nobis peccata nostra. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us: but if we confess our sins, etc. That this confession must be joined with hope of remission, S. Chrysostome teacheth in these words: Quid proderunt lachrymae & confessio, sinulla adsit abolitionis fiducia? Chrysost. ad Theodor. laps. What shall tears & confession avail, if there be no hope of forgiveness? And that we must add hereunto amendment of life, S. Hilary teacheth us, when he saith: Quid aliud est confessio erroris, quam confessio desinendi ab errore? Hilar. in 135. psal. What other thing is the confession of error, then to confess that we will forsake error? So then, when we be wail our sins, confess them, and purpose to amend our former lives, with steadfast hope of God's mercy, through atonement made in Christ's blood, we shall doubtless have remission of our sins. Then though our sins be as red as scarlet, yet shall they be Esay. 1. 17. made white as snow. The second Conclusion. WE must confess our sins one to an other, when we offend one an other. Which fraternal reconciliation done upon earth, God promiseth to ratify in heaven. To this confession, holy writ doth seriously exhort us in many places: Si offers munus tuum ad altar, & ibi recordatus fueris quod frater tuus habuit aliquid adversum te, relinque ibi munus tuum ante altar, & vade prius Matt. 5. 23. reconciliari fratri tuo, & tunc veniens offeres munus tuum. If thou offer thy gift before the altar, and shall remember that thy brother hath some matter against thee: leave there thy offering before the altar, and go first to be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and make thy offering. This offering (saith the gloss) is the sacrifice of a good work: the altar Glossa interl. supera hunc locum. is Christ, to whom we must offer our good actions by faith. And another gloss saith: Vade non pedibus, sed animo humili te ei prosternas, in conspectu illius cui oblaturus es: vel petendo veniam, si praesens est. Glossa ordinar. in cod. loco. Go not with thy feet, but fall prostrate with an humble heart before him, to whom thou makest thy offering: or ask forgiveness, if the party be present. Christ saith in anotherplace: Si septies in die peccaverit in te, & septies in die conversus fuerit ad te dicens, poenitet me, dimit illi. Luc. 17. 4. If thy brother shall offend thee seven times a day, and shall seven times a day be converted to thee, and say, it repenteth me, for give him. Confitemini alterutrum peccata vestra inquit apostolus, & orate pro invicem ut salvemini. Confess your sins one to another, saith the Apostle, & pray jacobi 5. 16. one for another, that ye may be saved. The third Conclusion. THere is yet a third kind of confession commended in holy writ, which is a general confession of our sins: not only internally before God, but also externally before the ministers of his word and sacraments: but this kind doth not include in it a total and specifical enumeration of our sins. This manner of confession made king David before the Prophet Nathan, when he reproved him for his offences. Peccavi domino, I have sinned unto the Lord, saith David. And the Prophet answered: Dominus quoque transtulit peccatum tuum: the Lord hath forgiven 2. Reg. 12. 13, 14 thee thy sin. In like manner the sinful woman, of whom S. Luke maketh mention, confessed her sins generally in tears, signs, Luk. 7. 38, 48. and gestures, and received incontinently absolution at Christ's hands: for he said unto her, Remittuntur tibi peccata, thy sins are forgiven thee. Which manner of confession is fitly described in the book of Nehemias, 2. Esd. 8. & 9 in the 8. and 9 chapter. For when Esdras and the Levites did interpret the law unto the people, than the people acknowledging their offences and the offences of their forefathers, did lament, weep, & confess their sins before the Levites and the whole congregation: and that done, the Levits repeated their confession, and desired pardon of God for the same. So this The true manner of confessing our sins day in the Church of England, the people confess their sins generally before the minister, and in the face of the whole congregation. Yea, in Germany they confess such special sins, as grieve and clog their consciences, & for which they stand in most need to have advise and counsel. Which liberty is granted in England also: for such as list may confess their sins to the minister privately, and have both his advice and absolution, if he find them penitent. Which confession and absolution, would It is to be wished, that confession were more used than it is now a days. God it were more in practice than it is: because instruction and consolation might redound unto the penitent, by virtue of the same. This kind of confession was much frequented in the primitive Church, at such time as the zeal of God's people was great, and their devotion fervent: then did all confess their sins generally: then were none commanded to confess specifically: then did Christ's ministers execute their functions duly: then did S. john Baptist in zealous manner reprove vice, extol virtue, thunder out God's wrath and ire against wicked and impenitent sinners, & with all promise free pardon and remission of sins, to all such as would lament their sins, amend their lives; reform their manners, and believe in Christ jesus the innocent lamb, that taketh away the sins of the world. Then the Scribes, pharisees, and great multitudes of people were inflamed with compunction at S. john's preaching, bewailed their former lives, confessed Mat. 3. 6, 7, 8. generally their sins, and desired baptism for the same. Then the holy vessel of God S. Paul, wrought great miracles by the power of God; in so Act. 19 18, 19 much that many of the faithful came unto him confessing their sins, and such as had followed magical arts brought their books together, and burned them in the presence of the people. The fourth Conclusion. THE Popish specifical enumeration of all our sins, is both impossible to man, and neither commanded by Christ, nor practised by his Apostles. That it is impossible to be performed by man, the Prophet proveth, when he saith: Delicta quis intelligit? ab occultis me is munda me. Psal. 18. 13, 14. Who doth understand his offences? cleanse me from secret faults. Quis potest dicere, mundum est cormeum, purus sum à peccato? Prov. 20. 9 Who can say, my heart is clean, I am free from my sin? Neither will it serve their turn, to say as Cardinal Caietan doth, that confession is taken two ways: to wit, absolutely; and as it is the act of man. Caietanus in sum. in ultima pagella. To confess all sins absolutely, is to leave no sin unconfessed: but to confess all sins, as confession is the act of man, is to confess all those sins which are in the power of man: that is, which man doth, or may remember after diligent examination of his conscience. And therefore saith Caietan, when the Gospel requireth the confession of all sins in the Sacrament of penance: it is not meant of all sins absolutely, but of all sins which are in man's power to confess. This distinction, I say, will not serve; 1 First, because this distinction, is not mentioned in the Gospel. 2 Secondly, because there is no more reason for the confession of one, then for the confession of all. 3 Thirdly, because this notwithstanding, a man shall always remain perplex: as who can never tell, when he hath used sufficientinquisition in that behalf. 4 Fourthly, because one mortal sin can not be remitted without another, as all papists confess; and consequently, either the secret not confessed mortals, are remitted with the confessed mortals, or none at all be remitted by the absolution: if they answer, that none are remitted, because some are not confessed: then shall the penitent never have absolution, because he can never confess all as is proved: if they say, the secret not confessed mortals, be remitted with the other: then is it not needful to confess them after, when they come to remembrance: which yet all papists require, as necessary to salvation. 5 Fiftly, because it followeth hereupon, that penitents are bound to confess their sins very many times, which the Pope's law requireth but once in the year: I prove it, because if they stay any time from confession, they may forget their sins through their own default, and so make frustrate their absolution. 6 Sixtly, because the priests are often so ignorant, that they can not distinguish mortal and venial sins: which yet is necessary in absolution. 7 seventhly, because the priest standeth often excommunicate, and often dealeth with reserved cases, and a thousand such like things chance in absolution. Yea, the archpapists this day, perceiving this matter to be so intricate and dangerous: partly by reason of the cases so reserved, partly by reason of innumerable excommunications, and partly by reason of ignorance in their priests: have invented this poor shift for an help, if it may be: to wit, that the Pope shall give to every seminary priest, full authority to absolve from all excommunications and reserved cases what soever: so that now we have so many virtual Popes in England, as seminary priests. For every one of them, hath plenitudinem potestatis: and it is a world to consider, how this power is used. For because neither the penitent, nor the priest can tell, how often the party is excommunicate; the priest for security, pronounceth every time over every person, these words: I absolve thee from every bond of excommunication, so far forth as I can, and thou standest need. and this is done in latin. All which frustrate the same, and open to the penitent the gate of desperation. That this manner of confession, is neither commanded by Christ, nor practised by his Apostles: may be evidently proved by their own canon-law, as their own doctors testify. Thus writeth the great Thomist Sylvester Prieras: Quarto, utrum ad confessionem teneamur divino iure vel humano? & dico Sylvester. de confess. secundo, par. 4. quod canonistae videntur tenere, quod sit de iurepositivo. & ad hoc est glossa de pen. dist. v. in summa, quae vult quod instituta sit à quadam universali traditione ecclesiae: ideo infert, quod confiterinon tenentur infideles, nec similiter graeci, ex quo non acceptaverunt huiusmodi constitutionem, sicut nec votum castitatis. It is demanded four (saith the great papist Sylvester,) whether we be bound to popish confession, by the law of God, or by the positive law of man? and I say, the canonists hold, that we are but bound by the law of man. And of this opinion is the gloss, which is of this mind, that confession was institute by a certain universal tradition of the Church; whereupon the said gloss inferreth, that infidels are not bound to confession, neither the Greeks' in like manner: since they did never approve such constitution, no more than the vow of chastity. Yea, the Popes own decrees admit no less: for these are the words of his canons; Quibus authoritatibus vel quibus rationum firmament is utraque sententia satisfactionis Depoenit. d. 1. cap. quamvis plenit. & confessionis nitatur, in medium breviter exposuimus. cui autem harum potius adhaerendum sit, lectoris judicio reservatur. utraque enim fautores habet sapientes & religiofos viros. Upon what authorities of foundations of reasons either opinion is grounded, I have briefly showed. Now to whether of them, the reader should adhere, I leave it to his own discretion. For either opinion hath wise and religious men, for the patrons of the same. Behold here, gentle reader, that not only the Pope's doctors, but his own canon-law, and the commenters upon the same: do all confess, that confession after popish manner, is only grounded upon man's law. Yea, the gloss addeth that both wise and religious men do so think, though some others hold the contrary. Martinus Navarrus, (though he hold a contrary opinion to the canonists, Navar. in enchirid. cap. 2. de confess, n. 3, ) confesseth plainly, that their solemn gloss commonly received and approved of all canonists, holdeth confession to be commanded by the Church. The famous Canonist and honourable Archbishop Panormitanus, was of the same opinion with the gloss, as confesseth Covarruvias in these words: Covar. tom. 1. par. 1. p. 155. Quam ex nostris plerique secuti sunt, maximè Panormitanus: ex ea asserentes confessionem sacramentalem quae sacerdotibus fit, iure humano institutam esse. Which gloss many of our canonists have followed, especially Panormitan: affirming out of that gloss, that sacramental confession which is made to priests, was ordained by the law of man. This to be true, S. Christome confirmeth in these words: Non tibi dico ut te prodas in publicum, neque apudalios te accuses: sed obedire Chrysost. supra cap. 12. ad hebrae: homil. 31. post med. eiusd. tom. 4. te volo Prophetae dicenti, revela domino vian tuam, antedeun ergo tua confitere peccata: apud verum judicem cum oratione delicta tua pronuncia, non lingua, sed conscientiae tuae memoria, & tunc demum spera te misericordiam posse consequi. I do not bid thee come forth in public, neither to accuse thyself before others: but I would have thee to obey the Prophet, when he saith, reveal thy way to God. Before God therefore confess thy sins, before the true judge in prayer pronounce thine offences, not with thy tongue, but with the memory of thy conscience: and then hope to have mercy. And in another place, the same S. Chrysostome hath these words: Peccata tua quotidie dicito, ut deleas ea. sed si confunderis alicui dicere, Chrysost. apud Lombard. in 4. s. dist. 17. dicito ea quotidie in animo tuo. non dico ut confitearis ea conservo tuo, ut tibi exprobet. dicito deo, qui curat ea. Confess thy sins daily, that thou mayst blot them out. But if thou be ashamed to confess them to an other, confess them daily in thine heart. I do not bid thee confess them to thy fellow servant, that he may upbraid thee. Confess them to God, who can cure the same. Saint Augustine is very plain in this point, for these are his express words: Quid mihi ergo est cum hominibus ut audiant confessiones meas, quasi ipsi sanaturi fint omnes languores meos? curiosum genus ad cogno scendam vitam alienam, Aug. lib. 10. confess. cap. 3. tom. 1. desidiosum ad corrigendam suam. quid a me quaerunt audire qui sim, qui nolunt à te audire qui sint? & undesciunt cum à meipso de meipso audiunt, an verum dicam, quandoquidem nemo scit hominum quid agatur in homine, nisi spiritus hominis qui in ipso est. What have I therefore to do with men, that they must hear my confessions? as though they should heal all my diseases? a curious kind to know an others man's life, and sluggish to correct their own. Why seek they to hear of me what I am, who will not hear of thee what themselves are? And how know they when they hear me tell of myself, that I say truly? since no man knoweth what is done in man, but the spirit of man that is in him. These are S Augustine's own words, so plain and effectual against popish, unchristian, foolish, and execrable confession, as nothing more needeth to be said therein. The fifth Conclusion. 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. This conclusion, because it is very important, I shall desire thee, gentle Reader, to ponder deeply with me my discourse. josephus Angles Valentinus a popish friar, and bishop of Bosana, in the second tome of that work which he dedicated to the Pope himself Sixtus Quintus, hath these express words: Ante concilium Later. erat haereticum negare necessitatem confessionis, negantes tamen joseph. Angl. in 4. sent. q. de confess. p. 255. 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 yet they were not heretics that denied it. The reason is, because the Church of Rome had not yet declared it to be an article of faith. Lo, these words contain effectually, the exact proof of this conclusion, if they be well marked. 1 We must therefore observe first, that who soever believeth not steadfastly every decree of the Church of Rome in matters of faith, is holden of that Church for an heretic. 2 We must observe secondly, that the council of Lateran, (whereof this friar speaketh) was holden in time of Pope julius the second, and Pope Leo the tenth, that is 1500. years after Christ. 3 We must observe thirdly, that until fifteen hundred years after Christ were expired, they that believed not popish auricular confession to be ordained by Christ, were no heretics. For so, as you see, this friar teacheth, and the Pope himself granteth. 4 We must observe four, that the Church of Rome hath no authority, to coin any new article of faith. 5 We must observe fifthly, that the Church of Rome hath no new revelations in matters of faith, but the very same which it had in the Apostles time: both which latter observations, their own dear Canus telleth us, in these words: Omnia siquidem fidei dogmata ab Apostolis accepit ecclesia, vel scripto, vel Canus, de loc. lib. 3. cap. 4. verbo. quoniam ij ministri fuere sermonis, nee ullas in fide novas revelationes ecclesia habet. For the Church received all doctrines of faith from the Apostles, either by word or writing. Because the Apostles were the ministers of the word, neither hath the Church any new revelations in faith. Now out of these observations which are evident, it followeth necessarily, that confession this day ought not to be an article of faith, no not in the Church of Rome. 1 For first, during the time of fifteen hundred years after Christ, it was no article of faith in the Church of Rome. 2 Secondly, the Church of Rome can not make that an article of faith now, which was no article of faith in the Apostles time. 3 Thirdly, the Church of Rome hath no new revelations, in matters of Christian faith. For so as you have heard, hath their own Melchior Canus avouched. Neither will it help to say, that auricular confession was an article of faith in the Apostles time, but not then revealed to the Church. For as Canus hath told us plainly, the Church receiveth no new revelations of faith. This doctrine is confirmed by their famous Cardinal Caietan, who avoucheth two special grounds against popish auricular confession. For Caietan. super joan. cap. 20. first, although Christ by his opinion instituted confession, yet did he make it voluntary, and left it in man's election, whether he would confess, or not confess. Again, he telleth us that the manner of popish confession, to wit, to confess secretly in the priest's ear, was not ordained by our Saviour Christ. Out of which assertion, I infer a double conclusion against the Papists. The one, that confession is not necessary to salvation. For that which is voluntary, as to be a Monk, a Nun, a Priest, a jesuite; is not necessary to salvation, as every papist granteth: but is as a counsel, & work of supererogation. The other, that popish law urging men to auricular confession, is flat against Christ's institution. And thus I ween, I have proved this conclusion. The sixth Conclusion. IF Popish confession were ordained by Christ, as the papists falsely and grossly imagine: yet would it follow by a necessary consecution, that every Pope should be in danger of his salvation. This conclusion may seem somewhat strange: but I prove the fame. By popish doctrine every man and every woman of lawful years, are bound under pain of damnation, to the said confession; and consequently, the Pope being either man, or at least woman, (as is thought of pope john,) is strictly bound unto the same. Now sir, how our Pope his holiness shall come to confession, and have absolution of his sins, hoc opus, hic labor est. And that the reader may fully understand the difficulty herein: it is to be noted, that no priest can absolve any person from his sins, over whom he hath not superiority and jurisdiction but, his holiness hath both the swords, his power is above Kings and Emperiours, and over him no mortal creature, no not an Angel of heaven, hath any jurisdiction at all, as holdeth popish faith. The Pope then being subject to none, & must yet be absolved of some; which some, must have jurisdiction over him; standeth doubtless in great perplexity, and in no small danger of his salvation. Let us therefore find some poor shift, to help his holiness if it may be. What if we say, that the Pope hath no mortal sin, & so is not bound to popish absolution. But, alas, all Popes are not Saints, as is proved, and so some must perforce have absolution. Let us say, that he may absolve himself, as well as he may grant pardons to himself. But, alas, that implieth contradiction: because so he remaining one and the same man, should be both superior and inferior to himself: superior, as he did absolve: and inferior, as absolved. Let us say, that he voluntarily submitteth himself, and so receiveth absolution. But, alas, so shall his holiness still be inferior to the silly priest: because as S. Paul discourseth to the Hebrews, he that blesseth, is greater than he that is blessed. Let us say, Hebr. 7. ●. that the Pope giveth to the priest power over him, for that time only. But, alas, that would be a rare and strange metamorphosis, with an impossibility annexed thereunto. For first, by this means the simple priest should be Pope in time of absolution, as having then greatest power upon earth. Secondly, after absolution, he that was pope, should cease to be pope: and he Argumentum ad hominem. that was not pope, should without election or consecration, be pope again. Which is a thing impossible, even by popish proceeding. Let us say, that some other pope hath given this authority to the priest. But, alas, that can not possibly be granted. For this is a constant axiom with the papists: par in parem non habet potestatem. When two are of equal authority, the one can not make a law for, or against the other. Well, since none of these ways can content his holiness; let us hear what his own dear vassals can say in his defence. josephus Angles unfoldeth this great difficulty at large, when he thus writeth: Canus affert tres opiniones: prima est S. Thomae, & D. Bonaventurae, quibus adhasit Turrecremata. Secunda opinio est Paludani, asserentis habere authoritatem joseph. Ang. in 4. s. q. de confess. p. 257. absolvendi non à Papa, sed à Christo. Tertia est Caietani, dicentis jurisdictionem quam habet sacerdos absolvendi Papam, nec esse à Christo, neque à Papa, neque ab ecclesia, sed solum ex electione, per hoc scilicet quod papa se subiicit illi illumque eligit. Est & quarta opinio, qua tenetur, quod quemadmodum in receptione ordinis datur unicuique simplici sacerdoti potest as jurisdictionis respectu venialis, & mortalis quae poenitens alias confessus est, & etiam respectu cuiuscumque peccatoris in articulo mortis: ita datur tunc iurisdictio eidem sacerdoti absolvendi papam. Master Canus bringeth three opinions▪ the first is, of S. Thomas and S. Bonaventure, to whom agreeth Turrecremata. The second is, the opinion of Paludanus, who avoucheth that the Priest receiveth his authority, not from the Pope, but from Christ himself. The third opinion is Caietan's, who affirmeth, that the Priest hath authority to absolve the Pope, neither from Christ, nor from the Pope, nor from the Church, but only by election: to wit, in that the Pope submitteth himself to the Priest, and chooseth him. And there is yet a fourth opinion, which holdeth that as in receiving of priesthood, power of jurisdiction is given to every simple priest, in respect of venial sins, and of those mortals which the penitent nath otherwise confessed, and also in respect of every sinner in the point of death: so is jurisdiction then given to the said Priest, that he may absolve the Pope. Thus saith our reverend bishop, and worthy friar joseph. Out of whose words I note; 1 First, that since our Lord is the God of peace, and not of dissension, as recordeth his holy Apostle in many places: it must needs follow, that this popish doctrine is not of God, which is so divided against itself: and 1. Thess. 5. 23. 2. Thess. 3. 16. 1. Cor. 14. 33. therefore said Cajetan truly, though unwittingly, and to another end: when he denied the priest to have his authority, from Christ, or from his Church. 2 I note secondly, that their doctrine is mere opinative, as which is only grounded upon man's invention. 3 I note thirdly, that as the priests jurisdiction is uncertain, so is the Pope's absolution also, as which is consectary thereunto: and consequently, that the Pope standeth in danger of his salvation. And so, if I be not deceived, the obscurity of this conclusion is made evident. The Corollary. FIRST therefore, since auricular popish confession is not commanded by Christ: secondly, since it was not practised by the Apostles: thirdly, since it was instituted only by the positive law of man: four, since the Greek Church never admitted that law: fifthly, since it is contrary not only to the fathers, but to popish doctors also: sixtly, since it bringeth the Pope himself to the hazard of his salvation: I conclude, that it is a sufficient motive for me to renounce the Romish religion, as false, erroneous, and pernicious doctrine. Thus much of the tenth and last Motive. Peroratio. I HAVE in this discourse (gentle Reader) briefly confuted ten special articles, of popish faith and religion. 1 First, I have showed the insufficiency, blasphemy, and absurdities of popish pardons. 2 Secondly, that the Pope both may err, and hath erred defacto, not only as a private person in private opinion: but even as Pope and public person, in judicial definitions. 3 Thirdly, that general counsels in these latter days, are nothing else but a mere mockery & sophistical subtlety, to deceive God's people withal. 4 Fourthly, that the Pope's dispensations are wicked, licentious, and intolerable. 5 Fiftly, that Kings are above Popes: that their power is independent: & that they are subject to none, but to God alone. 6 Sixtly, that popish dissension is of matters most important, and incredible to such, as are not well acquainted with their books. 7 seventhly, that the writings of the ancient fathers, are to be received with great reverence: yet so, as we acknowledge them to be men, to have their errors, and to bind us to their authorities no further, than they accord with the holy Scriptures. 8 Eightly, that all things necessary for our salvation, are contained in the holy Scriptures; and that popish traditions are so uncertain, as the best learned papists can not agree therein. 9 Ninthly, that after this life, there is neither merit, nor demerit, nor satisfaction to be made: and that the book of Maccabees, can not establish popish purgatory. 10 Tenthly, that the specifical enumeration and confession of all our sins: is not only not commanded by the Scriptures, but repugnant to the same, and impossible to be accomplished by the power of man. All which points I have proved, not only by Scriptures, authorities, and reasons; but even by the express testimonies, of best learned papists. A thing heretofore never performed by any, to my knowledge: and yet so forcible against the papists, (if I be not deceived,) as nothing can be more. My desire was to content all, to offend none, to confirm the weak, to instruct the ignorant, to reclaim the seduced, and to confound all arrogant disloyal subjects. If ●ffect succeed correspondent to my option, God be thanked for it, who is the chief worker of every good act; to whom with the Son, and the holy Ghost, three persons and one God, be all honour, power, glory, and dominion, now and ever. AMEN. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.