A CHALLENGE CONCERNING the Romish Church, her doctrine & practices, PUBLISHED FIRST AGAINST ROB. PARSONS, and now again reviewed, enlarged, and fortified, and directed to him, to Friar GARNET, to the Archpriest BLACKEWELL and all their adherents, By MATTH. SUTCLIFFE. THEREUNTO ALSO IS ANNEXED an answer unto certain vain, and frivolous exceptions, taken to his former challenge, and to a certain worthless Pamphlet lately set out by some poor disciple of Antichrist, and entitled, A detection of divers notable untruths, contradictions, corruptions, and falsifications gathered out of M. Sutcliffes' new Challenge, etc. S. Paul's words concerning the followers of Antichrist, 2. Thess. 2. Eò quod charitatem Dei non receperunt, ut salui fierent; ideo mittet illis Deus operationem erroris, ut credant mendacijs. A prediction concerning jesuits, Friars, and Popish mass priests, and their swarming abroad in the would. Apocal. 9 And out of the smoke of the pit there went out Locusts into the earth, and they had power given to them like unto scorpions. AT LONDON Printed by Arnold Hatfield. 1602. TO THE RIGHT honourable Sir Robert Cecil Knight. THe public affairs of this State, right honourable, depending so much upon your counsel and direction, I should not only wrong you, but others also, and forget myself, if I should either hold you with any long discourse, or importune you with the hearing of a private quarrel betwixt me and a certain base and unworthy adversary, whose pleasure is to contend with me about certain small quirks and questions. It may also seem a matter unworthy your place and person, to offer unto you a small treatise concerning so small trifles, the adversaries whole discourse, which I answer, being spent about certain pretended untruths and falsifications, wherewith he would gladly charge me, if he could. Yet forasmuch as this controversy grew first out of a challenge made by me some two years since to Robert Parsons, a man, rather for his hatred to the State, and treachery against his Sovereign, than for learning, virtue, or piety, known to many: and seeing the author of this quarrel now hath enforced me to discuss some points both of Religion, and State, not unprofitable to be well understood; I have made bold to present this treatise ensuing, that containeth not only my former challenge, but also an answer to my adversaries frivolous objections, to your honours hands. The whole is divided into divers chapters, of which divers do contain entire discourses, whereof you may choose, and read one or more, as your great occasions, and laisure will permit. and none there is, I hope, so barren, but it may yield some fruit. But if it may please your Honour to peruse the whole, you shall then better understand, not only the occasions of this quarrel, but also the justice of our cause, and the vain cavils, which our adversaries make against us, for want of better matter, when as we without all circumlocution charge them with heresy and falsehood in matter of religion; and disloyalty and treachery in matter of State. Your Honour shall also thereby perceive the great weakness of our adversaries cause, and the poverty of the principal actors in the same, who abandoning the main points in controversy, begin now to pick quarrels, at words, allegations, points, quotations, and other by-matters, and ceasing to join with us, and like Divines to argue, and dispute, fall to plain calumniation and railing. for having some years passed written divers treatises, not only against Robert Parsons, but also against Robert Bellarmine the chief Patriarch now of all the Papists, and having published a challenge against Rob. Parsons, and proved, that his consorts the Papists are neither good Catholics, nor yet true Subjects; yet do I not find any, that dare encounter me hand to hand, nor have I received any answer to any purpose, nor have I yet encountered any, that hath opposed himself to any discourse or argument of mine. Parsons, he is content to be silent, and he that hath put forth the pamphlet called The detection, albeit he could not hold his peace, yet could he not say much, being of the number of those idle fellows, qui nec tacere, nec rectè fari possunt. he doth only except against certain allegations, and by-matters, and quotations of my challenge; but the discourse itself, and the conclusions thereof were either too heavy for him to lift, or too hot for so frigid and maleficiat a fellow to touch. If then law doth justly praesume him to be guilty, that being arraigned at the bar standeth mute; then is it not to be praesumed, that either Rob. Parsons is clear, or his cause good, or that his clients are such, as he pretendeth, again, if a Decius in l. ●, ff. de reg. iur. & Barth. in l. quaesetum. §. denique. ff. de fundo instructo. lawyers say true, that exceptions confirm the rule in cases not excepted; then hath my adversary confirmed the main discourse against Parsons, and his adherents, having not said any thing unto it, but only excepted against a few places, whereof he taketh 13. to be untruly alleged, and 13. to be falsified. Furthermore, if in the very places, where my adversary thought to win greatest advantage, he hath gotten nothing, but rather showed his own ignorance & malice; I hope all indifferent men will well allow of the rest, and grant, that I have used more than ordinary circumspection in this labour. for do what a man can, yet may either marginal notes be misplaced, or words stand disorderly, or things be mistaken. Finally, if to answer the adversaries objections, and to encounter him in his turn, I shallbe able to charge not only Bellarmine, Baronius, Parsons and such like mean fellows, but also the Pope himself & the Church of Rome with untruths and falsifications, which can not be answered; then God's justice will appear, that hath brought them into the pit, which they digged for others, and I hope they will henceforth forbear to charge me, and other honest men with lies, and falsifications, finding themselves most guilty, and us in respect of themselves most innocent. Of all men the detector shall have least reason to make a challenge concerning untruth and falsifications being able to answer nothing in a b In an answer to a calumnious relation, the Papists stand charged with divers falsifications, and yet dissemble the whole matter. cause, where he is defendant, nor able to justify that pamphlet, which himself hath published. But of all these matters your Honour shall then be able best to judge, when you shall have read the discourse ensuing, and compared his exceptions with my challenge, and my answer with his vain exceptions. all which I do present to your Honour, as much esteeming your judgement in such cases, and desiring to have my cause heard and tried by men of such integrity, and judgement, and little weighing the vain cavils of others, if my labours be approved by men of such gravity and wisdom. The work as far as it concerneth my adversaries exceptions is not great, nor the controversy betwixt mine adversary and me material. but the fault was not mine, but his, whose trifling pamphlet at this time gave me no better subject to work upon. yet this profit may the readers reap by it, that they shall hereafter not need to fear either the vain brags, or great words, and titles which the Papists do arrogate to themselves, seeing they are demasked, and declared neither to be true catholics nor loyal subjects, if they hold the grounds of Popery. But whatsoever this treatise is, or may effect, I beseech your Honour to accept it as a token of his devotion, that is a member of that University, whereof you are Chancellor. and as you do succeed your worthy father in that place, so I beseech God, that you may not only succeed him, but also surpass him, if it be possible, in his zeal and pious care to advance true religion, and learning. During his time, although none of Baal's priests durst either look into the University, or show himself abroad in this realm, yet did they secretly keep in corners. but by your honours care and vigilancy, according to her majesties late Edict, we do hope to see them not only repressed, but also quite expulsed, and returned to him that sent them. What their errors are, and what they deserve, it may in part appear by this treatise. the rest we refer to those, whom it concerneth. And so loath to interrupt the course of your more serious congitations and actions, I end, beseeching the God of heaven to bless you with his heavenly graces, and as he hath used you hitherto, as a notable instrument to advance religion, learning, and justice, so to grant, that all that love true religion, learning, and justice may long enjoy your help and favour. Your Honours in all dutiful affection MATTH. SUTCLIFFE. The Preface to all indifferent Readers, wherein not only the purpose of this treatise is declared, but also divers points of the adversaries Preface and first chapter, that fell not within the compass of any order, examined and refuted. ALthough the quarrels and cavils of false teachers and haeretikes, gentle reader, proceed from the fountain of their malice, and are set forward by the suggestions of satan, who by all means endeavoureth to trouble the peace of god's church, and to shake the faith of such weaklings, as are not firmly built upon the immovable rock Christ jesus: yet it pleaseth God oftentimes, by his unsearchable wisdom, to dispose men's evil purposes and actions to his great glory, and the advancement of religion, & the great good of his church, which those men thought to ruinated. Etiam sic veris illis catholicis membris Christi malo suo prosunt saith Saint a Lib. 18. de civit. dei. c. 51. Augustine speaking of haeretickes, that contumaciously resist the truth, and seek to defend their pestilent and wicked opinions. Whereof although I had no great experience before this time; yet now by the frivolous, and vain cavils of a certain corner-creeping disciple of antichrist against my late challenge made to Robert Parsons, disguised under the mask of two letters, and calling himself N. D. I find to be most true. For whereas heretofore my challenge was not known to many, and now began to be forgotten of such, as first had read it. I doubt not, but this vain caviller, by his vain exceptions will cause the same to be both more diligently read, and better remembered, than it was like to be otherwise. for I do not believe, that any man will offer me that wrong, that he will condemn me, before he hath both read, what I have written, & examined the matters wherewith I am charged. Secondly, because he hath alleged, that I deliver out matters upon mine own credit, & without proof, I have taken occasion to peruse my former challenge, & to fortify the same with diverse authorities and arguments, and so to publish it: assuring thee if any thing now want proof, that it is of that nature, that it is of itself most evident, and needeth no proof, being either known publicly, or confessed by the adversaries themselves. Thirdly, this miserable fellow, that maketh himself party against me, seemeth rather to betray the cause of the papists than otherwise. For taking upon him to debate some matters in my late challenge, he is neither able to contradict my arguments, whereby I proved, that the papists were neither catholics, nor the true church, nor maintained the old Christian faith, nor hath he ability to discharge his consorts of the crimes of heresy and treason, wherewith they stand charged, and now by his silence seem to be convicted. So that I doubt not, but if the pope may understand, and be well informed of this prating fellows treacherous dealing in his cause, that he will either punish him, as a false traitor to his See, or at the least command him to silence as a weak idiot, and foolish pleader, in matter of religion. Fourthly, he doth greatly grace my writings against his father Robert Parsons: for if he be not able to except against more places than six and twenty, or thereabout: it is clear, that I have said true in the rest, and that I have argued, and alleged authorities to good purpose. For if I had offended, I doubt not but I should have heard of it. And because you shall not suspect that these are but surmises, rather than firm conclusions; I do before hand tell you, that this vain bangler will not hereafter undertake to answer my challenge from argument to argument, allegation to allegation, testimony to testimony. Behold then o miserable papists, your poor distressed proctor, and let the cacolike convertite sisters relieve him with some good words of comfort, that in his needless quarrel hath overthrown himself and his cause, and hath done me more favour, than I shall be willing to requite him in haste. Fiftly, he doth discover the vanity of his own brags in his most miserable pleading. I require no more learning, saith b Detect. Ch. 1. p. 8. he, than the understanding of Latin; no more labour, than to open the books, & view the places quoted; no more conscience, then that the tongue can truly report, what the heart thinketh: and yet when it cometh to the jump, with all that little learning he hath, and withal his labour could he not fasten any one untruth, or falsification upon me; as shall sufficiently appear by my answer. beside that, it is ridiculous to talk of learning and understanding of Latin, when in most of the places by him touched, I speak English, and allege not the father's words. in the rest it will appear, that his provision of Latin is not superabundant. this sentence therefore he hath translated out of the pretended bishop of Eureux his discourse, although it fit not his purpose in any sort. Sixtly, He is a very vain fellow to demand of us such a conference, as passed in France. for well might he have seen, if he had not wilfully shut his eyes, that the case is not like: and the reasons he might have understood, if he had not been senseless, they being so plainly laid down in my refutation of his father Robert parsons his calumnious relation sent us from Rome (very wisely) of matters done in France. Further he might well have remembered, if he had not been forgetful, that I offered the papists more than was demanded, for I did not only promise to deal with Parsons, or any of his consorts in any private conference, but also in public writing, which might not only be viewed of all men, but also remain to posterity as a testimony against those, that should be convinced either of untruth or forgery, and which being extant in print neither we, nor our adversaries should be able to alter, or deny, or misreport any thing, that is written, as is the ordinary course of Popish Parasites in such conferences, and to show, that I meant to perform as much, as I promised, I began to object certain epistles and canons forged not by such base threadbare companions, as himself, but by the pope's and church of Rome. I showed also, that they had falsified the scriptures, and published infinite and montrous lies in their legends read publicly in the church. finally I put Robert Parsons in mind of the notorious clipping and corrupting of fathers of late practised by the papists by their rubarbatif and expurgatory indices. but he like a wise fellow kept himself close and would no more hear of the matter, thinking it was better, as the old proverb teacheth, in this Carian to make trial of this hard adventure, and to c The proverb, In care periculum facito: teacheth that in base fellows it is best to try dangerous experiments. thrust this ass down headlong from the rocks, knowing well, that if we should overcome him, or come to the taking of him up, we should find nothing but the carcase of a dead ass. wherefore then is our adversary so desirous of a conference, that doubteth to try his manhood in justifying his friend's falsehood and forgery concerning matters already laid to their charge? d Protrusit asinum in rupes. Horat. ep. again when he seethe our readiness to answer, why is he so slow to object? Finally where he thinketh to triumpth most gloriously and to lead my brother Willet, and me both captives and fast chained at the tail of his chariot, there he doth most pitifully disgrace himself, and free us, and mar all that he meddleth withal. For first speaking of falsifications, he compareth them to Christ, and such men's incredulity, as will not believe him, he compareth to the incredulity of Thomas, that would not believe Christ's resurrection, before he saw and felt manifest signs of it. the sentences alleged out of fathers and other authors, saith c Praes. fol. 5. he, be so mangled and maimed &c. as no protestant, I am sure will believe, until feeling and seeing with Saint Thomas convince his incredulity. is not this a brave gallant then, trow you, that compareth truth to falsehood, the feeling of Christ to the feeling of falsifications? Secondly where the main controversy betwixt me and Robert Parsons in my challenge, is concerning the church of Rome, and where this blind baiard might see, that I have alleged divers strong reasons to prove, that the congregation of Romanistes under the pope and cardinals, is not the true church of Christ, there, all this notwithstanding, my adversary smoothly dissembleth the matter, and taketh that as granted, which he poor fellow can never prove, and saith, that my brother Willet, d Fol. 1. praef. and I employ our forces in assaulting the impregnable sort of god's church, and battering that rock, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail. as if the congregation of the malignant, and wicked rabble of antichrist could be the true church of Christ, or as if the gates of hell had not long since prevailed against the pope and church of Rome. our adversary therefore taking this for granted, that is the controversy, if without controversy I have not demonstrated, that the church of Rome is not the true church, showeth, that he is pregnant with folly, of which he will not be delivered before he die, & that his face is as hard as the rock, of which he talketh. Thirdly he calleth popish religion Catholic, and affirmeth f Fol. 2. praef. it was planted here by Gregory the great, who by succession received it from Peter, etc., and that it was always visible since Christ bearing still sail in the tempests of all persecutions. but he should do well, to show how true religion can be visible. for our saviour Christ saith, g john 4. that true worshippers worship God in spirit and truth. but spiritual worship and true internal devotion is not so easily seen. unless therefore our adversary suppose popish religion to consist in the pope's mitre, and in cowls of monks, and such like external matters; he shall hardly prove religion to be visible. Again, he doth greatly wrong the popish cause, if he affirm popish religion to have been planted here in England by Gregory, and be not able to answer my challenge, and to demonstrate those novelties, and late received fancies, which I have mentioned, either to have been taught by Gregory, or at the least by his disciples to have been planted here in England. Furthermore, seeing in my challenge I do prove, that popish religion is not catholic, and give for justification of that point notable instances, such as our adversary shall not be able to answer; is it not notorious impudence, to take this, as a matter either proved, or confessed, and slily to call heresy catholic religion? finally, I must entreat some plain dealing papist to admonish this detector, or rather detractor of ours, not to say, that Gregory received the popish religion, that now is maintained by the pope of Rome, and was first established in the conventicle of Trent, from Peter; or that all, that is taught in Gregory's dialogues, or epistles came from Peter; or that the Romish church, that now is visible in the pope, cardinals, monks, and swarms of friars, and in Romish ceremonies, hath borne sail in the tempests of all persecutions. for it is the pope, and his bloody inquisitors, that do persecute others, and are not persecuted. and if this be a qu●…ty of the church, to bear sail in tempests of persecutions, certes the pope and his retinue cannot be the true church, that for many hundred years have lived in all pomp, jollity, and pleasure. but if the Romish church be so well able to bear sail in tempests, it were much to be wished, that the pope and his cardinals would sail to the Indias, where we might hear no more of them, and that they would take our adversary with them, who percase would prove a better swabber, than a disputer. Fourthly, In the beginning of his preface, he saith, he will present to his readers view a representation, or lively pattern of a conference, that is, notable untruths and falsifications, etc. and these also he avoucheth he will gather out of master willet's, and my writings. wherein I would pray all moderate papists to consider with indifferency this fond speech of this most miserable popish creature and proctor. he calleth notable untruths and falsifications a pattern of such a conference, as he desireth. If then he desire a conference, he must needs desire untruths and falsifications, if his words have any sense. I know, he hopeth to pick them out of our writings. but if he find any, they must be such, as are uttered by himself, and his comforts, and not by us. in the mean while his fellows are sorry to see him speak so foolishly of conferences, untruths, and falsifications. Fiftly, He e Fol. 1. praef. talketh also very idly of back doors, and deceitful entries, such as Daniel detected in Bells idolatrous priests. which, if I did not know the man's great simplicity, I would have imagined to have been foisted into his preface by some back friend to popish religion, to the great disgrace of Romish priests, that by back doors, and deceitful entries play many lewd parts with their nuns in Spain and Italy, and with recusants wives, maids, and daughters, where they are lodged and entertained in England, as shall be proved by particulars, if any 〈◊〉 to ask me the question. These also do worship idols as brutishly as the f Daniel 14. in the Latin translation. Babylonians did Bel, and set up the images of saint Anthony, and saint Dominicke and other saints upon altars, as the Babylonians did their god Bel. finally they burn incense to their idols, and crouch to them, and offer sacrifices before them, as the idolatrous priests did before Bel. There resteth therefore nothing to make them all like to Bells priests, but, now their frauds and cousinages and idolatries and impieties are discovered, that some zealous prince would do with the popish priests of Baal in England and other places, as the king of Babylon did with the priests of Bel in his country. and that would make an end both of the whole controversy, and of this idle fellows brabbling. 6 Likewise under the title of his book he setteth down this verse. g Hierom 14. falsely saith the Lord do the prophets prophesy in my name. I have not sent them, nor commanded them, nor spoken to them. they prophesy unto you a lying vision, and divination, and fraud, and the deceit of there own heart. whereby it seemeth he was hired, to speak shame and reproach of his own most lewd companions, coming directly from antichrist, and not from Christ; of the church of Rome, that in lieu of God's word readeth fables and lying legends; and of the pope, that in his lying decretales broacheth the deceits of his own heart, neither can this prophesy be expounded of any so fitly, as of the false priests of Baal, that come with faculties from the pope without any one word of authority, or lawful mission from God; and that prophesy lying visions of the restoring of the idolatrous religion of papists, and preach the fancies and deceits of there own hearts, out of their masters conjectural and false dictates. I know he aimeth at us. but having chosen this sentence for an ornament of the front of his lying pamphlet, he must be content to take it to himself, and must for any help he shall have of us, necessarily be forced to apply it to his friends, where it is best deserved. 7 Talking of supposed falsifications he saith, three things make a falsary: first changing of the truth into falsehood, secondly craft and malice, and lastly damage or hurt. and to prove his words true, he allegeth the names of Hostiensis and Panormitan: two ancient canonists. but unless he acquit himself the better, in talking of falsification it will be proved, that he hath falsely alleged these two authors. no man certes ever talked more simply of falsity, and falsaries, than this falsary. for, not either change of truth into falsehood, is falsity, no albeit it be craftily done, & with detriment to some person (for then should every malicious and hurtful liar be a falsary also; and the authors and approvers of the Romish legends and breviaries should also be notorious falsaries, having told many gross malicious lies to the great slander and hurt of religion) nor hath our adversary rightly defined a falsary. for a falsary is he, that in writings addeth or detracteth, or altereth any thing fraudulently, as appeareth by the gloss in c. in memoriam. dist. 19 and as the Romanistes show themselves to be by their expurgatory indices. but saith our detractor in the margin, in the french copy printed by Hierome Verdussen it is so. but this is contrary to the text. beside that, we are no more ro believe the print of Hierome Verdussen, then of julian Greenesleve. if our adversary will make such cracks, he must bring us better authors than Hierome Verdussen, or the popish reporter of the conference betwixt M. Plesu, and Eureux. is it then likely, that our adversary should convince us of falsification, that albeit himself committeth many gross falsifications, yet knoweth not what this word meaneth? which may also appear in this, that he chargeth me with falsification in the first and second place noted page. 47. & 51. where I do not so much as allege any writing, or any man's words, but only quote Augustin and Epiphanius in the margin, to show that my assertion may be proved out of their writings. 8 His metaphors, and profound allegorical speeches he useth to draw from women's rocks. as though saith he, he had not tow enough to his rock. which showeth that this companion is better seen in women's rocks and frocks, then in any point of divinity. beware therefore you of the cacolicke crew, that such gallants come not near your wives, daughters, nor maids, that they play not with you a trick of their cacolicke religion, if you believe not me, believe Palingenius, that would have such mates excluded out of men's houses, that mean to keep their women chaste. 9 And although this is the man's great simplicity and weakness; yet would he needs encounter at one time M. Willet, and me both together. nay, as if we were nothing in this giants hands, with great arrogancy he setteth also upon M. Thomas Bell, a man while he was yet a popish priest, among them accounted the most learned, sufficient and grave man among their company, and now well known by his learned works not answerable, at the least not answered, to have much profited since. but what is it, that our wise adversary objecteth, that he should cry out so loud against Master Bell? what is the Gordian knot, that he supposeth to be insoluble? forsooth, because he saith, that the bishops of Rome, until the days of Saint Augustine, and long after, were very godly men, and taught the same doctrine, that Saint Peter had done before them: and yet affirmeth also, that pope Syricius was seduced by Satan, published wicked doctrine & taught the flat doctrine of the devil; & that pope Sozimus brought in superstition, and falsified the decrees of the Nicene council. so to maintain the usurped primacy of the Church of Rome. as if M. Bells propositions might not well stand together. for he saith not, that all the bishops of Rome were good and godly men, and taught true doctrine until S. Augustine's time; but speaketh indefinitely of the bishops of Rome without adding, all; which manner of speech in materia contingenti, is not to be taken absolutely and universally, but for the most part. and so no doubt saint Augustine speaking of the bishops of Rome understood it, knowing that Marcelline sacrificed to idols, and that Liberius was an Arrian. and we may say also, that the apostles of Christ were good men, although Judas was a traitor, and lantern bearer to the jews, as some popish writers say, that betrayed Christ, and much of the nature and condition of this detectour of falsifications, and detractor from honest men, and a very lanterner of Antichrist, and a traitor to his country. let him therefore beware he be not taken passing through back doors, like the idolatrous priests of Bel, and so for his gordian knot, be taken tied in a Tyburn knot. 10 I need not say much of our adversaries form of writing, or frame of sentences. for it appeareth every where, that he did not know the difference of pneuma, and periodus; nor could distinguish betwixt colons and periods, commaes and colons. his whole discourse is liker to nothing that I can imagine, then to the way between Chard and Honiton in the west country, that is, rude and rugged, up hill and down hill, and very unequal. but to let that pass, yet may I not pass in silence, that a Praefat. fol. 1. speaking of the great commanders and princely pilots, that sit at the stern of the common wealth, he seemeth to communicate her majesties sovereign authority to inferior persons, and doth not once vouchsafe to acknowledge her princely power, or to name her among the governors of this state. and yet such disloyal traitors, that acknowledge the pope's supreme authority, and deny her majesties power, as being excommunicate by the pope's scurviness, (our fellow percase would say holiness) are not sought out, nor brought to such a trial, as their offences deserve. By this therefore it may appear, that, as our adversary hath no ability to disprove any point of religion, which we hold, so he hath utterly shamed his consorts, and the crew of papists, that hitherto have made great brags of this their champion, & of his invincible arguments, all hard & knotty, like the haft of a dougeon dagger. he hath also utterly shamed himself in meddling with these matters, being a man not read, nor any way fit to discourse, or handle matter of controversy: the which, that it may further appear, I purpose, god willing, not only to justify my former challenge, which this poor menowe would nibble at, but also to discharge myself honestly of all those untruths and falsifications, which the detractor maliciously goeth about to charge upon me. Wherein, that I may proceed more formally, & not only skin this dead dog, whose overthrow shall help us nothing, but handle somewhat else, that may make for the advantage of true religion, and the instruction of the ignorant; The order and chief propositions, & chapters of the discourse ensuing. I will, God willing, declare, first that the church of Rome that now is, and which embraceth the doctrine of the pope and conventicle of Trent, is not the true church of Christ jesus. and secondly, that the doctrines and traditions of the Romish church, which the church of England refuseth, are mere novelties and late devised fancies, for the most part. thirdly, that the papists are no true catholics, nor hold the catholic faith, and that it is a great wrong offered to Christ's church to call them catholics, unless it be, as we call dead carcases, men. four, that papists maintain many both old & new haresies and points of doctrine contrary to the word of God, and to the catholic faith. fifthly, that they are idolaters. finally, that such as have died in the pope's quarrel in England were unnatural traitors, and no true martyrs, and that such priests also as come from Rome with commission and faculties from the pope, are traitors and enemies to their prince and country, and so to be reputed and taken, and not otherwise. All which points, one or two excepted, I handled in my last challenge, this challenge thus justified, I shall God willing presently encounter our detractor, and answer first his objections concerning untruths: secondly his quarrels concerning supposed falsifications: thirdly his vain & childish observations. and to show the vanity of our adversaries pleading, and how much the papists are to shun all conferences, and disputes concerning lies, and falsifications; I will also for further evidence against them set down, first certain notorious lies, and forgeries committed by the pope's and church of Rome: and next such lies and forgeries, as are committed by their principal agents. and herein first I will declare Bellarmine to be most guilty in this point. the next place shall contain Baronius his cardinal leasings. after them I will note certain notorious lies and forgeries contained in the writings of other papists, yea of Parsons himself, and of this Momus, in his new nothing, which he calleth a detection of lies and falsifications. finally to answer his observations, I will also discourse of such things as in our adversaries, and their writings seem worthy to be observed. and all this, to let our adversaries know, that they had more need to defend themselves, then to press us; and to take the beams out of their own eyes rather, then to espy motes in our eyes. As for his railing words, & rustical & uncivil behaviour, I leave to be censured by the archpriest in his next general synod: which if he do not, I will refer him over to be answered by master Kempe upon the stage. and if he desist not his railing and rusticalitie either upon the archpriests admonition, or master Kempes' censure; I assure him, I will set a fellow to answer him, that shall so curry him and his consorts the papists, and that shall in such sort tip up their villainies, that the whole fraternity of asses shall curse him for braying so uncivilly. I hope also, that some odd priest or other, out of his grammar dictates will admonish him, to look better to his grammar rules, and tell him, that he hath falsified a verse out of Horace, and made a gross fault in it. This is the only verse in the book. for where Horace saith, quid dignum tanto feret hic pro missor hiatu: our wise b Pag. 4. adversary hath, quid dignum tanto proferet promissor hiatu: both altering his author's words, and committing a fault in the verse, and marring the sense. His reproachful terms omitted, and his small errors pardoned, there is nothing in his pamphlet, which I have not answered, and, I hope in that sort, that he shall not be able to take just exception against any thing I have said or done. it may be, that he will be offended, for that not being able to speak by letters, and finding his name to be E. O. I do name the baby sometime detector, or detractor, sometime ectaticall owliglasse. I have great reason to do it. for I do perceive, that he is a desciple of Robert Parsons, who in his pamphlet of reasons, for not going to church, calleth himself john Owlet. what then can be more consonant, then that his disciple, that goeth about to imitate him in his pride, railing, and phrase of speech, though very unhandsomly, should be called Owliglasse alias Howlyglasse, and ectaticall, that is leapt out of his wit into a little fit of foolery? if he like not this name, then let him set down his own name, and for my part he shall not hear worse than his name, unless his faults deserve it. Both this challenge, and the answer to the detractors exceptions, presuming upon thy indifferency I recommend to thy reading. much I will not request at thy hands, and small favours are easily granted. Examine, I pray thee, both my answer, and my adversaries objections, and yield to neither side more than is proved: compare his great brags, with his poor talon of writing, and his scornful terms with his slender matters, and thou shalt easily perceive, that short answers may serve such simple arguments. it may be, that thou and I differ in opinion. yet never refuse to yield to truth; nor resolve to defend disloyalty or error. I have, as thou mayest see, dealt plainly, and profess openly, that I will not maintain any error, whereof I can be convinced. if the adversary would take the same course, there might be an end of this contention. Rob. Parsons began this quarrel, albeit he hath first given it over. the ground of his pleading standing principally upon the title of ancient and catholic religion, and the innocency of massing priests, and friars, and their consorts, I gave him a short issue in my former challenge, and offered to prove, that popish religion established in the conventicle of Trent, and now received by the church of Rome, is neither ancient, catholic, nor true. if they cannot prove themselves to be catholics, why do they entitle themselves catholics? if their relsgion be new, why do they brag of antiquity? if they be haeretickes, why are they not ashamed, to take to themselves the praerogatives of the true church? if the jebusites and their consorts be combined with foreign enemies, what reason have they to challenge the favour due to subjects? Upon occasion of an ecstatical fellows importunity, I do renew the same challenge again, and by all means provoke Robert Parsons to answer. and because percase he is busy comploting of matters against his country at Rome, I address it also to Friar Garnet and the archpriest Blackewell, that are nearer at hand, and not unacquainted with the worthy volume of exceptions lately published against me. If Parsons have not laisure, let one of them answer. it is a shame to begin a quarrel, and to give it over first. for one bout they have no reason to refuse me. if they pretend want of books and laisure, they know Douai is not far off. They have begun to cry out of falsifications and untruths, let them therefore make trial, how they can answer for themselves. Parsons was wont to be ready to plead for others. now therefore he hath no reason but to plead for himself. In time passed he and that false traitor Allen filled men's ears with their clamours, contra persecutores Anglos. let them therefore defend their consorts, that are preditores Angliae, & enemies to their country. no man hath greater cause to defend traitors, than traitors. If they refuse to answer for themselves, or to satisfy others, I hope for modesty sake hereafter, they will neither arrogate to themselves the title of the church, nor the shelter of catholic religion, neither can they with honesty vaunt of antiquity, or accuse true men of heresy, whereof themselves are most guilty. finally if shame restrain not their tongues, yet fear of punishment may keep them in temper, being declared to be professed enemies to their prince and country, & a pack of rinegned english conspiring with the enemies of this state, & combined together for the overthrow of religion & the realm. If my adversary and his consorts shall no way be able, though otherwise willing enough, to clear themselves of most malicious libeling, lying, and forging, I trust they will hereafter spare me, a plain fellow, and one that no way standeth in need of such poor shifts for the justification of my cause. And I doubt not, but with shame enough they will for ever hereafter cease to make any challenge concerning lies and falsifications, having so evil success in this first encounter. If I have cleared this state from all imputation of injustice in the proceeding against jesuits, seminary priests, popish rebels and their adherents; neither have the magistrates reason to suffer Robert Parsons his libels to fly abroad to the slander of the state, nor any good subject to allow of his calumniations, and most wicked libels. If it do clearly appear, that Robert Parsons and his treacherous consorts are linked and combined with foreign enemies, and by no means will submit themselves to her majesties laws and authority, those that have the custody and execution of her laws, committed unto them, I doubt not, will have a watchful eye over the proceed of such slippery companions, and with great constancy and resolution maintain her majesties authority, and execute her laws against such as wilfully impugn it. the late edict published against this vermin, doth show that the state is not only well acquainted with their lewd practices, but also resolute to punish such wicked practisers, and plotters, as hitherto have abused her majesties great clemency toward them. If it appear that the jebusites and priests teach heresy, and lies, it behoveth all true christians to avoid them. Saint john in his second epistle doth give us warning not to have any familiarity with them, or so much as once to bid them God speed. the church c Apocal. 2. of Thyatira is reproved for permitting a wicked false prophet to teach and seduce God's people. and our saviour d Matth. 7. Christ giveth us warning of false prophets, that come unto us in sheeps clothing, and inwardly are ravening wolves. these false mass-priests devour many widows houses, and abuse the simplicity of many young youths to their utter ruin and destruction. and yet that is not the worst. for they do not only overthrow their worldly states, but also destroy their souls, and lead them headlong into hell. If the pope's agents under pretence of religion have entangled their followers in divers practices of faction and treason, I hope all English, albeit otherwise favourers of popery, will better look, how they engage themselves in treason. they come from foreign enemies, and depend upon them; and though they talk of religion, yet their intention is wholly for the pope and Spaniard, and their course is irreligious and factious. If popish religion founded in the conventicle of Trent, and taught by late pope's and their proctor's be catholic, and ancient, then will it be an easy matter to show it, and to answer our objections, where we prove the contrary. if our adversaries fly trial, and will not join with us, and directly answer; then have all papists and others, reason to fly from such false teachers, and heretics, and to abandon all their wicked heresies. there is no agreement betwixt Christ and Belial, 2. Cor. 6. betwixt truth and error, light and darkness. if they can show themselves, that they are no idolaters, they will clear themselves: if not, why do they seek to erect altars of Baal in every corner? and why do not all Christians avoid to communicate with the priests of Baal in their idolatrous mass? 2. Cor. 6. there is no agreement betwixt the temple of God and idols, neither 1. Cor. 10. can any drink the Lords cup, that doth participate at the table of devils, or devilish mass. but what should I talk of the Lords cup, when these idolatrous priests take the Lords cup from all that follow them? If the adversaries be clear of lying and falsification; then will they answer plainly and directly, as I have answered them. if their lies and forgeries be made notorious to the world, he is not very wise, that will trust such lying and forging companions. But what should I need to declare that briefly, which at large is proved in the discourse following? read only diligently, and examine carefully, and judge indifferently. and so leaving thee to thy meditations, and referring thee to the touch of both our adversaries accusations, and our answers, I beseech God to give thee true understanding of his saving truth. and that he will give thee grace, if thou knowest the truth, to persevere constant unto the end: if thou carriest a prejudicate affection towards popery, then to see into the deformities, impostures and abuses of popish religion: and that in the end it will please him, to discover all frauds, impostures, conspiracies, treacheries and villainies of the popish faction, and to let thee see the damnation of the great whore, and the abominations of Babylon. Adieu. Thine in all Christian affection, MATTH. SUTCLIFFE. A CHALLENGE concerning the malignant church of Antichrist, and false doctrine, and lewd practices of Papists, Directed to Rob. Parsons, Friar Garnet, G. Blackwell the Archpriest, and all their adherents. CHAP. I. That the Church of Rome that now is, and that embraceth the doctrine of the Pope, and conventicle of Trent, is not the true Church of Christ jesus. THe Church of God being a 1. Tim. 3. the house of God, and b Ibidem. the pillar and ground of truth, and c Galat. 4. the mother of all faithful people, as the Apostle teacheth us; it is no marvel, if all congregations, that profess Christian religion, do also challenge to themselves the name, and title of the Church. d Inst. lib. 4. c. vlt. Singuli quique haereticorum coetus, saith Lactantius, se potissimum Christianos & suam esse catholicam ecclesiam putant. even the conventicles of heretics do imagine themselves to be true Christians, and entitle their Congregations by the name of the Catholic church. and that this is true, the papists afford us most evident proof. for albeit in many points they know not the voice of Christ jesus, but follow a stranger, that without all colour challengeth to himself to be Christ's vicar; yet very confidently and proudly they call themselves Christ's true catholic church, and challenge to themselves all those prerogatives, that are due to his most holy spouse. neither do they only challenge to themselves the title and name of the Church, but also exclude all others from the same: and as Leo said, speaking to certain monks of Palestine, ecclesiae nomine adversus ecclesiam armaminï: so we may well say of these blind zelators of popery, that in the name of the Church, they fight against the true Church of Christ jesus. That the papists adhering to the pope of Rome, and embracing the doctrine of the conventicle of Trent, are not the true church of Christ jesus, it may be proved by divers invincible reasons. argument 1 for first the church of Christ is built only upon Christ jesus, as a principal rock, and a foundation most sure and immoovable. No man, saith the e 1. Cor. 3. Apostle, can lay any other foundation beside that, which already is laid, which is Christ jesus. for he is that f Isai. 28. corner stone, that is placed in the foundation of Zion. he is that g Matth. 16. rock upon which the church is built. Super hanc petram, quam confessus es, saith S. h Serm. 13. de verb. Dom. Augustine, super hanc petram, quam cognovisti, dicens, Tues Christus filius Dei, aedificabo ecclesiam meam, id est, super meipsum filium Dei vivi aedificabo ecclesiam meam. he saith the church is built upon Christ jesus, whom Peter confessed. neither do the fathers mean otherwise, where they affirm the church to be built either upon the confession, or faith of Peter, or else upon Peter himself. for all these do either indirectly understand Christ, whom Peter confessed, or Peter's faith concerning Christ. but the Romish church that now is, is built upon the pope, and upon his See and doctrine. Est Petri sedes, saith i In praefat. in lib. de pontiff. Rom. Bellar. lapis probatus, angularis, pretiosus in fundamento fundatus. he k Lib. 2. de pontiff. Rom. saith also, that the Pope is the foundation of the building of the church, and goeth about to prove it by certain words of Hierome, although that good Father never thought of any such matter. l Sanders his rock of the church. Sanders doth endeavour to prove, that the Popes of Rome are the unmovable rock of the church. Turrian likewise because Christ said, aedificabo ecclesiam meam, &, non aedifico ecclesiam meam: concludeth, that the pope's of future times, and not only Saint Peter were understood by that rock, upon which the church is built. seeing then the church of Rome is built upon a foundation divers from the foundation of Christ his church, and relieth upon the pope as much, or more, than Christ jesus; it cannot be the true church. for if the papists say, that Christ is the chief foundation, and the Pope is the next, they cross the scriptures, that make Christ the sole foundation, and only attribute the name of foundation to the apostles and prophets, in that they built all upon Christ jesus, and taught that, which immediately they received from God. but the Pope receiveth nothing immediately from God, nor doth he now preach Christ, as did saint Peter. argument 2 Further, the true church of Christ is built upon a rock most and unmovable, against which the gates of hell can never prevail. but the church of Rome is built upon the pope's and their see, against which the gates of hell both have already, and may further prevail: as appeareth by the Ch. Si papa. dist. 40. where it is supposed, that the Pope may draw with him innumerable souls into hell. and m In Matth. 16. Lyra confesseth, that divers pope's have proved apostates from the faith. and that finally is proved by divers particular examples, as of Marcellinus, that sacrificed to idols, of Liberius, that fell into Arrianisme, of Honorius condemned for a monothelite, and divers other pope's, that fell into divers heresies, and forsook the true faith. neither do I think the papists will deny, but that some of their pope's for divers impieties and wickednesses are damned, and cast down to the nethermost hell. How then can that be the true church of Christ which is built upon a foundation, against which the gates of hell have prevailed? argument 3 n Arg. 3. The true church of Christ is never without her head. for Christ jesus, who is the head of the church was yesterday and to day, and the same for evermore. he is the head of the church, and shall always so continue, and of him his church hath continual dependence. but the church of Rome is often without her head the pope, and hath no such dependence on him, but that she may well subsist without him, as the continual vacation of the papacy doth show, and p Lib. de auferribilitat● papa. Gerson doth confess. the church of Rome therefore cannot be the church of Christ, unless we will grant, that the church of God may be without a head, or that the church of Rome never wanteth a head. argument 4 q Arg. 4. The church of God also hath but one faith. for as there is but one Lord, r Ephes. 4. so there is but one faith, and one baptism. but the faith of the church of Rome is not that one faith, which was professed in the apostles times, and in the primitive church, as appeareth by the doctrine of faith published in the wicked conventicles of Constance and Trent, and by ihat profession which Pius the 4. decreed to be exacted of all that are promoted in schools. for neither did the first christians admit all the traditions, which the church of Rome now calleth apostolical, nor the 7. sacraments and usual rites practised by the church of Rome in the administration of them, nor the sacrifice of the mass, or transubstantiation, or the rest of the doctrine therein contained. if any papist think otherwise, let him show me, either any such like faith, or prove me any such doctrine to have been in the ancient church of Rome. or else we must needs believe, that this doctrine was first published by the conventicle of Trent, and by Pius the 4. by name, but a wicked man for doctrine and life, and by other pope's confirmed. argument 5 s Arg. 5. The grounds also and foundations of the catholic christian faith are divers from the grounds & foundations of the faith of the church of Rome. the t Ephes. 2. apostle saith, that the household of God and citizens of saints are built upon the foundations of the apostles and prophets, jesus Christ being the chief corner stone. neither doth he admit any other foundation. Saint u Apocal. 21. john showeth, that the wall of the city of God hath twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles. and this, because upon that doctrine, which they delivered, the faith of the church is built. for as x Lib. 3. adverse. haeres. c. 1. Ireneus signifieth, the canonical scriptures which she apostles left unto us, are the foundation of our faith. neither may we think, that Peter was more the foundation of the church than Paul, or the rest of the apostles. at dicis, super Petrum fundatur ecclesia, saith y Lib. adverse. J●ui●. Hierome licèt id ipsum in alio loco super omnes apostolos, & cuncti claves regni coelorum accipiant, & ex aequo super eos ecclesia solidetur. Theophylact also without giving any prerogative to one, saith, z In Ephes. 2. the church is built upon the apostles and prophets. neither do the ancient fathers either allow, or mention any foundation beside Christ jesus, and the apostles and prophets, who in all their writings do preach Christ jesus. But the faith of the Romish synagogue is now built upon a divers foundation. for first they acknowledge unwritten traditions, to be a foundation equal to the written word of God. a Sess. 4. council. Trid. traditiones ipsas tum ad fidem, tum ad mores pertinentes, tanquam vel oretenus à Christo, vel à spiritu sancto dictatas, & continua successione in ecclesia catholica conseruatas pari pietatis affectu ac reverentia (scilicet ac scripturas sacras) suscipit ac veneratur. the conventicle of Trent maketh traditions as well concerning faith, as manners, to be equal to the written word of God. whereof it followeth, that we must as well believe the fashions and ceremonies of the Romish church, as the written word of God. Demonstrate conabimur saith b Lib 4. de verb. dei. c. 4. Bellarmine, scripturas sine traditionibus nec fuisse simpliciter necessarias, nec sufficientes. he denieth also the scriptures to be a perfect canon, or rule of our faith without traditions. next they receive the pope's decretals, and upon their determinations do they build their faith: as c C. inter. dist. 19 etc. sancta. dist. 15. appeareth by their decretals, though counterfeit. and d In praefat. in relect. princip. doctr. Stapleton sticketh not to affirm so much in express words. Alij nunc à Christo missi saith he, eorumue doctrina, praedicatio, determinatio fundamenti apud me locum habebunt. and e ibidem. again, Christianae religionis fundamentum habemus ab ipsis literis evangelicis & apostolicis aliud. We have saith he, another foundation of Christian religion, divers from the writings of the apostles and prophets. can then the Romish congregation be the church of Christ, that even in the main foundation of religion is departed from the church of Christ? argument 6 f Arg. 6. The principles likewise of the doctrine of the Romish church are divers from the grounds & principles of Christ's true church. for we have showed in our last argument, that the true church hath no canon or rule of faith, or certain principle of faith, beside the canonical scriptures. but the church of Rome admitteth the books of judith, Tobia, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, of the Maccabees by the ancient church accounted apocryphal, as g In epist. ad Paulin. in prolog. in proverb, Hierome, h In Synops. Athanasius, and divers of the ancient father's 〈◊〉 witness. It alloweth also the old latin translation of the bible, though different from the original books. the same also admitteth for principles of faith, the sentences of pope's, the doctrine of the Romish church that now is, the traditions of the Romish church, the consent of fathers, and divers other grounds, as Stapleton disputeth in his books, De doctrinalibus principijs. argument 7 i Arg. 7. Never certes did the church of Christ speak evil of scriptures. k Lib. 3 adversus haeres. c. 2. Irenaeus saith, It is the property of heretics, when they are convinced by scriptures, to fall into dislike of them, and to accuse them. as for the children of God, they cannot either calumniate, or lightly esteem their heavenly father's testament, or refuse to hear his voice. but the scriptures contain a declaration of the eternal testament of our heavenly father; and therefore they are rightly called his testament. in the scriptures also God speaketh unto us. and therefore, if we be Christ's sheep, we cannot but hearken to his voice. My sheep, saith our l john 10. Saviour, hear my voice. but the Romish church is still carping at scriptures, as if they were neither sufficient, nor perspicuous. m Lib. 4. de verl. die c. 4. Bellarmine saith, they are neither necessary, nor sufficient without traditions. n Praefat in re●act. princip. doctr. Stapleton denieth them to be a sufficient foundation, or rule of our faith. the authors of the annotations upon the Rhemish testament do call them most blasphemously, a kill letter, and signify that the reading of them is pernicious. o Censur. colo●. others slander them, as if they were a nose of wax, or a matter and subject of contention. argument 8 The church of God never called the bishop of Rome either a god on the earth, or Christ's vicar general, or universal bishop. but the church of Rome admitteth all this. the canonists exalt him like a god. p Epist. ad Gregorium 13. ante princip. doct. Stapleton calleth him supremum numen in terris. generally they call him universal bishop, and condemn all that hold contrary. argument 9 The church of God doth keep the doctrine of the apostles and prophets, q Gal. 1. without addition, alteration, or corruption, and the apostle pronounceth him accursed, r Adverse. haeres. c. 34. that teacheth any other Gospel, than that which he taught. Vincentius Lirinensis saith, that this is the property of catholics, to keep the faith and doctrine of the fathers committed to them in trust, and to condemn profane novelties. Catholicorun, saith he, hoc ferè proprium, deposita sanctorum patrum & commissa servare, damnare prophanas vocum novitates, & sicut dixit, & iterum dixit apostolus, si quis annuntiaverit, praeterquam quod acceptum est, anathematizare. but the papists keep not entire the original writings of the old and new testament, nor allow them as authentical, neither will they yield the canonical scriptures to be a perfect and sufficient rule of faith, nor do they allow the law of God to be a perfect law, nor do they keep Christ's institution in the Sacrament of the Lords supper, distributing the kinds of bread and wine to the communicants, but have unto this rule added unwritten traditions, and the determinations of pope's concerning matters of faith. they have also increased the numbers of Sacraments, and added many precepts and rules not received in the Apostolic church. argument 10 The true Church can not endure heretics and false apostles, that teach doctrine contrary to the faith of Christ, and doctrine of Christ's apostles. Christ jesus speaking of his sheep, saith, They will not follow a stranger, but fly from him: for that they know not the voice of strangers. The apostles gave unto Christians a special charge concerning this point. If there come any unto you, saith S. s Epist. 2. john, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not to house, neither salute him. Tantum apostoli, & horum discipuli, saith t Lib. 3. adverse. haeres. c. 3. Irenaeus, habuerunt timorem, ut neque verbotenus communicarent, alicui eorum qui adulteraverant veritatem. Let us separate ourselves, saith Cyprian, as far from them, as they separate themselves from the church. The true church certes can not embrace erroneous doctrine, neither can any heretics be accounted Christians. Si haeretici sint, saith u De praescrip. adverse. haeret. Tertullian, Christianiesse non possunt. But the Papists communicate with heretics, as Liberius, Felix, Vigilius, Honorius, john the 22. and 23. whom in my treatise De pontifice Rom. I declared to be heretics. they do also embrace the heresy of Angelicks, in worshipping angels; of the Collyridians, in worshipping the blessed Virgin; of Martion, Valentinus, and others, in denying Christ's true body in the Sacrament to be and palpaple; of the Pelagians, in magnifying their merits and the force of free will; of the Carpocratians, in burning incense and worshipping the images of jesus and Paul; and divers others, as we shall hereafter particularly declare. argument 11 The true Church of Christ admitteth not the apocryphal legends of S. George, Cyricus and julitta. for these are condemned by the censure of Gelasius, who testifieth, that the old Church of Rome received not any such legends. but the latter Church of Rome, and papists of our time do admit these legends, and out them they gather their traditions, which they make equal to the word of God. argument 12 The Church of God is the mistress and teacher of truth, and admitteth no falsehood, nor untruth the apostle doth call her the pillar and ground of truth. Est fons veritatis, saith x Instit. divin. lib. 4. c. vlt. Lactantius, speaking of the church, hoc est, domicilium fidei. that is, she is the fountain of truth, she is the house, where true faith dwelleth. but the church of Rome, that now is, is not only a receptacle of lewd opinions, but also the mother and mistress of lies and vanities. and so Petrarch for above two hundred years doubted not to call her. Madre d'errori, e, tempio d'haeresia, saith he. which authority albeit they regard not, yet the same which he avoucheth, is proved first, in that the church of Rome avoucheth lying traditions: as for example, the tradition concerning Ember fasts, and fasts upon Saints vigiles, concerning the ceremonies of the mass, concerning the words, & aeterni, & mysterium fidei, thrust into the words of consecration of the chalice, and such like. secondly, the same approveth lying and forged decretals, as for example, C. Constantinus. dist. 96. and c. ego Ludovicus. dist. 63. and c. quis nesciat. dist. 11. & infinite more of that nature. thirdly, the same giveth credit to Caesar Baronius his most lying and fabulous narrations, and the pope's have commended them by solemn decretals: although we doubt not, but to make the vanity of them appear partly in this discourse, but far more at large hereafter. finally, the same admitteth most lying legends, and now and then permitteth them to be read publicly in the church. as for example, the legends of Catherine, Clement, Gregory called also Thaumaturgus, Peter Martyr a dominican, S. Catharine of Sienna, S. Christopher, and divers others. in the legend of S. Catherine, y In breviaer. Ro. in fest● Catharinae. they writ, that she was a maiden of Alexandria, and so well learned, that at the age of eighteen years, she passed the most learned, and in dispute overcame fifty Philosophers, and that also she converted Faustina the empress, and Porphyrius a captain of the emperors, to the faith. they say also, that she broke the tormenting wheel with her prayers, & that after her death her body was buried in mount Sinah by angels. in the feast of S. Clement in the Romish breviary, we read that Clement Peter's successor was by trajan sent into the wilderness of z Let Parsons tell us, where this is. Cersona, and that there he saw a lamb make a well to sally out of the top of the mountain, and that he being cast into the sea with a millstone about his neck, the sea fled three miles from the shore, and that in the very same place a little chapel was found in the sea, where his body was bestowed. On the festival day of Gregory of Neocesaria the church of Rome a In breuiar. Rom. appointeth his legend to be read, where it is said, that he caused the river of Lycus to keep within the channel, by planting his staff on the bank, and that his staff grew presently into a great tree. in the ritual books of Sarum, we read that Gregory the first delivered Traian's soul out of hell, which if it were true, why is it now crossed out of the new books: if false, how happeneth it, that the church of Rome so long believed that tale? b I'n breviar. Rom. in fest. Petr. Mart. Peter Martyr one of dominics order, as they writ, & I think believe, did keep his virginity both in body and mind, and in that sort, that he never felt himself defiled with any mortal sin: they tell us, also, that he did fast so long, that he could scarce open his mouth to eat. They tell us further many wonders of Saint Nicolas, Valerian and Tiburtius, Lucia, Christopher and other saints. in the c Historia Lou●bard. deal volto santo italic. legend of jeames of the coal-pit (for else I cannot tell how to English jacobus de Voragne) we read, that a certain picture of our saviour, did lift up his foot, and cast off his slipper to a certain pilgrim, that devoutly stood before it, and would have offered somewhat, having nothing to offer. Of Saint Catherine of Sienna they say, that she was betrothed to our saviour Christ. all which points are very incredible, and not to be found in any authentical writing. If then the church of Rome publish and teach these fables and lies; then is she no mistress of truth, but of lies. if Robert Parsons will say, they are no lies, I would pray him to declare us the truth out of authentical histories. argument 13 The faith of God's true church cannot be built upon any uncertainty, or untruth. for faith is an argument certain, or an evidence of things not seen. est fides saith the d Hebr. 11. apostle, sperandarum rerum substantia, argumentum non apparentium. and it is built on Christ jesus, that is truth, and on a rock, that is unmovable. neither need we long profess for this point. for the adversaries themselves confess this to be true. Nihil, saith Thomas Aquinas, cadere potest sub fide, nisi inquantum stat sub veritate prima, sub qua nullum falsum stare potest. and afterward he saith, quod fidei non potest subesse aliquod falsum. if then the faith of the church of Rome be grounded on falsehood; then is it no true faith. and if that church's faith be no faith; then is not that church the true church. but that the faith of the church of Rome is built upon divers false positions, it may easily be proved. for first the same believeth, that the traditions of the church of Rome are either descended from Christ or the apostles for the most part, and namely such as concern the canon and ceremonies of the mass, fasts, praiexs for the dead, prayers to saints and such like secondly it believeth all the determinations of pope's concerning faith and manners to be true and infallible, as for example, that it is necessary for every christian to be subject to the Pope, that he hath power to depose kings, to give power to cutthroats, to kill kings, to dispense with the uncle to marry his niece, with the brother to marry his brother's wife, and such like. thirdly, that church believeth what is contained in the breviary and missal, as for example the stories, or rather legends of Saint Christopher, Saint George, Saint Catherine and such like. finally, the same must believe whatsoever the Pope shall determine to be, de fide. But among such traditions, determinations and legends, there are divers both false and ridiculous fables. neither can it be denied, but that the Pope, hath determined, and may also determine falsely and contrary to the faith. and this is showed in my books de Pontifice Rom. at large. e Lib. 4. de pontiff. Rom. and cannot be denied, unless Robert Parsons can prove unto us, that all the Popes decretales concerning matters of faith and manners, and all the traditions of that church, and all legends are true: which to him will be a matter of some difficulty. argument 14 The church of Christ is bounded within the limits of the holy canonical scriptures. habet urbes legis, prophetarum & evangelii, saith Saint f In Mich. lib. 1. c. 1. Hierome. and again, non est egressa de finibus suis, id est de scriptures sanctis. he g Ibidem. c. 7. saith also, that it is the property of heretics, to fly to men's commandments and the leaven of the pharisees. S. h Lib. 19 de civit. Dei. c. 18. Augustine also concureth with him and saith, that the city of God believeth the holy scriptures, that are called canonical: but of other reports, he saith, she doubteth. but the church of Rome will not be bounded within the limits of holy scriptures, neither will she acknowledge the canonical scriptures to be a perfect rule of faith. the same also from scriptures flieth to unwritten traditions, and is much soured with the leaven of the pharisees, and mixture of Popish and jewish ceremonies devised and established by men. finally the same doth rather, or at the least as soon, believe the determination of the Pope, as the letter of holy scriptures. for in the Pope, Stapleton placeth the chief authority of the church, and last resolution for matters of faith. argument 15 The Church of Christ never burned the scriptures. no, albeit there were errors in the Greek translation of Theodosion, and Symachus, and the seventy interpreters, and in all the Latin translations, the vulgar and old edition not excepted z yet did the true church never burn the scriptures. for that was practised by Dioclesian and other persecutors of the church, and by heathen men, rather than by any, that carried the name of Christians. but the church of Rome hath caused Gods holy word to be burnt under pretence of false translations, which notwithstanding she was never able to prove to be false. she doth therefore plainly declare herself to be the synagogue of Satan, and not of Christ. argument 16 The true Church did never prohibit the scriptures to be publicly read in such tongues, as the people of God were able to understand: nor did she ever condemn them, and burn them for heretics, that read them in vulgar tongues. for our saviour commanded his apostles to teach all nations. and no question, but it was lawful to teach them as well by writing, as by word. In Psal. 86. S. Hierome saith, that scriptures do not only belong to priests, but also to the people. Non scripserunt, saith he, speaking of the holy apostles, paucis, sed universo populo. and our saviour, where he commanded his auditors to search the scriptures, meant, that it should be lawful for all to read them. finally, what is more unreasonable, seeing the scriptures contain God's holy laws, and his eternal testament, than that the laws of God should not be red in a known tongue, and that it should not be lawful for children to understand their heavenly father's testament and last will? but the Romish congregation prohibiteth the scriptures to be publicly read in vulgar tongues, and i Index libr. prohib. à Pio 9 prohibiteth all translations, but such as themselves set forth, which are most wicked & perverse. The bloody inquisitors have also burned divers poor people for reading scriptures in English, as appeareth by the Registers of Lincoln and London in king Henry the eighth his days. Finally Navarrus a brave Romish doctor teacheth, that it is mortal sin for a lay man to dispute of religion. Laicus disputans de fide, saith k In primum precept. c. 11. Navarrus, peccat mortaliter. argument 17 Our saviour Christ l john 4. teacheth us, that all true worshippers, do worship God in spirit and truth. Venit hora & nunc est, saith our saviour, quando veri adoratores adorabant patrem in spiritu & veritate. And God by his prophet m Isay 29. & Matth. 15. Isay doth condemn his people, that honoured him with their lips, their hearts being far from him. The apostle also Coloss. 2. would not have Christians condemned, in respect of meat, drink, and holy days; and reproveth those that make decrees concerning touching and tasting, and such like ceremonies. he doth also utterly n 1. Cor. 14. condemn prayers in a strange language, and not understood of those that use them. but the worship of God which the papists use, and most commend, doth wholly consist in external ceremonies, as knocking, lifting up of the Sacrament, censing, lights, and such like. they also rather honour God with their lips, than their hearts not understanding what they say, & thinking, that to gaze on the mass, is to serve God. finally, they have many decrees concerning meats, drinks, saints days, and also concerning touching and tasting, and such like. is it not then apparent, that they are no true worshippers? argument 18 The Church of o Exod. 20. Christ doth worship but one God, according to this commandment, Thou shalt have no other gods but me. and according to the words of p Matth. 4. Christ, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. but the papists worship the images of God, as God himself, and give as much honour to the image, as to the original. Cum Christus, saith q P. 3. q. 25. art. 3. Thomas Aquinas, adoretur adoratione latriae, consequens est quod eius imago sit adoratione latriae adoranda. Seeing as Christ is honoured with divine worship, saith he, it followeth, that his image is also to be worshipped with divine worship. and friars in their sermons speaking to the crucifix, are wont to say to it, Thou hast redeemed us, thou hast reconciled us to thy father: which r Bellar. de cult. imag. lib. 2. c. 23. Bellarmine himself can not deny. he confesseth also, that images may be worshipped with that honour, that is due to the original. Admitti potest, imagines posse col● improprie, vel per accidens, eodem genere cultus, quo exemplum ipsum colitur. they also worship the Sacrament with divine worship, and fall down before it. but neither are images, gods; nor is the Sacrament, God. Finally, they confess, that the worship of service, or doulia, is due to saints. and this they will not deny. how then can they show, that they worship and serve one true God? argument 19 The catholic church only, saith s Instit. 4. c. vlt. Lactantius, doth retain the true worship of God. neither can any society be termed God's church, which retaineth not God's true worship. but the papists do not retain Gods true worship. for first they worship God according to the doctrines and commandments of men, which our Saviour t Matth. 15. Christ condemneth. secondly, they give divine honour to creatures, as we showed in our last argument. thirdly, their worship consisteth principally in the sacrifice of the mass: which is nothing else, but a mass of many superstitions, impieties and blasphemies: as I have showed particularly, and largely in my treatise of the mass against Bellarmine. argument 20 The true church of Christ believeth, that jesus Christ is perfect God, and perfect man; and that Christ jesus is ascended up into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of his father. for these two points are articles of our faith: the first being in terms contained in the creed of Athanasius, the second being expressed in the apostles créed. but the papists attributing to Christ in the sacrament such a body, as is neither visible, nor palpable, and can neither see nor feel, nor help himself nor others, being oftentimes devoured by mice and other brute beasts, cannot show, how these qualities can be in a perfect man. neither can they show, that a perfect man is both in heaven and in earth, and in many places at once: or that the flesh of Christ can be properly in heaven and earth, and not only believed, but also apprehended with men's hands and teeth. u Contr. Eutyth. lib. 4. c. 4. Vigilius saith, that the flesh that is in heaven, is not in earth. Fulgentius writing to Thrasimundus, saith, that the body of Christ hath the properties of a true body. x De resur. carn. Tertullian teacheth us, that the body of Christ is in the palace of heaven. neither may we suspect, that he supposed, that Christ's body might at the same time be in earth. Saint y Lib. 10. in c. 24. Luc. Ambrose saith, that we touch not Christ with corporal handling, but by faith: and that we are not to seek him on the earth, nor after the flesh, if we will find him. finally, the scriptures and fathers do teach us, that Christ is so ascended into heaven, that we do not enjoy him here on the earth according to his bodily presence: as I have declared at large in my treatise against Bellarmine concerning the real supposed presence of his body in the sacrament. argument 21 The true church believeth, that we are justified by faith in Christ jesus, and not by the works of the law. arbitramur justificari hominem saith the z Rom. 3. apostle, per fidem sine operibus legis. & Rom. 4. si qui ex lege haeredes sunt, exinanita est fides. & this is the faith likewise of the fathers. a Dial. 1. contr. Pelag. tunc ergo justi sumus, saith Hierome, quando nos peccatores fatemur, & justitia nostra non ex proprio merito, sed ex dei consistit misericordia. and that we are not justified by charity, or by our works, it may be proved by the testimony of saint b Epist. 29. ad Hieronymum. Augustine. plenissima charitas saith he, quae iam non possit augeri, quamdiu hîc homo vivit, est in nemine. quamdiu autem augeri potest, profectò illud quod minus est, quàm debet ex vitio est, ex quo vitio non est qui faciat bonum, & non peccet. neither may we suppose where the fathers do speak of justice of works, that they mean any other justice, but such as declareth us justified, and which, without remission of sins, cannot stand before God. but the papists both believe and teach contrary, as appeareth by the c Sess. 6. acts of the Trent council, and frivolous disputes of d Lib. 4. de iustific. c. 10. & seq. Bellarmine who endeavoureth to show, that man is able to fulfil the law, and that our works do justify us. whereupon it followeth, that contrary to the apostles intention, we are justified by the law, if he say truly. argument 22 The true church also believeth, that we are not to boast, or glory of our works: and that the reward of sin is death, and that eternal life 's the gift of God. Simo Abraham ex operibus justificatus est, saith the apostle Rom. 3. habet gloriam, sed non apud deum. and Rom. 6. stipendium peccati mors, gratia autem dei vita aeterna in Christo jesu domino nostro. likewise the scriptures show, that when we have done all we can, we are to acknowledge ourselves to be unprofitable servants: and that our sufferings are not worthy of the glory, that is to be revealed. and this the church of Christ also believeth, and hath from time to time believed. tua peccata sunt, saith Augustine in Psal. 70. merita dei sunt. supplicium tibi debetur, & cum praemium venerit, sua dona coronabit, non merita tua. and Hilary in Psal. 51. non illa ipsa justitiae opera sufficenrent ad perfectae beatitudinis meritum, nisi misericordia dei etiam in hac justitiae voluntate humanarum demutationum, & motuum non reputet vitia. but the papists hold, that we may trust in our works, as appeareth by Bellarmine's dispute, lib. 5. de iustific. c. 7. and say, that all sins do not deserve death, and that eternal life is due for our works. argument 23 The true church doth acknowledge no head of the universal church, but Christ alone, which is also the Saviour of his body. Christ saith the e Ephes. 2. apostle, is the head of the church, & he is saviour of his body. neither is the title of head of the universal church due to Peter. Peter the apostle saith f Lib. 4. epist. 38, ad Joan. Constantinop. Gregory, is the first member of the holy catholic church, and Paul, Andrew, and john, what are they but heads of divers parishes? and yet all are members of the church under one head. Saint g De agone. Christ. & in Psal. 9 Augustine saith, that Christ jesus, that is the mediator betwixt God and man is head of the church. but this title of mediator only belongeth to our saviour. Yet the Romish church doth acknowledge the pope to be her head: and h In gloss. in c. unam. de maior. & obed. Bertrand blasphemously saith, that Christ had not been discreet, if he had not left a vicar general behind him. and this doth i Praefat. in lib. de pontiff. Rom. & lib. 2. de pontiff. Rom. c. 31. Bellarmine very well allow, and prove it to be due to the pope. is that congregation than the true church, that hath either two heads, or a head beside Christ jesus? argument 24 The true church is not built upon the pope. for the church was before there was either pope of Rome, or chief priest among the jews. but the church of Rome doth acknowledge the pope to be her rock and her foundation, as appeareth by Bellarmine's preface before his treatise de pontifice Rom. and doth take the pope to be her foundation. k Lib. 2. de pontiff. Rom. c. 31. Bellarmine among other the pope's titles doth reckon this for one, that he is fundamentum aedificii ecclesiae, that is, the foundation of the building of the church. argument 25 The true church is Christ's faithful spouse. Oseae 2. God speaking to his church saith, sponsabo te mihi in fide. the church also being Christ's spouse hearkeneth to him alone, and of him is most dearly beloved. en dilectus meus, saith the l Cantic. 2. church, loquitur mihi, surge, propera amica mea, columba mea, formosa mea, & veni. Cyprian saith that the church cannot be drawn to like of an adulterer: adulterari non potest, saith m De unit. ecclesiae. he, Christi sponsa, incorrupta est & pudica. but the n Turrecrem. lib. 2. c. 28. & Aquin. in 4. sent. dist. 38. church of Rome doth acknowledge the pope of Rome to be her spouse; and o Lib. 2. de pontiff. Rom. c. 31. Bellarmine doth maintain, that the pope is justly entitled, the spouse of the church. and that this is not without the allowance of the pope it may appear by the pope's own p C. intercorporalia. de translat. episc. etc. quoniam. de immunit. ecclesiae. words, where he challengeth this title of spouse to be due unto him. and yet I hope he will not say of the church, sponsabo te mihi in fide: nor, propera amica mea, columba mea: nor doth the true church say of the pope, en dilectus meus. what then resteth, but that the church of Rome should be the whore of Babylon, Apocalyp. 1.7. out of whose cup the nations of the earth have drunken so many abominations, and that the pope should be the lover and spouse of this adulterous and unchaste congregation. argument 26 The true church of Christ is not necessarily tied to the obedience of the church of Rome, nor never was subject to his decretaline laws. quae sursum est Jerusalem, saith the q Galat. 4. apostle, libera est, quae est matter nostra. so likewise are her children. for it is a rule of law, if the mother be free so likewise are her children. but the church of Rome is necessarily tied to the obedience of the pope. r C. unam sanctam extr. de maiorit. & obed. Boniface the 8. determineth, that it is a point necessary unto salvation, to be subject to the pope. and s Lib. de eccles. milit. c. 2. Bellarmine doth exclude all out of the church of Rome, that live not under the subjection of the pope. finally, it is the common opinion of all papists, that such as acknowledge not the pope's authority, are t Ibidem. c. 5. schismatics. is it not then manifest, that those that live under the slavery of Antichrist are not the true church? argument 27 The church of Christ hath but one judge and lawgiver, that is able to save and destroy souls. unus est legislator & index, saith saint u jacob. 4. james, qui potest perdere & liberare. but the church of Rome doth acknowledge the pope for a supreme judge and lawgiver, and hold that his laws are of power to bind the conscience, as Bellarmine teacheth his disciples, lib. 4. de pontiff. Rom. c. 16. and that is the common opinion of all casuistes, and the groundwork of those, that work on men's consciences. can this then be the true church, that liveth in such bondage? argument 28 The true church never commanded christians to make public confession of their sins to the virgin Mary, to the archangel Michael, to saint john Baptist, or to the holy apoples' Peter and Paul, and to all the saints of heaven. the confessions of saint Augustine are extant and to be seen. so likewise are there divers confessions to be found both in the writings of the fathers, and public liturgies, and yet can we not find any of this nature. nay in the form of the mass, prescribed by x Ordo Rom. cap. de forma celebrat. missae. an ancient order of the Romish church, we do not find that form of confession, that is now used. neither can Robert Parsons or Bellarmine, or any of that faction show, that any christian was wont to say, confiteor deo omnipotenti, bea●ae Mariae semper virgini, beato Michaeli archangelo, beato joanni Baptistae, sanctis apostolis Petro & Paulo, & omnibus sanctis. do they not therefore, that use this form in all their masses, show, that they are not the true church, that join angels and saints with God, and seem to confess, that they know our sins, and that they are our judges, and have power to pardon our offences? argument 29 Christ's true church retaineth no sacraments, but such as Christ first instituted, and are declared in the apostles writings. and that may be proved by justines' 2. apology directed to Antoninus, by Dionysius supposed to be the Ariopagite, and all ancient forms of liturgies. for we do not read in any of them of more sacraments than two. but the popish congregation hath made evangelical sacraments of matrimony, order, and penance: of which, the first two were instituted in the old testament, and the third is an act always necessary for obtaining of remission of sins, but never accounted a sacrament, as wanting a sacramental sign, and also formal institution. they have also made sacraments of confirmation, and extreme unction, and given them both signs, & forms, which notwithstanding were never known in ancient time. are they therefore not likely to prove a new church, that have instituted divers new sacraments? argument 30 The ancient and true church of Christ never believed, that matrimony and order contained grace in that sort, which the papists teach. neither did they believe to obtain justification through confirmation and extreme unction. but the pope's church believeth, that these sacraments do confer grace ex opere operato, and that herein they differ from the sacraments of the old law, for that the new sacraments do work justification, and not the old. the first is apparent by Bellarmine's discourse de sacrament. lib. 2. c. 3. & sequent. the second by his dispute lib. 2. de sacrament. c. 12. & sequent. neither will any papist deny this. let them then show, how men may be justified by greasing and crossing in extreme unction, and confirmation: or else they will appear to be strangers to Christ's church. argument 31 The ancient catholic church did y Can. apost. 10. & council. antioch. c. 2. excommunicate such, as coming to church departed before they received the communion. qui non perseveraverint in oratione usque dum missa peragitur say the canons, necsanctam communionem percipiunt, velut inquietudines ecclesiae moventes convenit communione privari. the Romanistes themselves also C. peracta dist. 2. the consecrat. do confess that this was the ancient practice of the church. peracta consecratione, saith Anacletus, omnes communicent, qui noluerint ecclesiasticis carere liminibus. sic enim & apostoli statuerunt, & sancta Romana tenet ecclesia. & the same is also confirmed by the testimony of justine Martyr apolog. 2. of Dionysius de eccles. hierarch. and other ancient fathers. but the church of Rome now doth take them for good cacolickes, that will come to mass, and look on. She doth not certes excommunicate any for not receiving the communion. doth it not then appear, that the Romish church is not the church of Christ? argument 32 The church of Christ did neither use, nor think it lawful, to reserve the eucharist in pixes over every altar, nor to carry the same about with procession, nor to light candles before the pyx, nor to bury together with dead bodies either the sacrament of Christ's body, or the chalice. our saviour Christ z Matth. 26. & Luc. 22. & 1. Cor. 11. said, accipite, comedite, & bibite: that is, take, eat, drink, and so forth. and the apostles and first christians did receive, and not keep the sacrament in pixes. but the church of Rome doth quite contrary. argument 33 The true church never prohibited those, that received the sacrament of Christ's body, to receive the cup also. neither did good catholics abstain from the cup having rerceived the sacrament of Christ's body. a Serm. 4. de quadrages. Leo saith they were Manicheyes, that receiving the sacraments took the body of Christ, but in no wise would drink the blood of our redemption. and this act he affirmeth to be sacrilegious. Gelasius also saith, that it is plain sacrilege to divide one and the same mystery, and receiving a portion of the sacred body, to abstain from the cup of the sacred blood. but the church of Rome doth expressly forbid all communicants, beside the priest, to receive the cup; and taketh this to be good religion. The papists also are well content to be deprived of the cup of the new testament, and think not the sacrament so mangled, to be imperfect. argument 34 The true catholic church never taught, nor thought so basely of the most holy body of our Lord and Saviour Christ jesus, as that a mouse, a hog, or dog, or other creature eating the consecrated host, did also eat the Lords body, press it with teeth, and swallow it down into the belly. nor did the same imagine, that the Lords body might be thrown in the mire, and trodden under feet, and thrown into places unclean, and too homely to be named. but the synagogue of Rome believeth, that brute beasts may eat Christ's body. If a dog or hog, saith b P. 4 q 45. Alexander Hales, should eat a consecrated host, I see no cause, but the Lords body should go therewithal into that dogs, or hogs belly. some have said, as it is in the third part of Thomas Aquinas his sum of divinity, that, as soon as the sacrament is taken of a mouse or a dog, straightway the body and blood of Christ cease to be there, etc. but that is derogatory to the truth of this sacrament. it is also the common opinion of all papistical doctors, that the body and blood of Christ so long continue in the sacrament, as the forms of bread and wine continue uncorrupt, and that they go into all places together. unless therefore Robert Parsons or some other do help here, and show, that the true church of Christ did believe and teach, as before is declared; both he, and his consorts must needs confess, that the Romish church is not the true church. argument 35 The ancient catholic church had but one sacrifice, one altar, one priest, after the order of Melchisedech. the priest after the order of Melchisedech was Christ jesus. he was also that sacrifice. the altar was his cross. tu es sacerdos in aeternum saith God by his c Psal. 109. & Hebr. 5. prophet, secundum ordinem Melchisedech. he, because he remaineth for ever, hath an eternal priesthood, as the apostle saith Hebr. 7. but the papists erect altars of stone, whereupon, they say, they offer their sacrifices. they believe also, that their priests offer up sacrifices, and that they are according to the order of Melchisedech, as if they had neither father, nor mother, nor certain genealogy, and were holy and impolluted. do they not then declare, that they have erected a new congregation that is divers from the church of Christ? neither is it material, that the fathers do call the Lords supper or eucharist, a sacrifice. for they do not so call it for other cause, but for that it is a memorial of Christ's sacrifice on the cross. Christ, saith d Dedemonstrat. Euangelic. lib. 1. c. 10. Eusebius, offered a most excellent sacrifice for us all, and gave us a memorial (or sacrament) thereof in stead of a sacrifice. Chrysostome writing upon the epistle to the Hebrews, teacheth us, that our sacrifice is but a sampler, or memorial of Christ's sacrifice. and this Peter Lombard frankly confesseth. that which is offered and consecrated by the priest is called a sacrifice and oblation, saith e Sentent. 4. dist. 12. he, because it is a memorial, and representation of the true sacrifice, and holy oblation made on the altar of the cross. argument 36 The true church of Christ never erected more altars, than one in one church, nor did the same distribute the sacrament in divers angles in one and the same church. aliud altar constitu● saith f Epist. 25. pleb. universae. Cyprian, aut sacerdotium nowm fieri, praeter unum altar, & unum sacerdotium non potest. likewise saith g Epist. ad Philadelph. Ignatius, quod unus sit panis pro omnibus confractus, & unus calix totius ecclesiae. but the papists have altars in every corner of their churches, and there divers priests sing or say divers masses, and offer sacrifices. there also they consecrate, and divide the sacrament, making a division, no less in their congregations, then in their altars, chalices, and sacrifices. argument 37 The true church did never agree for trentales of masses, nor for aniversary memorials, nor sell the sacrament of Christ's body. but the Romish priests take money for trentales of masses, and without hire they will not make aniversary commemorations. they stick not also to sell Christ's body, or at least their masses for money. deteriores sunt juda, saith h Onus ecclesiae c. 23. one speaking of Romish priests, alleging the authority of saint Brigit, qui pro solis denariis me vendidit: illi autem pro omni mercimonio. argument 38 Our saviour Christ, and his apostles taught the church, that the sacrament of his body and blood was to be received, and eaten, and drunken. of which we collect, that it was available only for the quick, that could receive, eat, and drink, and not for the dead, that could do none of these things. neither did Christ's church believe, that the Lords supper was satisfactory for pains in purgatory, or good against lightning and thunder, or such calamities. but the Romish church doth hold that their eucharistical sacrifice is propitiatory for the dead, as well as the quick, & that the same is expiatory, and doth work divers other wondrous effects. hoc sacrificium saith i De valour missae parad. 12. Guernerus, est expiatiwm debitae poenae tam hic, quam in futuro exoluendae. k ibidem parad. 9 he showeth also, that the same worketh miraculous effects against thunder, danger of enemies, and other calamities, and that he, that frequenteth the mass, shall be directed in all things, which new doctrine, unless Robert Parsons can prove that it hath been taught in the ancient church of Christ, will greatly endanger the state of the Romish church. argument 39 In the true church of Christ, no priest ever took to himself so great presumption, as to become a mediator to God for Christ jesus. for he is a mediator betwixt God and man: and mere blasphemy it is for a mortal man, to challenge to himself to be a mediator betwixt God the father, and his son. but in the Romish church, the priest becometh a mediator and intercessor for Christ. for speaking of the body and blood of our Saviour, he saith: l In canon missae. supra quae, propitio acsereno vultu respicere digneris, & accepta habere, sicut accepta habere dignatus es munera pueri tui justi Abel, & sacrificium patriarchae nostri Abrahae. Upon which saith he, vouchsafe to look with a favourable and pleasant countenance, and to accept them, as thou vouchsafest to accept the gifts of Abel, and the sacrifice of our patriarch Abraham. and afterward: iube haec perferri per manus sancti angeli tui in sublime altar tuum. Command these things, saith the priest speaking of the body and blood of Christ, to be brought by the hands of the holy angel unto thy high altar. these things are blasphemous, and cannot be allowed of Christ his church. neither can Parsons or Bellarmine answer, that these words are found in the book of sacraments attributed to S. Ambrose lib. 4. c. 6. for there is great difference betwixt the words of the canon of the mass, & the words of that author. and the meaning of him is clean contrary. for never shall it be proved, that the author of that treatise believed, that the body and blood of Christ was under the forms of bread and wine in the sacrament, or that he meant the body and blood of Christ, where he compareth the sacrament to the sacrifices of Abel and Abraham. argument 40 The true church of Christ never added to the words of Christ in the consecration of the cup saying, novi & aeterni testamenti, mysterium fidei. neither are these words found in the old formularies of the liturgies of the church of Rome, as I have showed in my treatise of the mass against Bellarmine. doth not then this new trick of the latter Romish church departing from the former, show a manifest difference betwixt them? argument 41 The true church did never offer the sacrament pro redemptione animarum suarum, neither did the same use the commemoration for the dead, as it is in the Romish missal, saying, memento domine famulorum, famularúmque, qui nos praecesserunt cum signo fidei & dormiunt in somno pacis. nay, this form is not to be found in the old formulary, which the Romans used about five or six hundred years agone. but now all m In canon missae. Romanists do thus say and pray. if then Rob. Parsons could show this form, or any such prayers or words in ancient authors, he might do a great pleasure to the church of Rome, that otherwise is like to prove the synagogue of Antichrist. argument 42 The true church of Christ did never consecrate incense, nor say, n In ordinar. missae. per intercessionem beati Michaelis archangeli stantis a dextris altaris incensi & omnium electorum suorum, incensum istud dignetur dominus benedicere, & in odorem suavitatis accipere. if Robert Parsons can prove the contrary, let him do it, otherwise the Romish church will fall out, not to be Christ's true church. argument 43 The true church never had distinct masses, whereof some were ordinary, others proper for the times, others proper for saints, others for particular men's devotions: as for example, for the election of the pope, for taking away schismatical contentions, for time of war, for time of sickness, and such other occasions. but the o Missale Rom. Romish church hath masses for all these causes and occasions. argument 44 The true church did never consecrate holy water, and say, exorcizo te creatura salis etc. and exorcizo te creatura aquae etc. ut fias aqua exorcizata ad effugandam omnem potestatem inimici, & ipsum inimicum eradicare & explantare valeas cum angelis suis apostaticis. it is not the true church therefore that doth practise these exorcisms. argument 45 The Christian church doth not retain the ceremonies of the jews, nor eat the Paschall lamb. for as the p 1. Cor. 5. apostle saith, Pascha nostrum immolatus est Christus. but the q In fine missalis Rom. Romanists according to the rules of their missal do consecrate, and eat a Paschal lamb, and pray thus: Deus, qui per famulum tuum Moysem in liberatione populi tui de Aegypto agnum occidi iussisti in similitudinem Domini nostri jesu Christi, & utrosque postes domorum de sanguine huius agni perungi praecepisti, ita benedicere, & sanctificare digneris hanc creaturam carnis, quam nos famuli tui ad laudem tuam sumere desideramus. argument 46 The true church of God never form any image of God the Father, or God the Holy ghost, or of God's divine essence. neither did the same ever set up images in churches to be worshipped with lights, incense, kissing, crouching, prayers or other such like ceremonies. the second commandment directly forbiddeth the making of graven images to be worshipped, and districtly commandeth us, that we should not bow down unto them. and that this commandment was direct against the worwip of images, the first Christians did well understand. r Adverse. gentes. Arnobius saith, that they had no altars, nor temples, nor images, worshipped in open show. ne simulachra quidem veneramur, saith s Contra Celsum. lib. 7. Origen, quip qui Dei, ut invisibilis, ita & incorporei, formam nullam effigiamus. t Lib. 2. divin. instit. c. 19 Lactantius doubteth not to affirm, that there is no religion, where there is an image, and when images and pictures began to creep into the churches as an outward ornament, the council of Eliberis, to prevent all inconveniences, forbade pictures in churches. Placuit, saith the u Concil. Elib. c. 36. council, picturas in ecclesia esse non debere, ne quod colitur aut adoratur in parietibus depingatur. such was then the religion of Spain. Arnobius declareth, that Christians were not wont to worship the cross. Cruces, saith x Adverse. gentes. lib. 8. he, nec colimus, nec optamus. nay, y Lib. 9 epist. 9 Gregory the first himself, albeit he would not have images broken down, yet would he not have them adored or worshipped. and jonas Aurelianensis, albeit a defender of images, yet writeth thus of them. Creaturam adorari, eíque aliquid divinae servitutis impendi, proh, nefas ducimus, huiusque sceleris patratorem detestandum & anathematizandum libera voce proclamumus, saith z De cultu imaginum lib. 4. jonas. but papists fall down before images, and give divine worship to the cross and crucifix. neither do they only make the images of the Father and Holy ghost, but worship them. finally, they burn incense, kneel and pray to stocks and stones. argument 47 The true church did never pray, or administer the holy sacraments of the Lords supper and Baptism in a strange tongue not understood of the common sort. Si orem lingua, saith the a 1. Cor. 14. apostle, spiritus meus orat, mens autem mea fine fructu est. he saith, it is fruitless to pray in a tongue not understood. and reason teacheth us, that this is true. for if God respect not the moving of our lips, unless our heart accord with our tongue, how can our heart accord, when we understand not what our tongue uttereth? finally, the practice of the church teacheth us, that a known tongue is to be used in public prayers, and in the administration of sacraments, as the answers of the people to the priest in all ancient liturgies, and the testimony of justine Martyr apolog. 2. of Dionyfius ecclesiast. hierarch. c. 3. of Origen. lib. 8. contra Celsum. of Hierome in epitaph. Paulae ad Eustochium. and in his 17. epistle to Marcelia. of Ambrose de sacramentis, and Cyrill catech. 5. and others doth declare. but the Romish church will have no other tongue used in the common liturgy of the western church, and public administration of the sacraments, but the latin, of which the vulgar people scarce understand one word. argument 48 The true church of Christ contenteth herself with the religion first taught by Christ & his apostles. for upon the foundation of their doctrine is the church built. and as b Lib. 4. contra Marci●n. Tertullian saith, id verius, quod prius; id prius, quod ab apostolis. contrariwise, c Aduershares. c. 26. Vincentius Litinensis saith, that is a trick of heretics, not to content themselves with the ancient rule of faith, but to seek novelties from day to day, and to desire to add, to change, to take away. but the church of Rome first denieth the canonical scriptures to be a perfect rule of faith. secondly the same is departed from the doctrine of the apostles. thirdly the same is bound to believe all determinations and decretales of pope's concerning matters of faith. finally, that church hath added and changed the ancient faith. argument 49 True christians never kissed the pope's toe, nor admitted his outrageous dispensations, or grievous laws, nor were tied to believe, that the pope's judgement in matters of faith was unfallible. but the Romish church thinketh it a great favour to kiss his pantofle, and seeketh for dispensations at his hands; and beareth all his burdensome laws, albeit not with out great grudging, as may appear by Peter de Alliaco his treatise de reformatione ecclesiae, by Vllerstones' petitions proposed in the council of Constance, and divers complaints both of English, French and Dutch. finally, if they do not yield his judgement to be infallible, then must they confess, that the church of Rome is built rather on sand, than on a rock. argument 50 The church of Christ never believed, that the bishop of Rome could depose princes, & take their crowns from them, or that they could dispense with subjects for their oaths of allegiance to their liege princes. nay the apostles teach obedience to princes: and Peter did rather exhort to obedience, than rebellion. the canons, that go under the names of the d Can. 83. apostles do severely punish such, as do speak reproachfully of princes and magistrates. and certes most unlike it was, that ever king or prince would have embraced christian religion, if the same had given power to bishops to depose them from their regal throne, and to subjects to rebel against their liege sovereigns. but papists do believe and e Bellar. lib. 5. de pontiff. Rom. c. 6. 7. & 8. teach, that the pope hath power to depose kings, and to translate kingdoms from one to another. they also do believe, that he hath power to dispense with the oaths of subjects, & to command them to rebel. Howsoever the rest believe, pope f In Bulla contra Elizabetham. Pius the fift most wickedly commanded her majesties subjects to take arms against her, upon pain of excommunication, and the like insolency did g In declarat eiusdem bullae. Sixtus quintus use against her, being the Lords anointed, and he being the greased and marked slave of satan. both he, and Pius quintus do wickedly rail against her, and the like course did that flagitious pope h In bulla contr. Henric. 8. Paul the third take against her majesties noble father. and this is now the pope's, and their agents most common practice to raise sedition against christian princes, and when they cannot otherwise do hurt, like hellhounds to bark against them, and to publish infamous libels tending to their dishonour and disgrace. argument 51 The true church of Christ is also catholic, and compriseth all the faithful of all times, and is not limited within any one country or nation. for our Saviour Christ commanded his apostles to teach all nations. and in our creed we believe the catholic church. now this catholic church, as saint i In psal. 56. Augustine saith, is spread throughout all the world, and containeth not only those, that are present, but those also, that are past, and are yet to come. but the Romish church is not catholic, neither doth it contain the Greeks' or Africanes, or men of Asia, that for many ages past have shaken off the yoke of antichrist of Rome. further, it doth not reach to the people of God before Christ. finally k Lib. de ecclesia milit. c. 2. Bellarmine doth define those only to be of the church, which live under the obedience of the pope. this church therefore differeth much from the catholic church. argument 52 The true church consisteth not of fierce lions, nor of wolves nor tigers, nor such like wild, and fierce beasts, but of sheep and lambs, which learn of Christ, and are meek, humble and gentle. these did Christ commit to Peter, and all godly pastors his successors, to be fed. and these are the members of his church, and not those cruel ones, that are more like to lions, than sheep. they shall not hurt nor kill, saith God by his holy l Isai. 11. prophet, in all my holy mountain. nay the force of Christ's religion is such, that it maketh savage and fierce people to become meek and gentle. the wolf saith the m ibidem. prophet, shall dwell with the lamb, and the pard shall lie with the kid. quis coegit barbaros, gentesque alias in suis sedibus, saith n Lib. de incarnate. verb. Athanasius, immanitatem deponere, pacifica meditari, nisi christi fides & crucis signaculum? Optatus in his second book against Parmenian, speaking of catholics to heretics, which of us saith he, hath persecuted any man? can you show or prove, that any of you hath been persecuted by us? But the Romish church doth consist of lions, tigers, wolves, and inquisitors, pope's, and friars more fierce and cruel than lions, tigers, and wolves. their o Extr. de haereticis per tot. laws are most cruel, their executions notwithstanding pass both law, and reason. In the time of Charles the emperor the fift of that name, it is recorded, p Meteran de Belgit. tumult. that above fifty thousand persons were condemned by sentences of inquisitors and judges, and executed to death in the low countries for the profession of their faith. In France, as the stories of that country declare, threescore thousand christians without all order of law, and contrary to solemn oaths given them by the king for their security, were most shamefully and treacherously murdered and massacred for the profession of their relion, at the king's sister's marriage. Circiter sexaginta hominum millia saith q Hist. Nat. come. lib. 23. p. 508. Natalis Comes speaking of one only massacre, committed anno 1572. variis in locis per illud tempus trucidata fuisse dicta sunt in Gallia. and so extraordinary was the fury of the papists, that they spared neither age, sex, nor quality. vel puberes, vel impuberes, saith he, trucidati sunt, neque ullius sexus, vel aetatis, vel dignitatis habita est ratio. neither may we think, that they have showed less cruelty against christians in Spain, Italy, or Germany. as for the realm of England it hath sufficient experience of the adversaries extreme rage and cruelty by the short and bloody reign of Queen Mary. And can any christian man notwithstanding endure, to nourish up young wolves, and tigers within our bosoms? The r Apocal. 17. Romish harlot is drunk with the blood of the saints, and hath her garments made red with the slaughter of innocentes. that therefore which Optatus lib. 2. contr. Parmen. saith of the Donatists, may with good reason be applied to papists. jacerati sunt viri, tractatae sunt matronae, in fantes necati, abacti partus: ecce vestra ecclesia, episcopis ducibus, cruentis morsibus pasta est. for by the Romanistes many innocent christians have been tormented and murdered, women have been abused, infants have been cut in pieces, women have been forced to lose their children: and they have fed themselves with cruelty, and the pope's of Rome and their agentes have been ringleaders in these cruel executions. they are therefore professed enemies, rather than members of Christ's church. argument 53 The catholic church never showed more favour to jews and infidels, then to Christians, that misliked the pomp, tyranny, and corrupt doctrine & manners of the pope's or bishops of Rome. for with her children the church dealeth like a kind mother most mildly. she correcteth them, if they offend, gently, and instructteth them carefully. contrariwise she avoideth those, that will not hear her admonitions, and converseth not with them. Christian emperors s Hac valitura. C. de judaeis & Caell●olis. excluded the jews from all government, and authority in the common wealth. t ibidem. they did also restrain their insolencies with divers sharp laws. the like u Cod. de paganis, sacrif. & templ. course also they took with pagans and infidels, shutting up their impious temples, and forbidding their sacrifices and idolatries. but the Romish synagogue doth proceed by a contrary course. for she massacreth and murthreth christians resembling that unnatural whore, that before Solomon would have the child in controversy cut in pieces. but the jews and wicked atheists she nourisheth, so they meddle not with the pope's scurviness. the pope's by their inquisitors and executioners torment christians, and receive tribute of jews, that dwell quietly in Rome. x Onuphr. in Alexander 6. Alexander the sixth received Turks and Maranes into Rome, when the Spaniards could not endure them in Spain. and all pope's show more favour to Turks, than to such Christians, as come within the reach of the Spanish, or popish inquisition. argument 54 The true church never sought either by forgery and falsification of men's writings, or by lying and slandering to advance the cause of religion. for truth is sufficient and strong enough of itself, and needeth not to be supported with falsehood and lies. Among ancient Christians, false witnesses and slanderers were so far from being esteemed in the church, that they were quite excluded out of the church, as appeareth by the acts of the council of Agatha, c. 27. and council of Eliberis in Spain, c. 73. & 74. but the church of Rome perceiving, that she cannot prevail by plain truth and honest dealing, goeth now about by suppressing of truth, and forging of counterfeit canons and false writings, and by all manner of untruths and slanders to abuse the ignorant and simple multitude. the scriptures, as much as she can, she suppresseth in unknown languages, and corrupteth by making the old Latin translation authentical. she deviseth and spreadeth abroad false traditions, and setteth out falsehood under the names of false canons, and constitutions, under the name of the apostles, false canons of counsels, counterfeit treatises set out under the name of Origen, Athanasius, Ambrose, Nazianzene, Hierome, Chrysostome, Augustine, Epiphanius, and other fathers, forged decretal epistles under the names of Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, and other ancient bishops of Rome, that were never acquainted either with such matters, or such a style. Of late time, most audaciously the Pope's agents have taken unto them power to put out, and to put in, and to change what they list in men's writings; of which forgery, their expurgatory indices do plainly convince them. Bellarmine, he with all his wit wresteth scriptures and fathers, to serve his cause. Caesar Baronius out of Simeon Metaphrastes, jacobus de Voragine, Surius, and such like fabulous legends, hath sent us from Rome whole cartlodes of lies. To help him, Alanus Copus, or rather, Harpsfield, Alfonsus Ciacone, and divers popish companions, have set out divers notorious and ridiculous fables. finally, to disgrace the truth by slanderous accusations of such, as have showed themselves forward in defence of it, the popish faction hath hired Sanders, Robert Parsons, Creswel, Cope, or rather Harpesfield, Genebrard, Surius, Cochleus, Stapleton, Allen, Ribaldineira, Bolsecus, Laingius, and other such like sycophants, to rail aswell against princes, as inferior ministers. can this company then be the true church, that delighteth in lying, slandering, railing, cogging and plain forging? argument 55 That cannot be the true church, that offereth sacrifice to other, than the true God, that made heaven and earth. qui sacrificat dijs eradicabitur, praeterquam domino soli, saith y Exod. 22. God to Moses. S. z De civit. Dei. lib. 10. c. 4. Augustine saith, that God only is to be served with sacrifices of praises, and thanksgiving, and to have the worship of Latria, done to him. john, Apocalyp. 22. fell down, ut adoraret ante pedes angeli: that is, that he might worship before the feet of the angel. but the angel forbade him, and said, vide ne feceris. see thou do it not. and afterward, Deum adora. The papists also confess, that the worship of sacrifices is due to God alone. Sacrificium, saith a Lib. 1. de missa. c. 2. Bellar. est externa oblatio facta soli Deo. he addeth superfluously the word externa. for if we may not offer external sacrifices to creatures, much less may we offer our internal devotions and sacrifices unto them. But the Romish church doth offer the sacrifices of incense, of prayers and thanksgiving, not only to God, but also to angels, to the virgin Mary, and to other saints. In their Litanies they call upon the virgin Mary, upon the angels, upon saints, they confess their sins to them, and yield them thanks for benefits received. neither do they offer incense only to saints, but to their images either planted on the altar, or near unto it. finally, they confess, that they say masses in the honour of the virgin Mary, of angels, and saints, and give latriam or sovereign worship, not to God only, but also to the images of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy ghost; to the images also of the holy Trinity, and of the cross. Of their Agnus Dei they b Caerem. lib. 1. c. 7. say, Peccatum frangit, ut Christi sanguis, & angit. and when they consecrate a cross, they pray, that as the world was delivered from the guilt of sin by the cross of Christ, so those that offer to the new made cross, by the merit of the same, may be acquitted from all sin. argument 56 The true church never used the mediation of others, then of our Lord, and saviour Christ jesus. the c 1. Tim. 2. apostle teacheth us that there is but one mediator betwixt God and man, the man Christ jesus. but the Romish church hath gotten to itself a pack of mediators, and doubteth not to entitle the blessed virgin the mediatrix betwixt God and man. d Hist. p. 3. Tit. 23. c. 3. Antoninus writeth, that on a certain time Christ sitting at the right hand of his father, rose up in fury, purposing to destroy all sinners from the earth, but that he was entreated by his mother to stay until such time, as she had sent forth Dominicke and Francis to preach in the world. neither can that trite and absurd distinction of some sophisters, excuse the papists, that they accknowledge one only mediator of redemption, and use to pray to saints, as mediators of intercession. for first the scriptures and fathers allow no mediators, but such as are mediators of redemption, and not only of intercession, and therefore that title of mediator the scriptures give only to our Saviour, as appeareth by the words of the apostle 1. Tim. 2. and Hebr. 9 & 12. where our saviour is called the mediator of the new testamnet. and Saint e Lib. 2. contra parmen. c. 8. Augustine where he dissallowed the title of mediator in Parmenian doth not deny, that the pastor may intercede and pray for his flock, but that he may be called a mediator. and his f Ibidem. reason is, quia unus, verusque mediator est: which excludeth all men, whether alive, or dead from this title of mediator. secondly the papists in their blasphemous canon do make priests mediators not only of intercession, but also of redemption. where they say, qui tibi offerunt hoc sacrificium landis pro se, suisque omnibus, pro redemptione animarum suarum. thirdly they so pray to angels, and saints, as if we could not come to Christ, but by them but our saviour doth immediately call men to himself, and teacheth us to pray to the father in his name. and Saint g In Rom. 1. Ambrose saith, that to obtain God's favour we need no spokesman, but a devout mind. Chrysostome likewise, homines, saith h De poenit. homil. 4. he, utuntur atriensibus: in deo nihil tale est; sine mediatore exorabilis est. and in another place i De profectu enang. nihil tibi patronis opus est apud deum. neque enim tam facilè deus audit, si alij pro nobis orent, qùam si ipsi pro nobis oremus, etsi pleni simus omnibus malis. four they so pray to angels and saints, as they give men to understand, that they are present in all places. for to Saint Francis, Saint Dominicke and other saints they pray in Italy, Spain, France and other countries. they also signify, that they understand their hearts, and devotions. but this is proper to God only, to be in all places, and to search men's hearts; and the same belongeth to no creature, unless we will ascribe divinity unto them. fifthly they in their litanies to saints, and angels, have such forms of prayers, as in the ancient church of Christ was no time used. in the mass they pray to God, that by the merits and prayers of saints in all things they may be protected by God's help. at other times they pray to saints, not only to pray for them; but to defend them, and help them. finally they call upon such persons, as we have just cause to doubt, whether they be saints: as for example, traitors executed for their offences, and friars and monks odious for their superstitions. in the first rank cometh Thomas Becket, and Campion and his fellows. in the second Francis, dominic, Clare, Rock, Catharine of Sienna, and such like. unless therefore Robert Parsons and his consorts can prove these forms of intercession to have been used in the church of Christ, it is a great hazard, but he will prove himself and his fellows not to be of the church. argument 57 In the true church of Christ we never read nor heard, that christians used to scourge themselves before crucifixes, and other images publicly, or in their chambers of meditations privately: or that they cried out before their images and crucifixes. but we read, that the priests of Baal cut themselves, so that the blood followed, and that they cried mainly upon Baal. we read also, that the priests of Cybele in honour of their goddess were wont to cut themselves. they say also, that in the Indias there are certain priests, that lash themselves before their idols. are not then the papists that scourge themselves before their images, and in their chambers of meditations liker to Baal's priests and ethnics, then to the children of God? argument 58 In the church of Christ sinners do penance in their own persons. in the Romish church they think it sufficient to scourge themselves, and to do other offices of penance by deputies. argument 59 In the true church of Christ the bishops of Rome gave forth no indulgences, nor iubelies, nor did take on them to dispense Christ's and the saints merits by public charters, nor gave pardons of hundreds of days, or years. is it not then the false church, that taketh this power unto her? argument 60 The true church is a society of faithful people under lawful pastors. for as the k Ephes. 4. apostle saith, our Saviour Christ hath given pastors and teachers for the work of the ministry, & for the edification of his body, until we all meet together in the unity of faith, and acknowledging of the son of God, unto a perfect man. l Lib. 4. epist. 9 Cyprian saith, that the church is a people united to their bishop, and a flock adhering to their pastor. est ecclesia, saith he, plebs episcopo adunata, & pastori suo grex adhaerens. so likewise saith m In dial. adverse. Luciferianos. Hierome, quod ecclesia non est, quae non habet sacerdotes. and this we are taught by reason, that there ordinarily can be no church, where there is no ministry to gather a church, nor a family of God's children, where there are no pastoral fathers to beget sons to God. But the Romish church hath long wanted true bishops & priests, and of late time have not any, that deserve to be entitled either bishops or priests. where, lest any fond caviller should mistake me, as a certain n A detection of untruths and falsifications. disciple of antichrist hath done of late, I do give them to understand that my meaning is not to deny them to be the church, that have ministers or bishops faulty for life, or defective in the execution of their office, but only those, that have bishops and priests without lawful ordination, and that do not at all execute the office and function of a pastor or bishop. and because the synagogue of Rome hath only such priests and bishops, as want lawful ordination, and utterly cease to execute pastoral functions, I say that the same cannot be the true church of Christ. I say then that Romish priests have no lawful ordination, because they are ordained first by heretics, by excommunicate and simoniacal persons, which the canons do prohibit to lay hands on any, and disallow such as are ordained by them. that the pope's of Rome, and bishops ordained by them are simonical persons, it appeareth by the practices of the conclave in election of pope's, by the compacts made betwixt the pope, and such as he ordaineth, by the testimony of the conscience of papal creatures, and public writings. o Lib. de schism. Theodorick a Niem testifieth against Boniface the 9 and others, and saith, that Boniface sold the same benefice to divers, and when he lay a dying bought and sold, and said he should do well, if he had money. Vllerstone in his petitions crieth out of the simony of his time. that was a cause also of the complaint of the Germans in their grievances. venalia nobis saith Mantuan Templa, sacerdotes, altaria, sacra, coronae, Ignis, thura, preces, coelum est venale, deúsque. that they are heretics, it shall be proved by the several heresies, old and new which the church of Rome holdeth. Secondly they are not ordained lawfully, because they are not ordained to teach and administer the sacraments, but to offer sacrifices for the quick and dead, as appeareth by their p Machab. in lib. de missis episcop. pro ordinib. formularies of ordering priests. q Lib. de sacra. ord. 9 Bellarmine likewise confesseth, that this is the due form of ordering priests. respondeo saith he, sacerdotes ordinari, cum illis dicitur, accipe potestatem sacrificium offerendi. this ordination I prove to be unlawful, first because it containeth no commission for the principal point of apostolical or priestly function, and next because it giveth them an office of sacrificing for quick and dead, which is more than belongeth to their charge, or was executed by the apostles or ancient bishops of the church. Thirdly they are ordained by bishops, that have themselves no due ordination being sent abroad by antichrist, rather to suppress the truth, then to teach the truth. now every man well understandeth, that no man can give orders, but such as have received orders. Finally they are most of them uncapable of ministerial function, and can neither teach, nor administer the sacraments duly, and if they were able, yet do they not teach God's people, but rather by their masses and confessions draw them to superstition and disloyalty. That the Romish church hath no true bishops, it is to be proved both by the same and other reasons, first no heretics have power to ordain others. but the pope is an heretic, ergo, the first the adversaries will not deny. the second we shall prove by divers arguments in his proper place. secondly we have declared, and the world knoweth that the pope's of Rome are simoniacal persons: of which it also followeth, that they have no power to ordain pastors. thirdly, Antichrist hath no power to ordain pastors in Christ's church. but that the pope is Antichrist, and the head of antichrist's kingdom, I have declared in my fift book De pontifice Rom. four, he that is no bishop, can not ordain bishops. but I have declared, that the pope is no bishop. and it is evident, for that r 1. Tim. 3. episcopatus is opus. but the pope doth not the office of a bishop, either in teaching or administering the sacraments. further, bishops, as Cyprian diversly declareth, are the successors of the apostles. but the Pope succeedeth Caesar in the government of Rome, rather than Peter and Paul, in governing the church. and other Romish bishops, they rather kill Christ's sheep, and massacre his lambs, than feed them. finally, Romish bishops, albeit they are after a sort sent to teach and administer sacraments, yet most of them are uncapable of that charge, and all leave the office of teaching, to a pack of loud mouthed monks and babbling friars, thinking that too base an office for their great and high estate. But had Romish priests and bishops any mission or ordination, yet is the same very defective, and divers from the grave form practised in the ancient church. for neither is such regard had of the capacity and ability of the persons chosen to this function, but that often times boys and infamous persons are called to this charge; neither are the solemnities prescribed in the canons observed, nor do either the priests or bishops teach true doctrine, and sincerely administer the sacraments, nor do they finally attend that office, and execute that work, whereto they are called. If therefore the Romish priests and bishops have no due ordination or calling; then are not the papists the true church. if their ordination be imperfect and faulty, than such is the popish church, as their popish ordination of ministers is, that is faulty, defective, and imperfect. argument 61 The true church of Christ can not adhere to Antichrist. our saviour Christ speaking of his sheep, s john 10. saith, they will not follow a stranger, but will fly from him. neither doth Antichrist seduce any, burr such as perish, as the apostle teacheth us, 2. Thess. 2. but the Romish church adhereth to the pope, which is declared manifestly to be Antichrist, both by his doctrine, & by his manners, & by the form & circumstances of his reign, and divers arguments: which because I would not draw out this discourse into length, I would desire the learned to read in my fift book De pontifice Rom. and our adversaries to answer, if they hold contrary. Robert Parsons should also do well to answer such arguments, as I used in my answer to his Wardword, to prove the pope to be Antichrist. argument 62 As the true church of Christ was figured by the holy city of jerusalem, so the malignant church of Antichrist is figured and represented partly by Babylon, Apocalyps. 18. and partly by the purple whore, Apocalyp. 17. that rideth on a beast with seven heads, and had a cup of gold in her hand full of all abominations, and spiritual & carnal filthiness. If then the state of Rome, and the Romish church, be represented by this purple harlot, and by Babylon that wicked city; then doth it necessarily fellow, that the church of Rome now is not the city and church of God, but rather the malignant church & synagogue of Satan adhering to Antichrist, and opposite to Christ and his church. but that the state of new Rome and of the Romish sect, as it adhereth to the pope, and is the fountain and metropolitan city, from whence all idolatry, heresy, and superstition stoweth, is meant by the purple whore, Apocalyp. 17. and by Babylon, Apocalyp. 18. divers arguments may teach us. first, the order of S. john's revelation doth show it. for after that in the 12. chapter, and in the beginning of the thirteenth he had described the state of old Rome under the Roman emperors, and foreprophecied the ruin and decay of that empire, and the rising of another state out of the ruins of it; there is no likehood, that he should return back again, to describe the flourishing state of that empire in the seventéenth chapter, or that the holy ghost would relate things confusedly or disorderly. secondly, he representeth unto us the decay of old Rome, & the arising of Antichrist out of the ruins of it in the end of the thirteenth chapter. and therefore, whatsoever followeth after that chapter, the same with good reason may be drawn to Rome after it came to be under the pope, whose state is wholly built upon the fall of the empire, and can by 〈◊〉 means be applied unto Rome, as it was under the Roman emperors. Thirdly after the destruction of the purple whore and of Babylon, the apostle prophesieth of the end of the world, and of the last judgement, as if the one were to follow immediately, or at the least not long after the other. but we see the Roman empire long since destroyed, and nothing remaining, but a vain name or title of it: and yet the end of the world and last judgement is not come. the ruin of old Rome therefore by the destruction of the whore, and of Babylon, is not prefigured, but rather the destruction of antichrists seat and kingdom. Fourthly the beast, which saint john saw, and upon which the purple whore did sit, was not then, as she should be, as he saith. non adhuc erat t Apocal. 17. saith he, & ex abysso ascensura erat. but the Roman empire did most flourish in saint john's time. and therefore that beast must needs signify another state and empire, which in Rome was to be erected after the Roman empire's decay. Fiftly those ten kings, which are signified by ten horns Apocalyps. 17. did not arise during the time of the old empire of Rome, but upon the decay of the empire, and rising of antichrist. for we do not read, that kings did give their power to the Roman empire, nor had that strong empire any need of their power. but we read, that divers kings have given their power to the papacy, and made themselves slaves, to make the pope's great lords. this therefore must needs be a figure of the papacy, and not of the old Roman empire. Sixthly we do read, that the kings of the earth committed fornication with the purple whore: and may well understand, that the purple whore was a figure of one, from whom corruption of doctrine, and idolatrous worship should be derived. for that is spiritual fornication. but from the Roman emperor we cannot understand, that any kings received any form of religion, or corrupt doctrine, or idolatrous worship. this therefore must needs touch the pope, and his see, from whence manifold superstitions & idolatries are derived into all places, and not the imperial state, which regarded but little the state of religion. Seventhly the kings of the earth did rather rejoice, then lament at the destruction of the Roman empire. for upon the ruins thereof they built their own kingdoms, and states. but divers kings, that are linked with the Pope have lamented his losses. the king of Spain wept, when he heard of the evil success of English rebels, which the pope u Vita de Pio 5. Pius the fift stirred up, hoping by them again yet once more to recover footing in England. Eightly the purple whore Apocalypse 17. is called the mother of fornications, or idolatry, which is termed in scripture spiritual fornication. this prophecy therefore doth rather touch the popish idolatry & corruption in religion, than the civil government. Ninthly after the empire of Rome began to decay, the state of christian religion began to flourish in Rome. and therefore that which is said of Rome, that it shall after the revelation of the whore become the habitation of devils, and unclean spirits, cannot be spoken of old Rome, after whose decay religion began to flourish, but of new Rome, under the pope's, which is now become a receptacle of all abominations and filthiness. 10. This Rome that is described Apocalyps. 17. shall persecute the saints near to the end of the world, as may be gathered out of saint john's revelation. this therefore belongeth to the pope, and his bloody inquisitors, and not to the old Rome whose persecutions are long since ceased. 11. The description of the purple whore, and of Babylon doth best fit the state of Rome under the subjection of the pope. the great whore is said to sit upon many waters, and to inveigle the kings of the earth with her spiritual fornications, she was clad with purple and sclarlet, and set out with gold and precious stones. she had in her hand a golden cup full of abominations, and in her forehead was written this word, mysterium, and great Babylon, the mother of fornications and abominations of the earth. finally it is said she was drunk with the blood of martyrs. Babylon also is called an habitation of devils, and a receptacle of foul spirits, and unclean birds: and saint john saith, the nations of the earth did drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and that kings did commit fornication with her, and merchants grew rich with trading with her. so likewise the pope doth rule many nations, and hath won the kings of the earth, to like his corrupt and idolatrous doctrine. he and his religion also is decked with all precious furniture, and nothing seemeth more gallant in external show. like a woman the pope prevailed by fraud, perjury, and pretence of great mysteries, and from him all abominations and corruptions proceeded. it is he and no other, that for this four or five hundred years hath persecuted the saints of God, and to him the kings of the earth yield their forces, and are ready to execute his sentences and excommunications. beside that, never was more uncleanness, nor filthiness practised by any, than by the Romish Sodomitical and lecherous monks and priests: nor was there ever in any place more buying and selling of all things, than in the Romish church. lastly, Arethas and Ambrose Ansbertus writing upon the Apocalypse, say, that new Rome may be understood by Babylon, and Petrarch doubteth not in plain terms to call Rome under the pope's, false and wicked Babylon. Gia Roma, saith he, hor' Babylonia fals'eria. his opinion is likewise confirmed by the bishop of Salzburg Auentin. lib. 7. Michael Cesenas, Petrus Blesensis and others. and so guilty are the Romanists in their own conscience, that either they can not endure the interpretation of the Revelation of S. john, or else they give out such vain constructions of it, as neither satisfy themselves nor others. argument 63 The true church of Christ did never worship S. Peter, nor the ancient bishops of Rome; nor did S. Peter suffer himself to be worshipped, or carried on men's shoulders, or to have his pantofle kissed. but the Romish church doth worship the pope and call him a god on the earth, and Christ's vicar, and the foundation, and spouse, and head of the church. the bishop of Modrusa in the council of Lateran cried out to Leo the tenth, te beatissime Leo salvatorem expectavimus. others bear him on their shoulders, others cry out to the pope to have mercy on them, others lead his palfrey, others kiss his feet. argument 64 The true church did always reverently think of the holy mysteries of Christian religion, and accordingly did she use them. it is a common saying, that holy things are respectively and reverently to be used. But the Romish church neither thinketh, nor believeth reverently, nor useth the mysteries of Christian religion so respectively, as the holiness, and gravity of such things require. one pope cast the eucharist into the fire. Hildebrandus, saith x In vita Gragor. 7. Beno, sacramentum corporis Domini responsa divina contra imperatorem quaerens iniecit igni, Pius Quintus cast one Agnus Dei into the water of Tybre, y In vita de Pio 5. and another into the fire. Cresciuto il Tevere, saith Hierome Catena, Pio vi gittò vn' agnus Dei, & il fuoco appreso in una casa piena di fieno, vi si gitto un altero. All papists for the most part affirm, that if a dog, or hog, or mouse eat a consecrate host, he eateth the body of Christ really and properly. the conspirators, that were suborned by Sixtus Quartus, to kill Laurence and julian de Medici, were commanded to do it in the church, and at the instant of the elevation of the sacrament. Dato signo saith z Lib. Geograph. 5. Volateran, cum eucharistia tolleretur. When the pope rideth abroad, he sendeth his corpus Domini before with the baggage, and with the basest servants of his house, as Mouluc in a treatise directed to the Queen mother of France declareth. finally, albeit the papists teach, that the cross is to be worshipped with latria, or divine worship; yet do the pope's make crosses on their slippers, to show what base reckoning they make of their religion. argument 65 The church of Christ is a society of believing and faithful people, and a communion of saints. this is an article of our faith. that is proved by the definition, and nature of the church. but the Romish church requireth in her followers no more to make them her true members, but that they profess the Romish faith outwardly, and communicate with the church in sacraments, and be subject to the pope. ut aliquis aliquo modo dici possit pars verae ecclesiae, de qua scripturae loquuntur, non putamus requiri ullam internam virtutem, saith a De eccles. milit. c. 2. Bellarmine. so by his account the church may consist of heretics, and most wicked persons, so they make an external profession of Christianity, and hold with the pope. but such can not be parts or members of Christ's church, without true faith and charity. argument 66 b Matth. 18. Whosoever heareth not the church, is to be accounted as a heathen man or publican. but he that heareth not the church of Rome, that excommunicateth Christian princes, and stirreth up subjects to rebellion, and debaseth holy scriptures, and setteth up uncertain and false traditions, and maintaineth false doctrine, idolatry and heresy, is neither to be accounted a publican, nor a heathen man, but a true Christian, and follower of Christ jesus. the papists will deny perhaps the church of Rome to be guilty of this crime. but the wicked excommunications of Paul the third, denounced against Henry the 8. K. of England, of Pius 5. & Sixtus Quintus, against her Majesty, and of other pope's against other princes, and the stirs that have ensued of them do prove them to be authors of rebellion. the rest we have already touched, and shall more at large prove hereafter. argument 67 c Lib. de notis ecclesiae. Bellarmine confesseth, and all papists agree with him, first that the true church of Christ is the catholic church and maintaineth catholic doctrine. 2. that the same is most ancient. sine dubio saith he, vera ecclesia antiquior est qùam falsa. 3. that the same shall always continue. ecclesia dicitur catholica non solum, quia semper fuit, sed etiam quia semper erit, saith Bellarmine. 4. that it shall be enlarged to the ends of the earth. ecclesia catholica saith he, non solum debet amplecti omnia tempora, sed etiam omnia loca, omnes nationes, omnia hominum genera. 5. that it hath a succession of bishops certain and continual. 6. that it consenteth with the apostolic church in the doctrine of faith. sexta nota saith Bellar. est conspiratio in doctrina cum ecclesia antiqua. 7. that it be united to Christ jesus, and have the parts united among themselves. septima nota saith he, est unio membrorum inter se, & cum capite. 8. they confess also that the doctrine of the church is holy. 9 that it is effectual. 10. that the authors of the doctrine of the church are holy. ecclesia enim saith Bellar. habet doctores sanctos. 11. that the same is adorned with miracles & prophecy. 12. that the adversaries of the church confess the doctrine thereof to be true. and finally that such as have favoured the church have prosperous success, and such as disfavour it, evil success and unhappy ends. but the Romish church is neither called catholic of all, nor is it catholic in respect of place, or doctrine. nor is the same ancient, the doctrine of popery being not established, but since the council of Lateran, under Innocent the third the first father of transubstantiation, & enacted for the most part by the conventicles of Constance, Florence & Trent. nor hath the Romish church any assurance, that it shall always continue, seeing the same dependeth on the Pope, and his determinations, in neither of which is there any certainty. for the pope may be taken away as saith d De auserribilit. papae. Gerson, and his decrees do oftentimes alter. e Epist. 2. ad Bohemos. Nicholas of Cusia saith, that the scriptures are to be fitted to the time, and that they are diversly to be understood, and that God doth alter his judgement according to the judgement of the church. we see also, that the pope's are still publishing decretales of faith, and that one destroyeth that, which another buildeth, and contrariwise. 4. it were plain impudence to affirm, that the doctrine of the church of Rome concerning free will and works, sacraments, and the pope's authority, and such like points was always taught, and received of all nations, and in all places. and that shall appear by divers particulars, where we declare, that the papists are no catholics. 5. that church hath no certain, nor continual succession of bishops. for neither do the adversaries, know, who succeeded Peter, nor what bishops from time to time succeeded one another, nor have the pope's been true bishops a long time wanting due election, and ordination, and relinquishing utterly the office of bishops, to rule the temporal state of Rome. nor can they deny, but that the succession of that see hath been often interrupted by long vacations, distraction by schism, intrusion of Dame joane into the popedom. 6 we shall easily prove, that the doctrine of that church agreeth not with the apostles doctrine. for I do not think, that Bellar. can show the decretales to consent with Paul's epistles, or to have been written with the same spirit. 7. the papists have not only overthrown Christ's prophetical office, in teaching new doctrine, but also his regal and priestly function, appointing a new government never established by him, and erecting a new priesthood and sacrifice contrary to Christ's doctrine. furthermore that church, not only hath been oftentimes distracted by schism, but also is much distracted by contrary opinions of schoolmen, monks, and friars in every point of doctrine, as, to go no further appeareth both by Dionysus Carthusianus upon the master of sentences, & josephus Angles his Flores doctorum, and Bellarmine's disputations, wherein he allegeth in every point divers opinions. 8. their decretaline doctrine is neither sound nor holy, standing more on temporal jurisdiction, than points of faith, and establishing the blasphemies of the mass, the idolatrous worship of saints departed, and of images, and the tyranny of the pope. 9 the same doctrine is without effect being upholden with lies, fables, fraud, fire and sword, and not being otherwise able to stand. 10. Gregory the 9 was a most wicked ambitious man. of Boniface the 8. it is said, that he sought rather to rule by force, than religion. Clement the 5. was a notorious adulterer, as f Villani & Vrsperg. stories writ, john the 22. was an heretic, & an ambitious man. yet were these the principal authors of Romish doctrine. for as for friars and monks, they might prate their pleasure: but the chief authority to allow or disallow was in the pope. 11. the reports of Romish miracles and prophecies are nothing, but lies and fables, and stand only upon the report of their legends. 12. Bellarmine shall never prove, that any of us have confessed the doctrine of popery to be true. finally it appeareth, that the pope's of Rome, and their agents, in most of their attempts have had no good success. Charles the fift and his son Philip, the greatest protectors of the popish cause died discontent, to say no more. Henry the third, the principal agent in the massacre of France, was killed by a friar. The duke of Guise and other massacrers came to violent ends. contrariwise it hath pleased God to maintain true Christians against all the forces and ambuscadaes of their enemies, by small means. if then Bellarmine say true, the Romish church will prove no true church. argument 68 The church of Rome is also convinced, not to be the true church by the confession of g Relect. doct. princip. contron. 1. q. 5. Stapleton. for if the true church began at Jerusalem, and is universally dispersed over the whole earth, and hath continued in all ages, and hath a true, and certain succession continued from the apostles, and disagreeth not about matters of faith, nor dissenteth from the head of the church, and hath planted christian religion, and preserved the same throughout the world, and hath kept the apostolic form of government, and prevailed against all heresies and temptations, keeping the rule of faith sound and entire, and also showeth the true way of salvation, and keepeth the scriptures sound & pure from corruption, and finally holdeth the decrees of general counsels, as blundering h Princip. doctrinal. relectis. Stapleton not only confesseth, but after his rude and most odious, and tedious fashion with multitude of words goeth about to prove; then is not the church of Rome, that now is, the true church of Christ jesus. for to say, that the church of Rome began at Jerusalem, is as absurd as to say that Rome is Jerusalem, or to affirm that Rome now is like to old Rome. Robert Parsous should do us a special favour, to show unto us, that the glory and fullness of power, that the pope challengeth, with his glorious cardinals, mass priests, mitred prelates, idle monks, lying friars, and all the pope's doctrine concerning the law, faith, sacraments, ceremonies, and other matters, came from Jerusalem. he may do well also to prove that the latter scholastical & decretaline doctrine, which the church of Rome maintaineth was universally received throughout the world, nay that it was received in any part of the world during the apostles times, or the times of the ancient fathers of the church. as for the rock of succession of pope's, upon which our adversaries build so large conclusions, i Lib. de pontiff. Rom. & de notis ecclesiae. we have showed it, to be nothing but a bank of sand. for never shall the pope's agents be able to show the same to have been certain, or continued without interruption. it is also apparent, that popish doctrine is not only divers from Christ's doctrine, but also contrary to the same. and that there are infinite contradictions, and contrarieties in the opinions of the chief patrons of popery, albeit all dissent from Christ the head of the church. the church of Rome hath also been torn in pieces by divers schisms. further we shall hereafter show, that the later pope's have not planted, but rather rooted out Christian religion out of divers places, and in the rest have corrupted it with divers novelties and heresies. finally the church of Rome hath not only abrogated ancient canons, and changed the ancient form of church government, but also corrupted the rule of faith by adding of unwritten traditions, determinations of pope's, and their fancies to the canonical scriptures. the gates of hell therefore prevailing against the church and pope's of Rome, it is easily to be inferred, that the same is not the true church. argument 69 Here we will also add the testimony of Bristol, a man, as the adversaries imagine, well seen in motives, and marks of the church. He k bristol motives. commendeth that for the true church, that is catholic, and apostolic, and which abhorreth all novelties, heresies, and idolatries, and whose doctrine is confirmed by scriptures, most certain traditions, counsels, fathers, and practise of the ancient church, and which teacheth the narrow way, and maketh subjects obedient, and is sure to continue. but neither is the church of Rome catholic, nor apostolic, which embraceth uncertain traditions, and apocryphal scriptures, with equal affection to canonical scriptures, and which receiveth all the pope's decretales concerning matters of faith, albeit they contain doctrine neither apostolical nor general. secondly it will be an easy matter to show, that the Romish church abhorreth neither heresy, nor idolatry, nor novelty. thirdly in diverse discourses against Bellarmine I have showed, that popish doctrine hath neither ground of scriptures, counsels nor fathers. thereby also it may appear, that popish traditions are most vain, uncertain, and superstitious. four, the way which that church teacheth, is broad and easy. for what is more easy than to hear masses, and to eat fish, and to confess sins, and to observe divers external ceremonies? and yet by these small things, papists hope to be saved. fifthly, we find, that all the rebellions of England, Ireland and France have wholly proceeded from the church of Rome, and the doctrine of the seditious jebusites, and Canaanites and mass priests. neither will ever rebellion be rooted out, unless the tyrannical usurpation of pope's be repressed, and their parasites taught to submit themselves to their liege princes. sixthly, what certainty in judgement can the papists have, that depend upon the resolutions of blind, unlearned and wicked pope's? finally, we see Antichrist to be revealed, and the city of Babylon to fall to confusion. who then doth not expect and believe the utter ruin and desolation of antichrist's state? Further, Bristol telleth us, that every church that is risen after the first planting of religion, and gone out of the catholic church, and from apostolic doctrine, and is not the communion of saints, nor ever visible, and which is not the teacher of all divine truth, and the undoubted mother of Christ's children, is not the true church. But the church of Rome, as it is now visible in the pope and cardinals, in the officers of the pope's chamber, in popish prelate's, sacrificing priests, monks, friars and nuns, and their officers and adherents, whose faith is built on popish decretals, and mincing scholastical distinctions, as fine woven, as any spider web, rose out of the earth long after the apostles times, and first planting of religion, and that the Romish church crept out by little and little out of the catholic and apostolic church: for apostolical doctrine embracing apostatical and light fancies and traditions, and for the maintenance of men's bellies and the pope's authority, is departed from Christ, and hath made war upon the saints. in the same also, whores are openly maintained, & cutthroats by rewards incited to kill and poison princes, and a way to all perjuries and vices by the pope's indulgences opened. how then can any call this a communion of saints? finally, he that expecteth truth at the pope's hands, shall be gulled with fables; and he that calleth Rome a mother, can be content for gain, to call the whore of Babylon, and mother of errors, his mother. argument 70 The church of Christ never allowed the decretals of pope's, or the extravagants, or rules of Chancery concerning the pope's authority and proceeding. but in these laws the church of Rome hath divers rules of the Romish faith, and thereby governeth her proceedings. argument 71 In the church of Christ clerks were not exempt from the subjection of princes. The apostle saith, Let every soul be subject to higher powers. But in the church of Rome, all clerks are quited and exempted from the prince's power, as Bellarmine in his book of that argument, by the pope's canons, and all his wit, endeavoureth to prove. argument 72 The true church never baptised bells, nor held monks cowls to be equal to baptism. but the popish church, as the l Gravam. 51. Germans in their grievances declare, baptizeth bells, and compareth the entrance into monkish profession, with baptism. argument 73 Finally, never was Christ's church or any part of Christ's church within any kingdom governed by an archpriest and certain seditious jebusites, mass priests, and such like vermin. Howsoever than they deny it in others, yet can they not deny, but that the papists of England are not members of Christ's church, but rather of the synagogue of Satan. CHAP. II. That the doctrines and traditions of the Romish church, which the church of England refuseth, are mere novelties, and late devised fancies. IF when the papists do recommend unto us their old religion, they meant nothing else, but the religion of Christ jesus, which the apostles first taught, and which the apostolical and most ancient Christians received and delivered to posterity; we should not much contend with t'him. for that is the religion, which we profess, not varying in any thing from the apostles créed, and other créeds either set out by Athanasius, or the most ancient general counsels of the church, nor denying any thing that is expressed, or proved out of the holy canonical scriptures. But when they talk of old religion, they mean the religion of the church of Rome, which was either established by later pope's, or taken up by lewd custom and uncertain tradition. the which though it seem to some ancient; yet in very truth is new, and no way to be compared to the religion, that was first delivered by Christ, and his apostles: neither doth it deserve the name of old religion. for as Ignatius said a Epist. ad Philadelph. sometime, antiquitas mea Christus est, so we may say, that Christ is the top of our ancestry: & that the apostles doctrine is both ancient & most true. id verius quod prius saith b Lib. 4. contra Martion. Tertullian, id prius quod ab initio, id ab initio quod ab apostolis. if then the papists, as they brag, could prove their religion to be derived from the apostles; then would we indeed confess, it were ancient. if they cannot, than we must say to them as c Epist. 65. ad Pammach. & Ocean. Hierome said to one in his time: cur proffers in medium, saith he, quod Petrus & Paulus edere noluerunt? why do they produce articles of faith unknown to the apostles? nay why do they teach us points of religion, which in times of the ancient fathers of the church were unheard of? will they have that accounted old, which the fathers of the church, which were long after the apostles never knew, nor the ancient church ever received? they would so. d Contra. haeres. c. 35. but Vincentius Lirinensis doth call him a true catholic, that doth only believe and hold, whatsoever the ancient catholic church did universally believe. quicquid saith he, universaliter antiquitus ecclesiam catholicam tenuisse cognoverit, id solum sibi tenendum, credendumque decernit. if then the papists will hold all the religion, which now they profess, their religion will never prove ancient, nor catholic. not ancient, for that divers doctrines and traditions which they hold, are new, and unheard of in the ancient catholic church. argument 1 First they teach us, that the holy canonical scriptures are no perfect canon of our faith. for this doctrine is gathered out of the decree of the council of Trent, that with equal affection embraceth unwritten traditions, and canonical scriptures. e Lib. 4. de verbo Dei c. 12. Bellarmine saith, that scriptures are a part of the canon, or rule of faith, and not a whole rule. dico secundò saith he, scripturam, etsi non sit facta praecipuè, ut sit regula fidei, esse tamen regulam fidei non totalem, sed partialem. f De doctrine. princip. li. 7. c. 1. Stapleton beside scriptures frameth a new rule, which he calleth the order of tradition. but this doctrine is new, and contrary both to scriptures and fathers. The g 2. Tim. 3. apostle he teacheth us, that the scriptures are able to make the man of God perfect, and furnished for every good work. he teacheth us also, that they are able, to make us wise to salvation. likewise the fathers testify, that the scriptures are a perfect canon. sufficiunt sanctae, ac divinitus inspitatae scripturae saith h Lib. contr. idola. Athanasius, ad veritatis indicationem. Basil in serm. de fid. confess. saith, it is an argument of infidelity and pride, either to reject scriptures, or to bring in matter not contained in scriptures: he meaneth in questions of faith. cum habeamus omnium exactissimam trutinam, gnomonem & regulam, divinarum legum assertionem, saith, i In 2. ad Corinth. homil. 13. Chrysostome, oro vos omnes, ut relinquatis quid huic, vel illi videatur, & de his a scriptures haec omnia inquirite. Tertullian writing against Hermogenes saith, that he adoreth the fullness of scriptures. And saint k Lib. 2. de doctr. Christian. c. 9 Augustine teacheth, that all things concerning faith and manners, are found in scriptures clearly propounded. to conclude this point, most derogatory it were to God's divine wisdom, if any man should suppose the scripture to be an imperfect canon, or half a rule, or maimed doctrine, as the papists lately have begun to teach. argument 2 They have made the books of Tobia, judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Machabeies, and such fragments of books, as are in the old Latin interpreter, and not in Hebrew, equal to the books of Moses and other prophets, and to the writings also of the apostles. this is the determination of the council of Trent, and the common doctrine now of the jebusites and papists: but new, and no way approved by the ancient church. for these books were never allowed by any prophets, or by the church of God before Christ's time. nor did the ancient fathers allow them. Gregory in his morals lib. 19 c. 16. directly affirmeth the books of Machabeiss not to be canonical. sicut ergo judith & Tobiae, & Machabaeorum libros legit quidem ecclesia saith l In Proverb. Solomon. Hierome, sed eos inter canonicas scripturas non recipit. he saith m In praefat. in lib. paralip. also where controversy is concerning Apocryphal writings, we must have recourse to the Hebrews. neither doth Augustine so make them canonical, as he reputeth them equal to other scriptures, as appeareth by his words lib. 18. the civit. dei. c. 36. & conrra Gaudent. lib. 2. c. 23. nay Sixtus Senensis, albeit he make all these books canonical; yet doth he not give to all equal authority. let us therefore see any ancient writer, that alloweth the decree of the council of Trent, if the papists will not have all men see, that they have innovated the very canon of the Christian faith. argument 3 They have also made the old Latin translation authentical contrary not only to reason, seeing it differeth not only from the original books, but also is contrary to itself, as may appear by the editions of Sixtus Quintus and Clement the 8. but also to antiquity, which, as appeareth by the testimony of Hierome and Augustine always preferred the original books in matter of difference before translations. argument 4 Concerning the interpretation of scriptures the conventicle of Trent n Sess. 4. determineth that no man shall interpret them against that sense and meaning which the holy mother church holdeth, to whom it belongeth to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of scriptures. end by the church they understand the the pope and church of Rome. but this act is altogether new. for we do not find, that ever the eastern, or African churches were forbidden to interpret scriptures, as well as the church of Rome: or that the fathers of the church were tied to expound scriptures after the opinions of the bishop of Rome. nay we find, that no interpretations are more absurd than theirs, or more contrary to the meaning of the holy ghost. as for example may appear in these two points. In the law of Moses we are expressly forbidden to make graven images to worship them. but the church of Rome interpreteth these words so gallantly, that men may both make graven images, and worship them. our saviour Christ saith, bibiten ex hoc omnes; but the Romanistes turn it contrary, and will have no communicantes to drink of the Lords cup, but the priest only. argument 5 In time past o Dist. 15. c. sancta Romana. Christians were forbidden to read the legends of Quiricus & julitta, and George, the 8. books of Clement, the acts of Tecla and Paul, the book of the assumption of the virgin Mary and such like. The acts also of Siluestre bishop of Rome, and writings concerning the invention of the holy cross, and of the head of Saint john Baptist, were doubted of. but now these legends for the most part are the grounds of Romish traditions, which the church of Rome placeth in equal rank with holy canonical scriptures. is it not then apparent, that the very grounds of Romish traditions are laid upon fables, and of late invention? argument 6 The foundation of the ancient apostolic faith was laid upon the scriptures, as is evident, for that the city and church of God is built upon the prophets and apostles, Christ jesus being the corner stone. p Lib. 3. adverse. haeres. c. 1. jeremy saith, that the apostles first preached the gospel, and afterward by the will of God delivered the same in scriptures, that they might be a foundation, and pillar of our faith. but now Bellar. teachech us, that the pope is the foundation of the church. and Stapleton doubteth not to q De doctr. princip. in praefat. say, that the pope is the chief subject of ecclesiastical authority. and r Cancanonicis. dist. 19 Gratian like a shameless fellow under the name of Saint Augustine doubteth not to reckon the pope's decretal epistles among the canonical scriptures. argument 7 Stapleton layeth 7. principles or grounds of Christian doctrine, s Lib. 1. doct. princip. c. 1. whereof the first concerneth the church of Rome. the second concerneth the pope. the third the means that the pope useth in judgement. the fourth, the pope's infallible judgement. the fift, his power in taxing the canon. the sixth, his certain interpretation of scriptures. the seventh his power in delivering doctrine not written. Which principles are not only new, but the most rascal devices, that ever proceeded out of the mouth of a divine, or man of learning. for among all these principles neither the scriptures, nor ancient rules of faith are numbered. nay in plain terms he doubteth not to affirm, that Christian religion is built upon the pope's authority. in hac docentis hominis authoritate, saith t In praefat. ante relect. princip. doctrinal. he, in qua deum loquentem audimus, religionis nostrae cognoscendae fundamentum necessario poni credimus. but if this be the foundation of popish religion: then before Stapletons' time that religion had no foundation. for no man ever heard of either such principles, or such a foundation so laid. argument 8 We find, that the religion of papists concerning the mass and transubstantiation, and divers other points of faith is founded upon the decretales of pope's. but these decretales were not collected into form, nor established for law before Gregory the 9 Boniface the 8. Clement the 5. and john the 22. by whose authority, as appeareth by the several prefaces of Gregory the 9 Boniface the 8. and john bishop of Rome, that published the Clementines. secondly it appeareth, for that in all these books there is but very few constitutions of ancient bishops of Rome. thirdly, for that by the laws of the Code and canons of counsels it appeareth, that the church for above a thousand years was governed by the laws of Emperors, and general counsels. four, for that Aeneas Silvius confesseth, that before the council of Nice the church of Rome was not respected. and finally, for that he, that maketh the collection of the Pope's laws, and Bulls, that were authentical, u In Bullari●. beginneth with Gregory the 7. that was a thousand years after Christ: which he would not have done, if he could have found any laws more ancient, than his. Indeed I confess, that now and then our adversaries produce the decretales of Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus and others. but the matters contained in those epistles, and the style doth so much differ from those times, that every modest and learned papist is ashamed to say these epistles were those, whose names they carry. argument 9 The power and authority likewise of pope's in receiving appeals, granting rescripts aswell of favour, or justice, dispensing in cases reserved, electing and translating of prelate's, and all other matters, dependeth upon the decretals of late pope's. and this appeareth not only by the decretals of Gregory the 9 Boniface the 8. Clement the 5. and john the 22. but also by the rhapsody of decrees, which Surius collecteth in his first tome of counsels. for albeit he allegeth the names of Anacletus, Zepherinus, Calixtus, Fabianus and others; yet they speak only great words, and use general terms. for the particulars of the pope's authority he can not allege them, albeit such counterfeit and riff-raff stuff would advantage him nothing, if they were truly alleged. argument 10 The foundation of the ancient church is strong, being built upon the doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles, our Saviour Christ being the chief corner stone. but the church of Rome's foundation, being laid on the pope and his decretales, is weak, and not durable. Videtur nostra ecclesia, saith x Lib. 5. de provident. Dei. Saluianus, ex una scriptura foelicius-instituta. aliae habent illam aut debilem, aut convulneratam. habent veterem magistrorum traditionem corruptam, & per hoc traditionem potius, quàm scripturam habent. the foundation therefore of papistical religion, is both new and weak, being grounded upon men both subject to errors, and other gross sins. argument 11 Scriptures in the apostles times and long after, were never forbidden to be translated into tongues, that could not be understood of the vulgar sort. but now the papists suffer them not to be so translated, y Index libr. prohib. reg. 4. that every man may use them. Cum experimento manifestum sit, z Ibidem. say they, si sacra biblia vulgari lingua passim sine discrimine permittantur, plus inde ob hominum temeritatem detrimenti, quam utilitatis oriri. they punish also both the bookesellers, and the readers, that have vulgar bibles without licence, albeit translated by themselves. argument 12 In ancient time, the governors of the church exhorted Christians to read the scriptures. our Saviour a joan. 5. Christ speaking to the people, exhorted them to search the scriptures. and the Beraeans were b Act. 17. commended for searching the scriptures. S. Paul writing to the Colossians, c Coloss. 3. wished, that the word of God might dwell in them plentifully, in all wisdom. the fathers also teach, that the reading of Scriptures belonged also to lay men. S. Hierome writing upon the third chapter to the Colossians, Hic ostenditur, saith he, verbum Christi non sufficienter, sed abundanter etiam laicos habere debere, & docere se invicem, & monere. and Chrysostome, homil. 9 in epist. ad Coloss. Attend, saith he, as many of you as are secular persons, and govern wife and children, how the apostle doth command you also to read the scriptures above all, and that not lightly and carelessly, but with great diligence. d In Isai. homil. 2. Origen finally wisheth, that all Christians performed that, which is written of searching the scriptures. but the papists have a contrary spirit. speaking of the vulgar bibles translated by their own side, they say thus, Qui absque tali facultate ea legere, e Index libr. prohib. reg. 4. seu habere praesumpserit. they punish also the bookseller's, f Ibidem. that have such books without licence. argument 13 In the times of the ancient fathers, we do not read, that any holy bishop condemned bibles translated into vulgar tongues, or burned them; albeit some errors were contained in the translations. neither did they repute lay men to be heretics and burn them, because they read the scriptures in their mother tongue. but now the papists burn the holy scriptures upon pretence of errors, which notwithstanding they are not able to prove to be errors. they have also burned Christians for reading scriptures, as appeareth by the register of Bishop Longland, in king Henry the 8. his days. g Index libr. prohib. reg. 4. and now they punish both such as read bibles, and such as sell them. argument 14 The ancient fathers of the church believed the church to be catholic. but our papists now believe no church, but the Roman church, and without the Roman church, they will not grant, that any is saved; jumbling catholic and Roman together, as appeareth by the confession of the jebusites of Bordeaux, by Canisius Catechism translated into Spanish by Hierome Campos, bristol 12. motive in the margin, the cardinal of Cusa epist. 5. ad Bohemos. Cochlaeus hist. Hussit. lib. 11. argument 15 The papists also, to fit their new fantasies, have coined a new definition of the church. h De eccles. milit. c. 2. Bellarmine defineth the church to be a company of men conjoined in one profession of faith, and communion of sacraments, under the government of lawful pastors, and especially of the bishop of Rome. which definition is neither to be showed in any authentical writer, nor proved by any good argument. for neither is it sufficient to profess the faith outwardly, and to communicate in sacraments, and to live in subjection under lawful pastors, to make a man a true member of the catholic church; nor can it be showed, that all christians have ever lived in subjection of Romish bishops. not that, for that most wicked persons, and atheists, and heretics, may make an external profession of their faith, and receive the sacraments as did judas, and live in outward subjection to their pastors; which notwithstanding the ancient fathers do not acknowledge to be true members of the church. not this, for the Eastern and African churches in time past were never governed by the pope's decretales. If Robert Parsons think otherwise, let him produce three or four decretales of pope's whereto these churches yielded obedience. argument 16 The ancient fathers believed, that the catholic church is a communion of saints, and a multitude of true believers. the first is proved by an article of our creed: and so proved, that it may appear, that the fathers accounted no licentious livers true members of the church. Non ideo putandi sunt mali, saith S. i Lib. 2. contr. lit. petil. c. vlt. Augustine, esse in Christi corpore, quod est ecclesia, quia sacramentorum eius corporaliter participes sunt. the second is proved, for that faith is the life of Christians. Ecclesia est domus Dei saith k In Psal. 51. Hilary, & omnes evangelicae fidei sectatores. likewise l Lib. 1. de sacrament. Ambrose saith, that the first thing that is required in a Christian, is faith. and both these points I have at large proved against m Lib. de eccles. part. vat. & sedec. 6. & 7. Bellarmine. but the papists, if any credit be to be given to n Lib. de eccles. mi●it. c. 2. Bellarmine, do hold, that a man may be a part and true member of the true church, albeit he have neither faith, nor charity, nor any inward virtue. so that by his confession, the Romish church may consist of infidels, atheists, sodomites, and abominable persons. argument 17 The ancient church was wont to reverence the apostles canons. but the late Romish church doth not much regard them, as is apparent by the the 5.9. and 31. canons, which are not now observed. Ex 84. apostolicis canonibus, saith o Lib. 5. de sacror. hom. continent. c. 105. Michael Medina, quos Clemens Romanus pontifex, & eorundem apostolorum discipulus in unum coegit, vix sex aut octo Latina ecclesia nunc observat. likewise Martin Perez, de tradit. part. 3. c. de autorit. can. apost. saith, that many things are contained in the apostles canons, which through the corruptions of times are not fully observed. argument 18 The ancient church never used to confess their sins to angels, saints, and to the virgin Mary; neither were Christians enjoined in time past to say, Confiteor Deo omnipotenti, beatae Mariae semper virgini, beato Michaeli archangelo, beato joanni Baptistae, sanctis apostolis Petro & Paulo, omnibúsque sanctis, as the papists say in every mass, nay in ancient p In missa Jacobi, Marci, Basilij, Chrysostomi. missals this form is not found. argument 19 Neither did the priest's clerk in ancient time give absolution to the priest, as it is in the missal of Rome. nor say, Misereatur tui omnipotens Deus, & dimissis omnibus peccatis tuis perducat te ad vitam aeternam. for that is nothing else, but to give the keys to boys, and prefer the scholar before the master. argument 20 The confession of faith also set out by q Bulla Pij 4. super forma profess. fidei. Pius the fourth, wherein all that take degrees in schools, or take charge of souls, profess, that they believe, and admit ecclesiastical traditions, and constitutions, and the scriptures according to the Romish sense, the seven sacraments, and the doctrine of the council of Trent concerning original sin, justice of works, the sacrifice of the mass, transubstantiation, and other points there established; is new, and no where to be proved out of the ancient fathers of the church. argument 21 In the rehearsal of the ten commandments the ancient fathers never used to leave out that commandment, that concerneth the making of graven images like to God, and the worshipping of them. But the Romish church knowing itself guilty of the breach of this commandment, in their little catechisms put before the office of the blessed virgin, and divers other r Catechism. de Hieronymode campos. books do leave the same quite out. argument 22 In ancient time Christians believed, that all was sin, that was contrary to the commandments of God. for so they collected of the words of the law, that pronounced all accursed, s Deut. 27. & Galat. 3. that did not abide in all things, t 1. john 5. that are written in the book of the law, to do them. and Saint john saith expressly, that all unrighteousness is sin. and if it were not so, then were the law of God a most imperfect, and uncertain rule. but the u Consur. colon. f. 46. papists of late time affirm, that all that is repugnant to the law is not sin: and that concupiscence is not sin in the regenerate; and finally that it is no sin, not to love God withal our heart, and all our soul. argument 23 Ancient Christians believed, that concupiscence even in the regenerate is sin. for that is prohibited by the law of God, that saith thou shalt not covet. the apostle also doth call concupiscence in himself, being now regenerate, sin. and necessarily it must be so, seeing we are by the x Deut. 6. law of God bound to love God withal our heart, all our soul, all our strength. Saint Hierome, y In Amos 1. saith, that it is sin to think things that are evil, and Saint z Lib. 2. contr. Faust. Manich. c. 27. Augustine teacheth us, that whatsoever is desired, or coveted against the law, is sin. but the late conventicle of Trent decreeth that concupiscence in the regenerate is no sin. argument 24 The apostle james teacheth, that we do all of us sin, and that in divers things. and Saint john saith, that he that saith, he hath no sin, deceiveth himself, and that there is no truth in him. the scriptures also teach us, that even just men offend and fall: neither may we think, that these sins are trifling, and venial, and without breach of charity, but sometimes heavy and against the law of God. but the papists teach contrary, and a Censur. Colon. hold, that the regenerate do not sin. argument 25 The ancient church of Christ taught that the law was a minister of death, and a schoolmaster to Christ. but the b Censur. Colon. f. 22. papists of late teach, that we are justified by the works of the law, and that charity is the formal cause of our justification. argument 26 The apostles and ancient fathers taught, that we are not able to fulfil the law perfectly in this life. no flesh saith the c Galat. 2. apostle is justified by the works of the law. Saint d Adverse. Pelag. lib. 1. Hierome, saith, we are then just, when we confess our sins. Saint e De spirit. & litera. Augustine likewise teacheth us, that we shall then perform the law of God withal our soul, and withal our heart, when we shall see God face to face. but the papists of late do teach, that we are able to perform the whole law of God perfectly, and not that only, but also that we are able to do works of supererogation, and more than is commanded in the law. argument 27 In old time Christians never could believe, that justice consisted in the observance of holidays, and abstinence from flesh, and such like ceremonies, but that is a principal point of popery now, to believe that men are no less justified by observance of the pope's commandments, then of the law of God, and to God's law the papists adjoin the precepts of the Romish church. argument 28 Papists also account it mortal sin, to believe, or do against the pope's laws, as appeareth by the enchiridion of Navarrus throughout but he that should go about to prove that doctrine to be received by the ancient fathers, should be much puzzeled. argument 29 Ancient catholics believed, that original sin passed over all, and f Rom. 5. that through the offence of one all men were subject to condemnation. but the papists g Decret. Sixti 4. & sess. 5. council. Trid. exempt the virgin Mary from this sin, and commonly teach that Hieremy, and Saint john Baptist were sanctified from this sin in their mother's womb, and by consequent not borne in original sin. argument 30 Saint g Lib. 1. de Orig. animae c. 9 Augustine saith, there is no middle place betwixt the kingdom of heaven and damnation. h Lib. de fide. c. 3. Fulgentius likewise doth plainly affirm, that children dying without baptism, shall sustain endless punishments. i Lib. 8. c. 16. Gregory in his Morals also saith, they shall endure perpetual torments of hell. but the papists make places in the midde-way betwixt the place of joy, and place of pain, and will not grant that such children shall endure sensible pains. argument 31 k Bellar. de purgat. lib. 1. Papists hold, that Christians are able to satisfy, for the temporal penalty of all sins: but contrary to the ancient faith of Christians, who depended wholly upon Christ's satisfaction, and believed that the blood of Christ cleansed them from all sins, and that his sacrifice only was propitiatory for the sins of the whole world. argument 32 Thomas Aquinas and other papists say, that venial sins are done away with holy water, but contrary to antiquity. argument 33 The ancient fathers did not believe, that any rule was more absolute than the Gospel, or that perfection consisted in the rules of Benet of Nursia, Francis, Dominike, Ignatius Loyola and such like fellows, rather than in the doctrine of the Gospel. but the papists say, that the life of monks and friars is a state of perfection, and that their rules do teach perfection; which praise they will not allow to the Gospel. argument 34 The ancient Christians believed the doctrine of Christ jesus, who taught us, l john 3. that he that believeth in him should not perish: and of the m Rom. 5. apostle, that saith, that being justified by faith we have peace with God. but the late papists speak basely of faith, making it a bare assent, and teaching, that the devils and wicked men have true faith: which is not only new, but also strange. for if they have faith, then are they justified. further they should believe remission of sins and eternal life: which I do not think, that our adversaries will grant. argument 35 We do not read before Gregory the 7. his time, that any pope took on him to dispense with subjects oaths of allgeance, or taught, that it was lawful so to do. for his n Lib. 2. regest. & joseph. vestan. deoscul. pedum pontiff. determination it seemeth to be, quod papa à fidelitate subiectos possit absoluere. but since that the pope's have taught this doctrine, and Pius the fift that lousy companion not only discharged her majesties subjects from their obedience, but o Bulla Pij 5. contra Elizab. threatened excommunication against such, as would still obey her. argument 36 The apostles and ancient bishops of Rome did never canonize saints▪ but now pope's do not only canonize saints very impudently, but also hire their proctor's as impudently to defend it. p Op. Catechist. de 3. precept. c. 11. Canisius teacheth, that under the commandment of sanctifying the Sabaoth is contained the observation of holidays, and feasts of Saints. and no doubt but he meaneth all the feasts of saints, whom the pope hath canonised. argument 37 The precepts of the Romish church, as they are called, are but new devices. for first if we seek all antiquity, we shall not find where the church of Christ hath commanded us to keep this pope's day, or that pope's day, this saints day, or that saints day, and that it is sin to work upon holy days dedicated to saint Dominike, saint Francis, or other such like good fellows days. secondly, Christ's church never enjoined Christians to hear popish masses, and such like idolatrous service. for how could the ancient church enjoin men to hear that, which of late only was coined? nay contrariwise the q Can. apost. 9 & 10. ancient church forbade Christians to departed from the church, before they had received the communion: which quite overthroweth private masses. thirdly it is not to be proved, that the ancient church commanded Christians to fast lent by abstaining from flesh and white meats after the Romish fashion, or, to abstain from meat the imber days, or vigiles of saints. for saint r Epist. 86. ad Casulanum. Augustine directly affirmeth, that the apostles never made law concerning fasting. and when Christians observed lent, they were not forced either to abstain from flesh, or to fast every sunday in lent, nor were permitted to drink wine, and eat all sweet meats and dainties on their fasting days. four we find not, that in the ancient church, men were commanded to come to auricular confession once every year at the least. for that was first decreed by Innocent the third, as appeareth by the chapter, omnis utriusque. de poenit. & remiss. finally the ancient church did not forbid Christians to solemnize marriages, as of late time the Romish church hath done in regard of holiness of times, and for that married men cannot so well serve God, as those that forswear them. such human doctrines therefore our Saviour Christ condemneth, and such voluntary worships the holy apostle misliketh. neither can such additions of human precepts binding men's conscience stand either with the liberty of Christians, or perfection of god's law. argument 38 The doctrine of purgatory for satisfaction to be made for temporal punishments due for mortal sins, which the papists do hold, was not known in ancient time. Augustine maketh a question, whether any purgatory is after this life, and Gregory the dialogist seemeth to grant, that small sins are purged after this life. but that men do satisfy for temporal punishments in purgatory, neither of them doth once affirm. neither was any such thing known or taught before the conventicles of Florence and Trent, the first founders of this device in the church. argument 39 The solemnity of the year of jubiley amongst Christians was first ordained by Boniface the 8. and afterward altered by Clement the 5. and last of all brought to 25. years by Paul the second, but not borrowed from Christians, but either from the heathen, that every hundred years had solemn plays called judos seculares, to which these plays and pageants of Romish indulgences may well be resembled, or from the jews, that every fifty years celebrated a jubiley, and now agreeing neither with jews, Gentiles, nor ancient Christians. the pope's also, when they please grant extraordinary jubileys, and as great pardons, as are granted the very year of jubiley. argument 41 That the pope's indulgences depend upon late laws, and authority without proof out of scriptures, or fathers, it appeareth by the defences made by the principal patrons of indulgences. those also, that are not altogether past shame confess so much. s Art. 18. adverse. assert. Luther. Fisher sometime bishop of Rochester saith, that before purgatory was feared, no man sought for indulgences. he confesseth also, that in the beginning of the church there was no use of them. quamdiu saith he, nulla fuerat de purgatorio cura, nemo quaesivit indulgentias. and again, in initio nascentis ecclesiae nullus fuerat earum usus. as for indulgences for not only hundreds but also thousands of years, neither Bellarmine nor Parsons can allege either good proof, or ancient precedent. argument 42 The tax of the pope's chancery for the dispatch of pardons for murders, parricides, rapes, adulteries, incests, sodomitry, yea apostasy and jewish and Turkish blasphemies, I do not think, that the most shameless jebusite in the whole order will avow to be ancient. argument 43 Scholastical divinity, which is nothing else, but a mixture of father's authorities, philosophical subtleties, and pope's decretals, began but from Peter Lombard, some eleven hundred and odd years after Christ. how then can the Romish faith, that relieth wholly upon this divinity be accounted ancient? argument 44 t Lib. 1. de verb. dei. c. 3. Bellarmine saith, that the new testament is nothing else, but the love of God shed into our hearts by the holy Ghost. which argueth, that the Gospel and new Testament of papists, is a new Gospel differing much from that of Christ jesus. for Christ's Testament was established in his blood, and is a covenant concerning remission of sins most especially. but charity is wrought by the holy Ghost in those, that are already reconciled by the blood of the new Testament. Chrysostome, Theodoret, and others, writing upon the second epistle to the Corinthians, chap. 3. say, that the spirit quickening is the grace of God, that remitteth our sins. and that charity is not the new testament, it is most evident, for that then Christ had died in vain, and then we might have had the new testament established by the law, that requireth charity, and not by the testament in Christ his blood, which is a declaration of Christ his satisfaction and remission of sins. argument 45 The same u Lib. 2. de pontiff. Rom. c. 12. man teacheth us, that it is a matter of faith to believe, that the pope hath succeeded Peter in the government of the universal church. but this is new, and never heard of in the ancient church of Christ. is it not then a new Christian faith, which these new upstart jebusites defend? argument 46 That there are just seven sacraments, and neither more nor less, albeit the same was talked of in the instruction of the Armenians in the conventicle of Florence, yet it seemeth to be first established by the conspirators of x Sess. 7. Trent. for neither can Bellarmine, nor any of that faction show any authentical law of greater antiquity for the joint, and just number of sacraments, than the authority of the instruction of the Armenians, delivered in the name of the council of Florence, and the conventicle of Trent. is it not then a new religion, that hath so new sacraments? argument 47 The papists also teach us, that the sacraments contain grace, and do justify those, that are partakers of them. but since the world began it was never heard of, till of late idle monks and friars began to resolve it, that Christians were justified by orders, confirmation, matrimony and extreme unction. let Bellarmine or any papist, if he can, prove, that men are justified by these sacraments. if he cannot, then can it not be denied, but as the papists devise new means of justification, so they devise us a new religion. argument 48 That the forms of confirmation and extreme unction are new, it appeareth by the decrees of the Trent council and instruction of the Armenians fathered on the council of Florence. if any deny this, he must show, where these words, signo te signo crucis, & confirmo te chrismate salutis: were received by any authority before; and where the words and greasings of divers parts of the body used in extreme unction were established by the church. Wherein to avoid cavilles, I would have Robert Parsons, and his seditious brood of rebels to mark, that I deny not, but that idle schoolmen might prate of such matters before. but I say, the same was not before those times confirmed by law, nor generally received. would he please to try his strength in demonstrating the contrary, he should soon be forced to confess, that I say true. argument 49 That spiritual gossips may not intermary, and that such marriages being once contracted should be of no force, is also a new doctrine flowing from the stinking sink of popery. argument 50 It is also new doctrine, that man and wife by consent may departed asunder, and enter into monastical religion, and that marriages contracted may be dissolved by putting on a monks or friars cowl, and lastly, that children may abandon their parents, and follow jebusites, and other monks and firiers, where under pretence of religion they commit all abomination, and serve for bardassaes, and Ganymedes to this new race of sodomites. that this doctrine is new, it appeareth by Bellarmine's weak dispute of monks, and in my treatise against the stinking orders of friars and monks: which because Cardinal Bellarmine is not now at laisure to answer, I would pray Robert Parsons, because he taketh on him to be learned, or some other of his scholars, to undertake to refute. argument 51 The apostles and ancient fathers did neither use candle, salt nor spittle, nor that manner of blowing, nor greasing, that the papists now use in baptism. and that a man may see without a candle, and shall be proved godwilling hereafter, when I come to gripe my adversary, that taketh exception to this point. argument 52 The ancient church of Christ was never wont to conjure salt & water, nor to say y In missal. Rom. c. benedict. diversae. exorizo te creatura salis, etc. ut efficiaris sal exorcizatum in salutem credentium, & sis omnibus sumentibus te sanitas animae & corporis. neither did Christians in times past pray, that holy water might serve to cast out devils, to drive away diseases, and to cleanse men's houses from unclean spirits, could Robert Parsons be at leisure, and leave dreaming of Cardinal's hats, he might do a great pleasure to show us this conjuration of salt and holy water out of some holy men's writings. argument 53 It is also a mere novelty, if not foolery, that the priest sprincles the altar, and the whole assistance with water, and z Ibidem. saith asperges me domine hyssopo, & mundabor. for the water sprinkle is not made of hyssop, nor is the priest so honest a man as David, nor can drops of water cleanse his faults. argument 54 It is also in Christian religion a novelty to consecrate the flesh of paschal lambs, and cannot be proved to have been long practised in the Romish church. but now since the priests of Baal are proved sheep stealers, they to satisfy the owner's losses consecrate the flesh of lambs. argument 55 The a In ordinar. missae. blessing also of incense by the intercession of Michael the archangel, as the papists use it in their mass, savoureth not only of superstition, but also of novelty. argument 56 The swinging also of the chalice, and host about the priest's head, and crossing of all sides of both, as it is in the missal of Sarum, and partly in the Romish missal, is both superstitious and new. argument 57 The ancient fathers never taught, that either the body and blood of Christ were really under the accidents of bread and wine, or that the accidents of bread and wine did subsist without a subject. for that was first decreed in the council of Constance, though idly talked of before. argument 58 Neither did they ever imagine that a dog, or a hog, or a mouse swallowing a consecrate host, did also swallow Christ jesus God and man, and his very body, as some of the schoolmen teach. for that were not only to cast precious stones before hogs, but to blaspheme the most holy name of jesus: and to bring Christian religion into contempt, argument 59 They never believed, that Christ's true body was invisible, and impalpable. for well they remembered Christ's words to his disciples; Videte & palpate. but how can this be truly said, if as the papists teach, he were in the sacrament invisible and impalble? argument 60 In the father's writings we never read, where this word species doth signify lightness, roundness, smoothness, hardness, sweetness, relish and all other accidents of the sacramental signs, as the papists believe and teach. argument 61 The doctrine of Transubstantiation was first established by b C. firmiter. de sum. trenit. & fide cath. Innocent the third and his consorts, about the year of our Lord 1212. this mystery therefore of transubstantiation is not so ancient. argument 62 The ancient fathers did never believe, that every mass-priest did work three several miracles, as oft as he did consecrate, as the authors of the Tridentine catechism do teach. argument 63 Nor did they believe, that the same human body was in heaven, in earth, and every altar, all at one time, as our papists, that are more corporal than spiritual, teach. argument 64 In the ancient church, those that received the sacrament of the Lords body, received also the cup. neither is the prohibition of the cup more ancient than the wicked council of Constance. argument 65 Then also the priest never received alone, nor did Christians look on, while the priest ate and drank all. for this was contrary to Christ's institution, and the nature of the sacrament, that was instituted for a c 1. Cor. 10. sign of our mutual conjunction one with another. and the contrary custom is refuted by all ancient liturgies. but now the priest eateth and drinketh all alone by himself: and the rest depart fasting, or at the least without the sacrament of the cup. argument 66 In ancient time, the Lords supper was accounted no sacrifice for quick and dead, but a holy sacrament, wherein a memorial of Christ's sacrifice on the cross is celebrated, as S. Augustine teacheth, and I have showed at large in my treatise De missa against Bellarmine. but now, as if Christ had not said, take, eat, drink, they offer it for those, that can neither take, nor eat, nor drink. argument 67 The ancient church had no several masses for war, for peace, for bridegrooms, for mariners, for hogs, for the plague, and for all times and occasions, as now the d Missal. Rom. Paris. & Sarum. Romanists have. argument 68 There were no masses in the primitive church made in honour of saints, of angels, of the virgin Mary. nay in the old formulary of the church of Rome some seven hundred or eight hundred years agone, there are no masses of this new cut. argument 69 The parts of the mass were framed piecemeal, long after the age of the learned fathers of the church, as I have proved in my fift book De missa, against Bellarmine, which I recommend to Robert Parsons for a cordial, or a scarlet stomacher, to warm himself withal, requesting him to shape us an answer. argument 70 The sacrament of the Lords supper in old time was never administered in a tongue not understood. for that is the late pleasure of the trenchant fathers of Trent. argument 71 The ancient fathers never prayed to our Lady after the new Romish fashion, nor said, Sancta Maria ora pro nobis, & nunc & in hora mortis. nor thought it lawful to say, e Breviar. Rom. & office beatae Mariae. Maria matter gratiae, matter misericordiae tu nos ab host besiege, & hora mortis suscipe. argument 72 Neither did Christians in old time chant such Litanies, as now are usual in the Romish missals and breviaries, saying, Sancte Michael, sancte Gabriel, sancte Raphael; nor sancta Maria Magdalena, sancta Agnes, sancta Agatha; nor omnes sancti & sanctae intercedite pro nobis. argument 73 In ancient f Vid. ordinem Rom. missals, the prayer, memento, for the dead, is not in the canon. the ancient fathers did never use such a form. argument 74 In ancient time it would have been thought very strange, to pray in a tongue not understood: especially when the apostle g 1. Cor. 14. teacheth us, that it profiteth nothing. argument 75 The psalter of our lady, and her peculiar offices, are not to be justified by ancient precedents. argument 76 If any had been taken praying to a stock or stone, he would have been condemned for an idolater. but now papists commonly pray to images of wood and stone, and to the cross they say, auge pijs justitiam, reisque dona veniam: which although it may be thought sottish and senseless, yet will they not have it counted idolatrous. argument 77 Christ forbade us to use battologies, or often repetitions in our prayers. but the papists neither regarding his doctrine, nor the practice of the ancient church, in their psalter of jesus repeat the name of jesus infinite times. they rehearse also infinite ave Maria's and Pater Nosters. argument 78 In the Missale of Salisbury, the priest saith to the sacrament Aue. he boweth also to it, contrary to the ancient churches practise. argument 79 The Rosaries and beads of our lady containing 63. ave Maria's and 7. Pater Nosters, which are now much reckoned of in Spain and Italy, as appeareth by the manual of Geronymo Campos are but new tricks of late pope's, and superstitious priests to catch money. argument 80 In time past Christians were wont to entomb holy martyrs, and to call upon God at their tombs, and monuments. But of late time the blind papists have digged the saints out of their graves, and think it religion to call upon them, and to kiss rotten bones, and rags, yea sometimes which belong not to the saints, to whom they are attributed. argument 81 The papists also worship wicked men, as George of Cappadocia an Arrian heretic, Thomas Becket an impure fellow, and a traitor to his country, h La fulminante. jeames Clement the murderer of his liege sovereign, Campian and Sherwin, and such as died in England for notorious treasons. argument 82 Neither are they ashamed to call the sacrament their lord and god, as appeareth by the words of Alane in his treatise de sacrific. euchar c. 41. and Bristol in his 26. motive: which they cannot justify by testimony of antiquity. argument 83 They also worship the sacrament with divine honour, as if God, and the sacrament were one person. the priest after consecration doth adore it, as it is in the rubric of the i Missal. Rom. missal, and boweth his knee unto it. they hang the sacrament upon the altar with light before it, and carry it about with lights, and bells, and great solemnity. all which Robert Parsons will not prove to be practised by the ancient church of Christ. nay when he goeth about it, he shall find that the principal authors of this idolatry were Honorius the 3. Urban the 4. and Clement the fift men of late time and lewd stamp. argument 84 To the cross they say, o crux ave spes unica: and, venite adoremus, as is proved by the Romish portesse sabbat. in hebd, 4. quadrages. and book of ceremonies and pontifical, in die parasc. neither are they ashamed to confess, that latria, or divine worship is due to the cross; albeit all antiquity abhorred such gross idolatry. argument 85 They worship the images of god the father, of god the son, and god the holy ghost, and the whole trinity with latria, or divine worship, as may be gathered by their practice, by the decree of the conventicle of Trent, the 25. session, by the testimony of Suares in 3. part. Thom. tom. 1. disp. 54. sect. 4. and of vellosillus in advertent. in. 5. tom. Hieronym. ad 10. quae sit. which the ancient fathers never did. nay the idolatrous second council of Nice, allowed not this supreme worship of Latria to be due to any images. argument 86 Gregory the first in a certain epistle to Serenus, declareth, that albeit images are not to be broken down and utterly abolished out of churches; yet they are not to be worshipped. Epiphanius utterly condemneth the having of them in churches. and to that effect the council of Eliberis in Spain made a solemn k Can. 36 act. Placuit say the fathers of that council, picturas in ecclesia esse non debere, ne quod colitur, aut adoratur in parietibus depingatur. but now the papists not only place them in churches, but also adore them and worship them. argument 87 Antiquity never burned incense to images, nor kissed them, nor bowed down to them, nor said their prayers before them. for that is repugnant to the second commandment, and is derogatory to God's honour. but the papists now do all this, and think it piously done also. argument 87 In ancient time Christians served God in spirit and truth according to the saying of our saviour john 4. but the religion of papists consisteth in eating of red herrings and salt fish, in abstinence from flesh and white meats, in knocking, kneeling, greasing shaving, washing, ducking, crouching, crossing and such like outward ceremonies. argument 88 The ancient fathers did never take the bishop of Rome to be head, or foundation of the church. for well they remembered, that our Saviour Christ is the head of the church, and Saviour of his body: and l 1. Cor. 3. that no man can lay other foundation, then that which is laid, which is Christ jesus. and that the church is built upon the apostles and prophets, Christ jesus being the corner stone: but upon apostles and prophets because they preach unto us Christ jesus. but the papists now teach, that the pope is both the foundation and the head of the church. for that doth Bellarmine teach in his preface before his books de Pontifice Rom. and in the second book chap. 31. of that treatise. neither do I think that any papists will deny it. argument 89 Neither did they call the pope in ancient time the spouse of the church. for that doth only belong to Christ. adiunxi vos uni viro saith the apostle, 2. Corinth. 10. ad exhibendam virginem castam Christo. but the papists m C. ubi periculum. de elect. in sexto. do not stick to call the pope the spouse of the church. and Bellarmine of his liberality doth give the pope that title, lib. 2. de Pontif. Rom. c. 31. and the pope like a good fellow taketh the same to himself. c. quoniam de immunitat. in 6. nos justitiam nostram, saith he, & ecclesiae sponsae nostrae nolentes negligere. argument 90 The ancient fathers never called the pope, universal bishop. for n Lib. 4. ep. 32. Gregory the first doth much mislike that title, and calleth it sacrilegious, and profane. and a certain council of Africa cited by Gratiam, dist. 99 c. primaesedis. importeth, that the bishop of Rome should not be called universal. but now every lousy friar made pope will be called universal bishop, and the papists dare not deny him this title. argument 91 Ancient Christians never called the pope god, nor supremum numen in terris. but the canonists do not stick to call him, and honour him as God, as appeareth by the chapter satis. dist. 96. and by Augustine Steuchus in lib. de donat. Constantini. and Stapleton in his epistle dedicatory before his book entitled doctrinalia principia, calleth him supremum numen in terris, that is the sovereign god of the world. argument 92 In ancient time the church was governed by the laws of counsels, and Christian emperors, as appeareth by the acts of counsels, and laws of justinian's Code. it appeareth also, that in the time of Charles the great, and his sons, the church was governed for external matters by laws of princes. but now the pope's exclude both emperors, kings and princes, and take on them the sole government of the universal church. argument 93 In the council of Constance it was holden, that the council was above the pope. the same also appeareth, for that divers pope's have answered, and some have been deposed by counsels. but now the papists hold contrary, and say, that the pope is above the council. neither do they allow any counsels, to be authentical, but such as are called and confirmed by the pope. argument 94 The apostles & their successors were subject to emperors & princes, and paid tribute unto them. the apostle S. Paul taught all bishops and priests to be subject to higher powers. but now they hold, that the pope is above all princes and kings whatsoever. Papa est dominus dominantium saith o In c. ecclesia. ut lite pendente. Baldus, & ius regis regum habet in suos subditos. and p De pontific. Rom. lib. 5. Bellarmine holdeth, that the pope hath power to depose kings, and to take their crowns from them. argument 95 The apostles and their successors in ancient time exhorted subjects to obedience. now the pope's of late have exhorted subjects to rebellion, as appeareth by their execrable bulls against Henry the 8. king of England, and his daughter Elizabeth now reigning. against Henry the 3. of France, and against divers emperors. argument 96 In ancient time bishops spoke reverently of kings and princes, and in the q C. 83. canons of the apostles the censure of deposition is inflicted upon such of the clergy, as utter words of reproach against princes. but now the pope's rail against princes, as is evident by their wicked bulls, and when railing will not serve, by assassins, and murderers hired and aposted they seek to cut their throats. as appeareth by the fact of james Clement, that murdered Henry the 3. Chastell that assaulted Henry the 4. of France, and divers assassins hired to kill our noble Queen. argument 97 Before Gregory the firsts time, the pope's made no bishops either in England or France, or Germany, or Africa, or Asia, but all nations and provinces were free from his usurpations. neither did any bishops swear fealty to the pope. but now all this is quite changed. and the pope claimeth a general power to ordain bishops over the world, and maketh them r C. ego N. de iurtiurando. swear fealty unto him, as to their sovereign. argument 98 In S. Cyprians and Augustine's time, the bishops of Africa would suffer no appeals to be made to Rome. now Bellar. disputeth, that it is a point of the pope's right to hear appeals out of all the world. argument 99 Now also the papists make the pope supreme judge in all causes, and controversies of faith. but the ancient church n●uer imagined, that such matters could be decided without a council. argument 100 The pope now s C. unam. extr. de maior. & obed. challengeth both swords. but our Saviour Christ taught, that his kingdom was not of this world: and the apostle Paul said, that the weapons of his warfare were not carnal. The ancient bishops of Rome certes never used swords, nor soldiers, but sincerely taught the Gospel. argument 101 Until Boniface the ninth his time, the city of Rome was either under the emperors, or under her own magistrates, as s Lib. 2. de schism. Theodoric à Niem testifieth. is it not then strange, that the emperor will suffer his imperial state, and empire to be holden from him, which is so lately usurped, and by fraud intercepted by the pope? argument 102 It is not long since the pope began to wear a triple crown, and to be borne on men's shoulders, and to tread on princes necks, and to make others to kiss his pantofle. Let Robert Parson's show, that this was done before Gregory the seventh, and Celestine the third. argument 103 Neither is it many hundred years, since the pope challenged annates, and took money of archbishops for their palles. argument 104 The pope's provisions, reservations, translations, and other extraordinary dispensations were unheard of in the ancient church. argument 105 Finally, whether we respect the foundations of popish religion, or the doctrine of the Law and Gospel, or the doctrine and ceremonies concerning sacraments, prayers, and the worship of God, or the government and laws of the pope's chamber, chancery and consistory; we may boldly say, that so much as we reject in this church, is nothing else, but a pack of novelties. CHAP. III. That the papists are no true catholics, nor hold the catholic faith, if they believe the pope's decretals, and his school divinity. IF false teachers, as they secretly broach erroneous doctrine, so would openly manifest their malicious and wicked natures; we should not need so watchfully to look to their proceedings, nor so earnestly to exhort all Christians to beware of their deceits and enticements, but seeing like wolves in sheep's clothing they come abroad with the names of catholics, and catholic religion, and abuse simple people; I think it very necessary to take this mask from their false visages, and to show, that they are wolvish papists, and not Christ's sheep, or true catholics. the which, that we may with all plainness and sincerity perform; we will first declare what is meant by the catholic church, which we profess in our Creed; and next, what is the catholic faith, which every Christian is to embrace, and with all constancy to maintain. The catholic church therefore, is the universal society of God's saints. and it comprehendeth all the faithful from the beginning, unto the end of the world. This catholic church, saith S. a In Psal. 56. Augustine, is spread throughout the world, and containeth not only those, that now live, but those also, that are past, and are yet to come. The catholic faith is the faith of Christ jesus, which the apostles first taught, and which all true Christians both have holden, and do hold, and shall hold to the world's end. In this catholic church, saith b De haeres. c. 3. Vincentius Lirinensis, we are to hold that, which always hath been believed of all Christians. for that is truly and properly catholic. he c De haeres. c. 34. teacheth us also, that the property of catholics is, to keep the doctrine committed to them, and left with them by the ancient fathers, and to avoid profane novelties. finally, he determineth, that those only are truly and rightly called catholics, which only believe and hold that, which the catholic church in old time did universally hold. Saint d De vera relig. c. 5. Augustine doth take catholics to be nothing else, but Christians and true believers, which maintain the sincere faith, and follow that which is right. Apud eos solos, saith he, quaerenda est religio, qui Christiani, catholici, vel orthodoxi nominantur. he doth also oppose catholics against heretics. e Epist. 81. ad monach. palaest. & epist. 95. Leo saith also, that there is one true, only, perfect, and inviolable faith, whereto nothing can be added, and from which nothing can be taken. If then the papists be heretics, and no true believers, then are they no catholics. if they hold a faith grounded upon private opinions of men, and not always nor universally holden, then do they not hold the catholic faith. but that they hold divers heresies and false opinions, shall be showed in the chapter following. that they hold many new points altogether unknown in ancient time, and when the Gospel began first to be preached, we have already proved and demonstrated in the last discourse. f That papists hold points of doctrine not catholic. It resteth then now, that I here declare, that the papists maintain divers points of doctrine never generally holden of all Christians, nor universally taught in the church of Christ. and that may appear first by the doctrine of the church of Rome concerning the foundations of Christian religion. next, by the doctrine of that church, that concerneth both the law and the Gospel. thirdly, by the faith of the Romish church, concerning the sacraments. four, by their faith concerning prayer and the whole service of God. fifthly, by their doctrine concerning repentance, ordination of ministers, marriage, alms and fasting. and finally, by their doctrine concerning the church, and the government of it. argument 1 Concerning the foundations of religion, they teach first, that scriptures are an g Bellar. lib. 4. de ver●. Dei. c. 12. unperfect rule of faith, as hath been declared in the chapter going before. and h Bish. of Eureux. some of them have not feared to write books, of the insufficiency of scriptures. but the i 2. Tim. 3. apostle saith, they are able to make the man of God perfect and wise to salvation. and true catholics always held the canonical scriptures to be a perfect rule both for faith and manners. Saint k Lib. 2. de doct. Chr. c. 9 Augustine saith, that all things necessarily belonging to faith or manners, are contained in plain places of scriptures. argument 2 The papists will not allow the scriptures to contain all that word of God, which we are now to follow, for albeit they do not in express terms say so much, yet it is necessarily inferred of their doctrine, where they l Bellar. de verb. Dei. teach, that we have one word of God written, and another unwritten. and m Sess. 4. council. Trid. determine, that we are with equal affection to embrace unwritten traditions, and the holy scriptures. but the catholic church never taught, that after the writings of the prophets and apostles once perfected and published, we had a word of God unwritten, which is to be placed in equal rank with the holy scriptures. n Adverse. gent. Athanasius saith, that the holy and divine scriptures are sufficient to instruct us in all truth. S. o In Mich. 1. Hierome calleth the scriptures, the limits or bounds of the catholic church. Non est egressa de finibus suis, saith he, id est, de scriptures sanctis. What, saith p Regul. 80. Basil, is the property of a faithful man? forsooth to believe with certine fullness of mind, whatsoever is contained in scriptures, and neither to reject any part thereof, nor to add any new thing unto them. Saint q Lib. de paradis. c. 13. Ambrose saith, we may no more add to God's commandments, than take from them. and S. r In joan. tractat. Augustine, electa sunt quae scriberentur, quae saluti credentium sufficere videbantur. that is, those things are chosen out, and thought fit to be written, which seemed to be sufficient for the salvation of the faithful. and albeit the father's mention traditions, which were sometime unwritten; yet if they were necessary, they signify that now they are written. Si aut in evangelio praecipitur, saith * In epist. ad Pompeium. Cyprian, aut in apostolorum epistolis, aut actibus continetur, obseruetur divina haec, & sancta traditio. he signifieth, that no tradition is to be admitted, unless it be contained in scriptures. argument 3 The papists also teach, that the pope and his See is the foundation of the church. est Petri sedes saith s In praefat. ante lib. de pontiff. Rom. Bellarmine, lapis probatus, angularis, preciosus, in fundamento fundatus. these words also he apply to the pope, whom he calleth Christ's vicar. in another t Lib. 2. depont. Rom. c. 31. place he calleth the Pope, the foundation of the church. and Sanders in his Rock of the church, disputeth that the pope is that rock. is not then the Romish church a weak building, that in every vacation is without foundation, and relieth wholly upon one man? true Catholics certes, never applied the words of Isay ch. 8 & 28. to the pope, nor thought him to be an approved stone, or corner stone, or a precious stone laid in the foundation of the church. the u 1. Cor. 3. apostle teacheth us, that no man can lay any other foundation, then that which is laid, that is Christ jesus. and in another place he x Ephes. 2. saith, that the church and citizens of saints are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, jesus Christ being the chief corner stone. with him also consenteth all the company of true catholics. argument 4 Stapleton in plain terms denieth the scriptures to be the foundation of his religion. aliud hody saith he, y In praefat. ante relect. princip. doctrine. Christianae religionis fundamentum habemus. and afterward, ab ipsis literis evangelicis & apostolicis aliud. the same z In analysi ante relect. princip. doctrine. man entreating of the sure grounds and principles of Christian religion, doth leave the scriptures quite out of the reckoning. but Athanasius in Synopsi, doth call the canonical Scriptures the anchor, and stay of our faith. a Lib. 3. adverse. haeres. c. 1. Irenaeus saith, that the apostles first preached, and afterward delivered the Gospel in Scriptures, that they might be a foundation and pillar of our faith. the church saith b Homil. 6. in Matth. Chrysostome, is Jerusalem, whose foundations are placed upon the mountains of the scriptures. and with them do consent all true catholics, condemning the error of the papists falsely called catholics. argument 5 The papists call the scriptures a kill letter, as appeareth by the Remish annotations upon the 3. chap. of the 2. epistle to the Corinthians. as if God had delivered his will in writing, to the intent to kill them, that read them. they c Annot. Rhemens'. in joan. c. 5. slander them also as if they were dark, and hard to be understood. finally, they disgrace them d Ibidem in c. 4. Matth. saying, that the devil and heretics allege scriptures. others call them a nose of wax, Inken divinity, and matter of strife and contention, and condemn the reading of scriptures, as pernicious and hurtful. but true catholics had always a reverent regard of holy scriptures, as the grounds of faith, and directions of holy life. e Lib. 3. adverse. hares. c 2. Irenaeus saith, that it is the property of heretics, when they are convinced by scriptures, to fall into dislike of them, and to accuse them. the papists therefore in this point are rather heretics, then catholics. argument 6 The papists among canonical scriptures reckon the decretales of pope's. inter canonicas scripturas decretales epistòlae connumerantur, saith the rubric dist. 19 c. in canonicis. and this Gratian goeth about to prove by a place of saint Augustine, which he there falsifieth. this also seemeth by Gregory the 13. to be approved in his edition of the canon law. neither do I think, that any papist will deny, that the pope's decretales in matters of faith are to be received of all men. but ancient catholics never had the decretals in this estimation, nor thought them to be canonical scriptures, or grounds of faith, or infallible, as the papists call them. nay Thomas Aquinas, albeit no catholic f 2. 2. q. 1. art. 1. confesseth, that the ground of Christian faith, is the first truth, or God himself. and not only Cyprian took exceptions against Cornelius, Ireney against Victor, the council of Carthage against Sozimus, but also divers catholics against the decretales of divers pope's. argument 7 The conventicle of g Sess. 4. Trent unto the canon of scriptures of the old testament, hath added not only the books of Tobias, judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus and of the Machabeies, but also such additions, as are found in the old latin translation, albeit they be not found in the original text. and these they place in equal rank, and degree with the books of the prophets, and apostles: which is contrary to the faith of the catholic church, as appeareth by the testimony of Hierome in his preface to the proverbs of Solomon, in his epistle to Paulinus, and in his general prologue before the bible, which he calleth prologum galeatum, of Athanasius in synopsi, of Epiphanius in his book of weights and measures, of Melito, of the council of Laodicea, can 59 of the canons of the apostles. can. 84. and divers others. neither is it material, that Augustine lib. 2. de doctr. christ. c. 8. and a certain council of Carthage do reckon the books of Tobias, judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and the Machabeies among the canonical scriptures. for by canonical scriptures they understand such books, as by order of the church were read publicly, and commonly joined together in one book, and were rather for some part a canon and rule of manners, then of faith. for that may be gathered out of the words of Saint Augustine, and the council, that speak rather of the books, as they were read, then as they were authentical. Ruffian speaking of these books saith, legi volverunt in ecclesiis; non tamen proferri ad authoritatem fidei ex his confirmandam. Augustine also lib. de civit. dei. 18. c. 36. speaking properly of canonical scriptures excludeth the books of the Machabeies, though some churches receive them for canonical. Athanasius in Synopsi accounteth the 3. and 4. of Esdras as canonical as these books. and Sixtus senensis doth not accounpt them equal to the rest of canonical scriptures. finally no one catholic writer can be produced, that alloweth the fragments and additions, that in the old latin interpreter are added to the original text, to be canonical scripture. are the papists then catholics that have no catholic grounds of their faith? argument 8 Papists allow no interpretations of scriptures against that sense, which the church of Rome holdeth, contra eum sensum, h Concil. Trid. sess. 4. quem tenuit, & tenet sancta matter ecclesia. but true catholics never allowed such senses and interpretations, as the church of Rome doth make. as for example the church of Rome believeth, that Christ, when he said to Peter, pasce oves meas: gave power to the pope to depose princes. Again, where God saith to Hieremy, chap. 1. ecce constitui te hody super gentes & regna: Boniface the 8. concludeth, that the pope hath power to judge all earthly princes. and these words, ecce duo gladij hic: he k C. unam sanctam. de maior. & obed. expoundeth so, as if the pope had two swords given to him. the words, deus fecit duo magna luminaria, the pope interpreteth so, as if the pope were meant by thy son and the emperor by the moon, and as if the pope did so far excel the emperor, as the son is greater than the moon. bibite ex hoc omnes, they expound thus, drink not all of this. and these words, scrutamini scripturas, they interpret, as if lay men might not search the scriptures without licence of the inquisitors. infinite such like interpretations the church of Rome hath devised: but all contrary to the expositions of the fathers and the catholic church. argument 9 The conventicle of Trent doth adjudge the old vulgar latin translation of the bible to be authentical, and preferreth it before the original text. but catholics have always preferred the original text before the latin translation. Saint l In Epist. ad Suniam & Fretel. & ad Damasum. Hierome saith, that in the old testament in matters of doubt concerning the translation, we must have recourse to the Hebrew, as to the fountain; and in the new to the Greek. ad exemplaria Hebrea & Graeca à latinis recurratur, saith m Lib. 2. de doctr. Chr. c. 10. Augustine. Hilary also writing upon the 118. psalm confesseth, that the latin translation cannot satisfy the reader. argument 10 The Romanists n C. ad abolendam. de haeret. adjudge all to be heretics, which teach and hold otherwise of the sacraments, than the church of Rome determineth, and holdeth. and commonly they condemn all, that receive not the pope's determinations concerning faith. but catholics make the doctrine of Christ to be the squire of our faith. Our o Matth. 28. Saviour Christ gave his apostles in charge, to teach what he had commanded them. the apostle likewise pronounceth him accursed, that should teach otherwise, than the Galatians had receiveth. So it appeareth, that not those that taught other doctrine, than the bishops of Rome, but such as taught contrary to the apostles doctrine, yea albeit they were bishops of Rome, were condemned and accursed. argument 11 The Romanists do aswell build their faith upon p Council. Trid. sess. 4. unwritten traditions, as the written word of God. so the papists must aswell receive the traditions of the legends as the holy scriptures, & aswell must they believe the wounds of S. Francis, as Christ his passion; and the miracles of S. Dominike, and other brave Romish saints, as the miracles of Christ and his apostles. for these as they hold, are traditions: and the wounds of S. Francis are confirmed by divers decretales of pope's. To this effect writeth q C. sancta. dist. 15. Gelasius, and saith, Gesta sanctorum martyrum recipimus. but true catholics have more certain grounds of their faith, and would be much ashamed to believe such fables. nay, some of the papists have much misliked these fabulous legends, as may appear by the testimony of Dante an Italian poet, Cant. 29. and Laurence Valla in his treatise contra Donationem Constantini. argument 12 The papists allow the legends of S. George, S. Christopher, S. Catherine, Abgarus, of the invention of the cross, of S. john Baptists head, and divers such like, as containing old traditions. but true catholics will not allow any such fables to be read in the church. nay, Gratian himself under the name of r C. Sancta. dist. 15. Gelasius, doth condemn the legend of George, of Cyricus and julitta, Abgarus, of the invention of the cross, and such like. argument 13 Alij nunc à Christo, saith s In praefat. in relect. princip. doctrine. Stapleton, eorúmue doctrina, praedicatio, determinatio fundamenti apud me locum habebunt. that is, others beside Christ, together with their doctrine, preaching and determination, shall be accounted of me, as a foundation. The rest also believing, that the pope's can not err in their determinations concerning faith, must needs rest upon them, as the foundation of their faith. but true catholics build their saith only upon Christ, and his doctrine delivered by the apostles and prophets. argument 14 The church of God, and all true catholics keep the doctrine of the apostles, and holy fathers without addition and alteration, and avoid all profane novelties. The t Galat. 1. apostle pronounceth him accursed, that teacheth any other Gospel, than that which he had taught. Catholicorum hoc ferè proprium, saith u Adverse. hares. c. 34. Vincentius, deposita sanctorum patrum & commissa servare, damnare prophanas novitates, & sicut dixit, & iterum dixit apostolus, si quis annunciauerit praeterquam quod acceptum est, anathematizare. If then the church of Rome and papists have altered the apostolic and ancient father's faith, and have added divers points of new doctrine unto it, as I have verified in the chapter going before; he doth greatly wrong the catholic faith, which calleth them catholics. argument 15 True catholics believe in God only. Faith, saith the x Rom. 10. apostle, is by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. y De divin. non. inib. c. 7. Dionyse saith, that faith hath for his object, the most pure, and ever being truth. and every catholic rehearsing his belief, saith, he believeth in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. but the papists after a sort believe in the virgin Mary, in angels, and saints, and pray and confess their sins unto them. for if they believe not in them, how do they call upon them, seeing the z Rom. 10. apostle saith, how shall they call on him, on whom they have not believed? and why do they confess their sins unto them, if they believe not, that they do understand the secrets of their hearts, and know that their confession is sincere and true? if they do not believe in saints, yet I hope they will not deny, that they believe the determinations of the pope, and of the Romish church. a In o●usc. contra errores Gracorum. Thomas Aquinas saith, it is a matter of faith to believe the determination of the pope. ad fidem pertinct, saith he, inhaerere determinationi pontificis fummi in his, quae sunt fidei, imò & in his, quae spectant ad bonos mores. with him also concurreth b Summa silvest in verb. fides. Silvester Prierius. He saith also further, that we are to believe whatsoever is taught by the church of Rome. Ad fidem pertinent omnia, saith he, quae sunt in doctrina ecclesiae. argument 16 True catholics believe, that Christ jesus, as he was true God, so was he also true man, and had a body like to ours in height, breadth, and thickness, and that he filled the place, where his body was, as do our bodies. We must believe, saith S. c De essentia divinitatis. Augustine, that the Son of God according to his Deity is invisible, incorporeal, and incircumscriptible, but according to his human nature, that he is visible, corporeal and local. d Contr. Eutychem lib. 4. c. 4. Vigilius saith, that Christ is contained in a place according to his human nature, and that this is the catholic faith. Illud corpus, saith e Dialog. 2. Theodoret, habet priorem formam, & figuram & circumscriptionem, & ut semel dicam, corporis substantiam. so likewise saith f Ad Thrasymund. lib. 2. c. 5. Fulgentius, Si verum est corpus Christi, loco potest utique contineri. If then the papists do assign to Christ such a body, as is neither visible, nor palpable, nor circumscriptible in the sacrament, nor hath the dimensions of height, breadth, and depth, such as a man's body by nature hath; nor is continued to itself, as all bodies are, but wanteth all the properties of a true body; then are the papists neither catholics nor Christians. for how can they be either, that err in things so material? argument 17 Every catholic Christian believeth, that our saviour Christ's true body is ascended into heaven, and that he there remaineth, and shall remain, until his coming again. he g john 16. told his disciples before his passion, that he must leave the world, and go to the father. he saith also in another h john 12. place, that they should not always have him with them. In the first of the Acts we read, that his body was taken up into heaven. the apostle Peter also Act. 3. declareth, that the heavens must contain him, until the time, that all things be restored. and this the ancient fathers, which the adversaries will not deny to have been good catholics do clearly express. according to his divine nature saith i Tractat. 33. in Matth. Origen, he is not absent from us, but he is absent according to the dispensation of his body, which he took. Saint k Lib. 10. in Luc. 24. Ambrose saith, that we are not to seek Christ either on the earth, or in the earth, or after the flesh, if we mean to find him. Saint l Tractat. 50. in joan. Augustine saith, he hath carried his body into heaven, although he hath not withdrawn his majesty from the world. m Homil. 21. in euangel. Gregory the first also doth plainly affirm, that Christ is not here on earth according to the presence of his flesh. the flesh of Christ saith n Lib. 4. contr. Eutych. Vigilius writing against Eutyches, when it was on earth, surely was not in heaven, and now because it is in heaven, certainly it is not on earth. neither did ever any catholic father teach otherwise. are the papists then catholics, trow you, that contrary to the catholic fathers, and catholic faith, teach, that Christ's true body is both in heaven, and in earth, and upon every altar at one time? and do you call them catholics, that affime that Christ's true body properly may not only be touched, and received into men's mouths, but also devoured of dogs, and mice, and other beasts, that eat consecrated hosts? argument 18 All true catholics firmly believe, that their sins are forgiven them for Christ's sake, and that they shall obtain eternal life according to these two articles of the creed, I believe the remission of sins, and life everlasting. for as the apostle saith, Heb. 6. God hath promised and sworn, that we should have firm comfort. and saint o 1 john 5. john saith: these things I writ unto you, that believe, in the name of God, that you may know, that you have eternal life. and whosoever believeth not this, as p Ibidem. he testified, maketh God a liar. The apostle q Rom. 5. Paul saith, that he that is justified by faith, hath peace with God. but what peace can we have, unless we believe that our sins are forgiven, and that assuredly we shall obtain eternal life? the sacraments also, that are delivered to every Christian are seals of remission of sins, and of the promise of eternal life. for by Baptism we put on Christ, that is, we are made members of his body, and partakers of his merits. and in the Lord's supper, our Saviour teacheth us, that the cup is the new Testament in his blood, and that Christ's body was broken for every one, that is a worthy receiver. this doctrine is also confirmed by the examples of Abraham and the apostle Paul. of Abraham we r Rom. 4. read, that he doubted not of the promise of God: and that the same was imputed to him for righteousness. the apostle s Rom. 8. saith, that he was persuaded, that nothing should separate him from the love of God. and this assurance of remission of sins and eternal life the catholic fathers teach us. Si justus es, & fide vivis, saith t Serm. 4. de mortalit. Cyprian, si verè in Christum credis; cur non cum Christo futurus, & de domini pollicitatione securus, amplecteris? u Ibidem. again he saith, that we are not to waver, or doubt, for that God hath promised us immortality. Saint x Serm. 2●…. de verb. dom. Augustine writing upon these words, thy sins are forgiven thee: saith, it is faith, and not pride, to acknowledge what we have received. y Serm. 2. de anno●…. Bernard saith, that we have no promise, but by God's favour, and that the spirit of God worketh this in us, that we believe remission of sins. and this do all true catholics believe. how then can the papists be catholics, that will have men only to hope for remission of sins, and eternal life, and that not without doubting? or what are we to hope of the z Sess. 6. doctors of Trent, that provounce them accursed, that shall say, that a man must certainly believe, that his sins are forgiven him? finally how shall we believe, that those are true believers, that teach Christians not to believe remission of sins, or eternal life, but to doubt of both. argument 19 All true catholics believe, that the faithful presently upon their departure out of this life, are happy, and enter into joys, that never shall have end, as the wicked and unbelievers are presently to enter into everlasting fire, and begin to suffer endless pains. these shall go into everlasting pain, and the righteous shall presently possess the kingdom of heaven prepared for them, as may appear by the sentence of our saviour Matth. 25. the a Rom. 8. apostle doth also plainly testify, that there is no condemnation to those, that are in Christ jesus. the spirit of God doth likewise b Apocal. 14. pronounce them blessed, that die in the Lord. and the reason is added, for that they rest from their labours. and this likewise is the faith of the catholic fathers. c Ecclesiast. hierarch. c. 7. Dionyse saith, that the godly when they come to the end of their lives, shall rest in Abraham's bosom: and signifieth, that there shall be no grief nor sadness nor sighing. d Quaest. 75. justine Martyr holdeth, that the souls of good men shall presently be carried into paradise. both e Lib. 1. adverse. haeres. c. 2. Irenaeus and f Serm. de mortalit. Cyprian likewise make only two sorts of souls departed, whereof the first are in bliss, the second in pains and endless misery. and that is also confirmed by the confession of our adversaries in the canon of the mass, where they pray for those, that sleep in a sleep of peace. but the papists teach, that all that have not satisfied here for temporal punishments must be plunged in the unspeakable pains of purgatory, and so after a time pass to heaven. argument 20 All catholics believe, that Christ hath reconciled us to his father, and that he hath satisfied for our sins fully and perfectly. the g Isay. 53. prophet saith, that we are healed by his stripes. ipse volneratus est saith he, propter iniquitates nostras, attritus est propter scelera nostra, disciplina pacis nostrae super eum. we may therefore well accounpt them no catholics, that h Bellar. lib. 1. de purgat. teach, that Christians are to satisfy for the temporal punishment of their own sins either here or in purgatory: the which is no where delivered by the fathers of the church. argument 21 True catholics never made the image of God the father or the holy ghost. nor did ever the godly fathers how down to graven images or worship them. the i Exod. 20. commandment of God is direct against such images. thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image, etc. thou shalt not bow down unto it, nor worship it. k Lib. 2. institut. c. 19 Lactantius saith, that there is no religion, where graven images are. religio nulla est, ubîcunque simulachrum est. The papists therefore, that make the images of God, and worship them, are no catholics, nor have any good religion. neither can it avail them, that they say, they worship not the matter of the image. for so did the gentiles answer in excuse of their idolatry, as testifieth l Institut. lib. 2. c. 2. Lactantius. argument 22 True catholics believe, that by the law we know sin, and that m 1. john 5. all unrighteousness is sin, and thirdly that n Deut. 27. & Galat. 3. he is accursed, that abideth not in all things, that are written in the book of the law to do them. if then the papists teach, that all is not sin, that is repugnant to God's law, as the jebusits do in the censure of Coleine fol. 26. and as others do, that it is not sin in this world, not to love God withal our heart, and all our soul, which is commanded by the law of God; then are they no catholics. argument 23 Catholics hold, that we have but one lawgiver and judge, that is able to destroy and to save. unus est legislator, & index saith Saint o jacob. 4. james, qui potest perdere & liberare. that the transgression of the pope's laws, is sufficient to condemn us, and the observance of them to justify us, as papists hold, was never generally taught or holden. argument 24 Catholics hold, that God's law is perfect, and that nothing is sin, but that, which is repugnant to the law of God. but papists believe, that it is sin, not only to neglect the precepts of the church, as they are called, but also the laws and decretales of pope's, as appeareth by the enchiridion of Navarrus, and other books of cases of conscience. argument 25 The law of God p Exod. 20. saith directly, Thou shalt not covet. and catholics do expound this law so, that it bindeth the regenerate, aswell as the vnregenerat; as appeareth by the words of the apostle, Rom. 7. I should not have known sin, saith he, but by the law. for I knew not concupiscence, but because the law said, Thou shalt not covet. and this sin he confesseth to be mortal, Who, saith he, shall deliver me from the body of this death? S. q Lib. 2. contr. Faustum Manich. c. 27. Augustine also teacheth, that whatsoever is desired or coveted against the law, is sin. and very absurd it is, to surmise that baptism should sanctify concupiscence, and of sin in the unregenerate to make no sin. The conventicle of Trent therefore, that r Sess. 5. determineth, that concupiscence in the regenerate is not sin, and all adherents unto it, are no catholics. argument 26 The scriptures teach us, that even the just man falleth seven times a day, and as the apostle saint james saith, that we offend all in many things. our Saviour Christ taught his apostles to pray for remission of sins, and to confess, when they had done all they could, that they were notwithstanding unprofitable servants. so likewise teach catholic fathers. Saint s Lib. 1. adverse. Pelag. Hierome saith, that then we are just, when we confess our sins. and saint t De spirit. & lit. Augustine signifieth, that in the frailty of this life we can not perfectly perform God's law. we shall then saith he, perform the law of God, with all our soul, and all our heart, and love our neighbour as ourself, when we shall see God face to face. the papists therefore that teach, first that the regenerate are able to perform the law of God perfectly, and secondly, that they are also able to perform more than is commanded, and to do works of supererogation, are no catholics: nor shall they ever be able to prove, that this doctrine of theirs was generally holden by the fathers, and by all Christians, or by any man of note. argument 27 The apostle teacheth us, that the law is the minister of death, and u Lib. 3. adverse. haeres. c. 20. Irenaeus affirmeth, that the law being spiritual doth only manifest sin, and not kill it. the papists therefore that hold, that all our life and salvation doth consist in the law, as appeareth by the censure of Coleyn, are no catholics. argument 28 The council of x Sess. 6. c. 10. Trent condemneth those that say, they are justified formally by Christ's justice: and their meaning is, that we are formally justified by charity, and by the works of the law. but the catholic church teacheth us far otherwise. no flesh faith the y Galat. 2. apostle, is justified by the works of the law. he denieth also, that z Rom. 4. Abraham was justified by the works of the law. and saint a Lib. 1. adverse. Pelag. Hierome saith, that our justice doth not consist in our merits, but in the mercy of God. this also is proved by an invincible reason, for that none are justified by the law, but such as perform the law, and are not to be accused of sin by the law. but if our adversaries will say, that all that shall be saved are such, they will bring the number of them, into a small compass. for as b De inter pellat. David. Ambrose saith, David doth acknowledge his sin, and Paul doth acknowledge himself guilty. who is then innocent? argument 29 The apostle c Rom. 5. teacheth us, that through the offence of one all men were subject to condemnation. and that is the doctrine of all catholics. but the d Bellar. lib. 4. de amissi. great. c. 15. papists exempt the holy virgin Mary from original sin, as appeareth by the determination of Sixtus 4. and conventicles of Trent doctrine, sess. 5. some of them also hold, that the prophet Heremy, and saint john Baptist were sanctified from this sin, and so borne without original sin, at the least. argument 30 Catholics hold, that original sin is a great sin, as infecting all by ordinary course descending from Adam, & excluding them out of the kingdom of heaven, and which could not be purged, but by Christ's passion. but the papists hold, that it is the least of all sins, as having the least force of our free-will, and that it deserveth not sensible pains in hell. which in effect is as much, as if they should deny, that all men sinned originally in Adam, or needed to be saved from sensible pains by Christ. argument 31 The e Th. Aquin. & dd. in 2. sent. dist. 33. & Bellar. de amis. great. lib. 6. c. 4. papists also teach, that children departing without baptism, and with original sin only, shall not be punished with hell fire, nor with sensible pains. as if at the last judgement all that stand on the left hand, as it is written in the 25. chap. of saint Matth. shall not by the sentence of the judge, be adjudged to everlasting fire or as if that sin, that brought condemnation upon all, should not be punished with sensible pains: or as if there might be a place in hell without sensible pains; or finally, as if there were a middle state betwixt, heaven and hell fire. Saint f Lib. 1. de orig. animae c. 9 Augustine certes saith, there is no middle place between the kingdom of heaven, and the place of the damned. g Lib. de fide. c. 3. Fulgentius likewise doth plainly affirm, that children dying without baptism shall sustain endless punishments. and h Lib. 8. moral. c. 16. Gregory the first holdeth, that such shall endure the perpetual torments of hell. argument 32 Martin ab Aspilcueta in his Enchiridion, writing upon the first precept of the law, chap. 11. saith, that it is mortal sin for a lay man to dispute of matters of faith. but catholics do not acknowledge any such matter to be mortal sin. argument 33 The papists teach, that men have grace conferred on them by their own acts, ex opere operato, and that they are justified ex opere operato by the sacraments of the new law; whereupon it followeth, that by the sign of the cross in confirmation, by orders, matrimony, and extreme unction men receive charity (for that is the grace they speak of) and are justified exopere operato. for this doth Bellarmine dispute, lib. 2. de effectu sacrament. cap. 3. and 14. and other chapters following. which doctrine if they do prove; than ex opere operato, let him take the grace of the popedom. if he do not prove, he must needs confess, that the doctrine of papists is not catholic. argument 34 The jebusites in the censure of Colein teach, that the regenerate after baptism have no sin, and it followeth necessarily of their doctrine of justification by the works of the law. for by them a man can not be both unjust and just at one time. but the cathotike faith is otherwise. S. john saith, that they deceive themselves, that say they have no sin. and other scriptures signify, i Proverb. 20. that no man can say, his heart is clean. neither is this to be understood of venial sins, which the papists say, may be done away without repentance. for S. k Lib. 2. adverse. Pelagian. Hierome saith, that the most just man, in some things standeth in need of God's mercy. and it is apparent, for that every man transgressing the law of God, which is the case of all men, maketh himself subject to the curse of the law, and to the wrath of God. argument 35 Papists teach, that some sins are done away with holy water, and without repentance; and deserve not death. but no catholic ever taught, or thought so. for the apostle teacheth us, that by Christ's blood we are purged, and that we are made partakers of remission of sins by faith. In the sixth to the Rom. he declareth, that the wages of sin is death. and Galat. 3. that such as transgress God's law, are accursed by the sentence of the law. argument 36 They l Censur. Colon. f. 204. teach also, that this is the proper doctrine of the Gospel, if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. but catholics know, that those that so teach, confound law and gospel, and overthrow the doctrine of the apostles. for he m Rom. 1. teacheth, that the gospel is the power of God to salvation to every one that believeth. their doctrine doth take from us all hope of salvation. for how can we hope to be saved by the gospel, if that promise life to none, but such as perfectly fulfil God's commandments? argument 37 They do also much derogate from the gospel of Christ jesus, where they teach, that the rules of Benet of Nursia, Francis, Dominike, Ignatius Loyola, and divers other founders of monkish and friar-like orders, do show us the way to perfection; and hold not, that the gospel of Christ jesus is sufficient of itself to do it. true catholics certes never maintained any such fantasies, nor allowed any such order. which may also appear by this, that all these orders of monks and friars have their approbation and allowance from the pope's of Rome. argument 38 Of saith they speak, think, and write very basely. for they hold first, that faith is only a bare assent, and requireth neither firm hope, nor holiness of life, to make it truly Christian. secondly, that not only wicked men, but also the devils of hell may have true faith. thirdly, that faith is not only grounded upon holy canonical scriptures, but also upon traditions and determinations of the pope. which if they firmly hold and vary not, then must they confess, that we are no less to give credit to lousy legends, and lying and erroneous decretals of pope's, than to the eternal word of God. But true catholics have always believed otherwise. The apostle n Rom. 1. saith, that the just shall live by faith. and the church believeth, that o john 3. whosoever believeth in Christ, shall not perish, but have everlasting life. and p Rom. 5. that being justified by faith, we have peace with God. further, the apostle q Rom. 10. teacheth, that faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. but there is great difference betwixt the word of God, and traditions of men; betwixt the infallible truth of God's word, and the deceivable doctrine of pope's decretals. argument 39 They teach, that charity is the form of faith. but catholics have always taken this doctrine to be erroneous. for how can one virtue be the form of another? again, seeing matter and form be parts in natural bodies, is it not absurd to apply these words to qualities, that rather resemble form than matter: thirdly, if justifying faith were always form with charity, then could not faith work of itself. for it is the form, from whence actions proceed, and not matter. but the apostle r Rom. 1. saith, that the just live by faith. and Ephes. 2. that we are saved by grace through faith. hereupon s Lib. 2. epist. 3. Cyprian saith, that whosoever doth believe in God, and live by faith, he is found to be just. argument 40 They t Bellar. lib. 1. de fid. c. 13. attribute our first justice to faith, and other preparations, as for example, fear, hope, love, repentance, a purpose of new life, and such like: but the principal form and beauty of our justice, they place in charity, and works of the law. and that they call our second justice. but true catholics do otherwise think and speak of justice. The u 1. Cor. 1. apostle saith, that our Saviour Christ is made justification unto us, and x Rom. 3. & Gal. 2. & 3. that we are not justified by the works of the law. the prophet also doth show, that our righteousness is like a defiled cloth of an unclean woman. neither can this distinction of first and second justice, or that wicked doctrine, that followeth of it, be found in all the fathers. argument 41 In the sacraments also most foully they have digressed from the catholic saith y Apolog. ad Antonin. justin Martyr where he hath occasion to describe the sacraments, and rites of the first church, doth only mention two sacraments. this number also may be proved by the testimony of Ireney, Dionysius, Tertullian lib. 1. & 4. contr. Marcionem, Ambroses' books of sacraments, cyril's catechistical instructions, and all the fathers, that in no place mention 7. sacraments, nor compare any rite or sacrament to baptism and the Lords supper. Pauca pro multis saith z Lib. 3. de doctr. Christ. c. 9 Augustine, eademque factu facillima, & intellectu augustissima, & conservation castissima ipse dominus, & apostolica tradidit disciplina, sicut est baptismi sacramentum, & celebratio corporis & sanguinis domini. and this may be proved also by the weak dispute of Bellarmine, for his 7. sacraments, who is not able to bring either good argument, or testimony for his opinion. argument 42 The council of a Sess. 6. c. 1. Trent doth anathematize all that hold, that the 7. sacraments of the Romish church were not all instituted by Christ jesus, or that there are either more or less, then just 7 which doctrine, if Robert Parsons can prove to be catholic, let him take a cardinals hat, which he hath so long desired, for his labour. his friends do much doubt of his good success in this matter. for they find, that matrimony was instituted in paradise, and that repentance hath always been in the church. priesthood was either established by the law of Moses, or else then by laws and rites adorned. confirmation, and extreme unction were neither instituted by Christ, nor deemed necessary or ordinary rites by the church: as the silence of fathers, that speak of the sacraments of the church may teach us. argument 43 In the sacrament of baptism the papists use exorcisms, blowings, salt, spittle, hallowed water, anointings, light, and divers ceremonies, neither used by the apostles, nor practised by the ancient church. now in the b C. Benedict. fontis. missales they pray, that the font may be sanctified, and made fruitful with the oil of salvation, to those that shall be regenerate by it to life. than the priest poureth in oil and chrism in form of the cross. they also sprinkle all the assistants with holy water out of the font, and none of all these ceremonies, they c Sess. 7. c. 13. council. Trid. say, may be omitted without sin. if then Robert Parsons cannot prove these ceremonies to have been either ancient, or generally used; he cannot deny, but the papists are no catholics. argument 44 They denounce them accursed, that shall not hold baptism to be necessary to salvation: which curse and doctrine cannot be sound in ancient catholic fathers. nay we read in ancient writers, that not the want, but the contempt of baptism condemneth. and the d Bellar. lib. 1. de baptis. c. 6. papists to mollify this hard sentence, have found divers means to supply baptism. argument 45 They dissolve marriage contracted by entering into monkish religion, although both the parties consent not. and after marriage consummated, they hold, that married couples may departed asunder, and that it shall not be lawful for them afterward, as man and wife, to company together. which doctrine is neither catholic, nor true. for e Matth. 19 what man can separate them, whom God hath joined together? again what reason have married couples keeping asunder for exercise of devotion, not to come together again, seeing the apostle commandeth such to return and cohabit together, lest Satan should tempt them? Iterum f 1. Cor. 7. saith he, revertimini in idipsum, ne tentet vos Satanas. argument 46 They separate also marriages for spiritual kindred, and force priests, monks and friars to forswear marriage. yet can they not show, that catholic religion forbiddeth spiritual gossips to entermary, nor that monkish vows and abjurations of marriages have been allowed in the ancient church, and by catholic doctors. nay where God g Levit. 18. appointeth limits and degrees, within which it is not lawful to marry, there is no signification, that spiritual gossips are forbidden to entermarry. and the apostle signifieth, that marriage is honourable among all sorts of men, and the bed of married folks undefiled. happy were popish priests and votaries, if they were able to say, that their beds, and bodies were undefiled. argument 47 They believe, that penance standeth upon contrition, confession, and satisfaction, and that these three are the parts of it. and yet themselves say, that absolution is the form of penance, and that confession is not always necessary. the catholic church certes did never think either auricular confession, or public satisfaction enjoined by priests to be required necessarily in repentance. argument 48 They h Sess. 14. council. Trid. pronounce him anathema, that believeth not, that penance is properly a sacrament of the new law; or that denieth auricular confession in the priests ears, to have been instituted by Christ in the new testament. and yet are they not able to show, that any catholic father saith, that our Saviour Christ in the new testament did institute the act of repentance; nor can they deny, that the people of God under the law used to repent themselves of their sins; nor can they show any place, where Christians were commanded to confess their sins to the priest, and were otherwise excluded from all hope of pardon. nay they cannot show, that any was tied to confession in the Romish church before Innocents' decretal beginning, omnis utriusque sexus. de poenit. & remiss. and in the Greek church there was never any such course established. as for the power, which monks and friars claim in hearing of confessions, that dependeth wholly upon the pope's grant, benevolence, and authority. argument 49 They i Concil. Trid. sess. 13. c. 1. teach, that our Saviour Christ's body, that was borne of the virgin Mary, and crucified on the cross, is properly and substantially present under the accidents of bread, and likewise that his blood is contained really and properly under the accidents of wine, as may be seen in the acts of the conventicle of Trent. but true catholics believe, that his body is k M●…. vlt. & act. 1. taken up into heaven, and that concerning his bodily presence he hath left the earth, and that his blood is in the veins of his body, and not properly shed forth in the chalice further they know, that when we are commanded to eat Christ's flesh, and to drink his blood, we are to understand, it and to do it spiritually, and not carnally, as do the Canibales; and that Christ, when he said, this is my body, and this is my blood, gave a sacrament of his body and blood, and not that body, that sat at the table, nor the blood, that was in the veins of his body. l Lib. 4. contr. Martion. Tertullian saith, that Christ made the bread, which was delivered to his disciples his body, by saying this is my body, that is, the figure of my body. and likewise saint m Contra Adimantum c. 12. Augustine affirmeth, that Christ doubted not to say, this is my body, when he gave a sign of his body. and that this is the catholic faith concerning this sacrament, I have at large declared in a treatise of the real presence, of late published against Bellarmine: which Robert Parsons may do well to take notice of. argument 50 They anathematise all those, that shall affirm, that the substance of bread and wine remaineth in the sacrament after consecration, n Concil. Trid. sess. 13. and that shall dare to deny transubstantiation. which curse lighteth not on us only, but upon the apostle saint Paul, who after the words of consecration speaking of the sacrament, saith, let a man examine himself, and so eat of this bread, and drink of this cup. it falleth also upon all true catholics, that according to our saviours words, shall call the cup being consecrate, genimen vitis. o Adverse. judaeos. Tertullian saith, that Christ called bread his body. Saint Hierome in a certain epistle to Hedibia saith, that the bread, which the Lord broke, and gave to his disciples, is the Lords body. this is also saint Augustine's judgement. c. qui manducant. de consectat. dist. 2. and Theodoret's in his first dialogue, and divers others, that affirm, that the pronoun, Hoc, in these words hoc est corpus meum, doth demonstrate the bread, finally unless the papists grant, that the bread remaineth in the sacrament after consecration, they must needs grant, that Christ hath a body impalpable, invisible, and that may be in all altars at once, and yet filleth no place, and such a body, as never man had before, nor ever shall have hereafter. argument 51 p Sess. 13. council. Trid. c. 5. They anathematise those, that shall affirm, that the principal fruit of the eucharist is remission of sins. which falleth upon all catholics, that shall believe these words of q Matth. 26. Christ: this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for remission of sins. argument 52 They do also bitterly curse all such, as shall say, that Christ's body in the sacrament is not to be worshipped, r Concil. Trid. sess. 13. c. 6. with divine honour, or that shall condemn the feast of corpus Christi, or the popish fashion in carrying about the sacrament. and yet never true catholic did so worship, or carry about the sacrament, as papists do. our Saviour said, take eat; and not, fall down, and worship, or carry about this sacrament, or put it in a pyx. the disciples they did also, as our Saviour Christ commanded. and the ancient church, as appeareth by all the ancient liturgies, did communicate, and not worship the sacrament, as their Lord and God, according to the style of the Romanists. argument 53 s Ibid. c. 8. They do anathematize all them, that hold, that Christ is received in the sacrament spiritually, and not otherwise. which toucheth saint Augustine and all catholics. he t Tract. 25. in joan. saith, ut quid paras dentem? the rest say, that Christ's flesh is meat of the soul, and not of the body; cibus mentis, & non ventris. argument 54 They do also u Sess. 22. anathematise such, as deny the body & blood of Christ to be really and properly offered up in the mass, for an external and propitiatory sacrifice for quick and dead, and say, that the eucharist is a memorial of Christ's sacrifice on the cross. but the apostle Heb. 7. & 10. teacheth us, that Christ his sacrifice was to be offered up but once, and that he left no successors behind him to offer this sacrifice. * De demonstr. euangel. lib. 1. Eusebius also saith, that our sacrifice is the memorial of Christ his sacrifice. and this also Chrysostome upon the epistle to the Hebrews clearly demonstrateth. argument 55 They do offer sacrifice for the dead, and in honour of the virgin Mary and of saints. likewise do they offer Christ's body, as they say, for fair weather, for peace, and what they please. but this shall not Robert Parsons be ever able to show, to have been practised by catholics. nay, of such devices there is not any sign, or suspicion in ancient liturgies; but of the contrary rather. argument 56 Ancient catholics resorting to church, y Can. apost. 9 & 10. departed not before they received the communion. but now the priest eateth and drinketh all, and sendeth away God's people empty. argument 57 Christ instituted the sacrament of the Lords supper in both kinds, and so Christians received it in ancient time, as the doctors assembled at Constance confess; and yet they decree, that beside the priest that doth minister, all the rest shall content themselves with one kind. argument 58 Catholics do not believe, that priests administering the sacrament work wonders. but the papists believe that they work divers miracles, making one body to be in many places, and accidents to subsist without subject, and an human body to be in a place without filling the place of a body. argument 59 The z Hebr. 5. & 7. apostle telleth us, that Christ only is a priest according to the order of Melchisedech: and this all catholics believe. but papists believe, that every greasy and polshorne priest is a priest after the order of Melchisedech; yea, although, as they suppose, he offereth neither bread nor wine, as did Melchisedech. argument 60 Christ taught us, to pray to the father in his name, and so did all true catholics in ancient time, but now papists pray to Christ in the name of our Lady, and of saints, as if we were not to approach to our Mediator without the mediation of others. to the virgin Mary they pray thus, a In breuiar. ave maris stella, Dei matter alma, atque semper virgo, foelix coeli porta, solve vincla reis, proffer lumen caecis. in the Romish breviary they call her, dulcem amicam Dei. in the missal of Sarum: per te matter, say they, aboleri filiorum flagitamus crimina, nósque omnes introduci in sempiterna paradisi gaudia. as if the holy virgin had power to remit sins, and were the gate, by which we enter into heaven. argument 61 Catholics never used to bow themselves before stocks or stones, or to pray before them. are they then catholics, which like to the b Hierem. 2. idolatrous jews, say to a stock, thou art my father, and to a stone, thou hast begotten me? which set light before those that can not see, and cry before those that can not hear, and say c In office beat. Mariae. to a wooden cross, increase in the godly, righteousness, and pardon sinners: and also, crux Christi protege me, crux Christi defend me ab omni malo? and which before the printed face, which they call Volto santo, pray thus, Salue sancta facies impresta panniculo, nos ab omni macula purga vitiorum, atque nos consortio iunge beatorum? argument 62 Catholics believe, that their sacrifices of praise are accepted through Christ. but papists believe, that Christ's body is accepted through the mediation of the priest, and of saints. the priest in the canon beseecheth God, to look favourably upon the body and blood of Christ. Supra quae, saith he, propitio ac sereno vultu respicere digneris. and in the missal of Sarum on Batildis day, they pray, that God would accept their sacrifice, viz. of Christ's body and blood, through the merits of S. Batildis. ut haec munera tibi, Domine, accepta sint, say they, sanctae Batildis obtineant merita, quae seipsam tibi hostiam vivam, sanctam, & bene placentem exhibuit. argument 63 Catholics believe, that the apostles, and their successors received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and power to bind and loose only upon earth. but the papists believe, that the pope hath received the keys of the kingdom of hell, and purgatory. Damascen and other authors of Romish legends tell us, that Gregory the first delivered Traian's soul out of hell; and every petty pope thinketh he is abused, if any tell him, that he can not let out of purgatory as many as he pleaseth. Commonly all papists pray for the dead, that they may have a place of rest given them, and that their sins may be pardoned them; as if sins might be forgiven after this life. argument 64 Catholics neither worshipped saints departed, nor their images, nor the cross of Christ. Hierome in an epistle to Ripatius denieth, that any creature is to be worshipped, or adored. d Lib. 22. decivit. Dei. c. 10. Augustine showeth, that Christians did not worship martyrs, nor erect temples in honour of them, and saith that they gave thanks and praise unto God only at their monuments. ecclesia catholica matter Christianorum verissima saith e De morib. eccles. lib. 1. c. 30. he, solum ipsum deum, cuius adeptio vita est beatissima purissimè, atque castisimè colendum praedicat, nullam nobis adorandam creaturam inducens, cui servire iubeamur. whereby plainly he excludeth the worship of Doulia. f De obitu Theodosijs. Ambrose declareth, that Helen finding the cross, worshipped not the cross, but Christ. but the papists worship not only the saints, but dumb images. they say masses in honour of S. Francis, and S. Dominicke, and divers other saints. they kneel to images, and burn incense unto them. finally they give Latriam, that is due by their own confession to God only, to the cross, to the crucifix, and to the images of the Trinity. argument 65 True catholics never made the images of God the father, or the holy trinity, nor did think it lawful to worship them with divine. worship but the papists both make such images, and allow such worship to be given to them. argument 66 True catholics never had any psalter in honour of our blessed Lady, nor used to say a hundred and 50. Auemariaes', and after every fifty Auemariaes' one Creed, and after every ten Ave-maries, one Pater Noster. nay our saviour expressly forbade his disciples to use battologies, and odious repetitions in their prayers. But papists put great religion in our Lady's psalter, and in their rosaries, and often repetitions of the name of jesus, and of their Auemariaes'. argument 67 True catholics never conjured salt, nor holy water, nor oil, nor chrism, nor superstitiously sanctified candles, crosses and images, in such sort as the papists use to do. neither did they grease stone altars, or describe the Greek alphabet on the pavement of churches to be consecrated, or abuse the scriptures as the papists do in that act, as may appear by the formulary commonly used in such cases. that ancient catholics never used any such ceremonies, it may appear by the writings of the fathers, and also in old ritual books. for in them such forms of consecrations, exorcizations, and such abuses are not to be found. argument 68 True g john 4. catholics worship God in spirit and truth. but the papists place most of God's worship in external ceremonies, and use in their worship a tongue not understood. so that their prayers cannot proceed from the spirit, nor be true nor catholic. argument 69 True catholics never worshipped angels. h Coloss. 2. the apostle Paul doth expressly condemn the worship of them, as Chrysostome, Theodoret, Oecumenius writing upon the 2. and 3. chap. of the epistle to the Colossians do testify. the council of Laodicea doth also prohibit the worship of Angels, and Saint i De hares. c. 39 Augustine numbereth the worshippers of Angels among heretics. Neither may we think, that they were therefore condemned, because they atrtibuted the creation of the world to angels, but because they worshipped angels, and as Chrysostome homil. 7. in coloss. 2. affirmeth thought we were to come to God by the mediation of angels. and yet papists k Horae ad usum sacrum. pray to angels, that they would protect them, and drive devils from them, and open their sight. they say also masses in their honour, set up lights to them, make confession of their sins to them: and all this contrary to the practice of the ancient catholic church. argument 70 Our l Matth. 15. saviour Christ teacheth, that those worship God in vain, which worship him according to the doctrines and commandments of men. and therefore all true catholics have had principal respect herein to the commandments and laws of God. but the Romish church doth wholly depend upon the decretales of pope's, and vain fancies of men. their missals, breviaries, offices and whole service proceedeth from no other fountain. argument 71 The m Psal. 32. prophet declareth, that they are blessed whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. and the apostle saith, that being justified by faith we have peace with god. and this is the hope of all catholics, that Christ hath reconciled us to his father, and washed away our sins, and paid a ransom for them on the cross. but this comfort papists do take from us, that teach and hold, that after our sins forgiven, we are to satisfy for temporal pains due for our sins either here, or in purgatory; and that such are there to sustain great torments, in which pains and place none but mad men can place felicity. argument 72 Catholics believe, that through faith we are made partakers of Christ's satisfaction. the papists believe, that the pope can apply them by his bulls, both in purgatory, and in this life, according to his laws. argument 73 Catholics believe, that no man can satisfy for his own sins, much less for the sins of others. n Bellar. lib. 1. de indulgent. papists believe, that a man's sufferings may be so great, as they may serve for his own and other men's sins, and are laid up in a treasury, whereof the pope hath the dispensation. argument 74 Catholics never believed, that there are 7. orders, and every one of these a sacrament; and yet all but one sacrament. for that is as much as if a man should deny one, and one to make two. yet papists believe this, o Sess. 23. council. Trid. and accurse them that shall say contrary. argument 75 Catholics do not believe, that Christ ordained seven orders in the church, or that exorcists, doore-kéepers and subdeacons were instituted by him, or that they are a holy sacrament. the papists notwithstanding do hold contrary, or at the least, the contrary may be gathered out of their doctrine. argument 76 Catholics do not deny, but that second marriages are as well to be blessed, as first marriages. why then do papists observe and teach the contrary, if they will be accounted catholics? argument 77 Catholics do not believe that by alms, and fasting they are either justified, or able to satisfy for their sins. but papists, as appeareth by Bellarmine's disputes, hold contrary. argument 78 Catholics did never tie themselves to believe, whatsoever the church of Rome or the pope determined. for not only the Asian churches dissented from Victor, and the African churches from Sozimus, but long since all have left the pope's, that would not be oppressed by them. Saint p Lib. de sacrament. Ambrose showeth, that he was not bound to follow the church of Rome's direction in all ceremonies. but papists are tied to Peter's chair, as they seem to confess, & by Pius 4. his constitution, are bound to believe all things contained in the Creed, which the church of Rome useth. servilely also they submit themselves for the most part, to the decrees of the counsel of Trent. argument 79 Catholics do not condemn all for heretics, that either teach, or think otherwise of the sacrament of the altar, or of confession of sins, or other Romish sacraments, than the church of Rome. for concerning the Lords supper, I have q Lib. de missa papist. count Bellar. showed, that all antiquity is against the Romanistes. and the rest shall be proved as occasion serveth. but papists condemn all, that dissent from the church of Rome in the points above mentioned. argument 80 catholics believe the catholic church. but the papists only believe the catholic Roman church, that is, so much of the Catholic church, as agreeth with the Romanists. for so the jebusites of Bourdeaux in their confession do signify. and the same is proved by bristol 12. motive, the 5. epistle of cardinal Cusanus to the Bohemians, and in his fift book of his visible monarchy. r Lib. 2 de eccles. milit. Bellarmine also admitteth none to be of the church, but such as are subject to the pope. and that is Boniface the eight, his determination, c. unam sanctam. extr. de maior. & obedientia. argument 81 Catholics are the sheep of Christ, and therefore kill none, especially none of Christ's sheep. but papists like wolves murder all, that like not of the pope's government and doctrine. argument 82 Catholics are a society of saints and true believers, as S. Augustine showeth, lib. de ver. relig. c. 6. & 7. but to be a true member of the popish church neither faith, nor holiness, nor inward virtue is required, as saith Bellarmine lib. de eccles. milit. c. 2. but only an outward profession and obedience. argument 83 Catholics never believed, that the pope of Rome was by Christ made his vicar general, or the spouse, or the monarch, or head of the church. s De pontiff. Rom. lib. 2. c. 31. Bellarmine, albeit he searcheth all corners, yet cannot find, that any catholic writer had any such conceit. is it not then apparent, that the pope is a plain intruder into ecclesiastical government, and that the papists holding with him have forsaken the catholic doctrine of the church? argument 84 In ancient time the bishops of Rome were subject to counsels, and at their entrance into their bishoprics professed and acknowledged their canons, as appeareth by the chapters, sancta Romana ecclesia, and, sicut sancti. dist. 15. but now papists will have them to be above counsels. argument 85 In times past the bishops of Rome were subject to emperors, as appeareth by the laws of justinian, and divers other emperors before him, which are to be seen in the code under the titles, de summa trinit. & fid. cath. de episc. audient. & authent. de ordinat. episcop. but now contrary to the old form of government of the church papists exclude the emperor, and give all authority to the pope. t Sic omne: dist. 19 Agatho determines, that all the decrees of the apostolic see are to be received, as if they had been established by the voice of Peter. argument 86 Saint Cyprian teacheth, that the apostles had all equal power. and that is proved, for that they had like calling, and u Luk. 9 & Matth. 28. & john 20. like commission, and for that the church was equally founded upon them all. but papists believe, that Peter was head, and monarch of the church, x Summa de ecclesia. and that the rest of the apostles were to him, as the cardinals are to the pope. for so Turrecremata a cardinal seemeth to hold. argument 87 Among catholics Christian emperors were always wont to assemble general counsels, as appeareth by the first four general counsels of Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus the 1. Chalcedon and divers others. and that the cardinal of Cusa, and Anastasius the pope's principal agent in his library confess. ex superioribus habetur saith y De Concord. Cath. li. 3. c. 13. Cusanus, imperatores sanctos congregationes synodales universalium conciliorum semper fecisse. ita ego perlustrans, gesta omnium universalium conciliorum usque ad octawm inclusiuè Basilij tempore celebratum, verum esse reperi. z Ibid. Anastasius also affirmeth, universales synodos de omni terra imperatores colligere solitos fuisse. but to the papists this catholic form of assembling counsels, is much displeasing. argument 88 Our Saviour Christ committed the government of the church to his apostles, and a Ephes. 4. ascending up on high, gave some apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, and these he thought to be sufficient for the government and building up of the church, and gathering together the saints, and work of the ministry, and he is no catholic that thinketh contrary. the hierarchy therefore of the church of Rome, where we see a triple crowned pope, a multitude of carnal cardinals, a heard of fat abbots and generals of orders of friars, and whole swarms of monks and friars, is not catholic. these friars a certain popish b Onus eccles. c. 22. bishop doth compare to locusts issuing out of the bottomless pit of hell, for that they corrupt religion, as the other devoured every green thing. illi mendicantes perversi saith he, designantur per locustas de puteo abyssi exeuntes, quia ipsi sunt scurriles leaves, volatiles, rodentes sacras literas virides, paganicae philosophiae sequaces, quasi equi currentes, sic illi in vanam disputationem. argument 89 True catholics never thought, that the pope had two swords, knowing, that Peter's successors had keys, and not swords delivered unto them, and well understanding, that their commission was to teach and administer sacraments, and not to cut Christian men's throats. but c C. unam de maior. & ebed. Boniface the 8. upon pretence of these words, ecce duo gladij hîc, imagineth, that the pope is to use both the temporal, and spiritual sword, and the jebusites stoutly defend his authority, and with their two handed swords, and gentle receipts of their sophisticated drugs, kill more honest men, than honest men can easily convert from superstition and impiety to Christ jesus. argument 90 Among Gregory the sevenths d joseph Vestan. de oscul. ped. pontiff. dictates, the 12. is, that the pope hath power to depose the emperor. the 8. that he may lawfully use the ensigns of the emperor. the 27. that he hath power to absolve subjects from their allegiance. but S. Peter, that was a far better catholic, than this Gregory called otherwise Hildebrand, or rather Helfirebrand, teacheth contrary doctrine, and e 1. Petr. 2. willeth Christians to honour the king. so likewise S. Paul exhorteth all sorts of men to be subject to the higher powers. finally, the law of God bindeth so fast, f Rom. 13. that no device of man can untwist the bond of an oath taken to his prince, as true catholics ever believed. argument 91 g Concil. Nicen. c. 5. Catholics in time past did not permit one bishop to absolve him, that was excommunicate by another. but the pope of Rome absolveth now all at his pleasure, by whomsoever they be excommunicated. argument 92 The council of h Can. 22. Milevis in Africa, excommunicated all priests, that appealed to Rome. Ad transmarina qui putaverit appellandum, say the fathers of that council, a nullo intra Africam in communionem suscipiatur. but the pope and his adherents adjudge him worthy to be excommunicate, that shall deny, that it is lawful to appeal to Rome. let it then be judged, whether therein they deal as catholics. argument 93 Gregory the first doubted not to censure him as the forerunner of Antichrist, that should call himself universal bishop. and this title he accounteth profane and sacrilegious. yet doth not the pope refuse this title, neither doth i Lib. 2. de pontiff. Rom. c. 31. Bellarmine mislike it. argument 94 In the catholic church no man might be ordained without a charge, as appeareth by the acts of the council of Chalcedon. but now the pope's without charge ordain infinite monks and friars, which are the moths that fret and consume Christian religion. argument 95 Catholics never. used to kiss the pope's pantofle, nor to fall down before him, and to cry, Miserere nostri. are then the papists catholics, trow you, or flanes, and base fellows, that kiss the slipper of Antichrist, and fall down before him, crying out, Miserere, to a most miserable mortal man? argument 96 Ancient catholics were not acquainted with the pope's provisions, reservations, expectative favours, indulgencies, iubileyes, and such like tricks and hooks to overthrow order, and enrich the pope; neither would they have liked any such Babylonish traffic, if they had known it. shameless therefore are they, which take to themselves the titles of catholics, and yet either commit, or allow these abuses. argument 97 Ancient catholics never knew the rates of the pope's chancery for writs of justice, of benefices, of pardons; nor did they believe, that the pope could pardon incests, murders, sacrilege, Sodomy, blasphemy, and such horrible crimes. those therefore that allow this sinful traffic of pope's, and their courts, they are neither good catholics, nor civil honest men. argument 98 No catholic ever adhered to Antichrist, or embraced his damnable doctrine. but we have k Lib. 5. de pontiff. Rom. showed, that the pope is Antichrist, and that popery is nothing else, but Antichristianisme, and that by such arguments, as for any thing yet answered, seem invincible. if then papists adhere to the pope, they must leave the name of catholics, which without all reason they have usurped, and taken to themselves. argument 99 Finally, no catholic ever embraced any heresy, or false doctrine. for as S. l De vera relig. c. 6. & 7. Augustine teacheth us, catholics are true Christians, and embrace the right faith. but the papists have embraced, and yet hold many both old and new heresies, and thereof popery seemeth to consist: the which to be very true, it shall appear by the particulars discoursed in the chapter following. CHAP. FOUR That papists do maintain many both old and new heresies, and erroneous points of doctrine contrary to the catholic faith. LIttle reason have the papists to charge others with heresy, if they would narrowly look into their own opinions, and heresies which are so many, and so ugly. we may therefore well say unto them, Pull out the beams out of your own eyes, you hypocrites, and then you shall more clearly see the motes that are in other men's eyes. so gross are your errors, and so foul, that beams in men's eyes seem not more deformed. argument 1 For first as the a Rom. 2. & 3. jews, and especially the scribes and pharisees rested in the law, and gloried in their works, b Luc. 18. and as the apostle declareth Rom. 2. and Galat. 3. sought to be justified by their works, and by the law; so the papists rest, and rely much upon the law, not doubting but by observance thereof to enter into life; and thereto they apply these words, hoc fac, & vives. they glory also in their works, and if they said true, that by the works of the law they were justified, they had reason so to do. for to him that worketh, the reward is imputed, not according to grace, but according to debt, as the c Rom. 4. apostle saith. finally they seek to be justified formally by their works, and by the law, which they say is fulfilled by charity. for that is the end of Bellarmine's dispute of justice of works, and habitual justice. and so much do they rely upon their own justice, that they d Concil. Trid. sess. 6. can. 10. & 11. exclude the justice of Christ out of our justification. argument 2 Secondly the sect of the pharisees was condemned, for that they made void the law of God by there own traditions. reprobastis mandatum dei per seniorum vestrorum traditionem, saith our e Marc. 7. saviour speaking to the pharisees. they were likewise reproved for their diligence in making proselytes, and drawing novices, to like of their sect. circuitis mare & aridam saith our f Matth. 23. saviour, ut faciatis unum proselytum, & cum factus fuerit, facitis illum filium gehennae duplo plus, qùam vos estis. the pharisees also stood much upon external ceremonies, but setretly they devoured widows houses. Furthermore they are noted, for that they loved pre-eminence in meetings, and desired to be called Rabbi, affecting a strange kind of singularity. Dicebantur pharisaei, saith g Haeres. 16. ante Christum. Epiphanius, eo quod separati essent ab alijs propter spontaneam superfluam religionem apud ipsos receptam. h Ibidem. finally they are taxed for their vows of continency, for their sleeping on thorns and boards, for their superstitious fashions in praying, and for their allowing of fatum or destiny. In all which points the papists seem much to resemble this pharisaical sect. for first by their traditions they frustrate the law of God. God, he forbiddeth us to make graven images, to worship them. but they say the making of images, and the worshipping of them is a tradition descended from the apostles; and is very profitable. Saint Paul he teacheth us obedience to princes: but papists say, this holdeth no longer, then during the pope's pleasure, or at the least until such times, as he shall excommunicate them. for than they say, it is lawful to cut their throats. and so de facto they do it, if they can, as appeareth by many precedents. Our saviour Christ in the institution of the Lords supper, commanded his disciples to take and eat, and delivering the cup said, drink ye all of this, yet by their traditions the papists have frustrated Christ his institution. for in am of taking and eating, they content themselves with gaping and fasting, and in the end they put up the sacrament into a box, & worship it. and where Christ said, drink yet all of this; their tradition is, drink not all of this, nor look for the cup. secondly the jebusites friars and priests travel land and sea to reconcile men to the pope, and to make of good subjects obstinate recusants, and proselyts to the synagogue of Rome. and when they have inveigled simple people, they make them as unnatural and disloyal traitors as themselves. thirdly no sect ever stood more upon external ceremonies, than the papists, whose whole religion standeth in ceremonies. four the jebusits have devoured many widows houses, and have impoverished many orphans, intercepting by singular fraud that, which was due unto them. as Arnold in his pleading, and the secular priests in their discourses do particularly charge them. fifthly the priests and friars look for great pre-eminence, and desire to be saluted by the name of fathers, begetting children to the pope and bastards to their hosts, as the jesuits catechism saith. sixtly these friars pretend, that they are in the state of perfection, and condemn other christians, as carnal and secular. They do also wear haircloth sometimes, and lash themselves with whips, and in the manner of their superfluous religion they are very singular. finally both they and the i Th. Aqu. 1. p q. 116. art. 2 3. & 4. schoolmen do in some sort allow fatum, and subject all second causes unto it. and is not this trow you, pharisaisme? argument 3 The scribes were reputed sectaries and heretics, for that they brought in a superfluous, and sophistical exposition of the law. k Haeres. 15. ante Christum. Ephphanius doth call it supersophisticam expositionem. they were likewise condemned, for their often washings and purifyings, and for that they accounted themselves more holy than others. why then should not the popish schoolmen and the frapling friars be likewise accounted scribes, sectaries and heretics, seeing never any devised more vain and sophistical expositions upon the word of God, nor more contrary to the meaning of the holy ghost than they? Further do not the l See the rubicks of the mass. priests often wash themselves at mass? and do not all papists continually wash themselves and others with holy water, thinking thereby to cleanse themselves from venial sins, and to m Missale Ro. in fine. drive the devil from them? do they not also purify and hollow altars, churches, vestments, and other vtensiles of their profane priesthood? finally who can account themselves more holy, than those, that will needs be entitled holy fathers, and profess themselves to live in a holy and perfect state of life? argument 4 The n Epiphan. in haeres. 17. ante Christum. Hemerobaptistes for their continual washings, and for that they imagined, that they were thereby cleansed from their sins, are numbered among jewish heretics, let it therefore be imagined, whether the papists do not resemble them both in their washings and opinions, when they sprinkle themselves continually with holy water, and imagine, that thereby they are cleansed from venial sins. yet as o Ibidem. Epiphanius saith, neither can drops, nor rivers, nor the whole ocean wash away sins. argument 5 The p Epiphan. haeres. 13. ante Christum. Dositheans were a sect of heretics among the jews, and so reputed for their affect at virginity, and abstinence from the use of marriage, although they were married. they were also noted for their voluntary fastings, and for that diversly, and voluntarily they afflicted their bodies. what then are we to think of papists, that allow these voluntary whip, and lashings of their bodies? and what may be thought of the jebusites chambers of meditations? papists also allow extraordinary fastings, and think thereby to satisfy for sin, and to merit heaven. some of them also account it great holiness for married couples to live a sunder, and to creep into monasteries, and such dens of superstition and idolatry. for which cause they deserve to creep, if not to run into the catalogue of heretics. for the apostle doth condemn those, which upon a superstitious conceit q Colos. 2. spared not their bodies. argument 6 Among the heretics, that first showed themselves upon the first plantation of Christian religion, Simon Magus and his followers are commonly reputed the ringleaders. of him we read, r Act. 8. that he thought it no sin, to buy the gifts of the holy Ghost. and thereupon those, that buy and sell orders, benefices, churches, and masses, and barter for spiritual things, and account such chaffaire sailable, are accounted Simonians, and this simony, as s Petitiones R. Vllerston. Vllerston, who wrote about the time of of the council of Constance, affirmeth, is haeresis practica. but if men imagine it to be lawful, it is truly an heresy according to rules of speculation. the papists in both these points are guilty. for nothing can be more infamous, than the church of Rome, for buying and selling of palles, mitres, churches, and such like chaffaire. Venalia nobis, saith t Lib. Calam. 3. Mantuan, Templa, sacerdotes, altaria, sacra, coronae, Ignis, thura, preces, coelum est venale, detisque. Benedict the 9 sold his popedom for a great sum of money. and all the world knoweth, that without simoniacal compacts no man can enter into that seat. they sell men's sins, and for money they offer to sell heaven. the priests sell masses, as dear as they can, albeit such merchandise be now decried and of little worth. for which cause Brigit inveigheth bitterly against them, and saith they are worse than judas. deteriores sunt juda, saith u Brigit. 132. onus ecclesae. 23. Christ in Brigits revelations, qui pro solis denariis me vendidit, illi autem pro omni mercimonio. so it seemeth, that these are the merchants, of which mention is made Apocalyps. 18. which sell men's souls. beside that, the canonists dispute, that it is lawful for the pope to buy and sell benefices, palles, and mitres. and Bellarmine with all his skill maintaineth the sale of jubileys, and other indulgences. of Simon Magus also x De haeres. c. 1. Augustine affirmeth, quod docebat detestandam turpitudinem indifferenter utendi foeminis: & quod imagines, & suam, & Helenes praebebat discipulis suis adorandas. that is, he taught it was no sin, to use women without making difference betwixt wife, concubine, and whore (for that is the signification of the word indifferenter) and gave his own image & the image of his leman Selena, to be worshipped of his disciples. finally, he carried a concubine about with him called Selena. let it therefore be judged with indifferency, whether the papists have not some touch of these heretical tricks, who in Rome and all great cities almost maintain common bordels, and y They put adultery and fornication in the rank of lesser crimes. c. at siclerici. de judicijs. account lechery a small sin, & whose priests commonly keep concubines, and finally which worship the images of divers lecherous priests, and their whores canonized by the pope for saints. as Dunstane and Alfgina, Bernac and his leman, and many others. and albeit we are not able to say much for the honesty of Francis and Clare, yet it is apparent, that the papists worship their images. so it appeareth that the first foundation of the worship of images was laid, either by Simon Magus, or by Carpocrates and Marcellina and other heretics of Simon Magus also it may be, they borrow their exorcisations. for they are rather magical, than Christian like, as appeareth by them as they are set down in Hierome Menghus, a disciple as it seemeth of Simon Magus. argument 7 The Basilidians were reputed heretics, for that they worshipped images, and used enchantments, and superstitious adjurations. for that is proved by the testimony of z Lib. 1. adverse. haeres. c. 23. Irenaeus. how then can the papists wipe away the blot of heresy, that not only privately worship images, but also fill every corner of their churches full of them, and like the statues of Mercury set them up in high ways? they do also conjure and enchant water, saying, exorcizo te creatura aquae: and salt, saying, exorcizo te creatura salis; as if the creatures were possessed, or corrupted by devils. likewise they conjure and enchant candles, herbs, and make exorcists and conjurers a holy order, and that order a sacrament of the church. argument 8 a Iren●y lib. 1. c. 24. Carpocrates used to worship images; and Marcellina one of his followers adored the images of jesus and Paul, and burnt incense unto them. Colebat saith b De bars. c. 7. Augustine, imagines jesus & Pauli, & Homeri & Pythagorae, adorando, incensumque ponendo if then this were heresy in them, why should it not be heresy in papists to worship the image of jesus with divine worship and to burn incense not only before the images of jesus and Paul, but also before other petty saints, and percase no saints? if the image of Christ jesus and Paul might not be adored, how come the images of Christopher and saint Catherine, that never were in the world, of George that was an heretic, and Thomas Becket and Campian, that were traitors, to be adored and honoured with light and incense? argument 9 The Carpocratians and Basilidians did conceal and hide the mysteries of their religion, least holy things should be cast to dogs, as may appear partly by the testimony of Irenaeus adversus haeres lib. 1. c. 23. and Epiphanius entreating of the 24. and 27. heresy. and what do the papists? do not they rehearse the words of the canon so, that no man can hear? and do they not keep the mysteries of their religion secret, when they c Navarri enthirid & Alagona. teach, that it is mortal sin for lay men to dispute of matters of faith, and read scriptures and the public liturgy in tongues not understood of the hearers? finally, have not divers of them alleged, that the reason why scriptures are not translated into vulgar tongues, nor in that tongue read publicly is, because holy things are not to be cast to dogs? argument 10 The Marcosians did baptize in an unknown language, and anoint those, whom they baptized with chrism or opobalsamum, that is testified by Epiphanius haeres. 34. this by Irenaeus adverse. haeres lib. 1. c. 18. they did also anoint their dead, and give them extreme unction. Marcus their founder went about to make his followers believe, that he did transubstantiate wine into blood in the sacrament. In that which he calleth the eucharist, saith d Haeres. 34. Epiphanius, they say that the redness (viz. of the wine) is changed straightways into blood. The followers of Marcus accounted themselves perfect but, as e Lib. 1. adverse. haeres. c. 15. Irenaeus saith, perfectus nemo, nisi qui maxima mendacia apud eos fructificaverit. Finally, they allege a multitude of apocryphal writings, forged by themselves, as Ireney testifieth of them, lib. 1. adverse. haeres. c. 18. all which points of heresy, the papists seem to have translated into their religion. for first, they baptise in a language not understood of the multitude. next, they use greasing and anointing in baptism and confirmation. thirdly, they grease their disciples, when they lie on dying. four, they believe, that wine in the Lord's cup by certain words of consecration is transubstantiate into blood. fitly, their orders of religion do account themselves to be in state of perfection. but the most perfect of them, which are employed by the pope in defence of the popish faction and religion, do fructify plenteously in telling of greatest lies, as we shall in his place exemplify by Bellarmine a cardinal, and Robert Parsons in hope and desire a cardinal, and a most famous forger of lies. his putative father, father Coobucke, they say, could not with more art forge a horseshoo, than he can forge a lie. Finally, for proof of their traditions and doctrine, they have forged divers decretal epistles, and counterfeit canons, and have written divers lying legends. Parson's to trouble the state, under the name of Dolman hath forged a book of forged titles to the crown, and Baronius for a cardinals hat hath been hired with apocryphal trash raked out of every blind corner, and oft times most impudently forged, to corrupt the history of the church. argument 11 The Nazarites were condemned for heretics, first, for that they mingled jewish ceremonies with Christian religion, and next, for that they boasted much of their revelations and miracles, as is testified by Augustine de haeres. c. 9 and partly, by Epiphanius in haeres. 29. The like sentence therefore is to be pronounced against the papists, which f Missal. Rom. consecrate every year a Paschal lamb after a jewish fashion, and observe a certain form of jubiley, and have translated the priest's apparel, and divers ceremonies from the jews, as appeareth by Durand, and those that writ of their ceremonies. Innocentius the third by a solemn decretal determineth, that what is contained in Deuteronomy, is now to be observed in the new testament. cum Deuteronomium, saith g C. per venerabilem. qui filii sint legitimi. he, secunda lex interpretetur, ex vi vocabuli comprobatur, ut quod ibi decernitur, in novo testamento debeat observari. but Deuteronomy containeth an epitome of Moses his law. finally, they brag much of their revelations, and miracles, and h Bellar. de notis eccles. make them a mark of the church. argument 12 The Heracleonites did anoint their followers departing out of this life, and gave them a kind of extreme unction. Feruntur, saith S. i De haeresib. c. 16. & Epiph. haeres. 36. Augustine, suos morientes novo modo, quasi redimere, id est per oleum, balsamum, & aquam, & invocationes, quas Hebraicis verbis dicunt super capita eorum. and these their anointings and prayers, they thought to be grounded upon the place out of the fift of S. james commonly alleged to this purpose, all which notwithstanding, they are numbered among heretics. it seemeth therefore, that the papists have borrowed their extreme unction, their dirges and masses for the dead from heretics. and I am the rather confirmed in this opinion, for that the prayer for the dead, that is now in the canon, is not found in the old ordinal of the church of Rome. neither did ancient Christians anoint those parts and senses, that the papists do. finally, they did anoint the sick while the gifts of healing continued in the church, and to the intent, that the parties grieved might recover their health: which circumstances do now fail in our adversaries cause. argument 13 The followers of Helzai, and heretics called Osseni, as k Haeres. 19 ante Christ. Epiphanius reporteth, did use to swear by salt and bread, and other creatures. they worshipped also the spittle and relics of two of their saints. l Ibidem. thirdly, Helzai taught his disciples to pray in a tongue not understood by them. nemo quaerat interpretationem, saith he, sed solùm haec dicat. than he added a prayer in a strange tongue. Do we then think, that it is catholic religion in papists, to swear by bread and salt, and by creatures? and are they good Christians, that worship the relics of saints, and reserve their ashes and relics in their altars, & pray in a tongue not understood of them which pray, and say, it is not material although a man understand not the interpretation of the words? argument 14 m Damascen. de haeresib. Martion gave women power to baptise, and albeit he had corrupted and abused a maiden, yet was he not ashamed to extol virginity. à Marcione, saith Epiphanius, n Haeres. 42. virginitas praedicatur. Irenaeus lib. 1. adverse. haeres. c. 30. saith, that he and Saturninus began to teach abstinence from living creatures. he did also o Epiphan. haeres. 42. teach, that by Christ's descending into hell divers men's souls were thence delivered, and separated marriages under pretence of religion, of which heresies, p Tertull. adverse. Martion. the papists savour very strongly. for first they authorise women to q C. adijcimus. 16. q. 1. etc. mulier. de consecrat. dist. 4. baptise, as did the Marcionistes. secondly they extol virginity and fasting highly, and make both a means of great merit, and yet observe neither virginity nor fasting. for their priests keep commonly harlots, if no worse. the nuns albeit mured up, yet prove oftentimes very fruitful. thirdly they imagine, that flesh is not so holy meat as fish, and believe that he that filleth himself with fish and other dainties doth fast, where he that eateth a bit of flesh fasteth not. four they separate marriages upon pretence of monkish religion, and hold that parties so separated may not again cohabit together without sin; and that contrary to the apostles commandment, 1. Cor. 7. lastly, they teach, that the patriarchs before Christ's time were delivered by Christ's descension into hell out of that place, which they call limbum patrum, or receptacle of the father's souls. argument 15 The Messalians believed, that baptism was only available to cut away former sins so likewise the papists believe, that baptism doth only purge and respect sins past, and that sins committed after baptism are to be done away by penance. against them both Theodoret r De divin. decret. c. de baptism. teacheth, that baptism is the earnest of future graces, and the communication of Christ his passion. again he saith, non ut dicunt amentes Messaliani, baptismus novaculam imitatur, quae praecesserunt peccata auferens. hoc enim ex superabundanti largitur. likewise the Messalians did mumble over their prayers with their lips, having their heart otherwhere, and believed they were heard for their much babbling. which custom blind papists do so well like, that they rehearse infinite avemariaes, pater nostres, and creeds, liking that babbling religion, which mumbleth up her prayers on a string of beads: s Mantuan Alph. lib. 4. Quae filo insertis numerat sua murmura baccis. and pattreth prayers, like an ape clattering with his chaps. the pope also giveth great indulgences to those, that say the lady's Rosary, and pray upon their beads, albeit the poor souls understand nothing of that they pray or rather prattle. argument 16 The Caians were reputed heretics for worshipping angels, and praying to them. unusquisque eorum, saith t Heres. 38. Epiphanius, uniuscuiusque angeli nomen invocat. for the same cause also the u Epiphan. de angelicis. & Augustin. de haeres. c. 39 & Isid. lib. 8. orig. Angelickes were condemned both by the writings of fathers, and acts of counsels. non oportet Christianos say the * C. 35. fathers assembled in the council of Laodicea, derelicta ecclesia abire, & ad angelos idololatriae abominandae congregationes facere. what then are we to think of papists, that pray to angels, and say masses in honour of them, and serve them devoutly as their protectors? to avoid this blemish Carranza and others in the canon of Laodicea before recited, for angelos, write angulos, and so hope to hide their filthiness in corners. But Theodoret doth plainly convince them both of heresy, and falsehood also. Synodus saith he, x In epist. ad Coloss. c. 3. quae convenit laodiceae lege prohibuit, ne precarentur angelos. that this worship of angels is superstitious, Chrysostome commenting upon the epistle to the Colossians declareth, and especially in his ninth homily upon that epistle. argument 17 The Severians were noted as heretics for their miracles either vainly forged, or by the devils help effected. their prophetess y Augustin. de hares. c. 24. Philumena through a narrow mouthed glass, would put in a pretty big loaf, and draw it out again without breaking the glass. the Mirabiliaries were likewise condemned, for that by miracles and prophecies they sought to confirm their opinions. and what do the papists? do not they likewise confirm all their superstition, false religion and idolatry with counterfeit miracles? do they not tell us tales of z Laurent. Vall. contra donat. Constanim. images speaking, of men headless walking, of dead men reviving? they will not deny it. nay Bellarmine maketh these miracles a mark of his church. but if they prove false, their church must needs prove a false church by a very good consequent. argument 18 The Tatians and other heretics abstained from marriage, as a state of life impure and imperfect. The Romish priests therefore, together with monks, friars and nuns have abjured marriage, as not compatible with their pretended monkish perfection. a C. proposuisti. dist. 82. Syricius, or at least Gratian, or some other falsary under his name, calleth marriage fleshly pollutions. In Capgranes' legends, the Romish saints no otherwise talk of marriage, then as if it were uncleanness, sin, and abomination. divers of our adversaries have written, that it is less sin for priests to commit fornication, than to marry. argument 19 The papists also agree with the Manicheyes in divers points savouring of heresy. for as the Mancheyes condemned marriage in their priests, which for their excellency they called electos, so likewise do the papists in their monks and greater orders of their clergy. secondly as the Manicheyes abstained from the cup in the Lord's supper, and received one kind only, as appeareth by the testimony of Leo Serm. 4. de quadrages. and of the chap. relatum, and c. comperimus. dist. 2. the consecrat. so likewise do the papists dividing, if Gelasius say true, one and the self same sacrament most sacrilegiously. thirdly both Manicheyes and papists destroy Christ's humanity, the Manicheyes giving him no true flesh, nor body, and the papists giving him a body neither visible, nor palpable, nor endued with the right dimensions and true properties of a body. both of them also say the body of Christ may be in many places at once. lastly the Manicheyes in their fasts, albeit they abstained from flesh, yet used divers other exquisite and dainty meats. and this is also the rigorous fast of most papists, which the rest will not deny to be a good fast after the pope's law, and a good feast as Christians say. argument 20 Montanus did first b Apollonius apud Euseb. lib. 5. c. 17. establish laws of fasting, as is recorded in the history of Eusebius, and appeareth also by the practice of the church, that had no law concerning that matter in his time. the same also may be proved by the testimony of Augustine, who denieth, that any law concerning fasting was made by Christ or his apostles. quibus diebus c Epist. 86. ad Casulan. saith he, non oporteat ieiunare, & quibus oporteat, praecepto domini, vel apostolorum non invenio definitum. Montanus also began first to d Epiphan. in haeres. 48. dispute, that the scriptures were not perfect, and that they were to he supplied by his new paracletus, that as he said was to teach all things necessary. his e Augustin. de haeres. c. 26. followers had the prophecies of Prisca, and Maximilla in great reverence. both he and his disciples did believe Limbum Patrum, to be in hell f Lib. de anima. in fi●t. Tertullian having learned of Montanus, taught, that small sins after this life were to be purged, and that his paracletus did often recommend that doctrine. further by the testimony of unwritten traditions, and his paracletus, he g Lib. de coron. milit. proveth, that the suffering days of martyrs were to be kept holy, and that sacrifices should be offered for souls departed. the doctrine therefore of the church of Rome concerning set fasts, the imperfection of scriptures, unwritten traditions, legendary prophecies of Brigit, and other Romish saints, and concerning Limbus Patrum in hell, and remission of sins after this life, and the oblations for souls departed, seemeth rather to proceed from Montanus, then from Christ or his apostles. finally the montanists did not more'vant of their Prisca & Maximilla, than the papists of their Brigit, Hildegardis and Mechtildis. nor did Montanus offer for the souls departed otherwise, than the papists. argument 21 As the Pepuzians did honour their town Pepuza, and call it Jerusalem, or the metropolis of their religion; so do the papists honour Rome. and both papists and Pepuzians suffer women to minister the sacrament or baptism. should not then the papists have great wrong, if they were not made equal in rank with Pepuzians? herein they also surpass them. for we do not read, that any woman among the Pepuzians was made pope of Pepuza. but Martin Polonus, Marianus Scotus, Chronicon Chronicorum, Platina, and divers authors of great credit report, that a woman was made pope of Rome, and her picture is to be seen in the doom of Sienna among other pope's, if it be not latele defaced. finally the jebusites contending to show the contrary, show nothing but their own impudence, and the hardness of their faces. argument 22 The Catharistes boast much of their merits, purity and perfection. Mundiores se ceteris praedicant, saith h Lib. 8. orig. ●. de haeres. Isidore. they do also deny absolution in sums cases to the repentant, and rebaptize those that are already baptised. and is not this also the case of papists? they cannot well deny it. for they say that all monks and friars are in state of perfection, and deny that any just man doth commit a mortal sin. they deny also to heretics relapsed as they call them all favour, and absolve none in cases reserved to the pope. finally the histories of France and Flanders do show, that the popish priests have there rebaptized many. and in England albeit they do not rebaptize, yet they change the names and use a number of greasy ceremonies frequented in the Romish church to supply our baptism as they say. argument 23 The jacobites and Armenians were condemned for heretics, for that they made the images of God the father, and God the holy ghost. Imagines saith i Lib hist. 18. c. 52. Nicephorus patris & spiritus sancti effigiant, quod est perquam absurdum. yet this absurdity is a high point of popish religion. argument 24 The worshippers of the cross, which were termed Chazinzarij and Staurolatrae, were for that point esteemed heretics. Nicephorus he woondreth at them, as strange fellows. Crucem, saith he, adorare & colere dicuntur. k Lib. hist. 18. c. 54. Is not then this a plain conviction of the papists, which worship the cross, and say, ave sancta crux: and desire to be protected by it, and give to it latriam, which I suppose the Staurolatrians were not so simple and stupid, as to give to their crosses. argument 25 The Collyridian heretics were condemned for worshipping the virgin Mary, and that worthily. for as l Haeres. 78. Epiphanius saith, she was a virgin, and honourable, but not to be adored. and again, non dominabitur nobis antiquus error, ut relinquamus viventem, & adoremus ea, quae ab ipso facta sunt. all which notwithstanding the papists adore her, and worship her, and say many a mass in her honour, and pray unto her; which I doubt whether the Collyridians did so grossly or no. Bonaventure to make her equal with God, as David made Psalms in the praise of God, so applied, or rather distorted Psalms to the virgin Mary, turning God into the blessed virgin. argument 26 The worshippers of images of saints by a certain m Hist. miscel. Paul. Diat. lib. 21. council of Constantinople, whose acts are recorded, and inserted in the sixth action of the second Nicene council, were noten as idolaters, and condemned by the fathers as heretics, or worse. the synod of Francford did condemn the second Nicene council, that allowed the worship of images. non nos imagines in basilicis positas, n In lib. Carol. Magni contr. Synod, in partib. Graeciae pro imaginibus adorandis. say they, idola nuncupamus, sed ne idola nuncupentur, adorare & colere eas recusamus. which is nothing, but the judgement of Gregory the first also, that would not have images worshipped. Epiphanius haeres. 79. saith, that by worshipping of images, the mind is turned from one only God, to commit fornication with images. all which notwithstanding, the papists kiss them, bow to them, worship them, light candles, and burn incense unto them, or at the least before them. argument 27 The barefooted brethren were condemned for their heretical singularity in going barefoot. Est alia haeresis, saith Saint o De hares. c. 68 Augustine, nudis pedibus semper ambulantium. yet this is accounted by the papists a part of their friar-like perfection, who have orders of men and women that go barefoot, and believe it is meritorious to go barefoot in pilgrimages and processions. argument 28 The apostolikes, notwithstanding their arrogant presumption in taking on them the name and profession of the apostles followers, were condemned as heretics, for that they received none into their order, that had wives, or possessed any thing in private. Apostolici, qui se isto nomine arrogantissimè vocaverunt, saith Saint p De hares. 40. Augustine, eo quod non receperunt in suam communionem utentes coniugibus, & res proprias possidentes, quales habet ecclesia catholica, & monachos & clericos plurimos. where note, I pray you, how that Augustine saith, that monks and clergy men had wives and goods in property: and how near the papists come to this heresy condemning all monks and friars, that possess any goods in property, and both monks and priests, that match themselves in marriage, though very honourable in the judgement of the apostle. argument 29 The Heraclites, as saith Isidore, were heretics, that received only monks, and refused married folks to be of their company. Monachos tantùm recipiunt, saith q Orig. lib. 8. c. de hares. he, coniugia respuunt. further, they believe not, that children dying young shall possess the kingdom of heaven. and do not monks and friars, and other sects among the papists believe the like? do they not also exclude all infants dying before baptism out of the kingdom of heaven, albeit the parents did by all means endeavour to have them baptised? and do they not place such in limbo puerorum, which is either in hell, or else the papists know not where it is? argument 30 The priscillianists disjoin married folks for religion sake. Coniuges, saith S. r Haeres. 70. Augustine, speaking of Priscillian, quibus hoc malum potuerit persuadere, disiungens: & viros à nolentibus foeminis, & foeminas à nolentibus viris. likewise, for hiding their wickedness and filthiness, they made no account to forswear themselves. s Ibidem. propter occultandas contaminatioens & turpitudines suas habent in suis dogmatibus & haec verba: iura periura, secretum prodere noli. they do also refuse to eat flesh, as unclean meat, as S. Augustine testifieth. And what do papists? do not they likewise separate married folks, that vow monastical religion? and do they not hold, that man or wife before marriage consummate, may enter into a monastery, albeit the other party be most unwilling? Of oaths also they make no account. If thou be put to an oath, say the t In annot. in act. 23. Rhemists, to accuse catholics for serving God (so they please to speak of papists worshipping idols, and hearing the idolatrous mass) or to utter any man to God's enemies (thus they call her Majesty and the judges) thou ought first to refuse such unlawful oaths. but if thou have not constancy and courage so to do: yet know thou, that such oaths bind not in conscience and law of God: but may and must be broken under pain of damnation. where note, that they advise men to forswear themselves under pain of damnation: and that they call catholics and Gods servants such as are combined with the Pope and Spaniard, and come with an intention to murder their dread Sovereign, & to raise rebellion, or at least embrace the idolatrous religion of the pope. this is also the resolution of the two traitors, Allen and Parsons, in their wicked resolutions of cases of conscience for the English nation, through which they have brought divers young men to the destruction both of body and soul. Finally, if papists did not account flesh unclean, why do the Carthusians forswear flesh? and why do papists account it more holy to eat fish, than flesh on fasting days? argument 31 The Helcesaits make Christ in heaven to differ from Christ on earth. Christum, saith u Haeret. fab. lib. 2. c. de Helcesaeis. Theodoret speaking of them, non unum dicunt, sed hunc quidem infernè, illum verò supernè: & eum olim in multis habitasse. so likewise the papists believe and teach, that Christ in heaven is visible and palpable, and hath the fullness, thickness and just proportion of a body. but their Christ on the altar they believe to be neither visible nor palpable, neither that he filleth a place, or is contained in one place. nay, they say he is substantially in every one, that receiveth the sacrament, and not that only, but also in every pixe, and consecrated host. argument 32 The Eutychianists deny, that Christ after the union of the two natures, had a true body, but as x De jejune. 7. men's. ser. 6. Leo signifieth, a body without shape, dimensions, or circumscription. they said also, that Christ was whole both in heaven, and earth: against whom Vigilius disputing, y Lib 4. contr. Eutych. c. 4. saith, that the flesh of Christ when it was in in earth, was not in heaven, and now being in heaven, is not in earth. and their chief ground was, that Christ's human nature was abolished, even as the mystical signs are changed into another nature after the consecration of the sacrament. for this is plainly apparent in Theodoret's second Dialogue. Who then understandeth not, that the papists by their transubstantiation do bring in Eutychianisme, holding that Christ's body in the sacrament is without all shape, and dimensions, that may be perceived, and that his body is both in heaven and earth at one time, & also in as many altars and places, as the sacrament is? who doth not likewise perceive that Christ's humanity is abolished, if the substance of bread and wine be abolished in the sacrament, especially if the union of the two natures in Christ's person be fitly resembled by the fathers to the sacrament? This, certes, is a matter very evident, that both Theodoret dialog. 1. and Gelasius writing against Eutyches, doth confute his heresy by this reason, for that the substance of the bread remaineth in the sacrament. which being denied by papists, is it not very plain, that they reduce and bring back into the world the old decayed heresy of Eutyches? argument 33 The papists also in many points conspire with the enemies of the grace of God the Pelagians. z Augustin. de haeres. c. 88 Pelagius saith, that without grace a man may do all God's commandments. Voluit credi, saith Augustine, etiam si difficilius, tamen posse homines sine gratia divina facere jussa. and a De great. & lib. arb. lib. 5. c. 5. etc. 9 Bellar. saith, Solis naturae viribus posse aliquem ad brevissimum tempus omnia servare. scilicit, divina mandata. he shifteth off the matter, with saying, quoad substantiam operis. but that, no question, but the Pelagians would also admit. Pelagius said also, that grace is infused according to merit. The papists also teach, that men doing quantum in se est: God is present with his grace. and this they call meritum congrui, or preparations to justification. they do not deny also, but after a man hath grace, he may merit a greater measure of grace. thirdly, both Pelagians and papists agree in the definition of sin. Propriè vocatur peccatum, saith b Vid. August. contra julian. & de great. Pelagius, quod libera voluntate, & à sciente committitur. so also say the papists, as appeareth by the censure of Coleine. Again, the Pelagians teach, that a just man in this life may be without sin. Hoc Pelagiani audent dicere, saith, S. c De bono perseverant. lib. 2. c. 5. Augustine, hominem justum in hac vita omnino nullum habere peccatum. and in his book of heresies. c. 88 he showeth it is Pelagianisme to hold, that the life of just men in this life hath no sin. d Lib. 4. de justif. 11. Bellar. also holdeth, that a man is able to perform the law perfectly. of which it followeth, that a man may be without all sin. for how can a man fulfil the law, but he must be without all sin? All papists generally hold, that all just men are without mortal sins. The Pelagians do e Augustin. contra julian. lib. 6. c. 6. teach, that concupiscence by baptism is sanctified, and being before evil, doth afterward begin not to be evil: which doctrine S. Augustine calleth very absurd. yet from this doctrine can not the papists clear themselves, when they teach that concupiscence after baptism, and in the regenerate, is no sin. The Pelagians would not grant, that the Gentiles sinned in all their actions, nor that their actions were sin, as done without faith, as S. f Contra julian. lib. 4. c. 3. Augustine showeth. no more will the papists grant it, as appeareth by Bellarmine's disputes lib. 5. de great. & lib. arb. c. 5. & 9 nay, they stick not to hold, that they may do all good works according to the substance of the work. The g Contr. dua● epist. Pelag. c. 19 Pelagians were wont to say, in omni bono opere hominem semper adiwari à gratia; and h Ibid. lib. 4. c. 6. again, gratiam adiware bonum cuiusque propositum. and Bellar. likewise lib. 2. de great. & lib. arb. c. 5. disputeth, that God according to time and place giveth grace sufficient to all men. The i August. lib. 1. de great. c. 28. Pelagians say, nos fort & firmum habere ad non peccandum liberum arbitrium. and S. k Lib. 2. de baptismo. Augustine teacheth us, that this doctrine is Pelagianisme▪ yet do the papists hold, that sin is subject to our will, as the censurers of Coleyn do speak. Bellarmine also lib. 5. de great. & lib. arb. in divers places alloweth this power to free will, to be able to do good, and to abstain from sin. The Pelagians deny original sin, as saint Augustine lib. de haeres. c. 88 teacheth. and most papists now hold, that the virgin Mary was conceived without original sin, as appeareth by the testimony of Bellarmine, lib. 4. de amissione great. c. 15. now to deny original sin to be in any, is Pelagianisme, as Bellarmine lib. de notis ecclesiae c. 9 disputeth. Saint Augustinne l Contra. epist. Pelag. lib. 4. c. 6. & 8. de great. lib, 1. c. 14. teacheth us, that it is Pelagianisme to hold, that God is ready with his grace, if he see a man's soul ready and prepared to receive it: and, that a natural man may desire his own conversion. and yet the papists will not deny these propositions, nor seem to dislike them. S. m In Hierem. 13. Hierome saith, that the Pelagians did interpret these sentences: our justice is like a cloth of a menstruous woman. and, no man is good, no not one: in this sort, as if the holy Ghost, had meant, that man in comparison of God is not just, or good. which is also the sleight and cunning interpretation of papists. Both Pelagians and Papists use the same reasons to prove the strength of free-will: as first, that we are commanded to choose, and next, that God would not command us things impossible. magnum aliquid se scire putant Pelagiani. saith saint n Degrat. & lib. arb. c. 16. Augustine, quando dicunt non iuberet deus quod sciret ab homine non posse fieri. so likewise the papists say, if we had not free-will; that then God would not command us to do things. but he confuteth both their reasons in the words following. quis hoc nesciat? saith he. sed ideo jubet aliqua quae non possumus, ut noverimus, quid ab illo petere debeamus. he saith not, that we have free will, to do good works, because God commandeth us to do them; but rather showeth that God commandeth us to do things, which we are not able of ourselves to do, that we may learn what to crave and beg at God's hands. we may therefore well conclude, that the papists are far declined towards Pelagianisme. and that long before us, did o Lib. 1. de great. adverse. Pelag. Thomas Brandwardine, perceive & declare, and therefore doubteth not to call the popish schoolmen Pelagians. totus mundus saith he, post pelagium in errorem abiit. exurge deus & judica causam tuam. this man wrote about 300. years agone. but now our adversaries are grown worse and worse. argument 34 The Donatists, as saint p De haeres. c. 69. Augustine writeth, believed, that the church was only contained in Africa, and consisted in the obedience or part of Donatus; quod ecclesia Christi saith he, in Africa, & Donati part remanserit. they did also rebaptize catholic Christians. if this than be heresy, the papists may not escape scot free, that believe the catholic Roman church only, and take none for Christians but such, q Geronym● Campos, catetechism. & Brist. motiut 12. as take the pope's part, and live under his obedience. they do also presume sometimes to rebaptize, such as have been baptised in our churches. argument 35 The Circumcellions shought it a matter meritorious to kill those, that were contrary to their sect, immania facinora perpetrando, as S. r De haeres. c. 69. Augustine saith. nay that holy man himself did hardly escape their ambuscadoes laid for him. like to them also do papists teach, that it is lawful and meritorious to kill princes excommunicate by the pope. both pope Pius the fift, and Sixtus the fift, upon pain of excommunication, commanded her majesties subjects to take arms against her. Sixtus quintus that shameless friar, did s La fulminante. highly commend james Clement the Dominican friar, that murdered his liege prince Henry the third king of France. john Ghineard a jebusite did maintain this doctrine of murdering princes, and was therefore by arrest of the parliament of Paris condemned & executed. by these desperate Assassins and hired murderers the papists killed the prince of Orange and james the regent of Scotland, and poisoned divers others. Alphonsus Diazius did most wickedly murder his own brother, and yet was protected by the pope. finally by divers means they have sought to murder the Queen's Majesty, king Henry the 4. of France, Grave Maurice, and all that stand in their way: far passing not only the heretical circumcellions, but also the Turkish assassins. argument 36 The Audaeans or Anthropomorphites did imagine God to have an human shape, & parts like a mortal man. Cogitation carnali, saith t De haeres. c. 50. Augustine, Deum fingebant in similitu dinem hominis corruptibilis. The papists likewise cannot imagine, but that God is like man, when they express God the father in likeness of an old man, or at the least imagine such images to be like God. they do also make the image of the incomprehensible trinity. let the people be taught say the men of u S●ss. 25. Trent, that the Godhead is not therefore figured, as if it could be seen with corporeal eyes, or expressed with colours or figures. it appeareth therefore they meant it should be represented, though it could not be well expressed by figures. argument 37 Origen believed, that sins might be purged and done away after this life. and therefore x Augustine de haeres. c. 43. imagined, that even the damned after some long time might be saved. he delighted also to draw scriptures to serve allegorical senses. if then it be heresy to say, that great sins are to be remitted after this life, why is it not heresy to hold, that small sins may be then remitted: seeing we have but one means to obtain remission of sins? again why should allegorical interpretations be more allowable in papists, then in Origen? finally why should not other damned souls be as well saved as Traian's soul and the soul of Falconilla an idolatress, at the intercession of Gregory, as Damascen and the papists believe? argument 38 Eunomius taught, that so a man were of his religion, it skilled not greatly what sins he committed. asseverabat saith y De haeres. ●. 54. Augustine, quod nihil cuiquam obesset quorumlibet perpetratio, ac perseverantia peccatorum, si huius, quae ab ipso docebatur, fidei particeps esset. unto which heresy the papists come very near. for the pope to all his followers promiseth heaven, if they believe as he doth, and will come to confession. his canonists teach that the pope, albeit he draw innumerable souls to hell, and continue in all wickedness, yet he is Christ's true vicar, and the head of the church. z Lib. de eccles. milit. c. 2. Bellarmine requireth no inward virtue in the true members of the church, which he defineth, so they profess outwardly and communicate with the pope. let the world then judge, what church the papists build, when they admit Piers Lacie, Tirone, the white knight, and such wicked rebels to be true parts and members of their society. argument 39 The a 1. Tim. 4. apostle condemned them as heretics, that forbade men to marry, and to abstain from certain meats. whereupon saith b In 1. Tim. 4. Theodoret: rectè posuit, prohibentium contrahere matrimonium. neque eum Caelibatum, aut continentiam vituperat, sed eos accusat, qui lege lata ea sequi compellunt. if then the papists by sharp laws forbidden priests and monks to marry, and to eat certain meats, are they not within the compass of these false teachers? argument 40 The heretics called Anomis, were condemned as heretics, for that they either contemned, or corrupted the law of God. is it not then some blemish to papists, that they make the law of God to be unperfect, and c Sess. 4. council. Trid. make their own traditions equal to God's law? and is it not heresy, to make a new lawgiver, as the papists do, c. translato. de constitutionibus: and to cut off the second commandment concerning the making of graven images? finally do they imagine that it is no error to d Concil. Trid. sess. 5. say, that concupiscence is no sin, which is direct contrary to the apostles doctrine Rom. 7. and to the law of God? argument 41 Ireneus and Tertullian doth range them among heretics, which fly from scriptures, and when they are convinced by them, fall to accuse them, affirming that the apostles did not commit all things necessary to salvation to writing. cum ex scripturis arguuntur, saith e Adverse. hares. lib. 3. c. 2. Ireney, in accusationem convertuntur scripturarum, quasi non rectè habeant, neque sint ex authoritate, & quia vary sunt dictae, & quia non possit ex his inveniri veritas ab his, qui nesciant traditionem. norrenim per literas traditam illam, sed per vinam vocem, ob quam causam & Paulum dixisse, sapientiam loquimur inter perfectos. Tertullian saith, it is a trick of heretics either to falsify, or by false interpretations to pervert scriptures. alius manu scripturas, saith f De prescript. adverse. haeres. he, alius sensu expositiones interuertit. he saith again, that heretics cannot stand, if they be brought to try their cause by scriptures. aufer haereticis saith g De resurr. caernis. he, quae cumque ethnici sapiunt, ut de scriptures solis quaestiones suas sistant, & stare non possunt. in these points therefore these two fathers have stricken the papists, albeit generally they speak of heretics. for first h Bellar. de verb. Dei non scripto. they deny, that the scriptures contain doctrine sufficient to salvation, or that we can learn all truth necessary out of them without their traditions. secondly they speak evil of scriptures, as before hath been showed. thirdly they say that scriptures receive authority from the church. four they accuse them of uncertenty. Turrian adverse. Sadeelem lib. 1. doth call them Delphicum gladium: and others call them a nose of wax. fifthly they allow no sense, but such as the synagogue of Rome authorizeth. sixtly either Sixtus Quintus or Clement the 8. hath corrupted the scriptures. for both pretending to set our the old latin translation the one is in divers places contrary to the other. finally they will not have the scriptures to decide controversies about matters of faith. argument 42 i Lib. 8. Orig. c de haeres. Isidore doth declare them to be heretics, that do otherwise understand the scriptures, than the meaning of the holy Ghost requireth. quicunque saith he, aliter scripturam sacram intelligit, quam sensus spiritus sancti flagitat, a quo conscripta est, licèt de ecclesia non recesserit, tamen haereticus potest appellari. if then we list to read the pope's decretales, or the writings of the popish faction; we need not doubt, but they are tresgrand heretics, having so notoriously perverted the Scriptures, and turned them to senses never intended by the holy Ghost. as for example, these words of the k Isai 1. prophet, à planta pedis usque ad verticem non est in eo sanitas, which he spoke of the people of Israel being then most sinful, Clement the sixth in the chap. unigenitus extr. de poenit. & remiss. doth turn to our Saviour Christ, as if our Saviour had been unsound from the foot to the head: or that the prophet had meant, that our Saviour had shed all his blood, that the pope might make sale of the fruit of it at his pleasure. God by his prophet l Hierem. 1. saith, I have appointed thee over nations and kingdoms. ergo saith m C. unam sanctam. ext. de maior. & obed. Boniface the 8. if earthly princes go out of the way, they must be judged by the pope. Again, out of these words of the apostle: the spiritual man judgeth all things: he n Ibidem. o Ibid. collecteth, that the pope hath no superior judge. thirdly because Christ saith to Peter, put up thy sword into the sheath, he concludeth, that both Peter, and his successors ought to have a temporal sword. four of these words, ecce duo gladij hic: p Ibid. he inferreth, that the pope is to command and exercise both the swords. The q Isai. 8 & 28. prophets and r Rom. 9 & 1. Pet. 2. apostles by the corner stone placed in the foundation of the church do understand Christ jesus. but Bellarmine in his preface prefixed before his books the potifice Rom. draweth these words to the pope, and forceth them to serve to make him to be a corner stone, and a foundation also of the church. he will also have these words, super hanc Petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam: to be meant of the pope. these words of our Saviour, drink ye all of this: the papists expound in such sort, as if Christ had said, drink not all of this. the words of our Saviour to Peter, when he said, pasce oves meas: they appropriate to the pope, that feedeth not, as if none were to feed, but the pope. The apostle saith, marriage is honourable among all men: yet will they not allow, that marriage is honourable among nuns, and monks, and friars, and mass priests, and the rest of the Romish clergy. where our Saviour Christ saith, scrutamini scripturas; they say contrary, search not the scriptures. the apostle saith, they are profitable: they s Index libror. prohibit. regul. 4 say, they are pernicious. our saviour saith, that those do in vain worship him, that teach doctrines of men: these do teach human traditions, and yet doubt not, but that God is well pleased with them. The spirit of God commandeth, that prayers be made for princes: and willeth every Christian man, to submit himself to the magistrate, and to higher powers. but the papists do so expound these words, as if it were lawful for the pope to curse Gods anointed, to excommunicate kings and emperors, to massacre them, if they can, & to raise rebellion against them. It were infinite to rehearse all the false interpretations of Scriptures, devised by papists. beside that, in this place it is not necessary, seeing by these few which we have alleged already, it may in part appear, that never any heretics alleged Scriptures more perversely, nor more direct contrary to the meaning of the holy Ghost, than they. argument 43 As the t Damascene. de haeres. Herodians gave the name and honour of Christ to Herode; so the papists do give the names and honour of Christ to the pope, allowing these words of Bernard to Eugenius, unctione Christus es. they call him the foundation & rock of the church, the head and spouse of the church, the monarch of the church, and Christ's vicar general. u In epist. dedic. ante princip. doctrine. Stapleton doth call him supremum numen in terris. some teach, that he and Christ have but one consistory between them. x Lib. Caerem. others say, that all power is given to the pope in heaven and earth: which words our Saviour Matth. 28. speaketh of himself. if then the Herodians deserve for honouring Herod with Christ's titles, to be reputed heretics, who can clear the papists from the note of heresy, that far more impudently and wickedly give Christ's honour to the pope? argument 44 y De haeres. c. beicetae. Damascene numbereth those monks and nuns among heretics, that meeting together, used to skip and dance also together, as they thought, to the praise of God. yet do not the popish sort leave their piping and dancing processions, nor do priests, monks, and nuns cease to celebrate their comedical dancing masses skipping and hopping about the altar like apes, that are taught to skip, and to leap for their master's best advantage. argument 45 Gnosimachi were certain heretics, that held an opinion, that vulgar Christians were not to study the scriptures. omni Christianorum congnitioni ac scientiae ita adversantur, z Ibidem c. gnosimachis. saith Damascene, ut vanum, & minus necessarium laborem esse dicant eorum, qui in divinis scripturis aliquam exquírunt scientiam. neque enim deum aliud à Christiano postulare, quam bonas, praeclarasque actiones. Itaque aliquem simplici, rudique animo institutum suum persequi melius est, ut aiunt, quam multam curam in cognoscendis decretis & sententijs ponere. and like to these heretics are the papists, for they hold it to be mortal sin for lay men to dispute upon matters of faith, as Navarrns in his enchiridion declareth. they suppose also, that the coliars faith is sufficient, albeit he knoweth nothing, but being demanded a reason of his faith answereth, that he believeth as the church believeth. a De legit. judicibus lib. 1. Hosius writing against Brentius doth greatly commend ignorance, and doth greatly allow this saying, thy faith hath saved thee, and not the exercise of scriptures. b Lib. 3. de authorit. scripturae. he saith also, that nothing is more pernicious, then with scriptures to enter into a combat with Satan. generally they allow an implicit faith in the rude sort, and dehort them from knowledge of scriptures: which is the flat heresy of the Gnosimachians. argument 46 The c Damascene de haeres. 6. Ethnophronians were by the church condemned for observing divers heathenish customs, & holidays. which notwithstanding, pope Boniface the 8. instituted the jubiley every hundred years in imitation of certain plays, or games called Ludi seculares. the papists also have their expiations and lustrations with holy water, like to the gentles, they keep their carneval, as the Romans kept their lupercalias, running disguised up and down the streets. they canonize saints, as the heathen did canonize their benefactors for gods. and like as they burned incense to their idols, so papists burn incense to their idols. neither do they regard, that such as offered incense to dumb idols in the primitive church, were condemned as idolaters, as appeareth by divers censures of Cyprian, and others contra thurificantes: that is against those that burned incense before idols. they do likewise offer sacrifices, or inferias, for the souls of the departed, as did the Gentiles. finally they use lots, and conjurations, and lash themselves before their images, and have divers other tricks of gentilism, argument 47 As the Montanists, so likewise do papists mislike second marriages denying to bless them, and not accounting those marriages so holy a sacrament, as the first. nay they seem to go yet farther, & to enjoin penance for 2. marriages d 31. q. 1. de his qui. & council. Neocaesar. they decree, presbyterum convivio secundarum nuptiarum interesse non debere, maximè, cum praecipiatur secundis nuptijs poenitentiam tribuere. quis ergo erit presbiter qui propter conuivium illis consentiat nuptijs? it appeareth therefore, that they would not have priests to allow second marriages, or to bless them, or to be present at them. argument 48 e De haeres. c. Christianocategori. Damascene also accounteth them heretics, that worshipped the images of our saviour, of the blessed virgin, and the saints, as the gentiles did their gods: which is just the case of papists. for both of them bow unto them, pray before them, burn incense to them, offer sacrifice in honour of them: and yet both of them deny, that they worship stocks or stones, and say that they worship only the things represented by them, as f Lib. 2. divin. instit. c. 2. Lactantius testifieth of the Gentiles, and is very often repeated by papists. argument 49 The papists do likewise in divers conditions and qualities, resemble the old heretics, and false teachers, of which the apostles, and ancient fathers make mention. the g Rom. 16. apostle when he had warned the Romans to beware of those, that caused divisions and scandals, he addeth also, against that doctrine, which they had received. In the first epistle to Timothy chap. 6. he showeth, that heretics had a fashion, to teach other doctrine, and not to rest in the wholesome words of our Lord jesus Christ. The apostle h 2. Pet. 2. Peter saith, that there shall rise up false teachers, which shall privily bring in heresies, and damnable sects. i De prescript. adverse. haeret. Tertullian doth oppose heretics to the apostles, and their doctrine to apostolical doctrine. unde extranei, & inimici apostolis haeretici, saith he, nisi ex diversitate doctrinae, quam unusquisque de suo arbitrio adversus apostolos, aut protulit aut recepit? If then the schoolmen and doctors of the popish synagogue have caused a great division from the apostolic and ancient church, and have taught doctrine divers from that of jesus Christ; and if they rest not in the wholesome words of Christ jesus, but make human traditions equal to the word of God; if they have troubled, and corrupted the deepest, and highest mysteries of Christian religion by their late inventions, and have digressed from the doctrine of the apostles, and refuse to be tried by the writings of the prophets and apostles; then are they clearly proved to be false teachers and heretics. that they are departed from the doctrine of the apostles, and have brought in divers heresies, and sects, and new doctrines, which by no means are to be reputed catholic, it may be proved by this whole discourse. It is made evident also by the grounds of popish religion, by the pope's decretales, by the school divinity, by the lying and fabulous legends of the Romish church, by the doctrine of the conventicle of Trent, by the manifold corruptions of the mass, by the idolatrous worship, not only of saints, but also of stocks, stones, rotten bones, and rags, by their rebellion against princes, and by the tyranny of the pope, and finally, by the jebusites new doctrine concerning these points. nay, if they teach doctrine contrary to scriptures, and to the apostles; by their own confession they will be proved heretics. Haeresis, saith k Lib. 2. part. 1. Occam, est dogma falsum fidei contrarium orthodoxae. l Apud Matt. Paris in Henric. 3. Robert Grosthed saith, that heresy is an opinion chosen of human understanding contrary to scripture, and either openly taught, or defended. m Apud Dionys. Carthus. in 3. sent. dist. 31. Durand signifieth, that heresy is only an opinion contrary to canonical scripture. Opinio ista, saith he, non est haeretica, quia non est contra canonicam scripturam. finally, the council of n Aen. Sylu. de gist. council. Basil. lib. 1. Basil doth determine him to be an heretic, thatdoth reject the catholic faith deduced out of canonical scriptures, and proved by fathers. argument 56 They hold also, that our saviour Christ did pass out of his mother's womb, as the rays of the sun do pierce thorough the substance of the glass. quomodo solis radij concretam vitri substantiam penetrant. for these are the words of the Roman o Part. 1. in exposit. 3. art. fid. catechism. but this showeth, that they give no true flesh to our Saviour, and that they overthrow the article of Christ's nativity, and a principal mystery of Christian religion. argument 51 Peter p Lib. 1. sent. dist. 14. Lombard teacheth, that there is a two fold proceeding of the holy Ghost, the one temporal, the other eternal. but this point his own scholars do mislike, as erroneous. non debet concedi, saith Occam, writing upon this place, quod spiritus sancti sit duplex processio, ne duae spiritus sancti processiones videantur (ut sunt duae filii generationes) una aeterna ex patre, altera temporalis ex filio. they also dislike his doctrine, sentent. lib. 1. dist. 18. §. 4. where he doth teach, that the Holy Ghost is as properly said, to be a gift, as to proceed. his words are, aequè donum esse, ac procedere. argument 52 q Lib. 3. p. 290. Andradius saith, that philosophers by natural knowledge, and by the works of the creation, did after a sort know Christ crucified, which I hope Robert Parsons will not deny to be erroneous. argument 53 The conventicle of r Sess. 6. c. 9 Trent teacheth us, always in this life to doubt of God's favour towards us, and of our own salvation. which is nothing else, but a plain demonstration, that the same teacheth not true faith, but rather a superstitious distrust, and oppugneth these two articles of our creed, I believe remission of sins, and aeternal life. argument 54 Finally, all those points of doctrine, which before I have declared to be neither ancient, nor catholic, and which do plainly declare, that the papists are not the true church, are also apparently erroneous. which in part hath been proved, and shall further be declared at all times, if either Robert Parsons, or any man of note among the papists, leaving off his vain bangling about quotations, dare undertake particularly to answer my challenge, or will adventure hand to hand to encounter me. CHAP. V That all papists, if they maintain the doctrine of the pope and Romish church, are plain idolaters. HOw odious and heinous a sin idolatry is, the scriptures do in many places declare. Almighty God having published his law against idolatry, addeth a very severe threatening against those, that should transgress it. I am the Lord thy God, saith a Exod. 20. he, strong and jealous, and visit the sins of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of those that hate me. and when the children of Israel departed from their God, to worship a molten image: Suffer me, saith b Exod. 32. he to Moses, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them. Idolatry in scriptures is called spiritual fornication. but nothing can more displease a man, than that his spouse shall forsake him, and breaking the covenant of marriage, run after strangers. In this case therefore, c Deuter. 13. God forbiddeth a brother to spare his brother, or a father his son, or a husband his wife, if any of them arise and say, come and let us serve other gods. Sit primum manus tua super eum, saith Moses. neither are idolaters only punished in this life, but also in the life to come. Without, saith d Apocal. 22. john, shall be dogs, conjurers, unclean persons, murderers, and such as serve idols. and in the 21. chapter of the Revelation he saith, that idolaters shall have their part in the lake, that burneth with fire and brimstone. If then popish religion do plainly maintain most gross idolatry, as not only by their practice is proved, but also by divers godly men's writings verified; not only the magistrates are diligently and seriously to repress the priests of Baal, and the maintainers of idolatry, but also all Christians are carefully to take heed of their damnable doctrine. if not, let them assure themselves, that they shall neither avoid God's judgements in this life, nor the lake of fire and brimstone prepared for idolaters in the life to come. And lest any papist should complain, that I do greatly wrong the Romanists, and their religion, charging them with idolatry; I do now, God willing, purpose to make my charge good in this chapter. What papists are not, I declared in the three first chapters, and, I hope, I have made it plain, that they are neither true Christians, nor catholics. it followed, that I should show what they are. and that in part is performed. for I have declared them to be heretics. it resteth therefore now for a fuller description of their nature, that I declare them to be idolaters. in the last part we shall, God willing, examine the loyalty of Rob. Parsons and all the pope's agents and adherents. That the papists therefore are idolaters, it shall be proved by arguments first drawn out of scriptures. secondly, out of fathers. thirdly, out of the confession of some learned papists, and lastly, out of their own common doctrine and practice. argument 1 e That papists are idolaters arg. 1. The first law of the decalogue doth expressly forbid the having of other Gods. non habebis deos alienos saith God, coram me. that is, thou shalt have no strange Gods before me, or else thou shalt have no other Gods, but me. out of these words I frame this argument. whosoever doth worship or serve any other God, beside the Lord God, that created heaven and earth, is an idolater. but the papists do worship, and serve other Gods beside the God of heaven and earth. ergo. the proposition is proved first by the intention of the law, that seemeth principally to be made against idolatry; and not only against worship of idols subject to our senses, but also against idols, which men frame to themselves in their own imaginations and fancies. secondly by the texts of Scriptures, that account them idolaters, not only that worship idols of colour, or metal, or other matter, but also that honour with religious honour such things, as themselves fancy to have divine power. so covetousness is called worshipping of idols, Eph. 5. and those are idolaters, that serve f Matth. 6. Mammon, or call a wedge of gold their god, or that put trust or confidence in any creature, visible, or invisible, or that serve or worship any thing for God, but only the everliving and true God. finally whatsoever a man doth out of his own fancy set up for God, that may by good construction well be termed an idol, or a false God. The assumption is proved by divers particulars. for first it is plain, that the papists make the sacrament of the lords body and blood their Lord and God, both in that they call it so, and in that they g Rubric. can. Missae. fall down and worship it. secondly they call upon angels, saints, and specially upon the virgin Marie. thirdly they put their trust in them four they make vows unto them. fifthly they confess their sins unto them. finally they bow down their bodies before them, and publicly worship them, as is proved by their common practice. the Rubrickes also of their missals, and breviaries, and ladies offices, together with their blasphemous prayers made to angels, saints, and other creatures do show the same to be most true. but the scriptures do h Hierem. 17. testify first, that we are to put our trust in God only: secondly, that we are to call on him i Psal. 50. joel. 2. Rom. 10. faithfully: thirdly, that we are to make our k Isai. 19 vows to him only: four, that we are religiously to serve him only: and finally, that we are to confess our sins to God only, l Matth. 4. and to give religious worship to none, but to him alone. And this the practice of the ancient church most evidently confirmeth, which never allowed, received, nor used to yield any such profane worship to angels, saints, or other creatures, as the papists give unto them; as in the first chapter of this discourse hath at large been proved. superstitiosi sunt, qui multos ac falsos deos colunt, saith m Lib. 4. instit. c. 28. Lactantius, nos religiosi, qui uni & vero deo supplicamus. those are superstitious, which worship many and false gods, we are religious which call upon one true God. the papists percase will answer, that they worship not either false gods, or many gods. but seeing they give the worship of God to many; and call upon creatures and make vows unto them, and build churches, and altars, in their honour, and do ascribe to them that, which is proper to God; they cannot by any means avoid the charge of plurality of gods. for even the n Macrob. Sa●…tnal. Gentiles can answer, that they draw all to one God. yet because they attributed divine power to creatures and inferior persons, therefore no man will deny, but that they worshipped many gods. therefore o Libr. 3. de cultu sanct. c. 9 Bellarmine saith plainly, quod votum non convenit sanctis, nisi quatenus sunt dij per participationem. that is, that vows are not to be made to saints, but as they are gods by participation. may it not then be truly said, that papists worship strange gods? yes certes. and if they deny it, they are strange fellows. argument 2 p Argu. 2. Almighty God doth also forbid his people to make any graven image, or likeness of anything, either in heaven above or in the earth below, or in the water under the earth, q Exod. 20. to the intent to bow down to it, and to worship it. non facies tibi sculptile, neque omnem similitudinem, quae est in coelo desuper, & quae in terra deorsum, nec eorum, quae sunt in aquis sub terra; non adorabis ea, neque coals. if then it be not lawful to make sculptile, or a graven image, to the end to worship it; and if those, that do worship such graven images be idolaters, no question is to be made, but that papists are gross idolaters. for they make the images of God in heaven, of men that sometime lived on the earth, and of some that percase now may be in hell. they make also graven and molten images of angels and other creatures, and fall down and worship them. to the cross they pray, and r Breviar. Rom. ● say, auge pijs justitiam, reisque dona veniam. that is, increase righteousness in the godly, and grant pardon to sinners. the schoolmen hold, that what worship is due to the original, is due also to the picture, or image. so saith Alexander Hales part. 3. q. 30. art. vlt. Thomas Aquinas 3. p. q. 25. art. 3. and Caietan in his commentaries upon him. so then by these men's doctrines the Crucifix is to be worshipped with like worship, as we do worship Christ jesus: and the image of God is to be worshipped with the worship due to God himself. and this is so plain idolatry, that s Lib. 2. de imaginib. c. 22. Bellarmine is constrained to deny, that Latria or divine worship is due to images properly. so albeit he would excuse himself, yet in effect he maketh himself to be an idolater improperly, & all the ancient schoolmen, and synagogue of Rome for this 2. or 3. hundred years properly. for Hierome condemneth them for idolaters, that worshipped the statues, or images of Emperors, albeit the same may seem a civil ceremony. judices & principes seculi saith t In cap. 3 Daniel he, qui imperatorum statuas adorant & imagines, hoc se facere intelligant, quod tres pueri facere nolentes placuerunt deo. how then can they escape his censure, that fall down before the statues and images of saints, and there pray before them, and offer incense to them? argument 3 u Argu. 3. We are also forbidden expressly to make any similitude, or likeness of God. and a reason is x Deut. 4. added. for that God speaking to his people out of the fire in Mount Horeb, yet they saw no likeness of any thing. and this God did, lest his people being deceived should make an image of male or female, or other thing, and so adore and worship it. if then it be against the commandment of God, to represent him in any shape, and to adore any creature whether male or female, spiritual or corporal; then are papists gross idolaters, that make images of God, and worship both male and female saints, as appeareth both by the canon of the mass, and also by their doctrine and practice. nay they do not only bow their bodies to them, but also set up lights, and offer up spiritual sacrifices of prayers unto them. argument 4 In y Argu. 4. most plain terms also z Levit. 26. God prohibiteth the making of idols, or graven images, and the erecting of monuments, or titles, or stones for signals to be worshipped. non facietis vobis idolum & sculptile, saith the Lord, nec titulos erigetis, nec insignem lapidem ponetis in terra vestra, ut adoretis eum. neither was there any thing intended in this law, then that the people of Israel should be restrained from idolatry. is it not then plain, that such as make idols, and graven images, and erect crosses, and stocks and stones to be worshipped, are idolaters? it cannot well be denied. but percase our adversaries will say. they neither erect, nor make any idols. as if every image worshipped with religious worship were not an idol, as it is said in the book of Charles the great set forth against the second council of Nice, and the worship of images. Beside that, to prevent this simple shift of idolaters, that distinguish images, yea though worshipped with divine worship, from idols, the scripture saith, non facietis vobis idolum & sculptile, taking all graven images worshipped with religious worship for idols. but our adversaries do proceed further. for as the gentiles did fall down before their idols, and pray before them, and burn incense to them; so do they to their images. they do also rely much in their idol of the altar, and put no small trust in the cross, and their images. to the cross they a ●rcu●ar. Rom. o crux ave spes unica. that is, o cross all hail, our only hope. are not then these wooden fellows, that thus say to a wooden cross? in the Romish breviary, they pray to our lady, as to their anchor hold, and say; Sumens illud ave Gabrielis ore, funda nos in pace. that is, receiving, an ave, from Gabriels' mouth establish and found us in peace. which howsoever they obtain, they found our opinion most firmly, that say, they are idolaters. argument 5 b Argu. 5. In the 81. psalm God by his prophet forbiddeth his people to worship new gods, or strange gods▪ non erit in te, saith he, Deus recens, neque adorabis deum alienum. and no question, but that such, as do either invent new gods, or strange gods, are idolaters. let us then see, whether the papists do not worship both new gods and strange gods, and such as the apostles and prophets never knew. first they will not deny, that the eucharist is their lord and god. for that I have showed before. next they confess, that the images of the trinity are to be worshipped with the worship that is dew to God. further they do daily canonize new saints. and make new masses and prayers in their honour. but these are new gods never known in ancient time, and gods by participation, as Bellarmine calleth them, and very strange gods. nay every day they conscerate new hosts, and make new images, and new crosses and new saints. finally the newest saints and gods with them have best credit. do they not then worship new gods? and do they not frame us a new religion. argument 6 c Argu. 6. The Israelits Exod. 32. were condemned for their idolatry, although they pretended to worship the true God in a golden calf. and this is apparent by the words of Aaron, and the text following. to morrow said Aaron, is a solemn feast of the Lord. and when that day came, it is said, that the people offered burnt sacrifices, and peace offerings. which if they had been offered to the calf, what reason had Aaron to talk of the feast day of the Lord? or why should the people say, that those were the gods, that brought Israel out of Egypt, but that they imagined, that they did worship the invisible God, that brought them out of Egypt in that visible calf? The mother also of Micha judges 17. affirmeth, that she had sanctified certain silver (whereof a molten image was made) to the lord, to make a graven image of it. It is apparent also, that d 3. Reg. 12. jeroboam did consecrate his two idols, which he erected in Bethel & Dan to the Lord, yet were all those that worshipped either the calf, or Michas or jeroboams idols, gross idolaters. neither was it any excuse for them, that they did not worship the matter, or any thing corporeal; or that, as they thought, they did worship the true god in these images. if then the papists worship either God, or saints in images; it is first contrary to God's commandment, and next it is plain idolatry, albeit they pretend, that they neither worship silver, nor gold, nor the images themselves materially, or grossly. but much more is it so to be esteemed, if any of them, as the fashion is, worship and kiss stocks and stones, and offer light, and other commodities unto the very statues and images themselves. argument 7 e Argu. 7. It is also a property of idolaters, to rejoice in the works of their own hands, as may be proved by the words of Stephen act. 7. laetabantur, saith he, in operibus manuum suarum. further it is their wont, to worship those very images, which themselves made. f Act. 7. figuras quas fecistis saith the scripture, adorare eas. and this is also apparent by the practice of the papists. for they celebrate solemn feasts on the day of the dedication of their images, and vant much of the miracles of the lady of Walsingham, of Monserrat, of Loreto. Horatius Tursellinus a jebusite, and a panegyrical declamer hath in a vaunting vain set out the story of the acts, miracles, offerings, and festivities of the lady of Loreto. they likewise were wont to talk much of Thomas of Canterbury, and yet talk of the images of Saint Sebastian, and Saint Rock, and of the Cocle shells of Saint Michael, which in lieu of the substance of religion, they give to their followers. finally they fall down, and adore the images, which themselves have made; and which the heathen scarce did, they creep to them on their knees, touch them with their fingers, set up light before them, pray to them, and say, sancte Christophore, sancte Hermingilde, sancti coronati quatuor, audite nos, intercedite pro nobis. They do offer also, which the priests like best of all, rich presents to them, as is evident by the rich shrine of Thomas Becket in time past, and now by the great treasure of the idol of Loreto, set out by g Histor. Lauret. Tursellinus. argument 8 Scriptures do account them idolaters, that serve the host of heaven, as is testified by the prophet Amos, chap. 5. and saint Stephen, Act. 7. where it is said, that God gave over his people to serve the host of heaven: seruite militiae coeli. are not then those simple papists given over to a strange dullness, and as it were to a reprobate sense, that worship angels, and archangel's, he saints, and she saints, h In missal. Rom. & breuiar. & Hortulo animae. and all the host and court of heaven? and is it not strange to hear them pray in their litanies, Sancta virgo uriginum, sancte Michael, sancte Gabriel, sancte Raphael, omnes angeli & archangeli, omnes sancti beatorum spirituum ordines orate pro nobis: omnes sancti, & sanctae dei intercedite pro nobis. argument 9 i Argu. 9 Amos doth account them idolaters, that erected tabernacles to their gods, and carried about with them, the images or pourtraits of their false gods. portastis tabernaculum Moloch vestro, k Amos 5. saith he, imaginem idolorum vestrorum, sidus dei vestri, quae fecistis vobis. you have carried about the tabernacle erected to Moloch, the image of your idol gods, the star of your god, which you made to yourselves. what then may we think of papists, if we scan their false worship of God according to this rule? do not they also place their corpus domini, which they call their lord and god in a pyx or tabernacle? do they not carry him also about in procession, and with him for company other idols of wood and metal? do they not also worship the holy virgin Marie, and salute her, and call her a star, and say, ave Maris stella: hail thou star of the sea, alluding, percase, to Venus, whom poets feign to have her beginning of the sea? and do not the Spaniards call on her at sea, as if God had made her a commander there? argument 10 The prophet's words of the heathen men's idols, do most excellently fit the popish images. the l Simulachra. images of the Gentiles saith m Psal. 114. he, are silver and gold, the work of men's hands. they have mouths and speak not, they have eyes and see not, they have ears and hear not, they have noses and smell not, hands they have, and handle not, feet have they, and walk not, neither doth any voice pass through their throat. apply then this to the great image of great saint Christopher, as you enter our lady's church at Paris. for albeit the same be great and large; yet he neither seeth, nor feeleth, nor smelleth, nor speaketh, nor walketh. only the priests are sorry, that he is not of silver and gold, that they might cut him in pieces and make money of him. our lady of Loret also, albeit women be more talkative than men, speaketh not a word. divers images also they have of silver and gold, and other metals; but all without sense and motion, unless by engines the false mass priests be able to make them move. the p Chap. 15. author of the book of Wisdom showeth, that the sight of such images and pictures well shadowed out in colours doth delight senseless and brutish folk; which do also love the shape of dead images without soul, but that the godly are not abused with such idolatrous inventions and pictures, or labour without fruit. none in errorem induxit nos saith he in the person of godly men, hominum malae artis exogitati, nec umbra picturae, labour sine fructu, effigies sculpta per varios colores, cuius aspectus insensato dat concupiscentiam, & diligit mortuae imaginis effigiem sine anima. are not then the papists more blockish, than the old idolaters, that take such delight in their painted tables, and in their images without soul, yea oftentimes without good or decent shape? and are not our mass priests mad, that run to the pope, and for love of his idolatrous religion, are content to break their necks in England, practising for his service? argument 11 p Argu. 11. The offerings of the Gentiles, are immolated and offered to devils, and not to God, as the q 1. Cor. 10. apostle teacheth us, quae immolant Gentes saith he, daemoniis immolant, & non deo. it cannot therefore serve the papists turn, that they say, they worship God, in his image, improperly. secundum rei veritatem saith r De imagine. lib. 2. c. 22. Bellarmine, non potest dici adorari latria imaginem, nisi per accidens vel improprie; per se autem, & propriè, nullo modo. this, I say, albeit contrary to all the best schoolemens doctrine, can not excuse the papists from idolatry. for albeit the Gentiles did not per se, and properly immolate sacrifices to idols and devils; yet because they sacrificed before idols, and in other sort, than God had commanded, the apostle calleth this the devils sacrifice. I would therefore exhort all simple papists to beware, how they come at the idolatrous mass. for albeit their priests tell them, that they offer up the body and blood of the son of God; yet in truth they offer the devils sacrifice, and say mass in honour of their idols, and before images; and can no better excuse themselves, than heathen idolaters, that might aswell as they, say, they worshipped not their images with latria per se, and properly, but in a certain sort, & improperly. the apostle doth plainly declare, that both heathen men, & they sacrificing in this sort, offer to devils, & not to god. argument 12 s Arg. 12. God signifieth them to be idolaters, that built high places, which he never commanded them, nor thought of any such matter. Quae non praecepi, nec cogitavi in cord meo, saith t Hierem. 7. he. and this because they thought, that God was to be served according to their own inventions, and humours. he doth also directly charge them with idolatry, that made vows to the Queen of heaven, that sacrificed unto her, and served her, saying, faciamus vota nostra quae vovimus, ut sacrificemus reginae coeli. And do not papists build their altars in high places, & ascend unto them by steps? do they not also worship God in images, and forms which God never commanded, nor thought upon? do they not further, call the holy virgin reginam coeli, and poli reginam, that is the Queen of heaven? do they not finally, say masses in honour of her, and offer consecrated hosts for her sweet service every Saturday? argument 13 u Arg. 13. The papists also give the honour due to God unto graven images, teaching, that the same worship is due unto the image, and to the original; and that, as Thomas and the old schoolewen hold, absolutely and without distinction, and as Bellarmine believeth, improperly, and as he termeth it, by an accident. but this is contrary to scriptures, and can not be deemed less, than plain idolatry. I am the Lord, saith x Isai. 42. God by his prophet, and my glory I will not give to another, nor my praise to graven images. Ego Dominus, saith he, gloriam meam alteri non dabo, & laudem meam sculptilibus. gladly I would therefore have Rob. Parsons to show, how graven images may be worshipped with divine honour, & yet without repugnance to scripture, or derogation to God's honour, or touch of idolatry. argument 14 y Arg. 14. Like to the Babylonians the papists deal with their images. the images also of papists are not much unlike to the idols of the Babylonians. the Babylonians carried their golden, silver, wooden and stone gods on their shoulders. Videbitis, saith z Baruch. 6. Baruch, in Babylonia deos aureos, & argenteos, & lapideos, & ligneos in humeris portari. The papists likewise, they have images, which they worship as God, some of gold, some of silver, some parcel gilt, some of wood, some of stone, and in processions they carry them about triumphantly on men's shoulders. Inaurata, & inargentata falsa sunt, & non possunt loqui, saith Baruch of the idols of the Babylonians. so likewise, there is no truth in the gilt images of the papists; neither can they speak, or move, whatsoever you do to them. The Babylonians put golden crowns on the heads of their images, and the priests stole from them their gold and silver, and bestowed it on themselves, and sometime on baggages and whores. Coronas aureas habent, saith Baruch, super capita sua dij illorum, unde subtrahunt ab eis aurum & argentum, & erogant illud in semetipsos. daunt autem ex ipso prostitutis, & meretrices ornant. and do not popish priests likewise set coronets on the heads of their images, and steal away the offerings which blind and superstitious people give to images, and bestow part on themselves, and part on their whores and baggages? The Babylonians clad their idols with purple; and yet could not the idols keep their faces clean from dust. Opertis illis vest purpurea extergunt faciem ipsorum propter pulverem, saith Baruch. and what doth experience teach us? do we not see, how the mass priests set out their images with purple and scarlet, and wipe their faces with fox tails to keep them from the dust? and yet the simple idiot papists see not, that these impostors and charlatains pay them for all their devotions with the flap of a fox tail. neither the idols of the Babylonians, nor the images of papists can keep themselves from rust, corruption and thieves. who then can otherwise think, but that the papists are idolaters as the Babylonians were, and that they have learned this abomination from the whore of Babylon, that hath a cup in her hand full of spiritual fornications, and abominations? argument 15 a Arg. 15. As the idolatrous b Hierem. 2. jews said to a stock, thou art my father, and to a stone, thou hast begotten me: so the idolatrous papists before stocks and stones say Pater noster, and the babbling friars in their chairs say to a crucifix of wood or metal standing by them, thou hast redeemed us, thou hast reconciled us to thy father. concionatores saith c Lib. 2. de imaginib. c. 23. Bellar. alloquuntur imaginem crucifixi, eique dicunt, tu nos redemisti, tu nos patri reconciliasti: men more blockish and senseless, than stocks and stones. and yet Christians suffer themselves still to be abused by them, and are not ashamed of it, when they are told of it, as the jews were being reproved by the prophet. argument 17 d Arg. 17. As the e Hierem. 2. jews according to the number of their cities, had the number of their gods; so the deceived papists according to the number of nations, and cities have their saints, and idols. some call on Saint jeames, others on Saint Patrick, others on Saint Denys, and every town, nay every parish hath their several patrons. private persons also serve divers saints according to their several humours. and therefore we may say to the blind papists, secundum numerum civitatum vestrarum, & dij vestri, o miseri & Caeci idololatrae. nay we may say thus further, according to your families, and divers occasions, you have divers saints and divers gods, upon whom you call for help and remedy. to Saint Antony they fly for their pigs, to Saint Loy or Lewes for their horses, to Saint Sebastian in time of sickness and plague, to saint Apollonia for their teeth. they fly also to other saints and implore their help, as gods for other several matters, and upon several occasions. argument 18 f Arg. 18. The apostle forbiddeth the humble service, and seducement of religious worship of angels. nemo vos seducat volens, saith g Coloss. 2. he, in humilitate & religione angelorum. neither were these noted for other respect as idolaters and heretics, but because under pretence of a certain counterfeit humility, and baseness, they used the mediation of angels, as may be proved by the commentaries of Theodoret, and Chrysostom's homilies upon the 2. and 3. chap. of Saint Paul's epistle to the Colossians. if then the papists will needs worship angels, and use their mediation, they must not marvel, if they be noted as idolaters. which is also proved more plainly by the record of john apocalypse 22. who when he fell down before the feet of the angel, and would have adored and worshipped him, received his check, see thou do it not, I am thy fellow servant. postquam audissem & vidissem saith he, cecidi ut adorarem ante pedes angeli, qui mihi haec ostendebat, & dixit mihi: vide ne feceris. conseruus enim tuus sum, & fratrum tuorum prophetarum etc. if then papists shame not to adore angels, and to implore their help; these words of Saint john shall always convince them to be idolaters. argument 19 h Arg. 19 Saint john doth expressly forbid the worship of statues and images, where i john 5. he saith, custodite vos à simulachris, that is, keep yourselves from images, or idols. for in effect both words signify one thing; albeit the abuse of images, hath given the title of idols only to images abused. if then papists do recalcitrate, and repugn against the prohibition of the apostle, that directeth his speech against idolatry; their conscience must needs accuse them, that they are guilty of idolatry, which he forbiddeth, as often as they worship them. argument 20 k Arg. 20. To serve creatures, and to call upon them publicly, and with an opinion of their divine power to honour them, is plain idolatry, as appeareth by the words of the confession of the people of Israel who returning from their idolatry, l judges 10. said, dereliquimus dominum deum nostrum, & seruivimus Baalim. that is, we have forsaken the Lord and served Baalim. and by God's answer to them: coluistis deos alienos. etc. ite, & invocate deos, quos elegistis. that is, you have worshipped strange gods, go therefore and call upon the gods, which you have chosen. but the papists confess, that they worship angels, and saints with Dulia or service, and it was wont to be a common doctrine among papists, that the image and original were to be worshipped with one kind of worship. they do also set up strange gods, and call upon the angels and saints in their public litanies, and in divers collects. who then cannot collect out of these litanies, and collects, that papists are plain idolaters? if they will not believe our collection; yet I hope they will not deny our saviour Christ's doctrine, that teacheth, that God alone is to be adored, and served. dominum deum tuum adorabis saith m Matth. 4. he, & illi soli seruies. argument 21 n Arg. 21. It is also plain idolatry, to offer incense unto creatures, to erect altars unto them, and with a public form of liturgy to worship them, as appeareth in part by the example of o 2 Paralip. 30. Hezechias and his people, that overthrew the altars, wherein incense was burnt unto strange gods. destruxerunt altaria saith the text, quae erant in Jerusalem, atque universa, in quibus idolis adolebatur incensum subvertentes proiecerunt in torrentem cedron. would not then such mass priests, as burn incense to their idols, and cense their idolatrous altars, be repressed, and their altars overthrown, and their strange fire be thrown out of the church? argument 22 p Arg. 22. The apostle act. 17. doth plainly declare, that God neither dwelleth in temples made with hands, nor is worshipped with men's hands. non habitat in templis manufactis, nec manibus humanis colitur. those therefore, that worship God in images, and images with their own devices, as the papists do, do decline to gentilism, and idolatry. argument 23 q Arg. 23. Finally the scriptures do signify, that it is idolatry to express God by any similitude, or figure, and to worship the same. for that is expressly forbidden in the commandment against idolatry, and the holy scriptures to recall God's people from this idolatrous humour, doth diversly declare, that he cannot be expressed or figured by any likeness. cui similem fecistis deum? saith the r Isai. 40. prophet, aut quam imaginem ponetis ei? numquid sculptile conflavit faber, aut aurifex auro figuravit illud, & laminis argenteis argentarius? he doth plainly express, that no image can be made like to God, and that neither the graver, nor smith can resemble him with their graven images. and again, non debemus existimate saith s Act. 17. Saint Paul, auro aut argento, aut lapidi sculpturae artis & cogitationis hominis divinum numen esse simile. we ought not to imagine, that God is like to gold, or silver, or stone graven by art or devise of man. those therefore that by graving and painting resemble God the father to an old man, or the holy ghost to a dove, and make shapes of the holy Trinity repugn manifestly against scripture, and worshipping those images show themselves to be gross idolaters. neither is it any excuse, that they say, they do not go about to express the divine nature. for if they do not that, then do they express nothing but a fancy, and worship a fancy, and so prove themselves to worship idols, that is as Bellarmine confesseth false images or resemblances. idolum saith he, est falsa similiiudo, id est representat id, t Lib. 2. de imaginib. c. 5. quod revera non est. but God is not like to these resemblances. therefore they must needs be false, and they that worship them true idolaters by the confession of Bellarmine. argument 24 u Arg. 24. The fathers also minister us good arguments, not only to reprove the papists false worship, but also to prove them idolaters. Quis tam amens erit, saith x Praeparat. euangel. lib. 3. Eusebius, ut dei formam & imaginem statua viro simili referri perhibeat? that is, who will be so mad as to avow, that God may be expressed and resembled by an image like to a man? Athanasius in orat. contra Sabellij gregales, calleth them fools and mad men, that made God like to things, that have bodies. quam imaginem ponetis ei, saith Hierome in Isaiae c. 40. qui spiritus est, & in omnibus est? what image will you erect for him, which is a spirit, and is in all things? y Stromat. lib. 1. & 5. Clement of Alexandria saith, that Moses taught us, that neither in the shape of man, nor any other thing God is to be represented. and Origen likewise in his 7. book against Celsus, denieth that Christians are to make any resemblance, or likeness of God. Tale simulachrum saith saint z De file & symbolo. Augustine, speaking of God made in shape like a man, deo nefas est Christiano in templo collocare. It is a wicked thing saith he, to make the image of God and to place it in the church. a In deuter. q 1. Theodoret teacheth us, that the law of Moses forbiddeth us so much as once to attempt to frame an image, or similitude of God: Ne tentemus unquam saith he, divinam imaginem effingere. Damascene lib. 4. de fide c 17. saith, it is a point of great folly and impiety, by figures and similitudes to represent God. The Audeans were condemned, for that they taught, that God had a shape like to man. b Haeres. 70. Epiphanius disputing against them: quomodopossibile est saith he, visibile simile esse invisibili, quomodo corporale incorporali? c Lib. hist. 18. c. 53. Nicephorus reckoneth those among heretics, that made the images of God the Father and God the holy Ghost. imagines patris & spiritus sancti effigiant, saith he, quod perquam absurdum est. Finally it appeareth by the testimony of Agrippa in a certain epistle to Caligula, of which d In legate. ad Caium. Philo maketh mention, that it was accounted a thing impious amongst the jews either in picture, or graven or embossed work to represent God, that is invisible. invisibilem deum pingere aut fingere, saith he, nefas duxerunt maiores nostri. If then the papists make the images of God the father, and the holy Ghost, and of the holy Trinity, and worship them with divine worship, according to the school doctrine; then do they by the judgement of the fathers not only transgress God's law, and offend most foolishly and wickedly, but also commit most gross idolatry. but it cannot be denied, either that they make such pictures, and images, or that they worship them. that they make them, the common practice of the Romish church, and the front of Sixtus quintus his bible, and divers popish monuments do teach us, that they do worship them, the decree of the e Sess. 25. council of Trent concerning images, the common school doctrine, and practise of papists doth teach us. Suares in 3. p. Thomae Aquin. tom. 1. disput. 54. sect. 4. & 5. doth affirm it: and Bellarmine in his disputes doth not deny it. how then are they able to excuse themselves from palpable and gross idolatry? f Lib. 2. de cult●… imag. c. 8. Bellarmine where he disputeth, that it is lawful to make the images of God, and namely, the image of the holy Ghost, saith, that the images of God may be made or painted, if not to express the perfect likeness of God, yet to express histories, and to express the nature of God by a certain analogy, and by metaphorical and mystical significations. afterwards he saith, g Ibid. c. 25. that images are to be worshipped with the same worship, that is due to the original imperfectly, & analogically. but the first is sufficient to show, and that most perfectly, that he speaketh impudently against the law of God, and all the fathers, that utterly denied all use of pictures of God, either in stories, or in mystical significations. the second declareth him and his consorts to be idolaters, and that perfectly, albeit be surmise it to be imperfectly and analogically. argument 25 Saint Ambrose teacheth us, that to worship the cross or crucifix is plain idolatry, and paganism. invenit Helena crucem domini saith h De qbitu Theodosi ●. he, regem adoravit, non lignum utique, quia hic Gentilis est error, sed adoravit illum, qui pependit in cruse. he saith, that Helen finding the cross, did adore her king (that is Christ jesus) and not the wood, because this is the error of the heathen (idolaters) he addeth also, that she worshipped him, that hung on the cross. i In epist. ad joan. Hierosolym. apud Hieron. Epiphanius also showeth, that the image of Christ is not to be worshipped, nor hung up in churches, for that he tore a vail, wherein such an image was figured, and that contrary to scriptures, as he saith. inveni velum pendens in foribus eiusdem ecclesiae tinctum atque depictum, & habens imaginem, quasi Christi, saith Epiphanius. and afterward, cum hoc vidissem in ecclesia Christi contra authoritatem scripturarum hominis pendere imaginem, scidi illud. the papists therefore by the judgement of Epiphanius place Christ his image in the church, contrary to scriptures, and like to the heathen idolaters worship the cross, giving to it latria, as to Christ jesus himself. argument 26 The worship also of angels, which the papists practice, is idolatrous. for they pray unto them k In litanijc. saying, sancte Michael, sancte Gabriel, sancte, Raphael, omnes angeli & archangeli, orate pro nobis. they l In itinerario ad finem Breviarij. pray likewise to unknown angels. they confess their sins to them saying, confite or beato Michaeli archangelo. they set them out in imagery, and bow to them, and burn incense to them, and kiss them. finally they erect churches and altars, and say masses in honour of angels. all which to be idolatrous, not only the scriptures, but also the fathers teach us. non oportet Christianos say the fathers of the m Can. 35. council of Laodicea, derelicta ecclesia abire, & adangeloes idolatriae abominandae congregationes facere. Christians say they, ought not to leave the church of God, and to assemble themselves idolatrously, to worship angels they do also excommunicate such, as worship angels, as idolaters. n In summa council. Laod. c. 35. ● Carranza to wipe away this blot from the papists, turneth angelos, into angulos. but Chrysostome and Theodoret in their commentaries and homilies upon the epistle to the Colloss. c. 2. & 3. do plainly show, that the council condemned the worship of angels, which they also condemn. synodus quae convenit Laodiceae, saith Theodoret in epist. ad Coloss. c. 3. lege prohibuit, ne precarentur angelos. Nos non dico martyrum reliquias saith o In epist. ad Riparium. Hierome, sed ne solem quidem & junam, non angelos non archangelos, non cherubin, non seraphim, & omne nomen, quod nominatur, & in praesenti seculo & in futuro colimus & adoramus, ne seruiamus creaturae potius quam creatori, qui est benedictus in secula. he saith, p Haeres. 79. that Christians do not worship, or adore angels; and signifieth, that such worship is idolatrous, as savouring of service of creatures, honoramus eos charitate saith saint Augustine lib. de ver. relig. c. 55. speaking of angels, non servitute: nec eis templa construimus. angelos adorari non vult, that is, God will not have us, saith ˡ Epiphanius, to adore angels. and again, angeli non capiunt talem glorificationem. Augustine doth therefore condemn the Angelikes, as heretics, for that they worshipped angels. Angelici saith he de haeres. c. 39 in angelorum cultu inclinati. argument 27 The papists worship the sacrament of the altar. in the rubric of the Romish misial, after the words of consecration, the priest is enjoined, to worship the sacrament. hostiam consecratam genu flexo adorat. likewise, calicem genu flexo adorat. the people also knock their breasts, and adore it. neither do the papists deny, but that the sacrament is to be adored latriae cultu, that is, with such worship as is due to God. but the sacrament is a creature. therefore they are plain idolaters, that worship it. and this is proved by the testimony of Epiphanius. stultum est saith q Haeres. 69. Epiphanius, creaturam deificare. reprobat autem primum praeceptum, quod dicit, dominum deum tuum adorabis, & ipsi soli cultum praestabis. he saith it is a foolish thing to worship a creature as God. and therefore proveth, that Christ is God and no creature, because he is worshipped, and for that the church doth not worship a creature. unless therefore Christ be hypostatically and personally united to the sacrament; those that worship the sacrament, are idolaters. as for those that worship unconsecrated hosts, the papists themselves deny not to be idolaters. argument 28 They are also idolaters, that worship the images and pictures of the virgin Mary, of angels, and saints departed this life. the council of Eliberis to avoid this idolatry r Can. 36. decreed, picturas in ecclesijs esse non debere, ne quod colitur, aut adoratur in parietibus depingatur. that is, that pictures should not be in the church, lest any thing, that is worshipped, or adored, should be painted on walls. Non est dubium saith s Lib. 2. instit. divin. c. 18. Lactantius, quin religio nulla sit, ubicunque simulachrum est. nam si religio ex divinis rebus est, divini autem nihil est, nisi in caelestibus rebus: carent ergo religione simulachra, quia nihil potest esse coeleste in ea re, quae fit ex terra. he teacheth us, that there is no religion, where images are worshipped, as being earth, and not savouring of any heavenly, or divine quality, or substance. inveni velum pendens in foribus eiusdem ecclesiae tinctum, atque depictum, saith t Ad joan. Hierosolym. apud Hieronymous. Epiphanius, & habens imaginem quasi Christi, vel sancti. non enim satis memini, cuius imago fuerit. cum ergo hoc vidissem in ecclesia Christi contra authoritatem scripturarum hominis pendere imaginem, scidi illud. and afterward, Precor, ut iubeas presbyteros eiusdem loci suscipere velum à latore, quod à nobis missum est, & deinceps praecipere, in ecclesia Christi istiusmodi vela, quae contra religionem nostram veniunt, non appendi. he doth plainly show, that to place pictures & images in churches, is contrary to scriptures & religion. neither doth he only condemn heathen idols, but images in churches also. Unto this place our adversaries answer, that these words were not written by Epiphanius, but foisted in by some other. but in his book against heresies he showeth himself to be of the same opinion, and doth strongly confirm that, which is here said. Writing against the Collyridians, haeres. 79. he showeth, that the invention of images, and their worship came of the devil. unde non est, saith he, simulacrificum hoc studium, & diabolicus conatus? praetextu enim justitiae semper subiens hominum mentem diabolus mortalem naturam in hominum oculis deificans, statuas humanas imagines prae se ferentes per artium varietatem expressit. & mortui quidem sunt, qui adorantur, ipsorum verò imagines, quae nunquam vixerunt adorandas introducunt adulterante mente ab uno & solo Deo, velut commune scortum ad multam multiplicis coitus absurditatem irritatum, & quod temperantiam legitimi coniugij unius viri detrivit. he doth clearly show, that the diabolical invention of images hath adulterated the service of God, and brought in absurd spiritual fornications. S. u De haeres. in cap. 6. Augustine showeth, that one Marcellina was noted as an heretic and a follower of Carpocrates, because she worshipped the images of jesus and Paul. Colebat, saith he, imagines jesus, & Pauli, & Homeri, & Pythagorae, adorando & incensum ponendo. and yet in burning of incense, and adoring the images of jesus and Paul our adversaries the papists nothing dissent from her. He doth also condemn those, that worship sepulchres, and pictures, as those which do that, which belongeth not to the religion of Christians. Novi, saith x De morib. eccles. c. 34. he, multos esse sepulchrorum, & picturarum adoratores. Likewise S. Hierome in Danielis c. 3. doth condemn the worship of images. Sive statuam, ut Symachus, sive imaginem auream ut alij transtulerunt, voluerimus legere, cultores Dei came adorare non debent. Gregory also the first, albeit he would not have images broken down, yet did he teach, that they ought not to be worshipped, as may be gathered by his words, lib. 7. epist. 109. and lib. 9 epist. 9 Finally, the worship of images is condemned, as idolatrous by a certain council of Constantinople, whose acts are inserted in the reports of things passed in the second council of Nice; in the council of Francfort under Charles the great, & a certain council of Paris about the year of our Lord 824. in the time of Lewes Charles the great his son. Non nos imagines in Basilicis positas, saith the y In lib. Caroli Magni c●ntr. imagine. council of Francfort, idola nuncupamus, sed ne idola nuncupentur, adorare & colere eas recusamus. the council signifieth, that images being worshipped in churches are idols. neither doth any thing more confirm the Christian faith touching the false worship of images, and statues, than Bellarmine his wretched and wicked answers to these objections in his treatise concerning the worship of images. as shall shortly God willing appear by our answer, and hath sufficiently been declared by M. D. Rainolds already in his learned book De Romanae ecclesiae idolatria against Bellarmine. argument 29 z Arg. 29. The papists also show themselves idolaters in calling upon saints departed, in devising masses in their honour, in setting up light before their dead bones, and praying before their images, as the holy fathers teach us, that have showed themselves always ready and forward to suppress such abuses. S. a In epistol. ad Ripar. Hierome saith, that the relics of martyrs are not to be adored. his words I have before related. answering in defence of such women, as light candles at noon day, b Contra Vigilant. he confesseth plainly, that they had zeal, but not according to knowledge. Zelum habent, saith he, sed non secundum scientiam. Sed neque Helias adorandus est, saith c Haeres. 79. Epiphanius, etiamsi in vivis sit, neque joannes adorandus, quamuis per preces suas proprias dormitionem suam admirandam effecerit, imò potius ex Deo gratiam acceperit. sed neque Tecla, neque quisquam sanctus adoratur. non enim dominabitur nobis antiquus error, ut relinquamus viventem, & adoremus ea, quae ab ipso facta sunt. he saith, that neither Helias, nor john, nor Tecla, nor any saint is to be adored, forasmuch as this savoureth of the old idolatry of the Gentiles, and in so doing we should abandon the living God, and adore creatures made by him. and again, Sat in honore Maria, saith he, pater, & filius, & spiritus sanctus adoretur. Mariam nemo adoret, non dico mulierum, sed neque virûm. that is, let the virgin Mary be had in reverence, but the Father, the Son, and Holy Ghost is only to be adored. but as for the virgin Mary, let neither man, nor woman adore her. Likewise S. Augustine showeth, that the worship of Christian religion consisted not in the service or worship of dead men, or their relics. Non sit nobis religio, saith d De vera religione. c. 55. he, cultus hominum mortuorum, quia si piè vixerunt non sic habentur, ut tales quaerant honores, sed illum à nobis coli volunt, quo illuminante laetantur meriti sui nos esse consortes. honorandi sunt ergo propter imitationem, non autem adorandi propter religionem. He saith, that saints are to be reverenced in regard, they are examples to be followed, and not to be adored for religion sake. In his book also De moribus ecclesiae cathol. c. 34. he reproveth those, that worship the tombs of men departed. Bellarm. lib. 2. De cultu imaginum. lib. 11. allegeth the 36. chapter of this book, where there are not so many in the whole▪ in his 44. epistle ad Maximum, he showeth, that in his time dead men were not yet worshipped. Scias à Christianis catholicis, saith he, quorum in vestro oppido etiam ecclesia constituta est, nullum coli mortuorum, nihil denique ut numen adorari, quod sit factum, & conditum à Deo. he signifieth, that religious worship is not due to any creature. argument 30 e Arg. 30. Neither do the fathers only testify against the idolatry of papists, but divers also of themselves do confess to the shame of the rest, that divers points of popish doctrine savour of idolatry, The second Nicene council doth not allow any image to be made of the Godhead, nor that Christians should give the worship of Latria to images. Christiani adorationem in spiritu & veritate saith that f Act. 6. council, imaginibus non exhibuerunt, nec etiam divinae crucis effigiei, nec etiam unquam invisibilis & incomprehensibilis naturae imaginem appararunt. divers are of opinion, that not the image is to be worshipped, but that which is represented by the image, as Durand. lib. 3. sent. dist. 9 q. 2. and Alphonsus à Castro in verb. imago. and that is also signified by these two verses Sabellici lib. 8. Aenead. 8. Nam deus est, quod Imago docet, sed non deus ipsa. Hanc videas, sed mente colas, quod cernis in ipsa. The meaning of these verses is, that not the image itself, but that which is represented by it, is to be worshipped: which argueth the Romanists, that worship images, as well as things represented by images to be idolaters. Durandus writing upon the 3. book of Lombardes' sentences condemneth the images made in resemblance of God. with him consenteth also Abulensis in chap. 4. Deuteronomij, Martin Perez de tradit. part. 3. c. de imaginibus. g Lib. 4. hist. belli Gallici. divers doctors of Sorbona, as Salignac, Boutelier, claud Espence, Picherel, together with Monluc bishop of valence do wish the images of the Trinity taken out of all places. with them also doth Hessels agree in explicat. 1. precept. c. 65. and Ambrose Catharine in his commentary on the 10. commandments, and divers others. Bellarmine himself finally, ashamed percase of their overlashing, that taught, that the image was to be worshipped with the same honour, that is due to the thing represented, will not yield, that images are to be worshipped with Latria properly. non est dicendum saith he, imagines ullas adorari debere Latria, sed è contrario non debere sic adorari. and he proveth his assertion by divers reasons lib. 2. de imaginibus. c. 22. of which it followeth, that Thomas Aquinas, and all his followers, and infinite papists, that teach contrary and do worship images with Latria, are idolaters, and that by the confession of a Cardinal idolater. They are also convinced to be idolaters by divers reasons drawn from the nature of idolatry, from the excellency of God's divine nature, and terms of his law. and argument 31 h Arg. 31. first for that they give to creatures the worship, that is due unto God. neither will the papists deny this argument to follow. but they percase will deny, that they give divine worship to creatures. Let us therefore see whether they give divine honour to creatures, and examine also what their doctrine is in that point. first than it is apparent, that they call upon the cross and say, auge pijs justitiam. and to the virgin Mary, funda nos in pace, solve vincla reis. but to increase justice in us, and to pacify our consciences, terrified with the horror of our sins, and to forgive sins, belongeth to God only. Bonaventure in his blasphemous psalter apply that to the virgin Mary, which the spirit of God meaneth of God only. Secondly the friars in their sermons say to the crucifix, tu nos redemisti, tu nos patri tuo reconciliasti: that is, thou hast redeemed us, thou hast reconciled us to thy father. and this Bellarmine i Lib. 2. de imaginibus. c. 23. confesseth. but this is the office of Christ jesus. thirdly they make vows to saints, and angels, and confess their sins to them, and put their trust in them. but vows are to be made to none, but to God only: and he it is, and none else that knoweth the inward of our heart. on him also we are to call in all our distresses, and to trust in him. four they honour the sacrament, as their lord and god. finally they burn incense and offer their prayers to saints. they say masses also and build churches in honour of creatures. Their doctrine is also consonant to this their practice. for first they teach, that the same honour, that is due to the original is to be given also to images, and by good consequent, that we are to worship the images of God the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, yea and wooden crosses also with Latria and like worship, as we give to God himself. and this is proved by the testimony of Alexander Alice 3. p. q. 3. art. vlt. by Thomas Aquinas 3. part. q. 25. art 3. Caietan writing upon that question and article, Bonaventure, Marsilius, Almayn, and others writing upon the third book of sentences dist. 9 and this Bellarmine himself lib. 2. de imaginibus c. 20. confesseth to be so. they do also in their rubrics of the mass teach their priests to adore the consecrate host & chalice, and to burn incense before their images. but it cannot be denied, but that images are creatures. for they are made by the hands of smiths, carpenters and other workmen the sacrament also is a creature. for they say in their missal, qui haec omnia semper bona creas, speaking of the sacrament. Neither do I think, that Robert Parsons will deny, that a cross is a creature, seeing his putative father the black smith was able to make crosses, as many as he would. are they not then idolaters, which worship creatures with divine worships. argument 32 k Arg. 32. Secondly those are idolaters, that worship graven images contrary to God's commandment. and that appeareth by the saying of better catholics than the papists. let them be confounded, that worship graven images, said i Ruffin. hist. lib. 1. c. 35. Christians in times past. but papists worship graven images, and it cannot be denied, that they do it contrary to God's commandment, bowing down to them, and giving latriam to divers images, as before is showed, and putting confidence in angels and saints, and serving them with religious honour: matters plainly idolatrous and impious. argument 33 m Argu. 33. Thirdly whosoever worshippeth false images is a worshipper of idols. for as n Homil. 8. in Exod. Origen saith, idolum est quod repraesentat speciem, quam oculus non vidit, sed ipse sibi animus fingit, that is, that representeth things, which the eye hath not seen, but which our own imagination hath devised. o Quaest. 38. in Exod. Theodoret likewise saith, that an idol representeth nothing, that subsisteth. and Bellarmine confesseth, quod idolum est falsa similitudo, id est, quod repraesentat id, quod revera non est. that is, p Lib. 2. de imaginib. c. 5. that an idol is a false resemblance, and that, which representeth a thing, that indeed is not. how truly, we will not here dispute but if it be true; then must the papists necessarily confess themselves to be idolaters. for they worship the image of the Trinity, which, seeing the Godhead cannot be represented, must needs be a false resemblance. they worship also the image of the cross, in different forms, so that all of them cannot resemble the true cross. they worship angels in bodily shapes with wings, such as no papists ever saw with their eye. they worship saint Catharine, and saint Christopher in the form of a giant. but they are not able to prove, that ever there was such a man, or such a woman. finally the shapes of their saints are one unlike to another, some being of one colour, some of another, some being of one proportion, some of another. and Christ jesus they worship in the form sometime of a man, sometime of a child, sometime of a lamb: which figure is nothing like to Christ. argument 34 q Arg. 34. It is also idolatry, to worship a man's own conceits and fancies, and not to yield to truth, albeit never so manifestly showed. sculptile & conflatile reor saith r In Abacus. 2. Hierome, dogmata esse perversa, quae ab his, quibus facta sunt adorantur. but never did any sect more stiffly defend their errors, then papists. for they hold the pope's sentence to be infallible. neither will they abandon any of his errors, though never so plainly demonstrated. argument 35 s Arg. 35. Neither can they excuse themselves, that t C. satis dist. 96. call the pope their god, and worship him, with more strange worship, then that which Peter refused Act. 10. the canonists wonder at his excellency, u In proaem. Clement. saying, papa stupor mundi, non deus, non homo, sed utrunque. that is, the pope is the wonderment of the world, not god, not man, but both. for so saith Mosconius in his book de maiestate ecclesiae lib. 1. part. 1. c. 1. in the council of Lateran one called Leo the tenth his saviour. But Hierome in his Commentaries upon the third of Daniel esteemeth them to be idolaters, that give such worship to earthly princes. argument 36 x Arg. 36. Furthermore God is a spirit; and therefore he will be worshipped, not in external images, but in spirit. he is a jealous God: and therefore admitteth no copartners in his worship. he is so one God, that he will admit no other creature to have any part of his worship given to him, according to the law of God: thou shalt have no other gods but me. and all this is signified to teach us, how much God detesteth idolatry. but the papists worship God, as they say, in his image. they give divine worship to stocks, stones, and to the sacrament. they make vows to saints, and angels, and call upon them. they put their trust as much in saints, as ever the Gentiles did in Hercules, Aesculapius, Apollo, and other idols. they have transformed the Psalms uttered in praise of God, to the praise of our lady. how then can they excuse themselves from idolatry? argument 37 y Arg. 37. Finally, the law of God condemneth all images, and similitudes of things both in heaven above, and in the earth beneath, and in the waters under the earth, that are worshipped. the same also z Rom. 1. reproveth those, that change the glory of the incorruptible God, into the likeness of an image of a corruptible man: and that offer incense, or spiritual sacrifices unto any but God. and all this tendeth to the abolishing of idolatry. but the papists worship the likenesses, and images of God, and change his glory into the shape of a corruptible man. they offer also to creatures their prayers, and vows. manifest therefore it is, that in divers points they are guilty of gross idolatry. Neither can they by any means excuse themselves. if they say they do not worship the image a Per se & propriè. for itself, and properly with that worship, that is due to the original, as b Lib. 2. de imaginib. c. 24. Bellarmine teacheth; the heathen could allege so much for themselves. for they did not worship the image, as they worshipped their gods themselves, nor did they sacrifice to the wood and stone, but to the things represented. If they allege, that they do not worship images, as gods, as c Ibid. c. 5. & de eccles. triumph. lib. 2. c. 24. Bellarmine and Gregory de Valentia do oftentimes, thinking by that means to shift off the blot of idolatry from themselves, and the church of Rome; yet will not that serve. for the very heathen could say, that they took not their idols for gods. non ipsa inquiunt, timemus, saith d Instit. divin. lib. 2. c. 2. Lactantius, speaking of the excuse of idolaters, sed eos, ad quorum imaginem ficta, & quorum nominibus consecrata sunt. that is, we do not fear or worship images, say the heathen idolaters, but those after whose likeness they were made, and to whose names they were consecrated. likewise saint Augustine in Psal. 113. showeth, that the heathen were wont to say, that they did not worship that, which was visible, but only the invisible divinity, that was represented and manifested in the image. non hoc visibile colo, sed numen, quod illic invisibiliter habitat. and again, they said, nec simulachrum, nec daemonium colo, sed per effigiem corporalem eius rei signum intueor, quam colere debeo. do you not then plainly see, that the idolaters spoke like the papists? for they say also, we worship not images with latria properly, nor do we worship devils, but by bodily shapes we are brought to see, and remember the things, which we ought to worship. If they deny that they worship creatures, and change the truth of God into a lie, saint Augustine will tell them, e In Psal. 113. conc. 2. that while they call their images by the names of the things represented (as for example, when they say to the crucifix, thou hast redeemed me, and call the images or pictures our lady, or S. Peter, or Paul) they change the truth of God into a lie. effigies à fabro factas, saith saint Augustine, appellando nominibus earum rerum, quas fabricavit deus, transmutant veritatem dei in mendacium. If f Lib. 2. de imaginib. c. 10. Bellarmine allege, that images are not only profitable, as reporting matter of story, but also effectual to inflame us to the love of God, and imitation of holy men, and divers other uses; he must be told, that Augustine teacheth us far otherwise. ducit & affectu quodam infirmo rapit infirma corda mortalium formae similitudo saith g In Psal. 113. conc. 2. Augustine, & membrorum imitata compago: he saith again, that the outward form of things doth bring forth, sordidissimum erroris affectum, a most filthy affection to error. he saith also, that images do effectually pervert unhappy souls. plus valent simulachra saith he, ad curuandam infaelicem animam, quod os habent, etc. If they say, that their images are no idols, because they are representations of true things, and not false representations, as doth Bellarmine, lib. 2. de imaginib. c. 5. saying, quod idolum est falsa similitudo; it may be answered, that the Gentiles might answer so likewise: and yet say nothing to purpose. for the image of Romulus, of the son, of Hercules, and Aesculapius were true representations; and yet idols, for that they were worshipped by idolaters. why then should we not judge the like of the images, of Peter, and of our lady? If they say, that idolaters are condemned, because they put their trust in their idols and images, as the conventicle of Trent h Sess. 25. saith, and hopeth thereby to put away the infamy of idolatry from the Romish church, it may be replied, that the Gentiles did never trust more in their god jupiter, and juno, and Fortuna, or in their idols, than the papists do in our lady, in saint Denis, saint james, and in the images of our lady of Loreto, of the cross, and such like. If they say, that the image of Christ is to be worshipped with the honour due to Christ improperly, as Bellarmine teacheth, lib. 2. de imaginib. c. 23. It may be replied, that the Gentiles were never so stupid, as to say, that properly as much honour is due to the image, as to the original. Finally, if you meet with any of Bellarmine's opinion, lib. de imaginibus, c. 6. that thought Xenaias to be the first, that found fault with the worship of images; you may boldly reprove him by the testimony of Lactantius, Hierome, Epiphanius, Augustine and other fathers before cited. Unless therefore Robert Parsons and his consorts can well answer our arguments, and fortify their own simple excuses, shifts and distinctions; it will appear both by testimony of scriptures and fathers, and also by divers good arguments, that the papists are idolaters. nay it will appear they can no better answer for themselves, than the heathen idolaters in ancient time. is it not then marvel, that such gross idolatry should creep in among Christians? it is so certes. but much more is it to be marveled that so gross an abuse being detected, should either be defended, or tolerated. CHAP. VI That such papists, as within the compass of her majesties reign, have been executed to death, have died for treason, and other capital crimes, and not for religion. and therefore are to be detested as malefactors, and not honoured as martyrs. HItherto we have discoursed of matters of religion. and I hope so, as it may appear to every man, not altogether either irreligious, or possessed with prejudice, that the papists are neither true catholics, nor good Christians. I have therein also discovered not only the vanity of Parsons his pleading in his Ward-word, that taketh that as granted, which is the principal question, but also the simplicity of this wooden Oulyglasses dealing, that not daring to answer our arguments, doth notwithstanding still in his exceptions usurp the name of Catholics & Catholic religion, as due to himself and his consorts, being nothing less, than either catholic, or Christian. now therefore, to fill up this discourse, it followeth, that we consider a little the outward civil carriage of this faction, and what we are to think either of those, that heretofore have broken their necks in the Pope's service, or else yet continue well affected toward his cause. and generally, what all true subjects are to look for either at their hands, or the hands of their partakers, and adherents, and this, for that Robert Parsons in the first chapter, or encounter of his Ward-word doubteth not most impudently to affirm, that many honourable and worshipful gentlemen have endured continual, and intolerable affliction for persevering in their father's faith, and that above a hundred priests have been tortured, hanged, and quartered for the same cause. the same man also in the conclusion of his encounters doth insinuat, that albeit they were charged with treason, yet they died as martyrs. Allen likewise that perfidious traitor to his prince and country in his a Ad p●rsequutores Anglos. treatise against the execution of justice, done upon divers priests and friars, and their adherents, taken in notorious treasons, doth exclaim against the state, and charge our governors with persecution, injustice, tyranny and extreme cruelty. as for his clients, he beareth us in hand, that they were clear of treason, and without all just cause died for matter of religion and conscience only, and not for treason or practices against the state: and concludeth, that therefore they are to be esteemed as holy martyrs, and not as lewd traitors. the detector also in his disjointed exceptions is talking of crosses and persecutions, where he and most of his consorts live at ease, and in all security in good houses, and have laisure to write, and opportunity to print such pamphlets and idle toys, as that, which he hath of late published. argument 1 First then I say, that albeit late laws gave occasion to detect the Pope's agents, that of late have been executed to death in England; yet they deserved death as offending in cases of treason both so adjudged by the ancient laws of this land, and also for the most part by the laws of all nations. for first it is treason to stir up foreign enemies against the prince, or state. the statute of 25. Edward the 3. c. 2. doth so account it, condemning all of treason, that shall go about to levy war against the kings and queens of this land. Likewise it was adjudged by the Roman laws. Maiestatis crimine tenetur, saith Ulpian ad legem juliam mayest. l. 1. cujus opera, consilio, dolo malo consilium initum fuerit etc. quo quis contra remp. arma ferat. The same course is now taken in Spain with such as attempt to levy war against the king, either within or without the realm, as is apparent by the book called El fuero real. Tit. de la guarda del rey. those also that counsel, or abet such as attempt any such matter, are by that law condemned as traitors. Neither is the practice of France divers from other nations in this point. Finally, no Roman may so much as once attempt to raise war against the pope, albeit he hold nothing, but by usurpation, but the pope's sergeants and officers seize upon him, as a traitor. neither will any pretence or allegation of conscience serve to excuse his treason, or to exempt him from punishment. But such agents of the pope as have been executed hitherto in England for his cause, either have themselves been persuaders of the pope, and Spanish king, and others, to make war upon her Majesty, and their country, or else have joined with Englefield, Allen, Parsons, Holt, Owen, Morgan and other principal movers and stirrers for an invasion, and were directed by them, and sent into England and other places for that purpose. and this may be proved first by the Bull of Pius Quintus procured at the instance of divers English fugitives, and by them sent abroad into England, and sent into the king of Spain's country, as a motive for him to invade England, and as it were a trumpet, that sounded fire and sword against us. secondly, all the practices and exercises of the seditious seminaries in the Low-countrieses, Spain, and Rome, have tended to the stirring up of foreign nations against us, as is confessed by divers priests, and testified by scholars, and may be proved by some notes of their exercises, which we have to show. Thirdly, Sixtus Quintus, anno 1588. in his sentence declaratory, or rather declamatory, against the Queen, doth say, that at the earnest solicitation of certain principal English men, which he calleth catholics, he had proceeded against her Majesty, and had enjoined the Spanish king to execute his Bull of excommunication and deposition against her, and to come with great forces against England. four, Allen in his traitorous letters to the nobility and people of England and Ireland, doth confess, that the pope and Spaniard were solicited by himself and divers other English men, to invade this land. and this is also known by the negotiation of Englefield, Parsons, and other English, both with the Spanish king, and also with other princes to this purpose. fifthly, Parsons to draw on the king of Spain to enterprise this war, told him, that his name being Philip Norway, he could not choose but have good success. his reason was, for that our country had a prophecy, that betwixt Bostons' Bay, and the pile of Foudray should be seen the black navy of Norway. which, as he persuaded the king, should return victorious. The same man also in a letter to a certain noble man of Scotland declareth, that he had been with most princes in Europe, to move invasions and wars against us. sixtly, the emperor that now is, upon their informations hath professed himself our enemy; and set out divers prolamations against our nation, by means whereof our merchants in his dominions have sustained great losses. seventhly, Allen and divers fugitive English, were busy anno Domini 1586. and 1587. with the duke of Guise, and other Frenchmen, to induce them to concur with the Pope and Spaniards in the war against England. The English papists at that time in a certain treatise called, un advertissement des catholiques Anglois aux catholics Francois; do endeavour to stir them up against us, charging them with this slackness, and imputing their evil success thereunto. Le crime d'endurer jesabel ta voisine, say they; Plonger an sang Chrestien, te destruit peu a peu. They confess also, that themselves are scorned of all nations for suffering an heretical Queen (as these heretical traitors call her) to reign. An eight argument to prove this point, may be drawn from the infamous libels, set out against our nation, partly by Parsons, and Creswell, and partly by Worthington, Gifford, & other fugitives, tending to no other end, than to stir the whole world to take arms up against us. finally, the practice of D. Story with the duke of Alva, the oration of Allen made to Gregory the 13. Sanders his negotiation with the same pope, Parsons his running up and down these twenty years and upward, from nation to nation, the agencies of Holt and other jesuits and priests with the duke of Parma, the plots taken about Crighton a jesuite concerning the invasion of England, and the clamours of English fugitives from time to time in the ears of all Christian princes, and now lately the attempt of D. Juan d' Aquila in Ireland, only set forward by English and Irish priests and fugitives against her Majesty, do all plainly declare, that these fugitives from time to time have been the firebrands, to set their own native country on a flame, if any would have harkened to their promises. and this point, albeit the same touch not all that have been executed, or are yet alive in England of the pope's faction, principally; yet it toucheth either all, or most of them, as being a betters, counsellors, scholars, slaves, or companions of these principal stirrers, all of them coming from Allen and Parsons, and other principal agents in this business. and so clear it is that English fugitives were the principal motives of the invasion anno 1588. and of D. Juan d' Aquila his attempt, that the Spaniards impute most of their evil success to their lies, and false informations of our weakness; and it is said, that divers of them begin to be hateful to most Spaniards for this cause. argument 2 Secondly, it is treason to stir up sedition or rebellion against the prince or state, or to concur with those, that go about to move rebellion, or stir up sedition. The words of the Roman laws are clear. Maiestatis crimine, b L. 1. ff. ad l. julian maiestatis. saith Ulpian, tenetur is, cuius consilio doloue malo, factum est, ut armati homines cum telis, lapidibusue in urbe sint, conveniántue, adversus remp. locáque occupantur vel templa, quóue coetus, conventúsue fiant, hominésque; ad seditionem connocentur. He is guilty of treason, saith Ulpian, by whose counsel, or cunning procurement, armed men with weapons come together against the state, and seize places of advantage, or that causeth meeting and and assemblies to raise up sedition. By this law those are also condemned, qui milites solicitaverint, concitaveríntue, quo seditio tumultúsue adversus rempub. fiat. that is, which shall solicit, or cause soldiers to mutiny or revolt, or stir against the state; as for example the traitor Allen did with Sir W. Stanley and the soldiers of Deventer. Likewise, by the statute of the 25. Edward the 3. c. 2. those are adjudged traitors, that shall take arms against their prince or country, either within the realm or without. in which case also are all rebels and seditions persons, that shall rebel against their governors, or that shall be aiding or consenting thereunto. And in the Spanish laws deal fuero real, tit. de la guarda del rey, it is enacted, that none be so hardy by word, deed, or advice, to oppose himself against the king, or his state, or to make an insurrection or practice of rebellion against him, or his kingdom, either within the realm or without. Que ninguno no sea osado por fecho, ni per dicho, ni por conseio de yr contra el rey, ni contra so sennorio, ni hazer allevamiento, ni bollicio contra el, ni contra seu reyno en su tierra, ni fuera su tierra. This is also law both in France, Germany, and all countries. neither will the pope suffer any of his dominions, notwithstanding that he holdeth them by usurpation, and without lawful title, to consult against him, or mutinously to stir up such, as live under him to rebellion, but he presently chastiseth them as traitors. Innocent the seventh who succeeded Boniface the ninth, that not yet three hundred years agone first usurped the temporal government of Rome, as c In lib. de schism. Theodoricke a Niem and other d Paulus Langius in Chronic. Citizensi. stories testify, caused divers citizens most cruelly to be murdered, albeit they did but again redemand the authority, that was committed to the pope's in trust. Platina he maketh mention of this murder writing of Innocent the seventh, though concealing the true cause, he saith, they were executed for sedition. Vndecim cives, saith Platina, reip. suae labenti in negligentia pontificis consulturi, statim necantur, è fenestrísque deijciuntur, quod diceret eo modo tolli seditiones. If then a pretence of sedition be cause sufficient for the Pope to proceed against his subjects, with what face can he, or his adherents blame her Majesty, if she do chastise her mutinous, seditions and rebellious subjects? shall it not be lawful for her, and for this state to do that which all princes and states do practise, and take to be most lawful? e Theodorick. Niem lib. 2. de schismae. 36. Urban the sixth upon pretence of a conspiracy against himself, put divers of his cardinals to death, and proceeded with all rigour against such, as were but a little suspected of practising against him. neither did his adversary Clement use a milder course against such, as were taken practising against his faction. f jovio in vita de Leon. 10. Leo the tenth spared not Cardinal Petrucci, but put him to death most cruelly for uttering some words tending to the alteration of the state of Sienna, although that city was no part of his dominions, but only recommended unto him. finally Clement the fift by the aid of the French king abolished the whole order of the Templars. and of late the whole order of the Humiliati was suppressed and dissolved, and divers of them executed to death for a practice against the state of the Romish church. and shall the Romish church and her agents be suffered without punishment to practise against this state? or can any reasonable or indifferent man justly find fault with the execution of such persons, as have been taken practising? the very adversaries, I think, albeit very bold, yet will not be so impudent to affirm it. for hitherto their pleading hath been, that the massepriests and other Romanists are clear from such practices. Let us see therefore, whether they speak truly, or no. and albeit we should greatly wrong the state, if we should dispute this point, as a matter doubtful; yet let us, I say briefly touch it for satisfaction of the ignorant, especially such as are strangers, and unacquainted with the trial of such priests, friars and other the pope's agents, as have been executed in England, as offending in cases of treason. I say then, that no one priest, jesuit, or other papist in England hath been executed for treason, but he hath been found guilty of practising against her Majesty and the state, or at the least aiding, and assisting, and entertaining of such practisers, and seditious persons: and that divers of them have either stood armed against the state in open rebellion, or else joined with the rebels, and assisted them to their uttermost power, and means. and this appeareth first by faculties granted to Thomas Harding about the year 1567. for the reconciliation of the people to the pope, and for the disturning of them from their obedience to the Prince. for whatsoever the pretence was, the end was sedition and rebellion, he being appointed for nothing else, but to be a forerunner of that filthy friars Impius Quintus his excommunication against the Queen. secondly it is proved by the rebellion in the north anno 1569. which was stirred up by one Nicholas Morton, and other seditious priests. thirdly by the rebellion and treason of the duke of Norfolk stirred up by the pope as appeareth by the report of Hierome Catena, in the life of Pius Quintus. four by the erection of two seminaries of treason, the one erected at Douai anno 1569. and another at Rome anno 1579. or thereabout which were receptacles of such scattered and lost priests, as had been in rebellion, and open schools to teach treason to malcontent papists. fifthly by the rebellion of the earl of Desmond in Ireland raised by the solicitation of Sanders the pope's legate, and set forward by divers seditious priests, and friars, and other malcontents. sixthly by the faculties of Parsons and Campian and their companions, which came to make a way for the execution of the Pope's bull. seventhly by the judgement of Sanders and Bristol, who commend these rebels, and put them into the catalogue of martyrs. in his 7. book of his visible monarchy saith, that the purpose of the earls of Westmoreland and Northumberland and their followers in the northern rebellion was to be praised, albeit they had no succcesse. nobilium illorum laudanda erant consilia. he doth also call the rebellion pium institutum, & fidei confessionem, that is, a godly and devout resolution, and a plain confession of the Romish faith. neither doth he esteem of them, that were executed for that rebellion otherwise, then of holy martyrs. Bristol likewise in his fifteenth motive, putteth the earl of Northumberland, the two Nortons', and two massing priests called Woodhouse and Plomptree, and others, that were executed, as principal actors in that rebellion, in the catalogue of martyrs. for now the pope doth account rebellion for his cause good religion, and celebrateth the memory of traitors for martyrs. an eight argument is ministered unto us by the most scandalous and traitorous libel set out by Allen, and printed not without the help of Parsons, they say, and other English traitors; wherein they by all the means, they can devise, do exhort her majesties subjects in England and Ireland to take arms against her, to seize upon her person, and to deliver her into the hands of her enemies. they endeavour also to persuade them to forsake their allegiance, and to join with foreign enemies. The 9 argument may be drawn from the practice of Charles Paget with the earl of Northumberland, anno domini 1583. that by all means solicited him to revolt, and to join with the French against the State. The 10. is ministered unto us by the treacherous plot of Parsons and Hesket, to draw in Ferdinand the late earl of Derby, into action. The 11. is grounded upon the insurrection of Tyrone, and the rest of that rascal rout stirred up by Monford a priest yet lurking in England, and divers other seditious agents of the pope. The last is that dangerous attempt of the late earl of Essexe, which maketh my heart to bleed in respect of some private causes, as oft as I remember it, and moveth many to wonder, that he should be made an instrument by these firebrands of sedition, to set up that religion, which I think he never loved. and my arguments are proved good, for that no one of those, that have been executed for the pope's cause, can be named, but either he was an agent in some of these practices, or allowed them, or were privy unto them. nay, I do believe, that if the question were asked of any jesuit, or jesuited priest, or any of their adherents, he would not disallow the pope's act, or the acts of his agents in stirring up rebellion in England, and Ireland, especially for matter of religion. what others would do I know not. but hitherto we find, that they speak honourably of Card. Allen, as of their foster father. yet was he the most notorious and seditious traitor, that ever this land bred, Robert Parsons only excepted. that Parsons and Campian knew of a rebellion, or change intended, it is apparent by their petition to the pope, wherein they do only provide for their consorts, rebus sic stantibus, that is, so long as the state of things did continue in terms, as than it stood. a certain g Quod lib. 9 art. 10. secular priest affirmeth, that no papist, (which he falsely calleth catholic) ought to send his children into seminaries abroad. and his reason is good. for that their heads be filled with treacheries, and equivocations, dissimulation, hypocrisy, and all falsehood. sufficient witnesses and confessions of divers, that have forsaken those nests of treason, declare, that the youths there are maintained for no other end, then to move sedition in England; and we may well think, that neither the pope, nor Spaniard would be at the cost they are for their maintenance, unless they hoped by their agency to be recompensed again ten fold. whatsoever their intent was; certain it is, that in the seminaries nothing is more commonly talked of, then how to set up a party against the state, how to trouble her Majesty, or some such like matter. and albeit the governors do not acquaint the scholars with particulars; yet when any mischief is intended against us, than the scholars are willed to say Pater noster, or ave Maria, for furthering of some good intention, as they call it, of the Rector of the college, finally whatsoever the priests say, or swear concerning practices of rebellion; yet unless they will forswear the pope, they must needs be rebels, and stir up rebellion, as oft as he listeth. for the h Pius the fift his Bull. pope doth excommunicate all those, that will not rise up in arms against her Majesty. and who knoweth not, that they will rather venture to break their necks, then lose their souls, that they suppose to depend on the pope's curses. this argument therefore followeth necessarily. if a true papist, then is he a false hearted subject. for otherwise the pope by his bull hath excommunicated him, as well as all other subjects: and the same shall undoubtedly be in force ere it belong, if these good fellows be not tied shorter, or if the calves of such bulls be not surely kept up. argument 3 Thirdly it is treason to attempt against the life and person of the prince, and ever hath been so accounted by laws of all nations. among the Romans it was so heinous, that the offender being dead, yet the offence was inquired of, and punished by confiscation of his goods. meminisse oportebit, saith i Cod. ad legem. julian maiestatis. l. meminisse. Paulus the lawyer, si quid contra imperatoris maiestatem commissum dicatur, etiam post rei mortem id crimen instaurari solere. by the ancient laws of England it hath always been adjudged high treason, to compass, or imagine the death of the kings or Queens of this realm, as appeareth by the old statute of the 25. of Edward the third, c. 2. it is likewise so judged by the laws of Spain, reported in a book called Fuero real. tit. de la guarda del rey. in France it is deemed the highest and chiefest point of high treason, to attempt against the life of the prince. Bodin in his second book de la republic c. 5. reporteth, how a certain gentleman in his confession to a priest declaring, that once he had an intention to kill the king, albeit he never did attempt to do it, and was then most sorry, that ever he did think upon such a matter, was notwithstanding executed to death for his very imagination. Peter Barriere was likewise executed at Melun, for that being persuaded by one Varade a jesuite and others, that it was an act meritorious to kill the king that now reigneth, he did conceive in his mind a resolution to do it. neither did any papist think, that he had any wrong in it. Ghineard likewise a jesuite was hanged in Paris for declaring by writing that it was lawful to kill kings excommunicate by the pope, and for oppugning their title. for the same cause also, and for that they savoured of this treacherous doctrine, and were not unacquainted with the assassinate of Chastell, that meant to have murdered k. Henry the fourth, that now reigneth in France, all the jesuits were expulsed by an arrest of parliament out of France, albeit the same is not so thoroughly executed, as were to be wished. Urban the 6. with exquisite torments killed all, that were any way to be suspected for conspiring against him. john the 22. caused the bishop of Cahors to be skinned alive, and to be slain with great torments upon suspicion of a conspiracy made against him. omnibus cruciatibus, saith k In john 23. Platina, coegit vitam cum morte commutare, quod in Pontificem coniurasset. l In Alexandro 6. Alexander the sixth used to put men to death most cruelly for every word spoken against him, as Onuphrius testifieth. and this is the resolution of all lawyers. they commit treason saith Socinus the younger, lib. 3. consil. 105. which make a practice against the person of their lord and prince. and with him agreeth Alciat consil. 456. they are also guilty of the same crime, which do consult or practise against the state of the prince or commonwealth, as saith Baldus consil. 58. & seq. lib. 1. and Alexander consil. 13. lib. 6. and jason consil. 86. lib. 3. Let us then see whether those jesuits and priests, that either have been executed for treason; or else are yet alive, and to be executed, if they repent not, and fly to the queens mercy, be not guilty of this point of treason also and whether their adherents and supporters may not justly be touched for supporting them. first it is apparent, that Pius the fift in his execrable bull against her Majesty, doth excommunicate all such, as will not take arms for the execution of his sentence, and the actual deposing of the Queen. but neither can any such thing be executed without violence offered to her person, nor may we imagine, that the mass priests and their consorts were sent for any other purpose into England, then for the execution of the bull. m Lib. de schism. Theodorike a Niem speaking of a like sentence of a pope denounced against a king of his time doth signify, that such sentences are not executed without many calamities, and great troubles▪ secondly the earls of Westmoreland and Northumberland and their adherents the rebels anno 1569. did not intend other matter, than the destruction of her majesties person. as many therefore as either were actors in that rebellion, or else approved the same, as did in his book of his pretended visible monarchy, and all jesuits and jesuited papists do very boldly, are guilty in this point of treason. Bristol in his Motives doth no otherwise account of those, that were executed for this rebellion, then of holy martyrs. neither can any priest or papist notwithstanding all their pretences mislike that rebellion, unless in opinion they contradict Bellarmine and other Romish doctors, and absolutely condemn the pope's sentence, that hath so oftentimes been published: which I doubt whether any will do or no. In Ireland certes we do not find any priest, that is not consorted with the rebels, and that publicly doth not defend their cause. how is it then possible, that either they should draw their swords against her Majesty, or allow them that do it, and not be guilty of attempting against her person? Thirdly Holt the jesuit, Worthington, and other priests persuaded first a certain Irish man called Patrick Collen, & afterward one York & Williams to murder her Majesty. and this the secular priests in Holt & his consorts in a certain treatise entitled important considerations, n Pag. 33. do confess to be true. they do also o Ibidem. confess, that Edmund Squire was drawn by the persuasion of Walpoole a jesuite to a like villainous attempt against her majesties own person. Parsons in his Wardword likewise confesseth, that he was acquainted with the resolution of a certain gentleman, as he calleth him, that came over to kill the Queen. neither need we to make any question, but that divers priests, and jesuits, and others either p One Bifley a priest confessed, that it was lawful to kill the Queen, being excommunicate by the pope, and denied not, that he himself would do the act, if he could. his confession is extant to be seen. allowed or were acquainted with the most execrable treasons of Parry, Savage, Lopez, Squire, Babington, and such like unnatural monsters, that attempted and intended most cruelly to murder, empoison, and destroy their liege Sovereign. the rest they are scholars and agents of the pope, and his wicked consistory, and of Parsons and other jesuits and traitorous priests, and combined with them, and therefore guilty as far, as the others in this point of treason. Allen in his wicked letters, to the nobility and people of England and Ireland, declareth, that there were divers English priests in the Spanish army, ready to serve every man's spiritual necessity by confession, counsel, and all consolation in Christ jesus, and the same is confessed also in divers treatises set out by secular priests. but how could they be in the army of public enemies, and not attempt against her majesties person, if occasion served? or how can any allow or like of such fellows or such attempts, that wish not the destruction of her Majesty? four, cardinal Allen in his most slanderous libel directed to the nobility and people of England and Ireland, doth by all his best rhetoric endeavour to persuade all papists, to take arms against her Majesty, to lay hands on her, and to deliver her into the hands of her enemies. but what priest or papist in England did not much depend on him while he lived? nay, most of them were his scholars, and the rest conversed with him, and received divers letters and instructions from him. fifthly, it is confessed, that divers priests now in England were either in the Spanish army, or in their ships, or appointed to follow the army anno 1588. and that divers others were put aboard the Adelantadoes ships, that came for Falmouth anno 1597. and 1598. If then they came with foreign enemies, and were in their troops, it is no question, but they meant to attempt against her majesties person. it is also apparent, that all their receiters and abetters, and such also, as allow their act, and this opinion, are likewise guilty of this point of treason. Finally, in a certain house, where David Engleby a traitorous priest was taken, these q They are to be seen in the memorial of the council of York. resolutions were also found, that it is lawful for papists to take arms against the Queen. and further, that they might do with her person, whatsoever pleased them. they also resolve in flat terms, that it is lawful to kill the Queen. but say the priests, as matters now stand, it is best not so much, as once to speak of that matter. so then all, that are not blind, may see the malice of this generation. and no question, but their followers in their superstitious opinions would not be far behind them in their lewd and treacherous actions, if occasion were offered. neither can they otherwise do, when the pope, upon whom they build their faith, doth r Bulla Pij 5. adversus Elizabetham. excommunicate all, that will not fight against the Queen. argument 4 Fourthly, it is treason, in danger of foreign invasion, or el● in the midst of the battle, to forsake the prince, or not to defend or maintain his right. s Li●ij lib. 1. decad. 1. Metius Suffetius standing aloof, when Romulus encountered the enemy, was seized upon as a traitor, and drawn in pieces with horses. By the laws of fees, he that forsaketh his lord in the battle, t Lib 2. de feudis. de caufis benefic. amittendi. as a traitor, is deprived of his lands. qui dominum suum, saith the law, cum quo ad praelium iverit, in acie periclitantem dimiserit, beneficio se indignum indicavit. Likewise, it is adjudged treason, not to declare any harm intended against our lord. By the common laws of England also, and laws of nations, it hath been always accounted treason, not only to oppugn the right of the king, but also being required, not to acknowledge it. Suppose then all priests and papists were not actors either in op●n rebellions, or in attempts made by foreign enemies; yet all of them denying the queens authority, being excommunicate by the pope, and that refuse to acknowledge her lawful title, or to take her part against the pope, who is now become an enemy, and an invader consorted with the Spaniard, are notorious traitors. But this is the case of the best of those, that have died for the pope's cause. Campian and his consorts being demanded, whether they took the Queen to be lawful Queen, notwithstanding the pope's sentence of excommunication: and likewise, whether Sanders and Bristol, that maintained the pope's authority, and the Queen's deposition to be lawful, was sound or not, refused to answer directly, and neither would they acknowledge her Majesty to be their lawful Queen, nor promise to take her part if occasion served, nor would they condemn the pope's fact, nor disallow the traitorous doctrine of Sanders and Bristol. and I do believe, if our recusants in England were put to the question, they would either accord with the priests, or make very doubtful answers. for, the Queen's authority in ecclesiastical causes, they utterly condemn, and from the pope, that is our enemy, and hath displayed his banner i● open field against her Majesty, they will not be drawn. Sherwin, and some others did so answer, as every man might judge, that they mean to the uttermost of their power, to defend the pope's cause, and to oppugn her majesties authority. In Ireland we find, that papists are the men, that uphold the rebellion, and that serve her Majesty very coldly, though sometime entertained in her service. Were it then nothing else but this, that the mass priests and their adherents refuse to acknowledge her majesties title, and to serve her against foreign enemies; yet is that sufficient, to show them to be traitors, & most unworthy to possess land and office, that will not serve her Majesty, by whose favour and clemency, they enjoy their lands and offices, against the Spaniard, or other foreign enemy, that seeketh to deprive both us, and them percase of lands, living and life. It may be, that some papists will not believe this to be true of the mass priests, and their adherents. but if they list to read and see, what the secular priests confess in their treatise of important considerations, they will change their opinions. argument 5 Howsoever they judge of this point, yet they will not deny, that it is treason to adhere to foreign enemies. In the statute of 25. of Edward the third, chap. 2. those that adhere to the king's enemies, are adjudged traitors. By the u El fuero real. tit. de la guarda del rey. laws of Spain likewise it is made treason, to join with the enemy, and to yield him secure, or help by any means. and the like we may gather out of the Roman laws ad legem juliam maiestatis. l. 1. Finally, reason may teach us, that they can not be our friends, that adhere to our enemies, and join with them. but the mass priests, and all, that have dealt hitherto in the pope's, and Spaniards cause, have adhered to foreign foes, and to the public and professed enemies of her Majesty and this state. for first it is apparent, that the Pope and Spaniard are public enemies of the prince & state. Hosts ij sunt, saith x ff. de verborum signific. l. hosts. Pomponius, qui nobis, aut quibus nos publicè bellum decrevimus. that is, they are public enemies, either which make wars on us, or upon whom we make wars. The Greeks, of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that signifieth war, do call enemies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. which showeth them to be enemies properly, that make wars upon us. But the Pope and Spaniard, from the year 1569. have not ceased to make wars against the English nation. Pope Pius the fift having a determination to recover his authority in England, and that rather by the sword, than as Peter did gain men, by the word, stirred up Philip king of Spain to join with him against our nation. both of them sent money to aid the Northern rebels, anno 1569. and were determined to have sent an army into England, under the conduct of the duke of Alva, had not the practice of the rebels been discovered, and had not the rebellion been suppressed before the succours came to them. y Manolessa. The Pope also afterward set up the duke of Norfolk, and sent him money, and encouraged him with great promises to execute his sentence. and both these points are proved, not only by the testimony of the letters of Pius Quintus, as they are recorded by him, that set out the report of his life, but also by the testimony of the secular priests in their treatise called important considerations. About the year 1578. Stukelcy was by the Pope furnished with money and soldiers to make some enterprise in Ireland, and had done somewhat, if God's judgements had not turned him into Barbary, where he made his end correspondent to his life. That string being broken, Sanders was sent, as agent for the Pope to raise a rebellion in Ireland. and not long after, the Pope sent certain forces into the same country, that openly z Let Parsons show that ever S. Peter did the like. displayed his banners against her Majesty, and the English nation. Anno 1588. both the Spaniards and Pope's fleet came with fire and sword against England. The duke of Parma likewise provided great land forces against us in the Low-countrieses. An. 1597. & 1598. the Adelantado of Spain set forth twice or thrice from Corona, with an intention to descend in the port of Falmouth, and to take that country. And lately Don Juan d'Aquila was sent with divers regiments for the conquest of Ireland. Likewise we for our defence have since made some attempts against the Spaniard in Spain, in the Indias, and in the Low-countrieses. And most of these matters are publicly known, and can not be denied by the adversarses themselves. The secular priests confess most of these things in their treatise of important considerations. It can not therefore be denied, but that both the Pope, and the Spaniard are public enemies of her Majesty and the state. The like may be said of Henry the 2. the French king, during the wars in Scotland, in the beginning of her majesties reign, and of the duke of Guise, the duke of Alva, the prince of Parma, and others, that at several times have done hostile acts against her Majesty, and the English nation. Likewise it is a thing very manifest, that all our mass-priests, and their partakers and consorts have adhered to the king of Spain, to the pope, and to other foreign enemies. Upon the first coming of the Queen to the crown, divers fled to the French king, who pretending a right to the crown of England for his daughter in law the Queen of Scots, proclaimed her in Paris Queen of England, and Ireland, not without the consent of some traitorous English, as it seemeth. Mortua Maria, saith a De schi●. li. 3. Sanders, Henricus Galliarum rex etc. nurum suam Scotorum reginam Henrici octavi proneptim parisijs pro concione Angliae & Hiberniae reginam declarandam curavit. he sent also forces into Scotland to second his claim. which no man may surmise he would have done, but that he was promised a party in England. that the seminaries of Douai and Rome, adhere to the pope and Spaniard, it cannot be denied. for of them they have their maintenance, and when the priests of the seminaries are deeply rooted in the grounds of unnatural disloyalty and treason abroad, they come with commission and means from them two, home into England. thirdly, Sanders was sent by the pope as his legate into Ireland, and both he and his consorts, that were sent upon that business, were furnished with means from the pope, and did wholly depend upon him, and on the king of Spain. four it appeareth, that the priests held the pope for the chief lord, and did not so much as vouchsafe to call Elizabeth the Queen of England their Queen. petatur à summo domino nostro, say Parsons and Campian in their faculties, explicatio bullae declaratoriae contra Elizabetham, & ei adhaerentes. let us beseech say they, our most high lord the pope, to make an exposition of the bull against Elizaberh, and all that adhere unto her. so it appeareth, that they declare themselves opposite to the Queen, and all her true subjects, and that they adhere to the pope. it may out of that faculty also be gathered, that all papists adhere to the pope, for that these two provide for them only, and exclude all the queens subjects. for the papists, whom those two traitors call catholics, desire, that the pope's bull may bind the Queen and her subjects always, but not the papists, while matters stand in terms as now they do, but then only when the bull may be put in execution. so it appeareth by the faculty granted to Parsons and Campian, that papists are a faction adhering to the pope, & resolving to execute his bull assoon, as they shallbe able. fifthly it cannot be denied, but that such priests as came with the Spanish forces by sea or land, either ann. 1588. or ann. 1597. or at any other time, or that came with the pope's or spanish forces into Ireland, do adhere to foreign enemies. but of this sort there are divers, as may be proved by the secular priests confessions, in several treatises, and by the libel of cardinal Allen, that Italienated traitor, and alienated fugitive, that signifieth so much. Parson's also is charged to have thrust divers English priests aboard the Adelantadoes ships, being more than half forced to come against their country. neither do the rest of the priests and their adherents cease to converse with these secret traitors, and to entertain them, and to hide them. sixtly b Deschism. l. 3. Sanders doth testify, that the scholars of the seminary at Douai are protected and maintained by king Philip. the same king also caused other seminaries of English scholars to be erected in Spain: which no man doubteth, but they adhere to the Spanish king. so likewise the Romish seminaries and their scholars adhere to the pope. for they take an oath and swear to the pope, and those of Spain to the Spaniard, as is testified by Navarrus consil. lib. 3. de regular. consil. 1. and Ribadineira de schism. part. 3. c. 21. seventhly those that swear to maintain the Infantaes title to the crown of England set down by Robart Parsons a notorious traitor to the crown of England, must needs adhere to the Spaniard. but that is the case of all the English priests, that are now under the jesuits government, as appeareth by the testimony of divers treatises set out by the secular priests against the jesuits, and by Charles Pagets' book against Parsons. the matter also is very evident and notorious to all that know the orders of the English seminaries of traitors fostered in Spain. 8. the jesuits and their scholars are linked to the pope and spaniard; to the pope swearing to go, whether he will send them; to the Spaniard for his liberality toward them, and for that he is ready always to execute their treacherous devices. 9 divers fugitive English are the Spaniards, and pope's pensioners and sworn servants. 10. the archpriest and his adherents, as they are enemies of the state, and therefore hide their heads: so are they dependants on the pope and Spaniard, and profess themselves their clients. finally you shall hardly find either mass-priest, or sound papist, that will renounce the pope, and take an oath to serve the Queen either against the pope or Spaniard. and if any do so, they perform their service very slackly. which if any do endeavour to excuse, because they take the pope to be Peter's successor, and the Spaniard to seek nothing but to establish popish religion in England; they show themselves to be ignorant both of religion, and matters of state. for Peter's successors (of which number the pope is none) have a commission only to feed Christ's sheep, and not to cut their throats. c Important considerations. p. 25. and the Spanish general anno 1588. said openly, that if he once came into England both catholics and heretics should be one to him; so he might make way for his master. and his reason was, for that his sword could not discern between them. wherefore as the pope and Spaniard are professed enemies to her Majesty and this state, so all that adhere unto them, or favour them, and depend upon them, are traitors to their prince and country. argument 6 It is also treason to send letters to enemies or rebels, or to help them with advise, counsel, or intelligence. Maiestatis crimine tenetur saith d L. 1. ff. ad l. juliam maicstatis. Ulpian, qui hostibus populi Rom. nuntium literásue miserit, signúmue dederit, feceritúe dolo malo, quo hostes populi Rom. consilio inventur adversus remp. the same is also adjudged treason both by Spanish, French, and the Pope's laws, as English traitors, if they should be taken writing, or advising the enemies to the Pope, or Spaniard, or french king, should well know. but the archpriest and his adherents both send letters, and give advise to the Pope and Spaniard, the best they can. they do also write to Irish and English rebels. neither is there any almost of the jesuited faction, but he writeth to Parsons a notorious traitor; and Allen, while he lived, was made acquainted by these fellows, of whatsoever passed in England either publicly or privately. argument 7 Neither can any subject clear himself of treason, that shall receive letters or directions from foreign enemies, as both laws civil and martial do teach us. in what case then is the archpriest Blackewell and his assistants, and whole faction, that continually receive letters, directions, briefs and other instructions from foreign enemies? and if these fellows be so far engaged in treason; then are they not clear, that shall hide them, and conceal them, and maintain them. argument 8 By the common laws of England it is treason, not only to take the crown from the king or Queen, but also to seek to dispossess the right heir, of his right, or to translate the crown to such, as have no right. it is also a great wrong offered to the laws and state, to endeavour by supposed titles to defeat the intent of the law, and to overthrow the fundamental laws of states. is it not then to be wondered, that no greater poursuit is made after Robert Parsons, and the priests, that come out of the seminaries of Rome and Spain, who either by oath, or promise stand engaged to promote, I know not, whether I should call it, a title or a dream of Parson's concerning a title by him cast upon the Infanta of Spain to the crown of England? The e Proved by the treatises of secular priests. same man also not long since offered the crown to the duke of Parma, and others. neither wanteth he a number to consort with him; especially of those, that favour the spaniard. argument 9 Neither is it less than treason, to forsake a man's country, and contrary to the prince's laws, and commandment to run to foreign enemies. Paulus the lawyer doth account of such no otherwise, then as of enemies. Qui malo consilio saith f L. post liminium. §. transfugae. ff. de Captiu. & postli●…. he, & proditoris animo patriam dereliquit, hostium numero habendus est. neither do I suppose, that either the Pope, or Spaniard, or any prince in the world doth otherwise account of their rinegued fugitives, them of traitors: which may in part also appear by the severity of the punishment by law inflicted upon such persons. transfugae ad hosts, saith the g L. si quis. §. transfugae. ff. de paenis. law, aut vivi exurantur, aut furca suspendantur. by this law it appeareth, that our rinegued english jesuits, and priests have great favour, that hitherto have escaped the penalty of the law, that adjudgeth men in their cases worthy of such grievous punishment. and certes, seeing our adversaries think it lawful to burn men for transgressing the vain traditions of men, as for example for reading of an english testament, for eating flesh in lent and such like; they cannot say, but such as seek the destruction of their country, and run to foreign enemies deserve with all severity to be punished. that our mass-priests have forsaken their country to fly to the enemies, it cannot be denied. nay in the cases of conscience resolved by Allen and Parsons cap. 1. cas. 1. & cap. 3. they are taught by pretty equivocations, to deny their country. argument 10 The Roman laws adjudge him a traitor. which fraudulently enforceth a man to to take an oath, to do an act against the state. h L. cuiusque ff. ad l. juliam mayest. cuius dolo malo saith Scevola, jure iurando quis adactus est, quo adversus remp. faciat. likewise i L. quisquis. c. ad legem juliam maiestatis. Arcadius and Honorius pronounce him a traitor, qui scelestam cum militibus vel privatis, vel barbaris inierit factionem, aut factionis eius sacramentum susceperit, vel dederit. that is, which shall enter into a wicked faction with soldiers, with private men, or barbarous nations or shall either give or take an oath to maintain that faction. the Romans did therefore call conspirators, Coniuratos, because those, that intended treason against the state, did bind themselves one to another by an oath not only to keep matters secret, but also to prosecute the intended treason with effect. If then the jebusits, and seminary men take an oath to their superior of blind obedience, as they call it; to the Pope, that they shall go whether he will send them; to the Spaniard to serve him faithfully, to Robert Parsons to maintain the title of the Infanta of Spain; how can they excuse themselves from treason in this point? if they deny, that they take such oath, not only their own conscience, but also the testimony of Navarrus consil. lib. 3. de regularib. cons. 1. and Ribadineira lib. 3. de schism. c. 21. and the confession of divers secular priests, in divers treatises published against the jesuits, and their faction, will plainly convince them. argument 11 Likewise as in war enemies are discerned from friends by the word, and some privy note; so traitors in civil dissension are known from true subjects by this, that those have their words, and notes of faction, whereby one of them knoweth another. and as in wars those are taken for enemies, that carry the enemy's signal; so in civil government those are undoubtedly traitors and enemies, that are marked with the privy signs of traitors, and enemies. the papists therefore, that carry about with them their agnus dei, their grains, their consecrated beads, and such other trash, and are shorn and greased for the pope's sheep, and Spanish servants, are undoubtedly by all reason to be taken for traitors. And if any reply, that it is a ridiculous and strange law, that men should be reputed traitors for bringing in, or having the pope's bulls, and an agnus dei, and blessed grains, medalles, and such toys; it may be answered, that not to have these things simply is treason, but to have them as marks of faction, and signs to discern the heard of anthichrist from others. and that do the papists well know. Allen also and Parsons in their hellish resolutions of cases of conscience, affirm, that such medalles, and grains bind men in devotion to the pope's see, which they call apostolic. haec grana & metalla benedicta say k resolute. c. 1. cas. 2. they, multum conferre possunt, ad afficiendos populos erga apostolicam sedem. again to be shorn a priest, and greased after the popish manner in itself is not so much treason, as superstition and false religion. but when it is known, that such greased goats are signed for the pope's and Spaniards agents in England, to set forward the Spanish invasion, or the Pope's cause; he is very simple, that doth not understand him to be a traitor, whose pole is shorn by the pope and his faction; and who carrieth with him the marks of the Spanish faction. argument 12 It is treason also to conspire the death and destruction of principal men about the prince, that are his principal agents in the government of the state. and this is not only according to the laws of England, but also according to the Roman laws. l L. quisquis, Cod. ad l. juliam maiestatis. Arcadius and Honorius pronounce them guilty of treason, which shall by faction attempt to murder their principal counsellors or officers, and the reason is, for that they in doing justice are but the prince's lieutenants, and do nothing but his commandment. in this point therefore the jesuits and priests are no less guilty than in the rest. the pope he excommunicateth not only the Queen, but all that do adhere unto her, and do her service. being therefore to execute the pope's bull, as calves begotten by the bull of Bashan the pope, the priests and jesuits must needs seek first the destruction of these principal men, & then of the rest. furthermore we are given to understand, that one principal point of Parsons and other jesuits consultations is, how to procure certain principal men to be either made away or disgraced. in the mean while being not able to do worse, Parsons and Creswell under the title of Andreas Philopater, and others have set out most villainous libels against her majesties principal counsellors, officers, and agents. argument 13 It is also treason to betray her majesties army, or any part of her forces into her enemy's hands, or for a captain or soldier to yield up any town delivered unto him to keep. herein therefore Stanley and York and their followers showed themselves to be notable traitors to deliver up Deventer, and their soldiers into the queens enemy's hands. Allen also, and all his scholars and followers, that allowed that fact, showed themselves to be traitors, in applauding to their disloyalty and wickedness. argument 14 The latter Roman m Extr. feud. c. qui sunt rebaelles. emperors do declare them to be rebels, and disloyal traitors, which either openly, or convertly do the works of rebels, or practise against the prosperity of the state. in this case therefore are they, that either oppugn, or deny the princes right, and title; or else advance the right of foreign potentates, to dispose of the crown: or else which practice against the person of their sovereign lord, as saith Socinus the younger, lib. 3. consil. 105. and Alciat consil. 456. or that shall conspire against the state of the prince, or common wealth, as may be proved by the testimony of Baldus consil. 58. & sequent. and Alexander consil. 13. lib. 6. and jason consil. 86. lib. 3. or that shall make peace, or contract friendship with the prince's enemies, as saith Decius consil. 604. & 605. or finally that shall do any act prejudicial to the prince or state. especially if they be subjects, and bound by their natural allegiance to the prince and state. all which points do nearly touch Robert Parsons, Creswel, Walpoole, and other rectors and scholars of the english seminaries a broad, the archpriest Blackewell, his adherents and all massepriests, and pensioners of the Pope and Spaniard both abroad and at home, all that entertain intelligence with traitors, and any way relieve them, and finally all factious malcontents, that are offended with the present state, or present governors, and practise or endeavour to work innovation in the government. and as for Parsons, Creswel, Garnet, and other jebusits, and cananites that are archplotters of treasons against the prince and state, there is no question to be made, but they are traitors. the n In the epistle before the treatise of important considerations. secular priests charge Parsons, Creswel, Garnet and Blackwell to be wicked members, and show, that they have sought to bring in foreign enemies into England, to the overthrow not only of many noble families, but also of the whole state. The author of the Quodlibets, quodlib. 8. art. 10. confesseth, that the English seminaries beyond the seas are greatly degenerated from their primitive foundation, and that now the heads of the scholars are filled with treacheries, equivocations, dissimulation, hypocrisy and all kind of falsehood. and that now priests in their missions are bound to take an oath for the setting forth the Spanish Infantaes title. but if he had said nothing thereof, yet we understand, that the seminaries beyond the sea are nothing else, but dens, wherein young traitors are fostered up for the restoring of the pope's tyranny, and the furthering of the Spanish invasion. therein also for many years no other consultations have been more rife, than how to bring her Majesty to destruction, or to raise a rebellion, or to work some hurt to the state, or to some principal governors thereof. As for the archpriest and his faction, wherein I comprehend the provincial Garnet and other viperous jesuits, it is mere simplicity, not to understand, that they are still working against the prince and state, and have wholly devoted themselves body and soul to serve the Pope and Spaniard. To the pope they complain, and from him they receive not only authority and direction, but commissions also and faculties, & grants to sell licences for eating white meat, dispensations in divers cases, and to traffic for beads, grains, and other such like merchandise of Babylon. O simple papists, that suffer yourselves to be abused with these mountebanks, charlatanes, impostors, and cozening merchants! O unwise people, that prefer these toys and this most vain trash, and other tricks of popish superstition, before true religion, before your allegiance to your prince, and your love to your country, and, as if you were bewitched, run yourselves headlong into danger for love of those vain toys to join with enemies, that hate your country, and care not a straw for you, if they may obtain their own wicked purposes. All those likewise, that entertain intelligence with Parsons and such like traitors, or with rebels, or join in any practice to further foreign enemies, or to hurt the state, which are many abroad and at home, both priests and others, can not clear themselves of treason. Finally, whosoever is a true papist, and according to Bellarmine's o Lib. de ecclesia militant. c. 2. definition liveth in subjection to the pope, must needs be a false traitor to her Majesty, and this country, as the case now standeth. for if every papist be bound to obey the pope's sentence, and to hold them excommunicate, and deposed, whom the pope shall excommunicate, and depose; as most papists teach, and none dare deny, that believeth the pope's power and authority: then if the Pope have excommunicated and deposed her Majesty, they are bound to hold her excommunicate, and deposed, and to concur with him and his wicked agents, as oft as he will command and charge them to make ready for the execution of his sentence. Again, if, as Allen a notorious traitor in the justification of Stanley teacheth, every papist in all wars, which may happen for religion, is bound in conscience to employ his pe●son and forces by the pope's direction, viz. how far, when, and where, either at home, or abroad he shallbe directed: then is every papist bound to be a rebel, and traitor as oft as the pope pleaseth and commandeth. and this sequel the secular priests also confess in their p Pag. 24. treatise of important considerations, to be good, and acknowledge, that this is Allens doctrine. contrariwise, if so be a man do not regard the pope's sentence, excommunication, and direction; then he is no papist, neither may he ever look for the pope's blessing. argument 15 Finally, it is treason, not only to practise against the prince and state, but also to abet, to maintain, to aid, to relieve, or conceal such practisers and traitors. By the common laws of England, all that are accessaries in cases of treason, are punished as principals. likewise, the Roman laws punished not only the principal actors in treason, and rebellion, but also their abetters, counsellors, and aiders, as lawyers teach in their commentaries in l. proximum. l. cuiusque. and l. maiestatis. ad l. juliam maiestatis. the same also may be gathered out of the text of the law. Finally, this is usual in all crimes, as both the q L. 16. qui epem ff. de furto. & ibid. dd. civil, and r 11. q 3. c. qui consentit. & extr. de homicidio. c. sicut dignum. canon laws do teach us. but few papists of any note can be found in England, but they have either consulted with traitorous priests and jesuits, or relieved them, or receited them, or had intelligence with them. let them therefore thank God for the favour, which this state bestoweth on them without all desert of theirs, and beware hereafter, that they send no relief to seminaries abroad, nor receipt such traitors at home, nor have any dealing with such, as are known to depend upon foreign enemies. The state hath had exceeding patience in their behalf hitherto. but even most patiented persons by continual provocations may be urged to change their course. s Cicero de legibus lib. 3. Salus populi suprema lex est. the safety of the state is a matter above all others to be regarded. t L. lex. ff. de legibus. the law also without punishment of offenders is dead. Lex, saith Papinian, est delictorum quae sponte, vel ignorantia contrahuntur, coercitio. u Ibidem. l. legis virtus. Modestinus teacheth us, that the life, and efficacy of the law consisteth in commanding, forbidding, permitting, and punishing. take away execution and punishment; and you not only overthrow the law, but the state also. Now if any offence deserve punishment; then sure, traitors may not think to escape, that seek to dissolve both laws, and state. Treason, saith x Rerum Graec. lib. 2. Xenophon, is so much more dangerous, by how much it is more difficult, to take heed of traitors, than of enemies. with our enemies we may be reconciled. but traitors are never to be trusted. the offence being so great, many extraordinary courses are taken in the repressing of treasons. In hoc atrocissimo delicto, saith a certain y Clarus sententiar. lib. 5. §. laesae mayest. lawyer, lex nonnulla specialia introduxit. and commonly such persons are most hateful. I have learned, saith z In prometheo. Aeschylus, to hate traitors, neither is any villainy more hateful than treason. Traitors are common enemies to all men, that love the state, or their liege Sovereign. Omnium communis est hostis, saith a Lib. 1. accusat. in Verrem. Tully, qui hostis est suorum. Who then would not hate them, that wickedly consort themselves with the Pope and Spaniard against the state? The prince hath principal reason to repress this faction. for she carrieth not the sword for nothing. and if she should neglect the danger in regard of her own particular, yet will she not neglect their safety, whose estate dependeth so much upon the safety of her person. further, she hath little cause given her to extend her clemency to this viperous generation and their adherents, that show extreme malice in seeking the destruction of her kingdom by bringing in foreign enemies. they have also slandered her majesties noble father, herself, her friends, her servants and the whole state, as appeareth by Sanders his book of schism, by Andrea's Philopater, Didimus Veridicus, and divers other infamous libels set out by Parsons, and other wicked jesuits. Finally, no prince can endure such to have the benefit of subjects, that will neither acknowledge his sovereignty, nor submit themselves to laws. The ecclesiastical state may not endure either Baal's priests to set up idolatry, or false teachers to broach false doctrine, and privily to bring in superstition and heresy. Her majesties council assuredly will not wink at any practice or complot against their prince and country; but with all severity will proceed against the authors of them, and all their factious partakers. The chief officers and nobility of the realm have no reason to bear with them, which by alteration of state, seek to deprive them of their honours, and to dispose of their lands and goods at their pleasure. neither is it the part of a generous and noble english mind, to suffer themselves to be disgraced and overruled, if not tyrannized by Parsons his council of reformation, by Italians and Spaniards, and the very scum of all villainy. The reverend judges will never suffer such to escape unpunished, as seek the subversion of justice. neither may lawyers endure those, that go about to overthrow their country laws, and to bring in strange laws, and to rule all by force and violence, as may appear by Parson's treacherous plots, and his most infamous council of reformation. All true subjects, I suppose, will rather die, then suffer the tyranny of strangers. and therefore I need not animate either her Majesty, or the ecclesiastical state, or her council, or her chief agents, or her nobility or judges, or the lawyers, or the rest of her subjects, to encounter and to resist the plots of these jebusits and traitorous massepriests, that seek for the establishment of their massing ceremonies, and most wicked religion, to bring in strangers, to cut their own countrymen's throats, to abuse their wives, and daughters, and finally to destroy this flourishing kingdom, and their own most dear country. the safety of the common wealth as all politics know, and b Arist. polit. lib. 3. c. 3. teach, is the common work of all true citizens, and well minded subjects: and I doubt not, but as all men detest such, as oppugn the state, so they will all join together and have a vigilant eye to look to their execrable plots intended against the state. Finally, reason and experience may teach the papists, that howsoever some of them hope to win by shuffling of matters of state; yet that most of them shall rather lose then win. they may also see, that many have lost their lives and livings, that have been practisers in rebellion and treason. and foreign aids do commonly first oppress those, that use them: and finally forsake them. examples hereof they may see in the rebellion of the north and of Ireland, if they be not blind: and consider them they may, if they will be led with reason. Wherefore I doubt not, but as all men may see the treasons of priests, and jesuits, and their adherents to be made manifest; so they shall shortly see the execution of laws against them. that such as have been executed for practising in the pope's cause, are no martyrs, as papists give out, it may easily be proved. for even the adversaries themselves will confess, that traitors against the prince and state are no martyrs. unless therefore Parsons can clear his consorts of those points of treason, which I have declared and objected, and show, that they adhered not to foreign enemies, nor had intelligence with traitors, that sought the destructoon of the prince and state, nor offended in any other points of treason, before rehearsed; he must needs confess himself, and his consorts to be rather in state of treason, than martyrdom. Secondly martyrs died in time passed for the testimony of Christ jesus. but such papists as have been executed in England of late years, have died for the maintenance of antichrists tyranny, and packing with foreign enemies, and matter of treason against the prince and state, and for other offences deserving death. and this is manifestly proved by the inditements framed against them, by the depositions of witnesses, confessions of the parties, and the whole form of their trial judgement and execution. neither is it material, that some were accused for bringing in, or having of medalles, or grains, others for being made priests by the pope's faction, others for reconciling men to the pope; which are points, as the papists say, of their popish religion. for albeit medalles and grains are not simply of themselves notes of treason; yet seeing the pope doth use them, as marks of his faction; it were simplicity not to understand, that such as use them are of his adherents. Again, to be a priest simply in itself is no treason. but if priests, that are ordered by the pope's faction take an oath of obedience to him, that is our enemy, and are bound to set forth his cause for the regaining of England to his obedience; then to be made priest by the pope's agents, is argument sufficient to prove a man to be a traitor. likewise it is no treason simply to be addicted to the superstitions of the Romish church, no more than it is to be Sarracen or Turk; yet to be reconciled to the Pope, and to receive absolution from his agents, is treason, he being a professed enemy of the state, and using this reconciliation and colour of religion for a means to overthrow her Majesty, and this kingdom, and to réestablish yet once again his tyranny in England. finally to obey good bishops cannot be evil interpreted but to submit a man's self to the pope, that pretendeth to have right to depose princes, and to translate kingdoms from one to another at pleasure (a matter repugnant to scriptures, to the practice of the apostles, and primitive church, and as Sigebertus Gemblacensis testifieth speaking of Gregory the seventh his time, a notarious and plain condemned heresy) cannot but prejudice the right of a prince in enmity with the pope, & prove flat treason. Thirdly the true martyrs of Christ suffered for defence of the truth wrongfully; and therefore deserved the honour and title of martyrs, and very high commendation. that is thankeswoorthy saith saint c 1. Pet. 2. Peter, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. such were the martyrs of times past, who suffered death, because they would not deny the Lord Christ jesus, nor sacrifice to idols. but the pope's martyrs suffer for practising with foreign enemies, and die for the Pope's pleasure, and desire nothing more than to set up idolatry. for conscience they cannot say, they suffer, unless the make treason against their prince and country a matter of conscience, and rule their conscience by the Pope's will, and make no conscience of idolatry or blasphemy. neither can they say, they are punished wrongfully, being punished for their treasons, rebellions and pack against the state with foreign enemies. whosoever therefore shall entitle and call these fellows martyrs, he shall greatly wrong religion, and the state of martyrs, and much resemble the Donatists, and other old heretics. Saint d Epist. 68 Augustine saith of the Donatists, vivebant ut latrones, honorabantur, ut martyrs. Alexander also an heretic, of whom e Lib. 5. eccles. just. c. 17. Eusebius maketh mention, lived as a thief, and died for his deserts, and yet by those of his sect was honoured as a martyr. such martyrs also are those of the popish sect. for whatsoever reckoning their consorts make of them, they were punished justly for their offences, and died for treason, rebellion, practising and packing with foreign enemies. Fourthly true martyrs are charitable, and die in charity. for without charity, furious and jesuitical zeal to promote the Pope's cause availeth nothing. if I give my body to be burned saith the f 1. Cor. 13. apostle, and have not love, it profiteth me nothing. now what charity, think you, had they, that were employed by public enemies to the hurt and destruction of their liege Lady, and most dear country? Charity saith the g Ibid. apostle, is patiented, gentle, humble. but these by force of arms sought to return into their country, and like fierce lions endeavour by conquest to subdue men to their opinions. anno 1588. their common talk was of sharing of lands and livings. In Wisbich also all the stirs among the papists grew about superiority, the jesuits seeking to rule, the rest refusing to be ruled by them. Parsons they say hath an old prophecy how England must be ruled by certain men in long black gowns, and square caps, that is by jesuits. and long he hath been dreaming of a cardinals hat. yet none falleth to his share. in all the English colleges and seminaries the jesuits by great stirs have sought the government. h A discovery of Campian and his consorts. Cottam an English jesuite being condemned to die, prayed God, that he would send down fire from heaven to consume all the people, that stood round about him to gaze on him. and this is the gentleness and charity of jesuitical martyrs. when Sixtus quintus told the jesuits, that he wondered, that none of their order were canonised for saints; some of them answered, that they sought honours in the church triumphant, and not in the church militant. such triumphant martyrs are these of the pope's and jesuits calendar. Fiftly, true martyrs are men of a peaceable disposition, and no way desirous of tumults and troubles. l Lib. 3. contr. parmen. si supra memoratos saith Optatus, videri martyres vultis, probate illos amass pacem, in qua prima sunt fundamenta martyrij; aut dilexisse deo placitam unitatem; aut habuisse cum fratribus unitatem, sine qua nullum vel nomine potest, vel re esse martyrium. his words in effect amount to this, that none can be martyrs, unless they they be studious of peace, and unity. if then the papists neither agree with us, nor with themselves, and are given much to contention, and continually have stirred up wars, and hurly-burlies, in divers countries, and have like firebrands set most parts of Christendom on a flame, as appeareth by their actions in England, Scotland, France, Germany, Flanders, Suethland, and other places; why should such men dying rather be accounted martyrs, than the contentious Donatists? Sixtly the true martyrs of Christ jesus died in time passed for the true faith of Christ delivered unto us in the apostles writings. but the popish mastiffs died for the pope's excommunications, & for defence of his most unjust and tyrannical usurpations, according to such doctrine, as they had received out of the pope's decretales, & their masters dictates. who then doth not marvel, that any should be so bold, as to call such obstinate fellows, that died out of the church, & for no point of faith were so much as once called in question, martyrs? cum deo manner non possunt saith Cyprian, qui esse in ecclesia dei vnanimes noluerunt. ardeant licet flammis, & ignibus traditi, & obiecti bestiis animas suas ponant, non erit illa fidei corona, sed poena perfidiae: occidi talis potest, coronari non potest. if then these good fellows have forsaken the church, and linked themselves with enemies and traitors, die they may for their treasons, but crowned they shall not be as martyrs. neither is it death, but the cause, that maketh christians dying to be esteemed martyrs. Seuently, no true martyr ever seemed more desirous of the applause and praise of men, then of the glory of God, & good of Christ's people. fi ita martyrium fecerimus saith i In epist. ad Galat. lib. 3. c. 5. Hierome, ut nostras velimus ab hominibus reliquias venerari, si opinionem vulgi sectantes intrepidi sanguinem fuderimus, & substantiam nostram usque ad mendicitatem propriam dederimus; huic operi non tam praemium, quàm paena debetur, & perfidiae magis tormenta sunt, quàm corona victoriae. his meaning is, that they cannot be martyrs that seek the applause of the multitude, & for vainglory die obstinate in their opinions. if then the pope's agents in England sought nothing more, than their own glory & praise, and the applause of the pope, and cardinals, and the simple people adhering unto them, it were but a simple imagination, to suppose them to be martyrs. Christian martyrs certes sought not their own glory, nor the applause of men. nor did they solicit the invasion of their country, and domestical tumults, that they might reign like young lords. Eightly, it was not the fashion of martyrs, in ancient time, to renounce their kings and sovereign princes, & to refuse to acknowledge their authority. for well they knew, that the apostle had taught them obedience, & not rebellion, nor contumacious resisting against the prince's power. omnis anima saith k Rom. 13. he, potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit. neither did the holy martyrs of Christ's church set out most slanderous libels against men in authority, or allow any such course. finally we do not read, that ever any godly martyr, did bear arms against lawful princes, or go about to depose them, or murder them upon bishops, or other men's commandment whatsoever. Hieremy he had more authority than hath the pope. constitui te hody super gentes, saith l Hierem. 1. God unto him, that is, I have appointed thee over nations, and he had power to pull up & to destroy. yet we read not, that he commanded any prince to be deposed or murdered. but Campian and his consorts, whom the papists notwithstanding celebrate & repute martyrs, did disclaim her majesties authority, and adhered to the pope's declaration, as appeareth by their answers yet to be seen. all priests also, that come from Rome in their cases of conscience, which they will not deny, are taught to deny her Majesty to be their lawful Queen. Robert Parsons Campians fellow hath since his execution proved a notorious libeler. both the pretended martyrs themselves have set out slanderous libels against their prince, and the state, and have well liked of the slanderous and lying writings of , Harpsfield, Ribadineira, Rishton, Parsons, Bristol, Creswell, & others. When the army of the Pope & Spaniard was ready to come for England anno 1588. than was Parsons, they say, very busy in printing pope Sixtus his scandalous declaration against her Majesty, and Allens railing and scurrilous letters to the nobility and people of England and Ireland. A m In an answer to a libel set out by Parsons. friend of his also doth charge him, that his finger was both in the making, and dispersing that infamous libel. and yet the pretended popish martyrs would neither mislike the authors, nor these wicked libels, nor any thing else, that might work disgrace either to her majesty or the state. Finally, the earl of Northumberland, and the two Nortons', and divers priests, whom Bristol in his Motives, and in his books De visibili Monarchia, and divers others do celebrate for martyrs, are in the Crown office and public records registered for men of a far divers quality. Among these certes the earl of Northumberland and the Nortons' were principal actors in the rebellion anno 1569. and divers of the rest were spotted with other treasons. But percase, it is a matter not unusual for the pope to put those in the Calendar of martyrs, whom public executioners register in their books for rebels and traitors. in which rank, it may be, that james Clement, that murdered king Henry the third of France, and Ghineard the jesuite, that allowed that murder, and was therefore executed, and Chastell, that assaulted Henry the fourth of France now reigning, shall sometime or other be entered, and be reputed as good saints, as the best. No martyrs of Christ jesus did ever suppose it a thing lawful, to break their others of allegeame to their princes upon any excommunication, or other warrant of pope's or bishops. n In Chronic. & Auentin. annal. 7. Sigebertus Gemblacensis saith, it is a pernicious heresy to believe, that the pope can discharge subjects from the bond of an oath, and from their allegiance. but the pope's martyrs, or rather unnatural, and churlish mastiffs, did not only take themselves to be discharged from their allegiance, and joined with foreign enemies, but also persuaded as many as they could, to take arms against their prince and country. In ancient records of ecclesiastical stories we do not read, that any martyr of Christ jesus did ever deny his name, quality, kindred, and prince, all together; nor that they used equivocations, and dissembled their faith; nor finally, that they went appareled like spadassins, and ruffians. but these pretended popish martyrs do not only all this, but also are resolved by Allen and Parsons, that it is lawful so to do. The o resolute. quorundam casuum nationis Anglicanae. c. 1. case being put, utrum sacerdos possit habitum mutare, comam nutrire, nomen, & patriam, & parents negare; they answer thus: potest. nec videtur in ea re dubium. potest enim quis veritatem tacere, vel dissimulare. The same good fellows determine also, quod dissimulatio est licita. that is, that dissimulation is lawful. and afterwards they say, it is pious to use dissimulation, for that it is lawful to lay ambuscadoes for enemies. so it appeareth they take all their countrymen, that favour the state, for enemies, and would take them in ambuscadoes, if they could. and this, if we look not to it, they have fully purposed, and resolved, as may appear by their resolved cases. Concerning the Queen, they say, she is not lawful. the more they to blame, that hold them for lawful subjects. Regina haeretica, say p Ibidem. they, non est legitimè regina. and again, non gerit se ut reginam, sed exercet tyrannidem. Finally, the disciples of these traitors are taught to renounce their country, and to give no respect to their parents, if they be not of the Romish religion. It was not the fashion of Christian martyrs in times past to use machiavelian tricks; nor to equivocate in places of judgement; nor to forswear themselves, being examined, and interrogated by their superiors. but the schoolmasters of our popish priests, and the pope's calves, and designed popish mastiffs do inform them, that they may do both without any scruple of conscience. sciant say q Ibidem. c. 3. cas. 3. they, se uti posse aequivocationibus, & jurare sine peccato. Now by equivocations, they mean promises and oaths made, not according to common and literal meaning, nor according to the understanding of the judge, but according to a certain hidden meaning of the party. and by swearing they understand false forswearing, according to our common understanding. they r Ibidem. teach also, that a priest is no more to regard an oath to the Queen's officers, then if he should swear to pirates and robbers. are not these gallant fellows then, trow you that suppose the Queen's justices to be like pirates and robbers, and that pirates and robbers may as well spoil men by the high way, as they deal with priests according to her majesties laws? Finally no heretics, nor miscreants can justly be reputed martyrs, albeit they die for their false conceits, and opinions. the Donatists died desperately; & so likewise did the heretics called Euphemitae, which for the multitude of their supposed martyrs, would needs be called s Epiphan. haeres. 80. Martyriani. yet did the church of god no otherwise account of them, then as of lewd heretics, and not as of martyrs, as appeareth by the testimony of Eusebius, Epiphanius, Augustine, and other fathers. We read also in histories, that Turks, Tartars, & Moors oftentimes die most resolutely or rather desperately for the blasphemous opinions of Mahomet, & that the t Matth. Paris. Assassins, that were a sect of desperate cutthroats like to the jebusits, that desperately would adventure to dispatch whomsoever their general commanded them to murder, suffered death most willingly and constantly. and this they accounted a special point of their bloody religion. yet it were mere madness to repute such fellows martyrs. why then should the papists that have broken their necks and died for the pope's cause, & whom we have clearly proved, to be heretics, be accounted martyrs? nay why should rebels, traitors, and Assassins, such as Parrye, who by the Cardinal of Comoes' letters, & the pope's promises, was induced to lay violent hands on her Majesty, & such like wicked men be named martyrs? if because they are put in the pope's calendar, it may be easily replied, that as at Rome they are put in the pope's calendar, so at Newgate, & such places, they are put in the hangman's calendar. further it is Christ's truth, and not the pope's faction, that maketh martyrs. Those therefore, that died in the pope's quarrel, are traitors, and not martyrs. and that will be the case also of all their consorts, if they pass that way, which I would have not only all jesuits and massepriests to consider, but also all those, that like their humours, and opinions. neither is it material, that grace hath been offered to some, that have been executed for treason, if they would have renounced the pope, & his treacherous doctrine and faction. for that showeth not, that the parties, to whom this grace was offered, were no traitors, but rather her majesties great clemency, that was willing to pardon all, of whom any hope might be conceived, that they would become good subjects. so likewise if a man should offer pardon to an Assassin, it doth not prove that such as murder men upon a lewd conceit of wrong religion died as martyrs. If then the papists be not the true church; I trust all true Christians will avoid them. if their doctrine be neither ancient, nor catholic, I hope true catholics will no longer suffer themselves to be abused by them. if they be heretics; they will, I trust, for very shame forbear to impute heresies to true Christians. if massepriests be idolaters; I hope religious Christians will take order with them, as godly kings did with Baal's priests. finally if massepriests and the pope's agents have so far engaged themselves in treason; I hope all true subjects will learn to detest popery, not only in regard, that it is a false religion, but also, because it is a pack of lewd opinions borne out with all fraud, vileny and treason. which because it floweth from the forge of Antichristes authority and invention; let us beseech God, to reveal daily more and more the man of sin, that such as now are abused by him, may forsake him, and serve God in spirit and truth according to his holy word. And thus much may serve for the declaration and justification of my challenge. it resteth now, that I answer my adversaries exceptions and cavils. An answer first unto such exceptions, as by a certain nameless, and worthless fellow are taken to the Challenge precedent: and next unto the same parties most idle observations. Thereto also is added a brief of certain notorious falsifications and untruths of the Papists. Chap. 1. An answer to Owlyglasses exceptions concerning thirteen untruths, supposed to be contained in M. Sutcliffes' Challenge. Sect. 1. The first supposed untruth cleared. IN 19 pages of my challenge, and all direct contrary to the doctrine of Papists, Owliglasse cannot find so much, as any occasion of cavil. In the 20. pag●rapi●… numb. 10. in my former, and in the latter, cap. 4 numb. 43. Bee taketh hold of this, that I say, That the Papists use exorcisms, blowings, salt, spittle, hallowed water, anointings, light, and divers ceremonies, neither used by the Apostles, nor practised by the ancient Church. And this, saith he, is an untruth so manifest, that Caluin doth confess it. Owlyglasse talking of untruths in others, himself uttereth two gross untruths in the first charge. But what if it be true? and what if Master Caluin do not confess that, which I say, to be untruth? Is not Owlyglasse, where he goeth about to detect me of one untruth, manifestly taken in a trey, and detected to have uttered two untruths in one breath? he cannot, though he would, deny it. Well then, let us see first, whether my words contain untruth, and next, whether Caluin confesseth so much, or no. Of my proposition there are two parts. First, I deny, that the Apostles used these ceremonies now in question: and secondly, I deny, that they were practised by the ancient Church of Christ jesus. Now against the first part of my words, Owliglasse can object nothing, neither doth he so much as touch it. But went he about to allege any thing, yet the History of the Acts of the Apostles, and Christ his institution would refute his allegations. For in neither of the two, are any such ceremonies to be found. Against the second part, he allegeth Caluins' words, Instit. lib. 4. ca 15. art. 19, for exufflations, hallowing of water, anointing, and light: and for exorcisms in baptism, he produceth Nazianzen. For salt he quoteth the words of Origen. For spittle he citeth the words of Ambrose, and the name of Petrus Chrysologus. But neither doth Caluin, nor any of these father's mention either the use of the Apostles, or practise of the ancient Church, nor doth any father speak of all these ceremonies together, nor can the practice of the Romish Church in the signs, and forms of these ceremonies be justified by fathers, either to have been in the whole Church, or in any one singular Church, nor to come nearer to our adversaries, can any one concludent argument be drawn out of any of the Fathers against that which I teach. Caluin saith, He knoweth how ancient the ceremonies of exufflation, Lib. 4. instit. ca 15 num. 19 hallowing of water, of anointing, and lights is. Which if I should confess, yet could not Owlyglasse conclude, that such ceremonies were used in the time of the fathers of the Church, nor that they were used in the form, the Romanists use them. Let him conclude if he list, and then he shall see his error. Further if he be obstinate, let him prove, that the fathers prayed in consecrating light, In Missali in Sabbato sancto that devilish fraud might be expulsed by it: and while they hallowed water, that it might be effectual to purge men's minds: and that they conjured water, and salt, as the Romanists do, praying over hallowed water, fiat aqua exorcizata ad effugandam omnem potestatem inimici: All which, I trust, he doth not believe that Caluin said, or thought to be ancient. Nazianzen saith only, ne contemnas, De sancto baptism. or as our adversaries translation hath: ne despuas exorcismi curationem: that is, Despise not the help of exorcism. But that is nothing to other ceremonies, about which we contend: neither out of these words can it be proved, that exorcisms were used in the act of baptism, but rather otherwise, when by extraordinary grace devils were driven out of the possessed. Rehearsing the words of Origen, he doth curtal them. He reporteth them thus. Qui renascitur, debet sale saliri. Origens' words stand thus: Oportet eum ergo, qui renascitur utique in Christo renascentem rationabile, & sincerun lac desiderare, & prius quam rationabile. & sine dolo lac desideret, debet sale saliri, & pannorum involucris colligari, ne dicatur ad eum, sale non es salitus, & pannis non es involutus, Where I would pray the Archpriest Blackwell to put on his spectacles, & see whether Owlyglasse hath not with his glass eyes corrupted the place. Against me this place of Origen maketh nothing, for neither doth he mention all the ceremonies which are in question, nor doth he speak one word of the popish forms of exorcisms, nor doth he speak, as it seemeth literally, of salting, but allegorically understanding true believing: Si credidero spiritui, qui in Apostolo locutus est, saith he, Sale condior. And if our adversary will needs urge the literal sense, then must he needs confess, that men being baptised are to be lapped in clouts, and to dr●…ke milk. For Origen speaketh of all these things alike. Finally, it is a very ridiculous point to think, that every ceremony spoken of by Origen, was vse● throughout the universal Church. De sacrament. lib. 1. cap. 1. Saint Ambrose showeth, that the priest used to touch the ears, and nostrils of those that were baptised. At the least, he saith so, under whose name the books of sacraments, that are among S. Ambroses' works, do pass. But that is nothing to the purpose, unless Owlyglasse will confess, that whosoever doth touch his nose, doth spit in his face also: which were a wonderful and archpresbyterall interpretation. He sendeth us also to Petrus Chrysologus. But if the man had said any thing to the purpose, I doubt not, but he would have taken pains out of this golden fellow, to fetch gold himself: whereas now he delivereth to his reader nothing but dross. Lib. 1. de Baptism. ca 25 Neither is Bellarmine able to afford Owliglasse any help in this case. For albeit he raketh into all authors good and bad: yet can he allege no sufficient testimony out of antiquity for the forms and ceremonies used by the Popish Priests. Furthermore he cannot justify, that the rites of baptism, that any one father speaketh of, were generally received in all the Churches. Finally, the forms of celebrating baptism described by Clement, Dionysius, justin Martyr, Tertullian, Cyprian, Basil, and other fathers do declare that no such forms were in ancient ●…me used, as the ritual books now in practice in the Romish Church do prescribe. I have therefore sufficiently discharged myself of the accusation he would fasten upon me. Secondly, Caluin doth not affirm any thing contrary to my words. For albeit he knew how ancient some of the ceremonies are, which I deny to be used in the first Churches: yet doth he not express how ancient they are, nor speak any thing of their several forms, nor confess any other thing contrary to my assertion. To conclude this point, the conventicle of Trent affirmeth, Sess. 7, cap 13. that none of these Ceremonies which we speak of, can be omitted without sin. Which doctrine I hope Owlyglasse will not confirm either out of the fathers, or out of Caluin. It is he therefore, and not I, that hath committed this fault of lying, unless he have somewhat else to allege for himself. Cap. 1. Sect. 2. That it is not untruth to say, that the doctrine of the Council of Trent, that denounceth men accursed, that shall not hold baptism to be necessary to salvation, is not Catholic. MY adversary doth also challenge me, Cap 2. pag. 12 because I affirm that the doctrine of the Council of Trent, that denounceth men accursed, that shall not hold baptism to be necessary to salvation, is not Catholic. And to justify his challenge, he allegeth for himself, first S. Augustine, lib. 3. de Orig. animae. c. 9 Secondly the words of our book of Common prayer. And thirdly mine own testimony, where I speak of the pains of original sin. And in the end he concludeth, that if the want of baptism sendeth infants into hell fire, that it is necessary to salvation. But all this tedious discourse is far from the purpose. For neither doth any father affirm, that such are accursed, that hold not baptism to be necessary to salvation, which is the doctrine that I condemn, as not Catholic, nor can any such thing be gathered out of the words of the Common prayer book, or of any thing delivered by me. How then durst this vain fellow charge me with untruth, being not able to allege one argument to convince me, or any Catholic Father to speak against me, had he not steeled his face, and dulled his understanding, so that he neither shameth at any thing, nor well understandeth what he writeth? Further this is contrary to promise made in the beginning▪ for there he promised, that he would put the Reader to no more labour, then to open the books and view the places that should be alleged. And here he argueth to his uttermost skill, and yet proveth nothing. But suppose I had indeed said, that all that die without baptism are not damned, and had said that only, and not a●ded any thing concerning the curse of the conventicle of Trent, as I did: yet I hope this will not be proved to be any untruth. For if Circumcision did resemble baptism, why should all infants, especially borne of godly parents, rather be damned dying before Baptism, than such as died before Circumcision? Secondly I hope our adversary will not say, that the thief which confessed Christ on the cross, was damned, albeit he died without Baptism. Nor is he able to show, that he was baptised, for that troubled Saint Augustine, Lib. 3. de Orig. animae. cap. 9 a man far more learned than himself, and yet that could not resolve himself in this point. Thirdly Ambrose doubted not▪ but Valentinian was saved, albeit he died without Baptism. De obitu Theodos●. Fourthly our adversaries say, that there are three sorts of Baptisms, viz. Of water, of the holy Ghost, and of blood: and Bellarmine confesseth that without Baptism men may be saved, Lib. 1. de baptismo, cap. 6. martyrdom and the conversion of the heart to God supplying the defect of Baptism: and it is a common saying, that not the want, but the contempt of Baptism doth damn those that depart this life without Baptism. Finally the ground of that opinion, that condemneth all dying without baptism, is laid upon these words: Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua, & spiritu sancto, john. 3. non potest int●oire in regnum Dei. And yet our Saviour doth speak these words of Baptism, no otherwise then he uttereth these words in the sixth of john: Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye shall have no life in you. If then no interpreter, that expoundeth these words of the lords Supper, will thereupon conclude, that no man can be saved unless he receive the lords Supper, then do not the other words infer necessity of Baptism. Unto S. Augustine's words, lib. 3. de anima, cap. 9 I answer, that he speaketh of such as die in original sin, and seem to contemn Baptism. But diverse may die without baptism, and yet not contemn it. We say also in the administration of Baptism, that none is saved, that is not regenerate. But it is impious to tie God's grace unto Sacraments We do also speak of the ordinary external means, by which salvation is obtained. But we exclude not extraordinary courses. I do also confess, that infants dying in original sin are damned to hell fire. But I hope no man will say, that all that die before Baptism, albeit they much desired it, and believed in Christ jesus, died in original sin. But saith Owlyglasse, You say that children by Baptism are received into the Ark of Christ's Church. psal. 1●. But he was simple to conclude thereof, that none is received into the Ark without Baptism. He saith also, that Lay men and women by the book are permitted to baptize: but he should remember that it is shame for him to speak untruth, who taketh on him to control others in that behalf. He concludeth finally. Seeing the want of Baptism doth send Infants to hell, that Baptism is necessary to salvation. But his consequent is weak, and of no value. For many die for want of knowledge, and for want of small matters, and not only of Baptism. And yet God is not necessarily tied to save none, but such as are baptised. Sick men also die for want of Physic: and yet is not physic absolutely necessary. In this place therefore the detector wandereth out of the way, and yet effecteth nothing. Sect. 3. That Catholics use not after the Popish manner to separate man & wife upon occasion of monastical vows. HIs third accusation is grounded upon these words: They hold, that by mutual consent the married couple may departed asunder, and that it shall not be lawful afterward to company together. A matter not only strange in the catholic church, during the Apostles and their successors times, for many hundred years, but also contrary to Christ's doctrine. For what man can separate them, whom God hath conjoined? but seeking to fasten an untruth upon me, he committeth a gross falsification himself. for he cutteth off my words in the beginning, See the challenge, pag. 20. and midst of the sentence, ●umbling the rest together very ill favouredly, and marring the grace of my sentence with his lewd handling. To help out the matter, he allegeth other words of mine, out of the 35. page, where I say, that this proceedeth from the new forge of popish invention. But as before, so in this place he maketh me speak of one thing in the singular number, where I speak of prohibition and dissolving of marriages for spiritual kindred, and dissolving of marriages contracted, and other matters in the plural. And having framed my words after his own lewd fashion, and curtalled them at his pleasure, he chargeth me with a notable untruth (as he calleth it) For (saith he) there be testimonies and examples in the Primitive Church of married folks, pag. 15. that with mutual consent vowed perpetual, chastity. And to that purpose he allegeth Epiphanius, Hierom, the 2. council of Arles, & S. Augustine. But first he minceth the matter, & dare not say any thing directly contrary to that, which I have written. For I say that married folks might not be so separated, but that they might come together again. And he talketh of separation for a time. Now that which I say is most true, & is proved first by our saviours words, Mat. 19 for as our saviour saith, that which God hath joined, let not man separate. Therefore marriage being instituted by God is not to be broken by the tradition of man. Secondly, the words of the Apostle, 1. Cor. 7. are direct for me. To those that are conjoined in matrimony saith he, not I command, but the Lord, that the wife depart not from her husband. And if man and wife for a time departed, he willeth them to come together again, lest the devil tempt them. Thirdly, the practice of the church proveth, that I have said true, Scelus est, saith Chrysostome homil. 63. in Math. 19 in duo dividere unam carnem, sic et mulieren a suo viro diripere iniquissimum est. So likewise saith Theophylact. Si●ut impium est svam carnem dividere, ita et coniuges divellere. He saith, It is a wicked thing to separate married folks. Fourthly, reason showeth, that if marriage be a knot indivisible, that married folks cannot be upon pleasure sundered, & that it is a presumption intolerable for the Pope to dissolve marriage, whose institution is from God. Finally, it appeareth by Bellarmine's dispute, de Monachis c. 37. who handling this point with more cunning than this poor swad, yet is not able to prove that married couples were separated for religion in ancient time, or that this practice was conformable to Christ's, or his Apostles doctrine, as I have verified against Bellarmine in my treatise de Monachis. As for the examples & testimonies alleged by Owliglasse, they either are from the purpose, or make against him Neither Epiphanius nor Hierome saith, that married folks used not to be admitted unto holy orders, except they did promise perpetual continency from their wives, as Owliglasse with his glassy conscience affirmeth, (for neither of them hath one word of promise or vow) but the contrary rather. Haeres. 59 Ad huc viuentem et liberos gignentem unius uxoris virum saith Epiphanius, non suscipit (ecclesia), sed eum, qui se ab una continuit. He hath not one word of any promise, nor doth he deny, that priests may return back again to company with their wives. Nay, he saith in the same place, that priests and deacons have wives, and keep children, albeit against the outward rule of the church. So it appeareth, that this abstinence from wives, was but an human ordinance, and not observed in all places: which is that which I say. Hierome likewise saith, that in certain churches they chose clerks of bachilars, widows, Contra vigilant. in princip. or such as desisted to be husbands. But the question is, whether the church universally had any such order. And secondly whether married priests did promise or vow continency, and thirdly, whether they might not return to their wives: in all which points Hierome faileth Owliglasse. Nay Hierome saith, that certain bishops ordained none, but married priests, seeing the lubricity of others. Indeed I confess he disliked it, but the question betwixt Owlyglasse and me is concerning the practice of the Church. The 2. Council of Arles, is said to be celebrated in Silvester and Constantine's time. But the acts of that supposed Council describe a form of the Church far disagreeing from those times. Besides that the copies of it differing much one from another, as Surius testifieth, do show the acts not to be authentical. But suppose they were, yet nothing is contained in the 2. Canon of that Council quoted by Owlyglasse, but that no married man shall be made priest, nisi fuerit promissa conversio. Which if our adversary do translate, unless he promise continency from his wife, as he doth, then must he condemn marriage to be sinful. Which if he do, then doth Owlyglasse teach doctrine of Devils. If conversion signify turning from wicked life, the Canon maketh nothing against me. That the 199. Epistle to Ecdicia in the works of Saint Augustine was written by him, we, are not bound to believe, seeing many Epistles daily foisted in among his, that are clearly known to be misbegotten. But were it his, and did he write, that Ecdicia, & her husband promising continency, were to persevere in that purpose: yet that proveth not, that if they were not able to perform their vow, that therefore they might not come together. For they lived in one house together, & took no solemn vow. Ei obsequi saith the author of that Epistle, in domestica conversatione debuisti. Beside that, they had house and goods, and the woman was reprehended, for that she gave them away: which is contrary to the course of Monkery in our times. Finally albeit this were the opinion of one man, is it not ridiculous, to think, that all the Church in external matters was led, and governed by one man's opinion? To that place which I alleged out of the 19 of Math. he answereth, that the band of matrimony doth continued still after the vow of continency. But if he speak of the vow of continency after marriage solemnized, and not consummate, he doth show himself to be ignorant what his own side doth hold. For the Council of Trent, Sesse 24. cap. 6. doth decree, that such marriages by vows of monastical religion are quite dissolved. The same also doth Bellar. lib. de Monach. 2. cap. 38. by arguments endeavour to prove. If he deny that marriage consummate is dissolved by vows, yet Cassian collat. 21. c. 10. and the last law Cod. de episc. & Cleric. is against him. Likewise seemeth Peter Lomb. to hold lib. 4 sent. dist. 31. §. 2. Angelus in authent. de episc. & cleric. & Baldus in authent, sed hody. C. de adulter. The same also albeit by the Canonists denied C. ex publico. & C. ex part tua. de conuersione coniugat. Yet in effect by the Popish practice is granted. For seeing the married couples may no more company together, nor live together, nor yield mutual offices of marriage love one to another: who doth not acknowledge that in effect the Pope doth break the hands of marriage, & repugneth against his opinion, that writeth to Ec dicia? for he would have her to serve her husband in all things. Inter August. Epist. 199. Sect. 4. That Masses and prayers for souls departed, and special offices for the dead were never frequented by true Catholics. WHere I affirm, that the Papists say Masses and prayers for souls departed, & for the dead have appointed special offices, & that my adversary shall never be able to prove, that such Masses, prayers, and offices have been frequented by true Catholics, there Owlyglas stormeth & showeth great impatience. Belike he perceiveth that I touch his freehold, & wound him mortally. For in the Mass the very soul of popery consists. And rather would the priests lose all the rest of their trinkets, than Masses and Dirges, which to Mass priests is prora & puppis, & the foundation of all their hope. Therefore he saith, that this which I say, is an untruth in grain. But if he were not a dizzard in grain, he would not so rashly have adventured upon this point. For the first part of my proposition he cannot deny, unless he will forswear the Mass, as he hath forsworn his liege sovereign. The second also cannot be denied, unless Rob. Parsons, or he can prove the contrary. Let us therefore see, if he can prove, that Masses, and Dirges, and set offices for souls departed, have been frequented of true Catholics. Homil. 69. ad populum. First he allegeth the testimony of Chrysostome, that saith, that not without cause it was ordained by the Apostles, that in the dreadful mysteries commemoration should be made of the dead, knowing thereby, that much gain and profit doth come unto them. Secondly he allegeth Epiph. and August. that seem to say, that Aerius was condemned for denying, that sacrifices & oblations were to be offered for the dead, or that prayers were to be made for them. Thirdly he allegeth, Caluins' confession, that saith, it was a received custom 1300. years agone to pray for the dead, and reproveth S. August. & Monica for it. Finally he calleth out my brother Willet for a witness against me, in that he saith, that divers ancient writers inclined to maintain & commend prayer for the dead. And yet all this cometh short of that, which he would prove. For first in all these proofs there is no mention of special offices for the dead. Secondly there cannot any Mass be showed like unto the Masses of Requiem aeternam. Thirdly the Masses set out under Chrysostoms', Basils', & other father's names, are of one sort only. Neither shall you find, that beside the ordinary form, they had speciales Missas votivas, or Masses proper for the dead. Fourthly the commemoration made of the dead in times past was at the first a recital of the names of the dead without any prayer added for remission of sins. Fiftly in the Canon of the Mass in the old ordinal of Rome, the prayer for the dead is left out. Sixtly Chrysost. never believed Purgatory. For in the 3. Hom. upon the Epistle to the Philip he saith, that just men whether living or dead are with Christ. He would also have prayers made for sinners, and for those, that die entangled in love of riches, and per consequent great sinners. Likewise in the 69 Homily, Ad populum Antioch. he saith, that just men dying see God face to face, & would have Christians he mourn for those that are dead in sins. Excogite●… eye ●…uid solatii, saith he, modicum quidem, ●lamemus tamen. These he would have also to be remembered in the celebration of the holy mysteries, and would have alms distributed for them. And this is that oblation, that the fathers speak of. Finally, never shall Owlyg●asse prove, that Chrysostome, or Augustine, or any father believed, that Christ's body and blood was offered for the dead, as the Papists use to offer it, or that we are to pray, as they prayed in the memento for the dead, in the Canon. To the place of Chrysostome I do therefore answer, that he meant only, that the dead should be remembered in the celebration of the mysteries and was uncertain what good it did to them, saying sometimes it did them much good, some time but little. Unto the places of Epiphanius, hear. 75. And Augustine de haeres. ca 53. that Aerius was condemned for disallowing the order of the Church in this commemoration of the dead, and giving thanks for their blessed ●nd. And this is that prayer, which Caluin and we confess to have been in the Church along time. But this maketh nothing for Owlyglasses purpose. For first the fathers neither knew, nor allowed Masses without Communion. Quisquis mysteriorum consors non est, saith Chrysostome, impudens, & improbus astat. He condemneth him as a wicked fellow, that was present at the celebration of the Eucharist, and did not communicate. The which I have confirmed by diverse testimonies in my Latin book, de Missa, against Bellarmine. There also I have showed, that the fathers did never teach, that the body and blood of Christ were offered in the sacrament for quick and dead. Lastly, in ancient time they made a commemoration of the patriarchs, of the blessed virgin, of the Apostles, Martyr's, and others. Now they pray to them, and not for them, as in time past. Wherefore to prove Masses, and prayers, and special offices for the dead, such as the Romish Church useth, to be Catholic, Owl●glasse must bring us other testimonies, and other fathers. In the mean while he hath proved himself a liar and not me, and hath utterly overthrown the Masses of Requiem and Dirges for the dead, and not proved them in any sort to be Catholic or ancient. So that if he can say no more for Masses, he may go sing a Requiem for the soul of the Mass. Sect. 5. Of the Idolatrous worship of Papists, which they give to Images, to Saints, to the Cross. pag. 20. HIs fift accusation falleth upon my words in the 1. chapter of my challenge, num. 16. where I say, that the Papists have devised Masses in the honour of the cross, of the virgin Mary, Saint Francis, Dominicke, and other saints: and that unto the Images of these Saints they burn incense, & offer their prayers and devotions. But he to make his objection the stronger, doth leave out the first part of my sentence, knowing himself to be guilty of the crime, wherewith his consorts are charged. And in the latter part he leaveth out that which I say, of the Cross and Incense, upon which the ground of the work is laid. Wherefore if he knew what he wrote, he could not but well understand, that he had falsified my words. And yet fearing he had not hold enough, he goeth to the 64. page, and where I say, that Damascene accounteth them Heretics, De haeresib. C. Christianocategori. that worship the Images of our Saviour, of the blessed Virgin, and the Saints, as the Gentiles did their Gods: and that this is just the cast of the Papists: he leaveth out that, which I say of the Images of our Saviour, and of the blessed Virgin, whereupon dependeth the substance of my charge, which ariseth of this principally, that the Papists do give the worship of Latria to the Crucifix, and to the Image of our Saviour, and Hyperdouliam, to the Image of our Lady. And finally he reporteth my words thus, as if I had said, that the Papists worship the Images of Saints, as the Gentiles did their Gods, and pray unto them: where that which I say of prayer followeth after, & standeth otherwise then he reporteth. Of which manner of dealing, if he could have convinced me: he would have gone beside himself with bragging, as now he passeth all his companions, not only in foolery, but also in falsifying, and cogging. Having thus mangled my words, and left out in the first place, the Cross, in the second, the Image of our Saviour, and turned both to his pleasure: he had no reason to charge me, with a shameless untruth desperately avouched. For that which I say is true, neither did I think that Owliglasse, or any of his consorts would have denied a matter so plain. Which because it proceedeth from his ignorance, I will direct him to his masters, that will teach him, that the same honour is due to the Image, that is due to the original, and that therefore, the Image of Christ is to be worshipped, as we worship Christ, and the Image of our Lady with Hyperdulia, and the Images of Saints with the worship of Doulia: as appeareth by the testimony of Alexander Hales, 3. p. quaest. 3. art. vlt. Thomas Aquinas, 3. part. quaest. 25, art, 3. and Caietans' Commentary upon him. Bonaventure and Capreolus in 3. dist. 9 Bellarmine also confesseth so much in his Treatise de Imaginibus, cap. 20. And that this is as gross Idolatry, as ever the Gentiles practised, it may appear, for that I do not read, that ever the Gentiles gave the same honour to jupiters' or Apollo's Images, that they gave to jupiter and Apollo themselves. I say also, that as the Gentiles did worship their Images, so likewise the Papists do worship the Images of the Crucifix, the Cross, the Images also of our Lady, and the Saints. For first as the Gentiles called on their Idols, so the Papists say to the Cross, O Crux ave spes unica, auge piis justitiam: and to the picture called Veronica, salve sancta facies. Secondly, as the Genttles to their Images gave the titles of jupiter, Apollo, Mercury: so do Papists call their Images, Saint Peter, Saint Dominicke, Saint Frideswide. Thirdly, as the Gentiles did burn incense to their Images, so do the Papists before theirs. Finally, as the Gentiles did bow down to their Images and kiss them, and pray before them, so do the Papists fall down before stocks and stones, kiss their Images, and pray before them, as both the practice of Popery, and the doctrine of the Schoolmen doth show. The Images of our Lady of Loreto, of Monferrat, and in England the Image of our Lady of Walsingham, and diverse Saints shrines, do show my words to be most true. But saith Owlyglasse, the Council of Trent decreeth, that due honour is to be given to Images, but not so, as that we are to put trust in them, as the Gentiles did sometimes. But what if the Papists regard not the decree of this absurd conventicle? And what if the Papists do more trust in the Image of the Lady of Loreto, than the Gentiles did in the Images of Aesculapius or Mercury? Witted not Owliglasse then confess, that his consorts do put some trust in these Images? But that is apparent, for they believe she is able to do more, than ever the Gentiles believed, that Aesculapsus or Mercury was able to do. Furthermore, the Gentiles did excuse themselves, that they did not worship their Images materially, but rather the persons represented by their Images, as appeareth by Lactantius, li. 2. ca 2. and Augustine in Psal. 11●. and doth not this self same excuse serve the Papists likewise? It is apparent by all their writings, and Bellarmine, and Gregory de Valentia have no better defence for this their Idolatry in their treatises of the worship of Images. That the Papists do pray unto Saints, and offer their prayers before their Images, it cannot be denied▪ Bellarmine calleth Saints Deos per participationem. Lib. 3. de cult. sanct. c. 9 Votum (saith he) non convenit sanctis, nisi quatenus sunt dij per participationem. That is, vows are not conveniently made to Saints, but as they are gods by participation. I trust therefore hereafter Owlyglasse will not charge me with desperate untruth in this point, nor urge me to exhibit proofs▪ for the more I bring, the more shame will fall upon his face. In the mean while, I would have the Papists to observe for their learning, that Owlyglasses metaphors are drawn either from gamesters, as here, Page, 20. & 21. where he talketh of playing at barestake, and laying down sufficient pawns; or from women, Page, 6. as where he talketh of more tow to our Rocks. Which showeth, that he is a better gamester, than a disputer; and is as much conversant in women's closerts, as in his study. Wherefore, if Recusants be wise, they will take better heed hereafter, how such companion's come near their houses, that are so well acquainted with their wives rocks and frocks, to say no more. Sect. VI. That the Popes decretales before Gregory the 7. his time, had no force of law. THe sixth exception which Owlyglasse taketh against me p. 22. is, for that I say, that before Hildebrands' time, which otherwise is called Gregory the seventh, the Pope's decretales had no force of law. This saith Owlyglasse, is untruth. And he proveth it by a certain decree of Pope Hilary, that lived long before Gregory the seventh, who threatened all with danger of their state, that should violate either divine laws, or the decrees of the Apostolic see: and by a constitution of Gelasius c. sancta Romana. dist. 15. where he determineth, that the Pope's decretales are with reverence to be received. But his proofs are too weak to convince me of untruth. For first, neither of these authorities are authentical, seeing it is not likely, that Hilary would match the Pope's decretales with God's laws, nor the Church of Rome neglect Gelasius his decree concerning apocryphal writings, if his authority were so great, as is pretended. Secondly, albeit Hilary threaten, yet it appeareth not, that his threats were regarded. Thirdly, it is one thing to accept men's letters with reverence, and another thing to accept them as laws. Fourthly, it is a ridiculous thing to require men to believe the Popes in their own cause. Fiftly, laws are not enacted by letters, nor recorded in scrowes; but solemnly established by public seals and monuments, that give them credit: which Owlyglasse cannot show to have been practised in Hilaries, or Gelasius his decretales. Finally, the state of the Church was not such then, as that the Popes could command, or bind all Churches by their letters. That therefore which he saith, is nothing. But I do allege the testimony of the Records of the church of Rome, which contain no ancienter decretales than those of Gregory the seventh, as appeareth by the book of Bulls called Bullarium, Secondly Bellarmine, that is a man of greater knowledge, than Owlyglasse, doth fail, where he goeth about to prove, that the Popes had power always to make laws. For his records lib. 2. de pontiff. Rom. c. 19 are weak, and all of them refuted in my answer to him. Cod de sum. Trin. & fid. Cath. & de episc. audient. & acta council. Finally it is evident, that for divers hundred years Emperors and counsels made laws, and not the Popes; and that this course continued until such time, as Popes by suppressing the authority of both prevailed; and until the power of Antichrist began to show itself in Gregory the seventh. In this point therefore Owlyglasse showeth himself ignorant of the story of the Church; and not only vagrant from his purpose. Sect. VII. That the fasts of the synagogue of Rome, & their usual forms were not established by the ancient Church. IN the seventh article of his supposed untruths, because Owlyglasse could not otherwise fasten the lie upon me conveniently, he doth curtal my words with an etc. and mangleth my sentence, applying that to one particular, which I direct to divers matters. I say, that if we seek all antiquity, we shall not find where the church of Christ hath commanded us to keep this Pope's day, and that Pope's day, and to abstain from work on S. Francis, and S. Dominicks, and other canonised Friars days, or where the same hath enjoined Christians to hear mass, or to fast lent, and embre days, & vigils of Saints, & other tides according to the fashion of the Church of Rome. But our adversary doth unhandsomely place my words thus, as if I had said, that if we seek all antiquity, we shall not find, where the church of Christ hath enjoined Christians to fast lent, and embre days, and vigils of Saints, etc. But if he had done me right, he should have added these words, and other tides according to the fashion of the Church of Rome. Which if he had done, my words would have given him no occasion of cavil. For then neither out of the 50. canon of the council of Laodicea, nor out of the 63. canon of the fourth council of Carthage, nor Hieroms epistle to Marcelia, nor S. Augustine's sermon de tempore, nor Leo, nor Epiphanius his words, nor any other authority by him alleged, could he have brought any thing to contradict my assertion▪ neither doth master willet's confession any whit relieve him. The Council of Laodicea doth not establish the fast of lent, nor saith any thing of choice of meats, or the manner of fasting, but would, that men should fast upon thursday before Easter. Which argueth, that before that time, that day was not necessarily fasted. Besides that, the Council hath nothing concerning embre days, or fasts on vigils of Saints, and therefore short of my adversaries purpose. Finally, the Synagogue of Rome doth not observe the canon of this council, that would have men to eat dry meat: for massepriests eat delicate fish, and liquor the same well with wine. Therefore Carranza falsifieth this canon of the council, In summa council. Laodic. and for dry meats, putteth convenient meats, fearing, as it should seem, lest he should lose his good fish, and good Spanish seek. The Council of Carthage can. 63. speaketh nothing of fasts established by law, but rather signifieth, that fasts were then upon especial occasion proclaimed. Qui tempore indicti ieiunij, saith that council. Beside that, in this canon there is no mention of any set form of fast, nor doth the council speak of other than clerks, which notwithstanding are not the only men, that should fast in Lent. Finally, this maketh nothing for forms of fasts on embre days and vigils of Saints. Saint Hieroms order of fasting, which he speaketh of in his Epistle to Marcelia against Montanus, the Romanists regard not▪ for they fast between Easter and Whitsuntide, which he did not like. Besides that, he speaketh of no form of fasting, nor alloweth the fasting, or rather Lenten feasting of the Romanists. Thirdly, that which he speaks of Apostolical tradition is contrary to S. Augustine's words in his Epistle 86. ad Casulanum, where he showeth, that the Apostles set down no days, nor forms of fasting. The sermons de tempore set out under Saint Augustine's name, are found to belong to divers others. In the 62. sermon it is said, to be sin, not to fast Lent. But the Romanists observe not the order of fasting by that author prescribed. for he fasted without dining, and observed not Sundays, and abstained from wine. The Romanists do all otherwise. Serm. 62. In isto legitimo, ac sacratissimo tempore, saith he, exceptis dominicis diebus nullus prandere praesumat. And again, Serm. 64. de tempore. speaking of Lenten fasting, quid prodest, saith he, vinum non bibere, & iracundiae veneno inebriari? If then the Papists will not abstain from wine, why do they urge us to observe, or believe his forms of fasts● That these Sermons of fasting are not S. Augustine's, it is apparent; for that they contradict his Epistle ad Casulanum. Leo ser. 2. the pentecost c. 9 talketh of certain fasts; but that they were the Romish embre fasts, Owlyglasse will not prove. Neither must he think, that we are bound to believe all Leoes epistles and sermons to be either written by him, or authentical. If Owlyglasse understand not so much, I will teach him, and show him reasons of my saying in my next. Master Willet saith Calixtus instituted the four embre fasts. But he speaketh according to the opinion of the Romanists, and well knew, that the Epistles that go under his name, were counterfeit. Aerius was condemned of heresy by Epiphanius haeres. 75. and S. Augustine haeres. 53. for that he held, ●hat fails appointed by the Church were not to be observed. His error was, that he held, quod i●iunium non esset ordinatum, as Epiphanius saith. But this toucheth us nothing. for we know, that the Romish synagogue is not the true Church, and that the ancient Church never approved either the Romish doctrine, or the Romish order concerning fasting. Seeing then Owlyglasse was neither able to prove the Romish orders of Lenten fasts, or of embre days, nor brought any one author to justify the fasts upon vigils of Saints, what an impudent fellow was he to affirm, Page, 26. that in ancient times the Church of Christ enjoined Christians to fast Lent, embre days, and vigils of Saints, shuffling in vigils of Saints into his conclusion, of which he had not brought any proof in his premises? Secondly, if he would contradict me, why did he not speak of the manner of the Romish fasts? Lastly, what reason hath he to charge me, as having dealt without conscience, where I denied their manner of fasts to be Catholic and christian; when he showeth neither conscience, wit, learning, nor modesty in holding the contrary? That I have delivered my opinion with good conscience, and that he with a cauterized conscience pinned to the Pope's sleeve hath contradicted my assertion, it may also further appear by the form of Romish fasts. For first, the Romanistes place their fasts in abstinence from flesh, and not in abstaining from meat, or eating dry meats, or abstinence from wine, as the Eastern Churches did. Secondly they eat large dinners, and refrain not from them, as the author of the 62. ser. de tempore, among S. Augustine's works thinketh they should. Thirdly, they believe that by eating flesh, and red herring, and such like meat, they are able to satisfy for their sins, and to inherit the kingdom of heaven: which is not only erroneous but also most ridiculous Fourthly, they teach that fasting in Lent was instituted by Christ, and that the other fasts are apostolical traditions. Finally, they burn true christians for eating of a piece of flesh upon a fasting day. The which doctrine and practice is not only contrary to the doctrine of Christ, and his Apostles, and the fathers of the Church, but also to the practice of the ancient apostolic Churches, whose fashions we are far to prefer before the practice of the late apostatical synagogue of Room. Our Saviour he teacheth us, that we are not defiled by any meat, that entereth into a man's body. Quod intrat in os saith he, Matth. 15. non coinquinat hominem. We may also thereout gather, that it is not meat, that doth satisfy us. Secondly, the Apostle doth signify, that this difference of meats proceedeth from the ceremonial law, and therefore ought now to cease. If ye be dead with Christ, Coloss. 2. saith the Apostle, from the Elements of this world, why do you yet decree, saying, touch not, taste not, handle not, which all go into destruction in use, according to the precepts and doctrine of man. Thirdly, the Apostle doth also prophesy, that in the latter times some shall departed from the faith, forbidding to marry, & enjoining abstinence from meats, which God hath created. Neither can this be understood of ancient heretics, that thought flesh unclean▪ for he speaketh of the latter times and saith in novissimis temporibus. The Papists also would not so severely forbid eating of flesh, unless they thought it a more holy matter to eat fish. Fourthly, Tertullian showeth that Christians fasted upon occasion of their own accord, and not by constraint of laws. Indifferenter ex arbitrio, non ex imperio novae disciplinae, saith he, Adverse. Psychicos. pro temporibus et causis uniuscuiusque ieiunabant. And this he speaketh of Christians, he being then teinted with the heresy of Montanus. Augustine in his 86. Epistle to Casulanus testifieth, that he findeth no set fasts enjoined by Christ, or his Apostles. Quibus diebus non oporteat ieiunare, & quibus oporteat, saith he, praecepto domini, vel apostolorum non video definitum. Sixtly, lent was diversly observed in times past, as may be gathered by the testimony of Irenaeus, as Eusebius writeth Ecc. hist. lib. 5. c. 26. the same may be proved also out of Socrates l. 2. hist. 43. & Sozomenus lib. 3. c. 13. Spiridion did not think it unlawful to eat flesh in Lent, as Sozomenus testifieth lib. 1. c. 11. of eating dry meats, and abstinence from wine, and dinners I have spoken before. Finally, if Owlyglasse had Lynceus his eyes, yet in all ancient stories he shall not find, where any was condemned by the Church to death for eating flesh upon friday. And why? forsooth because this is the practice of the synagogue of Antichrist, and the whore of Babylon. Let it then be judged, whether I, or the ecstatical Owlyglasse have used better conscience in discussing this controversy concerning Romish fasts, and who hath lied, he or I Sect. VIII. That the ancient Church of Christ hath not forbidden Christians to solemnize marriage upon days forbidden by the Church of Rome. THe 8. article of Owlyglasses exceptions is drawn out of ●he 32. page of my challenge. for where I say, that if we seek all antiquity, we shall not find, where the Church of Christ hath commanded christians to keep this pope's day, or that Pope's days. etc. Or where the same hath enjoined christians to hear Mass, or to fast lente and imbre days, and Vigiles of Saints, and other tides according to the fashion of the Church of Rome, or to confess our sins to Romish Friars and Priests, or not to solemnize marriage on days forbidden: he is somewhat offended at my words. but to make his objection the stronger, he placeth them thus. If we seek all antiquity, we shall not find where the Church of Christ hath enjoined christians, not to solemnize marriage on days forbidden: cutting out a multitude of my words out of the midst of my sentence; & making me to speak of one point, where I speak of divers, and disjoining that which I coupled together, so that I may say, that if a man rake all the college of jebusites. he shall not lightly find a more impudent, or witless falsary, than this. But to let that pass (albeit I marvel he was not ashamed speaking against falsifications to falsify every place almost which he toucheth) I say it is no untruth to affirm, that the ancient Church of Christ did not prohibit Christians to solemnize marriage on days forbidden by the Church of Rome. And my reasons are▪ First, for that I find not any such prohibition to have been used in the histories or monuments of the Church. Secondly, for that I do not see, that the ancient fathers do mention in their writings any such matter. Thirdly, for that the first decretal concerning these prohibitons, that hath force of law, ●s in the chapter capellanum. ●xtr. de ferijs. Gratian doth insert a certa ne counterfeit canon. 33. q. 4. Non oportet. But every canonist can tell O●lyg●ass●, that Gratians sentences are no law. Fourthly, I do find that Bellarmine de matrimonio. lib. 1. 2. 31. cannot prove this practice of prohibition of marriage to be ancient. Bellar. de matr●m. lib. 1. c 31 Fiftly, the adversaries confess, it is lawful to contract marriage at any time. Wherefore then should it not be lawful to publish and solemnize the contract, seeing solemnisation is nothing, but a declaration of an act done? Finally the poor proofs of Owlyglass● do much confirm me in my opinion. For he allegeth nothing for his opinion, but a conterfect Canon of the council of Laodicea, that forbiddeth solemnisation of marriages in Lent. That this Canon is counterfeit, it is apparent, for that there is no appearance of such acts in any authentical record. Secondly, this Canon by Owlyglasse is numbered the 52. so doth also C●rranz● number it, from whence he had it. But Bellarmine lib. 1. de M●trim. c. 31. maketh it 25 the Canon. Thirdly, these Canons were written in Greek, if any such were made in L●odicea▪ but these are merely latin, and very barbarous. In the 53. canon it is decreed non oportere Ch●istianos ad nuptias eun●es balare, aut saltare. But were this Canon truly made by the council of L●odicea, yet maketh it nothing for Owly●lasse his purpose. For those canons are not observed, and the Romanists cease not to da●nce at marriages. Again, were this Canon observed, yet it takes nothing for prohibitions out of Lent. So that Owlyglasse will come far short of his reckoning, when he cometh to conclude, that all proh●bitions of times of marriage practised in the Romish church, were also practised in the ancient church of Christ jesus. Page, 26. Our adversary doth further tell us, that other testimonies might be brought for this purpose, but he will content himself with the practice of the Church of England. And that he proveth out of our Almanacs and faculties for marriages in time prohibited. But this argument effecteth nothing, but only the disgrace of him that made it▪ for it showeth, that our adversary is better studied in the Almanac, then in Saint Augustine. Further, the Almanacs set down the feasts and Saints of the Romish Church, and that for the benefit of Merchants, that trade with other nations, although we observe not these Popish Saints feasts. Thirdly if he were acquainted with our faculties as perfectly, as he pretendeth, he might know, that these prohibitions are not much regarded. Finally, if for a civil decency the same were by some observed; yet all the ceremonies & orders of every particular church, are not ancient; nor is that any thing to the Romish church, whose superstitious and wicked decrees I wonder, that so many do blindly receive without all ground of reason If then Owlyglasse have any more testimonies in store, his friends would be glad to hear of them, for his own credit and promise sake. Otherwise they will wish, that he had been also prohibited to marry, and to beget children, lest they be troubled with a race of such dizards. Sect. IX. That the regenerate cannot live without sin. IN this ninth article, Owlyglasse doth bewray his great ignorance, neither well understanding, what we hold, nor what his own consorts hold. If he did, he would not imagine, that we did distinguish sins into mortal and venial, nor would he deny, that Papists hold, that the regenerate may live without sin. Sess. 6. c. 5. For first the conventicle of Trent anathematizeth, whosoever shall say, that free-will is lost since Adam's fall. Secondly, Ibidem, c. 18. the same anathematizeth all that shall affirm, that a man regenerar cannot perform all the law and commandments of God. If then a man after Adam's fall have free-will, he may as well do all things well, and so live without sin, as all things evil. Again, if he be able to perform all the commandments of God, then may he live without sin: sin being nothing else, but the transgression of the law. Lib. de liber. arb. c. 3. Anselme defineth free-will to be a power to keep the will right, in respect of righteousness itself. Bellar. lib. 3. de great. & lib. arb. c. 3. saith, that free will is a free power, of things tending to an end to choose one before another. He saith also, Lib. 5. de lib. arbit. c. 13. that by force of free-will man without grace hath power to choose that is good, and to avoid that is evil, to observe precepts of manners, or to transgress them. He holdeth further, that the regenerate is able to fulfil all the law of God: Ibidem. & consequently not to sin. And that he proveth by the words of S. john, qui natus est ex deo non peccat: which he expoundeth so, as if no regenerate man did sin, or transgress God's law. If then man hath such a power, as they say, and may fulfil all the law, and abstain from all sin, than I trust I do the Papists no wrong, to say, that they hold, that the regenerate may live without sin. And although they deny not, that a just man hath venial sins, yet of their doctrine it followeth, that he may live without venial sins▪ for if he be able to perform the law of God perfectly, and to love God with all his heart and all his soul, and hath free will to do whatsoever is good, and to eschew whatsoever is evil; then may the regenerate live also without venial sins. The Tridentine conventicle granteth, Sess. 6. c. 23. that a man by special privilege may be without all venial sins. Whether we speak then of great, or small sins, true it is, that the Papists hold, that the regenerate may be without all sin, and our adversary denying this point, neither understandeth the doctrine of his consorts, nor the sequel of it. But saith he, this is not contrary to all antiquity, that the regenerate may live without mortal sins. And his reasons are, because God's commandments may be kept, and are not heavy. Our Saviour Christ saith also, that his yoke is sweet, and his burden light, and S. Luke affirmeth, that Zachary and Elizabeth were just before God walking in all the commandments and justifications of our Lord without blame. The second council of Arausica C. Vlt. teacheth, that by grace received in baptism, Christ helping and working with them, all that are baptised may, and aught to fulfil such things, as pertain to salvation, if they will labour faithfully. Saint Basill saith it is a wicked thing to say, that the commandments of God's spirit are impossible. Saint Hierome maketh no doubt, but God hath commanded things possible. Finally Saint Augustine Ser. 191. de tempore detesteth the blasphemy of them, that say, that God hath commanded any impossible thing to man. Let us therefore see what antiquity saith, and what is the meaning of the fathers in this point. Luk. 11. Our Saviour Christ taught his Disciples, and the most holy men to pray, forgive us our trespasses. But that needed not, if they did not commit any sin. And S. james saith, we offend all in many things. james 3. The Apostle Peter signifieth, that neither the Disciples of Christ, nor the fathers were able to bear the yoke of the law. Act. 15. that which was impossible to the law, saith the Apostle Rom. 8. He saith also, that the flesh is not subject to the law, nor can be. We know also that the flesh evermore lusteth against the spirit▪ the scriptures teach us, that no man's heart is so clean, that he can say, that he hath loved God with all his soul, and with all his heart. Saint Jerome epist. 62. affirmeth that charity, which cannot be increased, as long as a man liveth here, is in no man. tanta mandata sunt, saith Saint Ambrose, In Galat. 3. ut impossibile sit servare ea. Hierome likewise writing upon the 3. to the Galathians, saith the Apostle teacheth us, that no man can fulfil the law, and do all that is commanded. nullus legem implevit saith Saint Chrysostome in Gal. 2. Bernard upon the Canticles Serm, 50. saith, that in this life the law cannot be fulfilled of any. And experience teacheth us as much. For the blessed virgin called Christ her Saviour. But what needed she a Saviour, if she had not sinned? Neither can any be found, that can say, he is without sin. The adversaries also confess it sometimes. Implere totam legem, saith Thomas Aquinas in galat. 3. lect. 4. est impossibile. As for the reasons of our adversary, they are trifling. God's commandments may be kept, as S. john signifieth 1. Epist. 2. but in part, and in some imperfect sort. Secondly, our Saviour also saith, that his yoke is not heavy. But Christ's yoke is not the law, but his mercy and grace. Thirdly, his commandments are not grievous, because every one that is borne of God overcummeth the world. 1. john, 5. And this is the victory that overcummeth the world, even our faith. To the council of Arausica, Orat. in haec verba. attend tibi. and the testimonies of Hierome, S. Basill, and S. Austin Ser. 191. de tempore: one answer will serve▪ for we do not say absolutely, That the law in itself is impossible, but that man in this life cannot perform it, by reason of his infirmity▪ neither do we say, it is impossible to perform the law in part and imperfectly, or that the law is impossible to be performed, because man, if he had continued in grace might have performed it▪ Lib. 3. ad Bonifac. c. 1. and now as S. Austin saith, Omnia mandata dei facta deputantur, quando quicquid non fit ignoscitur. and as he saith lib. 1. retract. c. 19 If now we cannot, yet sometime we shall perform the law of God. But none of these say, that we can perform the whole law, and that perfectly, or that we can be without sin. posse omne vitare peccatum, S. Hierome doth signify to be the opinion of the Pelagians. Lib. 3. adverse. pelag. If then Owlyglasse will avoid Pelagianisme, let him forbear to charge me with untruth for saying, that the ancient fathers believed not, that a man regenerate might live without sin. Again if he deny, that Papists teach, that a regenerate man may be without venial sins, the council of Trent Sess. 6. c. 23. will give him the lie. He also in the latter end of the chapter doth contradict himself, where he saith, That whether we speak of venial, or mortal sins we abuse the reader, where we say, the fathers hold not, that a regenerate man may be without sin▪ for he himself confesseth regenerate men have venial sins. But if he dispute no better of mortal and venial sins, he will give a mortal wound to his own cause. Sect. X. That the form of confirmation now used by the Romanistes is new. LIkewise in the cause of the sacrament of confirmation, as he calleth it, he talketh very idly and weakly, and is not able to confirm any thing which he saith, nor to disprove that, which I have written, although after his wont fashion he scoreth up untruths. I say, that the form of confirmation now used by the Romanists is new, & not received before the council of Floremce about the year of our Lord. 1423. And that I say true, it may be confirmed, First by the writings of the Apostles, wherein we cannot find either institution, form or matter of that new sacrament. Secondly by the practice of the ancient Church, wherein albeit we find the forms of other sacraments, yet we find nothing of the form, or matter, or manner of administration of popish confirmation. The old ordinal of Rome hath nothing concerning it. Isidore, Amalarius, and all ancient ritualistes omit it. Apud antiquiores authores, Lib. de confirmat. c. 10. saith Bellar: speaking of the form of confirmation, haec omnia verba non habentur, nec hoc ordine. Thirdly the ancient fathers do neither mention the institution, nor the proper matter, nor the form used in this action by the Romanistes. Bellar. albeit he searched all corners, yet found he nothing to purpose. He citeth justine, Tertullian, Cyprian, Jerome, & others, Ibid. c. 5. & 6. but they speak only of a ceremony of unction and imposition of hands, and that used in Baptism most commonly. Further more they have not any part of that doctrine which the synagogue of Rome teacheth concerning confirmation. Fourthly the schoolmen differ about the institution of confirmation, some of them holding, that it was instituted in a certain counsel at Meldis. concerning the forms also and matter, or minister of this sacrament they are not resolved. Fiftly, we do not find, that confirmation was received by any authority before the counsel of Trent; unless we take the particular instruction of the Armenians for a general establishment. Finally the weak and absurd dispute of Bellarmine, that is not able to produce any institution of this pretended sacrament, nor to confirm, either the form, or the matter, or the doctrine of it, may resolve a man, that the whole, as it is practised by the Romish Church, is a new invention. Page, 31. All this notwithstanding our adversary saith, that it is a palpable untruth. viz. to affirm the form of Popish confirmation, to be a new invention. For to omit saith he, how the form of this Sacrament is as ancient, as the Apostles. But if he had omitted this indeed; he should have omitted a bold and impudent untruth. For how is it to be presumed, that this form of confirmation came from the Apostles, when the adversaries themselves, before the conventicles of Florence and Trent, could never agree about the form? And what likelihood is there, that the Apostles did practise this form, when we find no record or memorial of it in ancient, and authentical histories? Is it likely that the ancient church would not mention all the forms of their sacraments? He saith also, that we cannot show any later beginning of confirmation. as if we did not note the time of the instruction of the Armenians, and conventicle of Trent; before which the schoolmen babbled their pleasure, but they had no certain resolution on which they depended. Lib. 4. contra Donatist. He telleth us also, that, as S. Augustine saith, we are to believe that to be descended from the Apostles, which the universal Church holdeth, and hath always been observed, and is not instituted by counsels. But where he saith, that this is the case of confirmation; he showeth himself to be past shame in avouching so gross untruths. For first we show, that the form of confirmation was talked of in the conventicle of Florence, and established in the conventicle of Trent. Secondly, Owlyglasse shall never be able to prove, that the universal Church received, believed or taught the Popish doctrine, and form of confirmation. Would he show the same out of the Greek Fathers, and S. Augustine, and other doctors of Africa, Italy, and other countries, he might win himself some good credit. Finally, he cannot show by any good record, that the Church of Rome hath always received the doctrine, and form of confirmation, that now is. This done, he proceedeth on, and saith: To omit this, and many notable things else, that it is sufficient to convince master Sutcliffe of untruth, that Thomas of Aquine almost two hundred years before the council of Florence, setteth down the very same form, affirming it to be the usual and common form practised in the church, and Bellarmine, noteth this place of Thomas. But he showeth himself a simple fellow, to omit notable things, and to say nothing worthy to be noted. But his simplicity is far greater, to think that either Thom. Aquinas is an authentical witness, or that his testimony doth convince me. For albeit Thomas do speak of such a form, of which he must not think me ignorant, yet it is a ridiculous conceit to believe, that all the vain conceits of schoolmen were received generally in the Church, & great simplicity, not to understand, that the church of Rome esteemeth but a little the disputes of schools, until their school opinions be received by the pope, or established by counsels. Further, he is not able to show, that Thomas Aquinas saith, that the form of confirmation by him mentioned, was the usual and common form generally received in the Church. Our adversary therefore showeth himself first to be a vain fellow to take exception against me in this point, rather bewraying his own ignorance, than convincing me of untruth: and next, a lying companion, in belying his own master Thomas Aquinas. Sect. XI. That in ancient time the sacrament was not usually kept in pixes, after the fashion of the Romish Church. IN my former Challenge I say, that the idolatrous adoration of the sacrament, and the carrying of it about in procession, and keeping of it in pixes, savoureth of novelty. Owlyglasse not daring to deny all, only excepteth against that, which I say of pixes▪ but if he had remembered the matter of his Pamphlet, he would not have mangled my words, and accusing others of falsification, have at every turn run into it headlong himself. Accusing me also of untruth, himself most untruly and impudently affirmeth, that testimonies of antiquity are plentiful for keeping the sacrament in pixes. for he is not able to bring one authentical testimony for this point. The council of Nice can. 14. decreeth, that if there be in presence no Bishop or Priest (viz. beside him that administereth the sacrament) that then the Deacons shall, proffer & edere, that is, minister the sacrament, and receive it themselves. But this is nothing to the keeping of the sacrament, the words concerning the time of ministration or communion only, and the canon intending to restrain the insolency of deacons, that at the communion presumed to receive before either bishops, or elders, not that served at the altar, but that were present at the communion, as appeareth by the old Romish ordinal. Can. 12. The same council also would have the excommunicate reconciled before they depart this life, and to have the communion delivered to them▪ but he is a simple fellow, that could not see, that the communion might be administered to the sick, although the sacrament was not hung over the altar in a box. Ambros. de O●it. Theodos. Satyrus kept the sacrament about him in shipwreck; and a certain woman, of whom Cyprian maketh mention, kept sanctum domini in her chest. but our adversary is a simple disputer, that would have the abuses of simple women, and men unchristened, such as Satyrus then was, observed for law. Beside that, it is one thing to hang the sacrament over the altar, and another thing to put it in a woman's chest, or to lap it up in a clout▪ for this the Romanistes themselves allow not. Caluin 4. institut. 17. sect. 39 confesseth, that the sacrament was in old time reserved. But he doth not say, as our adversary insinuateth, that this was the order of the church. Finally, our adversary himself purposing to prove, that the sacrament was kept in pixes over the altar, concludeth only, that the sacrament was kept, abandoning the pixes to be defended by some other▪ his dealing therefore savoureth of great simplicity, if not of fraud and malice, and vanity. But that which I said, is most true, and is at large justified in my discourse of the mass against Bellarmine, and is proved first by the words of our Saviour, who instituting this holy sacrament took bread, blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to his Disciples saying, take, eat▪ where I would wish that simple Papists would consider, that he said, take, and eat, and not departed without eating, or else keep the sacrament in boxes, or hang it over the altar. Secondly, the Apostle 1. cor. 11. declareth, that the disciples of our Saviour at his last supper did take, and eat, and drink. How then happeneth it, that the massepriests do not deliver the sacrament to the people, but hang it over the altar? Will they prove themselves to be not only sacrificers, and killers of Christ, but also hangmen of Christ, and the very famishers of God's people? Thirdly, the fathers give clear testimony against our adversaries, that keep the sacrament in pixes. Apolog. 2. add Antonin. De ijs quae cum gratiarum actione consecrata sunt, saith justine Martyr, unusquisque participate, eademque ad eos, qui absunt, diaconis dantur perferenda. Dominus panem saith Origen. hom. 5. in Leuit. c. 7. quem discipulis dabat, & dixit, accipite & manducate, non distulit, nec servari jussit in crastinum. they both signify, that the sacraments presently upon consecration were received. Hesychius also writing upon Leuit. lib. 2. cap. 8. showeth, that what remained of the sacrament, the same was forthwith consumed. Fourthly, counsels have repressed the lewd customs of such, as in ancient time began to reserve the sacrament. The first council of Toledo c. 14. decreeth, that he ought to be thrust out of the Church, as a sacrilegious person, which eateth not the sacrament, which he receiveth from the Priest. the like decree is found in the council of Saragossa c. 3. Fiftly, we do find the practice of Christ his church to be repugnant to this reservation of the sacrament in pixes, as appeareth by the testimony of Dionysius eccles. hierarch. c. 3. of Ambrose de sacramentis lib. 4. & 5. of Euagrius lib. 4. c. 35. of Nicephorus lib. 17. c. 25. and all ancient formularies of administering the sacraments. Finally, the adversaries themselves in this point overthrow their own practice, as appeareth by the chapter Tribus gradibus, and the chapter Triforme. de consecrat. dist. 2. and the chapter s●ne cum olim. de celebrat. miss. that declareth Honorius to be the first bringer in of pixes▪ if then Owlyglasse have no more to say in this point, he will rather carry pixes out, then bring them into the church. He will also overthrow the worthy decree of Honorius the principal patron of the idolatrous worship of the sacrament in the Romish Church; and disgrace himself, whose words are like painted boxes full of empty words. Sect. XII. That the prayers of the Romish Church to our Lady, to Saints, and to Angels, were not in use in the ancient Church. IN most of his objections Owlyglasse doth not only give the lie unto me, but to the whole Church. for that which I say concerning divers points of popish religion, is also maintained by the consent of Christ's Church, as may appear by that which already is answered concerning the abuse of the sacrament, prohibitions of marriage, and such like. In this place I touch an abuse of Popish prayers, and say, that ancient Christians had no mediators, but Christ jesus, and that they did not pray to our Lady, or to Saints, or to Angels, but to God only, in the name of Christ jesus. Of which assertion the first part is proved by the words of the Apostle. 1. Tim. 2. unus deus saith he, unus & mediator dei & hominum homo christus jesus. Likewise by the words of the Apostle Hebr. 7. Whereby we understand, that our mediator must be pure, and impolluted, and offer up himself. and Hebr. 9 where Christ is called, the mediator of a new testament, and hath that office ascribed unto him only to intercede and mediate for us with God. Secondly, by the testimony of S. Austin lib. 2. contra Parmen. c 8. Si joannes ita diceret, saith he, haec scripsi vobis, ut non peccetis, & si quis peccaverit, nos mediatorem habebitis apud patrem, ego exoro pro peccatis vestris, sicut Parmenianus quodam loco mediatorem posuit episcopum inter populum & deum; quis eum ferret bonorum, & fidelium christianorum? Albeit the Bishop doth intercede and pray for the people, yet Austin will not have him called a mediator. Thirdly, the same is proved by divers arguments drawn from the nature of a mediator. He must be pure and impolluted, and able to reconcile us to God by his death and merits, he must offer sacrifice for us▪ he must mediate our peace with God the Father: as may be gathered out of the 7. and 9 chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, he must also be able to make a propitiation for our sins, as it is to be gatherered out of the 1. john. 2. and finally he must be such a one, as can hear us, and procure our requests to be granted. But neither are Saints departed so pure and impolluted, that they can oppose their holiness to God's justice, nor are they able to reconcile us unto God by their merits. Nay themselves need Christ's mediation, and therefore cannot mediate for others▪ further it is derogatory to Christ's priesthood, to make them priests able to reconcile us to God, and then appoint them mediators to make God propitious unto us. Finally, Saints cannot be in all places to hear the prayers of those that call upon them; nor are they able to give us that, we ask, nor do they allow those, that leaving Christ jesus come to them. Owlyglasse answereth to this point and saith, that Saints are mediators not of redemption, but of intercession▪ and that Saint Paul. 2. Thess. 3. Desired the Thessalonians to pray for him, making them mediators of intercession. But first the scriptures and fathers allow none for mediators but Christ jesus, that hath redeemed us and mediated our peace▪ they are also utterly unacquainted with this Popish distinction. Secondly, it is a ridiculous thing, because the Apostle desireth the Thessalonians to pray for him, to whom he might come, and which did understand his prayer, to conclude after Owlyglasse his fashion that therefore either they were to be termed his mediators, or that we may pray to those, which neither can hear us in all places, nor grant our prayers. The Second part of my assertion is proved First, by the doctrine of our Saviour, that taught us to pray to the Father in his name. Which is also confirmed by the practice of the Church testified in the 3 counsel of Carthage. c. 23. Secondly the words of the Apostle are direct for us. How shall they call saith he, on him, on whom they have not believed? Rom. 10. Thirdly, the fathers condemn the practice of the Romish Church in praying to Saints. Mariam saith Epiphanius nemo adoret, neque muli●rum, neque virum. And again, neque Tecla, neque quisquam sanctu; adoretur. non enim dominabitur nobis antiquus error, ut relinquamus viventem, & adoremus ea, Rom. 1. quae ab ipso f●cta sunt. S. Ambrose saith, that we have access to kings by mediation of tribunes, and noble men, because they are men, but to come to God, that we need no spokeseman, but a d●uout mind. Fourthly, both counsels and fathers condemn worship of Angels. non oportet christianos say the fathers of the council of Laodicea, Can. 35. derelicta ecclesia abire, & ad angelos idololatriae abominandae congregationes facere. They say christians are not to relinquish the Church, and to run into corners to worship Angels▪ for that they signify▪ to be Idolatry. Chrysostome in his 7. homily upon the Epistle to the Colossians, refuteth the opinion of those, that used the mediation of Angels. Sunt nonnulli saith he, qui dicunt, non oportere per Christum reconciliari, & ad patrem accedere, sed per angelos. propterea sursum ac deorsum, quae de Christo sunt versat. Epiphanius and S. Augustine, where they talk of the heresy of the Angelikes, condemn the worshippers of Angels for heretics. Fiftly, the practice of the ancient Church doth utterly repugn against the form of prayer used by the Popish Church▪ for if we seek all the ritual books of ancient Churches, we shall not find, where christians prayed thus, Sancta maria Mater dei ora pro nobis, & nunc & in hora mortis. Neither was this prayer used, Maria matter gratiae, matter misericordiae, Tu nos ab host besiege, & hora mortis suscipe. Neither do I believe shall Owlyglasse find, where christians prayed thus, Sancta Maria succurre mis●ris, iwa pusillanimes, Mens. febr. retove f●ebiles, and so forth. Or as in the missal of Sarum, haec munera tibi accepta sint, sanctae Batildis obtineant merita. Neither can any forms of litanyes to Angels, and Romish Saints in ancient books be found. Finally, these forms of prayers to Saints and Angels are most absurd. for what reason have christians, not to pray to God through Christ as they are commanded, but to run to Saints, who neither understand men's thoughts, nor are present in all places, nor can help us. Nay it is a thing very uncertain, whether many of those, that the Romish Church doth worship, are Saints or no. the lie therefore, that Owlyglasse would fasten on me, doth touch the Apostles & holy fathers, whose doctrine I follow, and not me only. and may well be returned back on him. But saith he, of prayers to Saints, and Angels, Page, 34 there are such plentiful proofs, that nothing can excuse him from ashamelesse unttuth. And there upon he both bringeth forth Basill, the Council of Chalcedon, Chrysostome, Saint Ambrose, and Ruffinus. But no one of these hath one such prayer, as the Romish missals and breviaries have many. Further the twentieth homily in honour of 40. Marti●es, is not authentical, nor was ever written by Basill. Neither is every rude voice that passed in council to be ascribed to the council, as authorized by solemn act. beside that, many Epistles and writings are set out among the acts of counsels, that deserve no credit. so we say of the 66 homily of Saint Chrysostome, and Ambroses' book de viduis, that they have passed the hands of idolaters, and falsaries. Ruffin telleth us only, Lib. 2. hist. c. 33. what some did, not what they ought to do. but suppose some of these fathers should either by an apostrophe name Saints or Angels, or else desire in a generality, that God will hear the prayers, which the triumphant Church offereth to God for the militant Church; or admit also that any one man should pray to Saints: yet that is nothing to justify the blasphemous prayers of the Church of Rome made to Angels and Saints; nor doth it appear, that in ancient time there were any public prayers to the Virgin Mary, to Angels, and Saints. Finally the fathers did rather pray to God at the tombs of martyrs, then pray to martyrs as God. And we are rather to follow the most authentical fathers, and best learned, and their authentical writings, then either such rags, as are falsesly countenanced by the names of fathers: or some hard speeches of fathers. Further Owlyglasse signifieth that Hierome against Vigilantius defended prayers to Saints. But he must allege good proof or else his reader, and every one that readeth Hierome will tell him he lieth. Finally he allegeth M. Bell against me, and adjoineth M. Gough in a treatise against M. Fecknam unto him. But we all agree against him, and his erroneous and superstitious doctrine concerning prayer to Saints. For albeit some one or two long since called upon Saints; yet we all agree, that ancient christians had no such forms allowed, or publicly used and frequented in the church. So it appeareth, that for prayers to Angels and our Lady, our adversary can allege nothing, but the custom of Collyridians and Angelikes. Neither can he allege any thing for prayers to Romish Saints, nor to Martyrs, but certain counterfeit writings, and private practices of one or two Fathers, which against the rest, and against authentical writings of the same authors are of no validity. Sect. XIII. That auricular confession after the Romish fashion was not established, nor received into the Church before Innocentius the third his time. THe last exception which concerning matter of untruth Owlyglasse taketh against me, is, for that I deny the Romish auricular confession to be ancient. A matter that seemeth much to pinch my adversary, and his consorts. for that upon this point, for the most part, dependeth the gain of their faculties, the credit of massepriests with their clients, the access they have into women's closerts, and the ground of their treacherous practices. Take away confession, the faculties of Priests, together with their dispensations and absolutions fall, and mass-priests will be put to their beads. Their credit also will decay with their clients, if they cannot bring them on their knees before the priest sitting judicially in his chair. Neither shall they be admitted further into women's closerts, nor have such opportunity to corrupt them. Et sic perierunt illae confabulationes amatoriae, labellorun molles mors●unculae, carnales contrectatiunculae, & multae ad rem gerendam opportunitates. Finally, they shall not be able any more to draw subjects from their allegiance, nor to instill rebellion into men's minds under colour of religion. Owlyglasse therefore is longer in this point, then in any of the rest, and would gladly prove his auricular confession, if by any means he could. but his testimonies are all weak and counterfeit. He allegeth first the testimony of the 2. council of Chalon. but first that council had no confirmation, but from Charles the great; by whose authority it was, as is said, assembled. Secondly, Surius Tom. concil. 3. that council doth neither excommunicate those, that confess not their sins, nor exclude them from christian burial, as doth Innocentius. Thirdly, C. omnis de poenit. & remiss. the canons purpose was rather to instruct them how to confess, when they did it, then to force men to do it. Fourthly, the 33. canon seemeth to allow confession to God only in those, that are instructed, and showeth, how that divers thought that to be sufficient. Finally, it were a hard law for the Romanists, if they should be bound to stand to all canons of counsels. Why then do they urge us to that, which they will not perform themselves? Owlyglasse his conclusions out of this canon concerning the distinction of public and private confession might well have been spared. Secondly, he produceth Leoes testimony Epist. 80. ad episc. Campaniaes, who seemeth, to say, that it is sufficient in secret confession to declare the guiltiness of men's consciences to the Priest. But neither doth he command men to do it, nor exclude from burial, those that refuse it, nor writeth to others, but his suffragan bishops of Campania, nor is his word a law, nor finally must Owlyglasse think, that we are bound to believe this their domestical witness, or whatsoever falsaries have published under the name of Leo. His third witness is Rabanus Maurus lib. 2. de instit. cleric. c. 3. who saith, that the penance must be secret for such matters, as by voluntary confession are revealed to the priest or bishop. But this doth not show, that every man was bound to confess, or punished for not confessing, but rather that it was voluntary, and of such sins as grieved men's consciences, against which we dispute not. His fourth witness is S. Bernard. but he deposeth nothing for him, nor against us, blaming only those, which for shame did hide their secret sins. De interiori domo c. 37. Which showeth that men at that time were not bound to open their sins by any law, nor punished for not confessing, as is now the practice of the Romish synagogue. His fift witness is M. Caluin instit. lib. 3. c. 4. numb. 7. but he saith nothing, which may seem to make for the adversaries, but only, that the use of confession was ancient. For us he saith, confession was free, and that there was no law binding men to confession, before Innocent the third: which is that, which I hold. And that which Owlyglasse layeth hold of, takes nothing for his purpose. For albeit in ancient time christians grieved in conscience were wont to consult with such, as had charge of their souls, and some do yet take that course among us; yet that doth not prove, that Romish auricular confession was ancient, or that christians must necessarily confess all sins, and be excluded from absolution, yea from christian burial, if they do not confess in the priest's ear. His sixth witness is M. Bell in his survey p. 536. who acknowledgeth, as it seemeth, auricular confession to have been established the year 254. But he speaketh according to the conceit of the adversaries records, that derive it no higher; and percase understandeth a voluntary free confession, and in cases of public penance enjoined. But all our dispute, is, whether before Innocentius the thirds decretal, men were bound to confess all their sins in the Priest's ears, and were excluded out of the church, and from burial, if they did it not. To which point M. Bell saith nothing, that will relieve O●lyg●asse, in this point of confession, but that every indifferent man will confess, he was an idle fellow to triumph upon such poor advantages. His last testimony is derived out of our communion book, where a form of confession is prescribed for the comfort of the sick. And this he enforceth because as he saith, our communion book was framed after the imitation of the Romish portesse and mass-book, and thereupon imagineth, that the book speaketh of auricular confession usual in the Romish Church. But first he wrongeth us, to compare our communion book to their filthy and abominable mass book●s & portesses full of abominable and idolatrous prayers, and most wicked and superstitious ceremonies, as I have declared in my refutation of Bellarmine's books de Eucharistia & missa. Secondly, he doth wilfully and maliciously utter untruths. For neither is there any affinity, betwixt our books and the Romish missals and portesses, nor took we any pattern from them, but rather from the old formularyes of the primitive Church, which prescribed reading & singing of Psalms, reading of scriptures, prayers and forms of ministration of baptism and the Lords supper, and preaching, as may appear by the testimony of justin Martyr Apolog. 2. ad Antoninum of Dionysius the Areopagite, and others that mention the forms of ancient liturgies. Further, not this matter of auricular confession is enjoined by the missals, or breviaries, but rather public confession and absolution before the face of the whole Church. Finally the form of confession, which the book requireth, is neither of all particular sins, nor enforced upon any, nor required but of such, as are troubled in conscience. And therefore if Papists were not blind, and obstinate, they would confess, that Owlyglasse had little reason or honesty, when he went about to prove auricular confession out of our communion book. & Owlyglasse himself, if he had not been past shame, would never have affirmed, that auricular confession had been ordained of Christ. and he meaneth no doubt, the Romish auricular confession, Viz. omnis utriusque sexus postquam ad annos discretionis pervenerit, omnia sua peccata solus confiteatur proprio sacerdoti, & infunctam sibi poenitentiam proprijs viribus studeat adimplere. That is, that every man and woman of years of discretion confess all their sins to their own Priest secretly, and fulfil penance that is enjoined them. Otherwise in his life time he is shut out of the Church, and after his death prohibited christian burial. The council of Trent Sess. 14. c. 6. saith, that auricular confession is necessary unto salvation by the law of God Francis à victoria lib. de sacrament. c. de confession, saith that a man being at the point of death is bound by God's law to confess to a Priest. If, I say, he had but one spark of honesty, or grain of modesty; he would not have affirmed, that this manner of auricular confession had been ordained by Christ, having neither testimony of scriptures, nor standing with the doctrine of the fathers. Delicta sua quis intelligit? saith the Prophet Psalm. 18. How then can a man confess all his sins, which no man is well able to conceive, nor the papists in their multiform cases of consciences able to empress? Secondly, the Prophet saith, that at what time soever a sinner doth repent him of his sin, God will put all his wickedness out of his remembrance. If a sinner therefore repent, he may have remission of sins without auricular confession. Thirdly, the fathers do refel this confessionall doctrine. nondico, ut confitearis (peccata) conseruo tuo, saith Chrysostome Homil. 2. in Psalm. 50. qui exprobret; dicito deo, qui curet ea. I say not, confess thy sins, to thy fellow servant, which may reproach it to thee, but speak to God, which careth for such matters. Ambrose upon the 10. of Luke. c. 96. saith, he readeth of Peter's tears, but not of his satisfaction. And again, let tears saith he, wash your sins, that by word you are ashamed to confess. Lib. 10. confess. c. 3. what have I to do saith Saint Augustine, with men, that they should hear my confessions, as if they were to heal my griefs? Cassian also collat. 20. c. 9 teacheth men to confess to God such things, as they blush to confess to men. Fourthly, it is an absurd thing to say, Christ ordained confession, & not to be able to prove it out of the scriptures. Fiftly, if confeson of all sins were necessary; then who should escape damnation? Sixtly, Papists themselves bring divers cases, wherein they say confession is not necessary, & the Pope dispenseth in case of omisssion of confession, which showeth that confession is not juris divini, nor necessary to salvation. Finally, Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople took a way a kind of auricular confession for public sins which was used in that Church, as Sozomenus testifieth. And this is sufficient to clear me of all untruth objected against me by Owlyglasse. If he think otherwise, or if any man will not be persuaded, let him orderly answer this and other latin treatises, which I have written concerning divers of these several causes. If they cannot, let them leave for shame to belch out their wicked slanders against us, that shall alway be able to justify our allegations, and writings better than the adversaries, that care not much, how falsely they speak or write. CHAP. II. An answer to Owlyglasses exceptions concerning thirteen falsifications pretended to be committed in M. Sutcliffes' late Challenge. Sect. I. Of two allegations of Epiphanius and Augustine pretended to be falsified. SICUT canis qui revertitur ad vomitum suum, saith Solomon, Proverb. 26. sic stultus qui iterat stultitiam suam. for if a fool have a toy, or fancy in his head, you shall hardly bring him from it. This appeareth plain by the foolish and fond devices of our adversaries, who having a conceit to work us some disgrace under pretence of untruths and falsifications, are still talking and prating of falsifications; wherein notwithstanding the cause being examined, all the disgrace will fall upon themselves. Robert Parsons being at Rome, and hearing of the conference, that had passed betwixt M. Plessis, and M. d' Eureux, would needs forsooth send a pamphlet concerning that matter into England, with a request, that a trial might also be made concerning allegations by men of our side with us, as it had passed before in France. The which pamphlet albeit he might see to have been answered two years agone, and his challenge concerning matters of falsification, to be accepted by me, and that I have begone to object against him divers notorious and most material falsifications, whereupon Romish religion seemeth to depend; yet is Owlyglasse our adversary still returning to his vomit, and still babbling of falsifications, himself being not able either to answer one word in defence of those falsifications, which I showed to have been committed by the Romish church, and principal men actors in the Pope's cause, or well able to declare, what falsification is, albeit by practice he be most cunning in it. And that appeareth by the first section of his third chapter page, 47. for albeit I do not set down any words either of Saint Augustine or Epiphanius, yet he pretendeth, that I have falsified both. A strange matter, that a man should commit a forgery in writing, and yet neither make, nor preduce any writings at all. But I quote them in the margin. for that he may allege in excuse of his dizardrie▪ as if every man that quoted an author in the margin, either unfitly, or erroneously, were to be charged with the crime of falsification. The worst therefore that he is able to say against me, is error, and mistaking, but if I have not erred or mistaken, ither Saint Augustine or Epiphanius, I hope, some cacolike massepriest will tell Owlyglasse, that himself was much overseen in the very first setting out of the harbour, which is a very evil presage, and a most certain sign, that he will make no good voyage, as long as he dealeth with me in this cause. That I have said truly, it will appear, by comparing S. Augustine's, and Epiphanius his words with mine. I say, the Heracleonites did anoint their followers departing out of this life, and gave them a certain kind of extreme unction. And I quote Augustine de haeres. c. 16. and Epiphanius de haeres. 36. Let us then see, whether S. Augustine and Epiphanius do not prove my words true. Heracleonitae saith he, feruntur suos morientes novo modo quasi redimere, id est, per oleum, balsamum & aquam. Likewise saith Epiphanius: H quandoque aliqui ex ipsis oleum aqua mixtum capiti defuncti immittunt. I say further, that those heretics said prayers for the dead. and that is proved both out of Augustine and Epiphanius. Augustine said they used certain invocations. invocationes saith he, quas Hebraicis verbis dicebant super capita, scilicet morientium. Hoc faciunt saith Epiphanius, ut hi qui has invocationes in vitae exitu accipiunt, cum aqua & oleo, aut vnguento permixtis incomprehensibiles siant. So it appeareth, that these heretics did anoint their Disciples with oil, hoping thereby to redeem them and save them. It appeareth also, that they said prayers over the dead, in a tongue not understood. Do not then the papists resemble them, greasing their disciples that are dying, and teaching them, that by this sacrament they are justified, and mumbling prayers over them in a tongue not understood of the assistants? But saith Owlyglasse, the matter of our extreme unction is only h●llowed oil▪ their's was oil, water, and balm▪ Page, 49. the form of ours is a short prayer; theirs a strange invocation in Hebrew words▪ the reason of ours is for the saving of the sick, the lifting of him up, and if he be in sins, that they may be forgiven him; theirs to make themselves invisible▪ ours is ministered on the five senses; theirs upon their head▪ ours before death, theirs after death. And this he proveth by alleging the words of Augustine and Epiphanius at large, to the wearying of his reader to no purpose. For we deny not any thing concerning this matter, which either Epiphanius or S. Augustine affirmeth. But all his allegation notwithstanding will not serve to clear the Papists from the blot of Heracleonisme. for admit they did not approve all their errors, and in all points, shall they therefore be discharged? Again, it is false, that the Heracleonites did anoint only the dead▪ for S. Augustine saith, quod suos morientes ungunt. so it may be they anointed them both before death and after. Again it is false, that the Heracleonites did not use a short prayer, and in a strange tongue. If then they borrow greasing and praying in a strange tongue over the dead from the Heracleonites, and hope to justify their disciples by these fond ceremonies; then I hope I have said true in comparing the Papists to Heracleonites. Nay I did them favour, that I said they were no worse than Heracleonites. for the massepriests oftentimes vex poor souls, that lie upon dying and are tormented otherwise with sickness, and tumble them sometime up and down in their beds, and percase kill them, that otherwise might according to moral conjectures have escaped. Beside that, they touch women very indecently, and very absurdly they put oil in men's eyes, noses, and ears. Finally, our adversary speaketh foolishly where he saith, extreme unction is ministered on the five senses. For that is a senseless thing to say, that the senses may be greased, and the Papists that speak orderly, say the instruments of the senses, & not the senses are anointed. He saith also further, that S. james Chap. 5. maketh mention of extreme unction. And that S. Augustine and Epiphanius number Aerius among Heretics for denying prayer for the dead▪ and that the Heracleonites did not say prayers for relief of men's souls in purgatory. But if it would do Owlyglasse any good, his fellows had need to say masses and dirges for him, albeit he be not yet in purgatory▪ so simply doth he handle his matters. For it is false, that S. james maketh mention of popish extreme unction, or that he thought that unction, which he speaketh of, to be a sacrament of the church; or that men were justified by that unction. Nay he doth not speak so much as one word of the institution or form of extreme unction. Secondly, albeit Aerius was condemned for denying the orders of the church, and not allowing the commemoration of the names of the dead, at the time of the celebration of the Lords supper, as then was used; yet that toucheth us nothing. For our Church hath taken away the superstitious abuses of the papists; and we do not willingly oppugn any order of the ancient church by laws established among us. Finally, albeit Epiphanius, and Augustine talk of prayers for the dead; yet did they not think, that only those were to be prayed for, or remembered in the holy ministration of the sacrament, that were in purgatory▪ for they rehearsed the names of good and bad. And it may be, the Heracleonites did also believe a certain purgatory▪ for else why should they pray for the dead, especially, if our adversaries argue well? Finally he asketh, Pag. 50. with what conscience I could so entreat the fathers in concealing their words. As if Owlyglasse himself did not conceal Epiphanius his words concerning Aerius, whom he chargeth with Arianisme, and other heresies, and not only for denying prayer for the dead. I answer then his fond question, that I had no reason to rehearse Augustine's or Epiphanius his words, otherwise than I did, alleging them only to one point, which I intended to prove: and that I did justly and truly. Neither can any man except against my doing therein, unless Owlyglasse would have men to cite whole chapters. And as for Owlyglasse, he may hold his peace with shame enough, unless he can speak better for his clients. Sect. II. That Epiphanius was fitly alleged page 49. of my former Challenge. THe like vanity doth Owlyglasse show in taxing me for alleging the testimony of Epiphanius. for the words that I cite, are truly described. The other testimonies I do not describe, but only quote them. Wherein then consisteth this high point of falsification? Forsooth saith he, because he doth most untruly charge us, as coming near to Martions' heresy▪ but this is not falsification, as he might have known, if he had known any thing. Nay it is not untruth neither▪ for as Martion suffered women to baptise, and extolled virginity although he was a false lecher, and taught abstinence from living creatures, and separated marriage for religion, as is before declared in the 4. chapter of my challenge, so do Papists suffer women to baptise, and their lecherous priests, albeit they extol virginity and abjure marriage, yet live most dissolutely. Their Monks abstain from flesh, and they use to separate marriages for religion, and all this Owlyglasse was contented to pass over in silence, as if it had been delivered unto him under the seal of confession, although the same was plainly and publicly objected in my former challenge, and was easy to be found, being set down in the same place, where he supposeth, that I have committed this foresaid falsification. But saith he, he doth falsify Epiphanius, wresting him contrary to his meaning▪ as if Bellarmine were to be charged with falsification as oft, as he doth wrest places contrary to the meaning of the authors. He saith also, that I conceal his words▪ but he must be a miraculous fellow, that will make him a falsifier, that doth not so much as allege any writing. Such a simple fellow is Owlyglasse, with whom I do contend, that the poor fellow cannot tell what he would say. I will therefore help to tell his tale, and show that he is the falsifier, and not I. In my challenge I do charge the Papists, as savouring of divers points of heresy maintained by Martion, and his followers. Among other things I say, that Martion taught that by Christ's descending into hell divers men's souls were thence delivered, and that he separated marriages for religion. And afterwards I add, that the Papists savour strongly of these heresies, and namely, in that they separate marriages contracted after vows, & by vows break marriages before contracted, and also in that they defend that divers men's souls were delivered out of limbus patrum, which is a place in hell, as they confess. All this Owlyglasse iumbleth together concealing two or three sentences, and setting down what he pleaseth▪ he is therefore without colour taken in the act of falsification. As for me, he cannot charge with any such trick; nor justly say, that I either set down Epiphanius his words falsely, or speak untruly. But saith he, Martion held, that jews and Infidels were delivered out of hell, which we believe not, and therefore we are not to be charged with Marcionisme. neither do I charge them otherwise, then savouring of that heresy. And this is most true▪ for albeit they agree not in particulars; yet both Marcionistes and Papists believe, that souls may be delivered out of hell. Nay they are not ashamed to teach, that by the prayers of Gregory, Traian's soul and the soul of an idolater called Falconilla were delivered out of hell, which Owlyglasse confesseth to be Martions opinion. And if souls may be delivered out of hell (which is the place of the damned, as appeareth by divers testimonies of scriptures) why may not wicked men's souls be delivered out of hell? Finally he quoteth the fourth council of Toledo c. 1. Ignatius his Epistle ad Trallianos. cyril's Catech. 4. Epiphanius haeres. 46. Hierome upon the 4. to the Ephes. Gregory's morals lib. 13. c. 20. But the silly fellow had drunk too much, when he calculated his distempered exceptions▪ for else I believe, that he would have remembered, that we do not dispute here, what the fathers hold concerning limbus patrum, but whether Epiphanius were truly alleged, or not. He told us in the beginning, that he would make his readers see and feel falsifications, and that by opening the books, as it were, with a wet finger▪ and yet here he is not able to show any such matter with all the skill he hath. Nay if falsification be committed, when fathers are falsely alleged, then is this Owlyglasse a notorious falsificator. For not one of them once speaketh or mentioneth limbus patrum. Nor is Bellar. albeit farther travailed in the fathers than Owlygl. able to find limbus patrum in the father's writings, or that they distinguish hell into parts, or provinces, or speak of Abraham's bosom, as the Papists do. And that may plainly appear by Bellarmine's dispute de anima Christi cap. 14. from whence our adversary borrowed all his broken quotations, and allegations touching this point; if any man list to read the place. Sect. III. Of Epiphanius his words concerning the worship of Angels. TO prove that the Caians were reputed heretics for the worshipping of Angels and praying bnto them, I allege the words of Epiphanius Haeres. 38. unusquisque eorum uniuscuiusque angeli nomen invocat. Here my adversary saith, that I have chopped of some words in the midst of the sentence▪ but if I had said thus, that Epiphanius speaking of the Caians, saith, they call upon several Angels: then this accusation of Owlyglasse had fallen to the ground, for all the chopping, that I used was to join the nominative case with the verb▪ such heinous matters are they, that Owlyglasse objecteth against me▪ he saith also, that I curtold the latter end of the sentence. As if it were not absurd, when a man citeth a father to a point, to allege that which maketh nothing to the point. Besides that, the words which I omitted, do rather make against the Papists, then for them▪ for as the Caians do call sometime on true Angels, sometime on those which they suppose to be Angels; so do Papists in their prayers pray to Vriell, and other supposed Angels. They also pray to the Angel, which they suppose to be their keeper, as grossly as the Caians, saying, obsecro te Angelice spiritus, cui ego indignus peccator ad providendum commissus sum, In hortulo animae paris. excus. anno. 1565. desinenter protegas, defendas, mundes, munies me. they pray to Angels to be cleansed from their sins▪ and afterward, notum mihi facias finem meum, diemque obitus mei. That is, make me know my end, and the day of my death: as if Angels did know such things. But saith Owlyglasse, he hath perfidiously perverted the whole sense of that father. But if he and his consorts did use no more perfidious dealing against their prince and country, than I have done in this case they would not so perfidiously combine themselves with foreign enemies. As for this charge of perfidiousness, it falleth not upon me▪ for I do allege Epiphanius to prove only, that the Caians did worship and invocat Angels. And this I have proved out of his words most justly & truly. But had I mistaken his meaning, yet is not that falsification, but an error: where as commonly the detector both falsifieth and erreth. Being therefore not able to say much concerning the point in question, Owlyglasse asketh me, with conscience I could charge his consorts the Papists with the abominable heresy of the Caians. But this is another accusation far from the purpose. Beside that, I showed him the point of the charge, & told him as plain as I could, that both Papists and Caians worship Angels. But saith he, do we teach that each Angel hath done some horrible sin upon earth? or do we invocat false Angels, or any Angel at all in that sort, that the Caians did? And in the end, he crieth out, what is lying, what is falsification, if this be not? But his reader hath reason to cry out rather, what is foolery, what is dizardry, if this be not? For I do not charge the Papists in all points to agree with the Caians. Neither can the Papists discharge themselves of the note of heresy, if in any sort they agree with the Caians. but that did I declare plainly, & Owliglasse cannot deny, that both Caians, and Papists worship and call upon Angels. Again it appeareth, that the Caians were condemned not for calling upon false Angels only, as Owlyglasse doth insinuate, but upon true Angels. uniuscuiusque Angeli nomen invocat, tum eorum qui sunt Angeli, saith Epiphanius, tum eorum qui ficte dicuntur Angeli. It appeareth therefore, that Epiphanius accounted them heretics that worshipped true angels, and not only false angels as Owlyglasse falsely supposeth. But if the Papists could avoid that charge; yet if they worship new orders of angels, and their angelical keepers, it should seem, they cannot avoid the charge of calling upon false Angels. Finally as the Caians called upon angels having committed great sins, so the adulterous and sodomitciall Priests confess their great sins to angels, and desire their help. In the old ordinal of Rome printed at Rome anno. 159. and dedicated to Sixtus quintus, every priest in this common form of confession beginning confiteor deo omnipotenti, saith, peccavi in Sodomia. Owlyglasse therefore may do well to try his skill, if he can clear his consorts of this blot also. But he must beware, that he blur them not as well with sodomy, as he hath blotted them with the worship of angels, being not able to touch any of the rest of my arguments, which are divers. So brave a patron is Owlyglasse of the Popish cause. Sect. FOUR Of the heresy of Manicheyes in condemning marriage of their Priests. Having shifted his hands after a poor sort of the heresy of the Cai●ns, Owlyglasse in his jades pace passeth forth to treat of the heresy of Manicheyes, But I fear he will yield his consorts no better satisfaction in this place, than in the other. He saith according to his wont vain of railing, that I make no scruple to falsify Saint Augustine, and to conceal his true report, to infame the Papists with the heresy of the Manicheyes. But see I pray you the simplicity of Owlyglasse. I do not so much as allege S. Augustine's words▪ how then can he say, that I do falsify him? Secondly, I do not conceal any part of his meaning, that belongeth to the matter in question▪ other points that were far from the purpose I had no reason to report, seeing I do not say, that the Papists are in all points Manicheyes. My words therefore will easily clear me of both my adversaries his imputations. The Papists say I, agree with the Manicheyes in divers points of heresies▪ for as the Manicheyes condemned marriage in their Priests, which for their excellency they called electos, so likewise do the Papists in their Monks, and greater orders of their clergy. It appeareth therefore, that I do not falsify Saint Augustine, as this false and foolish fellow saith. For you see, and he must needs confess, I set not down his words▪ neither do I conceal his true report. For that which I say of the electi, or priests of the Manicheyes, is most true, and to be proved by S. Augustine, which is the reason, that I quote that father in the margin. auditores qui appellantur apud eos saith S. Augustine speaking of the Manicheyes, Epist. 74. & carnibus vescuntur & agros colunt, & si volverint, uxores habent, quorum nihil faciunt qui vocantur el●cti. He saith, the lay people or auditors of the Manicheyes have wives, if they will, but the Priests among them h●ue none. In this therefore the Papists savour of Manicheisme. Further, their Monks abstain from flesh, as did the electi of the Manicheyes. Thirdly, they hold, that Christ's body may be in many places at once, which S. Augustine disputing against Faustus showeth, to be a conceit of the Manicheyes. They do also grate upon divers other points of Manicheisme, as I do object in my Challenge, and Owlyglasse seemeth to confess by his silence: especially if silence be a kind of confession, as it is in cases that law and reason doth bind us to answer. But saith Owlyglasse, why doth he not t●ll us out of S. Augustine de haeresibus, Page, 58. what the heresy of the Manicheyes was? as if it were not sufficient to declare, what their heresy was out of other books of S. Augustine, and other authors. Doth he believe, that because S. Augustine doth not note down all points, that they are no heresies? But saith he, it appeareth by S. Augustine de haeresis. c. 46. that the Manicheyes forbade marriage to all. He saith also, that Papists maintain no such damnable doctrine▪ but that of the general prohibition is reproved by S. Augustine's words before alleged. Neither is t● material, that they forbade generation▪ for it is one thing to forbid marriage, and an other to forbid generation, the Popes and popish priests forswearing marriage, and not generation, as appeareth plainly by the multitude of their bastards. Beside that, in some things the Papists seem also with the Manicheyes to condemn generation, allowing public stews, and not remedying more unnatural abuses, of which no generation ensueth. I hope therefore hereafter Owlyglasse will not charge me, either with falsification, or unjust dealing in this point, the filthiness of popish priests, and their abstinence from honourable marriage approaching so near to the filthy errors of the Manicheyes. Sect. V Of the heresy of the Pepuzians. Here our adversary spendeth some idle talk about the heresy of the Pepuzians. But if he had but cast his broad eyes on the title of his chapter; he might have well perceived and remembered, that he took upon him to convince me of some notorious falsification; and how that was the subject of his chapter, and that all the rest of his discourse was idle and impertinent. He showeth himself also to be a notable idiot, to charge me with falsifiing S. Augustine, when I do neither cite S. Augustine's words, nor name him. He was also some what to hasty to charge me, with belying the Papists, in that I make them like to the Pepuzians. For my words do clear me of the first, and the practice of Papists doth justify my words in the second. I say, that both Papists and Pepuzians suffer women to administer baptism. But Saint Augustine's words to this point I do not quote, but only to a former matter concerning the honour by the Pepuzians given to Pepuza, as my book will show, and Owliglasse, if he were not owlesighted, might have seen. That the Papists are like to Pepuzians (albeit this should not have been disputed in this place) it appeareth First, for that as the Pepuzians did honour the town of Pepuza, as Jerusalem, and the mother Church of all christendom, so do the Papists honour Rome, and believe that see, to be a Rock, and a divine thing. Hanc isti (scilicet Pepuzam) saith Saint Augustine, De haeres. c. 27. divinum aliquid esse arbitrantes, Jerusalem vocant. The Papists think no less of Rome. Secondly both Papists and Pepuzians suffer women to minister baptism. Thirdly, the Pepuzians had women prophetesses. mulieres apud istos saith Epiphanius, Haeres. 49. vocantur prophetissae. So likewise the Papists have their women prophetesses, Hortul animae. excus. paris. 1565. as appeareth by Hildigardis, Mechtildis, Brigit, and others. They also call the blessed Virgin Oraculum Prophetarum, and the teacher of the Apostles. Fourthly, the Pepuzians had women Priests. Episcopi apud ipsos, saith Epiphanius, sunt mulieres. The Papists in this point pass them. For among them a woman was Pope, as is testified by Martin Polonus, Marianus Scotus, Platina, and divers others. Now what saith the falsificator, and grand excoriatour of men's writings to all this? First, he confesseth, that it is most true, that his consorts permit women to baptise. But our Saviour sent his disciples to baptise, and not any women. Neither did he give to women that power. Further we may not think, that women may with better right Baptize, then preach. Yet the Apostle, permitteth not a woman to speak in the congregation, Haeres. 49. and Epiphanius allegeth that place of the Apostle against the Pepuzians. Why then should not Pepuzians and Papists in this case be like? Secondly, he goeth about to show, that the Pepuzians, and Papists are unlike, and namely for that the Papists do permit women to baptise only in time of necessity. And for that the Pepuzians did give priesthood to women. In which two points he would infer, that there is a main difference betwixt Papists & Pepuzians. But his conclusion is so simple, that it can abide no touch. For he is an heretic, that holdeth any point condemned for heresy, & not those only which do jump with heretics in all points, and circumstances. If then the Papists should differ in two, or three points from Pepuzians; yet must they needs savour of that heresy, in permitting women to baptise, and deriving the succession of Popes from Pope joane, and other particulars before rehearsed. Finally he would willingly prove the unlawfulness of wemens' baptism by the practice of our Church. For saith he, the same doctrine is found in the communion book in the treatise of private baptism: where albeit women are nor mentioned, yet for that women are then present only, they are expressed. He affirmeth also, that M. Hooker doth defend women's baptism, & that I must defend it, unless I will change my opinion. But while he goeth about to excuse his consorts, he runneth himself into danger, and like a shameless fellow boldly avoucheth divers untruths. For first the practice of the Church of England is against women's baptism, and divers Popish callet's have been punished for attempting to administer that holy sacrament. Secondly, the book doth express no such matter, as Owlyglasse pretendeth, but only would have children in extremity baptised privately, which may be done by the minister, if the parents and friends of the child be diligent. Thirdly, M. Hooker never was of that opinion, that the communion book allowed private baptism, as Owlygl. impudently affirmeth. Nay, albeit he will not deny such baptism to be of validity▪ yet he saith, that such persons as do baptise infants, being no ministers, do unlawfully usurp the ministers office. But Owlyglasse alleging M. hooker's first book p. 62. for the fift book sect. 62. seemeth not to have read the book, which he quoteth. Finally for myself I answer that he cannot with any devise make it appear, that in this point, or any other, I do oppugn, or digress from the communion book. Owlyglasse therefore may do well to bring better stuff, if he will convince me of falsification, and to cease to talk of tippets and caps, himself having as much learning almost in his cap as in his head, and so well deserving a Tyburn tippet for his treacherous Divinity. In the mean while let him put on a pair of spectacles, and he shall see, that he was much deceived, where he saith, I do guilefully quote S. Augustine. For to this point of women's baptism I quote him not at all. Sect. VI Of the heresy of barefooted brethren. OF Heretics, that went barefoot, Owlyglasse speaketh very nakedly, poorly and barely. If the men he speaketh of, had been like to his discourse, they should not only have been called Nudipedales for their going barefoot, but Adamitae for going naked. He promised to convince me of falsification. but here forgetting his argument, he chargeth me for not setting down S. Augustine's words. As if it were a crime, not to set down impertinent words; or as if all lawyers and divines, that refer themselves to places not set down, were to be accused in so doing. For the matter itself, Owlyglasse cannot take any just exception unto my speech, unless he will deny, that barefooted brethren were numbered among heretics, or that the franciscans, and Excalceatae and Capuchins go barefoot. Neither is it material that Augustine c. 64. de haeres. doth account these fellows heretics, for that they went barefoot upon a misunderstanding of scriptures, and not for penance. For it is not the misconstruing of places only, but the very evil opinion, that heretics hold, that maketh them heretics. Admit then, that Capuchins, Franciscans and their dear sisters the Excalceatae go barefoot upon other reasons, than the old barefooted heretics; yet in the substance of their opinion, that is in the singularity of going barefoot, both of them do well agree. Unless therefore this masked brother of the Capuchins Owlyglasse can bring better ground of his accusation, he hath no reason on the behalf of his barefooted brethren and sisters, to complain of injurious slander. But contrariwise we have reason to wish, that seeing he will needs go masked, he would take a shoe laid aside by some one of his holy barefooted sisters, and make a mask of it to cover his false visage, that no honest man may ever know so impudent and foolish a wrangler. Sect. VII. Of S. Augustine's relation concerning the Priscillianists. SAint Augustine speaking of the Priscillianists saith, Haeres. 70. they disjoined married folks for religion sake. And these words I quote most truly. why then am I charged by Owlyglasse with falsification? Forsooth saith he, because ye leave out the words following. But if this were a rule to prove falsification, then would it be proved, that Bellarmine hath falsified almost all the places, he quoteth. for he in most places leaveth out words following; yea and sometimes words going before, and coming in the midst. To show the agreement of Papists and Priscillianists in one point, I leave out nothing. that they agree in all points, I do not affirm. Yet in making sleight account of oaths, they both do well agree. And in this point also, wherein our adversary pretendeth disagreement, yet they agree better, than Owlyglasse thinketh. For albeit Papists in open terms do not say, marriage is unlawful; yet if those, that are married, live in the flesh, as is said in a decretal under the name of Syricius, and if married folks be a state imperfect, and cannot please God, as divers stiffly hold; then by a consequent the Papists condemn marriage. Finally, if that was a property of Priscillianists to separate married folks one from another against the will of either party, then in separating marriages not consummate, the Papists are Priscillianists by the confession of Owlyglasse. They are also in this Priscillianists, that they keep married couples a sunder being once separated by ●…nsent, and will not let them come together again, although they much desire it. Of which point I have discoursed more at large in the chapter going before▪ which may abate his rage in crying out of falsifications and lies, if he be not altogether furious, and beside himself. Sect. VIII. That Infidel's sin in all their moral actions. OF the Pelagian heresy now lately revived by the Papists, I have spoken already sufficiently in my former treatise chap. 4. I did also deliver divers arguments and testimonies in my late Challenge to prove Papists to be Pelagians, which if Owlyglasse had been the man he taketh himselte to be, he would have encountered and answered. but he poor idiot had no such stuff in him. Therefore denying not that Papists and Pelagians agree well in the definition of sin, and that they jointly hold, that a man may be without sin, and that both maintain that concupiscence is sanctified after baptism, after a sort, and divers other points of Pelagianisme, he only snatcheth at three or four places of S. Augustine, and so with a mask on his broad face passeth on to play the Zanni in other matters. Where I say, that Saint Augustine holdeth against the Pelagians, that the Gentiles sinned in all their actions: he saith, I bely S. Augustine, and maliciously pervert the sense and scope of his writing. Afterward he denieth, that it is Pelagianisme, to hold that Infidel's sin in all their actions. Again he saith, that this point is forged by me, and falsely fathered upon S. Augustine. And so he runneth on in a vain of railing, led on as it seemeth by his dictates, and not reading the place alleged. for otherwise he would never so impudently have faced out an untruth, nor ignorantly denied that, which is to plainly, and in divers places of the chapter quoted, by S. Augustine affirmed. And of this I will make any indifferent man judge. Lib. 4. contr. julian. c. 3. Cum non ad suum finem saith S. Augustine, referuntur dona dei, hoc ipso mali his utentes efficiuntur iniusti. He saith, that wicked men using Gods gifts, are made sinners and unjust, for that they refer them not to the right end. And afterward, si gentilis, qui non vivit ex fide, nudum operuerit, periclitantem liberaverit, aegri vulnera foverit, divitias honestae amicitiae impenderlt, ad testimonium falsum nec tormentis potuerit impelli, quaero abs te, saith Augustine to julian the Pelagian, utrum haec opera bona bene faciat an male? Si enim quamuis bona, malè tamen facit, negare non potes eum peccare, qui malè quodlibet facit. He saith plainly, that Gentiles sin in all their actions, though the act be good. Again, bonum malè facit, qui infideliter facit, qui autem malè facit, profectò peccat. Again he saith, that Infidel's sin in doing that, which of itself is good. He doth also prove it out of the Apostles words, because, that whatsoever is not of faith, is sin. If then the Archpriest have any power over this railing fellow; he may do well to give him some discipline, that hath maintained julian the Pel●gians opinion, and denied S. Augustine's doctrine, and like an ignorant dolt crieth out, that I have forged these words and fathered them upon S. Augustine. But saith he, S. Augustine doth not note this error in the Pelagians, viz. that Infidel's sin in all their actions, but reproveth the heretic for a different matter, to wit, for maintaining that Infidels had true virtues. and to this point he reporteth a sentence out of S. Augustin. But therein he doth also bewray his ignorance. for as S. Augustine disputeth this point in the beginning of the chapter, so he disputeth the other in the latter end of the same chapter. But either our adversary had not so much learning, as to understand latin, or else he took this quotation out of Bellarmine, or out of his dictates. Again, our adversary showeth himself to be blind, not seeing, that, what I say, doth follow of that, which himself allegeth. For if Infidels have no true virtues; then do they sin in all their actions, unless our adversary will have their moral actions neither to be good, nor bad. Furthermore, if the will of Infidels be like an evil tree; then can it bring forth nothing, but evil fruit. And if whatsoever is not of faith, is sin; then if the actions of Infidels do not proceed of faith; it followeth that Infidel's sin in all their moral actions. and this is the conclusion of S. Augustine. Was not Owlyglasse then a wise fellow trow you, to avouch an untruth so impudently? and do you not take him to be a simple disputer, that allegeth words, that convince him of folly, ignorance, and pelagianism? Sect. IX. That man is not able now in this frailty of nature to perform the law of God perfectly. THis point hath also heretofore been debated. it resteth therefore now, that we examine only Saint Augustine's opinion herein. I say, that this is the Pelagians argument to prove, that man is able to perform the law of God, because that God would not, say they, command things impossible. And this I prove by Saint Augustine's words lib. de gratia. c. 16. Magnum aliquid se scire putant Pelagiani, quando dicunt, non iuberet deus, quod sciret ab homine non posse perfici. His words are clear, that the Pelagians used so to say, and argue, as I have set down. What is then the reason, that moved my adversary to charge me with falsification? Forsooth saith he, because he leaveth out these words following of S. Augustine, quis haec nesciat? As if every one, that leaveth out words following, were to be charged with falsification. Beside that, albeit words following were to be rehearsed; yet purposing only to rehearse the argument of the Pelagians, I had no reason to join Saint Augustine's words with theirs. But saith Owlyglasse, S. Augustine reprehendeth not the Pelagians for bringing this reason. But therein he showeth his ignorance, if not malice. For what reasonable man cold ever have imagined, that S. Augustine disputing against the Pelagians did either allow their opinions, or their grounds? But if a man cold have imagined so, yet S. Augustine's words that follow, would have taught him, that he disputeth against the Pelagians argument. For saith he, God doth command us things, that we cannot do, that we may learn, what to ask of him. For faith by prayer obtaineth that, which the law commandeth. His words are: ideo jubet aliqua, quae non possumus, ut noverimus quid ab eo petere debeamus. Lib. de great. & lib. arb. c. 16. ipsa est enim fides, quae orando impetrat, quod lex postulat. Now what can be more contrary than that, which the Pelagians say Viz. That God would not command, if man were not able to perform; And that which S. Augustine teacheth, Viz. That God commandeth us some things, that we cannot do? Furthermore if man were able to perform the whole law, because God would not else command it; then were it possible, for just men to live without all sin; which Saint Augustine in his books against Pelagius, and where he setteth down the Pelagians heresies, doth note to be flat Pelagianisme. with Saint Augustine also doth Herome accord. Fateberis saith Critobulus, Lib. 3. contra Pelag. that sustaineth the part of the Pelagians, eos qui Christi baptisma consecuti sunt, non habere peccatum, &, si absque peccato sunt, justos esse. That is thou wilt, I trow, acknowledge, that such as are baptised have no sin, and if they have no sin, that they be just. But if man be able to keep God's commandments; then may he also be perfectly just, and without sin▪ our adversary therefore hath no reason in this place to call me, a notable falsifier. But every indifferent man may see, that it standeth him upon to clear himself of Pelagianisme▪ he must also understand Saint Augustine better, before he dispute of his doctrine of free-will, which is, so repugnant to school divinity, as nothing more. Thomas Brandwardine doubted not to charge the schoolmen with flat Pelagianisme. In lib. de gratia & libero arbitrio. Sect. X. Of the subjection of sin to our will. IN my challenge pag. 59 I allege these words of the Pelagians, that we have free-will strong, and firm, not to sin. And this I confirm by Saint Augustine, who ascribeth these words to the Pelagians. But my adversary being but a novice in Saint Augustine's writings was not able to find them, and finding them not, or not well discerning them, see I pray you, how rudely he cometh upon me. False it is, saith he, that Saint Augustine holdeth it to be Pelagianisme to say, that we have free-will: or that sin is subject to our will. He addeth of his own these words, that we have free-will, as if I had simply denied all freedom of will, or as if that were here the question betwixt us. And afterward he saith, the place which he quoteth, find I cannot, and therefore do confidently challenge him of playing false under board. But see, I pray you, the blindness and impudence of this paltry companion▪ the words, which I cite, are found in Saint Augustine's first book de gratia christi contra Pelagium & Celestium. c. 28. Cum tam forte, inquit (scilicet Pelagius) tam firmum ad non peccandum liberum in nobis habeamus arbitrium, quod generaliter naturae humanae creator inseruit, rursus pro eius inaestimabili benignitate quotidiano munimur auxilio. Seeing we have so strong and firm free-will in us, not to sin, which God the creator generally hath inserted into man's nature, again of his inestimable bounty we are strengthened by his daily help. Hereby it appeareth, that Pelagius taught, that sin was so subject to our will, as that thereby we were able to avoid sin. And that this is oppugned by Saint Augustine, it appeareth in the words following. quid opus est saith he, hoc auxilio, si tam forte ac firmum est ad non peccandum liberum arbitrium? I hope therefore the Papists will be ashamed of their champion, the ground of whose brags is ignorance. But saith Owlyglasse, Saint Augustine never denied free-will. As if I had said, that he did, or else because we have free-will after a sort, that therefore we have free-will and power not to sin. This the poor idiot imagineth: and therefore he produceth divers places out of S. Augustine. But I do not speak one word against free-will, but of the strength of free-will, to hold sin in subjection, and to abstain from sin and that this is plain Pelagianisme, it appeareth both by Saint Augustine in the place already quoted, and by S. Jerome lib. 3. contra Pelagianos. Nay our adversary denying, that my words are to be found in Saint Augustine, himself afterward unawares pag. 73. doth cite them out of S. Augugustine: showing himself therein a vain, and ignorant brabbler. Finally Owlyglasse by producing divers places out of S. Augustine, where free-will is mentioned, imagineth that in the controversy of free-will, he joineth with the Papists, and is contrary to us. But that he shall never be able to prove. nay he denieth, that man hath such a strength of free-will, that he is able to abstain from sin▪ which notwithstanding both Pelagians and Papists hold▪ we also deny not, but God by his grace is able of unwilling to make us willing, and willingly to walk in the ways of his commandments; and that by his own free-will, man doth commit sin, which is the sum of S. Augustine's doctrine of free-will, of which I may say freely, that Owlyglasse is ignorant. But what need I to stand longer upon this point, seeing the question is not here of free-will, or the power thereof, but whether I alleged Saint Augustine truly or not? what need I, then to make any long discourse of that which I have already sufficiently cleared? Sect. XI. Of the representing of God by images. IN this section Owlyglasse doth charge me with no less fault, then injurious slander, Pag. 75. &. 76. & malicious falsification And why? forsooth because I say, that the men of Trent do permit the divinity to be figured and affirm, that this doth savour of the heresy of the Anthropomorphites. Let us therefore consider the words of the assembly of Trent, and the practice of papists in this point. If it shall happen sometime, Sess. 25. council Trident. say the men of Trent, that the histories of scripture for the profit of the people, be expressed in imagery or pictures, let the people be taught, that the divinity is not therefore figured, as if it might be seen with the eyes of the body, or expressed with figures▪ the words in latin are, quod si aliquando historias & na●rationes sacrae scripturae, cum id indoctae plebi expediet, figurari contigerit, doceatur populus, non propterea divinitatem figurari, quasi oculis conspici, aut figuris exprimi possit. So it is apparent, that they forbidden not God the father, and the holy ghost also to be expressed in imagery, or painted, when any history or narration of scripture requireth the same, but the people must be taught, what to understand by these images and pictures. In exp●icat. 1. praecepti. The Roman catechism likewise teacheth, that the divine majesty is injuried, if any shall endeavour by art to express the form of the divinity, as if that might with eyes be seen, or colours and images expressed. Which showeth, that the papists forbidden not men to make the image of God the Father in the form of an old man, or the holy Ghost in the similitude of a dove, but to believe, that the divinity itself may be figured with colours, or seen. Likewise, the common practice of the church of Rome is, to figure the person of the Father in the image of an old man, and the holy Ghost in the likeness of a dove. If then God the Father be like an old man, or the holy ghost like a dove; then do the Papists savour of the heresy of the Anthropomorphites. If these images do not resemble God the Father, and God the holy Ghost; why are they permitted? Finally, why do papists paint and grave the holy trinity, and to the image thereof set up lights, and give the worship, that is due to God himself? The rehearsal therefore of the act of the assembly of Trent, and the doctrine of the Romish Catechism, doth rather intricate Owlyglasse, then acquit him. The same certes doth clearly discharge me from my adversaries clamorous accusation. Sect. XII. Of the definition of a Romish Catholic. THat the Romish religion, as it differeth from that religion, which we profess in England, is nothing but a pack of impostures, lies, fables, and superstitious toys, I shall have occasion to declare at full in some other treatise. But least any might think, that I wronged the see of Rome, from whom all these abuses are derived; I would pray every man, that hath skill and leisure with indifferency to read the Legends of the Romish Church, the Rubtikes of the mass, their ritual and ceremonial books, their treatises of the Pope's authority, the fabulous lies of Caesar Baronius, that filthy lying Cardinal, and such like testimonials as they prove their religion by. Now we will only talk of the definition of a Romish Catholic, that every man may see, what a bare fellow he is, and how little religion and honesty he hath. I say that Bellarmine teacheth, that he is a good Romish Catholic, and a true member of the Romish church, that professeth the Romish faith, and communicateth with the Romanistes in their sacraments, and is obedient to the Pope: yea although he have neither inward faith, nor charity, nor other inward virtue. And thereupon I conclude, that the Papists are like to the Eunomians, that taught, that so a man were of their religion, it skilled not, what sins he committed. That Bellarmine so teacheth, it is apparent by his words in his second chapter de ecclesia militanti. Nostra sententia est, saith he, ecclesiam unam esse, & non duas, & illam unam & veram, coetum hominum eiusdem christianae fidei professione, & eorundem sacramentorum communione colligatum sub regimine legitimorum pastorum, ac praecipuè unius Christi in terris vicarij Romani pontificis. And afterward he saith: Non putamus requiri ullam internam virtutem, sed tantum externam professionem fidei, & sacramentorum communionem: scilicet, ut aliquis aliquo modo dici possit pars verae ecclesiae, de qua scripturae loquuntur. If then he be a good Roman catholic, of whom, the true definition of a Roman catholic may be affirmed, then may all wicked and damnable heretics be true Romish catholics, if they profess the Romish faith, and communicate with the Romanists in sacraments, and submit themselves to the Pope. But saith Owlyglasse Bellarmine saith not, that such as want inward verrues, are good Catholics, but only, that they are true members of the Church. As if the true members of Christ's church were not good catholics; or as if he were not a good citizen, of whom the definition of a citizen may truly be affirmed: and as if he could not be a good, and true pope, that is no good man. Of which point our adversary must beware, lest he touch too rudely the sores of his holy father, and of a pope make no pope. He saith further, that this objection of Eunomianisme is rather to be charged upon Lutherans and Caluinists (for so this papal swad doth call Christians) and upon M. Willet, they giving excessive prerogatives to faith, and such as teach, that a true faith cannot be lost. But albeit he take his pleasure to rail upon me; yet should he forbear to wrong those, that are either at rest, or at the least never wronged him. And in this place having his hands so full of me, he might well have spared to contend with others, being no match for any. To his charge I answer, that Eunomius his heresies touch us nothing. For neither do we deem them good Christians, as Eunomius did, that have no inward faith, nor works; nor did Eunomius talk of the faith of Christ jesus, as we do, when we say the just shall live by faith, but of his own new devised faith. Owlyglasse therefore hath no reason, for any thing done by me, to cry out, that Bellarmine is abused, and his words falsified; nor to charge us with Eunomius his heresy. But his consorts will, and justly may think him an idle fellow, if he can no better either clear himself, or convince others, especially taking upon him to do both. Sect. XIII. Of second marriages, and whether the Papists dislike them, or no. THe last place out of which our adversary goeth about to fasten an imputation of falsification upon me is, for that I say, that the Papists like to the Montanists dislike second marriages, and deny to bless them, accounting these marriages not so holy a sacrament, as the first. And this he saith is a slander, for that Papists do not mislike second marriages. But here, as before oftentimes, he forgetteth the subject of his discourse▪ for he should have convinced me of falsifications, if he had remembered, what he had in hand. And yet in this place he doth not so much as touch any place by me alleged, or supposed to be falsified. Only to convince himself of notorious ignorance, he hath quoted a marginal note belonging not to this, but to the next place (as he might have perceived by the direction, if he had not been blind) and hath set the same over against my words in this place, as if I had proved my sayings of the montanists by Damascens chapter beginning, Christianocategori, in his book de haeresibus. such a learned adversary have we to deal withal. I answer further, that I do not slander the Papists, as my adversary chargeth me, when I say, that they savour of Montanisme in disliking second marriages▪ for their counterfeit canons do pronounce them punishable by excommunication, that marry more than once. De his qui frequenter uxores ducunt, say they, & de his, quae saepius nubunt, 31. q 1. de hi● tempus quidem poenitentiae his manifestum constitutum est. And afterward: Cum praecipiatur, say they, Ibidem secundis nuptijs poenitentiam tribuere, quis erit presbyter qui propter conuivium illis consentiat nuptijs. It appeareth therefore that they enjoined penance for second marriages, as for a grievous crime: and forbade the priest, to be present at the feast of such married folks. Beside that, they do not allow, that a Priest shall bless the second marriage: nor do they account the second marriage to be so holy a sacrament, as the first. Finally, Syricius calleth married folks, C. Plurimos. dist. 82. and defenders of priests marriages followers of lusts, and teachers of vices, sectatores libidinum, C. proposuisti. Ibidem. & praeceptores vitiorum. And Innocentius, as if they were unholy, and could not please God, and were in the flesh, excludeth married folks from the ministery of the altar. Which showeth, that they savour of Montanisme, if not worse. But saith Owlyglasse, if it be Montanisme, to deny second marriages to be so holy a sacrament, as the first, what then be they, that deny first and second marriages, to be any sacrament at all? But this is a bald kind of disputing, to propose a man's argument, otherwise, than he frameth it. We do not say, they be Montanists in denying the second marriages to be a sacrament, but that they savour of Montanisme in disliking second marriages, and preferring the first before the second. Of which that is an argument, that the Papists account not the second marriage so holy a sacrament, as the first. Secondly, he denieth that Papists mislike second marriages▪ but the Canon de his 31. q. 1. doth testify against him. He saith thirdly, that the blessing of the first marriage remaineth▪ and that therefore they bless not second marriages, because they had blessed them before. But how doth the blessing of the first marriage remain, when a maid is married to a widow? Further, the Canon de his 31. q. 1. showeth, that second marriages were punished with penance, and priests forbidden to be present at the feast, as if such marriages were impure, and unlawful. He would four prove, that second marriages are not to be blessed by the testimony of S. Augustine serm. 243. de tempore, and the 7. Canon of the council of Neocaesarea. But after his cogging manner he belieth S. Augustine, who speaketh nothing of the blessing of the second marriages, nor of the blessing of the priest, but rather of God's blessing denied to such, as keep first concubines, and then marry. The council of Neocaesarea hath nothing of the blessing of second marriages, but enjoineth priests to abstain from such marriage feasts, and condemneth them as unlawful▪ so that, I doubt, Owlyglasse will hardly, without some sly distinction, be able to defend this counsels act. He saith finally, that Montanists were not counted heretics for not blessing the second marriages, nor for reputing 2. marriages not so holy a sacrament as the first, as I would make my reader believe, but for condemning them utterly as wicked and unlawful. He beareth his reader also in hand, that I do maliciously suppress the authors words, to the end, not to have my juggling espied. But notwithstanding his juggling, and lying, he cannot so escape the note of Montanisme. For first I do not argue the Papists to be Montanists for the reason surmised by Owlyglasse, but for their dislike of second marriages▪ and this dislike I prove by those, which he mentioneth, and by other arguments. Secondly, if such as condemn second marriages, as sinful, be Montanists, then must they either blot out the Canon, the his 31. q. 1. or confess themselves Montanists. The gloss is driven to poor shifts to salve the hurt of this Canon; and yet cannot rid his hands with any honesty of the matter. Thirdly, it is a ridiculous point, to charge me with suppressing an authors words, when I do not so much, as intend to name an author, nor aim at any man's words. Owlyglasse therefore might do himself more credit to leave his lewd terms of juggling, and slandering, and such like, and bestow them on the massepriests his consorts, whose whole practice is nothing else almost, but cogging, lying, and juggling, and most shameful dealing. And thus all that smoke, which our adversary first raised with his fiery and turbulent exclamations, is vanished away, and all doubt either of supposed untruths, or falsifications cleared in the judgement of all indifferent readers, and by the confession of the adversary also, unless he be able to maintain the quarrel which he hath begun, and to put away my answer to his former exceptions. If then he should be taken halting in schools, as he hath been in this writing; I think he would as soon make a simple end of himself, as he hath made a poor dispatch of his cause. CHAP. III. An answer to the detectors idle observations. IT is a common rule well known to Logicians, that the conclusion doth follow the weaker part of the premises. Philosopher's also hold, that by common course of nature, nothing can be made of nothing. If then the premises, out of which our adversary goeth about to deduce certain conclusions and corollaries, be false, weak and very evil faitured; it is a great presumption, that his abortive, and odious conclusions and corollaries are like to his former propositions, false, evil favoured, foolish and slanderous. And if his former accusations concerning untruths and falsifications, be nothing; it is very probable, that these idle fancies, which he calleth observations are nothing, if not less than nothing, and that they are like to castles built in the air, and foolish conceits of a man of distempered humours. The which albeit the reader may well understand by himself, and by my former answer, wherein all his odious slanders are well rebated; yet lest Owlyglasse should run mad by conceit of his own prowess, I am determined for every indifferent man's further satisfaction, to proceed forward, and to yield an answer to his vain, weak, and absurd observations and conclusions. Pag. 82. observat. First he observeth, that a filthy farthel of fowl lies, and corruptions is contained in my whole book, when one Chapter of my Challenge hath afforded so many. But this filthy railing companion compounded of a farthel of fooleries and impostures, and savouring like the bottom of an old broken lamp, of the Pope's greasy superstitions, hath no reason to charge me with lies or corruptions, unless he could convince me, and justify his exceptions concerning matters supposed false and forged. Whether he be able to convince me or no, I appeal to the indifferent examination of both our discourses. I do therefore retort this argument upon Owlyglasses masked visage thus. If where our adversary thought to find most matter of advantage, he hath wearied himself in his vain cavilling course, and yet neither found untruth, nor corruption, but rather contrariwise plain and honest dealing; I hope all moderate papists (for of others I make no question) will neither suspect my dealing without cause, nor believe such vain clamorous companion's without due proof. Again if Owlyglasse with his broad eyes, notwithstanding all his diligence and endeavour, could not find in so many authorities, as I alleged, any just subject of slander; it is a great argument, that he could not well take exception to the rest of my discourse. For it is a mere simplicity to think, that he would have spared me in any thing, if he could have taken me at any advantage, seeing he hath cried out so loud upon no advantage, and amplified his most idle and frivolous conceits, being nothing but the flatuous blast of a frantic massepriest. Let all Papists therefore beware, how they trust such clamorous and slippery companions. He noteth further, that I would be loath to have these points examined before any learned auditory. But how much he is abused, and presumeth to abuse his reader, may well appear by my former answer, where not only before a few, but before the whole world I have answered all his vain objections. I do also further promise him, God sending me life, never to fail him, as oft as he shall dare to come forth against me in like trial. But, I believe, he poor idiot will not answer my objections▪ for he hath already fled out of the lists, and failed to answer such falsifications, as I have in my answer to Parson's relation objected against him, and his consorts. He doth in the end of this observation again desire me, to procure him a free conference. but what shall that need, when I yield him more, then is desired? Notwithstanding, if he think to win any thing at my hands by conference; let him procure me first a free conference at Paris and Salamanca; and I do promise to procure him a free conference at Cambridge and Oxford. In the mean while I pray him, I provoke him, I by all means urge him to answer in writing such lies, as I aver his consorts to have made, and to clear the Church of Rome, and her principal proctor's of such notorious falsifications, as I say they have committed. If he be not able, as indeed I take him to be altogether unsufficient, let Robert Parsons, Friar Garnet, or the Archpriest answer, and maintain the quarrel which this idle companion hath begun. And let them set their names to their writings, and come forth with bare faces, that we may know, what they are we deal with, and not as hitherto, fight with N.D.E.O. and such like hollow fellows, and mere shadows. If not, let them assure themselves; I will by public writing discover such a pack of impostures, lies, falsifications, villainies, and treasons committed by Rob. Parsons and his consorts, that they shall wish Owlyglasse hanged, that first provoked me, and began this quarrel. I will also make it known, that they are so guilty, that they cannot answer. His second observation is, that no credit is to be given unto me concerning matter of fact. because in matters of faith and learning, as he saith, I make no scruple to corrupt, and use broad falsification. But his collection is so childish, and foppish that his own clients, if they list, may see, that he knoweth not what concerneth fact, and what concerneth faith and learning, that distingusheth learning from matter of fact (as if no learning were required of Ro. Parsons to discuss matters of fact) and would make f●ith and learning both one (as if his consorts, that take themselves to be learned, were also faithful christians) and teacheth, that the controversy concerning falsifications and untruths objected by him, toucheth faith and not fact, as if we did not as well contend about matter of fact, as faith in this idle quarrel begun by our adversary, and wherein the state of the main controversy is, whether I have spoken untruth or not, and whether I have falsified any authors alleged by me, or not. Secondly if no credit be given to those, that tell lies and falsify authors, as Owlyglasse affirmeth; then by his sentence we are not to believe, either the pope of Rone. or his agents, the most notorious liars & falsifirrs that ever the world sustained. Again if no credit be to be given unto my discourse concerning the packing & treachery of his consorts, why doth he not answer me, and convince me of untruth? And what reason hath he to desire his readers, not to believe that, which himself is not able to control? Is not such a bald companion ashamed, to take to him as much authority as the Pope. that all the generation of antichrist is to believe upon his own bare word? Thirdly if all his idle objections concerning pretended corruptions and falsifications he so cleared, as that I look for no more answer of so nasty a disputer as this Owlyglasse is; than it can be no credit for him to cry so loud, or to use these odious and slanderous terms of corruptions. and falsifications, but he ought rather to look down upon his own, and his consorts filthy facts, then to pinch at others men's faults. Fourthly if the papists his clients be so clear, as he maketh them, why doth he not answer for them plainly and honestly refuting every point of my charge? If they be guilty why doth he not rail a spirit at Rob. Parsons, that so foolishly brought them forth to this trial, and there left them to speak for themselves? Fifthly, if he list not to excuse any Papist for the carriage of his life, as he confesseth, what reason hath he to blame me if I upon so just occasions given me by that rinegat, and false traitor Rob Parsons have told them some part of their faults? Sixtly if he will not have my verdict admitted against his clients, though convinced by plain evidence & witness, he hath no reason to require, that the verdict of Robert Parsons a most notorious and infamous libeler, and a known and professed traitor, and an infamous person convicted by his own wicked and treasonable writings, and by the testimony of his own consorts, or the accusations of such libelers, as Owlyglasse and such worthless and nameless fellows should be admitted or received. Again if he will have nothing to be affirmed without authentical testimony & proof; then must he and his malicious mates forbear to send forth so many vain and fabulous pamphlets. 7. Further if he charge me hereafter with wilful and witting falsification, as he sticketh not very boldly and often to do; then must he prove first falsification, than this quality of wilful knowledge: whereof hitherto he hath done neither again, if I object that to him which he cannot deny; then modesty would require, that he should confess; & shame force him not to defend any more matters known notoriously to be false. 8. If he take to himself and his consorts the name of Catholic Church, and will needs charge me with a settled malice, and desperate resolution against the Catholic Church, he must prove two things. First that Popish religion is the ancient catholic religion; and next, that I oppugn the catholic faith. Unless he do this, his reader will take him for a lewd begging companion, that taketh that for granted, that is in controversy, and we must account him for a paltry fellow, that is not able to answer our arguments, whereby we prove that Popish religion, which we refuse, is neither catholic, nor ancient. 9 If boldly and falsely he will deny that our faith hath had continuance and succession from Christ's time, and challenge both to himself; he must then deny, that the faith taught in the Apostles creed, and established in the four first general counsels, and contained and grounded upon the holy canonical scriptures, hath always continued since Christ's time, and hath had continual succession until our days. And to prove the Popish faith, he must show, that the Apostles taught, and that the holy fathers believed, First that Christ had a body invisible and impalpable, and that might be in heaven and earth and many distant places all at one time. secondly, that Christ's body did not fill the place wherein it was. 3. That accidents may subsist without foundation, or subject. 4, that priests may celebrate mass without communion. 5, that the priests may take away the cup of the new testament from God's people. 6, that christians are to worship the cross, and the sacrament with Latria, or divine worship. 7, that the priest doth offer up the true body and blood of Christ to God the Father for the sins of quick and dead. 8, that christians are justified by greasing, which they call extreme unction and by all other Romish sacraments. 9, that the Devil is conjured out by the blasphemous Romish exorcisms. 10. that the pope is head and monarch of the Church. 11, that it is sin to eat flesh upon imbre days. 12, that the pope's decrees are the foundation of the faith, and other such like points of popish doctrine, 10. If he, be not able really, and plainly either to justify his own cause, or to disprove ours; as he walketh by night himself, so he may do well to keep his conceits secret, and to talk of them by night rather than by day. credit he can win none by his vain babbling, railing or lying. Finally, either let him acquit himself like a brave fellow, or else desist from his odious terms, of odious stuff, paved faces, desperate dealing, treachery, legerdermain; Pag. 86.87.82. false packing, crafty conveyance, filthy farthel of fowl lies, and such like. And let him not think, that he shall win any thing with such courses. For nothing can be devised more odious and desperate, than the cause of the wicked priests of Baal. Neither did ever any sect use more cogging, juggling, or lewd impostures, than the Papists. to conclude this point, nothing is more easy, than to declaim against the Pope, and the priests of Baal, and their impostures, frauds, vilenyes, superstitions, treacheries, blasphemies, and all their abominations. I would therefore advise this paltry fellow to beware▪ that he give me not just occasion to take the like course against his consorts. I assure him, I shall make all the pack of them infamous to posterity. In the second observation he saith further, that he will touch one lie of mine, and that he saith, is known to be one, both to Spain and Italy. But unless Spain and Italy do understand English in which tongue I wrote, it can hardly be known to these two countries; unless by Spain and Italy he understand bastardly and unnatural rinegat English, which are either Italianated, or turned Turk or Spanish, beside that it must needs be a strangely, that hath filled two so great countries, and not unlike their fantastical corpus domini, that is really in Spain and Italy and every altar, as the Papish fancy, at one time. Let us therefore hear him tell this wondrous lie, and by his testimony the only lie of all my book set out against these lying and traitorous wardeword, Page, 84. framed by Robert Parsons. He saith, that I affirm, that Cardinal Allen was in the Spanish armada (he should say armada) in the year 1588., and that I repeat it divers times, and namely (as he quoteth in the margin) reply. p. 61. p. 98. &. 110. But what if I did not once name the Spanish armada, when I talk of Allans coming against his country? was not this lying companion armed with a Vizor of impudence, where he talketh of lying, to lie so grossly? I hope his best friends will not deny it▪ well then let us see what my words are, that Owlyglasse taketh hold on. I say in my reply. p. 62. that anno 1588. divers rinegat English, and among the rest Cardinal Allen came with the Spaniards to fight against their country. I say again pag. 98. that Cardinal came with the Spaniards anno. 1588. With fire and sword to destroy this land. In my challenge p. 110. I say, cardinal Allen, and not so little as a hundred priests came with the Spanish army. And out of these words he gathereth, that I say, he was in the spanish armada but he was blind, that could not see, that there is great difference betwixt an army, and an armada, that signifieth a fleet; betwixt the Spanish forces, and the Spanish fleet. And a great wonder it is, that an hispaniolized english mass priest should no better understand, either spanish or English. Although then, it were true, that Cardinal Allen was not in the fleet: yet was he to come with the Spanish Army. Neither is there any untruth in my words, as appeareth by the testimony of Allen himself in his wicked libel, to the nobility and people of England and Ireland, where he writeth thus. I hope every man will believe Allen himself, and his own words, before the base fellow our adversary, that was not privy to all his treasons. Thus much my good Lords and dear friends, I have thought good to forewarn you, of the whole cause of these present sacred wars, and of his holiness, and Catholic majesties sincere intention therein, & both their incomparable affections towards our nation: whereof I could give you far more comfortable intelligence, if I were personally present with you, as I trust I shall be very shortly. For that is fully meant by his holiness, and by his majesty, and of me so much desired, that every short day seemeth a long year, till I enjoy you in our Lord. Note I pray you, that by the Pope's special appointment and the king of Spain's good liking, that unnatural Cardinal was to come with the Spanish army against his country. Note also, how much this traitor desired this invasion, and how that he thought every short day a year, until it was accomplished. He saith also, that the Pope preferred him to a high function, intending to send him, as his legate with full commission and commandment to treat, and deal from time to time, as well with the states of the Realm, as with his holiness and the king's majesty for the sweeter managing of this godly, and great affair. Do you not see, and is it not plain by the Cardinals own confession, that this sweet Cardinal was appointed a principal commander in that sweet action, wherein he sweetly intended to cut our throats? And yet this sour varlet in sour terms giveth me the lie, for making him one of these inuadors, that meant to destroy this our native country, which all honest men (of which Owlyglasse is none) with all their power ought to defend against such traitors, as Allen was. But saith Owlyglasse, Card. Allen was never out of Italy, but either at Rome, or at Grotta Fe●rata. Suppose he were not, yet might he be of the party, and so far engaged, as I related▪ for the Spanish forces and army was not then drawn together, but part was in the low countries, and France, and no small parts yet remaining in Italy and Spain. And certes if the Cardinal was not come in person to the army; yet was he of the army, and to come with it, as appeareth, not only by his own words but also by the testimony of many others, that well knew it, and in not coming, he was to be taken as a desertor, and so to be punished. But that he that was in the way towards England, and when he heard of the discomfiture of the Spanish fleet, turned aside to weep at Grotta Ferrata, deserving rather to be strangled as a traitor in Cavea Ferrata, then to take the fresh air at Grotta Ferrata, if that were material, it will be verified by divers priests, if they be asked on their oaths. Why any man should believe this lying companion, that speaketh without proof or probability; there is neither colour, nor cause. He excepteth also against that, which I say of the number of Priests, that were likewise to come with the Spanish army, and thinketh that a hundred Priests could not then be found; there being then but two Seminaries, Rome, and Rheims, and not above fifty in both. But he should be an eloquent fellow, that could persuade me to believe that lying mate without all proof. Why I should believe the contrary I can allege good reasons. For first, this being the end of the erection of the Seminaries, to reduce England underneath the Pope's yoke; we are not to doubt, but that all the English of the Seminaries should have been employed in that action, and the whole sink of treason let out. Secondly, albeit in the Seminaries there were not so many Priests to be found; yet might that number have been filled up by divers other priests, that lived here and there dispersed. Her Majesty having dismissed and banished above fifty priests, that deserved death by her laws rather than banishment, not past two or three years before. These therefore and others should have come into England. Neither would that barking cur Stapleton have failed, if he could have seen opportunity to hurt those, against which he had so long barked. Thirdly, divers priests now in England testify, that many priests were to come with the Spanish forces. Finally, Allen in his wicked libel reporteth, that priests came with the Spanish forces to serve every man's spiritual necessities. But how could that be, unless the number were competent? Among the rest I am informed, that R. Parson's should have come with his assistants, and whole council of reformation, and that to avoid idleness in the mean time he holp to write and publish the most wicked declaration of Sixtus quintus against her Majesty. It may be also, Owlyglasse had an ore, if not in the fleet, yet in the army, or else was in England to attend the coming of it. Let him therefore thank God, that he is not sought out, and punished as a traitor, that endeavoureth to plead the cause of traitors. And let all indifferent men judge, whether I have not said truly, and he most falsely, both concerning Allen, and the Priests. The third observation, as he saith, is, that my deali●… doth declare the weakness of the cause I maintain, the little conscience I possess, and small learning I am master of. For so it pleaseth our great master Owlyglasse in a pang of popish zeal to rail. And his reasons are, for that a good cause needeth not the help of lies, and a good conscience will not be strained beyond the limits of truth, and sincerity, These venerable sentences, the execrable jebusites and massepriests pair and pole most dispiteously, as their poling indices expurgatory, and their treatises in the Pope's cause plentifully declare. nor pair nor pole the venerable sentences of antiquity, nor a man of learning frame such arguments, as fly over his adversaries, and may be driven back upon his own head. And this he speaketh standing upon his tiptoes, and looking upon himself very proudly, and verily believing, that he hath spoken very bravely, and almost eloquently. But if he had better looked upon himself, his conscience, and cause; he would have extended more favour to us his poor friends, himself being a sot of 24. carats, and devoid of all learning and conscience, having given proof of his learning in his miserable detection, and having his conscience grounded on the cases of conscience resolved by Allen and Parsons, and Peter Navarrus, that teach men against all conscience to play the villains; and so a man stand for the Pope, to swear and forswear; and finally to do what a man list, so he have the Pope's faculties for it. And what face had he to talk of sincerity, his cause standing upon falsifying of fathers, lying of legends, counterfeiting traditions, railing upon innocents, cogging of fabulous histories, and upon devising of frauds and impostures to abuse the world? His want of learning, I say, is proved by his weak and base talon of writing, wherein it appeareth he could not so much, as tell how to frame a sentence, or how to understand the things he handleth. Alleging but two words of latin pag. 30. he showeth he can no latin, using the plural for the singular, saying prope initia, where a latinist would have said prope initium, or rather in principio. quoting one verse he marreth it pag. 4. his testimonies are Hierom Verdussen, and English almanacs, such proofs as a man may have three or four for a groat▪ his arguments are such, as I have declared in my answer. His want of conscience may, I say, appear by the most damnable resolutions of cases of conscience of Navarrus, and other Romish casuistes, and especially the resolutions of Allen and Parsons, Vide resolute. casuum conscientiae nationis Anglicanae, per A. & P. two rather devils, then divines, teaching nothing, but how their scholars may forswear themselves, deny their names, and profession, and play the traitors: in which cases of conscience Owlyglasse without conscience seemeth to be well practised. The third is made manifest by the fabulous lies of Caesar Baronius, lying Romish legends, counterfeit canons and writings lately published, and such evidence, as I shall in part hereafter discover, and that to the great grief of this detector, if he be not a man stupid altogether, and senseless. This also doth touch the cause of popery in general. for if a good cause need not to be supported with lies, and fables; then is the Pope's cause very bad, that cannot stand without lies. If a good conscience will not be strained beyond the limits of truth and sincerity, nor pair nor pole the venerable sentences of antiquity; then hath Bellarmine and Parsons no good conscience. For Parsons maketh no conscience to tell any lies, as I have proved in my answer to his wooden wardword, and the priests have notoriously proved in all their books against him, and his treacherous faction. Again, then have the jebusites no conscience, that lie and falsify according to the rules of their order, and that most shamefully, Le catechism de jesuits. as is proved in their Catechism. Thirdly, then hath the Pope no conscience, that by his lewd, and treacherous indices, and by his talmudical traditions, and perverse expositions, hath taken a course to corrupt both scriptures and fathers. If they have no learning, whose arguments conclude not effectually, but may be retorted back upon the faces of the proponentes; then if Owlyglasse be judge, neither hath Bellarmine nor Stapleton any learning. For in divers of our treatises, we have made their arguments, to rebound back upon them. As for myself, I refer my cause to be tried by any indifferent man, that shall read Owlyglasses objections and my answers. My conscience, and plain dealing the judge of all men's consciences doth best know, and I hope all the course of my writings will justify against all the cavils of such vain banglers. My learning, I acknowledge, is not comparable to that, which many of my brethren have, but yet I hope by the grace of God to maintain a truth against the proudest of the Popish faction. But were it never so slender; yet until my books against Bellarmine be answered in that plain and scholastical sort, that I do answer him; neither hath Owlyglasse, nor any of his consorts any reason to despise it, or to object want of learning unto me. Yet seeing he doth undertake to prove, that I have no learning; let us see, whether Owlyglasse hath any better success in this, then in his former allegations concerning his supposed untruths and falsifications. First he saith, I bring such arguments to prove the Papists to be no Catholics, and to maintain new doctrine, and heresy, as touch not them, but wound the Church of England. But if this had been so, why doth not Owlyglasse undertake to answer my arguments? why doth he not dare to refute my discourse? If they hurt the Church of England, no doubt, but such caterpillars as he, that seek our hurt and ruin, would not have omitted to take that advantage. His words therefore are but vain brags, and need no other refutation than his own lewd performance in this encounter, and deep silence in the rest. Next he saith, he will take a scantling of my learning, nothing answerable to my looks, and countenance. But his scantling is very short, and unproportionable, being but one only argument. Beside that, it showeth, that both learning and honesty is very scant with him. for where I go about to prove, that the Church of Rome is not the true church of Christ, for that it wanteth true bishops, and Priests, the palfrey fellow only repeateth my words, whereby I prove, that every true Church hath true bishops and priests, but durst not set down my words, whereby I show, that the Church of Rome hath neither true bishops, nor priests. And where he toucheth any reason of mine, he marreth it with his lewd handling, and mangleth my whole discourse, omitting my three last reasons, and not daring to set them down. I will therefore now let the ignorant idiot know, that my reasons, whereby I conclude, that the Church of Rome hath no true bishops nor priests at this time, are strong and effectual, and that his cavillations against my words, are vain and frivolous. First then I say, that no man hath ordinary power to ordain bishops or priests, but he that is a bishop and a priest. But the Pope of Rome is neither true bishop, nor priest. ergo. the proposition our adversary denieth not. The assumption I prove by these arguments. First the Pope was ordained priest, but to offer sacrifices, and to say masses for quick and dead. But neither doth this ordination make a priest, nor had true priests and elders ever any such ordination. That this ordination doth not make a priest, I prove, for that thereby the ordained neither receive power to preach, nor to administer the sacraments, nor the keys of the Church, wherein priesthood consisteth. If they receive any thing, it is to offer sacrifice. But the Papists confess, that there is great difference betwixt the sacrament of the Eucharist, and a sacrifice, as appeareth by Bellarmine's large disputes. Lib. 1. & 2. de sacrif. missae. Further, this ordination doth not give to priests the right of apostolical succession, which consisteth in preaching, and administering the sacraments, which our Saviour committed to his Apostles, and their successors to the worlds end, as appeareth by Christ's words Matth. 28. that priests in ancient time never had any such ordination, it appeareth by the commission, that Christ gave to his Apostles Matth. 28. by the office of Pastors described Ephes. 4. and 1. Tim. 3. and Tit. 1. where no mention is made of sacrificing for quick and dead. neither doth this clause, hoc facite, in any author signify, sacrifice for quick and dead. It appeareth also by monuments of antiquity, and ancient formularies. In the 4. Council of Carthage, priests are ordained by imposition of hands, but not to sacrifice for quick and dead. This argument our adversary for all his contemptuous speeches of my arguments durst not once touch. Secondly, the Pope is not ordained, to teach or govern a certain flock, but to be the universal bishop, Bellar. lib. 2. de pontiff. Rom. c. 31. Prooem. Clement. the head of the Church, the spouse of the Church, the foundation of the Church, and a little demi god upon the earth, with power over purgatory, and the keys of heaven, and hell. And if he have not this power; then is he not Pope. But this power is no where delivered by any good commission to any. nor doth it belong to any bishop, for any thing we can yet learn. for if it did, then should all bishops have that power. Owlyglasse therefore may do well, to show us this power out of scriptures and fathers. or else his silence will teach him, that the Pope is no bishop. Bellarmine telleth us of, pasce oves meas: and, tibi dabo claves. But he must find out a better commission for the Pope. or else all bishops will have like power, and the pope will prove to have no power, unless he feed, and have the keys of the Church. which by Owlyglasse, I am assured will not be proved. Thirdly, the Pope doth not feed the flock by teaching, or administer the sacraments, or govern the Church, as other bishops did, but contrariwise taketh upon him to be Emperor, or governor of Rome, which the ancient bishops of Rome never did. But no man can be a King, and a bishop both together: nor a bishop without doing the office of a bishop. For Episcopatus, as the Apostle teacheth us, That is, a work, and not a title o● honour is opus, and not only, ho●os. Our adversary answereth, that it is Donatisme to affirm, that the efficacy of sacraments doth depend upon the good, or bad life of the ministers, and that we are to hearken to those, that sit in Moses his chair, albeit they be Pharisees, and bad men otherwise. And this he proveth by divers testimonies out of S. Augustine, and the harmony of our confessions, being copious, where no need is, and silent when he should answer. But all this is no more to purpose, then if he should tell us a tale of a horse nest, or of the pope's mules and mulets▪ for what is that to me, or others, that say not, that the Pope or popish bishops are not lawful bishops, nor have power to administer sacraments, because they are Sodomites, adulterers, and wicked men, but rather, that the pope is no bishop at all, because he doth not opus episcopi? He will perhaps say, he doth opus episcopi. But then he must show, that he feedeth the flock by teaching, and that he doth administer the sacraments of the Lords supper, and baptism orderly, and ordinarily as other bishops do: wherein I believe he will fail. Fourthly, I have proved, that the pope is Antichrist advanced above all, that is called God, and the principal Patriarch of antichrist's kingdom. But light and darkness shall as soon concur, as the tyranny of Antichrist, and the office of a bishop in one person. I have proved, that he is Antichrist in my fift book de Pontifice Rom. against Bellar. which because he so aboundeth in learning, and I have none, I would pray him to answer with his great learning, and especially seeing it maketh so much for the credit of his father the pope, that begot him on a strumpet the hore of Babylon, his maships' mother. A brave fellow he is, no doubt, that is so well borne of father and mother. And if his stomach will brook no latin, let him refute my answer to Parson's wardword; if not all, yet so much as toucheth the Pope. Finally, the Pope is an heretic, an apostata, and a most notorious simoniacal person, entering by brigues, and faction, and composition with the Spanish king, and cardinals, as is notorious to the world, and appeareth in every conclave, and is not dissembled by popish writers▪ but such by canons, albeit otherwise bishops, are suspended from ordaining bishops, or conferring orders. That they are heretics it cannot be denied, unless Owlyglasse can show, that the points we have handled in the 4. chapter of our former discourse, are no heresies; which if he be able to show, I doubt not, but the pope for his pains will make him cardinal. That the Pops are apostatates, it appeareth for that they have declined from the ancient faith, as I have likewise declared in my former challenge. That they are simoniacal creatures, their buying and selling of the papacy, and of all ecclesiastical livings, of masses, of sacraments, of faculties, doth manifestly declare, and that this is a common fault of Popes, it appeareth by their rules of chancery by the Penitentiaries tax, Vid. regul. Cancellar. & penitent. by the glosses of their canons, by Albericus de Rosate in verbo, Roma: by Theodorica Niems treatise of schism, by baptist of Mantua, and all stories, that writ any truth. Neither is this a fault of late crept into that see▪ quem dabis mihi de tota maxima urbe saith Bernard lib. 4 de consid. ad Eugenium, quite in papam receperit pretio, seu spe pretij non interueniente? He signifieth, that the Pope was chosen by simony, without simony certes no cardinal can see to find the Pope's chair. By this it may also appear, that the Romish church hath no true bishops, or priests▪ for first they are ordained by the Pope, that is no bishop. Secondly the Bishops neither preach nor administer the sacraments, nor account that any part of their episcopal function. Thirdly, Pope joane had no power to ordain Bishops or priests being a woman. But all that have lived in the Church of Rome along time have been ordained by none, but such as were ordained by her, or by bishops that were made by her. Fourthly, all priests are ordained to sacrifice for quick & dead. As appeareth by Machabeus, in lib. de missis episcoporum pro ordinibus conferen dis. Bellarmine also saith, that priests are made by these words, accipe potestatem offerendi sacrificlum: that is, receive power to offer sacrifice. Which is no sufficient ordination, nor giveth priests' power either to preach or administer sacraments, but rather a power in ancient time never belonging to priests, as I have proved against Bellarmine in my book de sacrificio missae. Fiftly no simoniacal persons or heretics have power to order others; and if they do it, their ordination by canons is declared void, & they are pronounced irregular▪ and this I think Owlyglasse will not deny▪ but he will answer percase that the Popish bishops are neither heretics, nor simonical persons let him therefore, if he will make his answer good, make answer to my objections concerning the heresies, and simonyes of the Church of Rome. Sixtly, the popish bishops are all slaves of Antichrist, as appeareth by their slavish oath. c. ego. N. de jure iurando. If then the pope be proved Antichrist, and the adversary of Christ, and his Church: his adherents cannot be deemed true bishops. Finally, albeit the Popish Church had a certain form of ordination, and bishops and priests so called; yet neither can the ordination be accounted lawful being contrary to canons nor can they be deemed true bishops and priests, that neither preach that, which Christ commanded, nor observe his commission, nor administer the sacraments according to Christ's institution. Oftentimes also the Pope hath ordained boys, ignorant persons utterly uncapable of episcopal function, bishops and priests. And such being so ordained never did any part of ministerial function, if then the Romish Church be like her bishops; then as she hath false and defective bishops, so is she a false and defective Church. But saith Owlyglasse, Pag ●2. the council of Trent hath made such wholesome decrees, concerning the diligent and often teaching and preaching of bishops, and priests, as Master Sutcliffe can find no just cause of complaint. But if he had let down these wholesome decrees, he would have been much ashamed of the decrees themselves and more of the slender execution of them. For Concil. Trid. Sess. 5, c. 2. they decree, that bishops shall teach by themselves, or others▪ so that by this rule women may be priests▪ for they may teach by others, & this may be fulfilled, if bishops never teach at all. Beside that we do not read, that the first bishops of Rome, did preach by others, or set up lousy friars, to prate in pulpits as now is the fashion of the Romish Church. Our Saviour Christ bade his Disciples preach themselves, or else he would not have sent them. And S. Peter preacheth himself, and used no deputation for the matter, as now the Romanistes do▪ furthermore now the execution of this law is so neglected, that I do not believe, that Owlyglasse, albeit he hath well frequented all corners of Rome, hath heard the pope preach. And when the old Cardinal of Lorrein offered to preach, he was derided for his labour, of all his companion's, so unseemly a thing it seemeth for a Cardinal, & bishop to preach. He answereth further. That I would be loath that our church should continue no longer, than bishops do their duties in preaching and feeding. But he doth wrong our bishops to compare them to Romish prelates, that neither preach, nor think that preaching belongeth to them, and for the most part, unless it be some friar or fox inroabed with bishop's apparel, preach not, nor speak more than stocks and images in Churches. He doth also mistake me much, if he think, that I conclude, that any congregation is not the true church, where bishops do not their duties. For that is no part of my meaning▪ but I say, that the true Church cannot long want true bishops, and teachers, and that therefore the Romish Church is not the true Church, having no bishops, nor priests at all, but in name. And that I proved, for that they wanted true priesthood, and true ordination, and were ordained and sent by antichrist, by heretics and simoniacal persons, and such as had no authority to ordain, or send forth bishops and priests. He answereth finally, that I have no reason to carp at the Romish clergy for their bad life▪ and lack of learning, seeing, Pag. 96. our Church, as he saith, admitteth most base, lewd, & unlearned artisans. & this he endeavoureth to prove by M. Parries' words in his preface before Vrsinus his catechism. But he lieth like a lewd and base fellow, if he suppose, that such are admitted by our Church▪ they do thrust in, I confess, by the abuse of sun on, or more▪ but the church alloweth than not▪ nay there are canons made, that none is to be ordained minister, but bachilars of art, or men otherwise well qualified and known to be able to teach. If any do otherwise by indirect means come into the ministry, which abuse Master Parry noteth; yet I hope they are not so rude, or so lewd, as mass Priests, which are the scum of all vileny for the most part, as those that travel Spain and Italy know by practice, and our rinegat English mass Preestes by their lewdness and insufficiency plainly prove. Having answered according to his best skill, and broken as he thinketh all our bonds, like Dalilaes' cords (though some of his friends say, that a certain Dalila hath strong hold of him) he goeth about to retort this argument upon us, and saith: if the true Church hath always true bishops and priests, that the Church of England, Pag 100 is not the true Church, as wanting true priests and bishops. And with this argument he hopeth to give us such a dry shaving, as he doubteth not, but he will mar the whole beauty thereof▪ but he showeth himself to be but a simple barber, and a worse dry shaver▪ for now he cannot show, but that we have true bishops, having both lawful ordination, and our bishops executing the office of bishops loyally, and orderly. Before this reformation also our bishops had all that, which our adversaries think necessary in the outward calling of bishops. Besides that there failed not among our bishops and priests at all times divers men, which detested the abominations of the Romanistes, as Robert Grosted bishop of Lincoln, Richard Vllerston that lived about the council of Constance, john wicleffe and divers others. But saith he, who laid hands on bishop Parker. He seemeth also to make the like question of Luther and Zuinglius. I answer that bishop Coverdale and Skory, and others which were bishops in King Edward's time laid hands upon bishop Parker. I confess also, that bishop Cranmer, Luther and Zuinglius had an external calling, though corrupt, & in a corrupt state, yet such as Owlygalsse dare not deny to be sufficient. And beside that external calling, it pleased God to reveal to them his will extraordinarily, and to call them out of Babylon to the knowledge of his truth▪ our adversary therefore of all men hath least reason to challenge them for their calling. Beside that he cannot conclude, because that external calling was then thought sufficient, that now the popish Church hath a calling sufficient. For albeit the priests of the jews, that worshipped Baal, had an external calling, which was not disabled, when they returned to the true worship of God; yet was not their Idolatrous service done to Baal, nor that preesthood lawful▪ the like we may say of mass priests. They should have served God aright, yet when they served at their massing altars, they worshipped strange Gods. But when they left their Idolatry, than their calling took effect they doing that, for which they were principally called. Furthermore he cannot say, because now all Idolatry and superstition being abandoned, we are the true church, that the papists that retain still their superstitions are the true church▪ for the true church is tried by true faith, true worship, and service of God, & not by external rites and ceremonies, and succession without God's true worship or the true faith. Owlyglasse would also gladly have me to set down the names of those bishops, that governed our Church ever since Christ. As if all bishops, that maintained the Apostles creed, and catholic faith, were not our bishops. If they digressed from the faith, we are not to seek for a new rank of bishops, but to acknowledge them to be true bishops, that professed the true faith. He talketh also of my being at Cales, but it is more honesty for me to go in the service of my Prince and country against foreign enemies, then for him with foreign enemies like a disloyal traitor to fight against his prince and country, and like a base slave to serve the pope's turn. And this may serve to justify my argument against the popish priesthood. It resteth now, that I answer his frivolous objections concerning some points which he supposeth to contain matter of contradiction: which he vaunteth, that he will handle to the little commendation of my learning, as he saith. But if he would indeed have disgraced me, he should have taken in hand the answer of some latin treatise which I have published against Bellar. For therein he might have showed learning, whereas this discourse concerning falsifications and untruths is nothing but a little farthel of foolery, and a vain babble for his clients to sport themselves with all. Well in the mean while let us know his worship's pleasure concerning these supposed contradictions. First he chargeth me with saying, that the number of seven sacraments was not certainly established, nor received before the late council of Trent: and this he supposeth to be contrary to that, which I affirm in another place, viz. that the just number of seven sacraments, and neither more nor less, was first delivered by the council of Florence under Eugenius the fourth, and afterward confirmed by the council of Trent. But the poor idiot doth rather bewray his own ignorance, that knew not how this doctrine of seven sacraments crept into the Romish church, and great dullness, that could not distinguish betwixt instructions, and canons; talking or mentioning matters, and confirming them by solemn act and decree. To reform his error therefore, I must let him understand, that the conventicle of Florence did not by any solemn canon establish the just number of seven sacraments, but certain idle Friars, or others in that conventicle, or at the least under the credit thereof, delivered this doctrine of seven sacraments to the Armenians. Furthermore, not all Churches, but the Armenians had this doctrine delivered unto them. I speak therefore warily, where I say, that albeit that doctrine was talked of perhaps, and delivered to the Armenians; yet it was first confirmed by solemn act of the conventicle of Trent, and so received of as many, as liked that conventicle. So I may say likewise, that the paradox of the Romish church concerning the subsistence of accidents in the sacrament without subject was prated of, and debated in schools before the conventicle of Constance; but yet I may say also, that it was not received generally, nor by solemn act confirmed before the conventicle of Constance, where Pope john the 23. was deposed for Sodomitry, Atheism, and other grievous and enormous crimes in the acts of that assembly recorded. Secondly, he would gladly find some contradiction in my words, for that pag. 21. I say, as he setteth it down, that the opinion of Luther concerning the real presence concerneth not any fundamental point of faith, and yet pag. 54. of my Challenge, affirm, that the Papists holding transubstantiation do bring in Eutychianisme, teaching that Christ's body is in the sacrament without visible shape, or true dimension, or circumscription; which as Leo teacheth serm. 6. de jeiunio 7. mensis, is flat Eutychianisme. But he striveth in vain to force contradiction out of these words▪ for papists may well be Eutychianists, and yet not Luther, as I believe, they teaching that the substance of bread is abolished in the sacrament (of which followeth Eutyches his error) and Luther holding the contrary. For if the bread be abolished, and the sacrament is like to the person of Christ, consisting of two natures; than it followeth, that as bread remaineth not in the sacrament after consecration, so Christ's humanity is abolished after the union of the two natures: which is flat Eutychianisme. Further, he was a simple fellow, to leave a charge of Eutychianisme upon the Papists, upon a small hope of taking me in contradiction. Indeed I confess, he denieth it in terms, and saith, that Christ's body in the sacrament is not without shape, and true dimensions. He should also have said circumscription, if he would have avoided the note of Eutychianisme. but if that be so, he dischargeth me of contradiction. But in the mean while, he showeth himself to be ignorant of the state of his own cause, and very impudent to say, that Christ his body hath all his true dimensions, and shape in the sacrament▪ which at large is disproved in my treatise de missa against Bellar. Finally, going about to take me in contradiction, like a falsary he doth alter my words, and pervert my meaning. For I say only, Reply pag. 21. that Luther's and Caluins' private opinions, concerning either princes sovereign authority, or the real presence concern not fundamental points of faith. And my reason is first, for that our faith is not built on private men's opinions, as the faith of the papists, that are bound to believe all the determinations of every Pope, that do concern the faith. And secondly, for that Luther's opinion is not heretical in itself, and as it may be expounded, but by inference of such conclusions as follow of it. His third supposed contradiction is forced out of my words, where I say, that the Fathers make against Bellarmine, and yet seem, to make Gelasius and Gregory Papists, that lived above a thousand years agone. But herein is neither contradiction, nor repugnance. For first it will not be proved, that either Gregory or, Gelasius maketh for Bellarmine in their authentical writings. Secondly, these two are not for antiquity or learning to be compared to Hierome, or Augustine, or the Fathers, that lived in their time, and before. Finally, albeit the dialogues, that go under the name of Gregory, or the decree of Gelasius C. sancta dist. 15. did savour of the pump of Popery, and foppery; yet that maketh nothing for the papists. For it shall never be proved, that Gregory did write so foppish fables and lies as are contained in his dialogues; nor that Gelasius did indeed set down all that decree, that is reported C. sancta. dist. 15. especially that of lying and fabulous legends. Neither, if in any one point, or ceremony Gregory, or Gelasius doth differ from us; is he therefore to be reputed to speak wholly for the papists. But saith Owlyglasse, we may as truly infer, that seeing the protestants do with great applause admit the acts of their holy Martyrs written by M. Fox, they receive fabulous martyrologies, and lying legends, as it is inferred that Papists receive fabulous martyrologies and lying legends▪ but the case is so unlike, as Owlyglasse though a ridiculous fellow is unlike to Gelasius▪ for neither do we read our martyrologies in churches, as the papists do their legends; nor do we believe them as grounds of faith, as the papists do their legendical traditions, nor doth M. Fox report any such abominable and ridiculous fables, as are contained in the Romish legends. But all this notwithstanding if Owlyglasse will impudently still compare our martyrologies with the lying legends; let him show, if he can, where M. Fox telleth tales of men walking without heads, talking without tongues, passing the sea without ships, going invisible, restoring of birds to life, of a cow bellowing being boiling in a cauldron, of removing mountains and such like, as are in the legends very common, and must be believed as ecclesiastical traditions. His fourth observation is, that it were a point of some cunning to guess by my writings, of what religion I am. But it is a point of small cunning to guess, that Owlyglasse is a man of no religion, making no conscience to snatch at any thing, that may serve his turn, though never so false; to lie, to falsify, to rail at all, that are not of his damned humour. If any religion he have, it is some relics of popery, which he notwithstanding is neither well able to understand, nor any way to defend. A religion (if we may call faction a religion) most fond, foppish, absurd, vain, superstitious, false and impious, as partly in this treatise is declared, and shall God willing more at large be declared otherwhere. As for myself I do him to wit, that I am a Christian, and a true Catholic, believing the Apostolic faith, and professing the same, as it is set down in the Apostles creed, in the confessions of faith published in the four first general counsels, and in the creed of Athanasius. I do also believe whatsoever is expressed in holy canonical scriptures, or may be deduced out of them, and I do detest all popish superstition, blasphemy, heretical abominations, and all other heresies▪ and this Owlyglasse might well have understood by all the course of my writings, if he had read them, or would or could understand them. But saith Owlyglasse, Page, 110. on the one side, reason there is, to think him a conformable protestant, etc. Afterward he talketh his pleasure of new Geneva jigs, and of harmony puritanical. Which course of railing, if he do continue, there is good hope, that to accord with this jig, he may ere it be long, sing a base de profundis at Tyburn. To the matter I answer, that in England, albeit there hath been some difference between private persons about ceremonies and government, and that without disagreement in religion; yet now all that quarrel, to the great grief of Owlyglasse and his consorts is ended, and all godly christians jointly concur to the repressing of the seditious massepriests, and their adherents, that by faction, and heresy seek to undermine both the Church, and state. In this observation he goeth about also to prove, that I do not seem to allow the doctrine established in this church of England. But as in the rest, so in this Owlyglasse doth but trifle. I do hold, I confess, that baptism is not so necessary, but that divers may, and have been saved without it, especially where there is no contempt committed in procuring it. Further I do believe, that it is unlawful for women to take upon them to administer baptism; and do advise in case of extremity all christians to procure the ministers presence. Thirdly, I do utterly condemn the doctrine of the papists concerning their limbus patrum. Fourthly, I do much mislike their superstitious stationary obambulations about the limits of parishes for the blessing of new corn, and their superstitious litanies and ceremonies used in the fame. Fiftly, I deny, that ever the catholic church had any precepts, or canons to forbid marriages on such days, and in such sort, and for such respects, as the Romish Church doth practise. Sixtly, I do believe, that Luther's opinion absolutely considered in itself is not a fundamental point of religion, especially if we give his words a favourable construction. Finally, I account none to be true christians and professors, that make no conscience of sin, and live not according to their profession. But what of all this? do I therefore teach contrary to any point of doctrine maintained by the church of England? so Owlyglasse my good friend would insinuate. But his proofs are simple, and his assertions most false. He saith, Page, 111. that the Church of England teacheth, that baptism is necessary to salvation. But the book, which he allegeth, out of which he cannot bring one word to prove his saying, doth convince him both of lying, and impudency. Secondly he affirmeth, that to deny women's baptism is contrary to religion established. But it is not contrary to his religion to lie and face out lies most impudently. Thirdly to prove, that our church believeth limbus patrum, he should have alleged our confession, and not a certain verset of the creed in meeter. Beside that, in that verset nothing is said, but that Christ illuminated those, that sat in darkness; which is nothing to limbus patrum, a place, that cannot be illuminated, as papists hold. Further, that verset may be rather an exposition of the words of the song of Zacharie, Luke, 2. of the illumination of the ignorant, and of the like words of the Prophet Esay chap. 9 then an assertion of limbus pactum. Fourthly, the papists in their perambulations of parishes use to bless, or rather to exorcize corn, and to say most wicked litanyes. They use also divers superstitious ceremonies, which unless Owlyglasse prove to be allowed by our Church, he will prove himself a cogging companion. Fifthly, he talketh of prohibitions of the solemnisations of marriages at certain times; but he allegeth neither law, nor record to prove, that our Church alloweth either the doctrine, or the ceremonies of the Romish congregation in this point. And there, whither he sendeth us, we find nothing, but the testimony of an Almanac. Sixtly, albeit the church of England doth not hold Luther's real presence of Christ's body in the sacrament, yet cannot the detractor show, but that his opinion may be reconciled with the Christian faith, if a man will not urge those points, that follow of that doctrine too severely, and further percase, then at the first Luther himself allowed them. If a man do gather what doth follow of it, then is the doctrine dangerous, as I and others confess. Finally, he doth not so much as go about to show, that I have delivered any thing contrary to the doctrine of our Church, where I affirm, that good life is as well required in a true professor, as true faith. Why then is this point touched in this place? Doth it grieve him, that I touch the filthy Sodomitical priests, and friars, and shut that abominable generation out of God's church? It seemeth so▪ and therefore to requite me, he saith, that this doctrine may touch me, for that I have falsified and maliciously corrupted the fathers. But if I have cleared myself of all those matters, that he hath laid to my charge; I hope the vanity of his collection will manifestly appear to all indifferent men. But he poor idiot, appeareth not: but seeing the Romish Church, and divers of her principal pillars to be charged with notorious lies and falsifications, passeth away in silence, and is not able to answer one word. Nay, he leaveth his clients in the briars, and signifieth, for aught he can do, they must plead for themselves. Wherefore to leave off further to urge this distressed follow, that is able to say nothing for the defence of them, whom he doth principally favour, I may well conclude, seeing the arguments which I brought in my Challenge stand immovable, and the detectors' exceptions are proved to be vain, and frivolous, first, that the Romish church is not the true Church of Christ jesus. Secondly, that the religion of Papists, is neither ancient, nor catholic, Thirdly, that all papists maintaining the doctrine of the Pope, and his adherents, are heretics. Fourthly, that such as embrace popish religion, are idolaters. Fifthly, that all the Pope's adherents and agents that have suffered for his cause in England, are to be reputed no better, then disloyal traitors, and not, as some would have it, Martyrs. Finally, that my adversary by his frivolous objections hath much confirmed, and strengthened our cause, against which he was not able to object any one thing of moment; and justified my allegations, being not able to take any just exception against any thing said by me, nor to object any thing, which is not fully answered. CHAP. FOUR Of divers falsities committed by the Popes and Church of Rome. IF our adversary had well remembered his promise, he ought not only to have convinced me of untruths, corruptions, contradictions, and falsifications, according to the title of his pamphlet, but also of maliciousness, and wilfulness. for so he vaunteth, he will. I challenge the challenger saith he, of many malicious untruths, Cap. 1. pag. 8. and many palpable and wilful falsifications. But when it cometh to performance; of corruptions he saith nothing, contradictions he toucheth slenderly, untruths and falsifications he can by no means fasten upon me. The quality of maliciousness and wilfulness being a matter purposed, and fully promised, he utterly forgot. In the rest how poorly he hath demeaned himself, by my answer to his whole dispute it will appear, But suppose I had either mistaken a report, misalleadged a place; yet that is nothing to the cause, which by private men's errors cannot be either charged, or prejudiced. But if the Pope of Rome, to whom the papists fly in all controversies and extremities commit falsifications; then is the cause of popery quite ruined, and overthrown. For he is the Sanders Rock. & Bellar. in praefat. in lib. de pontiff. rock, and Bellar. ibid. & lib 2. de pontiff. Rom. & Stapleton doctrinal. princip. foundation, upon whom the papists build all their religion. Again, if the Church of Rome have practised these falsifications, then is no trust to be given to her. If both the Pope himself, and the Church of Rome do deliver unto us lies, and fables; then is the pope no upright judge, but a lying hypocrite, and the Church of Rome is not the true Church, nor a mistress of truth, but a mistress of errors and lies. Let us therefore see whether the pope or Church of Rome may not in this point be more justly charged than we, and whether they be clear of this fault or no. For that is a point far more material, than any thing, which the adversary can devise against us. Let us also consider how Bellarmine & Baronius and others the Pope's agents have acquitted themselves in their narrations, and allegations. For so it may best appear, how unadvisedly this detector began his quarrel. our adversaries being so notorious offenders in telling untruths, and committing most gross and wicked forgeryes, and we so clear and innocent, at the least from all wilfulness violence and malice, if not from error. L. qui testamentum. ff. ad. leg. Corneliam de falsis. Whosoever shall conce●e or hide away a testament, or take it from a man, or shall blot it, or add by interlining, or else shall forge, or write a false testament, or exhibit it, or sign it, or use it and fraudulently rehearse it, is punishable, as guilty of forgery by the law Cornelia, concerning forgery and falsity. And this is the determination of Paulus the lawyer, and allowed by all men of understanding, and judgement in law. Qui testamentum amoverit, celaverit, eripuerit, deleverit, interleverit, subiecerit, resignaverit, saith Paulus the lawyer, quive testamentum falsum scripserit, signaverit, recitaverit. etc. legis corneliae Poena damnatur. Those also are guilty, and by this law punishable, Ibidem. quorum dolo malo id factum est: by whose procurement, and fraud any of the foresaid points are committed. But the pope, and Church of Rome many ways offend against this law, as is most evident by many particulars. falsification 1 First they do suppress, as much as they can, the eternal testament of almighty God contained in the books, which we for this cause call the old and new testament. For simply do they prohibit all translations of scriptures made by any of our doctors, & not without straight limitations do they permit christians to have scriptures translated into vulgar tongues by themselves, publicly by no means will they have scriptures red being translated into tongues understood of the multitude. And all these three points are manifestly proved by the index of prohibited books set out by Pius quartus, and by the decree of the council of Trent speaking of our men's translations. librorum veteris testamenti versiones viris tantum pijs & doctis, Index. lib prohib. regul 3. saith he, judicio episcopi concedi poterunt. And afterward: versiones novi testamenti etc. nemini concedantur. Speaking of vulgar translations of scriptures, Ibid. regula. 4. he saith hac in part judicio episcopi, aut inquisitoris stetur, ut cum consilio parochi, vel confessarij bibliorum a catholicis authoribus versorum lectionem in vulgari lingua concedere possint. So it appeareth they first absolutely forbid all vulgar translations made by any of our doctors; and Secondly with hard conditions grant licence, & that to very few, to read their own vulgar translations of scriptures: and Thirdly, that they do forbid all latin translations made by us of the new testament, and with conditions and limitations permit our translations of the old testament, to be read, and that of very few. Council Trid. Sess. 22. c. 9 In public liturgies of the Church they also signify, that scriptures are not to be read in vulgar tongues. And by their practice we gather, that they think the public reading of scriptures in vulgar tongues to be nothing for their profit, and purpose. Who then seethe not, that by all means the pope and Romish Church endevore to suppress God's testament, and show themselves therein notorious falsaries? falsification 2 Secondly they burn the holy scriptures under pretence of false translations, as may be proved by divers witnesses, and by their own practice. And I think they will not deny, but that they have burned scriptures translated by our doctors & will defend it. yet to corrupt, or tear, or spoil a testament, is the part of a falsary, as these words declare, si quis test●mentum deleverit. Neither could the law speak more plainly against Papists unless, it had said, si quis testamentum dei combusserit. falsification 3 Thirdly, they have deprived the Lords people of the cup, which our Saviour Christ calleth the new testament in his blood. hic est calix, saith he, nowm testamentum in sanguine meo. Luc. 22. In the conventicle of Constance they decree, ut sacramentum a laicis sub una specie tantummodo recipiatur. that is, Sess. 13. that lay men are to receive the sacrament only under one kind. In the conventicle of Trent they pronounce them Anathema, or accursed, that shall say, that the faithful aught to receive the sacrament under both kinds, Sess. 21. c. 1. & 2. or that shall deny, that they took away the cup from the communicants, and ministered the communion under one kind only. for just, and reasonable causes. Whether then the Lords cup be the new testament, or the seal of the new testament; it is evident, that the Pope and Church of Rome do show themselves to be notorious falsaryes. the words of the law are clear. si quis testamentum celaverit, amoverit etc. that is, whosoever doth conceal or keep a testament out of the way, he is to be punished as a falsary. the same also is apparent, for that they go about to break▪ the seal of God's testament. And although man cannot, or will not punish this falsity in the Romish Church, and in the mass priests; yet God will assuredly punish so notorious a falsification of his eternal testament. falsification 4 Fourthly, the Pope and Romish Church have added to God's eternal testament corrupting the same by their traditions, and makg iunnwritten traditions equal to the canonical scriptures. omnes libros tam veteris, quam novi testamenti, Sess. 4 council. Trid. say the Pope's slaves assembled at Trent, cum utriusque unus deus sit author, nec non traditiones ipsas tum ad fidem tum ad mores pertinentes; tanquam vel oretenus a Christo, vel a spiritu sancto dictatas, etc. pari pietatis affectu ac reverentia suscipit ac veneratur, scilicet haec synodus. and afterward they pronounce al● cursed, Lib. de verbo Dei. that shall contemn the said traditions. Bellarmine also and the rest of his consorts teach, that there is one word of God written, and another unwritten, and that both are of equal authority. But it is plain falsity to forge any part of a testament, Galat. 3. or to interline it, or to add to it. hominis testamentum saith the Apostle, nemo spernit, aut super ordinat. that is, no man addeth to a testament, or taketh on him to superordinate or set down more, then is declared by the testators will. And he signifieth, that it is much more odious, to add to God's testament, and as it were with pretended nuncupative additions to corrupt Gods written will and testament. Qui testamentum falsum scripserit, signaverit, recitaverit dolo malo saith Paulus, L. qui testamentum. ad. L. Cornel de falsis. cuiusue dolo malo id factum erit, legis corneliae, (de falsis) poena damnatur. Again, si quis legatum sibi ascripserit, saith Africanus tenetur poena legis corneliae. So if the Romish Church have added to God's eternal testament, any traditions upon the credit of the church, L. siquis legatum. ff. ad. L. cornel. de falsis. and made them part of God's testament, or mean to receive benefit, or as it were a legacy, or authority by any thing therein contained, the same is guilty of falsification. falsification 5 Fiftly the Romish Church hath committed falsehood by making the old latin translation authentical, which differeth in many points from the original books, of the old and new testament. Statuit & declarat saith the conventicle of Trent speaking of itself, ut haec ipsa vetus & vulgataeditio quae longo tempore tot seculorum usu in ipsa ecclesia probata est, Sess. 4. in pub licis lectionibus, disputationibus, praedicationibus, & expositionibus pro authentica habeatur. Now that this translation doth differ from the original books, it cannot be denied. For that by collation of both is apparent. Beside that it is proved by the testimony of Isidorus Clarius in his preface to his translation of the Bible: of Erasmus, and divers other learned men; and sometime confessed by the adversaries themselves. that this is falsehood, it is proved, for that to exhibit a false copy of a testament, is falsity. It is also a notorious absurdity to prefer a translation, or a copy before the original. falsification 6 Sixtly, it is falsity, to add to the rule of faith, or canon of scriptures. For if a man may not add to the rules and laws of men, but he shall fall within the danger of the law cornelia de falsis, much less may a man add to the rule of faith, and canon of scripture, Concil. Trid. Sess. 4. but he shall be condemned for falsification. But the Church of Rome hath in two sorts added to the rule of faith, first making the books of Tobias. judith, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, the Maccabees, and others by the council of Laodicea and Hierome and other ancient Fathers excluded out of the canon, canonical, and next by making the Pope's determinations, and unwritten traditions the rule of faith, as is proved by Stapletons' discourse de doctrinalibus principijs, and other treatises of the Romanistes, concerning that argument. Neither hath the Romish Synagogue any thing to allege in excuse of her falsity, but that such books have sometime been accounted canonical by the council of Carthage, Can. 47. and S. Augustine: and next, that traditions have been much stood upon by the ancient Fathers. But the third council of Carthage and S. Augustine speak only of the books of the Bible, that were publicly read, and of the canon, as it prescribed a rule for the reading of books, and not otherwise, and by tradition they mean no other doctrine, then that which is contained in holy scriptures; and gathered out of them. falsification 7 7. Either hath Sixtus Quintus, or Clement the 8. egregiously falsified the holy scriptures. For both of them having taken upon them to set out the same according to the old latin translation, we find in divers places, either manifest contradictions, or at the least notorious differences betwixt them. As for example, Gen. 4. the Clementine edition hath, in foribus pettatum aderit? In Sixtus Quintus his edition set out at Louvain peccatum tuum aderit? Gen. 5. v. 3. Clement readeth, genuit ad imaginem & similitudinem suam: Sixtus hath, genuit filium ad imaginem. Contrariwise Genes. 1.27. Clement readeth, creavit deus hominem ad imaginem suam, ad imaginem dei creavit illum: and Sixtus hath, creavit deus hominem ad imaginem, & similitudinem suam, ad imaginem dei etc. Genes. 9 Clement readeth, de manu viri & fratris eius requiram: Sixtus hath only, & de manu fratris eius requiram. Exod. 16. Clement readeth, cur eduxistis nos in desertum istud? Sixtus contrariwise readeth, cur induxistis? Exod. 23. Clement readeth, victimae meae: and Sixtus, victimae tuae. Levit. 27. Clement readeth, juxta aestimationem tuam: Sixtus, juxta aestimationem suam. and it the 28. verse of the same chapter, Clement readeth, non vendetur; and Sixtus, non veniet. Deut. 24. Clement readeth, animam opposuit tibi, Sixtus, apposuit tibi. Deut. 29.19. Clement readeth, & absumat ebria sitientem: Sixtus readeth, assumat ebria sitientem. joshua 11.19. Clement readeth, non fuit civitas, quae se traderet; and Sixtus quite contrary, quae se non traderet. 2. Reg. 6. v. 13. These words, that are found in Sixtus his edition: dixitque David, ibo & reducam arcam cum benedictione in domum meam: are not found in Clement's bible. 2. Reg. c. 15.23. Clement readeth, contra viam, quae respicit ad desertum. Sixtus readeth, contra viam olivae. 2. Reg. 16.1. Clement hath, & utre vini. Sixtus readeth, duobus utribus. 3. Reg. 7.9. Clement hath, extrinsecus usque. Sixtus, intrinsecus usque. 1. Paralip. 8. v. vlt. Clement readeth, usque ad centum quinquaginta omnes. Sixtus readeth, ad centum quinquaginta millia. lib. 1. Ezrae c. 2. v. 66. Clement readeth, septingenti triginta sex: Sixtus, sexcenti triginta sex. Sapientiae c. 2.11. Clement hath, sit fortitudo lex justitiae nostrae. Sixtus readeth, lex iniustitiae. Eccles. 8.8. Clement readeth, in g●udium nolumus venire: Sixtus readeth, volumus venire. etc. 21. v. 15. Clement readeth, est autem sapientia. Sixtus hath, est autem insipientia. john 6.65. Clement readeth, qui essent non credentes: Sixtus readeth, qui essent credentes. Heb. c. 5.11. Clement readeth, grandis sermo & ininterpretabilis; Sixtus readeth, grandis sermo, & interpretabilis. Infinite repugnances also there are more betwixt these editions, which who so list to see, let him peruse M. Th. james his painful treatise entitled, Bellum papale, wherein he hath compared these two editions throughout. And if in the edition of Sixtus Quintus his bible at Antwerp Anno 1599 thou do not find these lections mentioned, thou mayest thereby further understand, that some of late, since Sixtus his death, have taken pains to falsify his edition, and to make him to speak contrary to himself. If then Hierome say true, In praefat. in joshua. & in praefat. in 4. cuangel. non posse verum esse quod dissonat, that is, that what doth differ, cannot be true, then is it notorious, that one of these two pope's hath falsified not only the scriptures, but also the authentical latin translation, as they call it. And if they make no scruple to falsify the holy scriptures of God; it is no marvel, if impudently they falsify the writings of men. The Pope's also and their consorts have committed notorious falsifications in publishing sergeant canons and constitutions partly under the name of the Apostles, and partly under the name of divers ancient bishops of Rome, and lastly of divers counsels and fathers. falsification 8 For first they have set us out 84. C. sextam synodum dist. 16. Ibidem. canons under the names of the Apostles. Hadrian the Pope alloweth and receiveth the vi. Synod, and all her canons, in one of which the canons of the Apostles were confirmed▪ and thereupon Grati●n concludeth, that they were authentical. And commonly the church of Rome allegeth these canons, whensoever she hopeth to win any advantage by them. But many reasons declare them to be counterfeit. As first, for that contrary to the doctrine of the Church, the baptism of heretics is condemned can. 45. Secondly, can. 65. saterdays fast is forbidden. Thirdly, once dipping in baptism is deemed unsufuncient can. 49. contrary to the orders of the Church. Fourthly, the catalogue of scriptures rehearsed can. 84. is by none allowed▪ for neither will the Church of Rome allow of the third book of Machabeyes, nor of the Epistles of Clement. Fifthly, the Apostles, as is said, in those canons confirm the Gospel of S. john; yet stories report, that the same was not written before the rest of the Apostles were dead. Sixthly, these counterfeit canons mention divers orders of ministers, of fasts, of bestowing of ecclesiastical livings, and such like, not used in the Apostles times. Finally, not only Isidore c. canon's, dist. 16. and Leo c. Clementis. dist. 16. but also Gelasius c. sancta Romana. dist. 15. doth number these canons among apocryphal writings. But in nothing doth the impudency of the Romish Synagogue and her agents appear more, then in the falsis●…ation of the acts of counsels. For they have not only falsified divers particular acts, and canons, and foisted them in among the acts of counsels, but also devised whole proceedings, as passed in ancient counsels, which notwithstanding are merely forged. falsification 9 The acts of the council of Sinuessa reported by Peter Crabbe and Surius seem to be much falsified. For first of the three copies, that are in Surius not one agreeth with another. Secondly, seeing as 318. bishops could hardly be drawn to the great council of Nice, in the peace of the church, albeit Constantine called them out of all parts of the world; if is not like, that in time of persecution 300. bishops could be drawn to Sinuess▪ about Marcellinus, according as it is reported in the acts of the council. Thirdly, the speeches of Marcellinus and the rest are so simple, and the style so much differing from those times, that he must be of a very dull understanding▪ that perceiveth not the falsehood of the author of those acts. Fourthly, the acts of that pretended council are contrary to themselves. For in the latter end they say, prima sedes non iudicabitur a quoquam: and yet a little before, it is said, that the bishops did condemn Marcellinus. damnaverunt cum say they, extra civitatem. Finally, the proceeding in M●rcellinus his sacrificing to Idols, and in his trial by 72. witnesses, is most ridiculous, and no way to be justified by authentical records. falsification 10 Likewise seem the acts of the council of Neocaesarea and Ancyra to be counterfeit. For in times of persecution it was not like, that many bishops could assemble, or had any care of command and superiority, or any credit to make laws concerning government. Besides that, histories authentical make no mention of lawmaking counsels before the general council of Nice. Finally the acts are so simple, and so evil agree with those times, in which they are said to pass, that we must either have authentical proof for them, or else must have leave to believe them to be forged. falsification 11 The acts of the council of Rome under Silvester do so plainly appear to be forged, that I do wonder, that our adversaries are not much ashamed of them. The number of bishops is said to be greater, then in the council of Nice. The names of them are mere One is called Squiro, another Cleopatris, another Vultibus. and the rest also seem names of conjuration. barbarous; and One is called Simplex, another Exitiosus, the 3. spe● in deo. the 4. quod vult deus. Greek bishops coming to that council commonly have latin names. The fable of cleansing of Constantine from his leprosy is there reported. 57 bishops of I would gladly know, where this is. Rinocoruris are said to be present; yet did they not subscribe. The council was said to be assembled by the advise of Constantine, or of his mother: they seem not to know, whether. The acts are most disagreeing from those times, and some of them very ridiculous, as for example, that nuns should not profess virginity, until the age of 72. years, when such profession is needless. Finally, the words are so barbarous, that they savour of gothical and lombardical monkery; and the acts so beneficial to the sea of Rome, that every man may see, that later Popes under the title of this council meant to cover their own ambitious decrees, and humours. falsification 12 Most shamefully also have the agentes of the Romish church corrupted the acts of the council of Nice. Ruffin and all authentical writers mention no more, but only 20. canons. C. viginri. dist. 16. Pope Stephen also confesseth, that there are but only 20. canons received of the Romish church. viginti tantum capitula Nicenae synodi in sancta Romana ecclesia habentur, saith he. C. septuaginta. dist. 16. Summa council. apud Horatium Cardon excus. anno 1601. But Gratian under colour of an Epistle of Athanasius affirmeth, that there are seventy canons made in that council: and now of late one Alphonsus of Pisa a jebusite hath set out 80. canons of that council translated, as he saith, out of Arabic. He might have done well to have said translated out of the language of China▪ for than rather would divers have believed them, then gone to China to search or examine the truth of Alphonsus his report. falsification 13 In the sixth council of Carthage Sozimus bishop of Rome was manifestly convinced by acts of the council sent from divers places to have foisted in a false canon into the acts of the council of Nice. His agents averred, that the council of Nice had decreed, ut si episcopus accusatus fuerit, & iudicaverint episcopi regionis ipsius, & de gradu suo deiecerint eum, & appellasse episcopus videatur, & confugerit, ad beatissimum ecclesiae Rom. episcopum, & volverit audiri etc. That the appeal should be received, but the whole council did take him in the very act of forgery. The same also may be proved by the true acts of the council, and by all authentical writers, that report the acts of that council truly. falsification 14 Paschasius one of the Pope's agents in the 16. action of the council of Chalcedon according to instructions given him alleged a piece of a counterfeit canon of the council of Nice, beginning thus, Ecclesia Rom. semper habuit primatum. That these words are foisted into the sixth canon of the council, it appeareth by the view of the canons themselves, as they are set down, not only by Ruffinus in his ecclesiastical history, but also by Peter Crabbe, Surius, Carranza, and other Romanists. falsification 15 The 36. canon of the sixth synod, is thus reported in the ●omes of counsels, and in Carranza, Renovantes quae à sanctis patribus 153. qui in hac regia urbe convenerunt, & 630. qui Chalcedone convenerunt, dece●nimus, ut thronus constantinopolitanus aequalia privilegia cum antiquae Romae throno obtineat, & in ecclesiasticis negotijs ut illa emineat, secundus post illam existens. post quem Alexandrinorum metropolis numeretur. deinde Antiochiae, & post eum Hierosolymitanae civitatis. But this canon is diversly falsified by the Romanists. for first they cut out certain words, as they are found in the 18. canon of the greek copies of the acts of the council of Chalcedon; and this canon of the sixth synod they turn contrary to the meaning of the Fathers, setting it down in these terms. C. Renovantes. dist. 22. Renovantes sancti constantinopolitani decreta concilij, petimus, ut constantinopolitana sedes similia privilegia, quae superior Roma habet, accipiat, nec non in ecclesiasticis rebus magnificetur, ut illa, sed haec secunda post illam existens, prius quam Alexandrina sedes numeretur; deinde Antiochena & post eam Hierosolymitana. Thus is it set down in the canon law corrected by Gregory the thirteenth, and yet differeth much from the original▪ but in all ancient copies we read, non tamen in ecclesiasticis rebus magnificetur ut illa: which is a far greater corruption than the other. falsification 16 The fift council of Carthage c. 3. determineth, that bishops and priests and deacons should abstain from their own wives, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, as Balsamon interpreteth it, tempore vicis suae, or during the time of their turn of service▪ to make the best of it, yet can it not signify propria aut priora statuta. Yet the Romanistes dist. 33. c. placuit. have falsiffed the canon, adding subdeacons, that were left out of the canon, and making this canon absolutely to exclude Bishops, Priests, and Deacons from their wives at all times. falsification 17 In the council of Mil●uis c. 22. African priests, deacons, and inferior clerks are forbidden absolutely to appeal beyond the seas. But Gratian like a falsary hath added to the canon, nisi forte sedem Romanam appellaverint, that is, unless they appeal to the fee of Rome, which is quite contrary to the meaning of the canon. And therefore Gregory the thirteenth in his books of the canon law, hath set down these words in an other letter. but he rather hurteth, then helpeth the matter, testifying that all the Romanists that alleged, or used the canon thus before his late correction, were falsaries. falsification 18 In the council of Laodicea the Fathers can. ●5. forbidden Christians idolatrously to worship angels, ad angelos idololatriae abominandae congregationes facere. But the Romanists being guilty in their own conscience of the idolatrous worship of angels, for angelos have set down angulos, as appeareth by Surius, Carranza, and divers late editions of counsels. Now that this is a falsehood, it is to be proved by the testimony of Chrysostom's homilies, and Theodoret's commentaries, upon the Epistle to the Colossians, and Bellarmine in his first book de cultu sanctorum cap. 20. falsification 19 Pius the fift in a certain contention betwixt him, and the Emperor, Vita di Pio. 5. in literis. to help his own cause, doth most falsely allege a canon of the council of Nice, whereby he would prove, that by the determination of that council the Pope of Rome was made Lord, and governor of all Princes that bore the name of Christians, and that the council did anathematise all, that dare say contrary. E sentenza, saith he, di tutti theologi è canonisti, è determinatione de concilij, massimament del Niceno, Ch' il successor di san pietro sia signore è rettore di tutti i principi del nome christiano, de tutte le provincy, & tutte le genti, anathematizando chiunque cio ardisse contradire. A wonderful great principality, certes, if he should he made governor of all christian Princes, of all provinces, and nations. But this principality is grounded upon no other foundation, then lewd lies, and forgeries. For in the acts of the Nicene council there is no such matter, as may appear both by the testimony of Ruffian, and confession of Surius, Carranza, Bellarmine and Baronius, that are not able to show us any such act in the Nicene council. We must therefore pray Robert Parsons, otherwise Owlet, and his disciple Owlyglasse to show us this noble canon alleged by Pius their holy Father: unless they mean, that the world shall be made acquainted with the impostures, and falsifications of the Romish church. For as laws determine, they are falsaries, that shall add to laws, constitutions, and canons, and are as falsaries to be punished. L. si quis falsis. ff. ad l. cornel. de falsis. Si quis saith Modestinus, falsis constitutionibus nullo authore habito utitur, lege cornelia aqua & igni interdicitur. falsification 20 But it nothing else were; yet the counterfeit donation, which the Popes of Rome pretend to have been made by Constantine is sufficient to convince them of falsification. for therein by a trick of forgery they claim, not only a sovereignty over the whole clergy, but also a great part of the Western empire. And so stiffly do they stand in the maintenance of this grant, that they will hardly be induced to hear the contrary. Augustine Steuchus in a large volume goeth about to defend it. But, notwithstanding all his pleading, he is a simple fellow, that doth not see this grant to be counterfeit; and very bold, if not impudent, that will defend it, as doth the gloss set out by Gregory the thirteenth, alleging the testimony of Anselme, Deusdedit, Leo nonus, Petrus Damianus, and such other forged devices. For first it is entitled Palea, which argueth, that it was thrust into Gratian, and was for credit as light as chaff. Secondly this donation seemeth to be translated out of the legend of Sylvester. Thirdly, all stories report contrary to this donation, that Constantine was baptised at Nicomedia a little before his death. Constantinus Nicomediae baptizatus est saith Theodoret, paulò ante mortem. Lib. hist. 1. c. 32. distulerat enim usque ad illud tempus, in jordane stwio hoc promereri desiderans. The same is also confirmed by the testimony of Eusebius, Hierome, Ruffin, Socrates, Sozomen and others. But this donation doth signify, that he was baptised by Silvester, and as it is in Silvesters legend, cured of a leprosy, and that before the wars with Licinius and Maximinus. 4. This donation was granted as is said, in the beginning of Constantine's reign. But that cannot be true, seeing it mentioneth Constantinople, that was not so named, nor founded by Constantine until long after. In the Nic●ne council Alexander was called episcopus Bizantij, and Sozomen testifieth, that Constantinople was founded in the height of Constantine's prosperity. 5. This donation preferring the bishop of Rome before the other patriarchs is plainly repugnant to the counsel of Nice, that maketh all the patriarchs equal. 6. The bishop of Rome never enjoyed any such prerogatives, as are given him by this sergeant grant, either in Gréece or other places. 7. He is called universalis episcopus by that grant; yet did Gregory the first refuse that title long after this time. 8. The Pope's now wear a triple crown, yet Silvester would not, as this donation pretendeth, wear an imperial crown. 9 No authentical history maketh mention of this great donation. 10 Nay contrariwise histories relate, that Constantine's sons, and successors did long after enjoy those things, which are in the gift pretended to be delivered to Silvester. 11. Never were Constantine and Gallicanus consuls together. Finally the rude and rascal style, and the circumstances of this grant, nothing fitting Constantine's time, nor person, nor yet the person of Silvester, that yet scarce was secured from persecution, do plainly declare the same to be forged. falsification 21 The constitution also of Ludovicus mentioned dist. 63. c. ego Ludovicus. Is most grossly forged. For first the same contradicteth the donation of Constantine. For what needed this grant or donation, if Constantine had given the same, and much more before? Again if the Popes of Rome had been in possession of this right, the french, that were great benefactors to that see, Theodiric. a Niem. & Langius. would never have disturbed them. 2. histories teach, that until Boniface the 9 his time, the pope's were never possessed of the temporalties of Rome. 3. there are divers copies extant of this grant, as may appear by Gratian, and volaterran Geograph. lib. 3. Which do contradict one another. But writings repugnant one to another, L. scripturae. Cod. de fid. instrument. and containing manifest contradictions deserve no credit. Scripturae diversae say lawyers, & fidem sibi inivicem dero gantes nihil habere firmitatis possunt. Neither can two contrary propositions be taken for true as lawyers hold. in l. si is qui. § utrum. ff. de rebus dub. &. l. ubi pugnantia. ff. de regulis juris. 4. The Romanistes never did choose the pope according to this grant, nor did pope's of late time grant, that emperors had any authority to give a form for the election of the Pope. Finally, the rude and barbarous style, and terms of the grant, and all histories, that writ of the government of Rome about the time of this Ludovike do prove it to be conterfect. falsification 22 The Popes also and their agents have conterfected two certain epistles under the names of justinian and john bishop Rome, which are now thrust into the code. C. de sum. trinit. & of fid. Cath. s. inter claras. And are commonly alleged for the Pope's authority, and jurisdiction, as appeareth by the disputes of Bellarmine, and the fabulous narrations of Caesar Baronius. the forgery is detected First, by ancient manuscript books, where these two epistles are not to be found, as Alciat testifieth parerg. lib. 5. c. 23. Secondly, these epistles are repugnant to the law next precedent. For here the emperor doth signify, that he did then pubish this confession first, L. cognoscere. Cod. de summa Trinit. & fid. Cath, and sent it to john bishop of Rome to be allowed, or dissallowed; whereby the law precedent and law beginning cum salvatorem. in the same title it is manifest, that he had published the same a year before, and sent it to Epiphanius bishop of Constantiople, and to other Churches. 3. Ado of Vienna in his chronicle, and Platina in the life of Boniface the 3. testify, that the bishop of Rome was not called head of the Church before Phocas his time. 4. the law decernimus. C. de sancros. ecclesijs and law Constantinopolitana, in the same title, doth give that that to the bishop of Constantinople, that is here claimed by the bishop of Rome. 5. Here the emperor promiseth to do nothing in causes ecclesiastical before he had made the bishop of Rone acquainted withal. but that is refuted by the laws called novellae nu. 6. 11. &. 123. concerning the creation and ordination of bishops, the number of patriarchs & archbishops, their jurisdictions and privileges: and likewise by the novel constitutions. 3.5.16.58.133 &. 137. all which concern mere ecclesiastical causes. Finally the letter being written in Greek to a Roman bishop from a Roman Emperor, and translated after a most barbarous fashion doth plainly declare the same to be forged. falsification 23 In the register of of Alexander the third, under the colour of some counterfeit grants, challenge is made by the pope's to the crown and sovereignty of England. it behoveth us therefore to look unto the fingers of these impostors and falsaries, that by one trick of forgery are wont to usurp a whole kingdom▪ novit prudentia tua, saith Alexander the third, Anglorum regnum, ex quo Christi nomen ibi glorificatum est, sub apostolorum principis manu et tutela extitisse. his meaning is if he durst utter it, that the soverein dominion over England belongeth to the pope. Whosoever list to read over Augustine Steuchus the pope's bibliothecary, or rather babbling falsary, shall find divers counterfeit instruments of the sane nature, whereby the pope's claim the kingdoms of Croatia, Arragon, Dalmatia, Denmark, Spain, Hungary, Poland, Russia, yea and the empire of Rome to belong to their sea. So gaynful hath the craft of forgery been to that see. And so shameless are the pope's agents in their forgeryes. falsification 24 Most impudenly they make the Emperor Otho to swear fealty to john the 12. or as some reckon. the 13. dist. 63. c. tibi domino. A matter so against reason forged, as nothing more. For there is not any one historiographer, that doth mention any such matter▪ nay histories report, that Otho deposed this john, and caused another to be placed in his seat. So far was he from swearing fealty to him. beside that, not any man of credit ever wrote, that the emperor held his crown in fealty of the Pope. Bellarmine albeit he wish well to the Pope; yet doth he not hold, or believe any such matter. Or at least he dare not speak or write so much. Thirdly, it is apparent, that Otho and his successors claimed jurisdiction in Rome, and the territory adjoining, long after this supposed decretal. Therefore unlike it is, that the emperor should, as is here pretended, forswear it. Finally, the frame of the oath is most ridiculous, and the style most brutish, the emperor calleth the pope dominum: and saith, tibi domino joanni papae, ego rex Otho promittere & jurare facio. Which is a most absurd kind of speech. For he that sweareth himself, taketh his oath directly, and maketh not others only to swear, or promise▪ but no man can deny, but that it is falsity to exhibit or use any false instrument, or to corrupt or falsify any public or private writings by any means whatsoever. paulus respondit, saith the law, legis corneliae poenateneri, L. instrumentorum. ff. ad L. cornel. de falsie qui etiam extra testamenta cetera falsa signassent; sed et ceteros, qui in rationibus, tabulis, literis publicis, aliave qua re, sive consignatione falsum fecerunt, vel ut verum non appareat, quid celaverunt, surripuerunt, subiecerunt, resignaverunt. falsification 25 The epistles ascribe to Clement, Anacle tus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Hyginus. Pius, Victor and other ancient bishops of Rome are nothing but mere forgeryes. For first, seeing they lived in times, when latin was most purely spoken, it is not likely, but their epistles should be good latin. But these supposed epistles are most barbarous and Gothical, and very unlike to the style of Tertullian, Cyprian, Lactantius, and other fathers. Secondly, it is not like, that living in ancient time those bishops should speak as the Italians spoke about a thousand years after Christ. Thirdly, seeing there is such difference of style in divers writers, that no two or three writ all alike; it is not like, if all these epistles had been written by the men, whose names they carry, that the style of all should be like. Fourthly, if they were written by divers, how happeneth it, that in divers epistles divers writers use the same words, phrase and sentences? Again what is the reason, that some of them allege the words of the scriptures according to Hieromes traslation that was made long after? Fifty, neither Bellarmine nor Baronius dare maintain; that all these epistles are authentical. 6. The Romanistes themselves do not give any credit to these epistles For they hold that Linus succeeded Peter immediately▪ but Clement epistle. 1. telleth contrary, that he did succeed Peter, being ordained by Peter himself. Finally, they contain some matters disagreeing far from the times wherein they wrote, and others very impossible, and sometimes contrary to authentical histories. Clement epist. 1. writeth to james of the death of Peter, who seemeth to be dead before Peter. He talketh of sending of bishops into France, Germany and Italy, as if he had then had men to command at his pleasure, and could have disposed of things then, as in latter times. He talketh of a form and face of government, which then was not usual. In his second epistle most arrogantly he taketh on him to instruct james the Apostle, which had his instruction from Christ jesus. Qualiter tenere de sacramentis debemus, That is, of the dung of mice in the sacrament, which he calleth the Lord's portion. saith he, te ex ordine nos decet instruere. And then full wisely he talketh, de murium stercore inter fragmenta dominicae portionis. Anacletus in his first epistle, would have all hard questions referred to the church of Rome. But it is not likely, that the true Anacletus would have so written, that died before john the Apostle, who was better able to decide controversies of faith, then Anacletus. In his second epistle he saith, that the Apostles appointed the 72. disciples, which the gospel showeth us to have been ordained by Christ. In his third epistle he saith, that Abilius succeeded Mark in Alexandria; whereas Anianus did follow Mark, and Abilius followed Anianus. He saith also, that Cephas signifieth a head in Greek. The same man denieth the lesser orders under priests and deacons to be instituted by Christ or the Apostles. Evaristus talketh idly of ordaining priests without titles, and consecrating of Churches, and stone altars; whereas titles, and churches began not before the peace of the church, and stone altars were not built for many years after. Sixtus beginneth his epistle thus, Sixtus universalis apostolicae ecclesiae episcopus: whereas this title was by Gregory the first, and long after Sixtus his time refused. It is not like that Hyginus being a Greek, wrote to the Athenians which were Greeks in latin: which notwithstanding is signified by his epistle. Beside that he affirmeth, that the first epistle of john was written to the Parthians. Calixtus in his second epistle argueth against those, that refused repentance to those, that had fallen in time of persecution, which was the heresy of Novatus, that rose up some pretty while after his time, Pontianus in his epistle joineth Christ and Peter together, contrary to the style of those times. Marcellinus saith, non licet imperatori, Epist. 2. vel cuiquam pietatem custodienti aliquid contra mandata divina praesumere: whereby he signifieth, that the Emperor then professed christian religion. In his first epistle he disputeth against the Arrians, which denied Christ to be of one substance with his Father, very stoutly, and yet in his time the heresy of Arrius was not known in the world. Infinite other exceptions may be taken to these, and to the rest of the decretal epistles, that go under the name of ancient bishops of Rome. But the rest being like to these, of which we have already spoken, there is no question, but they are all of one stamp. falsification 26 Melchiades 12. q. 1. c. futuram ecclesiam. telleth us, how Constantine was christened, and gave his seat, and other great possessions, to the church of Rome: and yet Melchiades was dead before Constantine was christened, or had given any thing to the Church. This act therefore must needs be forged. and so doth the gloss confess after a sort. falsus est titulus saith the gloss in the canons set out by Gregory the 13. which showeth, that the Romish Church impudently useth false titles. falsification 27 Next to decretal epistles, shall follow the falsification of Fathers. Out of Augustine de doctrina christiana lib. 2. c. 8. they describe this sentence, in canonicis scripturis ecclesiarum catholicarum quamplurimum divinarum scripturarum solertissimus indagator authoritatem sequatur, inter quas sane illae sunt, quas apostolica sedes habere, & ab ea alij meruerunt accipere epistolas. Where these last words & ab ea alij, are foisted in: and thereupon in the rubric they affirm, that the Pope's decretal epistles are to be reckoned among canonical scriptures: and that they go about to prove most falsely by the testimony of S. Augustine, that doth not so much as speak one word of the pope's decretal epistles. falsification 28 The Fathers assembled in Trullo say, that james and Basil 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: that is, in the holy ministration of the Lords supper taught, that the cup was filled with wine and water. But the papists make them say, that james and Basil did deliver unto us missae celebrationem, that is, the first form of celebrating mass, as they expound it. falsification 29 C. species. de consecrat. dist. 1. there is a place alleged out of Gregory homil. paschali. but falsely. falsification 30 Likewise C. utrum. de consecrat. dist. 2. is pretended to be taken out of Saint Augustine. yet the words are not found in Saint Augustine, as they are there set down. falsification 31 C. in Christo. de consecrat. dist. 2. is otherwise set down then in Hilary, from whence the place is said to be taken. In the same chapter these words, corpus Christi quod sumitur de altari, and these which follow are also foisted into Hilary. falsification 32 Into the words of consecration of the cup in the very canon, they have thrust in these words, & aeterni, mysterium fidei. falsification 33 Under the names of Fathers, they have set us out a number of treatises unworthy of the Father's learning or piety. Under the name of Clement they have published divers constitutions by him affirmed to be apostolical Of like stamp also are Clement's fabulous recognitions. yet Gelasius doth place those constitutions among apocryphal writings. Tertullians' and Origens' tractates are often alleged by papists; yet doth Gelasius note them, as books corrupted. Under the title of Martialis, Africanus, Amphilochius, Prochorus, and such like ancient writers, they allege most vain and idle Pamphlets, neither savouring of the piety of those fathers, nor bearing the state of the times, wherein those Fathers lived. Under the name of Cyprian are these treatises published: De montibus Zion & Sinah. de revelatione capitis beati joannis. de singularitate clericorum. de cardinalibus operibus Christi. de laud Martyrij. de disciplina & bono pudicitiae. epistola ad Novatianum. sermons aliquot. orationes duae. which by divers arguments appear not to belong to Cyprian. In the book of the Revelation of S. john's head, there is mention made of king Pipin, that lived divers hundredth years after Cyprian. and in this our opinion not only Erasmus, but divers other authentical writers concur with us. Under the name of Hierome there are also extant, divers counterfeit treatises, as first, a sermon de assumptione B. Mariae virgins, 2. a treatise de septem gradibus ecclesiae, wherein the author reckoneth bishops for a distinct order from priests, and leaveth out exorcists. 3. a treatise entitled laus virginitatis. 4. de attributis dei ex scriptures. 5. certain sermons upon principal feasts. 6. de vinculis beati Petri. 7. de diversis generibus leprarum. 8. regula monachorum à Lupo quodam tempore Martini quinti collecta. 9 ad Tyrasium de morte filiae. 10. ad oceanum de ferendis opprobrijs. 11. de vita clericorum. 12. epistola Damasi ad Hieronymum, & Hieronymi ad Damasum. 13. Catalogus ad Desiderium. 14. de virtute Psalmorum. 15. de oblationibus altaris ad Damasum. 16. regula monacharum. 17. de nativitate Mariae: and other treatises. Under the name of S. Augustine we have certain sermons de tempore, de sanctis, & ad fratres in eremo, which both style, matter, and other circumstances show not to be his. There are also meditations, and soliloquies, ascribed to him, but most unworthy to bear his name. In the meditations he establisheth the worship of angels, which in his book of heresies, he reputeth to be an heresy. that book I have seen under the name of Anselmus, yet unworthy the learning of Anselmus. in the soliloquies we read the fable of Longinus. Beside that, both these books in style, and grace savour nothing less, then of Augustine's spirit. In the Manual, that goeth under Augustine's name, beside much foolery there is plain heresy. In the 16. chapter he showeth, that it is in man's power to merit the kingdom of heaven; which is Pelagianisme, and a saying of S. Augustine in divers places refuted. Beside that, the terms savour of a scholastical vein. The books called scalae paradisi, de duodecim abusionum generibus, de contritione cordis, de cognition verae vitae, de speculo, de vita christiana, de assumptione beatae Mariae, de contemptu mundi, de vanitate seculi, de obedientia & humilitate, de bono disciplinae, de visitatione infirmorum, de consolation mortuorum, de quarta feria, de tempore barbarico, de cataclysmo, de sobrietate & virginitate, speculum peccatoris, de utilitate poenitentiae, de quatuor virtutibus charitatis, and divers other set out under his name are manifestly to be proved, not to be his, and that not only by the testimony of learned men, but also by the style, circumstances of the time, the monastical and gross vein of the authors, and divers other notes. Under the name of Basil. and Chrysostome they have set out, not only commentaries and masses, but also epistles and sermons; whereof some are no where to be found in Greek, the rest savour rather of a friar like vein, then of those two father's spirit. And the like they have done under the names of the rest of the fathers. But as it is forgery to father bastards upon wrong fathers; so it is forgery, and great wrong to set out such base stuff under the name of fathers. And this may be gathered out of the law, qui falsam. ff. ad l. cornel. de falsis. & l. cum suppositi. Cod. etiam ad l. cornel. de falsis. Likewise if it be falsehood, to give us base metal for gold, and to pair true coin, as appeareth by the law, quicunque nummos. ff. ad leg. Cornel. de falsis: then is it likewise falsehood, to give us base stuff for the writings of the fathers. Herein they do also commit another point of falsehood. for having themselves abused the names of fathers, they by all means endeavour to suppress the original writings of the Greek fathers. Possevin in his rhapsody, which he entitleth bibliothecam selectam (albeit it is rather bibliotheca scelesta) persuadeth all, that have Greek copies to keep them from the sight of students in divinity. Bellarmine also and Baronius, and divers others confess sometimes both books, and decretal epistles set out under the names of fathers, and ancient bishops of Rome to be forged. Their own testimony therefore doth condemn them to be falsaries, if they use these false writings, and allege them, as they do most commonly. falsification 34 And lest any man might doubt, whether the papists are falsaries or no; in their expurgatory indices they openly profess themselves to be falsaries. In epist. ad Pium 5. ante bibliothec. san●am. For what is falsity, but to take away, to add, to alter men's writings? but this the papists do ex professo. Sixtus Senensis confesseth, that Pius 5. caused all the writings of the fathers to be purged, and cleansed. Expurgari & ernaculari curasti saith he, omnia catholicorum scriptorum, ac praecipuè veterum patrum scripta, haereticorum aetatis nostrae faecibus contaminata, & venenis infecta. But under colour of purging, and cleansing away of things noxious, it appeareth the Romanists have taken out such things out of the fathers, as made against them. As for other writers, they altar and mangle them, at their pleasures. In Bertram they change visibiliter into invisibiliter. Index expurgator. All that cometh between the words, considerandum quoque quod in panc illo, and the sentence beginning, sed aliud est quod exterius geritur; they dash out. and so they deal in the rest. In the censures of Erasmus, and annotations of Vives upon S. Augustine, and in the scholiaes, marginal notes, and indices of Augustine, Chrysostome and others, they take themselves liberty, to do what they list. Capnioes' speculum oculare, Fabres commentaries on the gospels, and epistles, Beatus Rhenanus his annotations on Tertullian they falsify most impudently. Likewise do they deal with all late writers. Not long since we ●…nde they have corrupted both the gloss, and sometime the text of the canon law. And this is now a common practice of jebusites, according to a direction and commission given them of the Pope to corrupt all authors, that pass their fingers. Possevima shameless companion curtaling ancient writings saith, ex lib. 2. Hermetis col. 16. Select. bibliotheca lib. 1. c. 19 deleatur, rectè audisti. & paulò pòst, qui enim crediderunt, aut credituri sunt. In transitu sanctae Mariae, qui falsò ascribitur B. Melitoni, deleantur illa verba, in solatium ferendum angugustijs, quae superuenturae sunt mihi. deleatur etiam à capite 8. usque in finem tractatus. ex libro Nicolai Cabasilae deleantur capita 29. & 30. In quaestionibus Anastasijs quaest. 87. scribatur in margin: haec intelligenda sunt de gloria corporis. The treatise of Antonius Abbas he turneth, and mangleth most impudently, and practiseth the like in divers other authors works. If then any man seek for falsaries, let him go to papists, that make profession of forging and falsification, and which without forgery cannot maintain their new forged devices, as themselves by their indices of books prohibited confess, and by books plainly falsified, it manifesty appeareth. Finally they are falsaries, that produce or suborn false witnesses, or that use their depositions. Poena legis Corneliae irrogatur ei, L poena. ff. ad l. cornel. de falsis. saith Marcianus, qui falsas testationes faciendas, testimoniave falsa inspicienda dolo malo coierit. But the Popes produce counterfeit fathers, and legends to testify for them. They have also suborned divers vile persons to speak shame of honest men, as Bolsecus of Caluin; Laingius of Buchanan, and others; Sanders, Rishton, Robert Patsons and Creswell against King Henry the eighth, Queen Elizabeth, the late Lord treasurer, the Earl of Leicester, sir Christopher Hatton Lord chancellor, sir Francis Walsingham, and others. The falsehood of these witnesses is convinced by divers public acts, and sufficient witnesses. Bolsecus in a synod in France publicly recanted his slanderous book, and professed, that he was hired, and drawn on by the adversaries. Parson's shall hear some of his lies hereafter. His conscience in the mean while hath often told him of his lying. Wherefore, unless Owlyglasse can answer in these points, the accusation of falsification doth fall on his dearest friends far more heavily, then upon us. CHAP. V A brief Catalogue of certain notorious lies uttered, and recorded by the Popes, and Church of Rome. TO go about to comprehend in one Chapter all the untruths, and lies of the pope's of Rome, and the synagogue adhering unto them, were as possible, as to measure the sand, or to bring the Ocean sea within the compass of one vessel. I will therefore out of many, choose some few, that by the example of some part, every man may judge of the rest, and discern, and hate the false packing of papists, and their adherents. falsification 1 Innocentius the first, or rather some other Pope under his name affirmeth, that none did found Churches in Italy, France, Spain, Africa, Sicily and islands lying between these countries, but those whom Peter and his successors made Priests. He denieth also, that any of the Apostles taught in those countries, beside S. Peter, and those which he sent. Cum manifestum fit, saith he, in omnem Italiam, Gallias, Hispanias, C. quis nesciat. dist. 11. Africam atque Siciliam, insulasque interiacentes nullum instituisse ecclesias, nisi eos, quos venerabilis apostolus Petrus, aut eius successores constituerunt sacerdotes. aut legant, si in istis provincijs alius apostolorum invenitur, aut legitur docuisse. quod si non legunt, quia nusquam invenitur etc. A loud and large lie. for we read in the Acts of the Apostles, that the Apostle Paul, who was not ordained, nor sent by Peter taught at Rome, and other places in Italy. Freculphus writeth that Philip the Apostle taught in France. the French acknowledge Dionyse of Ariopaguses, whom Paul converted, to be their Apostle, and first teacher▪ jereney joineth Paul with Peter in the foundation of the Church of Rome. In the old records of our Church it is reported, that joseph of Arimathia first planted the gospel in Britain. Saint Augustine showeth that the Gospel came into Africa from other country's, then from Rome. For he distinguisheth Rome from those countries, from whence the sound of the Gospel first passed into Africa, as appeareth by these words of his epist. 162. ad Glorium, Eleusium et alios: Cum se videret, & Romanae ecclesiae, in qua semper apostolicae ecclesiae viguit principatus & ceteris terris, unde evangelium ad ipsam Aphricam venit, per. communicatorias litteras esse coniunctum. Finally so loud was the lie, that the gloss is constrained to say, that the word Alius; doth signify, contrarius: which is quite contrary to Innocentius his purpose. For if his argument stand upon this point, that therefore all the Churches in the provinces mentioned are to obey the Church of Rome, because she was their founder; then if other not contrary to Peter did found those Churches; it followeth that the same were not to hearken to the pope or the Church of Rome but to their founders. falsification 2 Gregory the fourth saith, that all bishops causes, and the discussing of matters of religion belongeth to the apostolic Roman See, as the head of all Churches, & the place, from whence the Church took her beginning. cum nulli dubium sit, saith he, quod non solum pontificalis causatio, C. praeceptis. dist. 12. sed omnis sanctae religionis relatio ad sedem apostolicam, quasi ad caput ecclesiarum debeat referri, & inde normam sumere, unde sumpsit exordium. Anatorious lie. For the law went out of Zion, and not from Rome: and bishops causes were handled in times passed in counsels, and not before the bishops of Rome. There also were matters of faith decided, and not by the Romish bishops, as this lying Pope affirmeth. Nay the causes of the bishop of Rome himself, as well as of all other bishops, were handled in counsels. falsification 3 Under the name of Athanasius the Church of Rome c. Septuaginta. dist. 17. teacheth, that the counsel of Nice published 80. canons, which were reduced afterward to the number of 70. according to the number of 70. disciples; and that the copy brought to Alexandria was burnt by heretics. But authentical stories do refute this lie, and show, that there were only 20. Canons established in that council. Beside that, Luke. 10. Luke saith, that Christ sent 72. disciples, As the old latin transtation hath. Thirdly, if the canons were 80. it were a mere falsity to cut of, or reduce 80. to 70. Finally, of the burning of the canons of the Nicene counsel there is no record in any authentical writer. falsification 4 Marcellus saith, that these words. Psal. 81. ego dixi dij estis, are spoken of Preestes. And thereby would prove them to be above magistrates. Si seculares in publicis judicijs saith he, C. synodum dist. 17. libellis utuntur appellatorijs, quanto magis sacerdotibus haec eadem agere licet, de qubus dictum est, ego dixi, dij estis? The Pope therefore may be convinced of notorious lying and forging by all interpreters, and not only by the text itself. falsification 5 Under the name of Leo. c. ita dominus. dist. 19 They teach, that Peter was assumed into an inseparable bond of unity with Christ. hunc in consortium individuae unitatis assumptum; id quod ipse erat, voluit nominari; a matter untrue and blasphemous, and unworthy to be uttered by Leo. For albeit Christ consist of two natures; yet no man ever yet said beside this counterfect● Leo, that Christ and Peter made one person. falsification 6 Anacletus saith, that Peter was made bishop, when Christ said to him, thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, C. innovo. dist. 21. and I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. He saith, also, that the rest of the Apostles made Peter their prince; ceteri vero apostoli cum eodem pari consortio honorem & potestatem acceperunt, ipsumque principem eorum esse volverunt. But this second point is refuted by the whole tenor of the evangelical history, and the acts of the Apostles recorded by Saint Luke. For in no place we find, where the Apostles did ordain or make Peter their prince or governor. Nay we rather find, where Christ made all the Apostles equal. The first point is contradicted also by the words of Christ, who in the future tense said: Dabo tibi, and not Do tibi. Bellarmine also holdeth, that Peter in this place received nothing, but a promise. quorum verborum saith he, planus & obuius sensus est, lib. 1. de. pontiff. Rom. 10. ut intelligamus sub duabus metaphoris promissum Petro totius ecclesiae principatum. He speaketh of the sense of the words rehearsed by Anacletus, and by his exposition it appeareth, that Anacletus said untruly, that Peter was made bishop by christs words uttered Mat. 16. which may also be proved by Turrecremata in his treatise de ecclesia. Finally all the Pope's agents hold, that Peter received the primacy from Christ, and not from the Apostles. falsification 7 Gelasius saith, that the Church of Rome obtained the primacy not by any ordinances of synods, C quamuis. dist. 21. but by Christ's own words in the Gospel. A matter most untrue. For the scriptures speak no where of the primacy of the Romish Church▪ neither can it be proved out of the words, tu es Petrus: alleged by Gelasius. Neither doth every prerogative of Peter belong to the Church of Rome. Nor had the apostle Peter any such high primacy, As the Pope now claimeth; and practiseth. falsification 8 Pope Nicolas saith, that Dioscorus was not condemned for matter of faith, C. in tantum. dist. 21. but for denouncing an excommunication against Leo bishop of Rome. But the acts of the 2. council of Ephesus being in favour of Eutyches, and the council of Chalcedon do reprove him, and plainly convince him of untruth. The same also may be gathered by the chapter Canon's▪ dist. 15. And therefore the gloss to salve this lie, saith we must so understand Nicolas his words, as if he had said, that Dioscorus was not condemned for matter of faith only; which was no part of Nicolas his meaning. falsification 9 Omnes sive patriarchij cuiuslibet apices, sive metropoleon primatus, aut episcopatuum Cathedras, vel ecclesiarum cuiuslibet ordinis dignitates, C. omnes. dist. 22. saith Nicolas the Pope, instituit Romana ecclesia. But he telleth a gross untruth▪ for the scriptures tell us, that the Apostle Paul ordained bishops in Crete, Ephesus, and divers places both in Europe, and Asia; and ecclesiastical histories tell us, that neither the Church of jerusalem, nor Antioch, nor other eastern Churches, nor their dignities were founded by the Church of Rome. Finally the acts of counsels tell us, that councils did appoint the several limits of bishops dioceses, & did enlarge their dignities according to divers occasions; and that emperors, and the dignities of great cities did add dignity to the bishops. falsification 10 The same Nicolas also affirmeth, that Christ gave to Peter terreni simul, & caelestis imperii iura. that is, the right both of the kingdom of heaven, and kingdom of earth. Ibidem. But our Saviour Christ's words show, that he gave him no earthly kingdom, but promised him only the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Nay if he be Christ's vicar, than he must claim no earthly kingdom. For our Saviour Christ's kingdom was not of this world. falsification 11 Anacletus affirmeth, that Peter and Paul were both crowned with Martyrdom in one day, and at the same time. C. sacro sancta. dist. 22. a matter denied by Prudentius peri steph. him 12. Arator in Act. Apost. lib. 2. and the author of the 18. Sermon de sanctis, that goeth under Saint Augustine's name, and divers others. falsification 11 Pope Nicholas saith, that Constantine called the bishop of Rome God. Constat à pio principe Constantino (quoth long superius memoravimus) deum appellatum. C. satis. dist. 96. And upon this ground he goeth about to prove, that the Pope is not to be judged by any. But this ground is an impudent lie, and cannot be justified by any authentical writing. falsification 12 In the chapter beginning Constantinus. dist. 96. the canonists affirm, That Constantine the emperor gave his crown, and all regal dignity in the city of Rome, and in Italy, and in the western countries to the Pope. Constantinus imperator Coronam, & omnem regiam dignitatem in urbe Romana, & in Italia, & in partibus occidentalibus apostolico concessit, say they in their decrees▪ but this is an impudently refuted by all authentical writers, that describe the state of the empire of Rone, and of the western empire after Constantine's time. and is contradicted by the princes of Italy, that for the most pa●te deny to hold any thing of the Pope in fealty. Like unto this fable is that, which is reported of Constantine's leprosy, and how he was counseled to bathe himself in children's blood, and was at last cured by Sylvester bishop of Rome by baptism. For this is contrary to physic, to cure leprosy by bathing in children's blood, and not well agreeth with divinity, unless it can be showed, that baptism cureth corporal diseases. Finally, the same is not found in any good author, but only seemeth to be devised by the writers of fabulous legends. falsification 13 Anacletus telleth, how provinces were distinguished by the Apostles, C. provinciae. dist. 99 and by Clement. But that fabulous relation is refuted by acts of counsels, and constitutions of emperors, that from time took order for the limits of provinces, and dioceses, and did innovate old limits oftentimes; which assuredly they would not have done, if the same had been ordered by apostolical constitutions. The same is also contradicted by those, that attribute, the distinction and limitation of parishes to later Popes. Finally, it is disproved by the records of ancient time, that signify, how the Church being in persecution, the bishops that lived obscurely, had no reason ambitiously to contend, either about the limits of provinces, or else lesser dioceses. falsification 14 Under the credit of Tharasius they say, that Peter deposed those, C. multipliciter. 1. q. 1. in Cod. Greg. 13. that were ordained by Simony, as he did Simon Magus. Cum Petrus divinus ille apostolus, cuius & Cathedram sortita est fraterna vestra sanctitas, say they, hos deposuerit, ut Simonem magum. But Simon Magus was not ordered, nor did ever Peter depose any so ordered, as may appear both by the acts of the Apostles, and authentical stories. Is not this then a fable, that they tell of Peter,, and of Simoniacal persons pretended to be deposed by Peter? falsification 15 Innocent the fourth affirmeth, that the kingdom of Sicily is the special patrimony of Peter. Ad apostolicae. de sent. & re judicat. Regnum saith he, est speciale patrimonium Petri. But Peter neither claimed so much, nor acknowledged so much, nor knew so much. Neither do we read, either in scriptures, or fathers, that he had any such patrimony. falsification 16 He saith also impudently, that in the person of Peter it was said to himself also, Ibidem. whatsoever thou shalt bind upon the earth, shall be bound in heaven. And therefore he concludeth, that he hath power to depose Princes. Doth it not then appear, that the Pope by lies, hath usurped power to depose princes? and doth he not absurdly and falsely affirm, that Fredrick was deposed by God, because he like a rebel pronounced him deposed, being a wicked man? falsification 17 Clemens the fift affirmeth most falsely, that the emperors having the crown of the empire set upon their heads, swear fealty to the Popes. That this assertion is false, Clement. Romani. de jure iurando. Ibidem. it may appear by the emperor Henry's protestation, by all histories, that talk of the emperor's consecration, and by Bellarmine's disputes. For though he was willing to gratify the Pope with any thing, that lay in his power to grant; yet durst he not say, that the empire is holden in fee of the Pope, or that the emperor sweareth fealty to the pope. How much then is it to be wondered, that christian emperors should so patiently endure these usurpations of pope's? Doth it not plainly appear, that S. john's prophecy is fulfilled, how they shall give their authority and power to the beast? Certes, Apocal. 17. if this were not, they would never have resigned their crown so basely into such beastly creatures hands, and take that of antichrist, which is originally their own, and given them of God. falsification 18 The same Clement affirmeth, that the king of Sicily is the Churches, and his vasal, Clement. pastoralis. de sent. & re judicat. and that he is the emperors superior judge, and during the vacation of the empire, doth succeed the Emperor. Nos tam ex superioritate saith he, quam ad imperium non est dubium nos habere, quam ex potestate, in qua vacant imperio imperatori succedimus. But this doth not only convince the Pope of singular pride and arrogancy, but also of falsehood and treachery. For Gregory the first called the emperor dominum, that is, his Lord▪ and Peter was subject to the emperor, and also taught subjection to kings. Furthermore it is simplicity, to teach, The king of Spain will not yield to it, I think. that the church doth possess earthly kingdoms, and hardly will the pope prove, by any authentical testimony, that the king of Sicily is his vassal. Finally, it is a shame to all the empire, to endure this lying beast to disgrace the imperial state; and a matter of mere impudence for any to affirm, that the Pope is Emperor during the vacation. And, I think, neither Bellarmine, nor Baronius, albeit well paid for lying, will affirm, the all that, which the Pope writeth in that shameless decretal, is true. falsification 19 Boniface the 8. saith the Romish church hath two swords. In hac eiusque protestate saith he, C. unam. extr. de maiorit. & Obed. duos esse gladios, spiritualem scilicet & temporalem, evangelicis dictis instruimur. But, that the Church hath a temporal sword, is most untrue. for the Church hath the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and no sword to govern terrestrial kingdoms. It is also most false, that the evangelists teach us, that the Church hath the temporal sword. For Christ said to Peter, Pasce, and not, macta oves meas. that is, feed my sheep, and not, kill my sheep. falsification 20 In the gloss of the Chapter, unam sanctam. extr. de maiorit. & obed. we read, that the Romanists affirm, that no man can be saved, unless he be subject to the Pope. Si Christo Capiti, & eius vicario subesse nolumus, salutem non poterimus adipisci. The same is also gathered out of the text of Bonifaces decretal. But this is a main untruth. for the Apostles, and divers of the Eastern, and African churches, and others not subject to the Pope are saved, and I hope the papists will not deny, but they are saved. If they do, I hope we may say, their denial is a damned denial. falsification 21 The same Boniface also affirmeth most untruly, that the Pope cannot be judged of any, but God. but the Emperor, he believeth, may be judged by the Pope. That he speaketh untruth in both these points, I have showed in my books de Pontifice Rom. and de coneilijs. Histories also report, that divers pope's have been justly deposed by counsels and emperors, as for example john the 12. john the 23. Eugenius the fourth, and others. but that the Pope did justly depose the emperor, we read not. For men of great excellency have condemned the fact of Gregory the 7. Paschalis, Gregory the 9 Innocent the fourth, and others, that attempted to depose the emperor. But we read not of any man, that ever allowed it, but such as were hired to commend all the pope's rebellions, and practices. falsification 22 Clement the sixth saith, that Christ shed more blood, than was sufficient for the redemption of the world, C. vnigenit●… extr. de poen●. & remiss. and that the overplus was laid up in a treasury for the Popes to bestow for remission of temporal punishment. He telleth also a tale of the image of Christ, that appeared on the wall of the Church of our Saviour built by Constantine. Matters if not blasphemous, yet very untrue, for not the shedding of blood absolutely, but the death of our Saviour was the satisfaction, that was to be paid for the sins of the world. Secondly, Christ died not, nor shed his blood, that the Pope might make say of it by his indulgences, as is his fashion; but that every one, that believeth on him, might have remission of sins, and be saved. Which belief cannot stand with the pope's dispensations and indulgences. Thirdly, the fable of the apparition of this image would be proved; or else it may easily be proved, that it is a false fable devised of idolaters for justification of their abominable idolatry. To relate all the lies, that are set down in the Latin, Italian, Spanish and English legends would require a great volume. Baronius hath set out nine or ten volumes of legendary lies. Yet hath he not comprised the one half of them, that are contained in the legends. I will therefore only give you a taste of a few, that you may the better judge of the rest. falsification 23 In S. Andrew's legend set down partly in the Breviary we read, that he being brought before Aegeas the proconsul of Achaia did most freely reprehend him; and that he should say, ego omnipotenti deo, qui unus & verus e●…, immolo quotidie non taurorum carnes, nec hircorum sanguinem, sed immaculatum agnum in altari. Which words are not found in any authentical writer, no nor in Abdias, albeit not authentical. Beside that, the name of Aegeas is rather greek then latin. But in those times the Romans' made no Greeks proconsul's. When Andrew came to the cross, he is reported to have said o bona crux: which is no apostolical speech; neither can it be found, that in any authentical writer the Apostles are said, to have sacrificed an immaculate lamb upon the altar. Finally the legend saith, that his body was translated first to Constantinople, and then to Malphi in Italy, and that his head was brought to Rome in Pius the second his time. Matters merely forged, and by the illusions of Satan believed, for the establishment of the worship of Saints. falsification 24 In the legend of Nicolas it is said, that being an infant, every wednesday and friday he refused to suck his nurfe until night, ●… bre●ar. Me●s. decemb. and that being far distant he appeared to Constantine, and so threatened him, that he delivered three tribunes, which by calumnious accusations he had condemned to death. But these are matters, not only false, but also incredible. for neither do infants understand what is fasting, much less laws of fasting: nor can a man's body being in Lycia. as was the body of Nicolas, appear at Constantinople: nor can men understand the prayers, much less the thoughts of men being absent, unless God reveal them, of which here is no mention. falsification 25 Lucia a maiden of Syracus● by one Paschasius governor of that Island, In breu. Rom. is said to be much importuned to sacrifice to idols. But not prevailing, he purposed to send her to the stews, and a man would think he did what he purposed▪ but see what happened. She stood so immovable, that no force could move her, nor fire, pitch, nor rozine, nor boiling oil hurt her; as it is in the legend. But these reports seem utterly false and destitute of all proof. nay, we do not read of any such governor of Sicily in Dioclesian's time. falsification 26 Antony and Paul the eremites are in the Romish breviary said to have bread brought them by a crow. Mense januar. in festo Paul●. We do also read, that Antony saw Paul●s soul carried by angels into heaven. Finally they tell us, how Antony wanting means to dig a grave to bury the corpses of Paul in, two Lions did dig a hole capable enough of a body. Nay it is said, that they did mourn at his grave. so they played the parts, and did the office both of the Sexton, and of Mourners. But these fables, as they are contrary to all reason, so they are destitute of all proof out of antiquity. Neither is R. Parsons able to show how souls may be seen, or lions can mourn. Further, 3. Reg. 17. beside Helias we read of none fed in such extraordinary sort by Ravens. Owlyglasse therefore may do well to allege as good authority for the feeding of Paul and Anthony by a crow in the wilderness, as we can for the feeding of Helias by Ravens; and then he shall discharge the Romish synagogue of suspicion of telling untruth. falsification 27 Daemons ita contempsit (Antonius) saith the Romish breviary, ut illis exprobraret imbecillitatem. that is, In fest. Anton● Antony did so contemn devils, that he reproached them with their weakness. But holy men mentioned in scriptures did not so. therefore it is not likely, that so holy a man would digress from their footsteps. Neither is it likely, that they were so afraid of him, as is reported: or that he gathered monks together; and gave them that rule, that now goeth under S. Anthony's name▪ for these are legendical fables, destitute both of proof and probability. falsification 28 They tell us also most improbable tales of Prisca, Agnes, Agatha, Catharine and other Saints. Our legends report wondrous matters of S. George, that killed the Dragon. but the Romanists are ashamed of S. George, and leave his legend out of the breviary. The like fables are told of S. Christopher: and yet the papists are not able to show that ever there was a S. Christopher, or Saint Catherine in the world. falsification 29 Likewise doth Capgrave tell strange matters, which of English papists were believed in time past. Capgrave in Bernaco. Saint Bernacus saith he, killed a mortiferous beast at Rome, that before had killed, and devoured much people, and cattle. but it is not like, that Bernac could do more, than his holy father the Pope. A certain fellow, that stroke S. Bernac was punished with swarms of flying lice: toto corpore pediculis saith Capgrave; alatis obsessus. He spoke with Angels, sailed over the sea upon a broad stone▪ turned oak leaves into loaves (viz. by changing one letter) stones into fishes, water into wine. his cow being cut in pieces, he restored notwithstanding to life, and committed her to be kept by a wolf. Finally ke yoked Hearts, and made them draw in a cart. which Owlyglasse will hardly defend to be n● lies. falsification 30 He saith, that Christ appeared to Augustine the monk, and talked familiarly with him; Capgrave in Augustino. and telleth also how he plagued the men of Dorset with fire. But the Saints of God in time past, did rather pray for poor men, then call for fire down from heaven upon them. Saint Peter also, a man of as good credit, as Capgrave, saith the heavens must contain Christ, that is thither ascended, until the time of the restoring of all things. falsification 31 When Bartilmew a monk came to Durrham, and saluted the crucifix, the same wooden crucifix bowing down himself, saith Capgrave, resaluted him again. He saith also, that he saw the devil sometime in the form of a mouse, sometime of a cat; and that he imprisoned a Hawk two days, and made her to fast, for killing him a little bird▪ and many such lies telleth Capgrave of Bartilmew the monk. falsification 32 Scripsit ex ore angeli sanctus Brendanus sanctam regulam, saith Capgrave, In Brendano. quae usque hody manet. that is, he wrote his rule, as he received it of an Angel. When as a poor fellow being followed by his enemies, that meant to kill him, fled to Brendan desiring succour, he willed him to get up upon a stone hard by, and not to move▪ this done, his enemies that followed, struck the stone for the man, and believed the man to be the stone. He caused a fountain also to rise out of a dry ground, and was carried into paradise▪ as for dead men, he raised them to life without any difficulty. Which things no man can pass for truth, unless he be as senseless, as the stone, that Capgrave talketh of. falsification 33 Of Edith Capgrave writeth, that when she died, Angels were heard to sing harmoniously, In Editha. and seen carrying her soul to heaven: that, she appeared to Dunstane being dead, that her body remained without corruption, especially her thumb, with which she made the sign of the cross: That she did quiet the seas, and delivered Aldred Archbishop of York being in danger in the Adriatic sea, when he called upon her. All which lies, if Owlyglasse will believe; he must be very credulous, and one of those, that are given over to believe lies. But to make others believe, that these are no lies, he needeth more eloquence, than he hath now ignorance. In the 8. session of the council of Constance, as it is called, the popish church affirmeth, that Wickleffe taught, quod deus debet obedire diabolo. That is, that God must obey the devil▪ also, that Princes being in mortal sin, are not to be obeyed. And divers other matters never taught by Wickleffe▪ which may appear first by his books; and ne●t by the articles collected against him, and recorded by Thomas Walsingham. Neither have our adversaries any arguments to prove the contrary, unless a man will believe those infamous articles, which were by his adversaries objected against him after his death▪ which neither law, nor reason will admit to pass for proof. falsification 35 Likewise did the papists deal with john hus in that wicked assembly, condemning him for holding articles, which he in open audience denied. One reported, Sess. 15. that he should affirm, that there was a fourth person in the trinity; others, that he should call Gregory the first, rhymer, matters which he utterly disclaimed. Yet these and many more lies that conventicle believed of him, and condemned him for them▪ and these lies of that holy man the synagogue of Rome now commonly believeth. falsification 36 Now the church of Rome not being able to overthrow our doctrine, goeth about to calumniate our principal teachers, as Luther, Caluin, Zuinglius, Oecolampadius, Bucer, Beza and others, & the principal agents either in shaking of the pope's tyranny, or the establishing of religion, and namely her majesties most noble father, her mother, her brother, herself, her counsellors and principal agens, the prince of Condey, and his father, the Admiral of France, Henry the 4. now reigning, and divers others in Scotland, Germany, and otherwhere. Unto Luther Leo the tenth imputeth calumnious assertions, which he never held. Commonly the papists give out that he taught, that if the wife would not yield to her husband, that the husband might go unto his maid▪ that he died suddenly, that his body did stink, and many such like slanders stinking in the nostrils of all honest men. Of Bucer they report, that he turned jew, and died blaspheming; a matter refuted by the testimony of his enemies, that were present at his death, and not only by his friends. Of late they published a lying pamphlet of the revolt of Beza, and of his death, which he yet living refuted. The slanders of , and ribaldry of that ribald Ribadineira, which the papists receive with such applause, shall shortly (godwilling) be made manifest to the world. Now it may appear, that they are false, being devised by Sanders, and Rishton, two lewd lozel's unacquainted with state matters, and, as it is thought, published, and much increased by Rob. Parsons the most notorious traitor, and infamous libeler, that the congregation of jesuits ever did afford us. falsification 37 Pius the fift in his letters to the Emperor most impudently affirmeth, In vita Pij quinti. that the council of Nice made the Pope (which he termeth the successor of Peter) Lord and governor of all Princes christened, and also of all provinces and nations whatsoever, and that the same council did anathematise all, that should contradict that authority. A matter proved to be a notorious lie, by the acts of the council▪ for therein no such matter is found. The same also is refuted by this argument, for that counsels have not to do with the disposing of temporal states. falsification 38 Sixtus Quintus in his railing bull against the king of Navarre, now reigning and swaying the sceptre of France, and the Prince of Condey, publisheth most notorious lies. He saith, they polluted and spoiled Churches, and with torments killed Priests, monks and friars, and did compel men to religion with threats, and bastonadaes; minis, verberibusque: No one point being to be proved against them, or that they did any thing more, than the laws of arms enforced them for their own necessary defence. The like slanderous Bulls did Paul the third publish against Henry the 8. king of England, and Pius Quintus, and Gregory the 13. against her Majesty. Wherefore unless Rob. Parsons and his consorts can justify these matters to be true; it will appear, that the Romish religion is not only maintained with lies, but also grounded upon a pack of lies. For such as these are, an infinite multitude of lies may be found in the Popes, and the Churches of Rome's principal records. Of which I shall have occasion, if God be pleased, to talk more at large otherwhere. CHAP. VI A taste of Bellarmine's unsavoury falsifications. I Would be loath to wrong any, especially in writing, where all that read may be witnesses of the wrong, if any be offered. Wherefore to answer my adversaries accusation, that saith, I have slandered and infamed the worthy prelate Cardinal Bellarmine, preface. where I charged him, with falsifications and lies; I will now, godwilling, justify my saying, and show, that his works are not, as Owlyglasse saith, the sword of Gedeon; but rather the sword of Goliath, whereby a man with labour and diligence may cut off both his own head, and the head of antichrist. The same is also like a leaden sword guilted over, and fair in show, but nothing trenchant in proof. He might more fitly have compared them to Augias' stable, that contained an infinite heap of dung, but to be purged, if learned men would take the pains to examine them. For my part, I do testify before God, that they have much confirmed me in the truth, and truly affirm, that they are more tedious to read, then hard to refute, in matters especially that concern us. But now to come to the matter, I will offer to the reader a taste of his falsifications and loud leasings, purposing to add more, if our adversaries please to continue this course of examination of ours and popish author's writings. I will also join with him his fellow Caesar Baronius with his x. legions of lies. Not doubting, but if they understand their errors, their faces will turn crimson. And why not their faces as well as their robes, especially if they have any remainder of their pretended Virginal modesty? falsification 1 First he doth wilfully corrupt the sixth canon of the council of Nice lib. 2. de pontiff. Rom. c. 13. the canon beginneth thus, mos antiquus perdurat in Aegypto, vel Lybia, vel Pentapoli. But Bellarmine maketh the canon to begin far otherwise. Obseruandum saith he, in libris vulgatis d●esse initium huius canonis, quod tale est. ecclesia Rom. semper habuit primatum. but these last words are plainly forged, as may appear by all the copies of the acts of the Nicene council. neither can it excuse him, that one Paschasius act. 16. council, chalced. hath these words, or that Copus a counterfeit companion doth affirm, that a certain Abbot called Dionysius doth so read this canon for Abbots may prove forgers as well as others, and little credit is to be given to the Pope's agente in his own cause. Further Paschasius his words so stand, that we may probably conjecture, that some latter falsary hath so set down the words of this canon, as we read them now in the t●mes of counsels set out by Papists. Finally, all authentical histories testify, that before the council of Nice the Church of Rome was little respected: and Aeneas Silvius doth in plain terms confess so much. Neither can Parsons deny it, unlesie he put on his visor of impudence. falsification 2 In his book de pontiff. Rom. c. 31. he falsifieth Hieromes words, and perverteth his meaning to prove, that he called Damasus the foundation of the Church. Hieronymus saith he, in epist. ad D●masum de nomine hypostasis: super hanc petram ecclesiam aedificata● scio. ubi Damasum petram ecclesiae vocat. But Hieremes words stand thus. ego nullum primum, nisi Christum sequens beatitudini tuae, id est, cathed●ae Petri communione consocior super ●am petram ecclesiam aedificatam scio. Whereby it appeareth that Hierome meant to follow none but Christ, and that he meant Christ, when he speaketh of the Rock. For so the pronoun Illam, that is referred to that which is further of, doth teach us. But Bellar. to prove the Pope to be the foundation of the Church, leaveth out Christ, and for the pronounce Illam, writeth hanc, like a cunning falsary. falsification 3 In the same book and chapter he falsifieth the acts of the council of Chalcedon. septimum est saith he, caput ecclesiae, quo utitur concilium Chalcedonense in epistola ad Leonem. qui but tu ve●ut caput membris praeeras. These words I say are falsely alleged. For first it cannot be proved, that this epistle was written by the council, as Surius hath recorded Act. 3. Concil. Chalced. Secondly, admit the whole epistle was not forged; yet there is no mention made of the head of the Church, as Bellarmine affirmeth▪ for the word Caput, in these words, quibus tu velut Caput membris praecras: is referred to certain Priests of Leoes order, in which rank he showeth himself principal. Bellarmine therefore to make some show, leaveth out both the words going before, and the words following after, which plainly show, that the authors of that epistle never meant to call him the head of the Church. His falsehood may appear by the words, as they follow in that epistle Act. 3. council. Chalced. set out by Surius. Si ubi sunt duo aut tres congregati in nomine eius say they ibi se in medio eorum fore perhibuit, quantam circa sacerdotes peculiaritatem potuit demonstrare, qui & patriae & labori suae confessionis notitiam praetulerunt? quibus tu quidem sicut caput membris prae eras in his qui tuum tenebant ordinem, benevo lenriam praeferens: imperatores vero ad ornandum decentissimè praesidebant. The Latin is rude and barbarous savouring of a monkish humour. But by the words we may see, that the authors of that epistle made Leo head of priests, and men of his cote, and not of the Church, nor council, Wherein emperors most decentely did praeside, and sit as chief moderators: as the fathers of that council teach us. falsification 4 Likewise reckoning up the names and titles of the bishops of Rome, he saith that Eusebius in his chronicle anno. 44. doth give them the title of Pontifex Christianorum. Which is a mere forgery. For not the bishops of Rome, but to Peter only, is that title given, if it be not thrust into the text. But what belongeth, and is peculiarly given to Peter, may not be claimed by every bishop of Rome. For I hope every one of them will not be called Simon, nor an Apostle, nor the chief or first Apostle. Nor will they, I suppose, writ, as Peter did, in his second epistle: Simon Petrus servus & apostolus jesu Christi. Finally I hope Clement the 8. will not write. Clemens octaws alter Simon Petrus, & servus & apostolus jesu Christi. falsification 5 In his book de Monachis. c. 6. We read these words. Dicit (Lutherus) & saepissime repetit & inculcat, Paulun cum ait, se potuisse circumducere sororem mulierem 1. cor. 9 voluisse dicere, se potuisse ducere uxorem. that is, Luther doth say, and often repeat, and inculcat, that Paul, when he said; he might lead about a sister, a woman, as it is. 1. cor. 9 meant, that he might marry a wife. But he doth falsify Luther's words. For Luther saith only, that the words 1. cor. 9 do not compel us (to believe, that Paul had no wife) but rather show, In. 1. cor. 7. that he had a wife, and would not lead her about with him. for speaking of this place, and of those, that collected out of it, that Paul was unmarried: hoc saith he, none cog it, verum multo magis indicat, eum habuisse uxorem, sed eam circumducere noluisse. He doth also impudently affirm, that Luther doth repeat, & inculcat that often which he is not able to show to have been once uttered by him. He speaketh also very improbably. For seeing Luther affirmed that Paul had a wife already, it is very unlikely, that he should say, and that often, that Paul might marry an other wife. If then he will not be condemned both as a falsary, and a lying fellow, let him set down Luther's words, where that is often repeated. falsification 6 He allegeth also in the same place these words, as taken out of Luther; Voveo castitatem paupertatem, & obedientiam▪ dicit saith Bellarmine, formam vovendi hanc esse debere, si piè vovendum sit, voveo castitatem, paupertatem, & obedientiam usque ad mortem liberè, id est, ut mutare possim, quando volo. that is, Luther saith, that this is the best form of vows, if we will make godly vows; I do vow chastity, poverty, & obedience unto death, but freely or conditionally, that is to say, that I may change, when I please. But Luther speaketh not one word, of the vow of poverty and monastical obedience, nor ever thought, that any godly man might make a vow concerning either; nor doth he speak, or place his words so ridiculously, as Bellarmine doth report. All that Luther saith to this purpose is this. Videtur forma voti apud deum sic habere, De votis monast. voveo castitatem, quam diu possibilis fuerit, si autem servare nequi ero, ut liceat nubere. That is in effect thus much. That form of vow seemeth most pleasing to God, that is thus uttered: I vow chastity, as long as I am able to contain, if I be not able, then that it may be lawful for me to marry. Doth it not appear, that Bellarmine hath falsified Luther's words & made him, contrary to his own doctrine, to allow vows of poverty and monastical obedience, and to speak ridiculously, and foolishly, and far otherwise, then ever he spoke or wrote? falsification 7 In the same book chap. 31. He saith, that Chrysostome in his commentaries (upon the 19 of Math.) teacheth us, that Christ by the similitude of eunuchs would prove, that it is easy and profitable to abstain from marriage. facile & utile esse abstinere a nuptiis. But like a falsary where Chrysostome hath possible, there he placeth facile. But many things are possible, that are not facile, and easy. falsification 8 Likewise in the same book chap. 27. he falsifieth a place of Saint Chrysostome homil. 15. in priorem ad Timoth. He rehearseth Chrysostom's words thus, & vidua in viduitatis professione christo consentit, id est christo nubit. But these words id est Christo nubit, are added by Bellarmine, and that perversely. For Christ is the spouse of the Church, and not of every capricious nun, falsification 9 In his book de notis ecclesiae. c. 9 he maketh Luther to speak thus: non alia via potest homo cum deo convenire, aut agere, quam per fidem. opera ille non curate. But Luther's words, as they are set down in his book de captivitate Baby jonica. c, de Eucharistia, which book with the rest of his works were set out at Wittemberge, are these. nec alia via potest homo cum deo convenire, aut agere, quam per fidem, id est, ut non homo operibus suis ullis, sed deus promissione sua sit author salutis; ut omnia pendeant, portentur, seruenturque in verbo virtutis suae. So it appeareth, that Bellarmine cutteth off the end of Luther's sentence, and addeth these words: opera ille non curate, to make his doctrine odious. falsification 10 In the same book and chapter likewise Bellarmine falsifieth another place of Luther, making him to speak thus. tam dives est homo Christianus, ut non possit perire si velit, quantumcunque malè vivat. But Luther's words in his book de Capt. Babyl. c. de baptismo, of the edition above mentioned, stand thus: tam dives est homo Christianus, ut volens non possit perdere salutem suam quantiscunque peccatis, nisi nolit credere. These words quantumcunque malè vivat, are added by Bellarmine, to make Luther's doctrine seem contrary to good works. falsification 11 He would make his reader believe, that Caluin should say, that God is cause of sin. De notis eccles. c. 9 The place quoted instit. lib. 1. c. 18. doth acquit Caluin, and show Bellarmine to be a falsary. for he doth not teach any such matter, nor hath any such words. falsification 12 These words he setteth down as taken out of Caluins instit. Ibidem. lib. 1. c. 18. §. 2. non solum permissu, sed voluntate dei homines peccant, ita ut nihil ipsi deliberando agitent, nisi quod deus apud se decreverit, & arcana directione constituit. but he forgeth these words, quod dei voluntate homines peccant, and altereth the latter end of the sentence. falsification 13 Lib. 3. instit. c. 23. §. 24. dicit calvinus saith Bellar. lib. de notis ecclesiae c. 9 dei non solum praevisione, & permissione, sed etiam voluntate in peccatum lapsum esse Adamum. But these words are no where to be found in Caluin. for he hath only these words: lapsus est primus homo, quia dominus ita expedire censuerat. falsification 14 Likewise he affirmeth that Caluin hath these words lib. 3. instit. Ibidem. c. 24. §. 14. quod aliqui verbum dei audire contemnunt, ipsorum est pravitas, sed in hanc pravitatem à deo addicti sunt. but these words à Deo are Bellarmine's addition. falsification 15 Speaking of Philip Melancthon: dicit saith he, ita fuisse opus dei judae proditionem, Ibidem. ac Pauli conversionem. and these words saith he, are found in his commentaries upon the eight Chapter of the epistle to the Romans. But the place viewed doth declare his falsehood. for he hath not the word ita, nor useth this frame of sentence. falsification 16 Declaring unto us the heresy of the Eunomians: docebant saith he, non posse homini ulla peccata nocere, Ibidem. modo fidem habeat, ut testatur Augustinus lib. de haeres. c. 54. But he hath wronged Saint Augustine in reporting, that these are his words. Fertur (scilicet Eunomius) saith Saint Augustine, adeo fuisse bonis moribus inimicus, ut asseveraret, quod nihil cuique obesset quorumlibet perpetratio, ac perseverantia peccatorum, si huius, quae ab illo docebatur fidei, particeps esset. Let indifferent men therefore judge, whether Eunomius spoke absolutely of faith, or of his own peculiar faith. And whether it is all one, to condemn good works, and to say, that howsoever Christians are most carefully to walk in God's works; yet that they are not justified by good works, but by the grace of God communicated to them through faith in Christ jesus. falsification 17 Origenis haeresis fuit, perdidisse Adamum imaginem dei, ad quam creatus fuit, saith Bellarmine. Ibidem. And this he saith is affirmed by Epiphanius haeres. 64. but he falsifieth Epiphanius, and belieth Origen in this point. for his error was not, that he supposed man to have lost the image of God through sin, but that the soul did lose the same, being created and joined to the body. Illud secundum imaginem dicit Adam perdidisse: saith Epiphanius speaking of Origen, & inde dicit, corpus esse intelligendum, quando deus fecit vestes pelliceas, & illis induit illos. for so the Greek text doth plainly teach us. falsification 18 He saith also, that Origen taught; that hell was nothing, but the horror of conscience. Ibidem. and this he avoucheth upon the credit of Hierome in epist. ad Auitum de erroribus Origenis. But in this point also he doth mistake Origen, and falsify Hieroms words. For Hierome doth not set down any such words, but only showeth, that Origen taught, ignem Gehennae & tormenta non poni in supplicijs, sed in conscientia peccatorum. He may therefore do well to report Hieroms words the next time better, lest those, that are of Origens' heresy be therein confirmed by his false dealing. falsification 19 Of Caluin he affirmeth, that he taught, that the image of God was lost in Adam; and to prove it, doth allege these words, as out of the 2. book of his institutions c. 1. §. 5. per peccatum primi hominis obliterata est coelestis imago. But that which he saith of the losing of the image of God in Adam, is a gross lie. for Caluin never taught, that the image of God was quite lost, but blemished and much defaced. The words also are falsified. for he saith not, as Bellarmine reporteth quod imago obliterata esset, absolutely, but quod tanquam scriptura bella calamo transuerso obliterata esset. falsification 20 He affirmeth, that Epiphanius reporteth haeres. 64. that Proclus an heretic taught, Ibidem. that sin did always live in the regenerate, and that concupiscence was truly sin, and that the same was only dulled by faith, and not taken away by baptism. He saith also, that Theodoret reporteth as much lib. 3. haeret. fabul. of the Messalians. But he doth abuse both Epiphanius and Theodoret, and doth ascribe that unto them, which they never taught. Theodoret lib. 4. haeret. fabul. cap. de Messalianis doth not so much, as mention concupiscence, or utter any such words. but rather contrary to Bellarmine's report of them he saith, that the Messalians taught, that baptism like a razor cut off all former sins. falsification 21 Haec est ipsissima sententia saith Bellarmine, Lutheri art. 2. & 31. Ibidem. etc. item Philippi in locis communibus c. de peccato Originis, & calvini lib. 4. instit. c. 15. §. 10. scilicet peccatum in renatis semper vivere. but in no one of these, can he find, that sin is said to live in the regenerate. For our doctrine is contrary, and every christian professeth, that he ought to mortify his concupiscences and earthly members, and to be quickened in the spirit. Wherefore either the man lieth intolerably, or else he doth falsely allege the words of Luther, Melancthon, Caluin. And that shall appear more plainly, when Robert Parsons goeth about to justify his old acquaintance Bellarmine. falsification 22 The chief error of the Novatians saith Bellarmine, was, that there is no power in the church, to reconcile men to God, but by baptism. And this he goeth about to prove out of Theodoret lib. 3. haeret. fabul. c. de Navato. But Theodoret doth convince his false report both of his own words, and of this heresy. For first he showeth, that Navatus did deny to reconcile those, that had fallen in persecution. And afterward, that his followers did utterly deny the use and grace of repentance. Poenitentiam a suo conventu arcent penitus saith Theodoret speaking of the Novatians. It is also apparent, that they did not restrain remission of sins to baptism only. falsification 23 Where he speaketh of the heresy of the Novatians, he telleth us, that Cornelius witnesseth, that the Novatians taught, Ibidem. that the Church had no power to reconcile men to God, but by baptism, and that such as were baptised, were not by the bishop to be anointed with Chrism. And this he saith is found in Eusebius his history lib. 6. c. 33. but neither hath Eusebius nor Cornelius any such words. falsification 24 In his second book de eucharistia c 9 he hath these words, Dixit (Cyprianus) latere sub specie visibili panis deum verum. but Cyprian saith only, divinam essentiam ineffabiliter se visibili sacramento infundere. And there is no small difference betwixt these two propositions. for the divine essence may work in sacraments after an unspeakable sort, albeit Christ God and man be not contained under the visible form of bread in the eucharist, or water in baptism: Especially after the form imagined by papists. falsification 25 In the same book chap. 12. he affirmeth, that Hilary doth often repeat these words, Christum naturaliter esse in nobis per sumptionem eucharistiae. But the same are not to be found in the 8. book of Hilary de Trinitate, once, which he saith are found often. falsification 26 Likewise in the same book chapt. 14. speaking of Cyrill he saith, Ibidem jubet ut flexo genu & in adorantium morem accedant ad eucharistiam▪ And these words he supposeth to be in his fift mystagogicall and catechistical instruction. But neither are the words there to be found, nor hath he any such commandment, nor did he ever believe or teach, that the sacrament was to be worshipped after the popish manner. falsification 27 Citing a place out of Saint Augustine de Trinit. lib. 3. c. 10. he would make his reader believe, Lib. 2. de eucharist. c. 24. that our Saviour Christ appeared to the eyes of mortal men in the forms of bread and wine. A matter never uttered, nor thought of by S. Augustine, nor to be found in that place, or otherwhere in his writings. falsification 28 Speaking of S. Augustine he saith, that in his 12. book contra Faustum c. 10. he teacheth, that the faithful receive that blood with their mouth, wherewith they were redeemed. And in the 20. chapter of the same book, that they drink that, which issued out of Christ his side. But S. Augustine hath not one word of receiving of the blood of our redemption with our mouth▪ neither doth he mean, that we do properly and carnally drink his blood, or with corporeal instruments. falsification 29 Out of Hesychius lib. 2. in Leuit. cap. 8. he quoteth these words lib. 2. de eucharistia c. 32. sanctum altare esse locum, ubi sanctus sanctorum requiescit. but the same are falsely fathered upon that father, being neither to be found in that chapter, nor otherwhere. falsification 30 Lib. 1. de missa. c. 19 Out of Chrysostom's homil. 79. ad populum Antioch. he citeth these words, altari assistens sacerdos, pro terrarum orb, pro episcopis, pro ecclesia, pro gubernantibus ecclesiam iubetur deo offer. but Chrysostome hath no such words of the priests offering, but saith, that the people of Antioch do pray for all these sorts of people. falsification 31 Ibidem. He affirmeth, that Chrysostome homil. 72. in Matth. saith, that the eucharist is offered, pro infirmis, pro sanis, pro terrae fructibus. but he hath no such like words, either there, or any other place: but he saith only, that we pray in the celebration of the eucharist for such as are possessed with devils, for sick persons, and such like. falsification 32 Hippolytus in his oration of the end of the world hath these words, venite pontifices, qui purè mihi sacrificium die, noctéque obtulistis, ac pretiosum corpus, & sanguinem meum immolastis mihi quotidie. Bellarmine lib. 1. de missa c. 15. leaveth out these words, qui purè mihi sacrificium die noctéque obtulistis: lest we should know, that he speaketh of spiritual sacrifices, & not of the mass, that is seldom said in the night. falsification 33 Lib. 2. de missa c. 9 speaking of the multitude of private masses, he endeavoureth to prove the same by a most ancient custom, as he saith, and for this end allegeth an epistle of Telesphorus, and a testimony out of Gregory homil. 8. in evangel. but not only the epistle of Telesphorus is counterfeit, but both the same, and Gregory's testimony is falsely alleged. for neither of them speak any one word of such a custom, or of the custom of saying three masses in one night. In the same place also prosper is falsely alleged. For he speaketh not one word of offering one sacrifice twice in a short time. falsification 34 To prove the adoration of the sacrament lib. 4. de eucharist. c. 29. he falsely allegeth Gregory Nazianzen in laudem Gorgoniae, Cyrill of Jerusalem Catechis. 5. mystagog. Euseb. Emissenus homil. 5. de Paschate. for not one of these speaketh one word of adoration of the sacrament, as he affirmeth most falsely. It were infinite to touch all the places falsified by Bellarmine; and I suppose, that these are more, than our wooden Owlyglasse, alias Woodward will answer. And yet these are but falsifications of one kind. but he hath also run into divers other kinds of falsifications. ff. ad leg. Cornel. de falsis. For whereas law doth declare them to be falsaries, that shall either suborn false witnesses, or father bastards upon those, who are not their true fathers, or that shall in a testament add a legacy supposed untruly to himself, or that shall commit any falsehood about coins, or laws; it is an easy matter in every of these points to charge Bellarmine with falsification. For first he hath produced infinite false witnesses, as for example Clement, Martialis, Anacletus, Africanus, Abdias, Amphilochius, Leontius, Paulinus, Simeon Metaphrastes, and such like false companion's, that either writ fables, or take on them false names. Secondly, he hath fathered infinite base and paltry sermons, and epistles, and other treatises upon Cyprian, Athanasius, Nazianzen, Ambrose, Hierome, Chrysostome, Augustine, Cyrill, and other fathers. Thirdly, he hath alleged divers counterfeit decretales under the name of Evaristus, Telesphorus, Alexander, Marcellus, Syricius, Innocentius, Gelasius, and others, wherein they mention divers prerogatives due to the Church of Rome, and to themselves, setting down as it were false legacies, with their own false hands, in false and forged testaments or records. Fourthly, for the original scriptures he hath oftentimes alleged apocryphal writings, and the old latin translation, albeit differing from the original text, corrupting after a sort, God's eternal testament. Fifthly, for the pure writings of the fathers, he hath oftentimes given unto us the dross of Peter Lombard, Thomas Aquinas, and other schoolmen: and with them hath also joined the corrupt testimonies of legends, and such like trash. Finally, he hath cited infinite false canons, and counterfeit counsels, and acts of counsels. And this I will justify by divers thousands of examples, if the wooden detector, or any of his partakers will stand to the quarrel, which he and Rob. Parson's have begun. I have also in divers treatises set out against Bellarmine, discovered divers thousands of his corruptions. I hope therefore, that our adversary hereafter will say, that I have not slandered that voluminous Cardinal Bellarmine: especially, when he shall have perused the note following concerning his untruths and leasings. Which now according to my promise, I purpose sincerely, and truly to deliver. CHAP. VII. A note of certain notorious untruths, and lies boldly avouched by Bellarmine. NExt after falsifications, we are to report some few untruths boldly avouched by Card. Bellarmine. which albeit he uttered, being yet in minoribus, as they call it; yet we are not therefore to esteem them to be less material, seeing he is the Pope's principal proctor. falsification 1 Habemus in eodem testamento veteri saith he, Heliam & Helizeum ac filios prophetarum, Lib. de Monach. c. 5. sine uxoribus & divitijs in hoc mundo vixisse. That is, we learn in the same old testament, that Helias and Helizeus, and the sons of the Prophets lived without wives, and riches in this world. A plain & evident untruth refuted by a plain text of scripture 2. Reg. 4.1. where we read, how a certain woman of the wives of the Prophets cried to Elizeus. there also we read, that she had sons likewise. I doubt not therefore, but Owlyglasse will confess this to be a lie. falsification 2 Likewise in the same place he affirmeth, that almost all the fathers write, that john Baptist was the first founder of monks, and eremites. joannem Baptistam saith he, Ibidem. Monachorum & Eremitarum principem fuisse scribunt ferè omnes patres. and afterward he nameth Nazianzen, Chrysostome, Hierome, Cassian, Sozomenus, Isidorus, and Bernard. But this is a notarious untruth consisting of divers parts. For first this number is far from almost all the fathers. Secondly, Nazianzen in the place quoted doth not speak so much as one word of monastical life, In laudem Basili●. much less of the vow of john baptist. Thirdly, Chrysostome and Hierome speak not of cloister monks, but of ermites', that lived in the wilderness. Fourthly, Cassian collat. 18. c. 6. doth make Paul and Antony, and not john B ptiste, the founders of ermites' life. Fiftly, Sozomen, lib. 1. c. 12. speaketh of Ermites' and that not according to his own, but according to other men's opinions, Sixtly, Isidore and Bernarde do not say, that john Baptist was the first founder of eremitical, and monkish life but rather, that Eremites went into the wilderness after the example of Elias and john baptist. Finally I. Baptist in nothing was like to monks. for he was not shut up within a cloister, nor did he forswear marriage, nor observe a certain rule, but was the forerunner of our Saviour, the minister of baptism, and a great prophet and a most excellent good man. Furthermore he had course clothing, and a thin diet, and was no tamperer in matters of state. Contrariwise the jebusites, & other monks live in gorgeous houses, far daintily, are clad richly, drink wine, and albeit they be a sort of locusts, yet neither care to eat locusts, nor wild honey. Further they observe a certain rule, forswear marriage, and disturb states and common wealths, and are neither Priests nor Prophets, nor any way profitable for the Church or common wealth. falsification 3 Speaking of Tertullian & Cyprian he saith, that both of them spoke of religious women or nuns, and such as by solemn vow had consecrated themselves to God. Vterque loquitur saith he, de virginibus religiosis, Lib. de monach. c. 5. & p●r solennem professionem deo consecratis. A matter most untrue▪ for albeit Tertullian wrote de virginibus velandis, & Cyprian de habitu virginum: yet the vele and habit was such as those father's thought fitting for all christian women. For no man doth think it fit, that all christian women should become nuns and religious women. Secondly, neither of those fathers talketh of any solemn vow, or denieth liberty to those Virgins to marry, or thought it fit they should be shut up in cloisters, or governed by peculiar orders or rules. But popish nuns make solemn vows, and after them may not marry. Beside that they live in cloisters, and are subject to rules, and yet which is most strange, are not so good maids as those, which Tertullian and Cyprian talketh of, though no votaries. falsification 4 Speaking of the Apostles: verè primi fuerunt monachi Christiani, saith Bellarmine. that is, most truly the Apostles were the first monks among Christians. But it is not the first lie, Ibidem. that he made among the Romanistes. Howbeit a lie it is, and that very apparent. For Christ sent his apostles abroad into the world to teach & baptise, and not to live in eremitages or cloisters. Secondly, the Apostles never took bond of vow upon them, nor lived under monkish law. But saith he they had all things common. So had also all the first christians▪ yet it is ridiculous to say, that all Christians of those times were monks. He allegeth also Saint Augustine's words, lib. 17 the civit dei. c. 4. hoc votum potentissimi voverunt. but by votum there, he understandeth no monkish vows of obedience chastity and poverly; but of leaving all for Christ's sake▪ which manner of vow not only the Apostles, but all christians also do make, and perform, as oft as occasion requireth. falsification 5 In his book de monachis. c. 5. speaking of Luther: asserit mulieres, saith he, non nisi ad matrimonium creatas fuisse. that is, he affirmeth, that women were created for no other purpose, but for marriage▪ but this is a most impudent untruth. For Luther hath no such words, nor meaning. In. 1. c●… 7. For he affirmeth only, & viros & mulieres ad generandam sobolem creatos esse, that is, that both men and women were created for bringing of children into the world. So it is apparent, that he foisteth in his words, non nisi, and turneth that to women, which Luther spoke both of men and women, and finally maketh Luther to exclude all other ends of the creation of women, where he speaketh of one end, and excludeth none besides that one. falsification 6 In the same place he avoucheth, that Luther taught, that it was all one to consult, whether a man should marry a wife, as if he should consult, whether he should eat and drink. dicit. saith Bellarmine, idem esse consultare, sit ne ducenda uxor, & sit ne comedendum & bibendum. But Luther's words do plainly discover his packing & lying. In procem. exeg. in ●. cor. 7. Stultum est dubitare saith he, an mulieres copulandae sint matrimonio, vel an aliqua in uxorem d●cenda sit. perinde enim quaeri posse, an edendum, vel bibendum sit. And his meaning is, that when a man's frailty will not permit him to contain, it is then all one to ask whether a man shall marry a wife, or whether he shall eat and drink. Now between these words, which are ascribed to Luther by Bellarmine, & the words written by Luther, there is great difference▪ for Luther speaketh indefinitely First, & saith, that it is a foolish thing to doubt, whether women are to be joined in marriage, or not: and then in case he cannot contain, whether a man is to marry a wife or no▪ and Thirdly, he talketh of doubting, and not of consulting betwixt which there is no small difference▪ for of things, which we are to resolve according to our own knowledge, it is folly to consult with others yet may we doubt, before we resolve▪ so it appeareth, that Bellarmine leaveth out the indefinite proposition of Luther, and expresseth not Luther's case, where he reporteth his words, and falsely and lewdly changeth doubting into consultation. falsification 7 He doth also affirm, that Luther taught, that Moses commanded all the jews to marry, so that it was not lawful by any means to be without a wife in the old testament. De monachis c. 6. dicit saith Bellarmine Moysem praecepisse omnibus judaeis matrimonium, ita ut nullo modo licuerit in vetere testamento carere uxore. But the words of Luther do plainly convince him to have uttered untruth. In. 1. cor. 7. For he saith only, in judaismo neminem non coniugatum esse oportuisse: that is, that the jews ought to be married. But he doth not say, non licuisse ullo modo in veteri testamento carere uxore, as Bellarmine affirmeth. Nor doth he absolutely deny all exceptions to the ordinary rule & course. Finally; he talketh of the custom of jews, and not of an express written law, whereas Bellarmine notwithstanding maketh him to speak of a written law. falsification 8 He affirmeth that Athanasius telleth, how Antony the ermite did hear holy Angels in a vision to say that all his sins were remitted, when first he entered into a monastical life. Lib. de monach. c. 6. Testatur Athanasius in vita Antoniuses saith Bellarmin, B. Antonium in visione audiuis●e sanctos angelos dicentes, omnia peccata sibi remissa fuisse, quando monasticam vitam suscepit. A notorious untruth, notwithout some touch of forgery also▪ for first, the very discourse of Antony's life, that passeth under the name of Athanasius is forged. Secondly that counterfeit fellow saith no more, but that Antony's former sins by Christ's bounty were sopited or covered. quod priora peccata Christi bonitate fuissent sopita. of remission of si●… by virtue of a monastical Cowl, which Bellarmine intendeth to prove, there is no inkling. falsification 9 In his book de monachis. c. 13. He hath these words; Augustinus, Bernardus, Thomas existimant hoc praecepto, diliges dominum deum tuum ex toto cord tuo, simul imperari medium & indicari finem; ideo docent, non posse impleri perfectè hoc praeceptum in hac vita; & tamen non esse praevaricatorem, Lib. de perfect. justitiae. qui non perfect illud implet. And again docet idem Augustinus motus involuntarios concupiscentiae, licet hoc praecepto prohibiti sint, tamen adeo non esse peccata, ut non sit opus dicere pro eye dimit nobis debita nostra. But in these words he laypeth up together divers round lies. For first false it is-that Saint Augustine saith, that such as fulfil not the law, whereby we are to love God with all our soul and all our strength, are not thereby made transgressors, de spirit. & literal c. vlt. but rather the contrary▪ for he showeth, that it is necessary for every man to give that he may receive, & to forgive, that it may be forgiven him, & in the latter end of the book de perfectione justitiae, he teacheth us, necesse esse dicere, dimit nobis debita nostra, that it is necessary for us to say, forgive us our trespasses. Secondly, Saint Augustine doth not deny, that motions troubling us against our wills are sins. Thirdly, he speaketh not one word, of showing the end, and commanding the means. Fina●ly, neither doth Bernard, nor Thomas Aquinas so write, as Bellarmine affirmeth▪ would his cardinalship therefore prove, what he written, and verify his assertion by their words, he should deliver himself from a note of great falsehood and untruth. falsification 10 Expounding a testimony out of the first to the Corinthians 9 chapter: Lib. de monach. quo toto capite saith he, Paulus conatur ostendere, se plus fecisse, quàm sibi esset praeceptum, & propterea singularem gloriam apud deum meruisse. And afterward he saith, ita exposuerunt omnes patres. that is, the fathers do also expound the Apostle, viz. that it may appear, that he taught works of supererogation. But neither doth Paul in the whole chapter, nor in any part of the chapter show, that he did more, than was commanded, nor doth he signify, that therefore he merited any singular glory. Secondly, it is untrue, that all the Fathers do so expound the Apostle, as Bellarmine reporteth. for he citeth none, but Chrysostome, Ambrose and Augustine: whereof Ambrose in 1. cor. 19 doth not so much as once mention works of supererogation. Chrysostome commenting upon the same chapter, talketh of works done over and above the thing commanded. But he speaketh not of the whole law, which requireth all, that we can do; but of some one particular precept. Saint Augustine lib. de opere Monachorum c. 5. saith, that Paul did erogate more (erogasse amplius) because he did remit that stipend, which he might have exacted. So it appeareth, that he speaketh of doing more, than was required at his hands, by one particular precept; but not more, than the whole law required. Finally, none of these fathers that he speaketh of, mentioneth singular glory, nor saith, that the same is due for works of supererogation. falsification 11 Where he citeth justine Martyr Apolog. 2. and Tertullian Apologet. c. 9 he telleth untruth of them both. justinus ait saith he, apud nullam gentem coli Caelibatum, ut apud Christianos, ubi sunt plurimi utriusque sexus usque ad senectutem in virginitate permanentes▪ quod idaem scribit Tertullianus. But neither doth the one, nor the other speak de Caelibatu, in which state of life both widowers and hooremongers may live, but de virginitate, that is, of chastity and virginity, a matter, with which the Romanists have not much to do, albeit their monks, friars, and priests be Caelibes. falsification 12 He mistaketh also Hieromes words in epist. ad Eustoch. de virginitate. for Hierome saith not, fuisse suo tempore in coenobijs homines omnis aetatis pueros, viros, senes: as Bellarmine reporteth lib. de monachis c. 35. for he mentioneth no boys, but divideth the whole company into senes & paruulos, that is, into the elder sort, and such as were novices, and paruuli. By which, not children are to be understood, but those, that were newly entered, albeit men of ripe years. falsification 13 In his book de nocis ecclesiae c. 9 he signifieth, that we confess, that the doctrines taught by the Papists were also holden by the fathers. He saith directly, that Caluin in divers places of his Institutions confesseth, that he dissenteth from all antiquity. Finally, speaking of the Centuriastes: in singulis Centurijs saith he, ad finem quarti capitis annotant omnes fere doctores illius seculi docuisse ea dogmata, quae nos tuemur. All which three points are so many untruths. for neither do we confess, that the doctrine of the papists, wherein we descent from them, is ancient: nor doth Caluin in any place affirm, that he dissenteth from all antiquity: nor do the writers of the centuries either in so many places, or any one place confess, that all the doctors of every age almost, did teach the doctrines maintained by papists. Nor finally doth it follow; because Caluin, and they of Magdeburge, or other private men do hold strange points of doctrine, that all our Churches concur with them; or because in some one point, or two they differ from us, that therefore they maintain the whole doctrine of the papists. Wherefore as his premises be false, so his collections upon them are fond, foolish and foppish. falsification 14 In the same chapter he saith, that the Eunomians taught, that no sins could hurt a man, so he had saith. And that this was Simon Magus his heresy to hold, that a man was justified by grace, and not by works. Eunomiani docebant non posse homini ulla peccata nocere, modo fidem habeat, ut testatur Augustinus lib. de haeresib. c. 54. And again: haec erat impijssima haeresis Simonis, qui dicebat hominem salvari per gratiam, non per operas iustas. And these heresies he affirmeth to be holden by Luther, Caluin, and Brentius and others. But to cast some good colour upon his accusation, he hath made divers gross lies. First, the Eunomians taught not, that no sins could hurt a man, so he had faith: but so he were partaker of that faith, which he taught. Haeres. 54. Docebat Eunomius saith S. Augustine, nihil obesse cuiquam quorumlibet peccatorum perpetrationem, & perseverantiam, modo eius, quam ille docebat, fidei particeps esset. Secondly, neither doth any of us, nor did Luther, or Caluin, or any true Christian ever hold, that perseverance in sin doth hurt no man▪ nay we say, that he that believeth truly, worketh also by charity. Why then doth he charge us so impudently with this error? Thirdly, we speak of a true faith, and not of the heresy of Eunomius. Fourthly, not Simon Magus, but the Apostle Paul taught, that we are saved by grace. As for the disciples of Simon, they taught, that men are saved by the grace of Simon. Lib. 1. adverse. haeres. c. 20. Docebant saith Irenaeus, servari homines secundum gratiam Simonis, non secundum operas iustas. Fifthly, we say anathema to all, that believe to be saved by Simons grace, or the Simoniacal Pope's indulgences. Are the papists then not ashamed, to see their champion overlash so far in the report of these matters? Finally, we do not deny, but good works are the way, we are to walk in, if we mean to attain the kingdom of heaven, though not the causes of obtaining that kingdom. falsification 15 He saith further, that as Florinus taught, that God was the author of sin, Lib. de notis eccles. c. 9 so Caluin did likewise teach. Florini haeresis erat saith Bellarmine, deum esse causam peccatorum. And again, eadem sine ullo pudore docet calvinus lib. 1. instit. c. 18. §. 2. Non solum permissu inquit, sed etiam voluntate dei homines peccant. etc. & lib. 3. c. 23. §. 24. dicit non solum dei praevisione & permissione, sed etiam voluntate in peccatum lapsum esse Adamum. & infra c. 24 §. 14. quod, inquit, aliqui audire verbum dei contemnunt, ipsorum est pravitas, sed in hanc pravitatem à deo addicti sunt, ut in eyes potentiam suam & severitatem ostendat. He doth say also, that Luther, Peter Martyr, and Melancthon held the same opinion. Dicit Melancthon in comment. in c. 8. ad Romanos saith he, ita fuisse opus dei judae proditionem, ac Pauli conversionem. But here needeth a fellow with a talye, to score up the Cardinal's main lies. For first Caluin doth expressly deny, that God is the author of sin, as may appear by his first book of his institutions chapped. 18. Secondly, it came never in Luther's, Peter Martyrs, or Melancthons' mind, to hold any such wicked opinion, as Bellarmine doth ascribe unto them. Thirdly, Caluin hath not these words, non solum permissu, sed etiam voluntate dei homines peccare; or that God is author, or cause of sin. Nay he directly teacheth, that the next cause of sin, is the depravation of man's will. Fourthly he forgeth lies, where he saith, that Caluin writeth, that men are addicted to do evil by God, and that Adam did sin by the will of God. for neither of these points will be found in his third book of Caluins' institutions, from whence Bellarmine would seem to derive them. Fifthly, he doth impudently and without shame charge Luther and Peter Martyr with teaching, that God is author of sin. And if Robert Parsons be not able to allege their words, out of which this may be proved, he cannot deny, but that the Cardinal is a liar. Finally, he doth slander Philip Melancthon, and without colour belie him▪ for if Melancthon had taught any such wicked doctrine, as he reporteth; then would he never have failed to set down his words. Which not being done, we will not fail to charge him with untruth▪ which I doubt not but Rob. Parson's will discharge him of, if he can. falsification 16 Origenis fuit error, saith Bellarmine, infernum nihil esse, nisi conscientiae horrorem, teste Hieronymo in epistola ad Auitum. Ibidem. idem docet calvinus lib. 3. instit. c. ultimo. §. vlt. But he doth impudently belie Caluin. for he never thought, much less taught any such matter. if he had done, Bellarmine useth not to conceal his words. He belieth also both Hierome and Origen, as I have showed ●… the chapter ●…ing before. falsification 17 He saith very impudently, that in England a woman is our chief bishop. Et iam reipsa saith he, Lib. de notis eccles. c. 9 Caluinistis in Anglia mulier quaedam est summus pontifex. A shameless lie of the Pope's chief parasite. for albeit we give her Majesty supreme authority in ecclesiastical ●am●es; yet the same doth not include any power of ministerial 〈◊〉 in preaching the word, and administering the sacraments, or using the keys; nor doth it comprehend more, then doth belong to the French king, and all other kings, if they will take it, and not suffer the same to be usurped by Antichrist, and his adherents. His slanderous words, where he like a slave of antichrist doth call us Caluinists, doth show his had humour, and how without lying and railing, neither he, nor his consorts can maintain their credit. falsification 18 Proclus Haereticus apud Epiphanium haeres. 64. saith Bellarmine, Ibidem. dicebat peccatum in renatis semper vivere. concupiscentiam enim verè esse peccatum, nec tolli per baptismum, sed sopiri per fidem, quod idem docuerunt Meslaliani haeretici apud Theodoretum lib. 4. de haeret. fabulis. haec est ipsissima sententia Lutheri artic. 2. & 31. Item Philippi in locis communibus c. de peccato Originis, & calvini lib. 4. instit c. 15. §. 10. But to report somewhat, that may tend to slander us, he hath reported a number of lies all upon a heap. for neither did Proclus say, that concupiscence was sin, and that it was not taken away by baptism, but only made dull by faith: nor did the Messalians teach any such matter. nor doth either Epiphanius say that of Proclus, or Theodoret of the Messalians, that Bellarmine reporteth. nor doth either Luther, or Melancthon, or Caluin teach, that sin doth live always in the regenerate. Proclus believed, that the body was vinculum animae, and that the souls were created before the body: which was also the heresy of Origen. But this which Bellarmine talketh of, he never taught, nor was any such thing condemned in him as an heresy. Luther, Melancthon, Caluin and we all do hold, that every christian man ought to mortify his earthly members, and concupiscences, and that some do it more, some less. Neither doth any man teach, that concupiscence doth reign, or live in the regenerate, as this lying and slanderous mouth affirmeth. falsification 19 Whereas Novatus denied reconciliation to such as had fallen in time of persecution, Ibidem. or as Bellarmine saith, power to reconcile men to God, otherwise then by baptism, he chargeth Caluin with this heresy, as if Caluin did deny reconciliation to repentant sinners, or had said, that the church hath no power to reconcile such as are fallen. As not this therefore gross impudence, to lie so manifestly? But saith he, Caluin denied, that there was any sacrament of repentance, beside baptism. as if he, that denied this, must needs say, that the church hath no power to reconcile sinners to God. This certes, is not only untruth, but want also of all understanding, and modesty. falsification 20 He doth impudently affirm, that Luther and Caluin denying free-will, do fall into the heresy of Manicheisme. Manichaeorum est, inquit Hieronymus, saith Bellarmine, Ibidem. hominum damnare naturam, & liberum auferre arbitrium. & Augustinus de haeres. c. 46. peccatorum originem, inquit, non tribuunt Manichaei libero arbitrio. idem apertè sectarij omnes. Now by sectaries he understandeth all, that profess the truth. Afterward he doth specially name Luther and Caluin. but if he had any shame, he would not have said, that either Luther, or Caluin doth condemn the nature of man, as the Manicheyes do, or teach that man doth sin necessarily, and not by his free-will. And albeit they deny the force of man's will (which is called commonly liberum arbitrium) to be sufficient to understand the will of God, or to perform the same; yet it doth not therefore follow, that they savour of Manicheisme. But how the papists savour of this heresy, we have showed heretofore. falsification 21 Ho● tamen est magis impius calvinus Manichaeo, quod Manichaeus deo malo tribuat peccatorum originem, calvinus deo bono. Herein, saith Bellarmine, Ibidem. doth Caluin show himself more wicked, than the Manichey, because he attributed unto an evil god the beginning and cause of sin, and Caluin to a good God. But if he passed not the Manicheyes, and all other heretics in impudent lying, he would not have thus falsely affirmed this of Caluin, who in his first book of institutions chap. 18. doth expressly prove, that God is not the author of sin; and in all places doth detest this opinion. Why then did not Bellarmine allege his words, if he had said any such matter? In the place quoted certes he teacheth the contrary of that which Bellarmine affirmeth, and belloweth out against him. falsification 22 He is not ashamed also to affirm, that all of us teach, that the visible church hath been lost now this many years. Ibidem. ecclesiam visibilem à multis seculis perijsse saith he, & nunc solum esse in septentrionalibus partibus, ubi ipsi sunt, docent omnes, praecipuê calvinus lib. 4. instit. c. 2. §. 2. But he doth belie Caluin, and all the rest. for we believe, that in Italy there is a visible church now, albeit the Pope see it not. and that the church at all times consisted not of spirits, but of men visible, albeit every one did not know them. neither do we say, that the church at any time shall fail, or hath failed. nor is this lying cardinal able to prove it out of our writings. falsification 23 Of Luther, Melancthon, and Caluin he affirmeth, that they cannot deny, Ibidem. but that the seeds of Arianisme are sown in their writings. Which is a lie most odious and malicious. for all the points of Arianisme they not only detested, but have learnedly refuted. and those proofs that Bellarmine bringeth in his preface to his treatise, de Christo, are nothing but railing terms, and proofs of his own malice. falsification 24 He saith, jovinian taught, that a man after baptism could not sin, Ibidem. especially if he were truly baptised, and the same error he doth impute to Caluin. But he lieth both of the one and the other. for neither did jovinian teach so, nor Caluin: though by his lying reports he do endeavour to conjoin them in one opinion. falsification 25 Hierome doth impute these heresies to Vigilantius, first, that he taught, that the bodies of the Saints were unclean, and to be thrown out: next, that the prayers of the Apostles and Martyrs are not heard: and lastly, that the ministers of the Church ought to be married. But if Bellarmine do say, that in these three points we agree with Vigilantius, Ibidem. as he doth; then doth he make a threefold lie. For neither do we allow those, that would have men's bodies thrown out to the beasts of the field, and fowls of the air, or otherwise use the bodies of holy men departed this life unreverently; nor do we doubt, but that God doth hear the prayers of the church triumphant; nor do we think any man is to be constrained either to marry or not to marry. Would then Bellarmine show more plain and true dealing in his disputations, his readers would better like of him, and his cause. falsification 26 Of Pelagius he affirmeth, that he taught that righteousness is lost by every little sin, Ibidem. and that therefore every sin is mortal. and this saith he, is confirmed by the testimony of Hierome lib. 2. contra Pelagianos. But neither was this the error of Pelagius, who rather, as the papists suppose & teach, held, that a regenerate man may be without all sin, and that he is able to perform the law; nor doth Hierome affirm any such thing of Pelagius. falsification 27 Of Zuinglius he reporteth, that he did simply deny original sin to be in every man. He saith also, Ibidem. that Caluin and Bucer deny original sin to be in the children of the faithful. Matters utterly false, and which by the whole course of their writing is refuted. neither doth it follow, albeit the children of the faithful be holy, that therefore they are not borne in original sin. For this holiness they do not otherwise ascribe unto them, but in regard of spiritual regeneration, and remission of sins. But if it be Pelagianisme to teach, that original sin is not in all men, then are the papists Pelagians by Bellarmine's confession, which exempt the blessed virgin from this sin. falsification 28 Xenaias persa primus palam asseruit, saith Bellarmine, Christi & sanctorum imagines non esse venerandas. testis Nicephorus lib. 16. c. 27. But this lie is confuted by the law of God against the worship of images, by S. Augustine, that condemneth Marcellina for worshipping and burning incense to the images of jesus & Paul, by Epiphanius and other fathers, which I have cited as witnesses against the idolatry of papists in my former challenge. He doth also falsify Nicephorus, in adding these words primus palam, unto him. falsification 29 In the 14. chapter de notis ecclesiae: he telleth us, how Dominick raised three dead men to life, and that he and Francis did many miracles, as they are record do in the discourse of their lives. He saith also, that Francis de Paula did great miracles, and that Xavier a jebusite did cure deaf and dumb men, and those that were sick of the palsy, and restored one dead man to life. But all these reports of miracles are nothing but miraculous lies. for Ignatius doing no miracles, how is it likely that Xavier should do so many? falsification 30 In the 17. chapter of the same book, he telleth how Luther died suddenly, that Oecolampadius was found dead in his bed, lying down in good health, that Carolstadius was killed by the devil, that Caluin died eaten of worms, as did Antiochus and Herod and others. Lies devised by men hired to rail upon honest men, and refuted by the histories of their life and death, and by the testimony of all that were present at their ends. falsification 31 In his second book de eucharistia c. 6. he hath these words: Irenaeus probat Christum esse creatorem, ex eo quod panis fit corpus Christi per consecrationem. But Irenaeus hath no such matter. nay if he should have used any such argument, then must it follow, that Christ's body is created, as oft as mass is said. Furthermore it appeareth by the place of Irenaeus lib. 4. contr. haeres. c. 34. that he disputeth not against those, that denied Christ to be the creator, but which denied God to be the creator. And that he proveth, not as saith Bellarmine, because by consecration the bread is made Christ's body, but because heretics offered to God bread, which by consecration was made Christ's body, and because this sacrifice had been ungrateful, unless it had consisted of God's creatures. Finally, because it were long to set down the particulars of all sorts of lies uttered by Bellarmine, this I do give the reader to understand in general, that almost all his reports of his lying legends, unwritten traditions, feigned miracles, new devised prophecies, and of the father's testimonies concerning the special points of the late Romish religion established in Trent, are either plain lies, or untruly let down by him. and that shall every man perceive, that listeth to read my books de missa papistica, de Pontifice Rom. de purgatorio, de ecclesia, de concilijs, de monachis and others set out against him; especially if he list diligently to compare the father's writings with that poison, which he like a spider hath sucked out of them. CHAP. VIII. A Catalogue of certain lies and falsifications of Caesar Baronius, taken out of a small part of the beginning of his first book of annal. NOw lest Bellarmine should seem to be in lying and forging singular, I will adjoin unto him his fellow Caesar Baronius a cardinal forger and liar, and one of all the authors that ever I read, that most impudently abuseth and detorteth scriptures contrary to the intention of the holy ghost to serve his own humour. falsification 1 In the front of his book, having placed the image of the Romish church in form of a woman, with a heavy wooden cross on her shoulder, and the triple crown upon her left hand, with two great keys of the Pope's cellar, as it should seem, hanging down under it, and on the one side placing this word, vicit haereses, and on the other, subegit gentes: he doth give us to understand, that he meaneth to tell little truth in his book, that telleth so many lies in the first front and face of it. For first it is most untrue, that this Romish church, that is now possessed of the triple crown, was ever subject to the cross of Christ jesus. For the Pope, he claimeth a power above all Emperors, and liveth in all delights and pleasures, and though he carry with him headlong into hell great multitudes of souls; yet may no man say to him, domine cur ita facis? His cardinals also and other adherents live like princes without all fear and danger, unless it be in regard they fear their paunches. Finally, all these persecute others and are not persecuted themselves. falsification 2 Secondly he lieth impudently, where he signifieth, that Christ gave the keys to the Pope, and to his adherents. For he gave them to Peter, & to such as should succeed him in feeding Christ's lambs, and that by preaching the Gospel and administering the sacraments, and ruling the Church according to instructions given them by Christ, and now contained in the Apostles writings. But the Pope is now become an earthly potentate; he feedeth not, but rather cutteth the throats of Christ's lambs: his followers have adulterated the faith, and changed the institution of Christ's sacraments and now do rather handle clavas quam claves: that is rather clubs, than keys, murdering as many, as will not suffer the Pope, and his mass priests with their counterfeit keys, to creep into the secrets, both of their consciences, and their worldly estates. falsification 3 False it is also, that this latter Romish Church hath subdued heresies, being itself overcome and overgrown with heresies, and being like to a large field overcome with weeds. And this I have showed at large in my former challenge in the chapter of Romish heresies. falsification 4 Neither can Baronius show in all his voluminous legends, that the true Church in time paste did worship the wooden cross, as the Pope, and Baronius, and others do. If then he by his woman represent the true Church, he lieth. if he re-represent the Romish church, and the purple whore apocalypse 17. He saith truly. For with the superstitious worship of the cross, and the Pope's tyranny and false doctrine she is much oppressed, and grievously burdened. Yet that is nothing to this purpose, falsification 5 Furthermore all histories show, that sense the Pope began to wear the triple crown, and to show himself in that height of pride, which Baronius representeth unto us in this figure, the Saracenes, Turks & Gentiles have prevailed against the pope, & his followers, as may appear by divers disastrous attempts made against them for the regaining of the land of Palestine commonly called the holy land. Baronius therefore plainly coggeth, where he telleth us, how the pope's have prevailed against the Gentiles. for all the victories they have gotten, have rather been to the prejudice of christian princes from whom they have taken Rone, Italy & other territories, than of Turks and Heathen, who by the pope's false doctrine and turbulent government, have subdued a great part of the christian world and yet are suffered for their idolatry and heresy to prevail against papists. falsification 6 He doth also paint the holy ghost hovering over the pope's triple crown, & the blessed virgin with her son in her lap as governing the world, and Peter and Paul supporting the worship of our lady which do all contain notorious lies. For we may not think, that the holy Ghost hath any thing to do with the maintenance of the popish triple crown, or that these men were inspired with god's spirit, which leaving the preaching of the Gospel sought for triple crowns & earthly kingdoms. Secondly it is impious, to teach, that our saviour Christ is now an infant, or that he hath communicated his government with his mother. Thirdly, neither doth Peter nor any other Disciple of Christ teach or maintain the Romish doctrine concerning the worship of our Lady, and the Pope's authority. All these figures therefore are lying and false figures. falsification 7 Sixtus quintus in his decretal epistle profired before Baronious his books saith, that he hath faithfully and diligently reported the stories of the Church, and delivered the true fountains of apostolical traditions. speaking of his book he calleth it opus fideliter scriptum, and not only reporteth so of his books, that already were published, but of those, that yet he had not seen, prophesying belike of Caesar Baronius his future works, perfections, and exploits. speaking of his diligence in describing of Romish traditions: he saith, that in his books of annal, apostolicarum traditionum purissimi fontes aperiuntur. But this is a notorious and large untruth. for not only his traditions are fabulous, but his discourse most vain and false, being grounded, for the most part, upon lying legends, counterfeit sermons, and orations set out under the names of fathers, lewd authors, and such as Simeon Metaphrastes, Anastasius, Gratian, Ivo, Theodorus Studites, & certain books, that never yet saw light, and Baronius allowing this Epistle of Sixtus must needs prove himself a liar. falsification 8 The year and precise time of Christ's nativity being the ground of all his work, it must needs follow, that if he fail in that, then that his whole book is nothing, but a pack of lies. That the whole work is laid upon that point, himself confesseth. haec basis quaedam, ac fundamentum annalium esto, saith he. Appara●us ad annals eclesiast. But that he hath erred in that point, it is very probable. Epiphanius in panario haeres. 51. saith that our Saviour was borne Augustus and Silvanus being consuls. Severus hist. lib. 2. saith he was borne when Sabinus and Ruffinus were consuls▪ why then should we rather believe Cassiodorus, whom Baronius followeth, than the other two? But if this were not erroneous, yet in the supputation of years continually he erreth reducing matters rather to the false tradition of the Romish Breviaries, and other ritual books, then to the truth. falsification 9 This sentence which he placeth in the front of his book, in petra exaltavit me, & nunc exaltavit caput meum super inimi cos meos; he doth falsely apply to the Romish church, contrary to the meaning of the Prophet Psal. 26. For he speaketh of himself. Beside that, he saith abscondit me in tabernaculo suon in die malorum protexit me in abscondito tabernaculi sui. that is, he hath hidden me in his tabernacle: and in the days of my trouble hath protected me in the secret place of his tabernacle. But the Romanistes will not grant, that the Church of Rome is a congregation hidden, or that God doth place the same in the secret place of his tabernacle. Furthermore, that which the prophet speaketh of himself, cannot by any means be applied to the Pope, or Romish Church▪ for it is not God, that hath advanced the Pope to this height of pride, nor do those heresies, which the Church of Rome maintaineth, nor those massacres, and impostures which she worketh proceed from god. Finally God shall destroy antichrist with the breath of his mouth, and shall not exalt him, nor suffer him long to be thus exalted. falsification 10 In his epistle to Sixtus quintus he giveth the title of Universal or Catholic to the Romish Church, and doubteth not to affirm the traditions of the Romish Church to be holy and ancient: pro sacrarum traditionum antiquitate saith he, ac sanctae Romanae catholicae ecclesiae potestate. but of the profaneness and novelty of the Romish traditions, I have spoken already both in my challenge, and in my books de missa, and other treatises against Bellarmine, and I doubt not, but thereby every man may convince him of lying both concerning the holiness, and also the antiquity of Romish traditions. To affirm, that the Romish church is catholic concerning faith universally taught, I have declared in my challenge, to be most false▪ to affirm, that the Romish Church is the universal and catholic Church in regard of time and place, is not only most false, but also most absurd▪ for were the Church of Rome the true church, as it was sometime; yet as well may we call London all england, as the Romish Church the catholic Church. falsification 11 In the same epistle most impudently he applieth these words of jacob Genes. 27. surge sede, & comede de venatione mea, ut benedicat mihi anima tua: to himself, as if he had been a hunting about Rome, and brought Sixtus quintus a goat, or some like venaison; and as if Sixtus quintus were a prophet like to jacob. And to fit the words to his purpose he addeth to the text, the word Pater, and taketh away the word sede: and saith, surge pater & comede de venatione mea, ut benedicat mihi anima tua. Which is a false and lewd kind of abusing of scriptures. falsification 12 Concerning the visible monarchy of the Pope he telleth, if not a visible, yet a very palpable lie. In praefat. Catholicae ecclesiae visibilem monarchiam saith he, à Christo domino institutam super Petrum fundatam, ac eius legitimos verosque successores romanos nimirum pontifices inviolatè conseruatam etc. demonstrabimus. But if Christ had appointed any such visible monarchy, it is strange, that neither the Apostles, nor first church of christians could ever see it. Again it is absurd to think, that general counsels would have made laws, if there had been a general monarch appointed over them. Thirdly if Peter had been a monarch, yet it is absurd to say, that the visible monarchy is founded upon him. For no man saith, that the kingdom is founded upon the King, neither is it probable, the foundation being invisible, that the building should be visible. Finally, this being a ground of his legendical fables, that the bishops of Rome succeeded Peter in the visible monarchy of the church, it must needs follow, if this ground fail him, the cardinal lieth in every page of his annals, and as often, as he talketh of this matter. But that neither Peter was constituted monarch of the church, nor the bishops of Rome have succeeded in any such fantastical monarchy, I have at large proved in my book de pontifice Rom. set out against Bellarmine, some four or or five years sense. falsification 13 Out of Clement. lib. storm 6. most simply and falsely, he affirmeth, Apparat. p. 17. Cod. Antuerp. that as the jews knew God by the prophets, so God did separat from the common multitude of the Gentiles, the most excellent of the philosophers, and made them capable of God's beneficence. He allegeth also an apocryphal text out of Paul and seemeth to affirm, that some Gentiles did know Christ. falsification 14 He saith, that the church of Ara coeli in Rome was built by Constantine in memoriam dei genitricis Mariae: In apparat. ad annal. eccls. and so called for that Augustus the emperor being admonished by a Sybille did there see the virgin Mary high above in the air with christ in her arms, and built an altar in that place, where he saw the vision. Matters very fabulous. for neither doth any authentical story affirm, that Christ was made known to Augustus, nor is it likely, that the blessed virgin and her son should be transported out of judea to be showed to Augustus at Rone, nor did any Sybille live in Augustus' time, nor could he learn when our Saviour Christ would appear in the air, by the books of the Sybilles', nor doth there appear any such matter in the Sybilles' writings. It should seem therefore, that Baronius was abused with some idle tale of the friars of hara poreorum, that dwell in the house called Ara coeli. & the rather I do believe it for that no churches were built in the honour of the blessed virgin in the time of Constantine, neither was she then in plain terms called dei genitrix. falsification 15 Upon the credit of Orosius he is bold to tell us, that in the place, where now the Church of our lady standeth beyond Tibre, a certain fountain ran oil a whole day together▪ and not content herewith, he affirmeth, that Callistus bishop of Rone, (who lived long before the council of Nice) built there a large Church in the honour of the mother of God. Meruit locus saith he, nobilissima memoria illustrari, ecclesia nimirum amplissima dei genitricis titulo à Callisto pontifice prima omnium, Ibidem. quarum extet memoria, olim erecta. Matters not only false, but incredible. For what probability is there, that in the times of persecution, when Christians did hide themselves from their enemies, Callistus should erect so brave a fabric▪ as that Church is? or what reason had Nestorius and other heretics to deny the blessed virgin to be the mother of God, if so be in Rome so many churches had been built in honorem dei genitricis, as Baronius reporteth? falsification 16 Out of apocryphal writings he telleth us, how many sisters Anna the mother of Mary had, Ibidem. and that she was but once married, and bore Mary in her hold years, after she had made a vow to consecrat her to the Lord. And these are the brave traditions, that Sixtus quintus commendeth unto us, as coming from most pure fountains. But if we are to give no more credit to scriptures, then to such traditions according to the determination of the conventicle of Trent, with a little help this cardinal will discredit the scriptures. For neither are these things to be found other where then in legends, nor was it a fashion in the ancient time to consecrat nuns to God, nor do we read of many such vows. falsification 17 Out of Epiphanius he doth likewise allege a certain tradition, how an Angel told joachim, the father of Mary being in the desert, that his wife had conceived▪ Ibidem. and out of Gregorius Nyssenus in orat. in Natal. domini: that Anna the mother of Mary went into sanctum sanctorum, & there prayed, (seeing mothers had more honour, than those that were barren) that she might not be deprived of the benefit of law, but might be a mother. And that then she did vow, that she would consecrat unto God, that which should be borne unto her▪ but we do not read, that Angels did in scriptures foretell the birth of any, but of great and singular men. Again, the law telleth us, that women might not come into sanctum sanctorum. Thirdly, we find not, what service women did in the temple, that the holy virgin should be consecrated to God's service. Finally, those which report these strange things, do not agree together, as may appear by the conference of the report of Epiphanius haeres. 79. adverse. Collyrid. with Gregory Nyssens oration in Natali domini, and Hieromes epistle ad Chromatium & Heliodorum tom. 9 falsification 18 Of the blessed virgin he bringeth a report out of Euodius, that she was presented into the temple at the age of three years, Ibidem. and there lived eleven years, and was afterward by the hands of the priests delivered to joseph to be kept. Trimula cum esset saith he, in templum praesentata, ibi in sanctis sanctorum traduxit annos undecim. deinde verò sacerdotum manibus Joseph ad custodiam est tradita. Matters devised by idle fellows, not without the suggestion of Satan, as it should seem▪ for when he could not discredit the gospel, than he devised other fables, which being either false, or improbable might bring the truth of christian religion into question. That the virgin Mary should remain in sanctis sanctorum, is against the law▪ Exod. 30. & Hebr. 9 for thither went the h●gh priest only once a year. That she should be presented at three years of age into the temple, is against reason▪ for what service could a child of those years do? again, where are women commanded to serve in the temple? Thirdly, the priests keeping her eleven years, as a thing consecrated to God, they had no reason to deliver her over at the time of most danger to be kept by joseph. Finally, the treatises set forth under the name of Euodius, Gregorius Nysse●us, Damascenus, Germanus, Andreas Cretensis, Georgius Nicomediensis, and Cedrenus, alleged by Baronius, are counterfeit, and differ much one from another. Is it not therefore much better, to content ourselves with the history of the gospel, that reporteth that, which was necessary to be known concerning the birth of our Saviour, and the holiness of the blessed virgin, and to omit such vain fables, as both to jews and gentiles make christian religion contemptible and ridiculous, and yet have no sufficient testimony, either of the Apostles, or other authentical writers? falsification 19 Whereas a brazen laver, and the base of it, is said to be made of the glasses of women, Exod. 38. that watched at the door of the tabernacle; Baronius doth gather of it, that there were certain women, which renouncing the pomps and delights of the world, did together with the things they possessed, especially such as were enticements to sin, mancipate and consecrate themselves, to the service of God, and giving themselves to continual prayers, did watch at the door of the tabernacle. But seeing God appointed all the ministries, and services of his tabernacle, and appointed no service to be done of women at the gate thereof, it is a most ridiculous conceit of an idle brain to believe, that these women did any such imagined service at the gate of the tabernacle. Beside that, it were very strange, if so many women were employed to the service of the tabernacle, as that a laver and a base for it might be made of the trimming or cases of their glasses, that we should find no mention of them in scriptures. Finally, the description of the tabernacle, tents, and orders of the Israelites, which do not import, or give any signification of such an order of women, but rather the contrary, doth clearly refute this vain fiction, devised without colour of reason, or testimony of good authors. falsification 20 He telleth us further, a tedious fable of the holy virgins vow of virginity▪ but if he will make his report good, Pag. 33. & 34. he must show first, that women among the Israelites did vow virginity, and the rather, for that we read, that it was a reproach for women of that nation, not to be mothers of children. Secondly he must show, that young women before the age of fourteen did make such vows. Thirdly he must answer and clear those places of scripture, that say she was betrothed to joseph. for after solemn vows Nuns neither marry, nor are betrothed. Finally he must bring us better proofs, than supposals of Epiphanius and Augustine, and a counterfeit tale under the name of Gregory of Nyssa. For S. Augustine, or at least he, that lurketh under that holy father's name saith, that vows of virginity did not then stand with the fashions of the Israelites. Lib. de virginit. c. 4. He signifieth also, that the holy virgin thought it impossible, having once vowed her maidenhead to God, that she should know a man. But that showeth, that all the Romish Nuns are most unlike to this holy virgin▪ for albeit they vow and swear, and are walled up, so that none come at them; yet they neither think it a matter impossible, nor difficult to know men, as experience and divers witnesses can testify, and the Romanistes know very well, if they durst speak it. falsification 21 divers ancient fathers testify, that joseph the spouse of the blessed virgin, had by his first wife divers children; and namely Hippolytus, as witnesseth Nicephorus hist. lib. 2. c. 3. Origenes in Matthaei c. 13. Eusebius hist. lib. 2. c. 1. Epiphanius haeres. 28. 51. 78. Nyssenus homil. de resurrect. Christi homil. 2. Chrysostomus homil. de annunt. Virg. Euthymius in Matth. c. 2. Hilarius in Matth. can. 1. Ambrose in epist. ad Galat. And yet all this notwithstanding Baronius saith, this is but an apocryphal fable. Why then should we believe his apocryphal fables testified by one or two witnesses only, and that in writings very doubtful, seeing he will not believe this narration, that is confirmed, as himself confesseth, by many fathers? Further, why should we believe him, that john Baptist was conceived in September, in the time of the solemn fast, or in that form, which he reporteth? And why should he desire any to give credit to his narration, concerning the city of Zachary S. john Baptists father, and the sanctification of S. john Baptist in his mother's womb, for which he allegeth no proof, seeing he will not believe others, that bring testimonies of fathers▪ falsification 22 Saint Luke showeth, that Christ was baptised going upon the thirtéeth year of his age: Luc. 3. jesus erat incipiens saith he, quasi annorum triginta. and so do most fathers and other learned men expound Luke's words. But Baronius, to maintain the credit of the Romish ordinal, will have Luke's words to be so expounded, as if he were going upon the age of one and thirty, when he was baptised. But if this were so, then would Saint Luke have said, quasi annorum triginta & unius. falsification 23 In the account of years, from the beginning of the world until Christ's time, he followeth the tradition of the Romish church, that seemeth to allow the translation of the seventy interpreters, rather than the Hebrew text. But what is this else, but to digress from the canon of original scriptures, to follow either corrupt translations, or unwritten traditions? falsification 24 The scriptures say, that our Saviour was borne in Bethlehem, and in a stable, and that he was laid in a manger▪ and albeit the place was very mean for the king of heaven and earth to be borne in; yet it is very much to be presumed, that there was neither Ox nor Ass in the room▪ for they are no fit companion's for men and women, especially for a woman being with child. But Baronius by unwritten traditions issuing from that pure fountain, which Sixtus quintus speaketh of, hath found, that our Saviour Christ was borne in spelunca that is, in a cave, within the ground. Saint Matthew calleth it a house, but he findeth it was no house, but a den or cave. He findeth also that Christ was borne in this cave, which is some pretty way out of Bethlehem▪ for so Burchard in his description of the holy land part. 1. c. 7. testifieth. He saith further, that our Saviour was laid in a manger cut out of the rock, and proveth it by the testimony of Hierome; albeit we read but of few mangers cut out of rocks, and although afterward he saith it was of wood▪ and so must he say, unless he will deny that to be the manger, that is showed in the Church of our Lady ad praesepe, in Rome. He allegeth Chrysostome also, that saith the manger was of earth or clay. Finally he beareth us in hand, that there was an Ox and an Ass tied in that stable, and thinketh it sufficiently proved, because Hierome alluding to the words of the prophet, saith, that when Christ was borne, the Ox knew his owner, and the Ass his masters crybbe▪ and this he allegeth out of the third of Abacuch, where no such thing is to be found. Of all which traditions, the sole reason is this, that he may maintain the credit of the manger, which together with hay they show at Rome as a holy relic. He endeavoureth also by these fables to uphold the pilgrimage to the holy land, where little is remaining to be seen, but holes, dens, rocks and mountains. But if he believe these traditions as well as the gospel; a man of small learning may see, that he is a man of a strange faith. falsification 25 He telleth, that the swaddling clouts, wherein our Saviour was first wrapped, are religiously kept, and that a church was built in honour of them, and a holiday assigned to keep the memorial of them. But his best witness of them is Lipomanus; a man whose lies a man may feel with his hands. The Apostles certes, never taught us to keep such relics, or rags rather. neither doth any authentical s●…ry report any such thing. Nay, whosoever will examine them narrowly, shall soon see the notorious impostures of the Romanists, that devise and maintain these superstitions, not for any other purpose, then for their own credit and gain. falsification 26 The wisemen, that came from the East, if we will believe him, were three kings. but he maketh kings without kingdoms, and like his holy father the Pope, by ●…is charter or testimony giveth kingdoms away at his pleasure. Very unlike it is, certes, that three kings should consort together, and take such a journey putting themselves, not only in the mercy of Herod a most cruel and covetous king, but also of all the kings and states, by whom in their journey they passed. He telleth us also, that they were Arabians. but he knoweth, that Clement of Alexandria, Chrysostome, Cyril, Theodoret, and Leo sometime bishop of Rome saith they came out of Persia. Basil and Hierome suppose, they came out of Chaldaea. Seeing then all these countries are to the Eastward of judea, what reason hath any to believe Baronius, rather than these fathers? I looked also that the Cardinal should have told us the names of the kings, and how their bodies came to Collein, and other places. for the Romish tradition is, that their names are Gaspar, Melchior, & Balthasar, or such like, and that their bodies are at Collein, and as they say, at other places to. Percase as they are said to be three, so every one had three bodies. and this is the assurance of Romish traditions, on which the papists build their faith. falsification 27 He hath also found out the very day, when the wise men came to Bethlehem, Annal. to. 1. de anno Christi. 1. and for that he is beholding to the calendars of the Romish Missals and Breviaries. such brave monuments and testimonies have the Romanists of their traditions. But Eusebius in his Chronicle, and Epiphanius in panario say, they came to Bethlehem two years after our saviours nativity. And what is he, that without proof can set down the certainty? falsification 28 He saith, that the wisemen in returning homeward did not lodge in any Inn, but in mountains and dens. Ibidem. But how knoweth he this? forsooth because Simeon metaphrastes saith so, and for that he produceth the testimony of Cyril in his history de vita Theodosijs, who as Baronius believeth, is a faithful historian. But neither can he name a more fabulous author, than Simeon Metaphrastes, nor will it be proved, that the writing that goeth under Cyrils' name was framed by any man of credit. such brave witnesses hath this Cardinal's legendary for his traditions. falsification 29 Where Luke c. 2. showeth, that when the days of purification of Mary was ended, she went to Jerusalem, Ibidem. to offer and do according to the law of Moses: there Baronius hath found out, that she was no way bound to do it, but as a ceremony, or complement. Cum alioqui saith he, nullatenus astringeretur virgo sanctissima. But if she were a mother, and bore a son, and if he were like to other men, than was she bound to do, as other women did, although she remained a most holy virgin. As for the wicked opinion of the Romanists, that in their catechism teach, that our Saviour passed from his mother, as the sun beams pass through glass, I hope Baronius will not defend it. if he do, he than addeth heresy and blasphemy to his fault of lying. falsification 30 That Anne, of whom Luke maketh mention chap. 2. he affirmeth to be a most religious Nun. Ibidem. and this he would prove by the authority of Cyril cate●…. 10. But unless he can prove, that she vowed chastity, poverty and obedience to a certain rule, Bellarmine may inform him, that he telleth untruth. for these vows he supposeth to be essential points in monastical life. falsification 31 Out of Sozomen and Nicephorus he telleth us, that a certain great tree near Hermopolis in Egypt, Ibidem. P. 80. when as joseph passed by with Christ being yet a little child, did bow itself and worship Christ, and that with the bark, and leaves of this tree all diseases are cured. And this doth Baronius tell very sadly, and believe sound, as a Romish tradition. But unless he bring sounder proof, then that hearsay, of Sozomen; we must needs believe, that he is of the number of those, which because they would not believe the truth, 2. Thess. 2. are given over to believe lies. falsification 32 Most sadly also he saith, but not sooth, that between Heliopolis and Babylon, Annal. to. 1. p. 82. there is a little fountain, where the holy virgin did wash Christ's clothes, and him two, while he was in Egypt, and a certain stone also hard by, where she dried his clothes, and that both christians and Saracens have this fountain and stone in veneration. Which if he were not stupid as a stone, he would not believe to be true, notwithstanding any credit, that is to be given to Borchardes fabulous narrations of the holy land. falsification 33 He also citeth Philo de temporibus, as an authentical witness to prove, Ibidem. P. 83. Antuerp. that Herod killed his own son among the children, that dwelled about Bethlehem. But we do not read, that Herod's son dwelled about Bethlehem. Beside that the treatise of Philo de tempo●ibus is counterfeit. Finally, is not he a brave author of traditions, that by tradition is able to prove, that the Romish Church worshippeth Herodes son, that was an infidle, for a young saint●. falsification 34 He affirmeth also, that Zacharie the father of john baptist was slain of Herod, Ibidem. P. 84. & 85. for that he did hide away his son in the slaughter of the children of Bethelem, and that the colour of blood remained many years after upon the pavement in the place of the slaughter. but Hierome in his commentaries upon the 23. of Matthew doth condemn this fable, and sh●w, that it was a dream taken out of apocrypha● books. Whereby it may also appear, that divers Romish traditions are nothing else, but dreams taken out of apocryphal writings. falsification 35 Ibidem. But this may seem a small fitton of a lie, in respect of that which followeth, where speaking of the 9 year of the age of our Saviour, he saith, Pag. 96. that our lady's house wherein our Saviour was brought up, was by the ministry of Angels taken up all whole into the air, and so carried first into Dalmatia, and then into Italy to Loreto. And to prove this, he allegeth the words of the Angel concerning the miraculous conception of Christ, that said, non esse impossibile apud deum omne verbum. As if because a virgin could conceive without man, it were likewise credible, that Angels should carry an old house over the seas into strange countries: or as if it were not a strange thing, that this cardinal should believe the transportation of this house to Loreto as firmly as he believeth Christ his incarnation. Histor. Lauret. Tursellinus that writeth a long discourse of this fable, speaketh of one house of our Lady, and doth not distinguish between the house, where the virgin heard the salutation of the Angel; and where our Saviour was brought up. But the curious cardinal doth diligently distinguish both; and yet he is not able to show, why the one house should rather be transported then the other. Beside that both he and Tursellinus do differ about the place where this house should first be seated in Italy. I for my part wonder, that they should publish such vain lies with so great ostentation. Now to prove this to be true Baronius is not ashamed to test a greater lie; affirming that Gregorius Thaumaturgus did remove not a house, but a mountain. Which if he could do, it were to be wished, that he would remove the 7. hills of Rome together with the Pope, and this lying cardinal, and place them at the foot of mount Tabor, for whence Baronius believeth, that our ladies house did fly over the Seas into Dalmatia first, and then into Italy. falsification 36 Of Augustus he saith, Ibidem. 97 that he made laws against such as lived single, and yet honoured those, that kept themselves continually true virgins: which containeth a notorious contradiction. be●…de that, it is absurd, to prove vows of virginity from heathen emperors, & very prejudicial to the Romish church, that he alloweth not fictum caelibatum, nor any but those, that indeed are true virgins, of which he shall find very few among his fellow cardinals, and not many among priests, monks, friars, nuns. falsification 37 Where , as john chap. 19 saith, wrote the title over the cross in Hebrew, Ibidem. Pag. 103. Greek and Latin letters, and as Luke testifieth. chap. 23. in Hebrew, Latin and Greek; Baronius supposeth, that the order is changed, and that the Latin inscription ought to be first. But this is nothing but to contradict the evangelists, and to respect neither the apostles, nor their writings, so the Church of Rome may win any pre-eminence above other churches. He allegeth, I confess, the testimony of pope Nicholas in epist. ad Michaelem. But it is a point of blasphemy to believe, that Nicholas knew those matters better, and did report them more truly, than the evangelists. Beside that, it may well be doubted whether Nicholas wrote that epistle to Michael, or some other in his name, that without all truth, and modesty advanceth the privileges of the Romish See. falsification 38 Where Luke doth expressly set down, that john baptist began to preach, Pag. 113. when Annas and Caiphas were high priests, Baronius saith that only Caiphas was high priest in the soccession of Aaron. And that he is forced to hold for fear, lest he should overthrow the monarchy of the Church of Rome. Annas he saith, was chief priest as head of his rank, and one of the principal heads of the Sanedrin. But if he were not high priest; why should he be named before Cayphas? or why should Luke so call him? if he might not be high priest, as contrary to law, he must understand, that at this time neither the law of Moses, nor the order of succession was rightly observed. falsification 39 Talking of Saint john Baptist he saith, he dwelled in the wilderness, Ibidem. p. 114. and kept in a den called Sapsas. And that our Saviour Christ did visit him oftentimes in this den. And this he proveth by the testimony of Sophronius, and one john a monk, to whom Saint john appeared as he believeth, in this hole, and told him all this story. matters fabulous, and ridiculous. For who will grant, that Saint john Baptist, whose soul was with God, kept in this den? it is as like that he dwelled there being dead, as being alive. yet this is also a Romish tradition. but whether Locusts, that S. john Baptist did eat, were living creatures or no, as yet Baronius hath not found out any certain tradition. Isidorus of Pelusium holdeth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the gospel signified the tops of herbs and plants. falsification 40 Pag. 110 he saith, that S. john Baptist did lay the foundation of monastical life, and that all Catholics confess it to be so. A lie notorious, as appeareth by my answer to Bellarmine's treatise de monachis. Furthermore this his assertion may be convinced first, for that john Baptist neither made vow, nor lived after any certain rule, nor forswore marriage. Secondly, for that this manner of life was but for a time. for after a while, he left his habitation in the desert of judaea, and came to Iorden, and into cities. Thirdly, john was ordained to be a forerunner of Christ, and is commended, as a singular prophet. but monks and friars are rather the forerunners, & staf●…ers of Antichrist, then of Christ. Neither is there any mention of them in scriptures, but in general terms, Apocalyps. 9 where we read of locusts issuing out of the bottomless pit, and such like places. Prophet's certes they are not, unless we give the name of prophets to false teachers. Fourthly, if john seem in his manner of life to have given any example to Eremites; yet that serveth other monks and friars nothing, that live in most frequent cities, and are in continual action. Finally, albeit Chrysostome, and Hierome say somewhat of john Baptist, as if he first had showed an example of solitary life; yet neither doth that serve to prove, that he was a precedent to other monks, nor do other fathers or catholic authors affirm, that he laid the first foundation of monastical life. I hope Rob. Parson's will not say, that john Baptist was like his father Ignatius Loyola, that mad maranicall Spaniard, and swaggering companion, the first author, founder and foundation of the hispaniolized jesuits. falsification 41 Pag. 117. he saith Christ was baptised the sixth of january, and this he would prove by the testimony of a letter of Eusebius ad Marinum, whose fragments are in the edition of Christopher after the history of Euagrius, as he writeth. But seeing the holy scriptures have concealed the exa●t day, he showeth not himself wise, curiously to dispute of this point. Beside that, he should do us a favour to show who this Christopher was, that set out Eusebius. otherwise his followers will believe, that he took Christopher for Christopherson. Finally there is no credit to be given to such vain fragments set out under the names of ancient writers. In the history of Eusebius we read not, that he had any thing to do with this counterfeit Marinus. so that this tradition seemeth to be built upon a rotten foundation. falsification 42 Gregorius Turonensis telleth, how leprosy is cured by washing in water, where our Saviour Christ was baptised: and Baronius believed he said true. But yet was this Gregory no good witness in this case, writing nothing, but by hearsay. We are taught by holy scriptures, that baptism was ordained a sacrament of remission of sins, and not that jordane was made a medicine to purge leper. falsification 43 Pag. 119. he supposeth, that he hath sound confuted those, that say, that it was not said to Peter, tu es Petra, sed tu es Petrus. but either must he lie, or must he charge the Evangelist Matthew with untruth, which is a point blasphemous. He saith also, that such as translate the word Cephas, and say it doth signify a head, are not to be reprehended. But if he had had either head or brain, having taken upon him to relate histories, and things done in ancient time, he would have omitted all curious disputations for the pope's usurped supremacy, for which his gross head fit to believe all fond fables, was never framed. falsification 44 Out of Abdias, which he confesseth to be an apocryphal author, he telleth, that john the Evangelist by Christ's persuasion did never desire marriage. as if Christ were an enemy to marriage. falsification 45 He saith, that it was Simon Zelotes that was married, when Christ was present in Cana of Galiley, Tom annal. 1. p. 122. Antwerp. and turned water into wine: and declareth, how the memory of that miracle being celebrated in the Church the vi. day of january divers rivers and fountains that day ran wine. Matters merely fabulous, and which bring christian religion into question, if not into contempt, being avouched without any good ground. falsification 46 Pag. 132. he alloweth the epistle of Abagarus to jesus Christ, and his epistle also to Abagarus: which by the testimony of Gelasius c. sancta Rom. dist. 15. are testified to be apocryphal, and by the letters themselves appear to be forged. falsification 47 In the same place also he reporteth, that our Saviour Christ printed his image in a cloak, and sent it to Abgarus. The painter should have taken the portrait, but saith Baronius for the beams that came from his countenance, he could not do it. He showeth also, that by this image divers miracles were done. and all this to confirm the worship of images. falsification 48 Pag. 157. he telleth us, that by divine and human laws one chief bishop both in time past did, and aught to decide all ecclesiastical controversies. But the place Deut. 17. and divers places of the new testament do show this to be a notorious untruth, as I have showed in my books de Pontifice Rom. falsification 49 Pag. 167. he telleth out of Euthymius, that the rich man Luc. 16. was called Nynensis, and doubteth not to affirm, that this was a story and not a parable, because divers churches are erected in the honour of Lazarus. but the fathers think otherwise. And the naming of tongues, fingers and other things which are corporal, where our Saviour talketh of souls, doth show this discourse to be parabolical, and the papists to be idolaters, that worship their own fancies, and imaginations. In the mean while, it is no hard matter to discern Baronius to be a fabler. falsification 50 Pag. 176. he would make his reader believe, that our Saviour did celebrate his passover in S. john the evangelists house. But Simeon Metaphrastes denieth it, which is often alleged by Baronius as a grave witness: and the words of the gospel seem to speak of the owner of that house, as of a stranger. falsification 51 Pag. 191. he saith Missa is derived from the Hebrew or Chaldey word. but Bellarmine his fellow telleth him, Lib. 1. de missa, he is deceived. In the same page, he allegeth the counterfeit epistles of Pius ad justum, and Cornelius ad Lupicinum, and other forged writings, and all to show, that the word Missa was used in their times. falsification 52 Out of Gregory of Tours he reporteth this fable, that divers making thongs, put them about the pillar, whereto Christ was tied, when he was scourged, and that the same heal divers diseases. He would have told us als● if he could have brought any proof for it, that the same pillar is to be showed in Saint Peter's Church at Rome. for that is a Romish tradition. but he perceived, that he had told a lie sufficient already. And thus we may see, albeit I tell not all, how many lies are contained in the beginning of his first book of annal, being by judgement of all men the best, and most free from lies. and yet I neither touch his errors in Chronology, nor much meddle with his forged and false writings. After this he telleth things most incredible, and yet without good testimony of any man of credit. Of S. Paul he writeth, that his head being stricken off, there issued out milk in stead of blood. He telleth also, that Peter's chains being kept by Plautilla work great wonders, and saith, that when john the Evangelist wrote the gospel, it thundered and lightened, as when the law was given in mount Sinah. Infinite such strange tales are contained in his huge legends. If then we would do him right; we should rather call them Aniles fabulas, then annal. CHAP. IX. A sampler of Robert Parsons alias Coobucke his manifold falsities and lies, taken out of divers libels and pamphlets published by him. NOw I come to Robert Parsons, alias Coobuck, a man, I confess, unworthy to be joined with Bellarmine and Baronius, being far inferior to them in learning; yet in regard of his falsehood and treacherous dealing, comparable with the most wicked and shameless jebusite of the whole order, and with the most false packer of all the popish faction. His scholars believe, that he is learned. but if his treacherous complots and pack were not more to be feared, than his learning; he were not to be reputed half so dangerous, as we find him. The which, albeit I meant not here to dispute, being without the reach of my purpose; yet because I would not have every such wooden fellow, as Philip Woodward alias Owlyglasse (for so men call the author of the detection) to take exceptions unto my sayings, as destitute of proof, I will briefly verify in this place; and that by two of his books, which his followers for learning & workmanship believe to be singular. If any man need any further trial; he may, if he please, read my reply to his wardword, where I have sounded his learning to be very shallow. The first of the two is entitled, a brief discourse containing certain reasons, why (papists, whom falsely he termeth) Catholics refuse to go to Church▪ and this book Parsons under the mask of john Owlet, a fit name for such a night-bird, doth presume most impudently to offer to her Majesty. The next is called a christian directory, and commonly known by the name of Parsons his resolution. His former discourse is wholly grounded upon this rotten foundation, that the popish religion (which the jebusiticall faction and their followers, by all their wit, learning, and other means seek to promote) is the true Catholic religion. This being the foundation of the work, if he had been a wise builder, he would have confirmed, and proved so strongly, that her Majesty, before whom he pleadeth, might have conceived well of his cause, and allowed of his reasons. but alleging no one word to prove this, the whole work doth not only fall to the ground, but also ministereth matter, that may be turned back upon himself, and employed to the hurt and prejudice of his clients. For as it is a good reason, if the popish religion be the true christian religion, to move men to refuse all religions opposite unto it, so if the same be false, odious, treacherous, damnable; then neither have papists any reason to profess it, nor others to bear with those, that obstinately defend it. but I have showed, that it is not only new, and false, but also superstitious and heretical. Again, if Parsons can say nothing, why the religion professed in England, is not Catholic and apostolical; then all his reasons fall to the ground, and all his pretences of fear of infection, of scandal, of schism, of casting away the mark of distinction, of participation with us, of dissimulation, of naughty service, of the benefit of popish religion may be retorted against himself and his clients. For neither are Christians to suffer the practice of the idolatrous mass, nor the faction and packing of wicked dissembling papists; nor may any magistrate or other good christian with good conscience, suffer Gods true religion by schismatics and heretics to be scorned. And these reasons are so effectual, that I doubt not, but those that have the managing of these causes, will both take up such Owlets, and deliver Christian religion from contempt of such impostors, and Atheists. Secondly purposing, and promising three things, whereof the first was a demonstration of reasons, why Papists should not go to the Church, the next contained a declaration of means how papists should remedy, or ease themselves of their afflictions, the third was an instruction how with patience to endure affliction: the first he handleth most lewdly and loosely. the other two parts he was not able to make out, abusing both his friends and his adversaries with his false promises. Further, it may be, that his remedies were nothing, but practices of treason and rebellion, and that he meant nothing less, then to exhort men to patience: and that therefore he omitted to speak of these two points. But why then did he promise? doth he promise that, which he purposeth not to perform? and doth he mean to keep no touch in any thing? His directory also is a most idle and vain discourse. It should consist of three parts, whereof the first, as he saith, appertaineth to resolution, the second treateth of entrance, the third of perseverance. but as his fashion is, of three parts promised, he keepeth back two, and performeth the third most simply. For first, that which he hath written concerning resolution is very impertinent. for it is a very evil sign of resolution in matters of christian religion, for a man to dispute, whether there be a God or no, and whether christian religion be true or no: as Parsons doth. Again, despair of God's mercy, temptations, fear of persecution, and such like impediments, as Parsons allegeth, do rather hinder a man to lead a christian life, then help to resolve him to do it. Secondly, the greatest part of his discourse, is either stolen out of Gaspar Loarti, or Granatensis, or Stella, or such like friar like and idle discourses. Thirdly, it argueth, that he hath a bad conceit of popish cacolikes in England. for if he took them to be christians, he would neither go about to teach them, that there is a God, nor that christian religion is true, nor that there are rewards offered to those that do well, both in the life to come, and in this life, and punishments likewise for evil doers both in this life, and after this life. for every child among christians knoweth all this without his teaching. Fourthly, we do not find, that this directory hath made any one christian, or directed him the way to life. But I do hear many complain, that divers simple young men have been directed by him to the gallows. Fifthly, it should seem, that this book hath wrought little good effect in Parsons himself, that having so long stood upon resolution, is not yet come to the entrance of religion. Sixthly▪ as laws are made to restrain common abuses, so likewise divines should discourse of such matters, as may make most for reformation of christian men's manners. This discourse therefore of his, wherein he endeavoureth to prove, that there is a God, that there is one true religion, that there is a heaven, and a hell, among christians already well persuaded is impertinent, and would better have been bestowed upon Italians and Spaniards, that scarce believe in God, or know any of the principal points of christian religion. Furthermore, entreating of resolution, which as himself declareth, goeth before entrance, and perseverance; yet doth he very wisely divide the treatise of resolution into speculation and practice. The first part saith he, shall contain matter of discourse, speculation, consideration; the second shall handle things appertaining to exercise, use and practise. As if a man could practise, that is not entered into the exercise of religion, or as if resolution were not far different from practice. Finally, the book is so full fraught with idle discourses, and the principal points so weakly proved, that it will rather make Christians to doubt of religion, than Atheists to believe. It doth also contain so much poison, that no physic can make it wholesome. I would therefore advise all Christians to beware of his book of resolution by him entitled a directory, containing little truth, but much superstition and heretical poison. The same is also a disgrace to all papists, whom he presumeth as yet not to be resolved, that there is a God, or that christian religion is true. To christians it can yield no instruction being a pack of stolen and bad stuff evil trussed together. Neither is the same good, although it hath been purged, the whole substance being lewd, and full of poison. Much I wonder, that any christian would set it forth in this Church, and more, that christians should believe, that any good was like to come of such a wicked writing. And I doubt not, but that such as are in authority will remove both that, and other such venomous treatises out of all true Christian men's hands, being rather fit for Italian atheists, than the English nation. To leave the rest of his treacheries, heresies and other faults; which are rather to be corrected by the public executioner, then noted by the style of a writer, I will only in this discourse set down certain notorious falsifications committed by him in sundry pamphlets set out under divers counterfeit names, and give you a taste of his unsavoury lies, of which in Parson's writings there is great store. And this so much the rather, for that in his relation sent us from Rone, concerning the conference some two years agone passed in France between Monsieur de plessis, and the pretended bishop of Eureux, he seemeth earnestly to desire a trial concerning these points. The man also in his preface before his reasons of refusal of going to the Church, under the name of john Houlet desireth that some indifferent trial may be had either by disputation or otherwise: wherein I desire he should be satisfied. falsification 1 First then I challenge the man, as a notorious falsificator, in that he hath set forth his own book concerning titles under the name of another priest called Dolman, who was never acquanted with the matter. Wherein albeit he hath committed far more heinous faults than forgery, endeavouring by notorious untruths to set the crown of england upon the Infantaes head; yet is it a fault also worthy to be censured, to father his bastard writings, upon others▪ that this is forgery, it is apparent by the testimony of the doctors in L. Cornel. de falsis. and their judgement is grounded upon great reason. For if it be forgery to add one clause to a testament or other writing: than it is a main forgery, to publish a false testament, a false book, or other false writing under other men's names. falsification 2 D. Bagsh. in his answer to his late apology chargeth him with 8. sundry libels. Secondly he hath published under the name of Sanders, and Rishton divers enormous and wicked slanders against King Henry the 8. of famous memory, against her majesty, and the principal persons of this church and realm of Enland, setting out his own villainous lies under the name of Sanders long before dead, and of Rishton, a man no way likely to commit any such wickedness against his Prince and country, of Owlet, Dolman and others. As for Rishton it is now well known, he had small intelligence of state matters. Neither did he use to meddle or practise in them. Further those that know him, do testify that the style of Sanders his book is far unlike his. Thirdly, his credit was not such, as that he was able to get his books printed, especially being of that nature. Finally, we do not believe, that Rishton having received grace at her majesties hands, and being delivered from death, which he had deserved, by her great favour, would thus requite her, or that being a man of mild disposition he would rail so maliciously and falsely, against his prince and country. And therefore I believe, if the man be alive, and were examined upon his oath, that he would deny that book to be his, and declare it to be Robert Parsons his work. And though he do it not; yet divers others do plainly declare so much, & we have great reason to believe their declaration to be true. For he is a great stickeler in matters of state, and he hath written such like libels before. Furthermore at his request Ribadineira his fellow jebusite seemeth to have set forth the same book translated into spanish. Finally I do not think, that Parsons will upon his oath, and without all equivocation affirm, that he had no finger in the making and publishing of that most wicked and slanderous book. falsification 3 In those books which go under the name of Sanders and Rishton, Robert Parsons hath committed divers particular falsities, and namely in publishing divers letters in the name of Friar Forest and others, which never were made by the authors, whose name they carry. For first we do not find them in the first edition of that book anno 1585. Secondly it is absurd to think, that either Forest, or simple women did write, as is reported. Finally they do rather savour of Parsons his vein, who is able to make to speak, and to write whom he pleaseth, and what himself listeth. So plentiful and impudent he is in forging false writings. falsification 4 Fourthly under the name of john Houlet, whom now all the secular mass priests in England do wonder at like an Owlet, he hath set forth an impudent discourse, concerning reasons why papists go not to the Church. He will not I think, deny it to be his. how then can he deny himself to be a falsary? To come to particular falsifications, albeit in his book of resolution he hath no reason to falsify any place alleged, winning no advantage by it; yet hath he so dealt therein, and so hath he enured his fingers in this practice, that he cannot forget to forge and falsify. falsification 5 In the margin of his preface fol. 8. he saith it is an old trick of heretics to abuse simple people with obscure places of the scriptures: and for this he quoteth Epiphanius contra haereses, and Augustine ad quod vult deum: as if they should say so. He would also infer, that it is a matter very dangerous, to allege scriptures. But if he do not exhibit their testimonies, it will be an easy matter to prove that this is an old trick of Parsons to father his own bastardly fancies both upon the fathers, and upon others. Is not this then bastardly dealing? falsification 6 In the same preface fol. 10: he ascribeth this sentence to Luther in epist. ad johan. Her●agium Typographum Argentinensem: their opinion of the sacrament they began with lies, and with lies they do defend the same. And they do broach it abroad with wicked fraud of corrupting others men's books. Likewise he affirmeth of Zuinglius, that in his book de sacrament. fol. 412. he should call Luther a fowl corrupter, and horrible falsifier of God's word, and one that followed the Marcionistes and Arians, that razed out such places out of holy writ, as were against them. He maketh also Carolus Molinaeus in translat. testam. novi part. 11. to accuse Caluin, that he made the text of the gospel to leap up and down at his pleasure, and that he used violence to the same, and added of his own to the very letter for drawing it to his purpose. But who so list to peruse the writings of Luther, Zuinglius, and Molineus, shall plainly perceive, that like a falsary he changeth and altereth their words at his pleasure. neither can he excuse himself, unless he be able to show these words out of the authors, which he mentioneth. He chargeth Beza also, for that in the preface to his new testament set out anno 1556. he accuseth Oecolampadius with all his brethren the divines of Basil, for great impiety in abusing the sacred scriptures translated by them. But he abuseth his reader in laying that to Bezaes' charge, that was never uttered by him, nor is to be found in his preface. falsification 7 Fol. 11. of his preface, he quoteth Saint Augustine lib. 8. confess. c. 12. as if he should say, that Saint Anthony had revealed to his mother a religious rule of life, which he should follow. And fol. 12. he saith that Saint Augustine did so reverence Anthony's doings, that he made the same a principal motive to his own conversion. But Saint Augustine doth not so much as in one word mention any rule of religious life, nor did he follow Saint Anthony in other matter, then in reading the scriptures. Nor doth he say, that Saint Anthony revealed any religious rule to Monica S. Augustine's mother. In this therefore Rob. Parsons followeth his old rule, or rather unruly course of forgery. falsification 8 Pag. 64 of his books printed at Lovan, he allegeth for his ground, the counterfeit writings of Aristaeas, which he calleth Aristeus; and upon his credit telleth divers histories. But such false grounds are more likely to pervert, then to confirm men in the faith. falsification 9 Pag. 259. he corrupteth Saint Augustine's words de fid. & operibus c. 14. and perverteth his meaning, quoniam haec opinio tunc fuerat exorta saith Saint Augustine (scilicet ut praecepta & professa fide opera justitiae contemnantur) aliae apostolicae epistolae Petri, joannis, jacobi, judae, contra eam dirigunt maximè intentionem, ut vehementer astruant fidem sine operibus nihil prodesse. These words Parsons translateth thus, for that this wicked opinion of only faith was sprung up in the Apostles time by ill understanding of S●int Paul, etc. he addeth to Saint Augustine's words wicked; and where he speaketh of a sole faith, or rather solitary faith devoid of works, he maketh him to speak against these, that say, that faith only justifieth, or applieth justice unto us, which Saint Augustine misliketh not. for in that same chapter he saith, that works follow him, that is justified, and go not before justification. falsification 10 Pag. 269. he allegeth a counterfeit writing under the name of Athanasius, wherein Saint Anthony's the ermites' life is described: and of the lives of Paul and Hilarion supposed to be Hieromes: but altogether false, like Dolmans' book of titles. falsification 11 In his directory page 353. he maketh Cyprian to say, that Christ appeared to a bishop in the form of a goodly young man. He saith also, Serm. de Mortalit. that Saint Augustine did often use to recount this example, and alleged Posidonius for his witness He saith further, that Cyprian writ a book de Mortalitate. But first this discourse is but one poor sermon, and no book. Secondly it is uncertain, whether this sermon was his or no. Thirdly he saith not, that Christ appeared, but that a goodly young man appeared to that Priest. Finally he lieth of Saint Augustine, as well as Cyprian: and in his allegations forgeth as fast, as if he were the son of a blacksmith, and brought up in his forge. falsification 12 In the same place ridiculously he allegeth certain sermons ad fratres in eremo, which he fathereth most falsely upon Saint Augustine▪ and this his own side as well, as the learned men of ours could have told him, if he had but had so much sense, as to understand them. In the two pages following, he telleth certain fables of the apparitions of good and bad angels; and layeth them upon Gregory the dialogiste and Bede, whose books are much corrupted by monks, and such like falsaries. falsification 13 To prove purgatory, he allegeth a certain counterfeit book that is attributed to Saint Augustine, entitled de vera & falsa poenitentia, and a forged prayer supposed to be said by Saint Ambrose, when he went to say mass, and such like counterfeit stuff, as may be found in his directory pag. 369. and the pages following. falsification 14 Lib. 1. p. 1. c. 11. of his directory, he allegeth a place out of Saint Ambrose ser. 2. in psal. 118. where he supposeth him to speak of popish purgatory, but he speaketh of purging only in this life, and of such a purgatory, as that some passed through it to hell. But the papists teach, that no man passeth out of their purgatory into hell. He is therefore fit to talk of the fire of his putative father's forge, then of the fire of purgatory, which he shall never be able to prove with any forgery. falsification 15 Lib. 1. p. 2. c. 1. he maketh Saint Augustine to say, confess. lib. 6. c. 12. that his own passions, and the devil would needs persuade him before his conversion, that he should never be able to abide the austerity of a virtuous life. But S. Augustine hath neither any such words, nor any such meaning. For first he speaketh not of a virtuous life, but of abstinence from marriage, to attain to wisdom. Secondly he saith, the Devil or Serpent went about through him to persuade Alypius, and speaketh nothing of the devils persuasions to himself. Thirdly, he doth not so much as mention austere life in that place▪ neither is it so austere a matter to forswear marriage, as is pretended, especially if God give men grace to live chaste. The jesuits and massepriests certes have no reason to talk of austerity of life, albeit they forswear marriage, especially if they live at ease, and far daintily, and wallow in all filthiness, as they shall hear particularly hereafter, if they content not themselves with this present payment. falsification 16 Likewise he citeth certain Meditations, and Sermons under the name of Saint Augustine, pratum spirituale under the name of Sophronius, the legend of Barlaam under the name of Damascene, and divers other forged and counterfeit writings. He doth also abuse both the scriptures and fathers most impudently, as I shall at more leisure particularly demonstrate. Especially, if he or any other dare undertake to answer my challenge, and to reply upon my answer to his disciple Owlyglasse. falsification 17 Fift reason of refusal. Where Saint Paul 2. Tim. 4. speaketh of Alexander the copersmith, he changeth his words, and saith, he commanded Timothy not to consent to Alexander the heretic. And this corruption seemeth to be committed in favour of his putative father the blacksmith, whose occupation, percase, he was loath to see disgraced. falsification 18 Reason 6. Alleging Saint Augustine contra Maximinum, he seemeth to signify, that he wrote but one book. Again, he would make Saint Augustine to say, that it was the fashion of heretics, to have scriptures in their mouth. But Saint Augustine in all his three books against Maximinus hath no such words. nay himself in those books allegeth scripture often, and reasoneth out of them, and plainly signifieth, that his instructions were drawn from thence. De divinis scripturis instructi, saith he. falsification 19 Reason 7. Speaking of the Pope, he giveth his reader to understand, that Cyprian de simplic. praelat. and epist. 47. & 55. and Chrysost. lib. 2. de sacerdot. Innocentius epist. 93. apud Augustinum, and Leo epist. 84. and the Synod of Alexandria apud Athanasium, and Theodoret lib. 2. hist. c. 4. call the Pope the high priest of the Church, the bishop of the universal Church, the pastor of the Church, the judge of matters of faith, the repurger of heresies, the examiner of all bishops causes, and finally the great priest; in obeying of whom, all unity consisteth, and by disobeying of whom, all heresies arise. But scarce doth he speak truly of any one of these fathers or counsels, as any man may see both by examining the places, and in my book de Pontifice Rom. against Bellarmine. would Parsons set down the father's words, he might also see it himself, if he pleased. falsification 20 Where he saith, that the fathers of the primitive Church with one consent affirm, that the body and blood of Christ was by Christ appointed to be offered up daily for remission of sins of quick and dead, and quoteth Dionyse, Ignatius, Tertullian, Augustine, Chrysostome, Gregory, Hierome, Cyprian and others; with one breath he falsely allegeth them all, as I have particularly demonstrated in my third book de missa against Bellarmine. which if Parsons do answer, I marvel. Whosoever list to see further trial of Parsons his falsifications, let him read his treatise of the discovery of Nicols, and other such like pamphlets set out by him, wherein I dare be hold to say, that every second place alleged by him in any matter of controversy, is falsely alleged. Yea sometime to keep his forging fingers in ure, he allegeth fathers and scriptures falsely, where he doth not gain any thing to himself by the false quotation, and allegation, but only a perpetual note of a wicked falsary. Neither is it a matter much to be marveled at, if Robert Parsons hath committed divers falsifications, seeing in cases of conscience resolved by him and Allen, he teacheth, that it is lawful to change a man's name, to deny his country, to equivocate, dissemble and speak untruth, yea to swear and forswear most falsely: most of which points are counted plain forgery. beside that, his putative father by his occupation was a forger. If then Owlyglasse seek a pattern of falsifications; let him go to Robert Parsons, who is the only master, and a more excellent forger than Coobucke his putative father, albeit all his life long he wrought in a blacksmiths' forge. Only it were to be wished, that he had been a forger of horshoonailes, and not of false writings. CHAP. X. A note of certain notorious lies, and untruths uttered by Robert Parsons, alias Coobucke. I Need not say much to convince Rob. Parsons to be a most false jebusite, and a most impudent lying companion. The secular priests in their reply to Parsons his treatise entitled a manifestation of the folly and bad spirit etc. and in their answer to the jesuits apology, have eased me of that labour▪ for they convince him plainly of lying, cogging, and facing, and doubt not to affirm, that he can say nothing without lying. But yet because his wooden scholar Owlyglasse hath begun this course, and thinketh to win some advantage by scoring up my untruths, I will briefly note some untruths of the master lye-maker, and excellent imitator of him, that is, the father of lies. falsification 1 First then I say, that in his most slanderous libels set out under the names of and Rishton, of Andreas Philopater, of Didimus Veridicus, of Allen in his letters to the nobility and people of England, and Ireland, and all those libels which have been published within these 20. years against the late Lord treasurer of England of worthy memory, against the Lord of Leycester, and others, all which were either made by him, or published by him, or by his help and counsel, he lieth in gross. For the books from the beginning to the ending are full of notorious and villainous lies against king Henry the 8. against his principal agentes, against Queen Elizabeth and her counsel, and the whole Church and state of the Realm of England. and this, if God be pleased, I purpose shortly to show at large. Neither need I to declare any particular, seeing there is no man, that hath any intelligence of matters of state, but he knoweth, that the same be most false and slanderous. But to leave to speak of those books, that consist of nothing but lies, I will note divers particular leasings out of other books of his, wherein, notwithstanding, he pretendeth more truth. falsification 2 In his wardworde pag. 69. he saith, it appeareth not, that jesuits sought her majesties blood; especially not Parson's. A most notorious and shameless lie. For it is not only most true, that these wicked assassinors of princes, and King killers have also sought her majesties blood, but also now most apparent. For not only Palmio and Codret two jesuits did resolve Parrie to kill the Queen, and that it was an act meritorious so to do, Parries voluntary confession. but also sense that time Holt and Walpoole have excited divers to take on them that wicked enterprise. The first appeareth by the confession of Parrie about the year anno. 1584. the second by the confessions of Squire, York, Willams, Patrick Ocollen, and others. It appeareth also that Parsons was well acquainted with Parries' treason both by confessions, and witnesses. Further this many years he hath endeavoured, to the uttermost of his power, to stir up foreign enemies against her majesty, which no man can do, but he must needs intend her destruction▪ and if he deny that, his own letters which are to be shown, and the testimony of the secular priests, In divers treatises, and namely in their answer to Parsons his late apology. and the wicked libel under the name of Allen directed to the nobility and people of England and Ireland, which he holp to print and publish; and which wholly & openly aimeth at her majesties state and person, will convince him. But this point I have discoursed in my reply to Parsons his wardworde at large, and the same is diversly confessed in the secular priests books. And therefore thus much may serve in this place to prove him both a liar, & a most wicked assassinor of his liege prince and sovereign. falsification 3 In the fift encontre of his wardword he saith, that those that oppose themselves against the jesuits, are either jews, Turks, and Infidels; or those that make division and say, I am of Caluin, I am of Luther, or those that have made shipwreck of faith; or false brethren such as love pre-eminence as did Diotrephes; or else worldlings. And in these few words he telleth divers notorious lies. For first neither jews, nor Turks do oppose themselves against the jesuits. Secondly, among all those, that profess religion he cannot bring forth one that saith I am of Caluin, or Luther. Thirdly, Parsons himself is a jesuite, and a principal stirrer among them, and yet like Diotrephes sought to be a cardinal, which dignity for his bastardy and vileny he hath miss. Fourthly, he will not say, that Sixtus quintus was a jew or Turk, nor that the college of Sorbona, and clergy of France, or parliament of Paris are within the compass of his division; albeit all these have opposed themselves against the encrochements of the jesuits. Finally, the secular priests, that deal against the jesuits, are neither Turks nor Infidels in Parsons his reckoning. Yet have they manfully stood against the jesuits treacherous plots for their country, as Parsons will not deny. Doth it not then appear, that he hath told untruth, and that the I●suites are an odious generation contrary to Parsons his assertion? falsification 4 Speaking of the alteration of religion in his first encounter he saith, that by occasion thereof have ensued battles, Wardword. murders, destructions of countries. And that towns, cities, houses and particular men, three princes, two Queens, and one King have thereby been brought to their bane. He saith also further, that the houses and lineages of Hamiltons, Douglasses, Stewards in Scotland, of desmond and other peers in Ireland have been thereby ruinated. And finally, that in France and Flanders there is no end of those, that have been destroyed by this change of religion. A most shameless and palpable untruth. For not religion, or any alteration therein, but the malice of the Pope and wicked practices of jesuits, and there consorts have caused most of these troubles. The rest have happened upon other accidents. By the Pope's secret practices, and Charles the 9 his great disloyalty many thousands of innocentes were massacred in France the year of our Lord 1572. by the working of claud Matthieu a jesuite and others his consorts that league was made, which brought infinite calamities to the people and kingdom of France. Paul the third stirred up wars against the princes of Germany. P●us the fift was the firebrand, that inflamed the Northern rebellion in England. Sanders the Pope's legate was the original cause of the destruction of the earl of Desmond. And happy had the late Queen of Scots been, if she had not been to credulous to believe Sammier and other seditions jesuits entisinge words and promises. the attempt of Spaniards against England anno. 1588., was set forward by Friar Sixtus quintus at the solicitation of Robert Parsons and his fellows, albeit here he would gladly discharge himself, and lay the fault upon others. the jesuits were the causes of the destruction of the Duke of Guise, of Henry the french King, that was murdered by james Clement, of the Duke of Parma, of the discontentment of the Prince of Transiluania. neither was the loss of Sebastian King of Portugal, of his whole army & his estate to be ascribed to any other than to the wicked counsel of the jesuits, which governed him wholly and drew him into that action they have also brought the King to Poland in danger to lose his kingdom of Suethland, and caused the overthrow of Ferdinand of Croatia by the Turks: and finally both have they ruined as many, as have hearkened to their turbulent counsels, and will they ruin as many, as will be guided by them. And this is not only proved by experience, but also testified by divers records, and books in England, and France of late set out by men of their own religion. The divisions certes which they have caused in the emperors army in Hungary have wrought many calamities to christendom. falsification 5 In the same encounter he saith, that before the late alteration of religion, there was one form of service, one number of Sacraments, one tongue, one Sacrifice, one head of the Church throughout all christendom. but in my reply pag. 19 I have showed, that this short sentence containeth the truth have respected temporal commodity, or as if we did not urge them with the truth of apostolical doctrine, and the ancient christian faith. falsification 38 In the preface of his directory. fol. 13. p. 2 he saith, that S. Ambrose, S. Augustine, S. Gregory & S. Bernard persuade men by their examples to be afraid of purgatory. A fourfold lie. for neither did S. Ambrose, nor any of the rest speak of a purgatory, wherein christians did satisfy for the temporal punishment of sins remitted in earth. nor did they believe any such purgatory. Whatsoever they held of another purgatory, viz. for venial sins; yet false it is, that they persuaded men to be afraid of it by their examples. falsification 39 In his directory lib. 1. p. 42. he saith, that the world knoweth, that Socrates was put to death for i●sting at the multitude of gods among the gentiles: a matter which the world knoweth to be a lie, and is refuted by Plato, & all that writ of his death. falsification 40 In the same place he saith, Plato was wont to report of Zeno the stoic, that he should say, that either there was one God, or no God. but the record of the report will not be found. Further, if Plato lived before Zeno, it was not like, that he should prophesy what Zeno would say. These lies certes being the grounds of Parson's proofs where he goeth about to show, that there is a God: are rather like to make a gentile, or heathen man obstinate, then to make him believe in one God. falsification 41 Pag. 174. he telleth, that the number of infants slain at Bethlehem was 14. thousand. and this he goeth about to prove by the greek calendar, and the liturgy of the Aethiopians. but such fables as he bringeth, do rather discredit christian religion, then prove it. We believe, that Herod killed the young children in Bethlehem, and thereabouts. but so many as 14. M. could not be found in that quarter, as is very likely. falsification 42 Pag. 269. he saith, that Philo the jew doth set forth strange things in the life and exercises of S. Mark, and of his disciples, that lived in Alexandria. But if Philo in his book de vit. contemplate do neither speak of S. Mark, nor his disciples in Alexandria, I hope that Parson's disciples will be ashamed of their master's ignorance, and confess that he hath lied. It were an easy matter, to set down infinite lies of this lying companion, who without lying is not able to speak any thing, as his consorts the secular priests say. but when he hath cleared himself of these, he shall have twice so many more objected against him, and drawn out of his simple writings. In the mean while it may appear, that neither he, nor his disciple Owlyglasse had any great reason to challenge the combat of us for falsifications and lies. CHAP. XI. That Owlyglasse himself hath falsified divers authors and allegations in his little lewd Pamplet, wherein he chargeth others with falsifications. IS it possible, think you, to work somewhat out of nothing? certes no. Strange therefore it may seem unto you, that I endeavour out of this small Pamphlet, that is as nothing, to make something. Yet if you please to consider the particulars ensuing, you shall find, that in this trifling discourse of the wooden detector, wherein he hath showed neither wit, learning, nor honesty, nor any good thing; that there are divers points contained, that may convince him both to be a falsary, and a false lying companion. falsification 1 Out of Origen pag. 11. c. 2. he citeth these words, qui renascitur debet sale saliri. Homil. 6. in Ezech. But the father's words are these, oportet ergo eum, qui renascitur, utique in Christo renascentem rationabile & sincerum lac desiderare, & prius quam rationabile & sine dolo lac desideret, debet sale saliri, & pannorum involucris colligari, ne dicatur ad eum, sale non es salitus, & pannis non es involutus. So then by this it appeareth, that he cutteth away the words in the midst, and leaveth out the words in the end of the sentence, and the maliciously to serve his purpose. for otherwise it would have appeared, that Oregin spoke allegorically, or that all children and others, that are to be baptised, must as well drink milk, and be lapped in clouts, as salted, or touched with salt. falsification 2 In his preface he abuseth Hostiensis and Panormitane making them to say, that three things precisely are required in a falsary. And that damage or hurt ensueth of every falsification. the fellow quoteth their words out of a pamphlet printed at Antwerp by Hierom verdussen concerning the conference betwixt Plessis and Eureux. and therefore no marvel, if he cite them falsely, taking their words at the second hand of so base and lying an author. falsification 3 In my former challenge p. 20. these are my words. They dissolve marriage contracted by entering into religion, as they term it, and although it be consummated, yet they hold, that by mutual consent, the married couple may departed a sunder, and that it shall not be lawful for them afterward to company together. They separate also marriage for spiritual kindred, and force all, that-will be priests, monks, or friars to forswear, marriage. Matters not only strange in the catholic Church during the times of the Apostles, and their successors for many hundred years, but also contrary to Christ's doctrine. For what man can separate them, whom God hath joined? And what reason hath man to command any to forswear marriage, which the spirit of God pronounceth to be honourable? But my adversary like a falsary, that is, like himself, first leaveth out the beginning of the sentence; secondly he cutteth somewhat out in the midst, Pag. 14 and finally he curtalleth the end of my sentence, reporting only these words, and in this sort. They hold that by mutual consent the married couple may departed a sunder, and that it shall not be lawful for them afterward to company together, a matter not only strange in the catholic church during the Apostles, and there successors times, for many hundred years, but also contrary to Christ's doctrine▪ for what man can separate whom God hath joined? So it appeareth, that he cutteth out that, which I said of dissolving of marriage contracted, by monkish vows, and upon pretence of spiritual kindred, a●d that also, which I say of forswearing of marriage▪ he doth also make me to speak in the singular number, where I speak in the plural. which course if any man take with the father's writings; he may easily make them speak untruth, and what he listeth. But in the mean while Owlyglasse showeth himself a falsary. falsification 4 Where Pag. 24. of my former challenge I say, that papists of late time have devised masses, and offices in the honour of the cross, of the virgin mary, of S. Francis, Dominike and other saints, and that unto their images they burn incense and offer their prayers and devotions: Pag. 20. ch. 2. Owlyglasse according to his fashion doth thus transform my words, as if I had said only, that the Papists offer their prayers and devotions to the images of our Lady, S. Francis, S. Dominike. Whereby it appeareth, he doth detruncate my words leaving out the beginning, and that which I said concerning the cross, and burning of incense, upon which points the argument, which I brought was principally laid. If a man should so use him, as he hath used my words, I doubt not, but he would be much offended. falsification 5 Pag. 62. of my challenge I say, that Damascene accounteth them heretics, that worshipped the images of our Saviour, of the blessed Virgin, and the Saints, as the gentiles did their gods: and I added, that this was the case of the papists, because both gentiles and papists bow to images, pray to them, burn incense to them, and offer sacrifice before them: and yet both deny, that they worship stocks or stones, but rather those persons, that are represented by them. But Owlyglasse crushing my words together, as if he meant to wring verjuice out of them, & taking out, what he pleaseth, doth so report my words, as if I had said only, that the papists worship the images of Saints, as the gentiles did their gods, and that they pray to them. And thus this butcherly falsifier of men's writings hath mangled my words, as I have particularly noted heretofore. falsification 6 To prove, that the pope's of Rome had power to make laws in ancient time, and did practise that power, he allegeth a forged canon of Hilary sometime bishop of Rome, that lived about the year of our Lord 461. but the same is not extant in ancient record. neither is it like, that he would use such a thundering style, as did the author of this decretal epistle. thirdly, no godly bishop would match his own decrees with God's ordinances. Nulli fas sit, saith he whatsoever he was, sine status sui periculo, vel divinas constitutiones, vel apostolicae sedis decreta temerare▪ finally, if the bishops of Rome in this time had used this style, all the world would have laughed at their folly. falsification 7 Pag 23. Chap. 2. he doth also curtal my words with an etc. and maketh me to speak of one particular, where I speak of divers things, and leaveth out some principal parts of my assertion. I say, if a man seek all antiquity, he shall not find, where the church of Christ hath commanded us to keep this pope's day, or that pope's day, and to abstain from work on S. Francis, and S. dominic day, and other canonised friars days, or where the same hath enjoined Christians to hear mass, or to fast Lent or Ember days, or vigils of Saints, and other tides according to the fashion of the Church of Rome. but my adversary leaveth out all that, which concerneth hearing of masses, and keeping of holy days of the pope's canonised saints, and of other tides, and of the manner of fasting. falsification 8 Likewise, pag. 26. he mangleth my words and sentences, and giveth them a new form, never devised by me. I speak of divers things together, pag. 32. of my challenge, and say, that they are not to be found in all antiquity. he maketh me to speak of solemnisation of marriages in times prohibited by the Romish church. falsification 9 He doth likewise mangle my words, pag. 32. leaving out that, which I speak of adoration, and carrying about the sacrament. The like dishonest dealing he useth in most of those places, which he allegeth not of my challenge, as may appear by my answer to his former exceptions, and by the words themselves, if any man list to compare my book with his pamphlet. What then need I to touch him for particular falsifications, when the allegations of his worthless treatise are nothing almost, but continued falsifications? falsification 10 Pag. 32. he citeth the 13. canon of the council of Nice for the 12. and where the council speaketh of excommunicate persons only, he maketh the same to speak of all Christians, and to determine, that the holy communion should be denied to none at the point of death: as if the eucharist, as now is the popish fashion, were then carried to all sick persons, which is no part of the counsels meaning. falsification 11 Pag. 35. he bringeth in a counterfeit book of S. Ambrose, de viduis, and yet clippeth his words, forcing him to speak for prayers to angels, which true S. Ambrose, as may appear by my answers to his exceptions, condemned. falsification 12 Pag. 36. he produceth Hierome as a witness for prayers to saints, and allegeth his book against Vigilantius for that purpose▪ but unless he falsify S. Hieromes words, he shall not find any thing in him, that maketh for his advantage. falsification 13 Pag. 53. & 54. he falsely allegeth the 4. council of Toledo c, 1. Ignatius his epistle ad Trallianos, cyril's cateches. 4. Epiphanius haeres. 46. Hierome upon the 4. to the Ephes. Gregory's Morals, lib. 13. c. 20. and all to prove Limbus patrum, which the papists fancy to be in hell, and a receptacle of the fathers before Christ. His falsehood may appear, for that not one of these testimonies maketh for Limbus patrum. and that, if he will not believe me, Bellarmine will teach him, lib. de anima Christi c. 14. where he shall not once find his Limbus patrum mentioned in any father. falsification 14 Pag. 62. he doth falsely ascribe the defence of women's baptism to Master Hooker of blessed memory. whosoever listeth to read Master hooker's fift book of Ecclesiast. policy sect. 62. shall find, that he condemneth women that presume to baptise children, albeit he do not pronounce the baptism by them administered, to be of no validity. falsification 15 Pag. 80. & 81. he allegeth S. Augustine ser. 243. de tempore, and the council of Neocaesarea c. 7. to prove, that the custom of not blessing second marriages is no new device, but a practice of the primitive church▪ and yet neither doth the canon alleged, nor the author of that sermon speak one word of blessing of second marriages. Furthermore, neither this sermon, that he allegeth, seemeth to be S. Augustine's, nor are the acts of the council of Neocaesarea authentical. Finally, if this simple fellow had alleged more places, more he would have alleged falsely, being not able to allege any thing almost truly. If then the Archpriest Blackewell do happen to meet with this owl of Cank wood; he may do well to admonish him, not to abuse the testimonies which he allegeth, and his reader's patience, which he trieth to the uttermost with such notable falsities. he himself confesseth, that it is a flagitious matter, to paul and pair the sentences of venerable antiquity. There resteth therefore nothing, but seeing he hath confessed his fault, that the Archpriest set him to penance, and afterward cause him, if he have a good voice, to sing mass, seeing he can say no better. CHAP. XII. A Note of divers untruths told by Owlyglasse in his pamphlet, wherein he pretendeth to charge others with untruths. IT is a shame for any man to lie. but for him, that taketh upon him to charge others with lying, every foot to lie, is not only a great shame, but also an argument, that he is past shame. let him therefore the next time look better to himself, and desist to rail, face, and slander, unless he stood himself upon better ground, and did use more truth in his dealing. falsification 1 In his preface he saith, that popish religion was planted here by Gregory the great▪ but he telleth a great untruth. for neither was Gregory ever here in this Island, nor did either he, or his agents maintain that doctrine, that is published by the conventicle of Trent, or those points, which I have declared neither to be ancient, nor generally holden. falsification 2 He doubteth not also to affirm, that Gregory received that religion, which now the papists profess, from Peter. Let him therefore show, that all those points of doctrine, against which I except in my challenge, were received from Peter, or else he must receive answer, that speaking of religion, he speaketh without religion, reason, or conscience. falsification 3 He chargeth me and M. Willet, with assaulting the impregnable fort of God's church, and battering that rock, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail. but if he mean the true church, then doth he make a lie of us. if he mean the present Romish congregation adhering to the pope, he maketh a lie of the pope & his church. for we have by many arguments declared, that the Romanists and their adherents are not the true church. We have also showed, that the gates of hell have prevailed against them, and that declining from the apostolic faith, they are fallen into many foul heresies. falsification 4 Further, speaking of his consorts, he saith, they repair to the continual tradition and practice of the church, and that we reject the same▪ but he lieth both in the one and the other▪ for neither do the Romanists regard the general practice of the apostolic church for many hundred years after Christ, nor do we desire any thing more, than that late customs and traditions rejected, we may return to the sound form of apostolic faith, and government. falsification 5 He saith, they have recourse to the consent of the ancient learned fathers, and that we reject them. but the first is proved a lie by Bellarmine, and other popish proctor's, who most lightly reject the fathers, when they make against them▪ the second is reproved by our confessions, wherein we show, that we desire nothing more, than that all latter decretals called, we may return to the ancient father's faith. falsification 6 He telleth us further, that papists appeal to general counsels, and that we will not admit them. but after his fashion he hudleth up lies by couples. for neither do they admit any counsels, but such as pleaseth them; nor do we refuse to admit any article of faith established by ancient and lawful general counsels. falsification 7 He would make men believe, that popish religion is most severe. and yet the world knoweth, that in all places papists maintain open stews, and in Rome and divers great cities suffer jews and Turks to dwell quietly. Further, the pope doth set to sale all sins, and every polshorne paltry fellow thinketh he can give absolution to sinners; which bringeth the keys of the church into contempt. Finally, no sect ever lived more loosely, or lewdly. These things therefore, unless they be better answered, do sufficiently convince him of lying; and his consorts of lose living, and popish religion of lightness. falsification 8 In the same lying preface he saith, that protestants (doctrine) looseth the rains to all liberty, that unbridled sensuality will never put up petition for any greater. and by protestants, he understandeth true Christians, that abhor the abominations of Babel. but if he had not given the rains to his unbridled tongue to speak all villainy of honest men, he would not have uttered, and if he had not been a brutish beast, that useth not to be reigned, he would not have written such impudent lies. Let him therefore set down our doctrine, wherein we seem to let lose our sensual affections, and let him if he can, show any man of our side, that alloweth public stews as the jesuite Weston, jesuits in Wisbich taught that whores were in Rome. with as good right as the pope. and his consorts did at Wisbich some three or four years agone, affirming that whores were in Rome, cum approbatione, and to truss all short, with as good right as the pope. And if he dare, or hope to win advantage by it, let him compare the lives of the pope's, cardinals, and Romish clergy and people, with such as truly profess our religion; and examine the honesty of both. and if not, let him leave his lying, and railing upon honest men. falsification 9 Pag. 11. chap. 2. For spittle, saith he, speaking of the ceremonies of baptism, we have the warrant of S. Ambrose lib. 1. de sacrament. c. 1. but whatsoever he hath, we have here a notorious lie delivered by him. for S. Ambrose in that place hath not one word of spittle, much less of spittle in baptism, for which he is alleged. I wonder then, if Philip Woodward have made up these wooden animadversions, that the other mass priests do not spit in his face, and defy him. and the rather, for that he supposeth every word of S. Ambrose, or the author of that counterfeit treatise to be a sufficient warrant, whom the papists in divers points regard not, as I have showed in my treatise De missa, now published against Bellarmine. falsification 10 In the same chapter, pag. 12. he saith, that for ceremonies used by the Romanists in baptism, viz. for exorcisms, blowings, salt, spittle, hallowed water, anointings, light and others (for of these he speaketh) he hath the testimony of antiquity, whatsoever I say to the contrary. But can any man believe him on his bare word? sure no. for taking on him to prove these ceremonies, like a simple idiot he doth not so much as bring any testimony of antiquity for light, holy water, and greasing in baptism. And the rest, which he bringeth, are far short of his purpose. so that to prove Owlyglasse a lying companion, I need no testimony, but Owlyglasse himself. his own lose dispute doth prove Ph. Woodward to be a wooden fellow. falsification 11 In the same chapter, pag. 11. he writeth, that I utter an untruth so manifest, that Caluin doth confess it. and yet Caluin was dead long before I wrote any thing. Beside that, he doth not confess that to be untruth, which I affirm. for he saith not, that the ceremonies in question were practised by the ancient church, which I deny: but only affirmeth, that he knoweth how ancient they were. which may be true, albeit they were neither ancient, nor practised by the universal church, but by some few superstitious persons. Finally, he is a simple fellow to tell us of Caluin, or to make him our judge, albeit we reverence his memory, as being a learned and godly man, and an excellent instrument used by the Holy Ghost, to set forth the truth of the Gospel wickedly suppressed by Antichrist. falsification 12 Speaking of our Communion book: in the same book, saith Pag. 13. he, lay men and women are permitted to minister baptism. but no man did permit him thus to lie, and to speak without book. neither would he have taken himself liberty in things not permitted, unless the archpriest or some false jebusite had given him liberty to lie and speak untruth. That he hath maliciously uttered untruth, the book will declare, wherein there is not one word either of lay men, or women permitted to minister baptism. falsification 13 Where he saith, pag. 15. that Epiphanius and Hierome affirm, that married persons used not to be admitted to holy orders, except they did promise perpetual continency from their wives: he telleth a notorious untruth. for neither did Epiphanius haeres. 59 nor Hierome adverse. Vigilantium, speak one word of promise, or vow made in that case. Beside that, if they should make such a promise, yet were that no warrant to permit men to leave their wives in that sort, nor can men departed or abstain from their wives without their consent, as the adversary knoweth, if he know any thing. falsification 14 He saith, pag. 16. that in married couples disjoined, the band of marriage continueth still. but the conventicle of Trent. sess. 24. c. 6. and other authors In the challenge. before alleged will tell him, that in marriages dissolved before consummation, this his assertion is untrue. falsification 15 Chap. 2. p. 17. most certain it is, that they said masses, and prayers for the souls departed, saith he, speaking of the fathers of the primitive church. but in this point not being able to bring forth one father, that ever said mass or dirge for the dead, he doth after a close manner give himself the lie. and to make his lying more manifest, I have in my answer to his exceptions taken away all the colours, that he with his little learning could set upon the matter. If he rest not with his loss, let him in his next return show where any ancient father said requiem aeternam for the dead, or prayed thus, absolve Domine animas omnium fidelium defunctorum ab omni vinculo delictorum. and finally, let him prove, that the ancient fathers believed, that Christ's body and blood were really offered for quick and dead in the mass. If he can not do this, he talketh idly of his mass, and showeth himself to be a mass priest rather in a foolish intention, than in certain knowledge, or true popish devotion. falsification 16 Pag. 21. chap. 2. he denieth, that papists put any hope in images, or that they worship them, as the Gentiles did their gods, or that they offer their prayers or devotions unto them. but he lieth falsely, as his own conscience may tell him, if he have any conscience, and be not as stupid as any stock or stone, which he is wont to worship. secondly the practice of the Romish church must needs convince him of lying. for among the Romanists simple people and priests also, not unlike to heathen idolaters, fall down before stocks and stones, set up lights before them, burn incense to them, pray before them. thirdly, their usual forms of prayers do show, that he hath told untruth, and that lying is with him an usual form. in their ritual books they say, o crux ave spes unica. and friar Bartilmew of Sienna, that is now said to work miracles, hath these words for his devise, Christ and his cross, and Mary, be my guide and keeper▪ and to the portrait of our saviours face, they say, salve sancta facies▪ four their common doctrine is, that the image is to be worshipped with that worship, that is due to the original. but it is to be doubted, whether the heathen were so gross idolaters, as to give that honour to their images. finally they go on pilgrimage to their images more than ever did the heathen, and doubt not but they are able to do more, than the heathen idols, as may appear by the vows made to the lady of Loreto, and such other saints. for never did the heathen more superstitiously worship Diana at Ephesus, than the Romanists worship the image of our lady at Loreto. falsification 17 Speaking of fasts in Lent, on ember days, and on the vigiles of saints, he saith, that antiquity is plentiful, viz. of testimonies in this case. and yet the wooden fellow doth not bring any one testimony for the fasts upon vigiles of saints, nor can he prove the practice of the Romish church by any one testimony alleged by him, precisely. falsification 18 Pag. 28. chap. 2. he denieth, that papists hold, that Christian men may live without sin▪ an impudent untruth, and wherein he contradicteth himself. for if Christians can fulfil all the law of God, as he goeth about with all his little skill to prove, and that by divers arguments; then doth it necessarily follow, that they may live without all sin. falsification 19 Pag. 31. he affirmeth, that the form of confirmation, is as ancient, as the apostles. a lie of great length, reaching to the apostles times, & thereof to convince him no man needeth to go farther than his own confession, who is not able to allege either the testimony of the apostles, or any ancient father for this form of confirmation: signo te signo crucis, & confirmo te Chrismate salutis. falsification 20 In the same place very impudently he blusheth not to say, that the form of consecration practised by the Romanists hath always been holden▪ and would therefore prove it to be a constituion apostolical▪ but his assertion is refuted both by histories and fathers, and especially by his own silence, that speaketh more in a line, than he will prove all his life. falsification 21 Pag. 34. he saith papists grant, that there is but one mediator of redemption, but doubteth not to hold, that there are many mediators of intercession▪ but he lieth in both these points. for in the mass the priest is said in plain terms to offer pro redemptione animarum. and sure, if they offer up Christ jesus properly and really; then are they mediators of redemption. the second point I have declared to be a notorious lie in my former discourse. falsification 22 Pag. 43. he hudleth up divers lies upon a heap. first he saith, auricular confession was ordained by Christ. secondly, that by the law of God men in mortal sin were bound to repair to the sacrament of auricular confession▪ thirdly, that mortal sins are not remitted without auricular confession▪ the first lie is refuted by the testimony of scriptures, wherein neither form, nor institution of auricular confession is to be found. The second is convinced by the book of God's law, wherein we find no colour of such an ordinance. the third is manifested by divers testimonies of scriptures, which declare, Galat. 3. that we receive the promise of the spirit through faith: that Act. 15. faith purifieth our hearts: that, we are washed by Christ his blood, whom we put on; not by outward confession, but by our faith and inward conversion to God. Furthermore all these lies may be refuted also by the silence of Oulyglasse, that is not able to justify any one of his assertions by any text of scripture▪ beside that all papists hold, that confession is a sacrament of their new law, and not established under the law of Moses, as Oulyglasse would insinuate. finally the decretal of Innocentius, upon which auricular confession dependeth, being long after the times of the apostles and ancient fathers, is a plain conviction of Oulyglasses false dealing, for how can that be either instituted by Christ, or authorized by the law, or deemed necessary, that before Innocent the thirds time was neither established, nor deemed necessary? falsification 23 Most impudently he affirmeth, Pag. 49. that saint james maketh mention of the sacrament of extreme unction▪ but that may appear to be a lie, both for that there is no mention of a sacrament there, and for that sacraments are not to be instituted by men, but by God. finally no ancient father did ever expound these words of popish extreme unction. falsification 24 Pag. 113. he saith, that I deny, that the matter of the real presence concerneth any fundamental point of faith▪ but if he cannot prove it out of my words, I hope he will not deny, but that after his wonted fashion he hath told untruth. The rest of his lies you shall find noted in my answer to his exceptions to my challenge. if then he hath begun to lie so fast, what are we to look for, if he continue his course of writing? and if his clients do commend him for these lies; what will they, if he proceed on as he hath begun? I, for my part, will give my voice, to have him canonised for lying. CHAP. XIII. Corollaries, and conclusions gathered out of the former challenge, and the answers to the exceptions taken to the same. I Need not, as I suppose, make any large discourse in drawing out particular conclusions out of the former challenge and answer▪ for he is very simple, that doth not perceive, whereto they both do tend. Beside that, I have heretofore touched some principal points which especially seem to deserve consideration. but seeing Robert Parsons in his relation sent us from Rome, beside the report of matters then passed, began first to draw out certain idle observations; and perceiving well, that his wooden scholar Owlyglasse doth second him, and hath likewise endeavoured to make observations, and to draw great conclusions out of his slender and misshapen premises, I have thought it not amiss to encounter him, although not in so weak manner with the very like course, and for his observations to send him likewise other observations and conclusions, being very loath to be behind him in any course that may serve either to manifest the truth, or to correct the error and treachery of such lewd companions. observation 1 First then I do observe, if the jesuits and their adherents be false prophets and false teachers; that then they are most diligently to be sought out and punished. the sequel is grounded upon the law of God. Deut. 13. Moses' speaking of false prophets saith, propheta ille aut fictor somniorum interficietur, quia locutus est ut averteret vos à domino deo vestro. that is, that prophet or dreamer of dreams, shall be slain, because he hath spoken, to disturne you from the Lord your God. where it is to be noted, that false prophets and teachers are fitly joined with dreamers of dreams. for that he, that teacheth doctrine not grounded upon the infallible word of God, is no better than a dreamer of dreams. Christian kings they ought to be nurses of God's church, and have the sword committed unto them, not only to repress seditious persons and wicked malefactors, but also such idolatrous massepriests, as disturb the peace of the church, and seek to disturne men from the truth by their false doctrine. with princes also all true Christians ought to concur in the detecting of such wicked members. If thy brother, saith Moses, or the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or thy wife, that lieth in thy bosom, or thy friend, whom thou lovest as thy soul, would persuade thee, saying, let us go and serve other gods, which thou knowest not, nor thy fathers, thou shalt not yield unto him, nor hear him, nor shall thy eye spare him, nor shalt thou pity him, or conceal him, but shall cause him to be slain. for it is not sufficient for a Christian man to know and follow the truth, but he must also avoid false doctrine and the service of Baal. Christ's sheep, as john 10. he saith, they follow the true shepherd, and a stranger they will not follow. neither may we regard their fair pretences, of reconciling men to the catholic Romish church, as they call it. for even wolves though ravenous, yet now and then come unto us in sheeps clothing. but our saviour Christ giveth us a caveat, to beware of them. Beware saith Matth. 7. he, of false prophets, which shall come unto you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. these will smoothly tell you, that they come to save your souls, and pretend to come from Christ's vicar; but they are the ministers of antichrist, and the idolatrous priests of Baal, and come to destroy your souls. by their fruits you shall know them. their study is sedition & alteration of state, their religion heresy and superstition, their life full of filthiness and abomination. neither do we read of any, that have hearkened unto the jesuits of late years, but they have been utterly ruined by them. examples hereof we have divers, and the truth which I affirm appeareth by the Scottish Catechism. de jesuitis. Queen ruined by the wicked counsel of Sammier, that came disguised unto her all in yellow satin: by the duke of Guise and the leaguers of France brought to destruction by claud Matthiew: by king Philip the 2. of Spain intricated by the most wicked counsels of Parsons: by the king of Poland that standeth in danger to lose his kingdom of Suethland: by the death and overthrow of Sebastian king of Portugal in Barbary: by the prince of Transiluania, that is now by their means dispossessed of Transiluania: Ferdinand of Croatia, who together with his army was overthrown by a few Turks. listening to these presumptuous fellows consultations: by the emperor, that is weakened by their seditious practices, losing the aid of divers princes of religion, by the importunity of these trouble-states. as for inferior lords and gentlemen, that have been drawn into practices by jesuits, and so have overthrown themselves, and their houses, the number of them is infinite. observation 2 Secondly, if mass priests be idolaters, than no man, that is zealous for the honour of God and his true religion may endure them. for the law of God, that so rigorously pursueth a false prophet, doth therefore adjudge him worthy of death, because he went about to draw men from the true worship of God. quia voluit abstrahere te, saith Deut. 13. Moses speaking to the people, à domino deo tuo. and because he sought to persuade men to serve idols and false gods, saying, eamus, & sequamur deos alienos. let us go and follow other gods. the 2. Cor. 6. apostle doth teach us, that there is no consent betwixt the church of God and idols▪ qui-consensus saith he, templo dei cum idolis. if it be the church of God, than it admitteth no idols; if idols be erected in any place, then that is not the church of God. 1. Cor. 10. he saith also, that Christians cannot both drink the Lords cup, and the cup of devils, and by the cup of devils he understandeth the cup consecrated in honour of idols. The prophet David therefore speaking of idolaters professeth like a good king, that Psal. 16. he would not offer their offerings of blood, nor make mention of their names within his lips. 2. King. 18. Hezekias overthrow the high places, broke down the images, out down the groves, and removed away all monuments of idolatry. josias did likewise, and executed to death, such as had burned incense to Baal. 1. King. 18. Helias inflamed with zeal, would not suffer one of Baal's prophets to escape. contrariwise God doth show himself highly displeased with such, as wink at idolaters. the spirit of God speaking to the bishop of Pergamus: Apoc. 2. habeo saith he, adversus te pauca, quia habes illic tenentes doctrinam Balaam, qui docebat Balac mittere scandalum coram filijs Israel, edere, & fornicari. likewise he reproveth the bishop of Thyatira sharply for permitting idolaters, and false seducing teachers, I have against thee Apoc. 2. saith he, some few things, because thou dost permit the woman jezabel to teach and to seduce my servants, to commit fornication, and to eat of things sacrificed to idols. finally no man can call himself a Christian, that can be content to see either God's commandment openly broken in worshipping of idols, or else secretly frustrated by secret practices and subtle evasions of Baal's priests. and as idolaters shall be punished in the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone; so shall they not escape grievous punishments, that either maintain them, or wink at them. let no man therefore blame her Majesty and the State, that cannot endure these idolatrous slaves of antichrist, and wicked mass priests of Baal's order. observation 3 If the papists be heretics, then are not either the pope's priests to be suffered to broach their heretical doctrine in secret corners, nor their adherents openly to maintain their perverse opinions. the emperors Gratian, Valentinian, & Theodosius L. omnes. Cod. de haeret. put all heretics to silence. omnes vetitae legibus divinis, & imperialibus constitutionibus, say they, perpetuò quiescant. Valentinian and Martian L. quicunque ibidem. decreed, that false teachers should be put to death. Vltimo supplicio afficiantur say they, qui illicita docere tentaverint. Constantine did grievously punish such, as kept or concealed any books of heretics, as is testified by Sozomen, lib. 1. hist. cap. 20. Saint Augustine doth greatly commend the emperor's laws made against the Donatists. and Hierom writing upon the fift to the Galathians, seemeth much to mislike the remissness of divers in their proceedings against the heretic Arius. as for private men they are to follow the apostles counsel 2. Tim. 4. and to avoid these heretics. saint Epist. 2. john would not have Christians so much as once to bid them God speed. nolite jugum ducere saith the apostle 2. Corinth. 6. cum infidelibus. be not yoked with infidels. for what conjunction is there betwixt justice and iniquity? it is a hard matter to touch pitch, and not to be defiled. and heretical books and companions seduce simple souls, that are not able to judge. finally if reason persuade not blind papists; yet the judgements of God denounced against idolaters may persuade every man, that is studious of his salvation, to beware of their enticements, and not to frequent their company. Solomon though a wise prince, was seduced by his idolatrous wives, and josaphat hardly escaped danger, accompanying and assisting the idolatrous king Achab. observation 4 If all that adhere to foreign enemies, and refuse to acknowledge the princes right, and authority; and that seem rather willing and ready to take part with foreign enemies, then to stand in defence of their prince and country, be no otherwise to be accounted of, then as traitors, and public enemies; then are all true subjects to deal against massepriests and their adherents, as disloyal traitors, and wicked enemies of their prince and country. for princes cannot subsist, unless they maintain their authority and laws: nor can subjects live safe having this viperous generation dispersed in every corner. In ancient time treason was accounted the greatest crime that could be committed in matters of state, and most severely and extraordinarily was the same punished. at this day neither will the Spaniard nor French, nor the Italian princes endure any subject, that shall either deny his authority or adhere to foreign enemies; albeit they pretend religion never so much naturally every man is bound to defend himself. but the prince is not only bound by the laws of nature to look to his own safety, but also by the laws of state, for that many men's safety and estates do depend upon him. as for those that fear, or defer to take a course with traitors, they are either stupid, or else pusillanimous. The jesuits and their adherents will, I know, deny themselves to be traitors. so they will also deny the Sun to shine pro bono societatis, as they term it, and for their cacolicke cause, but I have by arguments convinced them to be traitors: and if they answer not categorically, and directly, and without all equivocations, they will by their own silence prove themselves to be traitors. and for the manifestation of their lewd disposition, I would pray Robert Parsons, or his scholar Garnet, or Philip woodward, that is so busy, or any of the combination of the archipresbiteriall congregation of traitors to answer me directly to these questions ensuing. First whether they believe, the pope by his sentence proceeding without error against the Queen, and declaring her to be deposed, that they are still to acknowledge her to be lawful Queen, or no, and to obey her notwithstanding the pope's commandment. Secondly whether in that case the Pope commanding them to take arms against her Majesty, they ought not to do it, and are excommunicate and damned like dogs, if the pope command them to do it upon pain of his curse, and they refuse it. Thirdly whether in that case, they will not persuade all papists to take arms against her Majesty, and whether themselves will not concur with them, if the pope excommunicate all that refuse. 4 Whether they do not believe, that the pope hath power to take her majesties crown from her head. 5 Whether he hath power to dispense with the subjects oaths of allegiance, and to command them to rebel. 6 Whether they think her Majesty can be deposed without violence offered to her majesties person and life. 7 Whether the pope commanding them, they would not deliver her into the hands of her enemies, or kill her, as Allen in his traitorous exhortation to the nobility and people of England and Ireland, went about to persuade them. 8 Whether they think it not lawful so to do. 9 Whether the Spaniards, or other foreign enemies coming to execute the pope's sentence against the Queen, they would fight against them displaying the Pope's banner, and publishing the pope's lawful sentence (as they suppose) against the Queen, or take part with them. 10 Whether all are not excommunicate, that disobey the pope's sentence, or contumaciously stand against him, it being not known, but that he hath proceeded justly, nor they having power to dispute of his doings, or to determine against him. 11 Whether they will allow the fact of the earls of Westmoreland and Northumberland, that rebelled in England, of and the Earl of Desmond, that rebelled in Ireland, and such like rebels, or not. 12 Whether they believe, that Allen, Sanders, Bristol, Parsons, and such as allow such facts of treasons, be not traitors, and have published treacherous doctrine. 13 Whether they do take themselves bound in conscience to follow the pope's sentences and decrees in deposing of princes, and bestowing of kingdoms upon strangers, when he shall command them upon pain of his curse. 14 Whether they purpose not to maintain the Infantaes title, if the pope do so command them, or other prince, that he shall set up against her Majesty. 15 Whether they have not received the pope's breeves, and entertained intelligence with him, and his agents. and whether they have not received pensions and money out of Spain, and think it lawful so to do. and whether they have not taken an oath for the Spanish Infantaes title, nor brought any notes of their faction out of Spain and Italy, as for example, medalles, grains, relics, agnus Dei, pictures, crosses, faculties, and such like. 16 Whether hereafter they do not mean to entertain intelligence with the Pope and Spaniard, and their agents, and to acknowledge the pope for their superior. All which, if they answer not, they must needs confess themselves worthy to be expulsed out of this land, and sent back to the Pope and Spaniard, if no worse. for thereby they declare themselves friends to them, and enemies to their country. observation 5 If it be a matter very equal, that every man should be judged by such laws, as themselves practise against others, as is apparent by the law. Si quis. ff. quod quisque juris, etc. then have the Romanists no reason to require any favour at the hands of our superiors. They put true Christians to death without all remission, if they renounce not the true Christian faith: and those, that are said to deal most mercifully with them, as some popish princes and prelate's in Germany, yet do they banish all such, as they suspect not to hold popish religion. Why then do not papists acknowledge the great favour showed to them by the state, when such notorious idolaters and heretics are not served, as they serve others? and why do these seditious malcontents exclaim against her majesties late proclamation, and the state, that giveth such traitors and le●d practisers so fair warning to be packing? They pardon none, that commit treason in Rome or Spain. Why then should it be more lawful for jesuits and factious mass priests to commit treason in England? is not our country as dear to us, as Rome or Spain to them? They account it a matter very absurd for any to dispute, whether the Italian or Spanish laws concerning treason, be just or no, and whether they be to be executed or not; and such prisoners as should except against laws abroad, would be laughed to scorn. Why then should Parsons, and Allen, and their traitorous consorts be suffered to raise against the laws of England, and this state, as they have done in their railing libels entitled Aduersus persecutores Anglos; Andreas Philopater; Sanders de schismate, and divers other of that nature? or why should any be suffered in corners to whisper against so lawful and godly proceedings? The papists will not yield to us sufficient safeconduct and liberty to dispute in Milan, Paris, Collen, and Salamanca. Why then do they brag, as if they were desirous to dispute and try their cause in Cambridge and Oxford? and what a ridiculous point is it to desire that for papists, which themselves will not yield to us? They will not suffer any books of ours to be published in Rome, or other places, where popery is professed, if they contain matter of religion; and most severely do they punish such, as either sell such books, or read them, or keep them without licence. Why then should not papists confess, that we have great reason to take a more strict course than hitherto we have done with all their books, and pamphlets, and with all that have them, especially now, seeing that few of them come forth, but they are fraught with slanders against the state, lies and impostures against religion, and doctrine tending to sedition and corruption of manners? observation 6 We may further observe, that no man ever had less reason to talk of conscience, than Rob. Parsons, and his disciple Owlyglasse, and their damnable consorts devoid of all conscience. for conscience is grounded only upon the laws of God, and is nothing, but the inward judgement of every man of his own actions, according to the knowledge which he hath of God's law and his word. And this is gathered out of the apostles words, Rom. 1. where he saith, that the Gentiles do show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing them witness, and their thoughts either accusing them, or excusing them. S. james 4. james he also showeth us, that we have one lawgiver and judge, which is able to save and destroy. S. In exposit. proposit ex epist. ad Rom. Augustine expounding the words of the apostle, Rom. 1. showeth, that conscience is nothing, but the judgement of every man's soul of his own actions. Si cor nostrum nos reprehenderit, saith he, rehearsing the words of john 1. epist. c. 3. maior est Deus conscientia nostra. But the papists ground their conscience upon the decrees of the pope, upon the customs of the Romish church, upon the vain opinions of every lousy canonist, upon the wicked and treasonable conceits of Parsons, and Allen, in their resolutions of cases of conscience for the English nation, upon the damnable commandments of their superiors, breaking their necks & running headlong into hell, as soon as they are commanded: and that blindly & wilfully for other private men's pleasures. and this appeareth first by Martin Aspilcuetaes' enchiridion of cases of conscience, by the compendium of the jesuit Alagona, and all the doctrine of Casuistes, which as the adversaries cannot deny, is grounded as well upon the pope's decretales and customs, and upon the laws, traditions, and customs of the Romish church, and opinions of canonists, as upon the law of God. nay there are far more cases that concern the pope's law, than that concern God's law. Secondly Lib. 4. de Pontif. Rom. c. 15. & seq. Bellarmine teacheth, that the pope hath power to make laws, that bind in conscience. semper creditum est saith he, episcopos in suis dioecesibus & Romanum Pontificem in tota ecclesia esse veros principes ecclesiasticos, qui possint sua authoritate, etiam sine plebis consensu, vel presbyterorum consilio leges far, quae in conscientia obligent. hereof it followeth also, that all papists are bound in conscience to believe the pope's decretales concerning faith, and to observe his rules concerning manners, and that for conscience sake, and I think no papist will deny it. Thirdly, Allen and Parsons in their most wicked resolutions teach their traitorous scholars, first to wear long hair, secondly, not only to change their names but also to deny their names; thirdly to deny their country & parentage; resolute. cas. nation. Anglic. cap. 1. cas. 1. four to deny her Majesty to be lawful Queen, & her officers to have power over mass priests▪ for that is also taught in the resolution, albeit not propounded in the case. Ibid. cap. 3. cas. 5. finally to forswear themselves, and to dissemble and practise all manner of treachery▪ they also show, how they may eat flesh on fasting days, and come in company with men of our religion, & neglect the pope's laws also in case of danger▪ in sum their resolutions tend to no other end, but to show how mass priests with a good conscience well wrought & suppled by Robert Parsons, may by help of a good Romish conscience betray their country to the Spaniard, and cut their countrymen's throats. Fourthly the Rhemistes in their expositions of the new Testament, writing upon the 23. of the Acts teach their disciples how to forswear themselves, and resolve, that upon pain of damnation they must break their oaths▪ are these fellows than Christians trow you, that handling the most sacred word of God, do by their wicked expositions teach men to violate their oaths, and to abuse the holy name of God? Finally the jesuits hold, that the inferior being enjoined by the pope, or the general of that wicked race of jebusiticall impostors and traitors, to do any act, or to believe any thing, is not to dispute of the matter, but resolutely to execute, what they are commanded. and this they call obedientiam caecam. If then the pope, or the general of the jesuits command Parsons or Garnet to kill the Queen, or any principal man of England, or their own mother, by this doctrine it followeth; that they are bound to do it. is it not strange then, that any Christian state can suffer such traitors and parricides or their adherents to live among them? observation 7 The seventh observation shall be for the edification and instruction of the Romish cacolicks. they call themselves catholics, and would so be called▪ but I have declared them to be in a gross error by very plain evidence▪ to them therefore I say, that if they desire to be made members of Christ's true church, they must come out of the Synagogue of Rome, and forsake the whore of Babylon, and drink no more of her cup full of all abominations. Secondly if that religion, which is sprung up of late time, and long after the times of Christ, and his apostles, cannot be true; then the Romish doctrine must needs be false and counterfeit. Thirdly if papists desire to be true catholics; then must they renounce the particular religion of Romanists, that hath not either of all christians been known, or at all times generally been received. Fourthly if no heretics deserve the name of Christians; then must they forsake the heretical opinions of the pope's and their proctor's, if they will be accounted Christians and true believers. Fiftly if idolaters shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven, let them beware of the notorious idolatries maintained by the doctrine and practice of popish religion. finally if the jesuits and massepriests be a faction adhering to the pope, and foreign enemies; then had they need to take heed how they receive them, aid them, join with them, or have any dealing with them. observation 8 Finally I observe, that popish religion is nothing else but a pack of lies and impostures, and cannot stand without falsification, fraud, and violence. I have already verified the same by many particulars. and every man shall hereby discern, that I have said truth, for that neither Parsons, nor any of his consorts will undertake from point to point to answer my challenge, and to justify both all such allegations, as I have said to be falsified, and also all such narrations, as I have challenged to be lies and false reports. I do rather look for such a bald ribald like railing libel, as this was, and such pamphlets, as Parsons useth to set forth under counterfeit names. All you therefore of the Romish religion beware of the abominations of Babylon, and of the falsehood and fraud of that whore, which sitteth upon the 7. hills. I have, as you may perceive touched but few particulars in comparison of those, which I could have objected, if time & laisure would have served▪ but if Parsons come forth again, you shall have the rest. I will also add the notorious forgeries lies & calumniations of Possevin, Gregory de Valentia, Professores quinti evangelii. Andrea's jurgivits Vilnensis, that denieth us to believe the articles of the apostles créed, and other such villainous companions, not forgetting Alan Copus alias Harpesfield nor Stapleton, nor any notorious stickler of that wicked crew. In the mean while mark, I pray you, how the pope with his Italians and Spaniards laugh and enjoy their ease, while a number of English youths are drawn into danger both of body and soul, running headlong of a blind and furious zeal into treason, and seeking how to maintain the pope's tyranny, and to teach his errors and heresies. God for his mercy sake, if it be his holy will open their eyes, that they may see their own gross errors, and forsake these pernicious courses, and in the end join themselves with the rest of their friends, kinsmen and countrymen in a firm resolution not only for the maintenance of the honour of their prince, country, and nation, against all foreign enemies, but also for the defence of true religion, against the attempts and assaults of antichrist, and false doctrine of all idolaters and heretics, the only upholders of the kingdom of antichrist.