THE GOLDEN BALLANCE OF TRYALL. VVherein the Reader shall plainly and briefely behold, as in a Glasse of Crystall; aswell by what rule all controuersies in Religion, are to be examined, as also who is, and of right ought to be the vpright Iudge in that behalfe. Whereunto is also annexed a Counterblast against a masked Companion, terming himselfe E.O. but supposed to be ROBERT PARSONS the trayterous Iesuite.
Vos Vnctionem habetis a sancto, & nostis omnia.
Determinatio solius Papae in his quae sunt fidei, non obligat vt praecise est talis, ad credendum alioquin staret in casu, quod quis obligaretur ad contradictoria, vel ad falsum contra fidem. Gerson prim. part. de examinat. doctrinarum, consider. secunda.
LONDON. Imprinted by Iohn Windet, for Richard Bankworth, dwelling in Paules Churchyeard, at the Signe of the Sunne. 1603.
[Page] [Page 1] THE GOLDEN Ballance of Tryall.
CAP. I. Of the Vncertainety of Iudgements, of all Bishoppes seuerally in themselues.
THE Prophet Dauid sheweth plainely the vncertainty of Iudgement, Psal. 116. v. 11 when he telleth vs, That all men are lyers: The Prophet Ieremie cryeth aloude, Iere. 16. v.19. that the Gentiles in the end of the world shall come to him, and shall freely confesse, that their fore-fathers inherited lyes and vanitie. Rom. 3. v. 4. S. Paule confirmeth the same, telling vs, that onely God is true, and euery man a lyer. The Prophet Malachie sheweth the whole matter, Mal. 1.8. to haue been verified in the Priestes of the old Law: His words are these: The Priestes lips shall keepe knowledge and they shall seeke the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the Lord of Hostes: but ye are [Page] gone out of the way, ye haue caused many to fall by the law: yee haue broken the couenant of Leui, Ezech. 7 v. 26 & cap. 22. v. 26 saith the Lord of Hosts, yea this is it, that the Prophet Ezechiel saith, Then shall they seeke a vision of the Prophet, but the Law shall perish from the priest, Esa 28. v. 7. & counsel from the Elders. The prophet Esay sayth, The priest and the prophet haue erred by strong drink, they are swallowed vp with wine, they haue gone astray through strong drinke, they faile in vision, Micah▪ 3. v. 11. they stumble in iudgement: this is it, that Michah saieth: The Heades thereof iudge for rewardes, and the priestes thereof teach for hire, & the prophets thereof prophesie for money: This is it that the prophet Sophonie sayeth; Soph. 3. v. 4. Her prophets are light and wicked persons, her priestes haue polluted the Sanctuarie, they haue wrested the law.
This vncertainety of iudgement cannot be denied: For Tertullian erred, Montanizinge, Cyprian, Rebaptizinge, Origen, Cerporizinge, Nazianzen, Angelizinge, Eusebius, Arrianizinge, Lactantius, Millenizinge, and the like may bee verified of all the Residue.
The sentence of two learned papistes, highlie renowned in the Church of Rome, shall conclude my Theame. Roffensis. art. 32. aduers. Luth. pag. 420. Iohn Fisher the late Bishop of Rochester, hath these expresse wordes: Nec Augustini, nec Hieronymi, nec alterius cutuslibet auctoris doctrinae sic ecclesia subscripsit, quin ipsi locis aliquot ab iis liceat dissentire, nam in nonnullis ipsi locis se planè monstrarunt homines esse, atque nonnunquam aberrasse.
The Church hath not so subscribed, eyther to [Page 2] the doctrine of Austen, or of Hierome, or of any other Writer, but that we may somtime dissent from their opinions; for themselues haue plainely shewed themselues to bee men, and that they wanted not their errours: the Iesuite Ballarmine hath these wordes; Sine dubio singuli Episcopi errare possunt, Bellarm. de conciliis lib. [...]. cap. 2. & aliquando errant, & inter se quandoque dissentiunt, vt nesciamus quisnam eorum sequendus sit.
Without doubt, all Bishoppes seuerally may erre, and doe sometime erre indeed, and doe also sometime so dissent one from another, that we cannot tell in the world, which of them we may safely follow.
Out of the wordes of these Writers, whereof the one was a learned Bishoppe, and a popish canonized Martyr, and the other a Iesuite and Popish Fryer, who did dedicate his Booke to the Pope himselfe; I gather these singular documents. First, that the Church of Rome giueth euery one liberty 1 to dissent from Augustine, Hieromie, and other Writers whosoeuer. Secondly, that the Fathers 2 haue plainely shewed themselues to be men, and to haue had their imperfections accordingly. Thirdly, 3 that many errours are to be found, in the writinges of the Fathers. Fourthly, that the Fathers 4 doe so dissent one from another, that wee cannot tell whome we may safely follow. These Fathers therefore seuerally may not be iudges in all matters of faith and religion.
CAP. II. Of the uncertainety of iudgement of many Bishops, euen when they employ their wits and learning to teach one and the selfe same doctrine.
WE finde in holy Writte, that the chiefest of the Priestes and people trespassed wonderfully, 2. Par. 36. v. 14. according to all the abhominations of the Heathen, and polluted the house of the Lord▪ which he had sanctified in Ierusalem. Hos. 9. v. 10. The Watchmen of Ephraim, sayth Hoseah, should bee with my God: but the prophet is the snare of a fowler in all his wayes, and hatred in the house of his God. The Prophets saith Ieremie, Iere. 14. v. 14. prophesie lies in my name, I haue not sent them, neither did I commaund them, but they prophesie vnto you a false vision, and diuination, & vanitie, and deceitfulnes of their own heart.
Iere. 6. v. 13.The same Prophet sayth againe in an other place after this manner; From the least of them to the greatest, euery one is giuen to couetousnes, and from the Prophet to the Priest, they all deale falsly.
Esa 56. v. 10.Their Watchmen saith Esay, are all blind, they haue no knowledge, they are all dumbe dogs, they cannot barke.
Many of the olde writers taught with vniforme consent, that the soules of the faithful departed doe not see God, vntill the day of generall doome. To [Page 3] recite the wordes of a few may suffice for this time.
Lactantius hath these wordes; Lactan't. lib. 7 cap. 21. Nec tamen quisquam putet, animas post mortem protinus iudicari, omnes in vna communique custodia detinentur, donec tempus adueniat, quo maximus iudex meritorum facit examen.
Yet may not any man thinke, that the soules of the iust shal forth with after death, haue their iudgement, for they are all kept in one common prison vntill the time come, when the great Iudge shall discusse euerie mans deserts.
Iustinus Martyr hath these wordes; Iustinus, q. 60 & q. 76. ad Orthod. Neque enim ante resurrectionem, vitae cuique peractae retributio contingit. Iterum, vtilitas latroni quod Paradisum sit ingressus, haec finit, quod fidei commodum re ipsa percepit, per quod dignus reputatus est, qui sanctorū caetui adiungeretur, in quo vsque ad diem resurrectionis & remunerationis reseruatur.
No man hath his rewarde before the day of resurrection: The Theefe by going to Paradise, had this benefite, that he receiued in verie deed the fruit of his faith, by which he was reported worthy of the Fellowship of Saintes, where hee is reserued vntill the day of resurrection and remuneration.
Victorinus hath these wordes: Victor. in Apocalips. Sed quia in Nouissimo tempore sanctorum remuneratio perpetua, & impiorum ventura est damnatio, dictum est eis, expectate.
But because in the last time, Saints must receiue their rewardes, and the wicked their damnation, it is said vnto them, Expectate, ye must expect, or doe ye expect a while.
I could alleadge the wordes of Ireneus, of Euthymius [Page] of Oxigenes, and others to the same effect, and yet the doctrine taught by these Fathers, is this day holden for a flat heresie▪ euen of the Papistes themselues.
Caietanus a learned Papist, and sometime Cardinall of Rome, (for which respect hee must perforce be of great credite among them) doth grauely aduise the Reader in his commentaries vpon the Pentateuch of Moyses; Caietan, in quinq. lib. Mosis. willing him to contemne nothing rashlie, but to examine all thinges by the holy scripture, and to embrace that which is agreeable thereunto: although it swerue from the opinion of neuer so many Fathers. His words are set downe at large in my booke of Motiues.
Canus lib. 7. cap. 1. de locis.The great Schooleman and renowned popish Bishoppe Melchior Canus confesseth verie plainely, that the consent of many Bishops and learned men, doth not yeeld a sound argument for mans conscience to rest thereupon.
The same Canus in an other place auoucheth boldly, Canus, lib. 8. cap. 5. that though al the Thomists with the Scotists, & late writers with the olde take part against him; yet must he perforce haue the victorie, because reason is on his side: his wordes are set downe at large in my Booke of Motiues. Argumentum ad hominem.
What neede long periods? Austen, Ambrose, Bede, Chrysostome, Remigius, Eusebius, Bernardus, Bonauentura, Maximus, Erardus, Bernardinus, Aquinas, Hugo, and almost all the rest affirme with one consent, alledging expresse textes of Scripture for their opinion, that the blessed Virgin Mary was conceiued [Page 4] in originall sinne, and yet doth the late hatched nest of Iesuites with other Papistes this day auouch the contrarie for a truth if any man be desirous to know more of this point, hee may find it at large in my books of Motiues and Suruay, loe, these cannot always be iudges in al matters of faith and religion.
CAP. III. Of the vncertainety of the Popes Iudgement, whose faith say the Papistes, can not faile.
ALbeit the Popes Canons, and popish glosses thereupon tell vs, Causa 17. q. 4. cap. si quis suadente. that it is sacriledge to reason of the Popes power, yet by his holines fauour, I hope I may set downe without offence to any godly mā what I find in his own popish decrees. and that I may proceede sincerely and plainly for the better satisfaction of the Reader, I will distribute this Chapter into seuerall sections.
The First Section. Of the manners, liues, and conuersation, of the late Bishops of Rome.
ALthough the Bishops of Rome bee now a dayes termed by the name of Holinesse, yet haue the liues and manners of manie [Page] [...] [Page 4] [...] [Page] Popes been most wicked, most notorious, and most scandalous to the Christian world. I will passe ouer Pope Stephanus, Carranza in summa consiliorum. who disanulled all the Actes of Pope Formosus, degrading those whome hee had made Bishops and priestes: a rare and strange Metamorphosis in the Church of God. Pope Romanus did reproue and abrogate all the Actes of Pope Stephanus and Pope Sergius the third did so hate the name of Formosus, Platina in vita Sergii. 8. that he caused his bodie to be beheaded, after it was buried, and laide in the ground, yea, hee commaunded his dead corps to be cast into the riuer Tyber, as vnworthy to bee interred in Christian sort.
Pope Bonifacius the eight, entered into his popedome as a Foxe, Carranza vbi supr. fol. 369. raigned in it as a Wolfe, and died in the end, as a dogge.
Pope Christopher was depriued of his pontificall dignitie, and enforced to be a Monke. Pope Bonifacius the seuenth, and Syluester the second, aspired to their popedomes by Necromancy and Diabolicall meanes. Syluester the third obtayned his popedome by sedition, Platina in vitis Pontificum & Carranz. vt supr. and Damasus the second was made pope by violent meanes, without consent either of the Clergie, or of the people, pope Gregorie the fift was by sedition thrust out of his throne, and pope Iohn the 18▪ by tyranny, occupied the popedome.
But I may not let passe to speake at large of Pope Syluester the second of that name: the storie is most memorable, well worthy for edification sake to bee engrauen in golden letters: of the truth thereof no [Page 5] man can stand in doubt. For Martinus Polonus, the popish Archbishop of Consentina, and high Penitentiarie, as also the chiefe Chaplain to the Popes Holines, hath published the same in writing to the view of all the world. Which thing doubtles, hee world neuer haue done, Martinus Polonus in Chroni. an. 1007. if he had not thought it a thing necessary to be known. Thus therefore doth he write; Pope Syluester the 2. was first a Monke, a Frenchman borne, Gilbertus by name: he promised homage to the Deuill, so long as he did accomplish his desires, which his request the Deuil vndertooke to bring to passe: he being very ambitious did so often expresse his desire to the deuill, as hee made homage vnto him: the Deuill procured him to be made Archbishop, first at Rhemes: then at Rauennas: and at the last to be Pope of Rome: for the Deuill knowing his ambitious mind, brought him to honour by begrees, being made Pope, he would needes know of the Deuil, how long he should liue in his Pontificall glorie, the Deuill aunswered him that he should liue so long, as he did not say Masse in Ierusalem: the Pope receyuing that aunswere, was very ioyfull within himselfe, thinking that hee was as farre from death, and from the ende of his worldly pompe, as hee was farre of in his minde, from going on pilgrimage to Ierusalem beyond the Sea. But what will yee more? The Pope in Lent said Masse in the Church, Sanctae crucis, which they call in Ierusalem, my self know the place. Yet the Pope as it seemeth, infatuated with pride, and excessiue desire of honor, had quite forgot the name. [Page] While he was at Masse (O holy sacrifice) he heard a great noyse of Deuils, and so remembred not the place onely, The Pope in his Pontificalibus forgetteth the name of his churches but also his death to bee at hand. Hee therefore wept (though hee were afore most wicked) disclosing his offence to all the companie, & nothing doubting of Gods mercie, withall he cō maunded to cut away from his bodie, all the members with which hee had done sacrifice to the Deuill. This hystorie I haue truly set down as I find it recorded by the said Martinus Polonus Archbishop of Consentina, a man most deare vnto the Pope: so as no Papist can without blushing denie the truth therof: & me thinks it is an vnfit thing, that the faith of all the Christian world should depend vpon the resolution of such wicked Popes.
Benedictus the ninth, (as writeth the said Polonus) appeared to a man going by a Mill, Polonus. an. 1042. in the likenes of a monstrous beast, who had a head and tayle like an Asse, and the rest of the bodie was like a Beare. And when the man that saw the Monster fled away for feare, the monster cryed after him, in these words: Feare me not, Repent yee Popes of Rome. for I am a man as thou art: but I shew my selfe in this likenes, because I liued like a beast when I was a wicked Pope. Much like stuffe I could recite, but I studie to be briefe. He that desireth to know more hereof, may satisfie himselfe, by reading my Suruay. In these holy disholy Fathers, no sound iudgement can be found.
Sect. II. Of the Schismes and conflictes which haue beene among the Popes, or Bishops of Rome.
POpe Benedict the ninth, was depriued of his popedome, and the Bishop of Sabina, who after that was called Syluester, Martinus Polonus an. 1042 became Pope in his roome. This Syluester was afterward expulst, & Benedict restored to the popedome again. After that, the same Benedict was yet againe expulst, and the popedome was giuen to Iohn Archdeacon of S. Iohn ante portam Latinam, who was after that called Gregorie the sixt. This pope being altogether vnlearned, caused an other Pope to be made iointly with him, that he might execute the Ecclesiastical function, which himselfe was not able to do. Which thing displeased many, and therefore the third Pope was appointed, who alone should supply the places of the other two. One therefore contending against two, and two against one for the Popedome, and Gregory being dead: Henry the Emperour came to Rome against the two, and deposed them by canonicall and imperiall censure, This solemne promise was not long kept and placed Sindegerus the Bishop of Babemberge in the popedome. At which time the Romanes promised by solemne oathes, that they woulde neuer elect the Bishoppe of Rome, without the consent of the Emperour of Rome.
Many Schismes haue been in the church of Rome [Page] [...] [Page 6] [...] [Page] and amongst our Romish Bishoppes, euen for many years together. And thereupon it followeth euidently that the succession of the latter Popes, can neuer bee proued constantlie, to haue descended without interruption from the former.
The great Papist Onuphrius Panuinius maketh mē tion of no lesse then thirtie Schismes, Onuphr. in Chron. which were all in the Church of Rome.
Bartholomeus Carranza a lerned Writer & popish Fryer, Carranz. in summa concil. p.370. & p. 373. reckoneth vp two most notable Schismes in the Church of Rome. The former Schisme saith he endured for the space of 64 years, during al which time, their godly Popedome was at Auinion in France, and not one day at Rome, though at Rome (as they prate) God placed their holy seat. In the latter schisme three of their holy Bishops were Popes at one, and the selfe same time: to write, Iohannes, 24. of that name, Benedict 13. & Gregorie the 12. From which three striuing and contending, like Dogges fighting for a bone, I would gladly learne how they cā deriue their holy so supposed successiō: of which succession I haue spoken more at large in my book of Suruey.
Of this Romish Schisme, speaketh their own dear Abbot Bernarde egregiously: Bernard ad Gauf. epist. 125 these are his words: Tempus faciendi, &c. It is now high time to do good for they haue trodē vnderfoot Gods law. The beast mentioned in the Reuelation, to whome was giuē a mouth, speaking blasphemies, and to make wars with the Saints, sitteth in Peters chaire, like a Lion ready to take his pray.
[Page 7]Now I weene, that all wise men well obseruing and pondering with themselues, these manifolde and notorious Schismes in the Church of Rome, which haue continued aboue fiftie yeares togither, and in which sundry Popes cōtending who should be the Pope, no one could truly be discerned to bee Pope; will be fully perswaded therwith, that if Gods holy pleasure had bin, to haue tied all people in the worlde, to hang & depend wholy vpon the Bishops of Rome from time to time, in matters touching faith and their euerlasting saluation, as vpon those persons whose faith should neuer faile: that God (I say) would haue prouided for the securitie and common good of his people, that the same Bishops should haue beene more honest and godly in their liues: more peaceable among themselues: more free from doing homage to the diuell: more constant in their seates: and not so doubtfull and vncertaine in their succession: that Gods people were many times at their wits end, which Pope they should take for Peters successor. These men, therefore can not bee iudges in Religion.
Sect. 3. Of the priuiledges falsely supposed, to be granted from heauen to the Bishops of Rome.
AVgustinus de Ancona, a religious Frier, August, depotest. ecclesiast. q. 45. in quaest. 2. hath these wordes: Papa Vicarius Iesu Christi, vice Dei viuentis in toto orbe terrarū spiritualium & temporaliium [Page] habet vniuer salem iurisdictionem. The Pope being the Vicar of Iesus Christ, hath in steede of the liuing God, vniuersall iurisdiction of all things spirituall and temporall, throughout the whole world.
Bartholomaeus Fumus a famous popish Frier, and renowmed Canonist, Fumus in aurea armilla verbo Papa. 7. hath these wordes: Omnis potestas iurat fidelitatē Papae & obedientiam recognoscens ab eo omne quod habet. Et si aliquando aliquid imperator douauit Ecclesiae, vt de Constantino dicitur, non fuit donatio, sed restitutio. Euery power sweareth fidelitie and obedience to the Pope, acknowledging themselues to haue from him all that they haue, and if any Emperor, as Constantine gaue any thing to the Church, it was no gift, but restitution.
Iohn Gerson sometime the Chancellor of Paris, Gers. de potest. eccles. consid. 12. part. 3. singeth the same song, in these wordes: Consurgit ex aduerso, &c. There starteth vp on the contrarie side, faire spoken and craftie adulation, whispering in the eares of Cleargy-men, specially of the Pope. Oh how great, how great is the maiestie of thine Ecclesiastiall power? For as all power was giuen to Christ, in heauen and on earth; so Christ left al the same power to Peter, and to his successors. Wherefore the Emperour Constantine gaue nothing to Pope Syluester, which was not his owne before; but onely restored that, which was vniustly detained from him. Further, as there is no power but of God, Oh, what a blasphemie is this. so is there neither any temporal or Ecclesiasticall, Emperiall or Regall, but of the Pope; in whose thigh Christ hath written, the King of kings, the Lord of lords.
[Page 8]The Popes owne decrees tell vs plainly, Grat. dist, 40. cap. si Papa. that though the Pope be neuer so wicked, and carry to hell with himselfe neuer so many people, yet may no mortall man reproue him for the same. And the reason thereof is this; because forsooth hee may iudge all, but none may iudge him, neither great nor small.
The Popish parasites, Glossa. lib. 1. decretal. tit 7. cap. 3. the interpreters of the Canons, doe ascribe titles yet more magnificall to the Pope; yea, titles plaine diuine, and proper to God alone. These are the expresse wordes, in the popish Glosse vpon the Decretals; Sic (Papa) dicitur habere coeleste arbitrium, & ideo etiam naturam rerū immutat, substantialia vnius rei applicando alii; & de nihilo potest aliquid facere. So the Pope is said to haue celestiall arbitrement, and therefore doth he alter the nature of things, by application of the substantiall parts of one thing to another; and hee can make of nothing something.
To haue recited these absurd and prophane assertions, may be a sufficient confutation of the same. Victor. de potest. papae & concil [...]. p. 151. Onely Victoria a verie learned popish Doctor, shall conclude this section. His wordes are these: Paulatim ad hanc, &c. By little and little we are brought to these inordinate dispensations, and to this so miserable state, where we are neither able to endure our owne griefes, nor remedies assigned for the same. Giue me Clements, Lines, Syluesters; and then I will commit all things to their charge. But to speake nothing grieuously against these latter Popes; they are doubtlesse inferiours to Popes of olde time, by [Page] many degrees. Here is falshood enough but certaintie of iudgement none can be had.
Sect. IIII. Of the Popes priuate errors.
THat the Bishops of Rome may become heretiques, yea that they haue beene heretiques de facto, it is so cleare a thing, as I shall not neede to stand long about the same.
Many Popish decrees tell vs, that Popes may be deposed, Grat. dist. 40. cap. si Papa. when and so often as they swarue from the Christian faith, and become heretiques in deed. Which Decrees perforce must presuppose that the Popes may be heretiques; otherwise they should be frustrate, and to no ende at all. These are the words; Cunctos ipse (Papa) iudicaturus, à nemine est iudicandus, nisi deprehendatur a fide deuius. The Pope iudgeth all, and must be iudged of none; vnlesse hee swarue from the faith, and bee an heretique. Lo the Popes owne Decrees doe plainely graunt, that the Pope may be an heretique; and then God be thanked, he hath a superiour and iudge vpon earth. So he may lawfully be controlled, yea condemned; vnlesse hee keepe the Christian fayth better, then many popes haue done.
Againe in another decree I find these expresse wordes; Caus. [...]. q. 7. cap. oues. Oues quae suo pastori commissae sunt, eum nec reprehendere, nisi á fide exorbitauerit, nec vllatenus accusare possunt. Sheepe which are committed to their [Page 9] pastor, may neither rebuke him, nor in any wise accuse him; vnlesse he depart and forsake the faith.
Dominicus Soto, a great Papist, Soto in 4. s. d. 22. q. 2. art. 1 hath these expresse wordes: Quamuis Papa vt Papa errare non possit, hoc est statuere errore nequeat tanquam articulum fidei, quia spiritus sanctus id non permittet; tamen vt singularis persona errare in fide potest, sicut alia peccata committere. Albeit the Pope, as Pope cannot erre, that is to say, can not set downe any errour as an article of our faith, because the holy Ghost will not that permit; neuerthelesse, as he is a priuate person, so may he erre euen in fayth, as he may do other sinnes.
Pope Anastasius, Pope Honorius, Pope Iohn, Canus de locis & Viguerius de virtute fidei. and others, haue beene heretikes, as Viguerius, Melchior Canus, Alphonsus, and Adrianus, who was Pope himselfe, confesse; and no wise papist, will or can denie the same.
Nicholaus de Lyra a verie learned and famous papist, hath these expresse wordes. Ex quo patet, Lyra in 16. cap. Mat. quod Ecclesia non consistit in hominibus, ratione potestatis vel dignitatis, Ecclesiasticaevel secularis. Quia multi principes & summi pontifices, & alii inferiores, inuenti sunt apostatasse a fide. Whereby it is euident, that the Church doth not consist in men, by reason of power or dignitie, either ecclesiasticall or secular, because many princes and popes, and others of the inferior sort are found to haue swarued from the faith, and to haue beene flat Apostataes.
Iosephus Angles, a famous popish Bishop, Iosephus Angles in. 4. s. par. 2. q. de excom. art. 4. dific. 1. and religious Frier, in his booke dedicated to the Pope himselfe, confirmeth this matter in these wordes; [Page] Papa haereticus aut apostata, ab vniuersali concilio deponi potest; & ratio est, quia sicut nullus potest esse alicuius religionis praelatus, qui non sit in illa religione prosessus, ita neque potest esse Papa, si fide Ecclesiae careat. The Pope being an heretique or apostata, may bee deposed by a generall Concell; and the reason is, because as none can be a Prelate of any Religion, which is not professed in that religion: so neither can he be Pope, that holdeth not the faith of the Church.
Thus it is cleare, euen by popish Doctors and Decrees, that the Pope as a priuate person, may forsake the Christian fayth, teach false doctrine, and become a flat Apostata. The Pope therefore in his priuate person, can not be a competent iudge.
Sect. V. Of the Popes publique errours, in his generall and definitiue Decrees and constitutions.
DOctor Gerson, a famous Papist and Chauncellour of Paris, teacheth so plainely, that Popes may erre in their publique doctrine of faith and maners, as none can doubt there of that ponder well his words; Gers. in serm. de paschat. part. 3. thus therefore doth he write: Hos fecit latroni, qui veri similiter nondum compleuerat poenetentiā pro omnibus peccatis suis, qui fuit illa hora propria beatisicatus, & vidit Deum facie ad faciem, sicut sancti in Paradiso: propter quod insuper apparet falsitas doctrinae Papae Iohannes 22. quae damnata fuit cum sono buccinarum, coram rege Philippo per Theologos Parisienses, & credidit potius Theologis Parisiensibus, quam curiae. [Page 10] This did he to the theefe (which by likelihood had not yet accomplished pennance for all his sinnes,) who was blessed in that verie houre, and saw God face to face, as do the Saints in Paradise; by reason whereof appeareth further the falshoode of the doctrine of Pope Iohn, which was condemned by the sound of Trumpets, before King Philip by the diuines of Paris, and the king beleeued rather the diuines, then the court (of Rome.)
Out of these wordes, the indifferent Reader wil easily note with me these important poynts. First, 1 that the theefe crucified with Christ, did see God face to face in that verie houre, and so was blessed. Secondly, that hee reprooueth the false doctrine 2 of Pope Iohn. Thirdly▪ that his doctrine was condemned 3 with the sound of trumpets, in the presence of the King of France. Fourthly, that the king 4 gaue more credite to the Diuines of Paris, then to the iudgement of the Court of Rome; that is, then to the Pope and his Cardinals. A poynt well worthie to bee noted. Fiftly, that neither the king, nor 5 the learned Papists, did in those dayes graunt such authoritie to the Pope, as now a dayes the Pope chalengeth to himselfe. Whereupon it followeth consequently, that the Pope taught false doctrine, euen in a weightie matter of faith. To which is consectarie, that his doctrine was publique; as which was publiquely condemned at Paris, in the presence of the king.
Pope Adrian testifieth the same truth, as witnesseth the zealous Papist Alphonsus, in these expresse [Page] wordes; Nouissime fertur de Iohanne. 22. quod publice docuit, Alphon. a Castro. lib 3. aduers. haeres. prope finem. declarauit, & ab omnibus teneri mandauit, quod animae purgatae ante finale iudicium non habent stolam, quae est clara & facialis visio Dei; & vntuersitatem Parisiensem ad hoc induxisse dicitur, quod nemo in ea poterat gradum in Theologia adipisci, nisi primitus hunc errorem iurasset se defensurum, & perpetuò ei adhaesurum. Last of all, it is reported of Pope Iohn the 22. that hee publiquely taught, declared, and commaunded all men to hold, that the soules of the iust before the day of iudgement, haue not the stole, which is is the cleare and facely vision of God. And he is reported, to haue enduced the Vniuersitie of Paris to this: that no man should take degree in the same, but he that did first sweare to defend this errour, and to adhere to it for euer.
Thus writeth Adrian, who was himselfe Pope of Rome. And Alphonsus a mā of good credit with the papists, after he had reckoned vp fiue heresies, setteth downe this for the sixt heresie, (that the soules of the iust do not see God till the day of doome, Alphons. vbi supra.) ascribing the said heresie to the Armenians, as to the authors therof, & to the Greeks togither with pope Iohn, as to the patrones and defenders of the same.
Here the simple Reader must note well, that hee may the better vnderstande this verity, Bellarmin de-Rom. pontif. lib. 4. cap. 14. and not bee seduced with the colourable Glosse of the Iesuite Bellarmine, who seeing the force of this testimonie to ouerthrowe the highest poynt in poperie, bestirreth himselfe more then a little in defence of popish faith. He telleth vs forsooth, if we [Page 11] wil beleeue him, that Pope Iohn (with all obeysance to his holines bee it spoken,) erred in deede, as is here said: but he did that as a priuate man, A subtle, but falsely coyned distinction. (sayeth our Iesuite) not as Pope of Rome. Which distinction doubles, wanteth not onely a good foundation, whereupon it should be built: but also it flatly destroyeth the playne Text. The reason is euident to euery child. First, because pope Adrian 1 faith, Docuit, hee taught. Secondly, because hee faith, Publicè, publikely. Thirdly, because he sayeth, 2 Mandauit, he commanded all to hold it. Fourthly, 3 because none could be made Graduats in the 4 schooles, which held not this opinion. Fiftly, because 5 euery Graduate was sworn to defend it, and to hold it for euer. So then, the pope may erre, and hath erred de facto; euen in his publike decree of faith, as well as an other man. And that euen by the consent of Adrian, who was pope himselfe: yea, who for learning and knowledge, was one of the rarest popes that euer were at Rome.
Melchior Canus, Canus, de locis lib. 6. cap. 5. in fine. though otherwise he bee a great papist, telleth vs plainly, that Gerson, Almayne, and Thomas Waldensis, doe all hold this for a constant position, that the pope may erre, as is already said.
pope Celestine the third of that name, erred as pope and publike person, in his iudiciall sentence, Alphonsus. lib. 1. cap. 4. aduers. haeres. and publicke decree. This to be so, Alphonsus aboue named, is a constant witnes in these expresse words; Celestinum Papam errasse circa matrimonium fidelium, quorum alter labitur in haerisin, res est omnibus manifesta, [Page] neque hic Celestini error talis fuit, qui soli negligentiae imputari debuit, ita vt illum errasse dicamus, velut priuatam personam, & non vt Papam, qui in qualibet reseria definienda consulere debet viros doctos, quoniam huiusmodi Celestina definitio habebatur, in antiquis decretalibus, in cap laudabilem, titulo de conuersione infidelium. Quam ego ipse vidi, & legi.
That Pope Celestine erred about Matrimonie of the faithful, Loe the Pope erred publikely, not as a priuate person. wherof the one is fallen into heresie, is a thing so manifest, as all men know the same: neither was this error of Pope Celestine such, that it can bee imputed to sole negligence, so as we may think him to haue erred as a priuate man, & not as Pope, who ought in the decree of euery serious matter, to aske counsel of learned men. For that definition and decree of Celestine, was in the old Decretall Epistles, in the Chapter Laudabilem, which I my selfe haue seene and read.
Out of these wordes of Alphonsus, who was a man highly renowned among the papistes, I note 1 many worthy obseruations. First, that Pope Celestine erred, and that not as a priuate man, but euen 2 as Pope and publike person. Secondly, that hee erred in a verie serious matter, euen in a matter of faith: to wit, that Matrimonie was so dissolued by reason of heresie, that the faithfull man or woman might marry againe, the hereticall partie liuing. which thing sayeth Alphonsus, was manifest to euerie man to be an heresie. And the late Councel 3 of Trent hath defined it to be so. Thirdly, that this decree and definition of Pope Celestine, was in those [Page 12] dayes enrolled in the Popes Decretals. Fourthly, 4 that Alphonsus saw and read the same Decree. Fiftly, 5 that the said decree cannot this day be found, among the Popes Decretall Epistles. Note this wel, it is a point of weight. Where I wish the Reader to note by the way, that the Decrees of our holy Fathers the Popes, haue been such and so much against late Poperie, that they are ashamed to bring them now to light. If any man desire to know the Popes errors more fully, let him read my book of Motiues. But now it remaineth, that I aunswere to sundrie important obiections, whereupon the Papistes would build the supposed Priuiledges of their Popes, as that their Faith can not faile, and such like. The decision wherof God willing, shalbe performed in the Chapter following. The Pope therefore in his publique person, is no infallible Iudge.
CAP. IIII. Contayning the aunswere to sundrie obiections, by which the Papistes labour to proue, that the Popes faith can not faile.
The First obiection.
CHrist prayed for Peter, that his faith should neuer faile, Luke 22. v. 32 therefore the Bishops of Romes faith cannot faile, nor the Pope erre in his iudiciall decrees.
The Aunswere.
I say first, that Peters faith quailed, when he denied [Page] Christ, swearing that hee knew not the man. For these twaine are the chiefe fruites of faith, Rom. 10. v. 10. to belieue with the heart, & to confesse with the mouth. And where eyther of these two is wanting, there cannot be a right faith. For he that putteth away a good conscience, 2. Tim. 1. v. 19. maketh shipwracke of his faith.
I say secondly, that Christ prayed aswell for all 2 the elect, as he did for Peter. I pray not sayth Christ, for the world, Ioh. 17. v. 9. but for them which thou hast giuen me, for they are thine. Againe he sayeth, I pray not for these alone, Ioh. 17. v. 20. but for them also which shall belieue in me through their word. And consequentlie, seeing Christ directed not his wordes to Peter, as to one priuate man, but as to one representing the whole Church: it must needs follow, that what soeuer Christ did or saide touching Peters faith, must perforce bee vnderstoode of the faith of the whole Church. Which faith, as I haue copiously proued in my Booke of Suruay, shall neuer fayle indeed. This my aunswere is confirmed, in these wordes of S. Austen: August. in quaest. mixt is, q. 5. to. 4. Quid ambigitur? pro Petro rogabat, & pro Iacobo & Iohanne non rogabat, vt caeteros taceam? manifestum est in Petro omnes contineri, quia & in alio loco dicit; ego pro his rogo, quos mihi dedisti pater, & volo, vt vbiego sum, & ipsi sint mecum.
What doubt is there? did he pray for Peter, and did he not also pray for Iames and Iohn: to say nothing of the rest? it is cleare, that in Peter all the rest are meant: because he sayeth in an other place, I pray for these O Father, which thou hast giuen me, and desire that they may bee with mee, where my [Page 13] selfe am.
Origen a learned and very auncient father, affirmeth in a large discourse vpon S. Mathew, Origen hom. in mat. that all things spoken of Peter touching the church & the keyes, are to be vnderstood of all the rest. And the collection of Origen is euident, euen by natural reason. For if Christ prayed not aswell for the rest, as he did for Peter, A reason insoluble, let it bee well marked. of small credite were a great parte of the holy scripture. A reason doubtles insoluble, for all Papistes in the world. For if they could faile in their faith, they could also faile in their writing: and yet that they could not so faile, was by vertue of Christes prayer.
This my aunswere is farther confirmed, by the testimonie of learned and approued Papistes. Panormitanus was their skilfull Canonist, their religious Abbot, and their renowmed Archbishop: and consequently, his authority must needs gall, and confound them all. His words are these: Panormit. apud Syluest. de fide § 9. & de cone. §. 3. Et pro hactantum Christus in Euangelio or auit ad patrem, ego rogaui pro te.
And for this, (he meaneth the vniuersal Church,) Christ onely prayed to his Father in the gospell, when he said: I haue prayed for thee, that thy faith faile not. Behold here gentle Reader, and yeelde thine indifferent censure. When Christ (saith the great Papist Panormitane,) prayed that Peters faith should not faile: hee prayed for the faith of the vniuersall Church, whose faith shall neuer faile indeede. And the saide Panormitane proueth his opinion directly and strongly, by many textes of the [Page] Popes Canon-law, De Elect. Cap. significasti.
Alphonsus a Castro a religious Popish Carthusian, Alphons. lib. 1. de haeres. cap. 4. hath these wordes: Non dubitamus, an haereticum esse, & papam esse, coire in vnum possint▪ infra: non enim credo aliquem esse adeo impudentē papae assentatorē, vt ei tribuere hoc velit, vt nec errare, nec in interpretatione sacrarum literarum hallucinaripossit. We doubt not, whether one man may be both a Pope and an Heretike together. For I belieue, there is none so shamelesse a flatterer of the Pope, that will ascribe this vnto him, that he can neyther erre, nor bee deceyued in the exposition of the scriptures.
To these I must needes adde, that all the doctors of the famous Vniuersity of Paris, Bellarm. lib 4. cap. 3. de. Rom Pontif. as our Iesuite Bellarmine freely graunteth, doe expound Christs words in S. Luke, euen as I haue proued out of Panormitane. That is, that Christ praied for the faith of the whole church, or for Peters faith, as he did represent the whole church. And therefore our Iesuite doth easily reiect their exposition, without all time and reason. And hee telleth vs forsooth, that Christ in his prayer obtayned two Priuiledges to Peter: the one, that his faith should neuer faile: the other, that neyther Peter, neyther any in Peters seat, should euer teach false doctrine. But wise men I hope, will belieue Bellarmines wordes▪ when hee shall bring good proofes for the same. For first, my selfe haue proued most euidently, euen by manifest Popish Testimonies; that many Bishops of Rome haue taught false doctrine, and become flat Apostataes. Secondly, Bellarmine himselfe [Page 14] confesseth freely, that Peters Successors perhaps wanted the former prerogatiue, and sometime became Heretikes; but the latter saith hee, they had vndoubtedly. Which Exposition is easily retorted against himselfe: because the former may as well if not better, bee gathered out of the text, as the latter. And therefore Bellarmine presumeth to much vpon his owne credite, when hee will without all reason, enforce vs to expound Christes Gospell, as hee listeth.
The second Obiection.
Christ commaunded the people to doe, Mat. 23. v. 2. 3. what soeuer the Scribes and the Pharisies willed them to obserue: and this hee did onely, because they sate in Moyses chaire. But doubtles, if they sitting in Moyses chaire could haue erred, Christ would not haue commanded, so strictly to obserue their doctrine.
The Aunswere.
Our Sauiour Christ seeing many thinges amisse in the Scribes and Pharisies, What it was to sit in Moses chaire. thought it meete and conuenient to giue the people warning thereof. And hee wisely tempereth his admonition, least they should reiect the good together with the euill. For to teach the Lawe and the Prophetes, whith was to sitte in Moyses Chaire, or to execute Moyses authoritie, [Page] (which was all one in effect,) was a thing very honest and lawfull. Therefore Christ commanded the people to obey them, and to doe whatsoeuer they did bid them doe. But this must bee vnderstoode, with this limitation so long as they taught and commaunded, Ex Cathedra, that is, agreeably to Gods law, not otherwise. This to bee the true sense and meaning of Christs words, I will proue euidently, both by the Fathers, and by the Testimonies of Nicholaus de Lyra, and Dionysius Carthusianus, two zealous and learned Papistes.
August. tract. 46. in Iohan. in med. tom. 9S. Austen hath these wordes: Sedendo Cathedram Moysi, legem Dei docent, ergoper illos Deus docet: sua vero illi si velint docere, nolite audire, nolite facere. Certè. n. tales sua quaerunt, non quae Iesu Christi.
Sitting in the Chayre of Moyses, they teach the Law of GOD, Priests must onely be obeyed, when they teach Gods law. therefore God teacheth by them. But if they will needes teach their owne opinions, and fantasies, then heare them not, doe not as they bid you do. For doubtles such men seeke to please them selues, and not to accomplish the will of Iesus Christ.
Hilarius, in ps. 158, Pag. 698.S. Hilarie hath these wordes: Cum igitur doctrina pharisaeorum ob id probabilis esse docetur, quia ipsi in Mosi Cathedra sederunt, doctrina necessariò significatur in Cathedra. Seeing therefore that the doctrine of the Pharisies, is for that proued to bee probable, because they sate in the Chaire of Moses: therfore by the Chaire, must doctrine of [Page 15] necessitie be signified.
Thus writeth this great learned and auncient Father: by whose iudgement it is plaine, that the chaire of Moses, and the doctrine of Moses is all one. And consequently, that not they which occupie the roome of Moses, or Peter, are to bee followed: but they that teach the doctrine of Moses and Peter, are to bee heard, and their commaundement must be done.
Lyra hath these wordes: Omnia quaecunque dixerint vobis, facite. Lyra in 23. cap Mat. Quia praelatis etiam malis est obediendam, nisi in his quae sunt manifestè contra Deum. Doe all things that they shall say vnto you, because wee must obey euen those prelates that be euill, vnlesse they teach plainly against God.
Dionysius Carthusianus hath these words: Carthus. in 23 cap Mat. Hoc non est absolute, & vniuersaliter intelligendum, quia Scribae & Pharisaei multa superstitiosa & falsa docuerunt, corumpentes scripturam, & irritum facientes verbum Dei per suas traditiones. Intelligendum est ergo de praedicatoribus eorū non contrariis legi Mosi. Mali. N. à presidentibus ebeniendum est, quandiu non docent, nec iubent contraria Deo. This must not be vnderstoode absolutely and vniuersally, because the Scribes and Pharisies taught many superstitious and false things, corrupting the Scriptures, and making frustrate the worde of God with their traditions. We must therfore vnderstand it of their Preachers, which teach nothing contrarie to the law of Moyses. For we must obey euill rulers, so long as they neither teach nor command against God. See more hereof, and to this effect, in the answere [Page] to the next obiection.
The third Obiection.
God commaunded to obey the Priests, and not to swarue in any one iote from their doctrine, Deut. 17. v. 9.10.11. by turning either to the right hand, or to the left. And it wil not serue to say, A very weigh tie obiection, see the answer. that this must be done, so long as they teach the truth: for the text saith plainly: Indicabunt tibi iudicii veritatem: They shall shew thee the veritie of iudgement: that is, they shall not erre.
The Answere.
I say first, that the Priests of the law of Moses, 1 both might erre, and did erre de facto, as is alreadie proued of the Scribes and Pharisies. For they were not onely wicked men in life and conuersation, but they also seduced the people, taught false doctrine, and corrupted the pure worde of God. Which point because it is a thing of verie great importance, I will indeuour my selfe by Gods helpe, to make it plaine vnto the Reader. And because nothing is or can be of greater force agaynst the Papists, then to confute their doctrine by the testimonie of their owne approued Doctors: I will as my wonted maner is, euer alledge the expresse wordes of the best approued Papists, who were euer most deare vnto the Pope, wishing the Reader to markewell my answer: Note the second obiectiō. made alreadie to the obiection next afore going. The wordes of the great papists, Lyra and Carthusianus [Page 16] alreadie alledged▪ might sufficiently satisfie any indifferent reader: but that nothing may bee wanting, I wil adde their wordes more abundantly. Lyra hath these wordes: Vae vobis Scribae, hic ostendit qualiter corrumpebant veritatē doctrinae, Lyra. in. ca. 23▪ Mat. in his quae pertinent ad salutem. Dicebant n [...] quod obseruare legem erat necessarium omnibus ad salutem, quod est falsum; quia multi gentiles sunt saluati, vt Iob & plures alii. Ex suppositione autem huius falsi, discurrebant aliqui in doctores Hebraei per diuersas ciuitates & castra, vt possent conuertere aliquos de gentilitate ad Iudaismum. Et hoc est quod dicitur: qui, &c. Wo to you Scribes. Here he sheweth, how they did corrupt the truth of doctrine, euen in those things which pertaine to saluation. For they said, that the keeping of the law was necessarie for all men vnto saluation, which is false: because many Gentiles are saued, as Iob and sundrie others. Of this false supposition, some Hebrew Doctors did wander through diuerse Cities & Townes, that so they might conuert some from Gentilitie to Iudaisme. And therefore doth the Gospell say: wo vnto you Scribes and Pharisies, hypocrites, for ye compasse sea and land to make one of your profession: and when he is made; ye make him two folde more the childe of hell, then you your selues are.
Againe, the same Lyra sayth thus: Lyran. vbi supra. Vae vobis duces caeci. Hic consequenter ostendit, qualiter corrumpebant veritatem doctrinae, in his quae pertinent ad actum latriae▪ Cuius actus est iurare modo debito, & iur amentum obser uare Pharisaei. n. & Scribae ex cupiditate moti dicebant, quod illi qui iurabant per Templum Dei, nec peccabant, [Page] nec erant in aliquo obligati: sed illi qui iurabant per aurum Templi, erant obligati ad soluendum Sacerdotibus certam portionem auri. Wo vnto you blind guides. Here he sheweth cōsequently, how they corrupted the veritie of doctrine, in those things which pertain to the pure worship of God. The act whereof is to sweare after a due maner, and to performe the oath. For the Scribes and Pharisies moued with couetousnesse, said: that they which did sweare by the temple of God, neither sinned, neither were bound to doe any thing: but they that did sweare by the gold of the Temple, were bound to giue some portion of gold to the Priests.
Dionysius Carthus▪ vbi supra. Dionysius Carthusianus hath these wordes: Non sinitis intrare. Quia falsa doctrina & prauis exemplis peruertitis eos. Sequitur: qui dicitis; quicunque iurauerit per Templum, nihil est. Id est, soluere non tenetur; & si peieret, non erit criminis reus. You do not suffer them to come in. For you peruert them with false doctrine, and euill example. You say, who so euer sweareth by the Temple, it is nothing. That is to say, he is not bound to keepe his oath: and if hee bee forsworne, he shall not be guiltie of any crime.
Thus we see, or may see, if we be not blind, that by the iudgement of these great Papists, the Bishops and Priests of the olde law, did not onely scandalize the people with their wicked life, but also taught false doctrine, and corrupted the holy Scripture. I 2 say secondly▪ that the verie wordes of the law, if we marke them well, doe plainly expresse the true meaning thereof. To wit, that wee must then obey the [Page 17] Priests, when they teach according to Gods lawe, and not when they wrest and corrupt Gods word. The wordes are these: Et facies quodcunque dixerint, Deut. 17. v. 10 qui praesunt loco quem elegerit Dominus, & docuerint te iuxta legem eius. And thou shalt doe whatsoeuer they shall say, which are ouer that place which the Lord hath chosen, and shall teach thee according to his law. Lo, this cōdition is required, that the priests do teach Gods law. See S. Hieroms words, in the answere to the fourth Obiection.
The Replie.
The wordes import no condition, but a meere assertion and promise, that they shall not erre: Malach. 2▪ v. 7 so saith the Prophet Malach: Labia sacerdotis custodient scientiam, & legem requirent ex ore eius. The Priests lippes shall keepe knowledge, and they shall seeke the law at his mouth.
The Answere.
I answere, that the wordes in Deuteronomie do import a conditionall precept. The precept is continued in these wordes, Qui praesunt loco, which are set ouer that place. The condition is imploied in these words: Et docuerint, and shall teach according to the law. The words in Malachie import a flat commandement, of that which the Priests ought to do: but no promise, that they shall doe and performe the same. Which thing I will proue many wayes. [Page] First, by the wordes of the verie texts: then by the testimonie of Saint Herome: thirdly, by the exposition of great learned Papists. Touching the wordes in Malachie, the sense appeareth euidently, in the wordes which follow immediatly, which are these: Vos autē recessistisde via, & scādalizastis plurimos in lege: irritum fecestis pactum Leui, dicit Dominus exercituum. But you are gone out of the way, and haue scandalized many by the law: ye haue made frustrate the couenant of Leui, Malac. 2. v. 6 saith the Lord of hostes. Now, of Leui it is thus said in the same place: Lex veritatis erat in ore eius: The law of truth was in his mouth. And what was the law of truth? S. Hierome telleth vs in these wordes: Lex veritatis, hoc est, doctrina populorun, quae in Sacerdote nullo debet mendacio deturpari, sed tota de veritatis fonte procedere. The law of truth, that is, the doctrine of the people, which in the Priest ought not to be stained with any lie, but wholy to proceede from the fountaine of truth. By which exposition we see plainly, that the priests lippes should indeede keepe knowledge, but for all that are often void of all knowledge, and teach falshood instead of truth.
Deu. 17. v. 9.10 Bellarmine de Pontif. Rom. lib. 4. cap. 1. Deut. 16. v. 18.Touching the words of Deuteronomie, the sense and true meaning is plainly gathered out of the verie text it selfe. For first, the text in the 17. chapter speaketh as well of the politicall and ciuill iudge, as of the Priest, which thing Bellarmine himselfe cannot denie. And yet that the ciuill Prince may erre, all both Iesuites and other Priests will confesse. Again, in another place of the law, the same promis [Page 18] that is here made to the Priests, is made generally to all ciuill Iudges and officers. These are the wordes: Iudges and Officers shalt thou make thee in all thy Cities, and they shall iudge the people with righteous iudgement. Where I note by the way, the falshoode of the Latine Vulgata editio, which the late Councel of Trent extolleth aboue both the Greeke and the Hebrew. For in the 16. chap. the text sayth thus: Vt iudicent populum, that they may iudge the people. But in the 17. chap. it is thus: and they shall teach the people. And in Malachie, thus: and the Priests lippes shall keepe knowledge. Note this point well. And yet in the Hebrew text, which is the fountaine and originall: the worde (and) is in euery place, which the papists guilefully, change into the worde (that,) in the 16. chapt. so to make their matter good, if it would be. But let ( vt) be made ( &) as it is in the Hebrew, and the question will be at an end.
Melchior Canus a famous learned papist, hath these expresse words: Fatemur Sacerdotes non esse audiendos, Canus, lib. 3. cap. vlt. p. 108. nisi docuerint iuxta legem Domini. We grant (sayth he) that the priests ought not to be heard or obeyed, vnlesse they shall preach and teach, according to Gods law. Oh sweet Iesus? How can any papist deny that which we affirme, seeing the best learned and most renowmed Papists confesse the same: euen in their written bookes and printed Commentaries, published to the view of the world.
Lyranus in his Commentaries, Lyran. in 17. cap. Deut. hath these expresse wordes: Hic dicit glossa Hebraica: si dixerint tibi quod dextra sit sinistra, vel sinistra dextra, talis sententia est tenenda, [Page] quod patet manifestè falsum. Quia sentētia nullius hominis cuiuscunque sit authoritatis est tenenda, si contineat manifestè falsitatem vel errorem. Et hoc patet, per id quod praemittitur in textu. Iudicabunt tibi iudicii veritatem. Postea subditur: & docuerint te iuxta legem eius. Ex quo patet, quod si dicant falsum, & declinent à lege Dei manifestè, Lo papistrie is confuted by papists, euen of the best sort. non sunt audiendi. Here sayeth the Hebrew glosse, if they shall say to thee, that the right hand is the left, or the left hand the right, such sentence is to be holden: which thing appeareth manifestly to bee false. For no mans sentence of how great authoritie soeuer he bee, must bee holden or obeyed, if it manifestly containe falshoode or errour. And this is manifest by that, which goeth before in the text. They shall shew to thee, the veritie and truth of iudgement. It followeth also: and they shall teach thee, according to his law. Hereupon it is cleare, that if they teach falsely, and swarue from the law of God manifestly, then are they not to bee heard or followed.
Out of these words, well worthy to be engrauen in golden letters, I note first, that our Papists now a 1 dayes are as grosse and senselesse, as were the olde Iewish Rabbins: as who labor this day to enforce vs to belieue the Pope, though he erre neuer so grosly, telling vs that chalke is cheese, and the left hand the right. I note secondly, that Nicho. de Lyra a great learned 2 papist, (whose authority is a mighty argumēt against the papists,) doth here expresly cōdemne the grosse error of the Hebrew doctors, & in thē the impudent error of all Iesuits, & Romish parisites: who [Page 19] to satisfie the humor of their Pope, Note well gentle Reader. and to vpholde his Antichristian tyranny, doe wrest the holy scripture from the manifest truth thereof. I note thirdly, 3 that we must neyther belieue Bishop nor Pope, nor any other liuing man of what authority soeuer, if hee teach vs contrarie to the manifest truth of Gods word. I note fourthly, that Lyra doth gather 4 out of the Text it selfe, The hie priest of the old law erred. that the High Priest might erre, and teach false doctrine. And consequently, that the Iesuite Bellarmine doth but flatter the popes Holinesse, when he be stirreth himself to proue out of this place, that the Bishops of Rome cannot erre, because the Iewish Bishoppes had the like priuiledge, and could not teach against the truth.
I note fiftly, out of Lyra, Carthusianus, and Melchior Canus, whose words are already set down, that the 5 Priestes of the old law erred grossely, and taught false doctrine. And that all the world may see the falshood of Romish Popery, I will adde a notorious and most execrable error of the High Priest himselfe. Caiphas the High Priest pronounced before a great multitude, that Christ blasphemed, whē he thus spoke. Mat. 26. v. 64. 65. 66. 67. Hereafter shall ye see the Sonne of man, sitting at the right hand of the power of God, and come in the cloudes of heauen. Now I ween neither the Iesuite, nor any other papist in the world will or dare call this blasphemie, which Christ Iesus spoke of himselfe. If they dare so say, the scripture is a plaine testimonie against them, and all the world will crie, fie vpon them. Note well this Dilemma. If they neyther wil nor can so say, then is the controuersie at an end: [Page] then hath the High Priest erred iudicially: then may their Pope also erre, as he hath done indeed: then was not Christ Iesus guilty of deat, Leu. 24. v. 14 has the hie Priest and the people affirmed him to be. Marke the answere, to the next obiection.
The fourth Obiection.
If the people may controll the Priest, then in vaine, are the Priestes commaunded to teach the people. And it is absurde, that the sheepe should rebuke the shepheard.
The Aunswere.
1 I say first, that when the Priestes commaund the people, to doe against Gods law: then may not the people doe thereafter, Act. 5. v. 29. Act. 4. v. 19. but remember the doctrine and Apostolike rule: that they must rather obey 2 God, then man. I say secondly, that though the Priestes be appointed to teach, and the people to heare: the Priestes in Gods name to commaund, and the people to obey: yet must all this be done, Iuxta legem Dei, according to Gods law. Neither shall the people, for all that contemne the authority of the Priestes, but with humility admonish the priestes, and tell them why they cannot so doe. This lesson if the Papistes cannot be content to learne of me, yet I hope, they will not disdayne to learne it of S. Hierome: seeing their Pope in their Collect vpon his festiuity, termeth him Doctorem maximum, their greatest Doctor. His wordes are these: Si Sacerdos [Page 20] est, sciat legem Domini: si ignorat legem, Hier. in 2. cap. Aggaei. ipse se arguit non esse Domini sacerdotem. Sacerdotis enim est scire legem, & ad interrogationem respondere de lege. Sequitur: discant legem Dei, vt possint docere quod didicerint: & augeant scientiam, magis quam opes, & non erubescant a laicis discere: qui nouerint ea quae ad officium pertinent sacerdotum. If he be a Priest, let him know the law of God: if he be ignorant of the Law, hee accuseth himselfe, that hee is not the Priest of God. For the Priestes office is to know the law, and to aunswere to questions of the Law. Let the Priestes learne Gods law, that they may teach that which they haue learned: and let them encrease knowledge, rather then riches: and let them not be ashamed to learne of the Lay people, which know those things that pertaine to the Priestes office.
Out of these wordes of S. Hierome, I note first, that many Popes are no Priestes, The Popes now a days do not preach at al and consequently 1 no Popes indeede, though falsely supposed so to be. S. Ieromes reason is plaine to euery child, because many Popes are very vnlearned, and know not the law of God, neither preach his word, which is the chiefest office of a Priest. 1. Cor. 1. v. 17. And who wil or can think, that Christ Iesus, if he had appointed the Bishops of Rome, to rule his whole Church throughout the world: and all nations to hang their Faith vpon the popes faith: woulde in these dangerous times suffer them to liue dissolutely, to be as dumbe dogs that barke not, and neuer to preach and teach his word? none doubtles, that haue any wit, sense, Esa. 56. v. 10. or reason. I note secondly, that Priests must know 2 [Page] the law of God, to this end that they may teach the same. And consequently, that the Bishops of Rome, who neuer preach the word of God, cannot be the 3 true Priests of God. I note thirdly, that the Bishops of Rome, if they were true Priests indeed, both shold and would encrease their knowledge in the law of God, rather then their wealth and possessions. I 4 note fourthly, that the true Priestes of God, must 5 not disdayne to learne of the Laicall sorte, which are better learned then themselues. I note fiftly, that sheepe so called Metaphorically, such as Christian people are, who haue sence, reason, and learning, Ioh. 10. v. 4. 1. Pet. 2. v. 25. and know the voyce of the great shephearde Christ Iesus, as himselfe telleth vs may with all humility forsake those shepheardes, who eyther for their ignorance cannot, or for malice will not, feed them with the pure word of God, as they ought to doe. For wise sheepe will not eate that meat, which they know to be deadly poison to them. For this cause doe the Popes owne Canons graunt libertie to the sheepe, to reproue and accuse their Pastor: yea though he be the Pope himselfe. The expresse wordes of the Canon are these: Oues quae suo Pastori commissae sunt, Caus. 2. q. 7. Cap. oues. eum nec reprehendere, nisi a fide exorbitauerit, nec vllatenus accusare possunt.
The sheepe which are committed to their Pastor, may neyther rebuke him, Loe, the sheep may rebuke & accuse the shepheard. nor in any wise accuse him, vnlesse hee forsake the faith. Loe, this Canon made of Pope Eusebius himselfe: telleth vs two thinges: First, that the Pope may erre, and forsake the Christian faith. Secondly, that when he doth [Page 21] so erre, the sheepe may then reproue him, and also accuse him. And I am well assured, that if the sheep may reproue and accuse the Pope, as the Pope himselfe alloweth to bee done: much more may the sheepe reproue and accuse other Bishops & priests, which are farre inferiour to the Pope. See the answere to the second obiection.
The fift Obiection.
If the Pope had not authority from God himself, to rule the vniuersall Church, and to decide all controuersies in the same: all the Christian worlde would neuer haue yeelded themselues unto him, in matters of Faith and euerlasting saluation.
The Aunswere.
I say first, that when Constantinus the Emperour departed from Rome to Constantinople, the Pope then beganne to put out his Hornes, and to chalenge the Emperiall authority in the west partes of the world. Dist. 96. cap. Constantinus. And his flattering Parasites and greedy Sicophantes, by false Pamphlets and glosses, laboured to confirme his Lordly Titles. These are the wordes of the Canon: Constantinus Imperator coronam & omnem regiam dignitatem, in vrbe Romana, & in Italia, & in partibus occidentalibus Apostolico concessit. The Emperour Constantine graunted to the Apostolicall man (the Bishoppe of Rome,) his crowne and all royall dignitie, [Page] aswell in the Citty of Rome, and in Italie, in all the west partes of the world. Loe, this was the first steppe to that Lordly Primacy, The very originall of Poperie. and Antichristian tyranny, which the Bishoppes of Rome this day chalenge in the Christian world. This I say, was the originall of Poperie, though it bee a very fable, and voide of all credite. For Eusebius, Theodoritus, Socrates, Sozomenus, Eutropius, Ruffinus, Victor, and other approued Writers, (who all haue writen the Actes of Constantine most diligently,) do not only make no mentiō of that gift, but withal say plainely, that the whole Empire was diuided among the three Sonnes of Constantine, and that one of them had all Italie for his parte. And Ammianus Marcellinus writeth, Ammianus. lib. 15. that Constantius had the dominion of the Citty of Rome, and that Leontius was his Lieutenant there.
Laurentius Valla hath written both learnedly & largely, against the false Donation of Constantine, wherewith a great part of the world hath beene seduced. To this I could adde many argumentes, but that the Reader may find them, in my motiues and Booke of Suruey.
I say secondly, that the Maiestie of the Romane 2 Empire, and that liberality which the Romanes exhibited to the Martyres in Exile, and otherwise afflicted, gaue no small honour to the Cittie and church of Rome. For the Councels had euer great respect to the dignity and excellency of Cities, in the distribution of Episcopall and Patriarkall seates.
[Page 22]I say thirdly, that the church of Rome kept & defended 3 a long time, the pure and sincere doctrine of Christ Iesus. For Saint Paule was beheaded there: Saint Peter crucified there: and many Bishops of Rome there put to death, for confessing & defending the Christian faith. And hereupon it partly came, I will it not deny, that the West and Occidentall Churches did so greatly reuerence the Church of Rome, and many times to appease controuersies and dissentions, had recourse to it, The Church of Rome, was once the true nurse of the faith. as to the Mother Churche and auncient Nurse of the Faith. But for all this, they neuer ascribed this prerogatiue to the Bishoppe of Rome, that hee could not erre: neyther euer did they acknowledge him to be the sole and onely iudge, in questions and controuersies of religion. This to bee so, one onely testimonie will suffice. For S. Cyprian an auncient Father, a very learned Bishoppe, and blessed Martyr, although hee greatly honoured the Church of Rome, and the Bishoppes therof, for respectes aboue mentioned: yet was he so farre, from acknowledging the supposed prerogatiue of the Bishoppe of Rome, that his faith could not faile: or that hee was the sole and only iudge, Vide epist. Cyprian. ad Pompeium. in questions and controuersies of religion: that hee flatly reiected his opinion, contemned his definitiue sentence, and derided his iudiciall decree, calling him blinde bussarde, and arrogant Prelate. The controuersie was this, whether they which were baptized of Heretiques, ought to bee rebaptized, or not. The mater, and Saint Cyprians words, [Page] are set downe at large, in my Booke of Motiues. And the matter it selfe is partly already proued, in the Chapters afore going: and shall bee more fully confirmed, in the Chapters following.
CAP. V. Shewing that Prouinciall Councels may erre.
THAT Prouinciall Councels may erre, euen in matters of Faith, it is so cleare and manifest, that famous and verie learned Papistes affirme the same: to witte, Adrianus who was sometime Pope himselfe, Iohannes-Gerson sometime Chauncellor of Paris, Bellarm. lib. 4. de Rom. Pontif. cap. 2. Almainus and Alphonsus, both of them renowmed Papistes. For they all hold, as the Iesuite Bellarmine graunteth, that the infallibility of iudgement touching matters of faith, resteth solely in the church and generall Councels. this assertion being confessed by great learned Papistes, were enough to satisfie the indifferent Reader, if more could not be said.
Saint Cyprian assembled in councell togither with fourescore learned bishops, defined against the truth: Concil. Carthag. sub Cypriano. that such as were baptized of Heretiques, ought to be baptized againe. This decree is extant [Page 23] in the first tome of Councels, and is this day reputed for a grosse errour, throughout the christian worlde.
The Prouinciall Councell holden at Iconium, decreed with Saint Cyprian and his fellow Bishops, Euseb. hist. eccles. li. 7. cap. 6 that rebaptization was lawfully ministred, to those that were baptized of Heretiques.
The Councell of Sardis erred grossely, Aug. ep. 163. & lib. 3 contra Cresconium, cap. 34. tom. 7. condemning two Catholike Bishops. Iulius the Bishop of Rome, and Athanasius the Bishop of Alexandria.
The third Councell of Carthage, decreed the Apocryphall bookes of Tobias, Iudith, Baruch, Concil. 3. Carthag. can. 47. Wisdome, Ecclesiasticus, and the Machabees, to be Canonicall. But the Councell of Laodicea (which was confirmed in the sixt generall Councell) condemned that decree long before it was made, Conc. Laodic. can. 59. and denied the said bookes to be Canonicall.
The Councell of Varmes decreed, Con. Varmac. can. 3. that secret theft should be knowne and tried, by the deliuerie and receyuing of the holy Eucharist. Aquinas. p. 3. q. [...]. a [...]. 6. ad. 3 Which is a notorious error, and a wicked decree, as the great papist Aquinas witnesseth, in his Theologicall summe.
The Councell of Rome celebrated by Pope Stephanus, Platina, Sigebertus. & palmerius. disanulled all orders giuen by Pope Formosus: and the Councell of Rauennas, called by Pope Iohn disanulled the Actes of the Councell vnder Pope Stephanus.
In fine, a Councell holden at Rome vnder Pope Nicholas, De consecrat. dist. 2. cap. eg [...] Berengarius. decreed and enforced Berengarius to confesse the same; that the true body of Christ was broken [Page] with the Priests hands, and consumed with the teeth of the faithfull. And yet is this a notorious error, manifest to all the worlde. Wherefore the Popish Glosse, to saue the credite of the decree of the Pope and Councell, if it would bee; addeth these wordes for explication sake Nisi sanè intelligas verba Berengarii, in maiorem incideshaeresim, quam ipse habuit: & ideo omnia referas ad species ipsas. Nam de Christi corpore partes non facimus. Vnlesse thou vnderstande soundly the wordes of Berengarius, thou wilt fall into a greater heresie, then hee had: and therefore thou must referre all things to the formes. For of Christ bodie, no partes are made. Loe, the Popish glosse saith plainly, (which is the truth in deed,) that Christ bodie cannot bee broken, or diuided into partes. And for all that, the Pope with his popish Councell, enforced Berengarius to beleeue the contrarie, and to cōfesse the same. The Apostles words are these: Rom. 6. v. 9 Christ being raysed from the dead, dieth no more: death hath no more dominion ouer him. But certes, if the true bodie of Christ Iesus be broken in deede, and torne in peeces with mans teeth: then doubtlesse must it bee corrupted, and Christ himselfe must die againe. This veritie doth so gall the Papists, that the Iesuite Bellarmine, (who is the mouth of all the Papists,) is inforced will he, nill he, to confesse the truth vnawares. Bellarmin de concil. lib. 2. cap. 8. in fine. Col. 917. These are his owne wordes, which I wish the Reader to marke attentiuely. Certum est & semper fuit, Christi corpus incorruptibile nunc existens, non posse frangi, & teri, nisi in signo siue sacramento; ita vt dicatur frangi ac teri, [Page 24] cum signum eius, id est, species panis frangitur & teritur. Sequitur: verum Christi corpus ibi praesens existens, frangitur & teritur, non tamen inse, sedin signo. It is and euer was certaine, and without doubt, that Christs bodie now being incorruptible, cannot bee broken and torne, but in the signe or Sacrament: So that it may be said to be broken and torne, when the signe thereof, that is to say, the forme of bread is broken and torne. The true bodie of Christ there present, is broken and torne; yet not in the bodie it selfe, but in the signe thereof. Thus writeth our Iesuite most Christanly, but vnawares agaynst himselfe, if his words be well obserued.
I therefore note first, that by Bellarmines owne 1 confession, Christs bodie is now immortall and incorruptible. I note secondly, that Christs bodie can 2 not now bee broken in deed, but onely in the signe or Sacrament thereof. I note thirdly, that Christes 3 bodie is truly said to be broken, (as our Iesuite affirmeth,) because the signe of his bodie is truly broken. Out of whose wordes and graunt, O reader, mark this point wel, for the loue of God. this proposition is inferred of necessity: to wit, that Christ bodie is truly said to be present to the faithfull, and to be truly eaten of them; when the signe of Christes bodie is truly present, and truly eaten of them. Againe, it must needs follow vpon the Iesuites grant, and exposition of the Romish faith, (which is a wō der to bee heard;) that when Christ vttered these wordes to his Apostles, (this is my bodie;) his meaning and the true sense of the wordes, was this. This is my bodie, that is to say, this is the signe and [Page] Sacrament of my bodie. The reason hereof is euident, because, Christes naturall and true body, can no more be truely eaten, then it can be truely broken. And cōsequently, as we are enforced to grant, that when we say Christes bodie is broken, then is but the signe of his bodie broken: euen so likewise are we enforced to graunt, that when Christ saide: This is my body, hee gaue onely the signe and sacrament of his bodie. The reason is euident, because his bodie can no otherwise be eaten, then it is broken; that is to say, sacramentally, or in a signe; or if you will so say, figuratiuely or spiritually, which is all one. Here then is no certaintie of iudgement to be found.
CAP. 6. Shewing that generall Councels may erre.
THat generall Councels may erre, and de facto haue erred, euen in matters of faith: it is so plaine, as nothing can be more plaine, when the truth thereof shall betold, as it is in deed.
In the great and generall Councell of the Iewes, in which were present, (as Christes Gospel telleth vs, Mar. 14. v. 53.) all the Priests, the Scribes & the Elders, togither with the hie Priest: Christ Iesus was condemned to death, because he named himself the sonne of God. Yea, Caiphas the high Priest with the consent and assent of the whole Councell, pronounced openly [Page 25] that Christ blasphemed, Mat. 26. v. 65. when he called himselfe the sonne of God. And yet is it euident to all Christian people, and all Papists will and must confesse the same; that the hie Priest Caiphas erred perniciously, and vttered most execrable blasphemie: when hee denied Christ to be the sonne of God, and true Messias of the world.
The great and famous Councell of Lateran, holden vnder Innocentius the third, in which were present the Patriarkes of Hierusalem and Constantinople: Metropolitanes, 70: Bishops, 400: Abbots, 12: Priors Conuentuals, 800: the Legates of the Greeke and Romane Empire: the Orators of the Kinges of Hierusalem, France, Spaine, Englande, and Cypres: either erred notoriously aboute the creation of Angels, or at least made it euident to all the worlde, that the decree of generall Councels, is not an infallible rule of faith. I proue this to bee so, by two important reasons. First, because the 1 Councell hath these wordes: Firmiter credimus & simpliciter confitemur, quod vnus est solus Deus verus, creator omnium, visibilium & inuisilium, spiritualium & corporalium; Concil. Later. 1. cap. de fide Cath. 1. qui simul ab initio temporis vtranque de nihilo condidit creaturam, spiritualem & corporalem, angelicam scilicet & mundanam. We firmely beleeue and simplie confesse, that there is one onely true God, the creator of all things, visible and inuisible, spirituall and corporall: who from the beginning of time created of nothing both creatures togither, the spirituall and the corporall, that is to say, the angelicall and the terrestriall.
[Page]Secondly, because great learned men and most renowmed fathers, Basil. hexa. hom. 1. Ambr. hexamer. lib. 1. cap. 5. tom. 4. August. lib. 11 de ciuitate, ca. 32. Aquinas, 1. p. q. 61. art. 3. Gregorius Nazianzenus, Basilius Magnus, Ambrosius, Hieronimus, Damascenus, doe all holde constantly, that albeit the Angels had a beginning, yet were they before the world was made. And this their opinion is deemed probable, both to Saint Austen, and to the great School-doctor Aquinas. Which Aquinas liued after the said Councell of Lateran, and had read the same, & had also written Commentaries vpon this very Canon; and consequently, he did not repute the decree of the sayde Councell, to be an infallible rule of fayth. Loe, the generall Councell held constantly, and firmely beleeued, that the Angels were created at one and the same time with the world. But the holy fathers and the great Papist Aquinas, thought the contrary opinion to be probable, notwithstanding the decree of the Councell. Whervpon it followeth of necessity, that that is not alway the vndoubted truth, which is decreed by a generall Councell. For which end and purpose, Melchior Canus a lerned popish bishop hath written most excellently in these wordes: Non satis est, vt Conciliorum & Pontificum iudicia firma esse credantur, Canus de locis, lib▪ 5. cap. 5 pag. 169 The popish so supposed diuine seruice▪ may not safely be beleeued. in diuino officio publicè à tota etiam Ecclesia celebrari. It is not enough, to make the iudgements of Councels and Popes firme, so as wee may safely beleeue them, to celebrate the same publiquely in diuine seruice, throughout the whole Church of God. These are golden wordes, they may not bee passed ouer rawly and negligently, but we must firmely imprint them in our hearts. And in so doing, [Page 26] wee doubtlesse shall reape commoditie more then a little. For, if we cannot safely giue credite to the Popish seruice, which is publiquely done in their Churches: how can they, or how dare they auouch their doctrine, to bee agreeable to Gods worde? Nay, it is a worlde to heare, that the Pope is not ashamed to enforce the worlde, as much as in him lyeth: to embrace and beleeue that new no Religion, lately start vp Popish doctrine; whereof the best Popish writers, can giue no better reasons.
The generall Councell of Constance decreed firmely, Concil. Constant. sess. 13. that it was lawfull to debarre the lay-people from the one part of the Eucharist: to wit, the cuppe. Concil. Basil. sess. 30. And the generall Councell of Basill affirmeth constantly, that so to holde and doe, is not agaynst the holy institution. And yet is it vndoubtedly true, that the lay-people ought by Christes institution, to receyue both the kindes. Saint Paule writing to the vnpriested Corinthians, 1. Cor. 11. v. 25 may bee a sufficient proofe hereof. For hee telleth them, that they ought according to the commaundement which hee receyued of the Lord, to drinke of the cuppe, as well as to eate of the bread. The matter is so plaine, as I deeme it a thing needlesse, to stand long vpon the same.
The Councel of Trent, (a famous general councell by Popish iudgemēt,) hath flatly decreed that to bee no matrimonie, which was euer approued matrimonie in the Catholique Church, and is this day perfect matrimonie by Christes institution. The [Page] wordes of the Councell are these: Conc. Trident sess. 8. de reformat. Dubitandum non est, clandestina matrimonia libero consensu facta, rata & vera esse matrimonia, quamdiu ecclesia ea irrita non fecit. There is no doubt, but clandestine and secrete matrimonies made with free consent, were perfect and true matrimonies, so long as the Church did not disanull the same. Yet so it is gentle reader, that such secret matrimonies are this day to bee reputed no matrimonies at all. Of which kinde of matrimonies I haue written more at large, in my booke of motiues.
That generall Councels may erre, the sole and onely testimony of Panormitanus, is sufficient and of force enough against all papists: Panormit. de elect. cap. Significasti, prope finem. because hee was their famous Canonist, their most reuerend Archbishop, & their renowmed Cardinall. His expresse words are these: nam in concernentibus fidem, etiā dictum vnius priuati esset preferendum dicto Papae, si ille moueretur melioribus rationibus noui & veteris testamenti, quam Papae. Nec obstat, si dicatur quod concilium non potest errare, quia Christus orauit pro ecclesia sua vt nō desiceret quia dico, quod licet cōcilium generale representet totam ecclesiam vniuersalem, tamen in veritate ibi non est vera ecclesia vniuersalis, sed representatiuè; quia vniuersalis ecclesia constituitur ex collectione omnium fidelium; vnde omnes fideles orbis constituunt istam ecclesiam vniuersalē, cuius caput & sponsus est ipse Christus. Papa autē est Vicarius Christi, & non verè caput ecclesiae, vt notat glossa in Clem. ne Romani, de elect. Quae notabiliter dicit, quod mortuo Papa ecclesia non est sine capite, & ista est illa ecclesia quae errare non potest.
[Page 27]For concerning maters of Faith, euen the iudgement of one that is a meere Lay-man, ought to be preferred before the sentence of the Pope, if that Lay person, could bring better reasons out of the old and new Testament, then the Pope did. And it skilleth not if one say, that a Councell cannot erre, because Christ prayed for his church, that it should not fayle. For I say, that although a general Councell represent the whole vniuersall Church, yet in truth there is not truely the vniuersall Church, but representatiuely. Note this doctrine well. For the vniuersall Church consisteth, of the collection of all the faithful. Whereupon all the faithfull in the worlde, make this vniuersall church, (which cannot erre,) wherof Christ himselfe is the head. The Pope is the Vicar of Christ, but not truely the heade of the church, as noteth the Glosse vpon the Clementines, which saith very well, that when the Pope is dead, the church wanteth not then an head, and this is that Church which cannot erre.
Out of these wordes I note first, that by the opinion of the great Papist Panormitan, a meere laye 1 mans iudgement euen in matters of faith, ought to bee accepted and receyued before the Popes constitution, if that Lay-man bring better reasons, then doth the Pope.
I note secondly, that through the wonderfull 2 prouidence of God, euen the enemies of the truth (the Papists I meane,) are enforced to testifie the truth against themselues, in their owne printed bookes. For doubtles, this Testimony of this Papist [Page] is the foundation of that doctrine, which is this day established in the church of England, and in all other reformed churches throughout the Christian world.
I note thirdly, that a generall councell may 1 erre, because it is not the Catholike or vniuersall church indeed. A generall councell therfore, yeeldeth not any infallible iudgement.
CAP. VII. Shewing that the holy Scripture, is the sole and onely infallible rule of truth.
IN the former Chapters I haue shewed first, that all Bishoppes may erre 2 seuerally▪ secondly, that many Bishops may erre ioyntly together, when they teach one and the selfe same thing. 3 Thirdly, that the Pope or Bishoppe of Rome may erre, not onely in his priuate opinion, but also in his 4 publike sentence and definition. Fourthly, that 5 Prouinciall Councels may erre. Fiftly, that generall counsels may erre. It therefore now remayneth, See the last end of the second Chapter. that I find out and set down some such rule, as is infallible and will not in any respect, point, or clause: deceiue them that follow it, and leane thervnto. Which rule (say I,) is the holy scripture, the sole and onely written worde of God. And I proue the same briefly: first, by the written word it selfe, which telleth vs plainely, that the holy scripture [Page 28] was written by the instinct of the holy Ghost, Deut. 1. [...]. Deut. 31. ver. 19.24. Deut. 9.10. Ios. 1. v. 8. 2. Tim. 3.16. 2. Pet. 1.21. Num. 23.19. euen as God himself appointed it to be done. That prophesie came not in old time, by the wil of man: but holy men of God spake, as they were moued by the holy Ghost. That God is not as man, that he should lie: neyther as the sonne of man, that he should repent.
I proue it secondly, Dionys. Areopag. de diuinis nominib. cap 1. in initio. by the testimony of S. Dionyse Areopagita, whose wordes are these: Omnino igitur non audendum est, quicquam de summa abstrusaque diuinitate aut dicere aut cogitare, praeter ca quae nobis diuinitus scripturae diuinae enuntiarunt.
In no wise therfore may we make bold to speake or thinke any thing, of the high and ineffable diuinity: but that onely, which holy writ hath reuealed to vs from aboue.
I proue it thirdly, by the verdict of S. Austen in these wordes: August. Epist. 19 ad, Hier. Ego solis eis scripturarum libris qui iam canonici appellantur, hunc timorem & honorem didici deferre, vt nullum eorum authorem scribendo aliquid errasse firmissime credam. Alios autem ita lego, vt quantalibet sanctitate doctrinaque praepolleant, non ideo verū putem, quia ipsi ita censuerunt, sed quia mihi, vel per illos auctores canonicos, vel probabili ratione quod a veritate non abhorreat, persuadere potuerunt.
I have learned to giue this feare and honour, to those onely bookes of scripture which are called Canonicall, that I firmely belieue no author therof to haue erred in any point: but yet I reade others so, that how holy or learned soeuer they bee, I doe not by and by thinke it true, because they say [Page] so: but because they perswade me by those Canonicall Writers, or by probable reason, that that is true they say.
August. de bono viduitatis, cap. 1. tom. 4.The same S. Austen in an other place, telleth vs plainely, that the holy Scripture is the rule of faith. These are his wordes: Sancta scriptura nostrae doctrinae regulam figit, ne audiamus sapere plusquam oportet.
The holy Scripture setteth downe the rule of our doctrine, that we presume not to be wiser, then it is meete and conuenient.
Bellarm. de verbo Dei non scripto, lib. 4. cap. 12. tom. 1. col. 196.The Iesuite Bellarmine (whose words are most forceable against Papistes, because he is the mouth of all Papistes,) confesseth plainely, that the worde of God is the rule of faith, & that the written word, because it is the rule, hath this prerogatiue, that whatsoeuer is contained in it, is of necessitie true, and must bee beleeued: and whatsoeuer is repugnant to it, is of necessitie false, and must be reiected. But because it is a partial rule, and not the totall rule of faith, thereupon it commeth, that something is of faith, which is not contayned in the same. Thus writeth the Iesuite. Out of whose wordes euerie child may gather, that the scripture is the infallible rule of faith. For although the Iesuite would make vnwritten traditions, to bee a ioynt rule together with the written word, (whose opinion I haue disproued in my Booke of Motiues:) yet neyther doth hee, neither can he deny, but that all must bee reiected, whatsoeuer is repugnant to the holy scripture.
[Page 29]By this my discourse hetherto, it is cleare and euident to euery indifferent Reader: that neither Fathers, Popes, nor councels, prouinciall, or generall, are or can bee the infallible rule of faith, but the sole and onely written word of God: that is, the holy Scripture. But now remayneth a most intricate and d [...]fficult question, who must bee the iudge of the Scripture: that is, who must determine and set downe, what writinges, Who is the Iudge of the Scripture. what opinions, what preachinges, what doctrines, are grounded vpon the Scriptures, and are consonant to the same: againe, what opinions, what Writinges, and what doctrines, are not grounded vpon the Scriptures, nor are agreeable to the same. Hic labor, hoc opus est. I therefore proceede to the next Chapter, hoping by Gods grace, to vse such perspicuitie in handling this difficult question, as shal bee to the contentment of all indifferent Readers.
CAP. VIII. Shewing who is the right Iudge, of the holy Scripture and word of God.
ALbeit the holy Scripture be the infallible rule of Faith, Some iudge must be appoint [...]d, for vnity sake, and externall peace of the church. and the true Touchstone, by which all doctrines are bee examined and tryed, as is already proued: yet will controuersies neuer haue a [Page] [...] [Page 29] [...] [Page] peaceable end, vnles some speciall iudges bee appointed to decide and determine the same. For as the old Prouerbe saith: So many heads, so many wittes. Out of one and the selfe same Scripture, one man gathereth one sense, an other man an other sense. For the perspicuous vnderstanding wherof, I put downe these Paragraffes.
The first Paragraffe.
The examination of doctrine is of two sortes: the one is priuate, the other is publike. Priuate examination is that, vpon which euery man doth build and stablish his owne faith. Abakuk. cap. 2. v. 4. For as the Prophet sayeth: The iust man shall liue by his faith. And as the great Popish Doctor Aquinas writeth: Aquinas, 2.2 q. 1. art. 1. & 3. the former obiect of our faith, or that which wee formally belieue, is God himselfe, or that which God hath reuealed to vs: and not that which man telleth vs. For sayeth hee, faith doth not yeelde assent to any thing, but because it is reuealed of God. The publike examination of doctrine, pertayneth to the common consent of the Church, for the peaceable gouernance thereof. For GOD is not the Author of confusion, 1. Cor. 14. v. 33. but of peace.
The Second Paragraffe.
As the examination of doctrine is of two sorts: so are the examiners and the iudges of two sortes [Page 30] also: that is to say, publike and priuate. The Publike iudges are all the Ministers of the Church, by what name or title soeuer they bee called. The priuate Iudges are all the faithfull seuerally by themselues, in all matters pertayning to Faith and the saluation of their owne soules. That all the faithfull are priuate Iudges, it may be easily proued, by many textes of holy writte. First, by this text of S. Iohn: beleeue not euery spirit, but trie the spirits, if they bee of God. Secondly, 1. Iohn. 4. v. 1. 1. Thess. 5. v. 21 1. Cor. 2. v. 15. by this text of S. Paule: trie all thinges, and keepe that which is good. Thirdly, by this text of the same Apostle: the spirituall man iudgeth all thinges. These texts, the two famous Papistes, Nicholaus de Lyra, and Dionysius Carthusianns, Lyra & Car. thus. in comment sup▪ 1. Cor. 2 expounde of thinges pertayning to saluation: which say they, all the faithfull are able to trie. And which is to bee wondred at, the Iesuite Bellarmine vnawares confesseth the same. These are his expresse wordes: Duo vel tres congregati in nomine Christi, obtinent semper quod petunt a Deo: Bellarm. lib. 2. de concilii [...] cap. 2. nimirum sapientiam & lumen quod sufficit eis ad cognoscenda ea, quae ipsis necessaria sunt. Sequitur: itaque siue pauci, siue multi, siue priuati, siue Episcopi congregentur in nomine Christi, omnes habent Christum praesentem, & adiuuantem, & obtinent quod eis conuenit obtinere.
Two or three gathered together in the name of Christ, A point worthy to be marked. do at all times obtaine that of God, which they desire at his handes: to witte, Wisedome and vnderstanding which is sufficient [Page] for them to know those thinges, which are necessarie for them. Therefore whether fewe or many, whether Priuate persons or Bishoppes bee gathered in the name of Christ, they all haue Christes presence, they all haue Christes helpe, they all obtayne that, which is meete and conuenient for them. Thus sayeth our Iesuite. And doubtlesse it is meete for euery one, to know all thinges necessary for his saluation: it can not be denied.
1 Out of these wordes I note first, that whosoeuer are gathered together in Christes name, they all obtayne of GOD so much vnderstanding and knowledge, as is necessarie for Saluation.
I note secondly, that God is as well present in 2 the assemblie of priuate men, as in the Synode of Bishoppes.
I note thirdly, that God helpeth priuate men, 3 and is present with them at all times, euen as hee is with Bishops. Whereupon I must needes inferre, that the thinges concluded by secular persons, See the wordes of Melchior Canus, in the end of this discourse. in their assemblies for matters pertayning to their soules health: doe no lesse proceed from GOD, then doe the Decrees of Bishoppes. And consequently, the Iesuite, will hee, nill hee, must perforce confesse, that priuate, secular, and meere Lay-men, can and may iudge, in matters of Religion: in matters of Faith: in matters concerning their own soules health. And all this is nothing else in deed, but euen that which Christ himselfe [Page 31] hath plainly taught vs. Mat. 18. v. 18. Where two or three (sayth Christ,) are gathered togither in my name, there am I'in the midst of them.
I proue the same doctrine, because Christs sheepe, as Christ the great sheepheard telleth vs, Iohn. 10. v. 4. know his voyce, and follow him, but will not follow a straunger. This place doubtlesse doth conuince. For if the sheepe know the voice of the sheepheard, as Christ saith they do; then must the sheepe perforce, iudge of the voice of the sheepheard. For otherwise it will follow, that a man cannot discerne that which hee knoweth.
Melchior Canus faith plainly, Canus de loc [...] lib. [...]. cap. 8. p. 29. that the holy Ghost teacheth euery one, all things necessarie to saluation. This veritie is confirmed, by an other testimonie of our Lord Iesus: if any man, sayth he, Iohn. 7. v. 17. will do his will, (the will of God,) hee shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speake of my selfe. Loe, the knowledge of Gods word, proceedeth from the doing of his will. But the doing of Gods will pertaineth to all, both great and small, as well to priuate lay-men, as to ecclesiastical persons, though they be the Bishops of Rome. And for this cause, sayth the great Papist Panormitan, (his words you may reade in the sixt chapter of this discourse, Vide. sup. cap. 6) that the iudgement of a meere lay-man, must be preferred before the iudgement of the Pope; if that priuate lay-man haue better reasons, gathered out of the old and new Testament, then are the reasons of the Pope. See the aunswere to the Obiection in the fourth Paragraffe, and note it will.
[Page]To conclude holy Writ telleth vs, that the Bereans did search the Scriptures, Act. 17. v. 11. to see if they were according to Saint Paules doctrine. And let this suffice, for the iudgement of priuat persons, and meerlay-men. Now that all ministers, Archbishops, Bishops, and other pastors of the Church, may iudge of the sense of the holy Scripture, it is a thing so cleare and manifest, as little or nothing need be said thereof. 1. Tim. 1. v. 3. For Saint Paule saith, that Bishops (by which worde he vnderstandeth all the Ministers of the Church,) must haue great care, that false doctrine be not taught. This the Papists freely graunt of Bishops, denying the same in other inferior ministers of the Church. But I will proue the assertion to be verified, of all ministers in generall. First, because 1 Saint Paul committeth the gouernment of the church, to al the ministers in differently, calling them Bishops, that is, ouerseers of the flocke, or superintendents. Take heed (saith he,) to your selues, and to all the flocke, Act. 20. v. 28. ouer the which the holy Ghost hath made you Bishops, or ouerseers. Lo, he tearmeth the Ministers of the citie Ephesus, Bishops. For of one onely citie, there could bee but one onely Bishop, or chiefe Minister. But let vs heare, what a great popish Doctor telleth vs.
Nicholaus de Lyra, hath these expresse wordes: Vos spiritus sanctus posuit Episcopos, Lvr. in Comment. in hunc locum. id est, ministros. Sub nomine enim Episcoporum, intelliguntur alii Ecclesiae ministri. Vnde Episcopus Gracè, superintendens est Latinè. The holy Ghost hath placed you Bishops, that is to say, Ministers. For vnder the name of Bishops, the other Ministers of the church are vnderstoode. [Page 32] Wherefore a Bishop in Greeke, is Superintendent in Latin. Thus writeth Lyra the great papist, whom sir Thomas Moore a famous popish so supposed Martyr, tearmed a great Clearke, and he was so in deed; but our late Romish papists cannot abide, that their Bishops be called Superintendents. Secondly, because 2 Christ himselfe spoke the same wordes to all his Apostles in generall, which he said to Peter in the person of all. Hee made them all Apostles, as well as Peter: they had all equall power, not onely of order, but of iurisdiction also, as well as Peter had the same. This their owne great learned schoole-doctor Victoria, affirmeth to be so. These are his expresse wordes: Victor. de potest. ecclesiae relect. 2. Conc. 3. & 4. p. 84. Apostoli omnes habuerunt aequalem potestatem cum Petro; quam sic intelligo, quod quilibet Apostolorum habuit potestatem Ecclesiasticam in toto orbe, & ad omnes actus ad quos Petrus habuit. All the Apostles had equal power with Peter; which I thus vnderstand, that euerie one of the Apostles had power ecclesiasticall in the whole worlde, and to all those acts to which Peter had the same.
Saint Cyprian hath these expresse wordes: Cyprian. de simplic. Prelat. p. 113. Hoc erant vtique & caeteri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus, pari consortio praediti, & honoris, & potestatis; sed exordium ab vnitate proficiscitur, vt Ecclesia vna monstretur. The same were the rest of the Apostles doubtlesse, that Peter was, endued with equall felowship, both of honour, and of power. But the beginning proceedeth from vnitie, to shew the Church to be one.
The Papists would wrest these wordes, to be restrained onely to the power of consecration. Victor. vbi supra. But hearken I pray you, how the the same doctor confuteth [Page] them. Nec audienda est glossa, dicens hoc debere intelligi, in ordine & dignitate consecrationis▪ non in potestatis plenitudine; vt patere potest ipsam epistolam diui Cypriani legenti. Neither must wee hearken to the Glosse, which sayth that this to be vnderstoode, in the order and dignitie of consecration, not in the fulnesse of power; as it is euident to him, that shall read the epistle of S. Cyprian.
Couart. tom. 1 part 2 § 9. p. 242. Col. 4. prope finem. Couarruuias the Popes famous Canonist, albeit he would very gladly defende the Popes pretensed power, & make only Peters power ordinary and independent; yet can he not deny, that our Lord Iesus gaue equall power to all his Apostles. These are his expresse words: Etenim iuxta Catholicorum virorum authoritates, & communem omnium traditionem, Apostoli parem ab ipso Domino Iesu cum Petro potestatem ordinis & iurisdictionis acceperunt; ita quidem, vt quilibet Apostolorum aequalem cum Petro habuerit potestatem ab ipso Deo, in totum orbem & in omnes actus quos Petrus agere poterat. For according to the authorities of catholike Writers, and the common traditions of all men, the Apostles receyued from our Lord Iesus himselfe, equall power with Peter, both of order and iurisdiction: insomuch doubtlesse, as euery Apostle had equall power with Peter from God himselfe, and that both ouer all the world, and to all actions that Peter could do.
1 Out of these graue testimonies, I note first, that all the Apostles had equall authoritie with Peter.
2 I note secondly, that all the Apostles had power ouer all the world, euen as Peter had.
[Page 33]I note thirdly, that what art soeuer Peter could 3 do, euery other Apostle could do the same.
I note fourthly, that the iurisdiction of euerie 4 Apostle, did extend as farre as Peters did.
I note fiftly, that Christs speaches to Peter in the 5 singular number, did argue no superioritie of iurisdiction, but did onely signifie the vnitie of his Church.
I note sixtly, that the late Bishops of Rome do 6 falsely and insolently arrogate to themselues, plenitudinem potestatis, the fulnesse of power.
I note seuenthly, that all this is cōnfirmed by 7 the opinion of Catholique Writers, and by tradition of all generally. For all these seuen points are expressely contained, (if they bee well marked,) in the authorities alreadie alledged.
The selfe same doctrine is confirmed by the testimonie of Saint Austen, in sundrie places of his workes.
In one place, hee hath these wordes; Aug. in serm. Petri & Pauli apud Canum. Aug. in lib. de agone Christi, cap. 30. tom. 3. Clauses non vnus homo Petrus sed vnitas accepit Ecclesiae.
Not one onely man Peter receyued the Keyes, but the vnitie of the Church.
In an other place, hee writeth thus; Ecclesiae Cutholicae personam sustinet Petrus, & cum ei dicitur, adomnes dicitur; amas me? pasce oues meas.
Peter representeth the person of the Catholique Church: and when it is sayde to him, it is sayde to all: Louest thou mee? Feed my sheepe. This poynt is prooued more at large, in my booke [Page] of motiues.
The third Paragraph.
Although Councels both may erre, and de facto haue erred, as is alreadie proued: yet to auoyd dissention, and to establish peace in the Church; free and godly generall Councels, are and euer haue beene the ordinarie way and meane; to condemne heresies, errours and superstitions crept into the visible Church, and to decide controuersies in Religion; at such times, and in such places, as they could safely and lawfully be assembled, & brought together.
1 I say first, (free and godly generall Councels,) such as were the Councell of Nice, the Councell of Ephesus, the Councell of Constantinople, and the Councell of Chalcedon; which Councels, the Church of Englande doth highly reuerence, and christianly admit, as agreeable to the holy Scriptures; wishing that Councels might this day bee assembled with like freedome, Socrates lib, 1. cap. 6. and called or summoned by the like authoritie. For the Nicene Councell was appoynted by the authoritie of Constantinus surnamed the great, to condemne Arrius, who denied the consubstantialitie of our Lord Iesus the sonne of God, affirming him to bee pure man.
Theodosius the younger called the Councell of Ephesus, Euagrius. lib. 1. cap. 3. to confound the cursed heretique Nestorius; who affirmed▪ Christ to haue two persons, [Page 34] and the blessed Virgin to bee onely [...], the mother of Christ, Sozomen. lib. 7. cap. 7. Theodoret. lib. 1. cap. 7. but not [...] the mother of God. The Councell of Constantinople was called by the authoritie of the Emperour Theodosius the elder, to confounde Macedonius, who denied the diuinitie of the holy Ghost. Sigebertus. an. 386. And the Councell of Chalcedon was assembled at the commaunde of Martianus the Emperour, to condemne Eutiches, who affirmed Christ to haue but one onely nature, after the vnion hypostaticall: albeit hee graunted him to haue had two natures, before the sayde ineffable coniunction. This to be so, most renowmed Historiographers and Chronographers, will testifie with me.
I say secondly, (at such times and in such places, 2 as they might safely and lawfully come togither,) because in these latter dayes, neither can a plenarie and generall Councell meete togither with securitie; neither will the late tyrannizing Bishops of Rome permit that freedome to be their vsed, which hath beene graunted in former times. Hereof none can stand in doubt, that will seriously peruse my booke of Motiues.
The great pillar of Christs Church Saint Augustine, August. epist▪ 162. p. 472. confirmeth this whole discourse in these golden wordes: Putemus illos Episcopos qui Romae iudicarunt, non bonos iudices fuisse; restabat adhuc plenarium Ecclesiae vuiuersale Concilium, vbi etiam cum ipsis iudicibus causa possit agitari; vt si malè iudicasse conuicti essent, eorum sententiae soluerentur.
Let vs imagine, that those Bishoppes which [Page] gaue sentence at Rome, were not good Iudges; there yet remained a plenarie vniuerfall Councell of the Church, where both the cause might be examined, and the Iudges also; that there sentences might be disanulled, if they were found to haue giuen euill iudgement.
Aug. de Baptis. cont. Donat. lib. 1. cap. 7. tom. 7.The same Saint Austen sayeth againe in an other place▪ that great Doctors of the Church thought diuersly of rebaptization, and that without all preiudice of fayth, vntill the question was decided in a plenarie generall Councell. Loe, a free and godly generall Councell, was in Saint Austines time the ende of all controuersies in religion. But now there remayneth a great and most important question: to wit, what remedie must bee sought to appease controuersies, when a free, godly, and lawfull generall Councell can not bee had. To which question aunswere shall bee made, in the Paragraph next following.
The fourth Paragraph.
I haue proued at large in my booke of Motiues, that the decrees of generall Councels in these latter dayes, are nothing else but a meere mockerie and sophisticall subtiltie, to deceyue and delude the Worlde. To which booke I referre the reader▪ that shall expect a larger discourse in this behalfe. I say now for the present, that seeing generall Councels cannot be gathered togither, in such maner and with such freedome, as they haue beene [Page 35] in former times of antiquity; and seeing withall, that some iudges must be designed of meere necessity, to appease, end, and decide, doubts, difficulties, and controuersies in religion, least the Church should be vexed, turmoiled, and swallowed vp, with schismes, heresies, and variety of opinions: euerie Emperour and Empresse, euery King and Queen, and euery other ciuill Magistrate independent, by what title or name soeuer he be called, must before all things haue a vigilant, Christian, and religious care, to settle, establish, and plant, within their kingdomes, Realmes, Precinctes, common weales, territories, and dominions, where they haue the chiefe and independent soueraignty immediately vnder God, the pure and sincere religion of Iesus Christ, and to abandon, extirpate, and vtterly abolish all schismes, heresies, errors, and superstitions whatsoeuer. This hath euer beene the religious care of all godly and zealous Princes, aswell before Christ in time of the olde testament, as since Christ in time of the new testament. Holy Moses tooke the molten Calfe, which Aaron the High Priest to please the people had made, burnt it in the fire, Exod. 32. v. 19▪ 20.21.22.23. bet it to powder, strowed it in the water, and made the people to drinke thereof. He reproued Aaron for his offence, who calling him Lord, laboured with humble obeysance to excuse himselfe.
Iosue commanded the Priestes and Leuits to do all their ecclesiasticall functions, to beare the Arke, Iosue. 5.6. [...] to carry trumpets, to circumcise, to set vp Altars, to offer sacrifice, and to reade the booke of the [Page] law to all the people. yea, the same Iosue was appointed to go out and in before the people, and to leade them out and in, Nomb. 27. v. 17. least the congregation of the Lord should be as sheepe without a Pastor.
King David ordered, disposed, and reformed the Priestes and Leuits, in their offices and functions ecclesiasticall. He appointed how the Arke shoulde be borne; 1. Par. 24. 1. Par. 25. 1. Par. 26. hee ordained Psalmes, Singers, Instrumentes, Officers, and all other things, for the setting forth of Gods true religion and seruice.
King Salomon appointed the Priestes to bring the Arke into the temple: 1. Reg. 8. v. 63. 1. Reg. 4. hee instituted the dedication of the temple: hee offered sacrifice: hee directed the Priestes, Leuites, and other Church officers, as his father had done afore him. He deposed Abiathar the hie Priest, 1. Reg. 2. and placed Sadocke in his roome.
King Iosaphat appointed in Ierusalem Priestes and Leuits, 2. par. 19. and Princes of the Families of Israell, that they might iudge the iudgement and cause of the Lord, to the inhabitantes of the land. And he vsed these expresse wordes vnto them; Sic agetis in timore Domini, fideliter & corde perfecto. Thus shal yee doe in the feare of the Lord, faithfully & with a perfect heart.
4. Reg. 18.King Ezechias tooke away the hie places, brake the images, cut downe the Groues, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent, 2. Par. 29. that Moses had set vppe. He purged the Temple, 2▪ Par. 10. reformed the Priestes, and commanded them to doe their duties, in cleansing themselues and in offering their sacrifices. Hee renued [Page 36] the Passeouer. Hee appointed the courses of the Priestes and Leuites by their turnes, both for the burnt offeringes and peace offeringes, to minister and to praise God in the Temple. 2. Par. 11, He also commanded, that sufficient maintenance should be giuen to the Priestes, that they might be encouraged in the law of the Lord, and not bee intangled with prouision of worldly thinges. And (which is to bee noted, 2. Par. 29. v. 11.) he called the Priestes and Leuites his sonnes, in regard of his royall power and estate, in which respect hee was the Father of all his people: for otherwise, hee was but a Child, and for yeares might haue had many of thē to haue bin his father.
King Iosias brake the Altars of Baalim, 2. Par. 34. destroied the Groues, burnt the bones of the idolatrous Priestes vpon their altars, and purged Iuda and Ierusalem from idolatrie.
This religious care had the noble Emperour Constantine the Great, who, (as reporteth Eusebius, Eusebius Caesariens: de vita Constantini.) thought nothing to pertaine more to his royall charge, then to plant true religion throughout his realmes and dominions. S. Austen proueth the facts and examples of the Kinges of the old Testament, August. epist. 48. ad vincent. to haue beene figures of the new Testament; and consequently, that it is the duty of all kinges in this time of grace, to haue speciall regard to the seruice and true worship of God; to abandon all false worshippe, idolatrie, errors, heresies, and superstition; and to plant the Gospell of Christ Iesus in all the partes of their realmes and dominions.
The same S. Austen in an other place, among [Page] many golden sentences, August. epist. 50. ad Bonifac. (which I now omit in regard of breuitie,) hath these expresse words; In hoc ergo reges seruiunt Domino, in quantum reges sunt, cum ea faciunt ad seruiendum illi, quae non possunt facere, nisi reges.
In this therefore do kinges serue God, as they are kings, when they do hold those things, which none can doe but onelie kinges. Where me must seriously obserue this reduplication of S. Austen, (kings as kings,) as a point of great importance. For kinges (as the same father teleth vs,) serue God two waies: as they be men, and as they be kings. As men, they serue God in liuing a Christian and godly life: but as king, they serue God in making godly lawes, for the punishment of blasphemers, idolaters, heretiks, and all kind of malefactors. And this is that, which S. Austen saith, none can doe but kinges, as rhey are kinges.
Yea, this is that, which the Prophet Esay telleth vs, Esa. 49. v. 23. when he saith, That kinges shall bee the nurcing Fathers of the Church, and Queenes her nurces. For albeit the Ministery of feeding, of preaching the worde, and administration of the Sacramēts pertaine onely to the ministers, neyther may the meere ciuill Magistrate in any wise meddle therewith: yet for all that, it is most true, that the prouision for the foode, the ouersight that the children of God bee duely fed, and that the Ministers doe exercise their functions in vigilant & dutifull manner, belongeth to the ciuill, independent, and absolute Princes. For this respect is it, that kinges and [Page 37] Queenes haue the name of Nurses, not to nourish their children in ciuill matters and corporall foode onely; but as in ciuill, so also in spirituall, that is, In lacte verbi Dei, in the milke of the worde of God. For though the execution pertain to the ministers, yet the prouision, direction, appointment, care, and ouersight (which is the sepreme gouernment,) belongeth onely, soly, and wholy to the Prince, as is already proued.
Now to the question proposed in the former Paragraffe, vz. What remedie is to be had, The aunswere to the question proposed in the third Paragraffe. when a free and lawfull general Councell cannot be had. To this question I answere, that when any controuersies shall arise to the disturbance of the Peace of the church, then euery absolute and independent ciuill Magistrate, must commaund his Archbishop, Bishoppe, and other learned Ministers within his territories and dominions, to come together, and to celebrate a Nationall Councell or Synode, and then and there to debate, discusse, and decide the controuersie in religion. And he must charge them, (as did the religious kinges, Dauid, Salomon, Iosaphat, Ezechias, Iosias, and the rest, of whom mention is already made:) to haue the fear of God before their eyes, and carefully to examine all doubts, difficulties, contentions, and controuersies in religion, according to the infallible rule of the holy scripture. This done, the same ciuill independent magistrate, must call together his wife and graue Counsellers, and after mature deliberation had with thē, confirme whatsoeuer shal tend to the aduancement [Page] of Gods glory, and the peace of his church. And withall, he must publish sharpe penall statutes against all such, as shal with disloyall contumacy violate and transgresse the same. Thus did the good kings Reccaredus, and Constantinus, and this is this day most prudently and christianly obserued, in the church of England, God be thanked for it. For first, 1 the Archbishops, Byshops, and other learned Ministers, come all together in the Conuocation-house, and there dispute, discusse, determine, & set down, what they finde conuenient for the Peace of the Church, and correspondent to the infallible rule of 2 Gods word. Secondly, this done, they present the same to her most excellent Maiesty, most humbly crauing her royall assent for the confirmation therof. Thirdly, her Maiesty after consultation had 3 with her graue Counsellers, doth confirme and authorise by vertue of her royall and princely prerogatiue, whatsoeuer seemeth expedient for the godly gouernment of her louing subiectes, and withall enacteth necessary penall lawes, against the insolent contumacy of seditious and disloyall people.
This godly and most christian maner, of proceeding in religious causes: is so liuely set downe before our eyes, in the honourable fact of the Noble Spanish king Reccaredus, as it is able to penetrate the very heart, and throughly to perswade euery one, that shall ponder the same seriously, and in the feare of God. This religious king Reccaredus in the year of our Lord, 585. cōmāded al the Bishops with [Page 38] in his dominions of Spaine and Galicia, to come together in his royall Citie of Toledo, to confute and condemne the Arrian heresie. When they were come thether, In ipso initio concilii tolet. tertii. the king sate downe in the middest of them, and declared the cause that moued him to call them together. After that hee enacted a publike Edict, for the inuiolable obseruation of all the decrees of the counsell, straitely charging aswell the Clergie as the Laitie, to obeye and keepe the same. Lastly, hee subscribed his owne name, and that before all the Bishoppes, who in their due places subscribed after the king. These are the expresse wordes of the king, set down in the end of the said Edict: Flauius Reccaredus rex, Habentur in a Tomo conciliorum. hanc deliberationem quam cum sancta definiuimus Synodo, confirmans, subscripsi. I Flauius Reccaredus the king, confirming this consultation, which wee haue defined with the holy Synode, haue subscribed thereunto. The next that subscribed after the king, was Mausona the Metropolitane Bishoppe of the Prouince of Lusitania. After him subscribed Euphemius, the Archbishoppe of Toledo. Ecclesiae Emeritensis Metropolitanus. The residue followed in order, as in the Councell is to be seen. These particular subscriptions I note, as a matter of great moment against the Papistes: who will grant no prerogatiue, or royall place to kinges, in time of ecclesiastical Synodes.
Out of these wordes contayned in the kinges subscription, I note first, that the king confirmed 1 the councell. Secondly, that the king subscribed to the Decrees of the Councel. Thirdly, that the king 2 3 [Page] subscribed before all the Bishops. Fourthly, that the king decreed and defined the controuersies, together with the Bishops. To which I adde for the complement in the fift place, that the councell was called, and the Bishoppes assembled, at the kinges commaundement. For so saith the Councell. Cum pro fidei suae synceritate idem gloriosissimus princeps, omnes regiminis sui Pontifices in vnum conuenire mandasset, &c.
When the same most glorious prince for the sincerity of his faith, had commaunded all the Bishops within his dominions, do come together to Toledo, &c.
This was the practise of godly Princes, aboue a thousand yeares ago; when royall Prerogatiues were not brought into thraldome, by popish tyranny.
An Obiection.
The councels which the Emperour called together, were plenary and generall: but those which you speake of, are but Prouinciall or National. The latter may erre, the former are euer directed by the holy Ghost.
The Aunswere.
1 I say first, that generall councels both may erre, and de facto haue erred, as is already proued.
2 I say secondly, that the holy Ghost doth direct two or three gathered together in his name, aswell as he doth a generall councell: which thing I haue already proued.
[Page 39]I say thirdly, that the great popish Archbishops 3 Panormitanus telleth vs, (as is alreadie proued, Gerson. prim. parte, de examinat. doctrinar. consider. 5) that a priuate mans iudgement is better then the Popes. To which I must needes add the wordes of doctor Gerson the Chancellor of Paris, and a renowmed popish writer, which are these: Quilibet homo doctus potest & debet toti concilio risistere, si videat illud ex malitia, vel ignorantia errare. Euerie one that is learned, may and ought to resist and stand against a whole Councell, if hee perceiue that the Councell erreth, either of ignorance, or of malice. Lo, all that I say is true, euen by the popish doctrine. And so no Papist can with reason, denie or gain-say the same. For first, you see by Gersons doctrine, that a generall 1 Councell may erre. Secondly, that a priuate man, 2 both may and ought to withstand the Councell, when the generall Councell would decree agaynst the truth. Thirdly, that lay-men haue euer beene 3 present in Councels, and there deliuered freely their opinions. Which freedome by late popish tyrannie, is this day banished out of the Church. I say fourthly, 4 that Melchior Canus a famous Schoole-doctor and popish Bishop, shall conclude and knit vp this discourse. These are his expresse words; Praestanti quod in se est, Deus fidem ad salutem necessariam non negat. Sequitur; nō. n. vnctio quemcunque simpliciter docet de omnibus, sed quemque de his quae sunt ei propria, & necessaria. Sequitur; concedimus, liberaliter, doctrinam cuique in sua vita & statu necessariam, illi fore prospectam & cognitam, qui fecerit voluntatem dei. Sicut. n. gustus bene affectus, differentias saporum facile discernit, sic animi [Page] optima affectio facit, vt homo doctrinam Dei ad salutem necessariam discernat, ab errore contrario qui ex Deo non est. To the man that doeth what in him lieth, God neuer denieth faith necessarie to saluation. For the vnction doth not simply teach euerie one euerie thing, but it teacheth euerie one so much, as is proper and necessarie for him. And we grant freely, that doctrine necessarie for euery mans life and state, is sufficiently knowne to him, that doth the will of God. For like as the well affected taste, doth easily discerne the differences of sauours or tastes; so doth the good affection of the minde bring to passe, that a man may discerne the doctrine of God necessarie to saluation, from contrarie error which is not of God.
Thus writeth the grauest and rarest Papist for learning, in the vniuersall worlde; and consequently, it is and must be of great force against the Papist, whatsoeuer hath passed from his penne. And I protest vnto thee gentle Reader, that nothing hath more estraunged me from poperie, and set me at defiance with it; then the cleare and perspicuous doctrine, of the best learned and most renowmed Papists. For whosoeuer will seriously peruse, the bookes that I haue published to the view of the world: shall therein find confirmed by the doctrine of the best approued Papists, euery poynt of setled doctrine in the Church of England.
1 Out of these wordes of this learned Papist, I note first, that when S. Iohn saith, the vnction teacheth vs all things, 1. Iohn. 2. v. 27 he meaneth not the difficult questions in [Page 04] Religion, but all such poyntes as are necessarie for euerie mans saluation.
In note secondly, that no man wanteth this knowledge 2 and iudgement of doctrine, but he that is willingly ignorant, and will not applie himselfe to attaine the said knowledge.
I note thirdly, that euerie priuate man, is able to-iudge 3 and discerne true doctrine from falsehoode and error, so farre forth as is requisite for his saluation; as well as a sound and good taste, is able to discerne the differences of tastes. Hereupon I inferre this necessarie cōsequent of popish doctrine, against the Pope himselfe. vz. that many wise, godly, and learned Bishops with other ministers of the church, assembled in a nationall Synode, at the command of their naturall Soueraigne; are able to discerne so much truth from falshoode and error, as is necessarie ether for their owne soules health, or for the publique peace of the Church. God graunt, that this doctrine may take deepe roote in the hearts of the readers: to his glorie, the good of their soules, and the peace of the Church. Amen.
A COVNTERBLAST: AGAINST THE VAINE BLAST OF A MASKED Companion, who termeth himselfe, E. O. but thought to be ROBERT PARSONS, that trayterous Iesuite.
LONDON Printed by Iohn VVindet, for Richard Bankworth, dwelling in Paules Churchyard at the signe of the Sunne. 1603.
To the right worshipfull my approued good friend, Maister John Bennet Doctor of the Ciuill law, and one of her Maiesties Councell in the North partes of England.
IF I shoulde take vppon mee (right worshipfull,) to discourse at large, of the plots, practises, dealings, and proceedings, of our Iesuites and Iesuited persons; time doubtles would sooner faile me, then matter whereof to speake. I haue verie lately published a discourse of this argument, intituled The Anatomie of Popish tyrannie. In it the Reader may view at large, the doctrine, the Religion, the manners, the natures, the conuersation, the practises, and the whole proceedings, of the English traiterous hispanized Iesuites. So that now to recount the same, were actum agere, and a thing altogither needlesse. One of these Iesuites hath lately published a most scandalous and rayling Libell, against the reuerend and learned man of God, master Doctor Sutcliffe: as also agaynst master Willet. In which Libell, the said masked companion terming himselfe E. O. hath obiter disgorged some part of his bitter [Page] gall agaynst my selfe. For the confirmation whereof, (that all the world may see his follie, and consequently the follie of all the Iesuites, who combine and conioyne in this affaire,) I haue addressed this Counterblast; in which the indifferent Reader may plainly behold, that the Iesuites and Seminaries can say nothing in deed, to the doctrine contained in my Bookes; howbeit they bestirre themselues with might and maine, to dazell the eyes of the simple and sillie Papists, that they shall not see the Sunne shining at noone tide. The worke (such as it is,) I dedicate vnto your worship, in token of that gratitude which is due vnto you, for your worships manifold kinde curtesies towardes mee. Accept I pray you the present in good part, not respecting so much the gift, as the minde of the giuer. The Almightie blesse your worship, with manie happie yeares; to his glorie, the good of his Church, and the benefite of your owne soule. From my studie, this 14. of Februarie, 1602.
[Page 43]A COVNTERBLAST, against the vaine blast of a masked Companion, who termeth himselfe E. O. but thought to be Robert Parsons, that trayterous Iesuite.
CAP. I. Of the manner of Iesuiticall Proceeding, in all their seditious and scandalous libels.
THE Iesuites (as the secular Priestes report in their Writinges,) are grieuously offended with them, because they will not consent to their vnnaturall attempts, for inuasions, treacheries, rebellions, & most cruell Spanish conspiracies: wherein themselues being entangled and plunged ouer head and eares, they endeuour to set the Lay-Papistes on like mad dogges, to barke, bite, and deuoure their ghostly fathers, and deare friends. They terme the secular Priestes, Mal-contentes, [Page] factious, seditious, irreligious, Apostataes: yea, knaues, villaines, and rebels (forsooth) to Prince George Blackwell, king Henry Garnet, and Emperour Robert Parsons. And all this is done, for not allowing (say the Priests) of a Trayterous Archpriest, set vp in preiudice aswell of the Church of Rome, as of the common Weale of England. And no maruel, Import. consider. p. 14. seeing, (as the said Priestes doe write,) the Iesuites came into England, by the instigation of the Diuell. These Iesuites make it an vsual practise, to publish scandalous libels, and trayterous Pamphlets, eyther without names at all, or vnder the names of others, or at least by such two letters bare lie, and nakedly, as may bee applied to many indifferently, and no wayes to the true authors of the libels. In which kind of coggery, Robert Parsons the Iesuite (whome the secular Priestes terme a notorious lyer, a brasen faced Fryer, a known cozener, a sacrilegious Bastard, an incestuous villain, a cursed Fairie bratte, and bloudthirsty traytor) seemeth to excell all others. This goodly Fryer Parsons, (of whose sactimony more at large in my Anotomie of Popish tyranny) hath lately published, or caused to be published, a most scandalous libell, against a godly, learned, and very famous man, M. D. Sutcliffe: as also against M. Willet, a very learned and graue Writer. Which rayling Libel, the saide worthy men, as I heare, haue already confuted to the Libellers euerlasting shame and confusion, if he doe not repent in time.
In the saide scandalous libell and ridiculous [Page 44] Pamphlet, the Libeller termeth himselfe E. O. like a masked counterfait Companion, as he is indeed: and doth in the said impudent libell, combine my silly selfe, to my disparagement (as he supposeth,) with those worthy men. But I repute it to my great credite: as who freely acknowledge, that I am altogether vnworthy, to bee coupled with such famous and worthy Writers. That which hee imputeth to me, may iustly and with al facility be retorted against himselfe, as in due place (God willing) shall appeare.
CAP. II. Of the resolution and determination, of the masked Companion, E. O.
THE swaggering diuine, and hote spurmate, E. O. telleth the Reader in his Preface, that hee was once determined to haue adioyned me poor soule, to the vertuous, graue, and famous Writers, M. D. Sutcliffe and M. Willet: but he altered his purpose, (if wee may beleeue him,) for these two respectes. First, for certaine considerations 1 to himselfe well knowne, (as yee must suppose,) but may not in any wise be disclosed to the world. Secondly, because the confutation of my worthy workes, (as hee scoffingly termeth them,) 2 is already vndertaken, and must bee published, if it shall be thought necessary. Thus discourseth this [Page] counterfeit companion, remember well his words. Concerning this determination, I thinke it very expedient to notifie to the Reader, these fiue materiall 1 adiuncts. First, that I published in Print to the view of the world, my booke of Motiues, in the yeare, 1593. my suruey of Popery in the yeare, 1596. and my hunting of the Romish Foxe, in the yeare 1598.
In my Motiues lib. 2. cap. 1.In the first of these Bookes, I offered publike dispute with what Seminarie in England soeuer, no one or other excepted whosoeuer: protesting in the same worke to proceed so sincerely, as if I could by the aduersarie be conuinced, eyther to alledge any Writer corruptly, or to quote any place guilfully, or to charge any author falsly: I would neuer require credite at the Readers handes, neither in that booke, nor in any other.
I protested likewise in the saide book, that if any Papist in England, or else where in Europe, coulde truely and substantially confute the same: I would once again embrace the late Romish religion, thogh I did then, and still do hate and detest the same, as the mortall poyson of my soule.
2 Secondly, that about two yeares after the publication of my Motiues, I did essoones in my Suruey of Popery, challenge all English Iesuites and Seminaries, to aunswere my said Bookes: promising vnfainedlie vnder my hand, that if any of them could yeeld a sufficient answere in their defence, I would doubtles subscribe vnto his doctrine.
3 Thirdly, that all Iesuites and Seminaries, notstanding [Page 45] all the former challenges, haue beene silent aboue eight whole years, and neuer yet durst aduenture to frame any aunswere, to any one of the saide bookes, and to publish the same to the view of the world.
At the last, in the end of the yeare, 1602. a shameles Pamphlet, and scurrilous libell is published, by an odde masked companion, who naming himselfe E.O. hath set a broach, a rude lying hotch-potch of Omnigitherum, I know not well how to tearme it, or what to make of it. But I hope in God to turn it topsie toruie, ere I make an end.
Fourthly, that if the Iesuites or Seminaries, could 5 haue framed any true and sincere answere: nay, any likely or colourable answere, to all, or to any one of the said Bookes: they would haue done it vndoubtedly, and that many yeares ago.
Fiftly, that when the said counterfaite E O. beareth the world in hand, that now at the last in the 4 yeare 1603. the confutation of the said books is vndertaken: he doth but bestirre himselfe with might and maine, to dazell the eyes of the simple Readers and of others, that shall heare thereof: that they may still bee seduced with Popish Legerdemain from time to time, and not behold the Sunne shining at noone tide. Who all must receyue in the end, the iust reward of their folly: euen the flappe of a Foxe tayle. I proue it, by these euident and insoluble reasons. First, because he saith, the confutation must be published, if it shalbe thought necessary. For I pray you, is not this a merry iest? The [Page] Iesuites and Seminarie Priests, haue consulted now for the space of eight yeares fully complete and ended, and haue all that time deuised how to frame some colourable answere at the least, to all or some of the saide bookes: and in the end of the yeare, 1602. haue vndertaken the confutation thereof: but for all that cannot yet tell, whether it bee expedient to publish the said confutation, or no. Oh sweet Iesus? are these men the great Statists of the world? are these men the skilfull Polititians, that must manage all Europe? are these men our learned diuines? are these men they indeed, vppon whose doctrine and guiding all Lay-Papistes doe depend, and on their shoulders doe hang their soules and their saluation? doubtles, they may preach this goodly sermon to Wisemen, and repute themselues for very 2 noddie and starke fooles. Secondly, because after E. O. and his complices haue tossed and turned, volued and reuolued, all the parts of all my books, and played all their trickes, and fetched all their friscoles: their crestes are fallen, their spirites rampant are become couchant, and all that they can deuise to obiect against mee, is nothing else in the world, but one silly falsly so supposed contradiction. For can any Wiseman thinke, if they had any better stuffe, which could better serue their turne, or giue more credite to their cause, or be more likely to satisfie the peoples long expectation: that they would conceale it for my sake, and the loue they beare to me? No, no, (my dearest,) they meane nothing lesse. They will neuer while I liue, publish [Page 46] any such confutation. Their own consciences condemne them, they know they are not able to performe it. I would most gladly, (I protest before God and the world,) once see any such confutatiō during my life: & therfore here once again, I challenge Robert Parsons that trayterous Iesuite, (whom I take to be this masked E. O.) George Blackwell that seditious Arch-priest, as the seculars tearme him: and all other English Iesuites and Seminaries, whosoeuer and wheresoeuer: daring them all to publish the confutation of my saide bookes. They are many in number, and they busie themselues with publishing other needles bookes, Pamphlets, and libels: and consequently, they must of necessitie, and will vndoubtedly, accept of this challenge, now after so many yeares, and after so long consultation, and mature deliberation: aswell for their owne credites sake, as for the consolation of their silly seduced Popelinges, if they dare take the matter in hand. But alas they haue said all they can, and done what they were able possibly to performe.
CAP. III. Of the notorious lies of E. O.
POpe Siricius (as Thomas Bell affirmeth, Preface, p. 10.) was seduced by Satā, published wicked doctrine, and taught the flat doctrine of the diuell. These are the expresse wordes of E. O. whom (as it seemeth) the Diuell did euen then possesse, when hee vttered them. For not one of these words, (taught the flat doctrine of the Deuill,) can bee found in my Suruey, in the place which E. O. hath quoted: but these wordes, which he of purpose did omit: (prohibited marriage as an vnlawfull thing.) This therefore is a notorious, and a most malitious lye. The first lie of E. O. It is a lye in graine, and that a knocker, (to vse his owne words else where:) adorned with the name of the Diuell, to giue the more grace vnto it. And that worthily, because the Deuill is the Architect and chiefe workeman, in that arte and occupation. Where I wish the Reader to obserue seriously, that my proceeding in all my books hath beene such and so sincere, as the aduersaries for the space of eight whole yeares, can but espie one onelie (falsly so supposed) contradiction: neyther that, but by belying mee, [Page 47] and by falsifying my wordes. So then, it is hereby most apparant to all the worlde; that if they had any iust matter agaynst me, they woulde load my backe till my bones should cracke. This is E. O. his first lie.
The second lie of E. O. is contained in these his wordes; P 37. The second lie of E.O. both Bell and Gough giue the lie to maister Sutcliffe, denying prayer to Saints to bee auncient; and Gough to Bell, affirming that it was not knowne, till the yeare of our Lord, 370. For both Origen and Saint Cyprian liued before that time. This is an other notorious lie, as shall bee cleared by an euident demonstration.
I therefore say first, that Vitium Scriptoris, the negligence, ignorance, and ouersight of the Printer, hath beene & often is the cause of many faults extant in my bookes, which I note here once for al, wishing the reader euer to haue the same in remembrance. This is apparant two wayes: first, because this number of 370. should haue beene 350. as is euident by the sixt Canon. Secondly, Suruey. p. 338. for that the number of 274. in my suruey, is otherwise in my booke intituled (the hunting of the Romish Foxe:) viz. 1215. and so the indifferent Reader may easily perceyue, that the calumniation and cauill of E. O. proceedeth of meere malice against the truth.
I say secondly, that the famous popish writer 2 Aquinas, surnamed the Angelicall doctor; will confesse with me against E. O. to his euerlasting shame in this combat. These are his expresse wordes: Aquinas. 2. [...]. q 98. art. 1. ad. 3. Actus morales procedunt a voluntate, cuius obiectum est bonum [Page] apprehensum. Et ideo si falsum apprehendatur vt verum, erit quidem relatum ad voluntatem materialiter falsum, formaliter autem verum. Si autem id quod est falsum, accipiatur vt falsum, erit falsū & materialiter & formaliter. Si autem id quod est verum, apprehendatur vt falsum, erit verum materaliter, & falsum formaliter. Moral actes proceede from the will, whose obiect is good apprehended. And therefore if falshood bee apprehended as truth, it being related to the will shall be false materially, but true formally. But if that which is false be taken as false, it shall be false both materially and formally. But if that which is true be apprehended as false, it shall bee true materially, and false formally.
Againe in an other place, the same Author hath these words: Aquinas 2.2. q. 110. art. 1. Si ista tria cōcurrant, scilicet quod falsū sit id quod enūciatur, & quod adsit voluntas falsum enūciandi, & iterū intētio fallendi; tunc est falsitas materialiter, quia falsum dicitur▪ & formaliter, propter voluntatem falsum dicendi; & effectiue, propter voluntatem falsitatem imprimendi. Sed tamen ratio mendacii sumitur à formali falsitate ex hoc scilicet, quod aliquis habet voluntatem falsum inunciandi. Vnde & mendaciū nominatur ex eo, quod cōtra mentem dicitur. Et ideo si quis falsum enunciet, credens id esse verum, est quidem falsum materialiter, sed non formaliter; quia falsitas est propter intentionem dicentis, vnde non habet perfectam rationem mendacii. id enim quod praeter intentionem dicentis est, per accidens est. If these three things concurre: to wit, that the thing be false which is vttered, and that there be also a will to vtter falshoode, and withall an intention to [Page 48] vtter falshood; then there is falshood materially, because falshood is auouched; and there is falshoode formally, because there is a will to speake falsly; and there is also falshood effectiuely, for that there is a will to imprint falshoode, (in the hearts of others.) But for all that the formalitie of the lie, The formality of a lie. is deriued from the formal falshoode: in that forsooth, that one hath a desire to speake falsly. Whervpō a lie hath the name of this, that it is spoken against the mind. And therefore if any man vtter a falshood, thinking it to be the truth; then is it a lie materiallie, but not formally; because the falshood is beside his intention that speaketh it, and so it hath not the perfect nature of a lie. For that which is beside the intention of the speaker, is meere accidentall.
These are the wordes, and this is the doctrine of that famous Papist, whose workes two Popes Vrbanus and Innocentius, haue confirmed plenitudine potestatis for authenticall. Whatsoeuer therfore proceedeth from this fountaine, the Papists must perforce receiue it, as pure and wholsome water. And for this end I haue imployed my labors, to set down his wordes at large.
Out of these golden wordes and sound doctrine of this graue Writer, a verie learned man in deed, (though elsewhere in sundrie points he sheweth mans imperfections,) I note first, that a man may speake the truth, and yet bee a lier; to wit, when hee 1 thinketh that truth which he vttereth, to be a lie.
I note secondly, that a man may speake falsely, 2 and vtter an vntruth, and yet be no lyer at all. The [Page] reason of both the assertions is euident, by the doctrine of this famous Papist; (whose doctrine herein is also the constant doctrine of Saint Austen, as shortly shall be proued,) Because forsooth, the formalitie of a lie doth precisely and properly consist, in the intention of the speaker. This point is yet more apparant, by these wordes of the selfe same Writer: Si vero aliquis formaliter falsum dicat, habens voluntatem falsum dicendi; licet sit verum id quod dicitur, in quantum tamen buiusmodi actus est voluntarius & moralis, habet per se falsitatem, & per accidens veritatem. Vnde ad speciem mendatii pertingit. If a man shall vtter a falshoode formally, being minded to speake falsly, then although it be true which he sayth, yet seeing such an action is voluntarie and morall, it implyeth falshood per se and of it owne nature, and truth but onely accidentally. And so it reacheth, to the nature of a lie.
This doctrine is confirmed by the testimonie of Saint Austen, that worthie Father and mightie piller of Christes Church. These are his words: Non omnis qui falsum dicit, August. lib. de mendacio. cap. 3. ad Consenti. tom. 4. mētitur si credit aut opinatur verū essequod dicit. Quisquis autē hoc enuntiat, quod vel creditū animo, vel opinatū tenet, etiamsi falsum sit, nō mentitur. Sequitur; ex quo fit, vt possit falsum dicere non mentiens, si putat ita esse vt dicit. quamuis non ita sit; & vt possit verum dicire mentiens, si putet falsum esse, & pro vero enuntiat, quamuis renera ita sit vt enuntiat. Ex animi enim sententia, non ex rerum ipsarum veritate vel falsitate, mentiens aut non mentiens iudicandus est. Potest itaque ille qui falsum pro vero enunciat, quod tamen verum [Page 49] esse opinatur, errans dici & temerarius; mentiens autem non recte dicitur, quia cor duplex cumenunciat, non habet, nec fallere cupit sed fallitur. Not euerie one that vttereth a falshood, is a lier, if he beleeue or thinke that to be true, which he saith. For whosoeuer saith that, which he either beleeueth, or thinketh in his heart, although it be false, yet doth he not lie. Wherevpon it commeth, that one may vtter a falshood, and bee no lier, if he thinketh it be as he sayth, though it bee not so in deed. And likewise that one may speake the truth, and be a lier, if he thinke it be false, and vttereth it for a truth, though in very deed it be as hee saith. For one must be iudged a liar, or not a liar, of his owne mind and meaning, not of the veritie or falsehoode of the things in themselues. He therefore that affirmeth falshoode for truth, which hee thinketh to bee the truth, may truly bee saide to erre, and to bee temerarious: but hee can not rightly be called a lyar, for that hee hath not a double heart when hee vttereth the falsehoode, neither desireth to deceyue others, but is deceyued himselfe.
I note thirdly, that it is impossible for mee to 3 haue giuen the lie, to the reuerend, worthie, and godly learned man, maister Doctor Sutcliffe; as E. O. that shamelesse calumniator, doeth most impudently affirme. The reason is euident, if the foundation which Saint Austen and Aquinas haue laide, bee well remembred; because forsooth, I published my Suruey manie yeares before maister Doctor Sutcliffes newe chalenge, whereof E. O. [Page] speaketh in his Detection. And consequently, I could not haue any intention (as the world knoweth,) once to thinke of that future challenge, which then was not in esse; much lesse coulde I haue intention to giue the lie, to that reuerende and woorthie man, for anie thing conteyned in the same.
4 I note fourthly, that the foule-mouthed swaggering Diuine E. O. is both materially and formally an impudent liar in verie deede. I proue the same many wayes.
1 First, because he doth not onely auouch a falshoode, but also hath a minde and intention so to do; wherein consisteth the formalitie of a lie, and without which none can be a liar, as is already proued. But this sillie Diuine E. O. who so bestirreth himselfe to giue the lie to others, seemeth not to vnderstand or know what a lie is in verie deed: but hath neede to goe againe to the Schoole, to learne the true nature and essence thereof.
2 Secondly, because I affirme the verie selfe same thing in effect, which maister Gough doth affirme; who for all that, (as this impudent lyar E. O. auoucheth, but with a brazen face,) doth giue the lie to me. For I proue and shew by degrees, how late popish inuocation of Saintes crept into the Church, and I haue put downe seuen Canons with six conclusions to that effect. In the fourth Canon, I proue that in the dayes of Origen, the first seede of inuocation of Saints began to be sowne. In the fift Canon, I proue that about twentie years after Origen, [Page 50] it became a setled doctrine, which in the dayes of Origen was but opinatiue and disputable. In the sixt Canon, I proue that about an hundred yeares after Saint Cyprian, some of the Fathers by Rhetoricall apostrophees, did applie their Orations to the dead, as if they had beene liuing. Who though they did but inuocate the Saints figuratiuely, and of a certaine excessiue zeale; yet did such their inuocations minister occasion to the Papists, of all their superstition in that behalfe. And in my aunswere to an obiection of the seuenth Canon, I say plainely, that late Popish inuocation had in the yeare 400. after Christ, gotten deepe roote in the hearts of the vulgar sort. Whereupon it is most apparant to all indifferent Readers, that the swaggering Diuine E. O. is condemned in his owne conscience, when he affirmeth maister Gough to be opposite to mee, touching my doctrine of inuocation of Saints. For I doe affirme vniformely with maister Gough, that inuocation of Saints was in some degree, euen in the dayes of Saint Cyprian, and of Origen afore him. Albeit I truly say withall, that it tooke not deepe roote in the peoples hearts, for many yeares after them.
I note fiftly, that maister Doctor Sutcliffe, (if I 5 bee not deceyued,) doth by the auncient Church vnderstande the primatiue Church, which is most truly and properly called the ancient Church. VVhich Church doubtlesse, knewe no Popish inuocation of Saintes, as I haue proued in my Suruey. For aunswere to which booke, or to any [Page] of the rest, published now many yeares ago, neither this hote-spurre mate E. O. nor any other English Iesuite, or Iesuited Seminarie, dare for their lugges encounter with mee. So then, there is a sweet harmonie, but no discord at all: in the writings of maister Sutcliffe, of maister Gough, and of my selfe.
P. 44. The 3. lie of E.O.In an other place, this Libeller sayth, that I holde auricular confession, to haue beene established in the yeare 254. and doe but proue it by my bare worde onely. This is a lie with a witnesse. For I haue proued it in the second booke of my motiues, and that by the testimonie of Iosephus Angles a Popish Frier and Bishop of Bosana, Lib. 2. cap. 9. conclu. 5. euen in the second to me of that worke, which he dedicated to the pope himselfe Sixtus Quintus. These are the expresse wordes; Ios. Angles in 4. s. q. de cōses. P, 255. Ante Concilium Later. erat Haereticum negare necessitatem confessionis, negantes tamen non erant Haeretici. Ratio est, quia nondum erat ab Ecclesia declaratum. Before the Councell of Lateran, it was hereticall to denie the necessitie of confession: but they were not Heretiques that denied it. The reason is, because the Church (of Rome) had not declared it, to be an article of faith.
In the said second booke of Motiues, in the ninth Chapter and fift conclusion, the Reader shall finde these expresse wordes: Albeit popish auricular confession be so magnified with Papists, that euerie one is commaunded vnder paine of damnation to beleeue the same, as instituted by Christ himselfe; yet was it not an article of popish fayth, for the space of one thousand and fiue hundred yeares after Christ. [Page 51] These are my expresse wordes in that place.
Here I heartily desire all people that are careful of their saluation, especially such as are deuoted to the Iesuites: and I craue it for the tender mercy of God in the bowels of Christ Iesus, to marke attentiuely what I shall sincerely deliuer, as I will answere God at the dreadfull day of generall doome.
I therefore say first, that the author of this lewde Pamphlet, and scurrilous libell, intituled the detection 1 of vntruthes, who concealeth his name not daring to auouch it to the world, (but seemeth to be Robert Parsons the Iesuite, alias Bastard Cowbucke, expelled out of Baliol Colledge in Oxford, for his illegitimation, libelling, and factious dealing, who will affirme or denie anie thing, as his owne deare brothers the secular Priestes write of him,) hath incurred the censures of their church, and is become an excommunicate person, for publishing this lewde libell and slaunderous Pamphlet. I proue it, because the generall councell of Lateran celebrated in the yeare 1515. prohibiteth vnder the paine of excommunication, to print or cause to be printed, any booke or scripture whatsoeuer, in any Cittie or Diocesse wheresoeuer, vnles the same be first diligently examined by the Bishop of the same Diocesse, or by his Deputie, and subscribed by their owne hand. And it will not serue the Iesuites turne, to say or pretend for his excuse, that the pope hath dispenced with their sect, to print bookes and libels at their pleasure. For a generall councell hath power to make constitutions, [Page] which the Pope is bound to obey: but the Pope hath no such power ouer the councell, to which he is and must be subiect. This doctrine is flatly decreed, in two famous popish generall Councels, Constance and Basill. Yet to this day was it neuer heard of in the world, that an inferiour could make lawes to tie his superior, or by his owne power exempt himselfe or others, from the obedience hee oweth to the lawes of his superior.
I say secondly, that this shameles Iesuite must 2 of necessitie, condemne himselfe in his own conscience, when he sayeth, that I affirme auricular confession, to haue been established in the yeare 254. and l proue it by an euident demonstration. For, though I made mention of the time in three seueral bookes: to witte, in my Motiues, in my Suruey, and in my hunting of the Romish Foxe: yet did I that but obiter in the two latter bookes, referring the Reader to my first Booke, that is, to my Booke of Motiues. In which booke I handled the question indeede, and decided it by popish approbation: there affirming in expresse wordes, that Popish auricular confession was not an article of Popish faith, for the space of one thousand & fiue hundred yeares after Christ. Which number is set down without figures in that place, and so lesse subiect to falshood, or corruption. But in the other bookes the number is put downe in figures, and so more easily subiect to alteration: especially, seeing my self was distant from the Presse, well neare two hundred miles.
[Page 52]I say thirdly, that to obiect to me my reuolt from 3 falshood, and my returne to God with remorse for mine errours, which this libeller recounteth for want of better matter: doth nothing else but argue his owne imperfection, and insufficiency to defend the matter hee tooke in hand.
CAP. IIII. Of the finding out of the endes of the Gordian knot.
I Say first, that Gordius as stories doe relate, was first a poore 1 husbandman, and afterwarde elected to be the king of Phrygia, by the oracle of an Idoll, who being made king, caused his yokes to be hanged vp in the temple of Iupiter, and the cordes to bee knit in such knots, that it seemed a thing impossible, to vntie or loose the same.
I say secondly, that this masked libeller, E. 2 O. or if ye will Parsons that trayterous Iesuite, seemeth greatly to fauour Gordius his knot: because forsooth, as Gordius by the helpe of an Idol, became of a poore husbandman a mighty Prince: so hee by treasonable plottinges with the King of Spaine (forsooth,) one day of a poore Fryer to be made the Viceroy of England. For which end he bestirreth himself, to deuise such knots of bloudy [Page] treacheries, as hee thinketh mans power not able to resist or vntie.
3 I say thirdly, that all the difficultie in vntying this knot, consisteth precisely, and specially in this: because▪ forsooth, I say in my Suruey, that the Bishops of Rome were godly men till S. Austens time, and long after him; and yet withall, I doe charge Pope Siricius to haue published wicked doctrine, and Pope Sozomene to haue falsified the councell of Nice. This is the knot, that as our Iesuite E. O. thinketh, cannot bee vntied. If I can find out the endes of this knot, a more large subiect (saith he,) must be prouided for my learning to worke vpon. A worthy reward of so mighty a Personage, for the vnfolding of one silly knot. Well, I vndertake in Gods name, to find out the ends of this knot: expecting that E. O. will for his credites sake, performe his promise made herein. For the clearing of which difficultie, and vnfolding of which knot, I desire the gentle Reader 1 to obserue these pointes with me. First, that it is one thing to publish wicked doctrine; an other thing, to teach wicked doctrine publikely. The case is cleare and euident.
2 Sccondly, that Ministers of the Church may be called godly men, either in respect of their publike doctrine and preaching, or in regard of their good life, and holy conuersation. For this cause did our Sauiour Christ commaund the people to obserue and doe, Mat. 23. v. 3. whatsoeuer the Scribes and Pharisies did preach vnto them, but not to doe after their [Page 53] works. And he added the reason thereof, because saith Christ, they say & do not. Lo, Christ reputeth the Scribes and Pharisies, both godly and wicked men. Godly, in respect of their publike doctrine: wicked, in regard of their sinful liues. For doubtles, Christ did not commaund the people to obey wicked men, as they are wicked, but as they are godly: that is to say, as they deliuered godly doctrine to them. Euen so do I say of Pope Siricius and Pope Sozimus, that they were godly Bishoppes in respect of their publike doctrine, as who neyther taught nor decreed publikely, any materiall point of doctrine, contrarie to the doctrine of S. Peter. This aunswere is confirmed, by the vsuall practise of all Papistes euery where. For they terme euery Bishop of Rome, their holy Father the Pope. And this notwithstanding, they freely graunt, as I haue proued in my booke of Motiues: that one Pope entered into the Popedome, as a Foxe: raigned in it, as a Wolfe: and died out of it, as a dogge. That an other Pope gaue himselfe to the Diuell, that so the diuell might effect his designements. They also graunt, that euery Pope may erre in his priuate person, and become an Heretike, an Idolater, an Atheist, and whatsoeuer els. And so they cannot all be termed holy Fathers, in respect of their liues, or personall doctrine taught priuate lie. They must therefore terme them holy, in regard of their publike doctrine, agreeable to the doctrine of their predecessors: though they be very often wicked, in respect of their liues and conuersations. So were Siricius [Page] and Sozimus good Popes, secundum quid, but not simpliciter. Thirdly, it is the vsuall course of holy Scripture, to speake of many, as of all: to terme all wicked, when the greater part is wicked: and all godly, when the greater part is godly. This is the constant doctrine both of S. Austen, Aug. de vnit. eccl. cap. 12. Canus de locis. p. 137. and of your renowmed Papist Melchior Canus. But because your Cardinall Bellarmine is the mouth of all Papistes, I am content to set downe his expresse wordes, so to stoppe your mouthes at this time. These are your Cardinals wordes: Neque mouere nos debet, quod Esaias loqui videatur ita generatim, vt omnes homines comprehendat. Bellarm. de iustific. cap. 20. col. 2235· Est enim iste scripturae mos, vt loquatur de multis, quasi de omnibus. Neither ought it to moue vs, that Esay seemeth to speake so generally, as if he comprised all. For it is the manner of the scripture, so to speake of many, as of all.
I say fourthly, that I speake of the Popes vntill 4 S. Austens time and long after, not generally, but in indefinitely: and consequently, my words are and must be true, notwithstanding the bad dealing of Siricius and Sozimus.
I say fiftly, that 18. Bishops at the Nicene councel 5 were of a different opinion from the rest, & yet are the decrees termed the decrees of the Bishops ingenerall. So in your last councell of Trent, the decrees are published vnder the names of the Bishops there: and for all that, there were three Bishops that would not agree thereunto.
6 I say sixtly, that the Iesuites and Seminaries are at their wits end, and know not in the world what [Page 54] to aunswere to my bookes. The reason is euident to euery childe: for that now after many yeares, they can finde out nothing at all in any of my Bookes, sauing one onely contradiction falsly so supposed. And yet to make a faire shew of something, they haue hudled vp, and iumbled together, three places far distant one from another. Which supposed contradiction, if it were as they imagine, would be too deare of a button. If they could haue picked out of all my bookes▪ any one thing of moment; they would not for shame haue published in a printed Booke, such a silly obection as this. But the truth must preuaile, and wil haue the vpper hand. I doubt not, but all indifferent Readers will be better perswaded hereafter, to belieue the doctrine contained in my bookes: especially, seeing the aduersaries can say nothing against them in so many yeares: but onely, that I haue contradicted my selfe, in saying in one place, that the Popes were godly men till S. Austens time, and in an other place, that two Popes were wicked men. For besides that, this is so sufficiently cleared many wayes, as the indifferent Reader cannot but perceiue the same: it must needes bee most apparant to the world, that if the Iesuites or Seminarie Priestes, could frame any colourable answere to all my bookes, or to any of them: they would not doubtles passe ouer with silence, all the Articles of Popish faith, with the confutation therof set downe in my bookes, and busie themselues about one onely silly contradiction: and that no [Page] contradiction indeed, but as they falsly or rather malitiously pretend vnto the Reader. Where the Reader, (if he be wise and indifferent,) must perforce condemne them and their religion, in that they dare not aduenture to encounter with my doctrine, which doth touch them and their holy father the Pope so narrowly, that many perceyuing it, haue renounced both him, them, and their religion. And I nothing doubt, but these silly euasions and poore shiftes, which they are driuen vnto: will be a meane vnder God, to cause many moe to renounce all Popish faction, euery day more then other.
To shew the insufficiency of the Iesuites and Seminaries, and that they know not possibly what to say, or how to deale concerning the aunswering of my bookes: I haue thought good to insert in this place, the wordes of a letter, which the Prouinciall of the Iesuites in England Henry Garnet by name, addressed to his fellowes being then in consultation, how to frame some kind of answere to my bookes. These are the expresse wordes of his letter, which by a friend of mine came very lately to my hands.
The wordes of the Iesuite Garnets letter, sent to the rest of his fellowes.
COncerning the answere to the wrangler, I am euen as I was before, vncertain, what were expedient. The man desireth nothing but wrangling; and besides that which I feare most, is that which I [Page 55] haue seene by experience in other his writings, that is, exceeding and outragious choller. Whereby he will be moued to vtter, not only al imperfections which he knoweth of our fellowes, but also those things which ought to be most surely sealed vp, the man being past all grace and shame. Neuerthelesse for this matter, as you shal al agree, for I doubt not, but so many and such will see what is best. If it bee done, it must be verie short, and rather made to describe the man, then to vnfold at large his doctrine. For if it bee long, neither the time, nor commoditie of transporting vp and down, nor the securitie of doing it can be correspondent. That shall bee done on my part, which may be. This gentle Reader, is there whole narration, which (for the exact examination and confutation thereof,) I will repeate by particular members, one after an other, euer adding a particular seuerall answer to the same.
The Iesuite.
Concerning the answere to the wrangler, I am euen as I was before, vncertaine what were expedient.
The Answere.
To these wordes I answere first, that the Iesuites 1 haue beene long buzzing about an answere to my bookes, and haue vsed as great speede therein, as hee that shoulde driue a snaile from Paris to Rome. For after my bookes haue beene eight or [Page] nine yeares in their handes, and vnder their malicious censure; they are still at the same poynt, where they began. That is to say, they neither haue made, neither can they make any answere to my bookes.
2 I answere secondly, that though the Papists be greatly troubled about my bookes, and doe often consult among themselues, how to frame some aunswere therevnto: yet can they not this day tell, what is expedient for them to doe in that behalfe. But euery wise man can easily discerne, that if the truth were on their side, and that they could confute the doctrine laid downe in my bookes, they would vndoubtedly performe the same.
The Iesuite.
The man desireth nothing, but wrangling. And besides, that which I feare most, is that which I haue seene by experience in other his writings: that is, exceeding and outragious choller.
The aunswere.
1 To these wordes I answere first, that if I did but wrangle, they might with facilitie haue aunswered me so, many yeares ago 2 Secondly, that the Priestes and Iesuites are of a verie shallow iudgement, and small reach; if they can not tell in eight whole yeares, what to answere to a wrangler, or wrangling disputation. 3 Thirdly, that the Iesuite (as is confessed alreadie,) can not yet tell, what is expedient to [Page 56] be done in that matter. Whereupon it followeth of necessitie, that it is a matter of great moment, and of no smal importance. For otherwise, a man of rare wisedome, and deepe iudgement, (such as our Iesuites vsually be, especially those Iesuites, who are elected to be prouincials, and rulers of all others within a whole Prouince,) could not but know in much lesse time, then 8: or 9. yeares: what were fit, meete, & expedient to be done, concerning the answering of my bookes. And yet, as this great father of wisdom freely granteth, he is still as vncertain as he was afore, what aunswere were best to be made. 4 Fourthly, that our father Iesuite lieth flatly vpon his head, when he saith, that hee feareth nothing more, then my exceeding and outragious choller. For first, he and his brethren do not spare at all, to write against their owne brethren the secular Priests; who shew more choller in one leafe of paper, then I haue done in all my Bookes. Againe, he and the other Iesuites doe disgorge more choller agaynst the Seculars, in the least page they haue written, then my selfe haue done in all my bookes. Hereof none can be ignorant, that shal seriously peruse my booke, intituled the Anatomie of Popish tyrannie.
The Iesuite.
Whereby he will be moued to vtter, not onely vll imperfections which he knoweth of our fellowes; but also those things, which ought to be most surely sealed vp.
The Answere.
I answere first, that hereby euerie one may see, that the Iesuites and their fellowes, are full of notorious imperfections, which they feare shall be made 2 knowne vnto the world. Secondly, that if the Iesuites be guiltie in their own consciences, of greater crimes & offences, then the secular Priests haue discouered to the world; then certes, they are so farre from being Saints, that they are more like the Diuels 3 of hell. Thirdly, that they haue damnable practises among them, which must be sealed vp, and not be made knowne vnto the world. But hereof Watson the secular Priest, seemeth to haue spoken sufficiently in his Quodlibets. My book of Anatomie, will tell them more. Fourthly, that the Iesuite doth vnawares, 4 confesse me to be an honest man. For, it must needes bee the part of an honest man, to speake nothing of his enemie; but onely that, which he knoweth to be true.
The Iesuite.
The man being past all grace and shame.
The Answere.
1 I say first, that it is no maruaile, if this lewde Iesuite write thus of me to his felowes couertly; seeing both hee and his fellowes write most bitterly and [Page 57] impudently, against their owne brethren the secular Priests, men of better deserts by many degrees then themselues. 2 Secondly, they are arrant traitors, cruell murderers, impudent lyars, notorious coozeners, full of enuie, pride, malice, and all vices vnder heauen, as the secular Priests write of them; and consequently, this Iesuites tongue can not, or at least ought not, to be of credite against any man. 3 Thirdly, all that this rayling impudent companion can truly say of me, is nothing else in deede, but that I haue renounced lately inuented popish Religion. For the olde Roman religion practised in the primatiue church, I allow and defend in al my bookes, and will perseuere in the same God willing, vnto my liues ende. It is the superstition and Idolatrie of latter yeares, crept into the Church of Rome by little and little, (the originall whereof I haue proued in my booke of Suruey, agaynst which proofe this proude Iesuite can say nothing,) that I impugne, & condemne in all my writings. 4 Fourthly, this rayling fellow hath graunted alreadie, that I will vtter nothing of them but known truths; & consequently, I must haue some grace and honestie left by his owne confession.
The Iesuite.
Neuerthelesse for this matter, as ye shall all agree. For I doubt not, but so manie, and such, will see what is best.
The Answere.
Loe, they that haue consulted, how to answere my bookes; are not onely many in number, but also of the best iudgement and reputation among them. For you heare his wordes; (so many and such, will see what is best.) And yet these men, so many and so worthie, haue not in so many yeares, found out any answere to my bookes. But as he truly sayth, they see what is the best to be done. As if he should haue said; the best is, to passe ouer the matter with silence, as wee haue done heretofore. For his doctrine is sound, grounded vpon the Scriptures, Councels, Fathers, and the practise of the ancient Church: and we are not able to gainsay the same. It is better to sit still, then to rise vp and fall.
The Iesuite.
If it be done, it must be verie short, and rather made to describe the man, then to vnfold at large his doctrine. For if it belong, neither the time, nor commoditie of transporting vp and downe, nor the securitie of doing it, can be correspondent. That shall be done on my part, which may bee.
The answere.
1 I say first, that here the Iesuite graunteth vnawares, that he and his felowes are but wranglers, and flat coozeners; as who will post ouer the aunswere to my bookes with cunning shifts, and impudent [Page 58] leasinges, not daring to intermeddle with my doctrine. For ye see, hee putteth a caueat, not to vnfolde my doctrine. But it is the doctrine indeede, that they should vnfold, and not to stand vpon the person of the man. But the doctrine is, Noli me tangere: they dare not deale with it. I say secondly, 2 that they said before, I was a wrangler, and therefore they would not, or list not, to deale with mee. But now, they thinke it better to reuile my person, then to dispute against my doctrine. Truth is, they list to deale with neyther of hoth; and for this cause is it, that whatsoeuer be done herein, must be very short. That forsooth, they may send it vp and down from one place to another secretly, as they did this letter; and tell their silly seduced Popelinges, that they haue done this and that, & I cannot tell what. But plaine dealing were better. Farewell gentle Reader.