The first Conclusion.

THe popes pardons are too too foolish, as which are repugnant to common sense and reason. My proofe standeth thus: all re­laxations beeing larger then any man liuing or dead doth or can need, are too too foolish, but the popes pardons are such: ergo the popes pardons are to to foolish. The consequence is good, and the consequent directly and truelie inferred vpon the premisses, as which is in prima figura, and modo darij, as the Logicians terme it: the proposition is so euident, as none can or will denie the same: so the difficultie resteth onely in the assumption, vvhich I proue three seue­rall waies.

First, by the huge and infinite numbers of pardons, hanged vp in pardoning tables at the pillars of euerie church for the most part in Rome. which not onelie my selfe haue seene and read, but manie thousand besides me.

Secondlie, by pardons conteining manie thousand yeares, ex­pressely set downe in olde English primars: vvhereof the papistes seeme novv at length so ashamed, that the like is not to be found in the nevv tridentine primars.

Thirdly, by a litle pamphlet of the marueilous things of Rome, which is commonlie to be sold euerie where, one of vvhich I brought from thence my selfe, and haue at this houre. For in all these three, pardons are graunted prodigallie, (I would say charitably,) for ma­nie thousands of yeares. yea, in the litle romish pamphlet to omitte other churches, are graunted euerie day to S: Iohn Euangelistes church, 6048. yeares of pardon. Novv, least any be so sottish as to imagine; that a man can neede so manie yeares of pardon: that I vvill disprooue sundrie vvaies.

First, because it is against the holy scripture, that any man should liue so long.

[...]

The daies of our yeares in thē 70. and if they be of strēgth 80. yeares. [Page 20] vvhich vvords saint Hierome glosseth in this maner:

Vbi sunt mille anni? in feptuaginta annis contracti sumus, si autem multum, octoginta. Si autem plus vixerimus, i am non est vita sed mors. Hier. in psa. 99

VVhere are the thousand yeares (that they liued of old?) vve are novv brought to seaventie yeares, and if vve endure long, to eightie. but if vve liue longer, then is it not life but death.

2 Secondlie, because no man can abide so long in purgatorie. And least some papist replie, and say, that one may be so long in purga­torie, I vvill prove mine assertion by the best popish doctors. Bellar­minus in his defense of the pope thinketh that opinion verie proba­ble, Bellar. lib. 3. de Rom. pont. cap. 3. vvhich holdeth, that the vvorld shall not henceforth endure a­boue 400. yeares at the most. And of his opinion are great learned men, Ireneus, Iustinus, Lactantius, and others. yea Saint Augustine and S. Hierome, are not dissonant from that supposition. the Thal­mudistes likevvise had a prophesy of Elias, as they say: that the world should continue 6000. yeares, to vvit, 2000. before the lavv, 2000. in the lavv, and 2000. after the lavv: that is, from Christes incarna­tion vntill the second aduent, or doomesday. Dominicus Soto cō ­menting vpon the maister of sentences, holdeth as a stable and con­stant ground, that no soule in purgatorie abideth the paines there­of aboue ten yeares. and doubtles, if the popes pardons [...] Soto in 4. lib. Petr. Lom­bardi. dist. 19. quaest, 3. arg. 2 vvere of force. So to his opinion could not be false. the reason ther­of is evident, because all that vvill may vpon small sute (if not vvith­out sute,) haue not only for themselves but for their friendes also, so many thousands of pardons as they shall desire: vvhich liberali­tie in pardoning, pope Gregorie bestovved on our disloyal captaine Stukeley, vvhen he imploied him to invade his naturall countrey England. but as the pardons vvere counterfaite, and Stukeleys heart disloiall: so vvas the Popes intention frustrate, and Stukeley revvarded accordingly: that is, iustly slaine for his proud attempt, vvhile my selfe vvas at Rome.

The 2. Conclusion.

THe vertue and efficacie of Popes pardons is so vncertaine and doubtfull, and that euen amongest the greatest popish doctors: as themselves can not tel, vvhat in the vvorld to say or thinke ther­of. This conclusion I proue thus: Angelus de Clauasio a famous ca­nonist and religious Frier, reciteth 6. severall and dissonant opini­ons Angelus de indulgentia. concerning the vertue of pardons, and after hee hath confuted them all, he setteth dovvne the seaventh for his ovvne, and the best, vvhich as hee sayth is true, it is therefore no doubt substantiall, as shortlie shall bee seene. The first opinion (saith our holie Frier,) holdeth that the Popes pardons onely remit that punishment, [Page 21] which God appointeth to be imposed in another worlde, for a supplie unto those, who have done penance onely according to the Canons, but doeth in no case remit that penance, which is imposed and taxed by the Canons. The second opinion holdeth, that the Pardons onely forgive that penance, which is taxed by the law and penitentiall Canons; but not that paine, which Gods justice ap­pointeth to be imposed. The third opinion holdeth, that Pardons forgive paine due for sinne, aswell before God as before his Church: but this opinion addeth a clause so sharpe, as our holy Father doeth not brooke it, to wit, that the Pope is bound to do penance, for that person whome he pardoneth. The fourth opinion holdeth, that the paine of hell is partly remitted by the Popes pardons, as which becommeth thereby more tollerable. The fift opinion holdeth, that that penance onely is pardoned, which the partie omitted of negligence, not of purpose or contempt. The sixt opinion holdeth, that the Popes pardons remit not onely pe­nance imposed by the Priest, but that also which is taxed of God: marrie this opinion hath one limitation, which forsooth is this: that the Priest must be content therewith, or else the Pope can not worke his will. The seventh opinion holdeth, that Popish pardons forgive, and are woorth so much, as the wordes of the Pardons do sound: that is to say, if the Pardons containe an hundred thousand yeeres, then the partie obteining such pardons at the Popes handes, must have remission of so many yeeres. Thus gentle Rea­der standeth the doctrine of Popish pardons, amongst the greatest Doctors of that faction. He that listeth to peruse the place quoted by me out of Angelus, shall finde every thing as I have set it downe. The rehearsall of the varietie and uncertaintie of these opinions, is a most sufficient confutation of the same. Sylvester Prieras a great Sylvester de indulgent. Thomist, and sometime Master of the sacred pallace, reciteth three severall opinions, and disliking them all, setteth downe the fourth for the trueth. Antoninus sometime the Arch-bishop of Florence, alledgeth three opinions, and scarce knoweth which of them he should preferre. Bellarminus in his written disputations abridged by Robert Persons his brother Iesuite, defendeth and approoveth another opinion plaine opposite to all yet rehearsed, and maketh in deede the Popes pardons not woorth a button: which is the cause (as I probably coniecture,) that the third and last part of his disputations, is not permitted as yet to come abroade: and either will never be published, or wholly omitted, or at least changed be­fore it come abroad. The Councell of Trent speaketh very slender­ly and coldly, of the Popes pardons.

The third Conclusion.

TO give pardons as the Pope doeth, is a straunge and newe doctrine of a most damnable Religion, which neither Christ nor his Apostles ever taught or practised. This I will proove, as I doe other things, by the expresse testimonies of the Popes owne renowmed Doctors: that so all the worlde may perceive and beholde, Papistrie confuted and confounded, by papistrie it selfe. Sylvester reputed, and as it were surnamed absolutus Theologus, hath these verie wordes:

Indulgentia nobis per Scripturam minimè innotuit, licet induca­tur illud Apostoli, (si quid donavi vobis,) sednec per dicta antiquorum Sylvester de indulg. Doctorum, sed modernorum.

The Popes pardons (saith the Popes owne deare Doctor,) were never knowen to us by the Scriptures, although some alleadge Saint Paul for that purpose: neither were they knowen by the auncient Fathers, but onely by late writers. Antoninus in his first part hath the verie wordes alreadie cited, and holdeth the selfe same opinion with fryer Sylvester. Petrus Lombardus, who with great diligence collected into one volume, all worthie sen­tences of the auncient fathers: and therefore was surnamed the Master of sentences, maketh no mention of the Popes pardons at all; as which he could not finde, notwithstanding his painefull Antoninus part. 1. rit. 10. cap. 3. Lombardus: could not find the Popes pardons in the holy fa­thers. industrie imployed in that kinde of exercise. For as Sylvester tru­ly writeth, the olde writers were not acquainted with any such thing. The like may be said of S, Cyprian, S. Augustine, S. Hie­rome, Nazianzene, and others of antiquitie: for which cause Durand, Caietain, and sundrie other schoolemen, affirme the popes manner of pardoning, to be a newe thing in the Church of God. Neither can Dominicus Soto deny the same indeede, al­beit he busieth him selfe more then a little, in the Popes defence if it would be. Yea, the originall of popish pardoning is so very young, as their famous martyr and bishop, M. Fisher in his aun­swere to M. Luthers articles: was enforced to admit the newnesse and young age of the same, and to yeeld this reason in defence Soto in 4. sent. dist. 21. quaest. 1. art. 3. Roffensis contra artic. Luther. thereof: to wit, that purgatorie was not so well knowne at that time to the Church, as it is nowe. which saying I weene is true indeede, because purgatorie and pardous were not heard of in olde time, and nowe onely knowen by vaine, grosse, and sensu­all imaginations. O worthie pardons? O brave purgatorie? O holy pope of Rome? what stronge reasons, what forcible argu­ments, what grave authorities, are alleadged in your behalfe? [Page 23] Let us heare with attention the finall resolution hereof, set down by Sylvester and Antoninus for their holy father the pope.

Quia inquiunt, Ecclesia hoc facit & servat, credendum est ita esse. Sylvester & Antoninus ubi supra.

Because the Church this doeth, and thus observeth, we must beleeve that it is so. Loe, a short and sweete conclusion: as if they should say, though we can proove the popes pardons, nei­ther by Scriptures, nor by fathers, nor by reasons, yet must we beleeve them, because the Church, that is, the pope saith so, who can not erre: which saying, (gentle Reader,) both hath bene, and is, the sole and onely foundation of all notorious Papistry.

The 4. Conclusion.

THE Popes manner of pardoning, argueth aswell inordinate affection of filthie lucre, as also want of charitie. His want of charitie is prooved, and convinced, in that he can deliver (as his religion teacheth,) all soules out of purgatorie with his word: and neverthelesse suffereth them to abide most bitter torments, so many yeeres in that affliction. For the papistes holde, that the paines of purgatorie are as great and painefull, as be the torments of hell: and that they differ accidentally in this only, because the paines of pur­gatorie shall once have an ende, but the paines of hell, never. Thus writeth Sylvester Prieras.

Sicut potest (Papa) liberare à poena peccatorum debita in hoc mundo Sylvester ubi supr. Par. 7. omnes qui sunt in mundo, si faciant quod mandat, etiamsi essent mil­lies plures quàm sunt: it a liberare potest omnes qui sunt in purgatorio, siquis pro eis faciat quod iubet.

As the Pope can deliver al in this world, from paine due for sinne in this world, if they doe that which he appointeth, though they were thousands more then they be: even so can he deliver all that are in purgatorie, if any doe that for them which he commandeth: and lest any man should thinke that impossible, or a verie difficult matter, which the Pope requireth to be done: Sylvester in another place tel­leth us, that it is a thing most easie. These be his wordes:

Indulgentiae simplicitèr tantum valent, quantum praedicantur, Sylvester ubi supr. Par. 7. modò exparte dantis sit autoritas, ex parte recipientis charitas, & ex parte causae pietas.

Pardons are simply worth so much as they are preached, so there be autoritie in the giver, charity in the receiver, & piety in the cause or motive. But so it is, that the souls in purgatory be in charity by popish confession, for else they could not be out of hel: and that the pope hath [Page 24] authoritie, as also that he graunteth his Pardons for good and god­ly causes, I suppose no Papist will denie: if they doe, my argument is the stronger, and my selfe shall easily agree there to. Bartholo­maeus Fumus confirmeth this point, when he thus writeth. Barthol. Fu­mus de Papa. Par. 11.

Papa posset liberare omnes animas Purgatorij, etiamsiplures essent, si quis pro eis faceret quod iuberet, peccaret tamen indiscretè conce­dendo.

The Pope could set at libertie all the soules of Purgatorie though never so many, if any would doe that for them which he appoin­ted: marrie he should sinne by his undiscreete pardoning. And the popish schole-doctor Viguerius proceedeth further, and avow­cheth it to be neither inconvenient, nor against the justice of God: these are his expresse wordes.

Nec est inconveniens quòd Papa Purgatorium posset evacuare, non enim per hoc aliquid detraheretur Divinae iustitiae. Viguerius de Sacrament. ordinis in fine.

Neither is it inconvenient that the Pope can harrowe hell, for that doeth nothing derogate from the iustice of God. Nowe to say that he can this doe, but yet doeth it not, to keepe him selfe from sinne: is altogether vaine and frivolous. For first, he should no more sinne in delivering all, then he doeth in setting one onely at liber­tie, as is alreadie prooved by Sylvester and Viguerius. Againe, ple­narie Pardons are so common at the houre of death, as none that either have friendes or money, are or can be destitute thereof: which yet is a poynt more undiscreete then the other, by their owne doctrine. Thirdly, the three condicions required for the legitima­tion of Popish Pardoning, concurre as sweetely in delivering all to­gether ioyntly, as in delivering one by one severallie. His inordi­nate affection of lucre is convinced in this, that albeit he can with one onely pardon set open the gates of Purgatorie, and so set all the prisoners at libertie: yet will he not extend that compassion to them, but taketh this course with them, that they shall appoint Pia Legata by their last willes and testaments, for Masses, Diriges, and Trentals to be said yeerely, or rather perpetually, (if their a­bilitie will extend so farre:) with which Masses, Diriges, and Tren­tals, his pardons shall concurre, and so deliver them by discretion. By reason of which ungodly pollicie, we may this day behold with our eyes, so many altars erected, so many Churches sumptuouslie decked, so many Priestes richly maintained, especially in Saint Gre­gories Church at Rome. For which Masses, Diriges, and Trentals, huge summes of money are given, daily, yeerely, perpetually, not for the Masses formallie concedo, but yet formally for the Priestes paines, and materially for the Masses, constanter assero.

The 5 Conclusion.

THE foundation of the Popes pardons is wicked, blasphe­mous, and derogatorie to the most pretious blood of Christ, shed for mans redemption. This is the proofe of this conclusi­on: the Pope and many of his popish Doctors tell us, that the foun­dation Sylvester de indulg. Pat 4. Soto in 4. sent. dist. & art. 2. of their popish pardons is this, Thesaurus meritorum Christi, & Sanctorum eius: the treasure of the merites of Christ, and of his Saintes. For say they, not onely Christ, but many of his Saintes also, suffered much more then was due for their owne sinnes: which workes of supererogation or satisfactions, they call the treasure of the Church: and because (say they,) Gods Saintes did not ap­plie those their superaboundant passions to this or that person, the Pope therefore must make application thereof at his plea­sure, as one that hath Christes full authoritie, or plenitudinem po­testatis, being his Vicar generall upon earth. And here note by the way (gentle Reader,) that for the execution of this Vicars office, there be ever in Rome two Vicars generall, and one sub­stitute Vicar, whereof two neither preach, teach, or execute any priestly function usuallie: but the poore substitute, must doe all that is done. So in my time, Gregorie the foureteenth was Vi­car generall to Christ, si dijs placet, Cardinall Sabello Vicar-gene­rall to Gregorie, and our Goldwell, sometime Bishoppe of Saint Assaph, substitute to Sabello: which poore Bishoppe tooke all the paine, and had the least gaine. For it is not the usuall maner of Popes and Cardinals in these latter dayes, to say Masse, to preach, to teach, and so foorth, (I speake of Cardinals resiant at Rome,) but to joyne living to living, benefice to benefice, promoti­on Here would I learne, why the Queenes Mai estie may not employ Abbeyes to the mainte­nance of the whole Realm, with suppres­sion of abuses: as well as the Pope may be­stow the same, upon irreligi­ous and idle Cardinals. to promotion, and which is more absurd in their owne religion, to be so lordly Abbots, or rather so idle Lubbards, that they will take and snatch all the commodities of the whole Abbeyes unto themselves, and neither graunt sufficient foode and rayment for the Monkes, nor competent allovvance for the necessarie mainte­nance of the house it selfe, for their Masse, Mattins, and service: Such is their charitie to their neighbors, zeale to their office, & reve­rence to their own religion. This is also true, as if any Papist wil deny the same, his owne breath will witnesse against him. For to omit o­thers, S. Laurence and S. Pancratius their Abbeyes and Chur­ches are so poore and beggerly (through the pilling and polling of Cardinals their Abbots,) that when priestes come thither to say Masse, (as the usuall manner there is,) they can neither finde wine nor candles without money: which default when any one obiecteth as a disgrace to their profession and Religion, the poore [Page 26] Monkes answere in this manner; Alas, we can not doe withall, my L. Cardinall hath all the living, and alloweth us a small portion, not able to fill our bellyes. But to leave this digression, and to re­turne to the scope and matter in hand: this foundation of par­dons to be the superaboundant merits and satisfactions, not onely of Christ, but of his Saintes also, holdeth Thomas Aqui­nas, Dominicus Soto, Sylvester Pryeras, Antoninus, and others. Sylvester hath these wordes: Sylvester de indulgent. Par. 4.

Ratio quare valere possunt indulgentiae, est unitas corporis mystici, in qua multi supererogaverunt admen suram debitooum suorum, & multas tribulationes iniustè sustinuerunt patientèr, per quas multitudo Iosephus An­gles in 4. sent. quaest. de in­dulg. holdeth the selfe same opinion. poenarum poterat expiari, sieis deberetur: quorum meritorum tantaest copia, quòd omnem poenam debitam nunc viventibus excedunt, & praecipue propter meritum Christi.

The cause that pardons are of force, is the unitie of the my­sticall bodie, in which many have supererogated in the workes of penance, to the measure of their owne demerits, and have sustained patiently many uniust tribulations, through which the multitude of paines might be purged, if it were due unto them: of whose merites there is such plentie, that they exceede all paine due for those that nowe be living, and especially for the merite of Christ. This is the testimonie of Sylvester, and A­quinas Tho. Aquinas in supplem. quaest. 25. art. primo. their angelicall Doctor proceedeth further, and sayeth thus:

Christus poterat relaxare, ergo & Paulus potuit, ergo & Papa po­test, qui non est minoris potestatis in Ecclesia, quàm Paulus fuit.

Christ could pardon, therefore Paul could pardon, therefore the Pope also can pardon: as who is of no meaner authoritie in the Church, then Paul him selfe was. So then à primo ad ultimum The Popes power as great as Christes. by Aquinas his doctrine, the Pope can doe as much as Christ. He can make the deafe to heare, the dumbe to speake, the lame to walke, the blinde to see, and the dead to arise to life: which I must first see, before I beleeve it, howsoever their holy Aqui­nas write: and yet should this follow necessarily, if Aquinas his rea­son were good. And doubtlesse, this which Aquinas here attri­buteth to the Pope, is not farre from the peculiar marke of An­tichrist, but I will not nowe stande upon that point. VVe see evidently the foundation of Popish pardons, confessed by the best learned Romish doctors. which manner of establishing po­pish pardons, to be blasphemous and derogatorie to the blood of Christ, I proove many and sundrie wayes. First, by the testi­monie of holy writte.

[Page 27] Advocatum habemus apud Patrem Iesum Christum iustum, & 1. Iohan. 2. 2. ipse est propitiatio pro peccatis nostris.

VVe have an Advocate with the Father Iesus Christ the iust, and he is the propitiation for our sinnes. And as it is said more significantly in the Greeke, [...]. He is the attonement and reconciliation for our sinnes: it is he, through whome we are accepted of God. Of him onely saide the voyce from hea­ven, This is my beloved Sonne, [...], in whome I am well pleased. Againe, Matth. 3. 17.

Si autem in luce ambulemus, sicut ipse est in luce, societatem habemus ad invicem, & sanguis Iesu Christi Filij eius emundat 1. Iohan. 1. 7, 8. nos ab omni peccato.

If we walke in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellow­shippe one with another, and the blood of Iesus Christ doeth clense us from all sinne. Againe,

Vna oblatione consummavit in sempiternum sanctificatos.

VVith one onely oblation hath he consummate for ever, those Heb. 10. 14. that are sanctified. Againe,

Ego Dominus Deus tuus ex terra Aegypti, & Deum abs (que) me nes­cies, Osee. 13. 4. & salvator non est praeter me.

I am the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, and thou shalt knowe no God without me, and there is no Saviour but my selfe. Againe,

Ego sum, Ego sum ipse, qui deleo iniquitates tuas propter me.

I, even I am he, that blot out thine iniquities for mine owne Esa. 43. 25. sake. VVhich is most significantly uttered in the Hebrewe phrase.

[...]

I, even I mine owne selfe wipe away, and utterly destroy thy rebellious transgressions, for none other cause but for mine owne sake. Againe,

Ipse vulneratus est propter iniquitates nostras, attritus est propter Esa. 53. 5. scelera nostra.

He was wounded for out iniquities, he was torne for our offen­ces. By which manifold places of holy Scripture it is evident, that Christ did both merite eternall glorie for us, and also did offer to his Father eternall satisfaction for our sinnes. VVhich S. Au­gustine declareth finely, in briefe and pithie wordes.

Dominus noster Iesus Christas mori venit, peccare non venit, Angser. 141. de tempor. Tom. 10. communicando nobiscum sine culpa poenam, & culpam solvit & poenam.

[Page 28] Our Lord Iesus came to die, he came not to sinne, communicating paine with us without sinne, he clensed both the sinne, and the paine of sinne. I proove the same secondly by the evident testimonies of the Popes owne Doctors, because no better arguments can possibly be al­ledged against them, then such as them selves have made and appro­ved. Angelus writeth thus: Angelus de indulgent. Par. 9.

Communis opinio tam Theologorum, quàm Canonistarumtenet, quòd indulgentia sunt ex abundantia meritorum, que ultra mensuram de­meritorum suorum sancti sustinuerunt, & Christus: sed ego teneo cùm Francisco de Mayrone, quòd cùm merita sanctorum sint ultra condig­num Mayro in 4. sent. dist. 19. remunerata à Deo, & sic exhausta, quòd solùm dantur ex merito Christi, & passionis eius.

The common opinion aswell of Divines as of Canonistes, holdeth that pardons be graunted of the abundant merits, which Christ and his Saintes here suffered, farre above the measure of their demerits: but I (saith Angelus) hold with Frauncis Mayro, that since God hath remunerated the merits of his Saintes above their condigne deserts, and so they are exhaust, nothing remaining unrewarded, that pardons onely are given of the merite of Christ, and of his passion. Durandus also a famous popish Doctor, holdeth the selfe same opinion with Durand. in 4. sent. dist. 20. Angelus: for albeit he admitteth the treasure of Christ, yet doeth he denie the treasure and supererogations of Saintes: and that, because as Angelus and Mayro teach, Saints have received remu­neration farre above their desertes: which opinion of Durandus, Angelus, and Mayro, S. Paul confirmeth in his Epistle to the Ro­manes, in these wordes.

[...]. Rom. Cap. 8. vers. 18. For I count, that the afflictions of this present time are not worthie of the future glorie, which shall be revealed towardes us: in which wordes, the Apostle confuteth manifestly that foolish distinction of the Papistes, unto which they flee as to an holy sanctuarie, so often as they feele them selves galled in defence of the Popes pardons. They say forsooth, that Saintes have received full remuneration as their workes be me­ritorious, but not as they be satisfactorie, or penall. Saint Paul (I say) reprooveth this their vaine and ungrounded distinction, by the worde ( [...]) passions, afflictions, or penalties. for he saith, not the merits: of this time, but the passions of this time, and that those passions of ours are unworthie of the glorie Marke well the word Passions. to come: which point Durandus, Mayro, and Angelus perceived right well, and therefore would not in any wise admit the treasure of Saintes, though they were great Papistes all three. Their owne [Page 29] popish glosse confesseth the same in the comment vpon the text re­hearsed, to wit, that our passions or satisfactions (as papistes terme Glossa inter­lin. ibidem. them,) are not worthy sidistricte nobiscū ageretur, if God should deale with vs according to iustice. But as the said glosse addeth wisesely, facit spiritus quod merita non possunt, the holie ghost supplieth that which wanteth in our merits. And their clarke Nicolaus Lyranus can not denie the same, for these be his words: Lyranus in cap. 8. ad Rō.

Ratio consistit in hoc, quod praemium excedit incomparabiliter meri­tum nostrum in tolerantia passionum, propter quod patienter sunt me­ritò tolerandae.

The reason saith Lyra, for vvhich the apostle mooueth vs to beare patientlie the afflictions of this vvorld, consisteth chieflie in this, that the reward which God vvill bestovv on vs, doth infinitely ex­ceed the worthinesse of our aflictions, or the condignitie of our pas­sions: and for that respect, wee ought vvorthilie to endure them with patience. Neuerthelesse, Lyra vvould gladly haue our worke to bee meritorious, and for that end he distinguisheth them as they proceed of free wil, and as the holie Ghost worketh them, these are his words:

Sciendum tamen, quodpassiones istae dupliciter possant consider ari. v­no Lyranus vbi supra. modo vt acceptantur à libero arbitrio, & sic loquitur hic apostolus. a­lio modo, prout spiritus sanctus mouens liberum arbitrium, est huius ac­ceptionis principium: & sic est meritum de condigno, quia principium meriti est eiusdem dignitatis cum praemio.

VVe must know for all this saith Lyra, that our afflictions may be considered two waies: one way, as they are accepted and receiued from our free will: and so the apostle speaketh, when he saith, they be vnworthie. Another way, as the holie ghost moouing our free will, is the beginning of this acceptation. And so there is me­rite of condignitie, because the beginning of merite, is of the same dignitie with the rewarde. These are the wordes of Lyra, Note well the confutatiō of Lyra his di­stinction. cited with all advantage for that cause, that he being once directly & fullie confuted, all other papistes may be confuted in him: as who doubtles being all ioined in one, can lay no more then he hath done, in behalfe of their merites and supererogations. I therefore say first, 1 that Saint Paul affirmeth with me, that our afflictions or passions are not worthie the glorie of heaven.

I say secondly, that Lyra himselfe graunteth so much, as his owne woords alreadie alleadged do witnesse. 2

I say thirdly, that their glosse is on my side. 3

I say fourthly, that if al were granted vvhich Lyra saith, yet would it little or nothing helpe his purpose. 4

For first, our passions are no way ours, but as they proceede from 1 [Page 30] our free vvils: omnis enim actio humana est voluntaria: yea so vo­luntarie, that as Saint Augustine truely saith: if it vvere not volun­tarie, it should not be mans: and yet our afflictions or passions con­sidered, as they proceed from our free will, are not worthie of the glorie to come by Lyraes ovvne graunt. Againe, when the holie ghost, and man worke both one and the same acte: that vvhich the holie ghost doth, can no more be reputed mans act, then that which man doth can be demed Gods acte. But so it is, that that vvhich mā doth can not be demed the holie ghosts deede: ergo neither that vvhich doth the holie ghost, can be demed mans deed. The assump­tion wherein consisteth the difficultie, (if there be any at all,) is pro­ved by mans sinfull actions. For the most cruell and wicked fact that can bee imagined, is not done vvithout the concourse of the holy ghost, as all learned papistes doe and must confesse: and yet are mans sinfull actes so farre from being deemed Gods actes, as the deformities and irregularities thereof bee onely mans, and neuer Gods: and yet doth God concurre more to those vvicked actes, in that he is the principall agent of the real and positiue entities of the same, then man doth or can concurre to anie act of Gods: that is to say, to any good act that hee himselfe doth. For as S. Iames saith, euerie good thing that man doth, is of God. Iacobis. v. 17

Thirdlie, because great absurdities do follovv vpon this opinion, to wit, that many sinnes freelie remitted and forgiuen in this life, should be punished eternallie in the vvorld to come. greater then vvhich, no absurditie can be thought vpon. the reason of the conse­quent is yeelded by Thomas Aquinas, Dionisius Carthusianus, Di­onysius Aquinas, p. 1. q. 114. ar. 3. ad 3, Dionys. Carthus. lib. 1. orthod fid. ar. 156. Areop. dc diuin. nomi­nib apud Car­thus. Areopagita, and others. VVho all do hold, (neither is holy writ dissonant to their opinion,) that the deuils concurre if not to all, yet to the greater part of sinnes, committed in this life by sin­full mortall men. vvhereupon I inferre first, that the Deuils sinnes are mans, and mans sinnes the Deuils: if Lyraes distinction vvere of force the reason of the consequence is euident, because the de­uill and man doe both one and the selfe same acte.

I inferre secondlie, that the sinnes forgiuen to penitent sin­ners in this life, are punished in the Deuils world vvithout ende.

For vvhat replie so euer the adversary can make, or vvhat euasion so euer he shall vse in this point: the same can I make, and the same shall I vse against himselfe, in the passions and merites of Saintes. Let vvhat papist as vvill, beginne when hee vvill, to make triall thereof: For no effectuall disparitie doubtlesse, can euer bee yeelded in that behalfe.

Another absurditie is, that God should hereby bee the author or partaker of sinne. The reason hereof is euident, because as mans actes be meritorious, for that God concurreth to them: in [Page 31] like maner Gods actes must bee demeritorious, for that man con­curreth to the same. For God and man concurre no lesse to that selfe same act, vvhich is sinne: then they doe to that acte, vvhich the papistes terme of condigne merite. that there is no compari­son betvvene mans deserts and glorie eternall, Saint Bede shevveth pithilie and plainelie in these vvords:

Ipse dicit qui patiebatur & sciebat pro quo nomine patiebatur, & quo Beda in c. 8. ad Rom. fructu patiebatur: non sunt condignae passiones huius temporis ad futu­ram gloriam, quae revelabitur in nobis. appendo quod patior, contra id quod spero, hoc sentio: illua credo, & tamen plus valet quod credo, quam quod sentio.

He saith, vvho suffered, and vvho knevv for vvhose sake he suffered, & vvith vvhat fruit hee suffered: the sufferings of this life are not vvorthie of the future glorie, vvhich shall be reuealed in vs. I vveigh in the ballance that vvhich I suffer, against that vvhich I hope for: this I feele, that I beleeue, and yet that is of more force vvhich I beleeue, then that vvhich I feele. yea, as their ovvne durand telleth thē, Christ himselfe could not satisfy in rigore iustitiae as he vvas man, but only Durand. in 3. sent. dist. 20. & in 4. d. 15. in respect of hipostaticall vnion: & therfore is it impossible that sa­tisfaction of pure man, I say of corrupt and sinful man, shall any way be equivalent or perfect: for as the popes deare monke Dominicus So to granteth:

Perfecta satisfactio est illa, cuius valor & pretiūtotū emanat a debi­tore, Soto de nat. & grat. lib. 3. c. 6. nulla vel preueniente vel interveniente gratia creditor is: taliter visit redditio aequiualentis alias indebiti voluntarie.

Perfect satisfaction is that, vvhose valoure and price vvholly. procee­deth from the debtour, vvithout either preuenting or interventing grace of the creditour: so as the reddition be of that, vvhich is equi­ualent and not othervvise due. This is truelie said of Soto, vvhich A­ristoteles perceiued by very natural discours, teaching that vve cānot make condigne satisfaction to God and our parents. in the descrip­tion Arist. lib. 8 ethic. cap 7 of our Frier Soto, vve haue to note 4. things. First, that the va­lour of satisfaction must proceed vvholy from the debtour. Second­ly, that ther must be no preuenting or interventing grace of the cre­ditor. Thirdlie, that there must be equiualent restitution. Fourth­ly, that that equivalent reddition must be a worke, othervvhise not due. which four vvhen any papist in the vvorld, can proue to be in a­ny satisfaction made by pureman, (neither shall the popes holines be excepted,) I vvil be a papist once againe. For our satisfaction is so vnperfect indeed, as no one of the 4. condicions here required, cā be found and approoued therein. For first, vvhat act soeuer procee­deth from our selves, as of our selues, is lothsom in Gods sight, according to this say-ing of the Prophet:

[Page 32] [...]. Esai. c. 6 [...]. v. 6.

All our righteousnesse is as a filthie cloute, nothing pure or cleane.

2 Secondly, what acte so euer proceedeth from vs without Gods preuenting grace, cannot possiblie be void of sinne: for as the apo­stle saith:

Non sumus sufficientes cogit are aliquid a nobis, quasi ex nobis, sed suf­ficientia 2. Cor. 3. v. 5 nostra ex deo est.

VVe are not able to thinke one good thought of our selues, as of our selues, but all and euerie parte of our sufficiencie is of God.

And againe hee saith:

Nemo potest dicere dominus Iesus, nisiin spiritus sancto.

No man can say Lord Iesu, but by the power of God.

VVee owe of dutie to God, more then possiblie we can euer per­forme, 1 Cor. 12. v. 4 and therefore can not iustlie, nay therefore can not without the note of intollerable pride, smelling of more then pelagianisme, terme anie of our best workes, a worke not due to God, or a worke of supererrogation. For Christhath taught vs another lesson:

Cum fecerit is omnia quae precepta sunt vobis, dicite, servi invtiles su­mus, quod debuimus facere fecimus. Luk. cap 7. vers. 10.

vvhen yee haue done all thinges which are commaunded you, say, wee are vnprofitable seruants, wee haue done that which we were bound to doe.

4 Fourthly, concerning equivalent satisfaction, their owne ange­licall D. Aquinas shall answere them, vvhose wordes are these:

Dicendum, quo daliqua satisfactio potest dici dupliciter sufficiens: U­no modo perfectè, quia est condigna per quandam adaequationem ad recō ­pensationem culpae commissae, & sic hominis puri satisfactio sufficiens Aquinas in 3. part. q. 1. ar. 2. 2 ^m. esse non potuit pro peccato; alio modo potest dici satisfactio hominis esse sufficiens imperfecte, scilicet secundu acceptationem eius, qui est ea con­tentus, quauis non sit condigna. Et hoc modo satisfactio puri hominis est sufficiens.

VVe must answere, that satisfaction may be called sufficient two waies: one way perfectly, because it is vvorthie by a certaine ade­quatio nor equalitie to the compensation of the fault committed: And so the satisfaction of pure man, can not be sufficient for sinne. Loc, here is a misterie, for not sufficient is sufficient. Another vvay vnperfectly to vvit, according to his acceptation vvho is content vvith it, although it bee not vvorthie: and this vvay the satisfaction of pure man is sufficient.

This is the ansvvere of Aquinas, vvhose doctrine is confirmed for [Page 33] authenticall, by papall authoritie. Now marke it well, for Christes love. This great doctour was so busied to defend popish pardons, and the ground or foundation of the same, (which is the superero­gation of mans deserts, as we haue heard,) that he had no other shift in the worlde, but to coine a new no distinction of dubble sufficient satisfaction. which distinction for all that, if I doe not proove it to confute and make frustrate it selfe, I will desire no credite of the reader.

Satisfaction (saith Aquinas) may be called sufficient, either because it is indeed sufficient, as which is an equivalent compensa­tion: or it may be called sufficient, not because it is equivalent and sufficient indeed: but because it is accepted and admitted, albeit it be not worthy.

Now what I pray you, can be more foolishly spoken, or more a­gainst a mans owne assertion? hee woulde establish a sufficient sa­tisfaction, and yet is enforced to acknowledge a satisfaction not sufficient, but accepted as if it were sufficient. which is the verie same that I would never denie, and which overthroweth all popish doctrine: For it prooveth in deed, that no workes of the regenerate are good and without sinue, though they be accepted and imputed for good and without sinne: and consequently, if the papistes would be constant in their owne doctrine, wee and they woulde soone agree. But what? doeth not our holy father the pope tell us, that though Christ pardon a penitent sinner, yet must he suffer tem­porall paine in purgatorie, and so to need the popes pardons? yes doubtlesse as you haue heard, and the pope and papists glory in the same. And yet this notwithstanding, if a man can get a plenarie pardon from the pope for the houre of his death, he shall come to heaven with all speed, and never once enter in at purgatorie gates. If any credit not my wordes, let him yet credit their doctout Sylve­ster, who writeth in this manner: Sylvest. de in-dulg. par. 33.

Qui plenariam indulgentiam ritè assecutus est, si eo instanti more­retur, evolaret statim ad coelum.

He that hath lawfully gotten a plenary pardon, if he should die at that instant, should incontinently goe to heaven. The popes par­dons then, are so farre from beeing such as they are preached to be: that they doe not onely not yeelde us any remission of paine, but greatly increase our paine when wee beleeve them: as vvhich de­rogate no little from Christes passion, and from the veritie of his sacred vvorde. For indeede saintes can no more satisfie for us, then Soto in 4 sent. d. 21. q. 1. ar. 2. prope finem. they can merite for us: and yet dareth not Dominicus Soto avouch their merites for us, though he be the popes doctor deare. For which cause vvisely and gravely saith Augustine:

[Page 34] Vaeetiam laudabili vitae hominum, siremota misericordia discutias eam. Aug. lib. 9. confess. ca. 13.

VVoe euen to the laudable life of men: if thou discusse and exa­mine it, thy mercie set a part. which thing their owne frier Iohn de Combis did well perceiue, when in his Theologicall abridgement he affirmeth itto be a maxime with God, euer to reward us above our well doings, and to punish us lesse our euill demerits. His wordes be these:

Et hoc patet quia Deus semper remuner at supra meritum, sicut punit citra condignum. Io. de Combis lib. 5. theol. verit. cap. 11.

And this is evident, because God euer rewardeth aboue our me­rites, and punisheth us lesse then we be worthy. so then wee see it manifest, that euen by popish doctrine, there is no place for popish pardons.

The sixt Conclusion.

POpes usually giue many pardons, affirming most impudently in the same, that whosoeuer shall pray in such maner, say masse over such reliques, visite such a Church, or contribute so much to such an end, shall deliuer a soule from purgatorie. which kinde of par­dons, Pope Gregorie graunted often during my abode at Rosse: as to the bishop of Rosse, in the behalfe of the Scottish Queene: to Stukeley, for the trecherous practises he should haue contrived a­gainst England: to Alphonsus the Iesuite, for the successe of English complots, and such like. This notwithstanding, these solemne and glorious pardons be nothing els, but mere fabulous and lying graunts.

For first, there is no purgatorie after this life as shall be prooved hereafter, and consequently the pope can deliver no soule from thence, though he graunt never so many pardons.

Secondly, because to giue pardons is an act of Iurisdiction, as appeareth by the Scripture which they alledge, and consequently Mat. 16. v. 19. that act can not be exercised but upon the popes subiects, and ther­fore not upon the soules in purgatorie, who are exempt from his iurisdiction. All which their owne schoole doctour Richardus de Mediavilla prooveth out of their canon-law in these wordes: Richard. de Mediavilla in 4. sent. dist. 3. q. 3. dist. apud mag. 20. extra de pe. & re.

Indulgentiae non prosunt illis qui non sunt de iurisdictione illius qui eas concessit, extra de pe. & re. illi autem qui sunt in purgatorio, non sunt sub iurisdictione praelatorum Ecclesiae, quod satis datur intelligi, cum dixit dominus Petro: quodcun (que) solveris super terram. addendo enim super terram, videtur referre collationem huius potestatis tantum superviventes hac vita mortali.

[Page 35] Pardons do not profit them, vvho are not of his iurisdictiō that gran­teth them: but they vvho are in purgatorie, bee not vnder the iuris­diction of our prelates of the church. vvhich is sufficiently giuen to be vnderstood, vvhen our Lord said to Peter: (vvhatsoeuer thou shalt bind vpon earth:) for adding vpon earth, he seemeth to referre and extend this povver, onlie to the liuing here on earth. Novv, if answere be made as is vsed by the vviser sort of papistes, that the pope par­doneth in purgatory onelie by vvay of suffrage, then doe I reply, that that is petitio principij, and that that kind of pardoning is vncertaine and fallible, and so still I haue my purpose. For the preachers of the pardons, and the pardons also tell vs: that vvhosoeuer visiteth such a church, saith masse at such an aultar, or contributeth to such an ende, shall deliuer a soule from purgatorie. and yet by vvay of suffrage no such thing can bee assured, no more then vvhen an other devoute papist shall offer vp his prayers for them. vvhich thing seemed so to trouble Bellarminus, that in his writ­ten dictates hee knovveth not vvell vvhat to holde or vvrite, con­cerning romish pardons. Thirdly, because the pope can not applie Christs satisfaction more effectuallie to them by his pardoning, then the same is applied to them by the saying of masse, as vvhich by po­pish religion is the selfe same sacrifice reallie, that vvas offered vpon the crosse: and yet doth no papist saye or thinke that our saying of masse, can or vvil deliuer his friends soule from purgatory. For other­vvise, there vvould not be so many masses said so many times for the selfe same persons, as hath beene and is daily seen, amongst the pa­pists. For to this end doe they celebrate and obserue yerely anniuer­saries, for soules departed 10. 20. 30. 40. 60. yeares before. vvhich the pope, cardinals, and monkes had taught the people to frequent, as most necessarie for their friends soules in purgatorie. Fourthly, be­cause it cannot be proued, that after God hath pardoned our sinnes and the eternall paine due for the same, there still remaineth some temporal paine, remissible by the popes pardons. Fiftly, because al the three thinges required of papistes in popish pardoning, are most firm, certaine, and readie, in the soules of purgatorie: to vvit, aucto­ritie in thhe giuer, charitie in the receiuer, and the cause of pietie. For first, the soules of purgatorie bee in charitie, as all papistes con­fesse: as vvho othervvise, could neuer be saued.

2 Secondly, it is mere crueltie not to helpe the faithful in such vvo­full case. Thirdlie, if they denie the popes auctoritie, I vvill vvil­linglie denie it vvith them: though he accurse me as hee hath alrea­die done, for my paines. For I nothing doubt, but God of his great mercie vvill conuert his curse, to my greater ioy and blisse. And here, because the Seminaries neuer ceasse to boast in cor­ners amongest the simple: that none in this realme dareth to dis­pute [Page 36] with them, I offer publique dispute with what seminarie in England soeuer he be, no one or other excepted who soeuer: so it may stand vvith the honourable licence and good liking of higher povvers, whose mindes I am of dutie bound to obay in that be­halfe. For I nothing doubt, if my option may bee graunted: but that it will tend to the glorie of God, the service of my soveraigne, the honour of my countrie, the edification of the auditours, and the comfort of myne owne soule. The reason is, for that I know verie sufficientlie, the foundations, groundes, auctorities, and reasons, of both sides: and vvithal behold as in a glasse of chri­stall, the euident confutation of all whatsoeuer, can possibly bee said in defense of papistrie: which if I had not first seene, I had neuer departed from popish doctrine.

The 7. Conclusion.

IF the popes pardons be not of so great force, and worth so much as they are said and preached to be: then is the popes religion vaine, and of no credite at all. This proposition both is and must be graunted of all papistes, if they will defend their now professed Romish religion. Thomas Aquinas (whose doctrine and bookes divers popes haue approoved for good and godly,) writeth thus:

Ecclesia praedicando indulgentias non mentitur, & ita tantum va­lent quantum praedicantur: sicut enim dicit Augustinus, si in sacra A quin. in sup­plement. 3. part. q. 25. art. 2. in corpore. Scriptura deprehenditur aliquid falsitatis, iam robur authoritatis sa­crae Scripturae perit. Et similiter si in praedicatione ecclesiae aliqua falsi­tas deprehenderetur, non essent documenta Ecclesiae alicuius autboritatis adroborandam fidem.

The Church preaching pardons doth not lie, and so they are worth no lesse then they are preached. For as Augustine saith, if in holy Scripture any falshood be found, euen then the full authoritie of holy scripture perisheth utterly. And in like manner, if in the preaching of the Church any falshood should be found, the doctrine of the Church shoulde not be of any force to establish our faith. These are the wordes of their canonized saint and renowmed do­ctour Aquinas, which shewe unto us so plainely, as more plainely nothing can be told: that if the Church of Rome erre in any one point, as in giving pardons or such like, then must we giue no credit to it in other pointes of religion. Neither is this the opi­nion of Aquinas onely, but their other great Thomist Dominicus Soto singeth the same song.

[Page 37] These be his wordes:

Alij dixerunt indulgentias nihil prorsus valere, nisi quantum unusquisque devotione sua faciendo quodindulgentia praecipit, moere­tur. Soto in 4. sent. dist. 21. q. 2. art. 1. Attamen isti seu blasphemi non sunt audiendi, sanè qui autho­ritatem Ecclesiae infringunt: si enim de hac re nos Ecclesia seduceret, nulla ei esset in reliquis adhibenda fides.

Some said that pardons were no more woorth at all, then e­very man doeth merite by his owne devotion. But these fellowes are to be reiected as blasphemous, because they infringe the au­thoritie of the Church: for if the Church should in this point se­duce us, then were there no credite to be given unto it in other pointes. These are the expresse wordes of the Popes owne and best Doctors, Aquinas, and Soto: whose testimonies, with that which is said in other conclusions: disable altogether the autho­ritie and religion of the Church of Rome. For if the Church of Rome deceive us in her pardons, (as is sufficiently prooved that she hath done:) then is she not to be credited in other things, as both Aquinas and Soto tell us: whose doctrine the pope, yea, sundry Popes of Rome have confirmed.

The 1 Conclusion.

THE lives and manners of Popes have bene most wicked, most notorious, and most scandalous to the world. This con­clusion I will onely proove, by the testimonies of great Romish do­ctors, that so my wordes may be of better credit therein. Heare therefore what Bartholomaeus Carranza writeth of them.

Stephanus Sextus magno odio persecutus est nomen Formosi, cuius Carranza in summa Conc. fol. 354. & fol. 355. & ordinationes omnes rescidit & damnavit: iam enim tunc coepe­rat Pontificum & virtus & integritas desinere.

Pope Stephanus the sixt persecuted the verie name of Formo­sus, all whose ordinations, or giving of orders, he disanulled and condemned: for even then beganne, the vertue and integritie of Popes to faile.

Romanus universa acta Stephani improbat & abrogat.

Pope Romanus doeth reproove and abrogate, the whole actes of Pope Stephanus.

Sergius Tertius Formosi nomen prosequitur, cuius corpus huma­tum truncari capite iussit. Res plena horroris, at videas quantum degener abant Pontifices à maioribus suis: ne cui mirum sit, interim si qui abusus & perversae opiniones in Ecclesiam irrepserunt.

Pope Sergius the third doeth persecute the name of Formo­sus, Lo, the Popes owne deare Doctor, can not denie er­rors to be in the Church of Rome. whose bodie after it was buryed, he commaunded to be beheaded. A thing verie dolefull, that thou mayest see howe much the Popes in these dayes did degenerate from their ance­stours: least any marvell if in the meane time, abuses and per­verse opinions be crept into the Church.

Iohannes 13. venationibus, magis quàm orationibus vacabat: & [Page 39] multa alia auditu indigna de eo dicuntur.

Pope Iohn the thirteenth was more addicted to hunting, then to prayer: and many other unworthy factes are reported of him. This is the censour of Bartholomaeus Carranza, a learned Thomiste, and Dominican Fryer: and therefore hath he not said more against the Popes of Rome, then the force of veritie induced him unto. Plati­na affirmeth no lesse then Carranza, of the wicked lives of Popes: but I will onely alledge one place or two, omitting all the rest for brevitie sake.

Nihil enim aliudhi Pontifices cogitabant, quàm & nomen & dig­nitatem Platina in vita Rom. primi. pag. 147. maiorum suorum extinguere.

For these Popes went about no other matter, but onely howe to extinguish the name and dignitie of their auncestours. And in ano­ther place the said Platina writeth thus:

Vide quae so, quantùm isti degenerarunt à maioribus suis, illi enim ut­pote Platina in vita Sergii 3. pag. 148. viri sanctissimi, dignitatem ultrò oblatam contemnebant, orationi & doctrinae christianae vacantes: hi verò largitione & ambitione pon­tificatum quaerentes, & adepti, posthabito divino cultu, inimicitias non secùs ac saevissimi quidam tyranni inter sese exercebant: suas posteà voluptates securiùs expleturi, cùm nullibi extarent qui eorum vitia coercent.

Behold, I pray thee, how much these bishops doe degenerate from their auncestours: for they, as most holy men, contemned dignitie offered them, giving them selves to prayer, and Christian doctrine: but these popes, seeking and attaining their popedomes by bribes and ambition, (Gods devine worship set aside,) did exercise enmi­ties among them selves, as most cruell tyrants: thinking after to enioy their pleasures more securely, when there should be none to reproove their vices. Thus saith Platina a very learned Papist, who was abbreviator Apostolicus to the church of Rome.

The second Conclusion.

MANY Popes have aspired unto popedome, by most naughty and ungodly meanes. Pope Christophorus the first, shall first beginne this proofe, of whome thus writeth Platina:

Christophorus, cuius patria & cognomentum ob ignobilitatem igno­ratur, pontificatum malis artibus adeptus, malè amisit; septimo enim Platina in vita Christophe­ri primi. mense dignitate ac meritò eiectus, monasticam vitam unicum calami­to sorum refugium obire cogitur.

Pope Christopher, whose countrie and surname by reason of his basenesse is not knowen, came naughtilie by his Popedome, and lost it as naughtily. For before the seventh Moneth was fully expired, he was deprived of his Pontificall [Page 40] dignitie, and enforced to be a Monke, the sole and onely refuge of all distressed persons. Carranza reporteth this to be true, which Carranza in summa conci­liorum, fol. 354. Platina hath set downe. Pope Bonifacius the seventh, and Sylvester the second, aspired to their Popedomes by Necromancy, and Diabo­licall meanes. Sylvester the third, attained his Popedome by sedition: and Damasus the second, was made Pope by violent meanes, with­out consent, either of the Clergie, or of the people. This to be so, witnesseth both Platina & Carranza. And Platina addeth these words

Eò enim tum Pontificatus devenerat, ut qui plus largitione & ambi­tione, Platina in vita Sylvestri 3. non dico sanctitate vitae & doctrina valeret, is tantummodò dig­nitatis gradum bonis oppressis & reiectis obtineret, quem morem uti­nam aliquando non retinuissent nostra tempora.

For to that passe was Popedome now brought, that who so coulde more in giving bribes, and in ambition, (I say not in good life and doctrine,) he onely should have the degree of honour, and good men should be reiected: which custome, would to God, it had never bene in our time kept. And the said Platina saith in another place:

Adeò enim inoleverat hic mos, ut iam cui (que) ambitioso liceret, Petri Platina in vita Damasi 2. sedem invadere.

For this custome did so increase, that now every ambitious fellow, might invade Peters seat or chaire. Gregorie the fift, was by sedition thrust out of his throne, and Pope Iohn 18 by tyranny occupied the Popedome: so say Carranza and Platina. Yea, Platina proceedeth Carranza ubi supra fol. 355. further, and saith thus:

Qua quidem beatitudine Ioannes caruit, fur certè in Pontificatu, & Platina in vita Ioan. 18. latro: non enim ut par fuerat, per ostium intravit.

VVhich happie life Pope Iohn wanted, as who was a thiefe and a robber: for he entred not in by the doore, as he ought to have done. And to be briefe, Pope Bonifacius 8. shall sound the trumpet for the rest, of whom thus writeth Carranza: Intravit ut vulpes, regnavit ut lupus, Carranza ubi supra fol. 369. mortuus est ut canis. He entred as a foxe, he reigned as a wolfe, he dyed as a dogge. Thus he did, and thus he lived, after he had gotten his Popedome by deceitfull meanes, as is alreadie prooved.

The 3. Conclusion.

POPES may not only erre, and hold false opinions, but also be­come most notorious heretikes; and for their heresies, be deprived of their popedomes. This conclusion may be proved, both by the te­stimonies of great learned papistes, and also by the flat decrees of many Popes. Dominicus Soto hath these wordes: Quamvis Papa, ut Papa errare non possit, hoc est, statuere errorem nequeat tanquam articulum fi­dei, Soto in 4. sent. dist. 22. q. 2. art. 2. quia spiritus sanctus idnon permittet: tamenut singularis persona errare in fide potest, sicut aliae peccata committere.

[Page 41] Albeit the Pope as Pope, can not 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: neverthelesse, as he is a private person, so may he erre even in faith, as he may doe other sinnes: and for ful proofe of this point, only Sylvester Prieras is sufficient, who albeit he extol the Popes power above Kings, and Emperours, and Angels in hea­ven their authoritie; yet doeth he confesse, that our holy father the Sylvester in Papa. Par. 4. Pope, in casu haeresis, both may be iudged and deposed: yea, this point is very manifest in many texts of the popish Canon-law, for in one place it is thus written:

Oves, quae suo pastori commissae sunt, eum nec reprehendere, nisi à fide exor­bitaverit, 2. Quaest. 7. cap. Oves. nec ullatenus accusare possunt.

The sheepe that are committed to (the Pope) their Pastor, neither can reproove him, nor any way accuse him: unlesse he shall swarve from the faith. In another place it is said, that though the Pope be never so wicked, (though he carry thousands with himselfe headlong Dist. 40. cap. si Papa. to hell,) yet must no man iudge him, unlesse he be an heretique.

Quia cunctos ipse iudicaturus, à nemine est judicandus, nisi deprehendatur à fide devius. Because (saith the Popes lawe) he must iudge all, and none iudge him, unlesse he be found to have forsaken the faith. Iose­phus Angles, in his booke which he dedicated to the Pope himselfe, confirmeth this matter in these wordes:

Papa haereticus ut apostata, ab universali Concilio deponi potest: & Ioseph. Angl. in 4. sent. part. 2. quaest. de excommuni­cat. art. 4. diffic. 1. ratio est, quia sicut nullus potest esse alicuius religionis praelatus, qui non sit in illa religione professus: it a ne (que) potest esse Papa, si fide ecclesiae careat.

The Pope being an heretike, as also an apostate, may be deposed by a generall Councel: and the reason is, because as none can be a prelate of any religion, which is not professed in that religion: so neither can he be Pope, that holdeth not the faith of the Church.

The 4. Conclusion.

MAny Popes have de facto forsaken the Christian faith, and be­come flat heretikes. This proposition, though it seeme strange to many, shalbe prooved (God willing) effectually, and that by the expresse testimonies of great popish doctors. For it is so certen, that Pope Honorius was an heretike, as their eight solemne Councel hol­den at Constantinople, can not deny the same. Melchior Canus gi­veth this sentence of the said Honorius: 8. Conc. Con­stant. act. 7. Canus de lo­cis Theolog. lib. 6. cap. ult.

At Honorium quomodo ab errore vindicabit? quem haereticum fuisse tradit Psellus in carmine de septem synodis, Tharasius ad summos Sacerdotes Antiochiae, Alexandriae, Sanctae urbis, ut septima Synodo act. 3. scriptum est: Theodosius cum Synodo sua Hierosolymitana, in confessione fidei quae habetur eadem actione 3. Epiphanius respondens haereticis iu conspectu Concilij eius­dem, act. 6. Tota demùm ipsa septima synodus actione ultima, & in Epistola [Page 42] ad omnes sacerdotes & clericos. But howe will (Pighius) deliver pope Honorius from errour? whome to have bene an heretike, witnesseth Psellus, in his verses of the seven synodes: Tharasius to the patriarks of Antioch, of Alexandria, & of the holy city, as it is written in the 7. Synode: Theodosius with his Synode at Hierusalem, in the confessi­on of their faith: Epiphanius answering to the heretikes, in the sight of the said Councell: finally, the seventh Synode wholly in the last action, and in their Epistle to all priests & Clergie men. Viguerius holdeth for a constant position, that pope Anastasius erred in an ar­ticle of the faith: his wordes be these:

Si dicamus, quòd summus Pontifex errare potest, & in animo suo con­cipere aliquem articulum orthodoxae fidei contrarium, & etiam priuatim Viguerius de virtute fidei. cap. 10. Par. 3. vers. 13. proferre, ut legitur de Anastasio 2. dicendum quòd summus Pontifex, ut privata persona errare potest, non tamen ut est summus Pontifex.

If we say that the pope may erre, and conceive in his minde some article contrarie to the Catholike faith, and pronounce the same also privately: answere must be made, that the pope may erre as a private person, but not as he is Pope. Nicolaus Lyranus uttereth this matter As we read of Anastasius. so plainly, as no mā can long stand in doubt therof: these be his words:

Ex quo patet, quòd Ecclesia non consistit in hominih. ratione potestatis, vel dignitatis, ecclesiasticae, vel secularis, quia multi principes, & sum­mi Lyranus in cap. 16. Matt. Pontifices, & alij inferiores, inventi sunt apostatasse à fide: propter quod Ecclesia consist it in illis personis, in quibus est notitia vera, & con­fessio fidei, & veritatis.

VVhereby it is evident, that the Church doeth not consist in men, by reason of power or dignitie, either ecclesiasticall or secular: be­cause many Princes, and Popes, and other of the inferiour sort, are found to have swarved from their faith: for which cause the Church consisteth in those persons, in whome there is true knowledge, and confession of the faith, and veritie. Loe, the iudgement of their owne Doctor: not they that sit in S. Peters chaire, are the true and lawfull successours of S. Peter: but they that confesse, and preach S. Peters faith and doctrine. VVe therefore impugne nothing in popish pro­ceedings, but the selfe same, which popish Doctors reprooved before us: and that in their publique writings, published to the world.

The 5. Conclusion.

MANY Popes have erred, in their publique doctrine of faith and manners. Pope Iohn the 22. of that name, as witnesseth Okam, Erasmus, Alphonsus, Adrianus, & others, taught the people that the soules of the iust doe not see God, before the resurrection: yea, Gerson that great popish doctor, (who sometime was Chancel­lour of Paris,) affirmeth this matter in these expresse wordes:

Hoc fecit latroni, qui verisimilitèr nondum complever at poenitenti­am [Page 43] pro omnibus peccatis suis, qui fuit illa hora propria beatificatus, & vidit Deum facie ad faciem, sicut Sancti in Paradiso: propter quod in­super apparet falsitas doctrinae Papae Ioannis 22. Quae damnata fuit cum 10. Gerson. in ser. de pasch. tom. 4. sono buccinarum coram Rege Philippo per Theologos Parisienses, & cre­didit potius theologis Parisiensibus, quàm curiae.

This he did to the thiefe (which by likelihood had not yet accom­plished Of Pope Iohn penance for all his sinnes,) who was blessed in that very houre, and sawe God face to face, as doe the Saintes in Paradise: by reason whereof, further appeareth the falshood of the doctrine of pope Iohn, which was condemned by the sound of trumpets before K. Philip by the devines of Paris, & the King beleeved rather the de­vines of Paris, then the court. In which words, we have to note first, that Gerson a voucheth the thiefe: crucified with Christ, to have seene 1 God face to face in that houre, & so to be blessed. Secondly, that he re­proveth the false doctrin of Pope Iohn, Thirdly, that his doctrine was 2 condemned with the sound of trupets, in the presence of the king of 3 France. Fourthly, that the K. gave more credit to the devines of Paris, then to the iudgement of the court of Rome. Fiftly, that neither the 4 K. nor the learned papists, did at that time grant such authority to the 5 Pope, as now the pope chalengeth. whreupon it foloweth consequēt­ly, that the pope taught false doctrine in a weighty matter of faith: which thing not only Gerson affirmeth, as you have heard: but Pope Adrian himselfe testifieth the same, as recordeth the zealous papist Alphonsus in these wordes:

Sexta haeresis docet nullam animam ante diem iudciij esse beatam, quū (ut ait) nulla anima ante illum diem videt Deum. Huius haeresis auctores sunt Armeni, eandem etiam tuentur Graeci, post istos surrexit Iohannes 22. huius nominis pontifex. Sed ne verbis meis aliquis in hac parte dero­get, Alphonsus de Castro. lib. 3. adversus hae­reses. prope finem. verba Adriani papae referam, qui in suo 4. sententiarum in calce cu­iusdē questionis de Sacramento confirmationis, it a ait: Novissimè fertur de Ioanne 22. quòd publicè docuit, declaravit, & ab omnibus teneri man­davit, quod animae purgatae ante finale iudicium non habēt stolam, quae est clara & facialis visio Dei: & universitatē Parisien sem ad hoc induxisse dicitur, quod nemo in ea poter at gradū in Theolog. adipisci, nisiprimitus hunc errorē iurasset se defen surū, & perpetuòei adhae surū. haec Adrianus.

The fixt heresie teacheth no soule to be in blisse, before the day of iudgement, because (as it saith,) no soule before that day seeth God. The Armenians are the authors of this heresie and the Greeks hold the same. After these rose up pope Iohn, the 22. of that name. But least any man distrust my wordes in this point. I will recite the words of pope Adrian, who in his 4. book of sentences in the end of a certaine question of the sacrament of confirmation, sayeth this: Last of all, it is reported of Pope Iohn the 22. that he publikely [Page 44] taught, declared, and commanded all men to hold, that the soules of the lust, before the day of iudgement, have not the stole which is the cleare and facely vision of God. And he is reported, to have induced the Vniversity of Paris to this: that no man could take degree in the same, but he that first did sweare to defend this error, and to adheare unto it forever. Thus saith Adrian, who was him selfe pope of Rome: and thus reporteth Alphonsus a popish Friar. And it will not helpe to say, as Bellarminus doeth, in defence of popish faith: to wit, that pope Iohn erred as a private man, but not as pope: for that distincti­on doeth not only want a good foundation, whereupon it should be built, but also it flatly destroyeth the plaine text: the reason hereof, is evident to every child. First, because Adrian saith, docuit, he taught. 1 Secondly, because he saith, publicè, publikly. Thirdly, because he saith, 2 mandavit, he commanded al to hold it. Fourthly, because none could 3 be made graduate, which held not this opinion. Fiftly, because every 4 graduate did sweare to defend it, and to hold it forever. So then the 5 pope may erre in publike decree of faith, aswel as an other man. And that, even by the consent of Adrian, who was pope him selfe: yea, who for learning and knowledge, was one of the rarest popes that ever was at Rome. Canus telleth us, that Gerson, Almain, & Thomas VValdensis, do all hold, that the pope may erre, as is said. Pope Ce­lestine erred not only as a private man, (but even as pope and publike person,) in his publike decree of matrimonie. This to be so, witnes­seth the said Alphonsus, in these very words: Coelestinum papam errasse Alphons. lib. 1. cap. 4. advers. haereses. circa matrimonium fidelium, quorum alter labitur in haeresim, res est omnibus manifesta. neque hic Coelestini error talis fuit, qui soli negligentiae imputari debuit, ita ut illum errasse dicamus, velut privatam personā, & non ut papam, qui in qualibet reseria definienda consulere debet viros doctos: quoniam hu­iusmodi Coelestini definitio habebatur in antiquis decretalibus, in cap. laudabi­lem, titulo de convers. infidelium: quam ego ipse vidi, & legi. That pope Ce­lestine erred about matrimonie of the faithful, whereof th'one is [...] Pope Ce­lestus. fallen into heresie, is a thing so manifest, as all men know the same: neither was this error of Celestine such, as it ought to be imputed to negligence, so as we may think him to have erred as a private man, and not as pope, who ought in the decree of every serious matter, to aske counsell of learned men: for that definition of Celestine was in the old decretals, in the chap. laudabilem, and in the title de conversione infidelium, which I my selfe have seene & read. By this assertion of Al­phonsus, it is cleare that pope Celestine erred in the decree of faith. For first he saith, that Celestine erred, not as a private man, but as a pope, & as a publike person. Secondly, he called it the decree 1 of a serious matter. Thirdly, he termed it a definition, enrolled in the 2 popes decretals. he therfore erred, as a publike person, in the publike 3 definition & decree of faith. Pope Nicholas their. taught baptisme [Page 45] giuen onely in the name of Christ to bee of force and good, vvhich is not only an errour, but a flat heresie, neither vvil it helpe the pa­pists, to say as Bellar minus doth, that the pope did not define any Of pope Ni­colas. thing, but onely vttered his ovvne opinion as a priuate doctor. For if they vvil denie the popes publique resolutions set dovvne in their ovvne cannon law, to be decrees, and definitions: they may with as good reason call white blacke, and blacke vvhite, good euill, and euill good: and say the pope cannot erre indeed in their sense. But let vs examine the popes vvords, vvho writeth thus, as is to be seene in their ovvne lavv:

A quodam Iudaeo nescitis vtrum christiano an pagano, multos in pa­tria vestra baptizatos asseritis, & quid de ijs sit agendum consulitis: hi de consecrat. dist. 4. cap. a quodā Iudaeo. profecto si in nomine S. trinitatis, veltantum in Christi nomine, sicut in actibus apostolorum legimus baptizati sunt, (vnum quippe idem (que) est vt sanctus exponit Ambrosius) constat eos non esse denuo baptizandos.

You say, many in your countrey were baptized of a Ievv: but yee knovv not vvhether that Ievv bee a christian or a pagan, & yee aske counsell of me, vvhat is to be done in that case. doubtles they must not be rebaptized, if they vvere baptized either in the name of the holie trinitie, or onely in the name of Christ, as vve read in the actes of the Apostles: for it is all one, as saith S. Ambrose. Bellarminus con­fesseth this sentence of Nicholas to be false indeede, but he denieth it to be hereticall, because the church, that is, the pope hath not so defined it. VVhich ansvvere of Bellarminus, doth not defend that prerogatiue in decrees of faith, vvhich the pope chalengeth vnto himselfe,

1 For first, this vvas a publique decree, because the Bulgarians asked the popes iudgement, as appeareth by the vvord (consulitis) ye require my counsel.

2 Secondle, he erred herein, as Bellarminus is enforced to graunt, and consequently in his publique decree.

3 Thirdly, this his decree vvas contrarie to the Gospell, as pope Pelagius defineth in the said canon lavv. & therefore is Bellarminus his destinction friuolous, vvhen he graunteth the popes definition to be false, but not hereticall: as if forsooth an opinon repugaant to christs gospel can not be heretical, vnlesse the popes holines so ap­point it.

4 Fourthle, it is enough, that the pope hath erred in his decree of faith, whether they graunt it to be hereticall or no.

5 Fiftly, pope Pelagius, pope Zacharie, and a provinciall coun­sell of England holden in time of papistrie, have decreed his sen­tence to be hereticall. Pope Pelagius hath these wordes: De consecr. dist. 4 cap. multi.

Multi sunt qui in nomine solummodo christiani, vna etiam mersione [Page 46] se asserūt baptizare, euangelicū vero praeceptū ipso deo et domino saluato­re nostro Iesu Christo tradente, nos admonet in nomine trinitatis, trina etiam mersione, sanctum baptisma vnicui (que) tribuere.

There be many that say, they baptise onely in the name of Christ, with one mersion also: but the commaundment of the gospel deli­vered by God himselfe, and our saviour Iesus Christ, doth advertise vs to baptise euety one in the name of the trinitie, vvith three mer­sions. Pope Zacharie hath these words:

In synodo Anglorū decretū et iudicium firmissime praeceptū, et diligenter demōstatū esse digno scitur: vt quicunque sine invocatione trinitatis mer De consecr. dist. 4. cap. in synodo. sus fuisset, sacramentū regenerationis nō haberet. quod omnino verū est, quia silotus in fōte baptismatis quis fuerit sine inuocatione trinitatis, per fectus christianus nō est, nisi in nomine patris, et filij, et spiritus sācti fue­rit baptizatus hoc quo (que) obseruari in praedicta synodo sacerdotes voluerūt vt qui velvnā de trinitate personā in baptismo nō nominaret, illud bap­tisma esse verū nō posset. quod pro certo verum est, quia qui vnāex sancta trinitate confessus non fuerit, perfectus christianus esse non potest.

It is wel knowen that it was decreed in a councel of England, and that iudgement was giuen most constantly, and exactly proued, that who soeuer was baptized without the inuocation of the trinitie, hee could not haue the sacrament of regeneration: which is altogether true: because, if that any shalbe washed in the fountain of baptisme, without the innocation of the trinitie: he is no perfect christian, vn­lesse he be baptized in the name of the father, & of the son, & of the holy ghost. This also the priestes in that synod would haue obserued, that who so should omit but one person of trinitie in baptisme, that baptism could not be true. which thing is true for certainty: because, he that shall not confesse one person of the trinitie, can not be a per­fect christian. by vvhich testimonies being not onely of popes, but of english papists also assembled in councel, we haue to note 2. things: the one, that the resolutiō of pope Nicholas was a publique decree, & no priuat opiniō: the other, that his decree was false, erroneous, & cō ­trary to the gospel of Christ Iesus. Iosephus Angles, a learned popish Frier, in a booke dedicated to the pope, sheweth this vvhole matter distinctly in these words. Si baptismus modo in nomine Christitātum, vel san­ctissimae trinitatis implicite conferatur, non erit sacramentum. definita est a Ge­lasio Iosephus Angles de forma bap­tismi, ar. 4. cō ­clus. 3. papa in canone sirevera, & in canone si multi, vbi dicuntur agere contra prae­ceptum evangelicū sic baptizantes, & baptismum esse reiterandum. If baptisme this day be giuē in the name of Christ only, or in the name of the ho­ly trinitie, but not expresly, it shall not be the sacrament of baptisme. this is defined by pope Gelasius in the canō sirevera, & in the canon si multi, where they are said to doe against the precept of Christs ghos­pel, [Page 47] that baptise in that maner, & that their baptism must be iterated and done againe. in fine, it is wonderful and almost incredible, what grosse, shamefull, & vnchristian cōstitutions many popes haue made, aswel in decrees of faith as of maners. But I surceasing from recitall of huge numbers, wil content my selfe with onely 3. to wit, Stephanus the 6. Iohn the 9. & Sergius the 3. For first, pope Stephanus made fru­strate Platina in vi­tis pontificum. and of none effect, the orders receiued of pope Formosus his predecessor. but shortly after, pope Iohn disanulled & made frustrate the acts of pope Stephanus, & approued the acts of pope Formosus. yet after all this, pope Sergius vndid againe the acts of pope Formosus, & of pope Iohn, & approved the actes of pope Stephanus the sixt. These shamefull and erroneous constitutions & factes of these three popes are so true, as not onely Baptista Platina, a graue popish historiogra­pher, but Carranza also, yea & Bellarminus himself do al confesse the same. wherin we haue first to consider, that amongst the papists order is an holie sacrament, & impresseth in the receiuer, an indelible chara­cter: by vertue wherof once a bishop must euer he a bishop by popish doctrine, how soeuer iurisdiction be taken away: and consequently, since For nosus was once a bishop: to wit, episcopus Portuensis, as Argumentum ad hominem. saith Platina: and by vertue thereof had their indelible character, and power to giue orders: it was a most manifest errour in faith, and most wicked fact in maners, to decree as pope Stephanus, and pope Sergi­us did: that orders giuen by pope Formosus were not true orders, but none at all: and thereupon to commaund with the notorious scandall of all the world: that all such as were made priestes by him where is now their charac­ter indelibilis? should take orders againe, as if they had beene of the meere lai­call order.

The 6. Conclusion.

NOt onely the pope as pope may erre in his publique decrees, when he alone defineth matters of faith or maners: but also when hee so defineth, vvith a prouinciall romish councell. This con­clusion is certaine and vndoubtedly true, euen by the testimo­nies of best learned papistes. And because Bellarminus dorh not denie this to be so, I will alleage his words, which be these:

Secunda opinio est, pontificem etiam vt pontificem, posse esse hereti­cum, Bellarminus lib. 4. de Rom. pōtifice cap. 2. & docere haeresim, si abs (que) generali concilio definiat, & de facto ali­quando accidisse. hanc opinionem sequitur & tuetur Nilus in suo libro aduer sus primatum papae. eandem sequuti sunt aliquot Parisienses, vt Gerson, & Almain in libris de potestate ecclesiae, nec non Alphonsus de Castro libro primo, capit 2. contra haereses, & Adrianus sextus pa­pa in questione de confirmatione: qui omnes non in pontisice sed [Page 48] in ecclesia, siue in concilio generali tantum, constituunt infallibilitatem dicij de rebus fidei.

2 The second opinion is, that the pope euen as pope, may bee an Loe the doc­trine of the best learned papistes is good, and al­together a­gainst the popedom. heretique, and teach heresie: if he define without a generall coun­cell: and that this hath in verie deede sometime chaunced so. this opinion doth Nilus follovve and defend, in his booke against the popes primacie. The same opinion haue some of the vniuersitie of Paris followed, as Gerson & Alma in in their books of the churches povver, and of their opinion are also Alphōsus, and pope Adrian: vvho all do not ascribe the infallibilitie of iudgement to the pope, but to the church or to a generall councell onely, in all matters of faith: out of vvhich vvords I note:

1 First, that the pope as pope may erre when he alone decreeth a­nie matter of faith.

2 I note secondlie, that the pope, as pope may erre, vvhen he defi­neth anie matter of faith vvithout a generall councell: and conse­quentlie, that he may erre vvith a prouinciall councell.

3 I note thirdly, that popes as popes, that is as publique persons, haue erred alreadie, and de facto: vvhen they haue decreed vvith­out a generall councell.

4 I note fourthlie, that all this is testifyed by foure great learned papistes, vvhereof one vvas pope himselfe.

These testimonies are important, doubtlesse, & verie sufficient to establish my conclusion. But I vvill alleage yet another proofe, so excellent, so evident, and so irrefragable, as more cannot be vvish­ed. The proofe standeth thus.

Pope Stephanus, vvith a councell of all the bishops and priestes of Italie, defined flatlie against rebaptization. vvhich decree of coun­cell vvith the popes assent thereto: Saint Cyprian contemned, after it defending his former opinion constantlie. yea he vvas so far from acknowledging that prerogatiue in popes, vvhich they of latter daies chalenge vnto them selues, that he vvould not take pope Ste­phanus for his superiour, or to haue anie iurisdiction ouer him, but termed him, superbum, imperitum, & caeeae ac prauae mentis, proud, igno­rant, blind, and naughtie, as is euident to such as reade his epistle to Pompeius. Out of vvhich I note:

1 First, that Cyprian vvas an holie martir, & novv a saint in hea­uen..

2 I note secondly, that he vvas a verie ancient father and a great learned clarke.

3 I note thirdly, that he knevv vvhat the pope and his councell had decreed.

4 I note fourthly, that he iudged a romish coūcel to be of no greater [Page 49] force than a Councell African. I note fiftlie, that hee iudged the Coun­cell of Italie to bee of no greater force for the Popes consent, then was 5 the Councell of Afrike for his owne consent. I note sixtlie, that provinci­all 6 Councels are of no greater authoritie for the Popes confirmation, than for the confirmation of another bishop: all which pointes are necessari­lie deduced, out of Saint Cyprians fact, and writings. And Bellarminus Bellarm. lib. 4 de Rom. Pont. cap. 7 answere hereunto is frivolous, and not worth the rehearsall. The Pope defined not the controversie as a matter of faith (saith Bellarminus) be­cause he did not excommunicate Saint Cyprian: A sweet dish of a messe of mustarde. The Pope utterlie disliking Saint Cyprian his opinion, and deeming it repugnant to Christes Gospell, and for that ende convoca­ting all the Clergie men of Italie, did define the controversie, but not Bellerminus is confuted. as a matter of faith, saith Bellarminus. The controversie was about re­baptization, which was either flatlie with the Gospell, or flatlie against the same. If it were flatlie with the Gospell, then erred the Pope and his Councell egregiouslie: If it were flatlie against the Gospell, and the Pope decreed it, then decreed he against it, as against a matter of faith, or els o­pinions against the Gospell are not against faith.

The first Conclusion.

THe decrees of generall Councels in these latter dayes, are nothing els but a meere mockerie and sophisticall subtiltie, to deceive Gods peo­ple withall. For although there be before everie generall Councell, so­lemne convocation, sumptuous preparation, and chargeable peregrenati­on: and before the end, long, costlie, and tedious abode, yet neither doe or can the Fathers of the councels determine anie thing there, which the Pope hath not before concluded, sitting in his chaire at home. This may seeme strange unto thee (gentle Reader,) as sometimes ir did unto my selfe: but I shall (God willing) unfold the obscuritie with such evident perspicuitie, as never man henceforth can stand in doubt thereof. This shall bee per­fourmed, if I prooue 4, things: First, if I proove that the decrees of Coun­cels be of no force with papists, unles the Popes Legates consent unto the 1 same. Secondlie, if I proove that though the Popes Legates agree unto the decrees of Councels, yet are the said decrees of no force: if the legates 2 shal consent unto anie one iot, contrarie to the Popes appointment. Third­lie, if I proove that the pope cannot delegate his authoritie, unto the Le­gates 3 whome he sen deth to the Councell. Fourthlie, if I proove that he wil not come to the Councels himselfe, but determine everie thing at home 4 in his chamber. the proofe hereof shall be the flattestimonie of Melchior Canus, a most profounde Schoolman in reasoning, a most reverend Bi­shop [Page 51] in dignitie, a most sound papist in opinion and sometime the chiefest and most excellent pofessour of Divinitie, in Salmantica. This Canus wri­teth in this manner:

Si Legatus contra instructionem agit, non censetur ex potestate dele­gata Canus lib. 5 de auctor. Conc, cap. 5. agere, at (que) adeo non est, cur eo modo act a superioris auctoritate pro­bata esse credantur. Et paulò pòst? Decreta igitur quae à Legato contra sedis Apostolicae traditionem approbentur, non habent Romanae Eccle­siae authoritatem, nec aliter se habent, quam sià Concilio sine Lega. tis prodijssent. & paulò pòst. Solidam auctoritatem, quam in confirman­dis & fratribus & dogmatibus Petrus habet, in Legatos transferre non potest.

If the Legate doe anie thing contrary to instruction given him, hee must not be deemed to proceede of power delegate, and so there is no cause why the pope shall be thought to approve the decrees: The decrees therefore, which the Legate shall approove against tradition of the Church To what ende are Councels, when everie thing must be as the Pope saith at home. of Rome, have no authoritie from the Church of Rome, neither are they of anie more force, than if they had proceeded from the Councell with­out consent of the Legates: The sound authoritie therefore, which Peter hath in confirming his brethren and decrees, he cannot transferre unto his Legates. These are the expresse wordes of Canus, that great piller of popish doctrine. Out of whose wordes I note first, that decrees of Coun­cels bee of no force without consent of the Legates. I note secondlie, that the decrees of Councels, even when they have the consent of the Le­gates: are yet of no force when the Legates condiscend to anie thing, a­gainst the Popes minde. I note thirdlie, that the Pope cannot translate or give his authoritie unto the Legate, and consequentlie, the Pope greatlie abuseth the whole world, when he calleth together all bishops in the Christian world, and yet will allowe nothing that they doe: unles it be the same that hee decreeth, in his chaire at home. Now that hee never commeth to Councels in his owne person, Bellarminus recordeth in this maner:

Summus Pontifex nunquam interfuit Concilijs Orient alibus per Bellarm. lib. 1 de Conciliis. cap. 19 se, &c.

The Pope was never present at the Councels in the East Church, in his owne person: and why was not the Pope present at generall Councelles in the East Church? Bellarminus giveth two reasons; the one forsooth, because it was not convenient, that the heade should follow the mem­bers. The other, because the Emperour would ever sitte in the highest Mark what the Popes vassal saith, place: which our humble Father the Pope, coulde not endure. Out of vvhose wordes I note two thinges: the one, that the highest [Page 52] place in Councels, was in olde time reserved to the Emperour: the other, that the Greeke Church did never acknowledge the Popes primacie.

The second Conclusion.

IN these latter dayes since the Pope attained his usurped iurisdiction, generall Councelles are so destitute of the holie Ghostes asistance, (though the Papistes never cease to bragge thereof) that they decree al­together against the holie Ghost. This is manifest by the solemne de­crees of the late Councel of Trent, as after due examination will evident­lie appeare. First therefore, the saide Councell decreed flatlie, that to be no matrimonie which was approoved Matrimonie, by the uniforme con­sent of the auncient Catholike Church, and which is this day perfect Matrimonie by Christes institution: These be the wordes of the Coun­cell,

Qui aliter quam praesente parocho vel alio Sacerdote de ipsius seu or­dinarii licentia, & duobus vel tribus testibus matrimonium contra­here Conc. Triden. de reformati­one. Sess. 8. p. 46. 9. attent abunt, eos sancta synodus ad sic contrahendum omnino in­habiles reddit, & huiusmodi contractus irritos & nullos esse decernit presenti decreto.

They that shall goe about to marrie otherwise, than in the presence of the parish Priest, or of some other priest, by his licence, or graunt of the Ordinarie, and with two or three witnesses those the holie Counsell maketh utterlie uncapable of Mariage, and defineth by this present de­cree, such contracts to be frustrate and of no force. By which words and by which decree we see plainelie, that this day those persons are made uncapable of matrimonie, and their mariage disanulled, whom Christ Behold here the magnifi­cēce of popish Councels. pronounceth capable, and whose marriage hee approoved. For before this decree of the late Councell of Trent, all papistes in the worlde ap­prooved private and secrete matrimonies, for true and perfect: yea, all learned papistes doe confesse constantlie, such clandestine matrimonies to be true mariages in England, albeit that such contracts be of no force neither in Spaine nor Italie, by their religion. The reason hereof is, be­cause promulgation of the said Tridentine Councels decree was not yet made in England, as appeareth by the first Cannon in the eight secti­on dereformatione. This constant opinion of all Divines, the Councell it selfe acknowledged in these wordes,

Dubitandum non est, clandestina matrimonia libero consensu facta rata & vera esse matrimonia, quandiu Ecclesia ea irrita non fecit. Conc. Triden. Sess. 8. de re­formatione.

There is no doubt, but clandestine and secrete matrimonies made with free consent, were perfect and true matrimonies, so long as the Church did not disanull the same. Yea, the Councell of Trent acknowledgeth [Page 53] matrimonie, to be one of the seven Sacraments of the newe Testament instituted by Christ, and yet accurseth all such as beleeve not the Church of Rome, to have authoritie to dissolve the same. These be the wordes:

Si quis dixerit matrimonium non esse verè & propriè, unum ex sep­tem Conc. Triden. sess. 8. Can. 1 de matimon, legis Evangelicae sacramentis à Christo domino institutum, sed ab hominibus in Ecclesiam invectum, ne (que) gratiam conferre, anathe­masit.

If anie shall say that matrimonie is not truelie and properlie, one of the seven Sacraments of the Evangelicall law instituted by Christ our Lord, but brought into the Church by men, neither to give grace, accursed be that man. And in another place it hath these wordes,

Si quis dixerit Ecclesiam non potuisse constituere impedimenta ma­trimonium dirimentia, vel in ijs constituendis errasse, anathemasit. Sess. 8. Can. 4

If anie shal say, that the Church could not appoint impediments which dissolve matrimonie, or that the Church erred in appointing them, accur­sed be that man. These bee the decrees of the holie Councell of Trent, which, as the Papists beleeue, had the assistance of the holie Ghost, and therefore could not erre. Out of which decrees we have first, that ma­trimonie 1 is a contract instituted by Christ himselfe: we have secondlie, 2 that it is an holie Sacrament with the Papistes: Wee have thirdlie, that it is now no Sacrament with the Papistes, which by Christs institution is a 3 Sacrament in their religion: We have fourthlie, that matrimonial con­tractes, made without the presence of a Priest: are true and perfect ma­trimonies, 4 by Christes law and institution: We have fiftlie, that such ma­trimonies, 5 to wit, clandestine, are disanulled and made no matrimonies, by the Pope and his Tridentine Councell. neither will it help to say, as the wiser sort of Papists doeth, that the Councell doeth not unmarie per­sons alreadie married, but onelie disableth unmaried persons so, as their prohibited marriages cannot be of force. For, first, the Councell pro­nounceth that to be no Mariage, by reason of mans prohibition, which 1 without such prohibition should bee perfect mariage by Christs instituti­on: as is alreadie prooved out of the said Councell. Secondlie, that pro­hibition taketh away the libertie of the Gospell, as which implyeth a 2 negative precept not contained in the law of nature: for as their famous popish doctour Franciscus à Victoria writeth,

Lex Evangelicalex libertatis d Christo & Apostolis vocatur, quod Victoria rele. 7. de matrim. pag. 280. solo jure naturali post Evangelium Christiani teneantur, ex omnibus quae in veteri lege erant.

The lawe of the Gospell is tearmed the lawe of libertie, by Christ and his Apostles: because after the Gospell Christians are bound onelie to the law of nature, concerning all such things as were in the olde Law. Third­lie, [Page 54] because this to do, is to challenge greater authoritie than Christ hath, and to be aboue Christ. The reason whereof is evident, because an inferi­our cannot chaunge the law of his superiour, unlesse he haue from his su­periour commission so to doe: which Victoria well observed in these wordes:

Dispensatio in lege spectat solùm ad legislatorem, vel superio­rem, Victor. de po­test. Papae. & Concil. relect. 4. ad, S. p. 133 vel adillum cui specialiter commiserint ipsi.

Dispensation in the Law pertaineth onelie to the lawmaker, or to his superiour, or to whome they speciallie graunt commission: If answere be made, that the Pope hath such commission: then would I know, whe­ther he received it by word or writing: in the meane season the saide Vi­ctoria telleth the Pope, that he cannot dispence in the law divine. These be his wordes:

Manet ergo conclusio tanquam certa & firma, quod in primo ge­nere Victor. ubi su­prà. praeceptorum Concilij, scilicet quae sunt iuris divini, Papa non po­test dispensare.

The conclusion therefore abideth firme and sure, that in the first kind of preceptes of the Councell: to wit, which are of the lawe divine, the Pope cannot dispence. And of Victoria his opinion, are Thomas Aqui­nus, Anthoninus, Sylvester, Soto, Covarruvias, and all learned papistes. Fourthlie, because that which is of more force, to wit, a simple vow, doth 4 not dissolve matrimonie: for if that which is of greater force cannot disa­null matrimonie, much lesse can that doe it, which is of lesser force, as both the rule of logick and experience teacheth. Now, that a simple vowe is of greater force than the Popes prohibition, cannot be denied: for it is de iu­re divino, as all the Papistes confesse, and as the Scripture recordeth. And Psal. 75 Eccl. 5 that a simple vow doeth not dissolve matrimonie: Angelus prooveth at Angelus de mattimon. imped. 5 large, out of the popish Cannon law. Fiftlie, because the Pope or Coun­cell cannot change the essence or essentiall partes of matrimonie, for so saith the Tridentine Councell. And if it were otherwise, the Pope might 5 make more or fewer Sacraments at his pleasure: whereuppon it fol­loweth necessarilie, that all matrimoniall contractes bee as perfectlie matrimonies this day, as they were in Christs time: notwithstanding the prohibition of the Pope, or of his Councell. For the essence and substantiall partes abiding unaltered and perfect, the matrimonie must needes be perfect. Sixtlie, because the Priest is meere extrinsecall unto the contract, and therfore cannot necessarilie concurre to the essentiall 6 constitution thereof. The Councell then in this decree, was destitute of the holie Ghost. The saide Councell affirmeth the solemne vowe of re­ligion, to dissolve matrimonie in these wordes:

Si quis dixerit matrimonium ratum non consummatum, per so­lemnem Conc. Triden. de mat, Sess. 8. can. 6. religionis professionem alterius coniugum non dirimi, ana­themasit.

[Page] If any shall say that matrimonie firme not consummate, is not dissolved by solemne profession of religion of the one partie, accursed be that man. This decree likewise is flat against the holie Ghost: which to be so, I prove by sundrie meanes. The Councell it selfe shall first confute it selfe, when it saith thus:

Matrimonij perpetuum indissolubilem (que) nexum, primus humani ge­neris Conc. Triden. Sess. 8. in init. parens divini spiritus instinctu pronuntiavit, cum dixit: hoc nunc os exossib. meis, & caro de carne mea: & paulò post: quod deus coniunxit, homo non separet. The first parent of mankind pronounced by the instinct of the holie Ghost, the perpetuall and indissoluble bond of matrimonie, when he said: this is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: and a litle after: what therfore God hath coupled together, let no man put asun­der: These are the wordes of the Councell: by which wee see evidentlie confessed, even of the Councell: that matrimonie was indissoluble by Gods The Councel that dissol­veth, which it confesseth to indissoluble. appointment, before the consummation (as they tearme it,) or before co­pulation carnall, which is all one. Whereuppon I inferre first, that ma­trimonie before consummation, or carnall copulation: is indissoluble by the holie Ghosts appointment. I inferre secondlie, that the Councel of Trent dissolveth matrimonie before consummation. I inferre thirdlie, directlie upon the first and second illation: that the decrees of the Councel, are flat­lie against the holie Ghost. I inferre fourthlie, that that may trulie be ve­rified of the Pope and his Councel of Trent: which their owne Doctour Victoria soundeth out against them, in these words:

Officium Apostolorum Paulus semper vocat ministerium, & certè si quis mandata Christi relaxaret, non se haberet sicut Dei minister, sed si­cut Victor. relect. 4. de potest. Papae. & Con. ad. 5. Arg. pag. 132 aequalis, aut potius superior.

Paule tearmeth the office of the Apostles alwaies ministerie: and doub­lesse, if anie should dissolve Christs commandements, he should not behave himselfe as the minister of God, but as his equall, or rather as his Supe­our.

The third Conclusion.

ALthough the Popes of latter yeares take upon them to like or dis­like, to proove or disproove the decrees of generall Councels at their pleasures: yet is everie generall Councell above the Pope, yet may everie generall Councell excommunicate, iudge, and depose the Pope, yet may everie generall Councell sette downe lawes and de­crees concerning faith and manners: which no Pope hath authoritie, once to alter or change. All which shall be prooved, Gods holie Spi­rite assisting me, by the flat testimonies and opinions of the best lear­ned [Page] Papistes. Victoria writeth in this maner,

Si Concilium declarat aliquid esse de fide, aut de iure divino, Papa in hoc nihil potest aliter declarare aut immutare, maximè sitale ius spe­ctet Victor. ubi su­prà. concil. 2, pag. 133. adfidem vel admores Ecclesiae universalis.

If the Councell declare anie thing to be of faith or of the lawe divine, in this point the Pope can nothing otherwise declare or change: especial­lie, if such law appertaine either to faith or maners of the universal Church. Of this opinion are manie other learned papistes, and especiallie, their Angelicall Doctor Thomas Aquinas: that everie generall Councell is above the Pope: great learned papistes affirme constantlie, to wit, Abu­lensis, Panormitanus, Ioannes Gerson, Almainus, Cardinalis Came­racensis, and Cardinalis Florentinus. Panormitanus argueth out of Pope Panorm. in Concil. Basil. num. 18. apud Vict. pag. 139. Gregories wordes, that as the Pope cannot chaunge anie thing in the contentes of the Gospell, so neither can he chaunge anie thing in the de­crees of Councels. Yea Ioannes Gerson proceedeth further, and saith, that a generall councel cannot onlie limit the Popes power, so as he can neither Io. Gerson 1. parte tract. 3. apud Vict. pag. 138. dispense nor abrogate the decree of the Councell: but also that the Coun­cell may upon a reasonable cause, exempt anie man from his iurisdicti­on. that the Councell may iudge and depose the Pope, as also compell him to appeare, and for his disobedience excommunicate his Holines: The Popes owne deare Friar Iosephus Angles Valentinus, avoucheth in these wordes,

Concilium ecclesiae potest Papam per excommunicationem compellere, Iosephus in 4. sentent. p. 2. q. de excom. art. 4. diffic. 1. con­clus. 3. nt redditurus rationem haeresis aut apostasiae criminis cuius accusatur, compareat, & in his duobus casibus illum excommunicare. patet, quia cumpossit in his duobus casibus papam deponere, erit tunc illo superior, & exconsequenti antequam deponatur, per excommunicationem illum ut in iudicio compare at, compellere: aliter enimsi non posset Concilium Papam compellere, ne (que) posset illum iudicare.

A generall Councell may by excommunication compell the Pope to appeare, and to give an account of that heresie or apostacie, whereof he is accused: and in these two cases excommunicate him. The thing is evident, because when it can in these two cases depose the Pope, it shall then be his superiour: and consequentlie, before he be deposed, com­pell him by excommunication to appeare in iudgement. For otherwise, if the Councell could not compell the Pope, neither could it iudge him. I could alleadge moe like testimonies in this behalfe, but it is needles: because manie expresse textes in the Popes owne cannon lawe, doe wit­nesse the same: whereof this one of Pope Zozimus may suffice for ma­nie,

Contra statuta sanctorum Patrum condere aliquid aut immutare, 25. q 1. cap. con­tra. [Page 57] nec huius quidem sedis potest authoritas.

To make any lawe, or to chaunge any thing against the decrees of the holy fathers: this our seat of Rome hath no authoritie. Vict. relict. 4. de potest. pa­pae. concl. 20. p. 149.

Victoria saith thus:

Bene scio quod Pavormitanus, & Gerson, & Okam defendunt, quod licet appellare a papa ad concilium.

I know right wel, that Pavnormitaine, Gerson, and Okam doe holde, that vvee may appeale from the pope vnto a generall councell,

Bellarminus graunteth, that albeit Cameracensis, Gerson, Al­maine, Cusanus, Pavnormitanus, Florentinus, Abulensis, (who all are great popish doctors,) doe differ in the maner, yet doe they all acknowledge the povver of a generall councell, to be greater then the authoritie of the pope.

These be his verie owne words:

Conveniunt tamen in eo omnes, vt doceant esse hanc potestatem im­mediatè Bellar. de con. lib. 2. 1. 14. in ecclesia, & proinde mortuo papavel deposito vel nolente adesse concilio, concilium non propterea esse corpus imperfectum, sed perfectū & habere potest atē papalē definiendi de fide, sanciendi leges, dandi indul­gentias &c. exquib. deducunt concilium esse supra papam, & posse ipsum indicare, & punire: & idem esse querere, an papasit maior concilio, ac si quereretur, an pars sit maior suototo.

But they all agree in this, that they teach this power to be imme­diatly in the church: and therefore when the Pope is dead, or depo­sed, or will not come to the councel (as he neuer doth,) that then the councell is not an vnperfect bodie, but perfect, and hath papall power to define matters of faith, to make lawes, to giue pardons, &c. VVhereupon they gather that the councell is aboue the pope, that it can iudge him and punish him, and that it is all one to demaunde if the pope be greater then the councell, as if it were asked if the part be bigger then the whole. The councell of Basill defined it for an ar­ticle of our faith, to beleeue that the councell is aboue the pope.

These be the expresse words of the councell:

Veritas de potestate concilij generalis vniuersalem ecclesiam reprae­sentantis Cont. Basilen­sess. 33. supropapam & quemlibet alterum, declarata per Constantiense & hoc Basileense generalia concilia, est veritas fidei catholicae.

The veritie of the power of a generall councell representing the vniuersall church aboue the pope, and euerie other person declared by the generall councell of Constance, and this of Basil, is the verie truth of the catholike faith. And the councell addeth another clause, to wit, that whosoeuer denieth this veritie obstinately, is to be re­puted 25. q. 1. cap. unt quidam. for an heretike. In fine, Pope vrbanus saith thus:

[Page 58] Vbi apertè Dominus veleius apostoli, & eos sequentes sancti patres sententialiter aliquid definierunt, ibi non novam legem Rom. Pontifex dare, sed potius quod praedicatum est, vsque ad animam & sanguinem confirmare debet.

vvhere our Lord or his apostles haue spoken any thing plainlie, and the holy fathers comming after them, haue defined any thing iudicially, There the bishop of Rome must not make any new lavv, but rather confirme that vvhich is preached, vvith the best bloud in his bodie.

The fourth Conclusion.

GEnerall and popish councels in these daies, are as a nose of waxe, and the decrees therof as vncertaine as the wind.

This conclusion is proved to be such, by the expresse iudgement of great learned papistes.

Bellarminus writeth of councels, in this maner:

Nos dicimus, concessum episcoporum in concilijs legitimis esse verum Bellar. de con­lib. 1. cap. 18. iudicum concessum, & eorum decreta & leges necessario sequendas.

vve say, that the assembly of Bishops in lavvfull councels, is the true assembly of iudges, and that their decrees and lavves must bee followed of necessitie.

But in another place, the same Bellarminus hath these vvords:

Dico igitur, concilium illud non posse errare, quod absolutè est genera­le, Bellar. lib. 2. de concil. cap. 11. & ecclesiam vniversam perfectè representat: eiusmodi autem conci­lium non est, antequam adsit sententia summi pontificis.

I say therefore, that that councell cannot erre, which is absolutely generall, and vvhich representeth the vniuersall church perfectly: but such a councell is not before the pope giue his assent. And hee saith againe in the selfe same chapter:

Idem enim est sive pontifex expresse concilium reprobet, sive conciliū agat contra pontificis sententiam.

For it is all one, whether the pope expressely disalow the councel, or the councell doe against the popes mind. Now in the first place Bellarminus telleth vs, that bishops are true iudges in the councels, and haue definitiue voices in the same: and that their decrees must Mat contra­diction in the Iesuite. needes be followed. But in the other two places he singeth another song and telleth vs, that though the Pope commeth not in person to the councels, but sendeth his legats in his place: yet are the decrees of such councels of no force, nor to any purpose, vnlesse they bee ac­cording to the popes mind. They are therefore as a nose of waze, be­cause, when the bishops haue imploied their whole industrie, when they haue vsed long consultation, when they haue disputed the mat­ter [Page 59] pro & contra: when they haue inuocated the holy ghost, and haue with mature deliberation set downe cannons, accursing such as will not obay the same: the pope notvvithstanding saith, all this is not worth a stravv, as which is contrarie to his opinion, that cannot erre, and so of none effect.

For the vncertaintie of the decrees of councels, Bellarm. saith thus:

Non potest fieri vt aliquando adfinem controuersiarum deveniatur, ni­sidetur Bellarm. de concil. l. 1. c. 21. locus maiori parti suffragiorum.

It cannot be, that euer an end of controversies should be made, vn­lesse the greater part of voices bee of force: and he saith in another place.

Est autem verum decretum concilij quod fit a maiori parte, alioqui nul­lum Idem Bellar. li, 2. ca. 11. esset legitimum concilij decretum, cum semper aliqui dissenti­ant.

For it is the true decree of the councell, vvhich hath the consent of the greater part: othervvise there should bee no lavvfull decree made, because euer some dissent.

But Melchior Canus telleth vs another tale, and saith in this maner:

Non ita (que) quod in Romanis concessionibus fit, plurium apud nos sen­tentia praevalet: Canus li. 5. de auct. concilii, cap. 5. p. 164 Of th [...] popes gravitie and authoritie, see at large in the 3. chapter. & paulo post, nō enim numero haec indicantur, sed pon­dere. Pondus autem concilijs dat summi Pontificis, & gravitas, & au­ctoritas: quae si adsit centum patres satis sunt, sin desit nulli sunt satis, sint quamlibet plurimi.

Not therfore as in humaine consents the voices of moe are of force vvith vs: for these thinges are not iudged in number, but in weight: and the councels receiue their weight from the grauitie and autho­ritie of the pope: vvhich if it be once present an hundreth fathers are enough, but if it vvant, none are enough, be as manie as they vvill.

Novv sir, Bellarminus telleth vs, that moe voices in councelles must needes be of force: But Canus saith, it is not so: for bee they manie, be they few, what part the pope liketh shall be true.

The decrees therefore of popish councels, are as vncertaine as the vvind. For after the fathers of the councels haue fasted long, praied much, consulted gravely, deliberated maturely, decreed soberlie, commaunded strictlye, and accursed severely: neither others, nor yet themselues canne tell, what shall be of force therein: for all must be as pleaseth the popes holinesse, & perhaps their de­crees will not content his mind.

The fift Conclusion.

NO bishops can in these our daies haue voices in councels, but such as first sweare obedience to the pope, and promise to de­fend his canon law: which thing, though most absurd, is for all that so cleare, as Bellarminus cannot denie the same.

These be his words. Bellar. lib. 1. de concil. cap. vl­timo.

Istud iur amentum non tollit epi scoporum libertatem, quae in concilijs necessaria est. iur ant enim se fore obedientes summo pontifici, quod in­telligitur donec pontifex est, & dum iubet ea quae secundum deum & sa­cros canones iubere potest, seanon iur ant se non aicturos quod senti­unt in concilio, vel se non deposituros eum si hereticum esse con­vincant.

This oth taketh not avvay the libertie of Bishops, which in coun­cels is necessarie. For they sweare that they vvill bee obedient vnto the pope, which is to be vnderstood, so long as he is pope, and while he commaundeth those thinges, which he may commaund agreea­ble to God, and to the holie cannons: but they sweare not, that they will not speake vvhat they thinke in the councell, or that they will not depose him if they proove him to bee an heretique.

Thus saith Bellarminus, vvhose onely testimonie is most sufficient A point wor­thie the ob­servation. in all popish affaires, as vvho is the popes sworne and tenderlye beloued vassall: Out of whose vvordes for more perspicuitie, I note.

1 First, that all Cleargie men admited to giue voices in councelles, are sworne vvholly to obey all the popes constitu­tions.

2 I note secondly, that the sayd persons are sworne to beleeue, that the pope cannot erre in his iudiciall decrees of faith or maners: that no councels are of force, vvithout the popes confirmation: thatall councels confirmed by him, are approued by the holie ghost: that he can excommunicate & deposeall Emperours, kings, queenes, and bishops in the christian vvorld, that hee can deliuer by his par­dons all soules out of purgatorie, and a thousand like things. For all such matters are conteined in his canons, and consequentlie in their most lamentable oth.

3 I note thirdly, that they are svvorne to admit his decrees, vvho as they beleeue, may be an heretique.

4 I note fourthly, that they are svvorne to admit his iudgement in all matters of faith, vvhom yet they may iudge and depose for heresie.

[Page 61] 5 I note fiftly, that their fundamentall article, in appointing the Pope iudge over all controversies: is quite overthrowen and turned vpside downe, in this Bellarminus his explication. For when he saith, (while he commandeth, &c.) he graunteth every Bishop freedome The incon­stancie of Po­pish doctrine, is the cause of dissenting from them. to examine and iudge, when the Pope commaundeth things agree­able to God and the Canons. VVhich libertie, if they would con­stantly performe: all true Christians and perfect Catholicks, would agree with them. For none that beleeve rightly in God, will denie obedience to the Pope: when he preacheth and teacheth any thing, agreeable to God and holy Canons. But true Christians finding his canons to be disholy, and his decrees to be against God: thinke as Bellarminus here teacheth them, that they are not bound to obey him. For as an other great learned papist Franciscus à Victoria saith profoundly, the vniust laws of the Pope doe not binde in conscience. These are his very words:

Ego pro certo habeo, quod omnes leges iniustae etiam Papae, non obli­gant Victor. relect. 4. de potest. Papae & Con­cilii propos. 17. pag. 157. in foro conscientiae.

I holde it for a constant and vndoubted truth, (saith the Popes learned Doctour,) that all uniust lawes even of the Pope, doe not bind in the Court of conscience.

The Papistes then, who charge us so strictly to obey the popes lawes, and withall prohibite us to examine the same, doe deny us that libertie, which they take unto them selves: and that the Reader may fully understand the abomination of the othe, which all popish Bishops sweare unto the Pope: I will here set downe the expresse wordes thereof, as I finde them in their owne decretals:

Ego N. Episcopus, ab hac hor a fidelis ero S. Petro, sanctae (que) Romanae Ecclesiae, domino (que) meo Papae N. eius (que) successoribus Canonicè intrātibus. Sequitur: Papatum Romanae Ecclesiae, & regulas sanctorum patrum, ad­iutor ero, ad defendendum & retinendum contra omnes homines; sic me Deus adiuvet, & haec sancta Evangelia.

I (Iohn Fisher,) Bishop, will be faithfull from hencefoorth to S. Peter, Decret. l b. 2. tit. 24. cap. 4. and to the holy Church of Rome, and to my L. (Boniface) the pope, and to his successours chosen Canonically: and I will be an helper to defend (against all the world,) the popedome, or Pa­pall superioritie, and the rules of the holy fathers; so God me helpe, and the holy Gospell.

Loe 'here gentle reader, open rebellion is required and by evangelicall othe coufirmed, of suhiectes against their sove­raignes: for the bishops of euery countrey, are fubiects to kings of the same countrey, and yet doe they sweare to defend the [Page 62] popes tyrannie, and vsurped iurisdiction, against their naturall dread Soueraignes. For they sweare to defend the popes vsurped authoritie against all people none excepted: which his vsurped au­thoritie, (as you haue partlie heard, and shall heare more at large in the sixt Chapter following,) extendeth it selfe to the translati­on of kingdomes, empyres, and regalities.

The 1. Conclusion.

THE pope vsually dispenseth vvith professed Monkes, that they may marrie lawfullie: which dispensation is not onely against the lavve divine with them, but flatlye against the Popes owne religion.

In this conclusion, three thinges are to be proued.

• 1 First, that the pope doth dispense, as is said.
• 2 Secondly, that his dispensation is against the law diuine.
• 3 Thirdly, that it is against his owne religion.

For the first part, Navarrus writeth in this maner: Navarrus de iuditiis, notab. 3. p. 275

Papa potest dispensare cum monacho iam professo, vt contrahat ma­trimonium: imò de facto multi papae dispensarūt. Consentit ipse Caie­tanus, Antoninus, & Paludanus.

The pope may dispense vvith a Monke alreadie professed, that hee may take a wife and marrie: for many popes de facto haue dispen­sed so Caietanus, Antoninus, and Palludanus are of the same opi­nion. For the second point Victoria writeth thus: Multitenent quod victor. de potest. papae, relect 4. ad 3. argument. Papa non potest dispensare in votis, quia dispensatio proprie est relaxatio iuris. vnde cum sit de ture divino, dispensatio erit iuris divini relaxatio, quod sane ad papam non spectat. & vtinam haec opinio non sit vera.

Many hold, that the Pope can not properlie dispense in vowes, because dispensation properly is the relaxation of the Lavv. where­vpon since a vow is of the law divine, dispensation must bee remissi­on of the lavv divine: which thing doubtles belongeth not vnto the Pope: and would to God this opinion were not true.

Loe, this religious Frier is so zealouslie affected towards the popes credite, that he vvisheth the opinion which overthrovveth his prac­tise were not true.

And the Popes famous Canonist Covarruvias, writeth to the same effect in these vvords: Covarruvias to. 1 c. 20. par. 11 in med. ip­sius col. prima

Nec me latet D. Thomam previa maxima deliberatione asserere, Rom. Pontificem non posse propria dispensatione continentiae solemne Monachorum votum tollere. & paulo post: oportet tamen pri­mam opinionem defendere, ne quae passim fiant evertantur om­nino.

Neither am I ignorant, that Saint Thomas affirmeth af­ter Necessitie hath no law, the popes mind must be obered. greate deliberation; that the Bishoppe of Rome can not vvith his dispensation, take away from Monkes their solemne vowe of chastitie: This notwithstanding vvee muste defende the first opinion, lest those things vvhich are practised euery where, [Page] be utterly overthrowne: thus saith the great Canonist and reve­rend The popes doings must be defended, be­cause other­wise poperie cannot stand. popish bishop Covarruvias, out of whose wordes sundrie things may be noted worthy the observation.

First, that the papistes cannot agree about the Popes authority.

Secondly, that great learned papistes among whome Thomas Aquinas is one, (whose doctrine sundry Popes haue confirmed,) 1 doe denie the Popes authoritie in the premisses. 2

Thirdly, that the contrary opinion must be defended, for the honestie and safegard of the popes religion. 3

Fourthly, that most miserable is the Popes doctrine, which nee­deth such poore and beggerly shiftes for the maintenance thereof. 4

Fiftly, that the papists haue no cause so to exclaime against priests mariage, since the Pope dispenseth with his monkes to marry at 5 their pleasures. For the mariage of priestes is onely prohibited by the Popes law, but the marriage of monkes by the law divine, as the Popes owne deare doctours Victoria and Aquinas tell us.

Sixtly, that Aquinas his doctrine, which the Pope hath approo­ved, 6 confuteth the Popes religion. For the third point, Thomas Aquinas giveth this testimony, out of the Popes owne law.

Abdicatio proprietatis sicut etiam custodia castitatis, adeo annexa est regulae monachali, ut contra eānec summus Pontifex possit indulgere.

The renouncing of propertie, as also the keeping of chastitie, is so annexed to the rule of monkes, that the Pope him selfe cannot dispence against the same: this saying of Thomas Aquinas, is found verbatim in the popes canons, Extra destatu monachorum Extra de statu monachorum cum ad mon. cum ad monasterium.

The 2. Conclusion.

THe Pope often pronounceth matrimony dissolved by his dispen­sations, which is firme and stable by Christes owne instituti­on. The first part is prooved by Martinus Navarrus, in these words.

Dividitur (matrimonium) ante consummationem, per dispensa­tionem Papae iusta de causa factam. Navarr. in en­chir. cap. 22. par. 21.

Matrimonie is dissolved before consummation, by the popes dis­pensation vpon iust cause graunted. And a litle after he hath these wordes:

Quorum opinio adeo observatur, quodetiam ter vel quater adpetiti­ones consilio meo antequam in urbem venissem oblatas, Paulus 3. & Pius 4. per suas dispensationes dissolverunt quaedam matrimonia om­nino clandestina nondum consummata, in remedium animarum ali­oquin probabiliter periturarum.

[Page 65] whose opinion (he speaketh of the Canonistes who generally are of his owne opinion,) is so observed, that thrise or foure times before my comming to Rome upon petitions made by my advise, Loe, how rea­dily the Pope displeaseth God, for the pleasure of man. Pope Paulus the third and pope Pius the fourth, with their dispen­sations dissolved certen secret matrimonies not yet consummate, for the safegard of soules which by likelihood woulde otherwise haue perished. And Covarruvias affirmeth Paulus the fourth and Iulius the third, to haue dispensed in like maner: these be his words. Nec me latet Paulum quartum summum ecclesiae Pontificem, Ann. 1558. hac vsum fuisse dispensatione quibusdam ex causis, quas iustissimas esse idem summus ecclesiae praesul existimavit. idem paulo ante Iu­lius Covarruvias, tom. 1. cap. 7. par. 4. n. 13. col. 1. 3. fecerat in eodem matrimonio, cum ecclesiae vniversali praeside­ret.

Neither am I ignorant that Pope Paulus the 4. put this dispensa­tion in practise, for certaine causes which the same Pope thought to be most iust. Iulius the third when he was Pope, graunted in like cause the same dispensation.

The second part is prooved, by the vniforme consent of all divines. For Bellarmine saith; Bellar. lib. i. c. 5. de matrim prope finem.

Non autem essentialia matrimonia (ecclesia) vllo modo mutat, aut mu­tare potest.

But the essentiall partes of Matrimonie, the Church neither doth change, neither can change.

And doubtles if the Church can not doe it, á fortiori, the Pope can not doe it, which Bellarmine will not denie, and Victoria doth wit­nesse no lesse in these words:

Communis schola theologorum negat maiorem, scilicet quod Papa Victor. in re­lect. 4. de po­test. papae & conc. pag. 128. ad primum. possit dispensare, sed in contrarium sunt multi doctores Cannonista­rum.

The common schoole of Divines denieth the maior, to wit, that the Pope can dispence with matrimonie, but many Cannonists holde the contrarie.

Cov arru vias likewise saith thus:

Tutior ac verior est communis theologorum opinio, quae probat matri­monium Covarruv. to. t. par. 2. cap. 7. par. 4. n. 14. in medio. ratum nondum secut â commixtione carnis & sic non consum­matum, minime posse dissolvi Rom. Pontif. dispensatione.

The common opinion of Divines is more safe and true, which prooveth that matrimonie perfected by consent, but not consum­mate by carnall copulation, can not be dissolved by the Popes dis­pensation.

And the said Covarruvias addeth these words:

Ipse vero non auderem à communi theologorum sententia disce­dere.

[Page 66] I my selfe truely durst not forsake the common opinion of devines. And no marvell: for Christ himselfe putteth the marter out of all doubt, when he saith: Mat. c. 19. v. 7.

Quod Deus coniunxit homo non separet.

That which God hath conioined, let no man put asunder.

And in another place he saith thus:

Omnis qui dimittit vxorem suam, & alteram ducit, maecatur. Luc. c. 16. v. 18.

Everie one that putteth avvay his wife, and marrieth another, com­mitteth adulterie.

And Saint Paul vpon the same argument, hath these wordes:

His autem qui matrimonio iuncti sunt, precipio non ego sed Domi­nus, 1. Cor. 7. v. 10. Uxorem a viro non discedere, quod sidi scesserit, manere innuptam, aut Uiro suo reconciliari, & vir vxorem non dimittat.

Those that are married commaund not I, but the Lord, that the wife depart not from her husband: but if shee shall depart, then to abide vnmarried, or to be reconciled to her husband.

Thus saith Christ, thus saith saint Paul, that man and wife ioined by Christ, must abide during life together, or liue vnmarried, and nor be seuered by the popes dispensation. Neither will it helpe to say as Bellarm. doth, & others with him: that Christ onely speaketh de matrimonio consummato, and that matrimonium ratum, with which the pope dispenseth, is not de iure divino: For first, if matrimonium ra­tum vvhat an ab­surd ansvvere is this? were not de iure divino: the greatest popish deuines would not denie the popes dispensation therein: as who graunt him power o­ver all lawes humane.

2 Secondly, Christ speaketh absolutely, and maketh no menti­on of copularion or popish consumation, vvhich is all one.

3 Thirdly, with papistes matrimonie is a deuine sacrament, and so is perfect vvithout carnall copulation.

For as their owne Canus saith:

Sanctus spiritus & sacramenti gratia, per coitum non datur. Canus, lib. 8. de locis theol. c, 5. p. 246.

The holie ghost and grace of sacrament, is not giuen by co­pulation.

4 Fourthly, it followeth hereupon, that matrimonie is not ful­lie perfect in the popish Church, because copulation followeth a good while after.

5 Fiftly, because it is absurd to say, that it beginneth to be a sacramēt by carnall copulation, and was not a sacramēt by the priests action.

6 Sixtly, it followeth hereupon, that the marriage betweene the blessed Virgin and S. Ioseph was not perfect matrimonie: For there doubtlesse wanted popish carnall copulation.

7 Seauenthly, it follovveth hereupon. that there was not perfect matrimonie betweene Adam and Eue: For their matrimonie was in [Page 67] the state of innocencie, and before all carnall copulation.

8 Eightly, because if matrimonie be not de iure divine before copu­lation: there is no cause why both parties agreeing together, may not release the bargaine, and quite dissolue the contracte. For as the Vide Victor. de potest. pa­pae. p. 128. & Soto, in 4. dist. 27. p. 48. law saith: Quisque potest suo iuri cedere: Euery man may yeelde vp his right: vvhich thing all, both canonistes and devines, admit for good in sponsalibus.

The 3. Conclusion.

AS the pope pronounceth, that matrimonie dissolved by vertue of his dispensation, vvhich remaineth true and perfect matrimo­nie by Christes institution: So doth hee likevvise pronounce by like dispensation that to be true and perfect matrimonie, which both by the law devine, and law of nature, is no matrimonie at all. The for­mer part of this assertiue proposition, is proued in the conclusion go­ing next before. For probation of the second part, I make this suppo­sall: that the pope hath dispensed vvith brothers in the marriages of their brothers vviues, as the vvorld right vvell knoweth to be true.

This supposall made, I proceed in this manner. The lavv of Moy­ses vvas partly iudiciall, partly ceremoniall, and partly morall. The iudiciall and ceremoniall partes vvere abrogate by Christes passion, as vvitnesseth Saint Paule in these vvords: Translato sacerdotio, necesse Heb. c. 7. v. 12. est vt & legts translatio fiat. Translation of priesthood being made, there must also be translation of the lavv: but the morall and part natural is stil in force, in so much as al Christians are this day bound to keepe the decalogue: notvvithstanding the translation of the law of Moises, euen as vvere the Gentiles before the said lavv vvas giuen. For the gentiles vvere as much bound before the lavv, and we novv after the law: to absteine from Idolatrie, theft, adulterie, & the rest, as were the Iews in time of the law. For as Victoria hath wel obser­ved, the gospell is called the law of libertie, because Christians after promulgation of the gospel, are only bound to the lavv of nature: of all such thinges as are conteined in the old lavv: and all devines are of the same opinion, as vvitnesseth the said Victoria in these vvords: Receptissimum est apudomnes theologos, & necessarium est it a tenere, ex omni­bus precept is veteris legis, sola moralia integra & firma restitissein nova lege. It Victor. de ma­trim. sect. 2. relect. 7. p. 280 is a generall opinion approved of all divines: and it is necessatie so to hold, that of all precepts in the old law onely morall abode firme & intier in the nevv lavv. Thus then is it plaine, that that part of Moi­ses lavv vvhich is moral, or natural, abideth still in full strength and vertue. To vvhich I must ad two thinges, for the exact and perfect probation of this my third conclusion.

1 The one, that the lavv of nature is immutable, and indispensable by the power of man: and consequently, that the pope cannot dis­pense thervvith. The other, that al the lavves prohibited in the 18. of [Page 68] Leviticus, especiallly that of marying the brothers wife, are mo­rall and prohibited by the lawe of nature. For the former parte, Victoria writeth in this manner. In hoc genere decretorum aut Cano­num, Victor. relect. 4 de potest. papae, prop. 1. pag. 126. papa nihil potest immutare dispensando, & multominus abrogando. Conclusio est omnium theologorum absque controversia, & potest brevitèr probari, quia ius naturale est immutabile, & ut legitur in decretis, naturale ius semper permanet.

In this kinde of decrees or Canons, the Pope can chaunge no­thing by dispensation, and much lesse by abrogation. It is the conclusion of all divines without any controversie, and it may be prooved briefely, because the lawe of nature is immutable, and as it is in the decrees, the lawe of nature abideth alwayes. Thomas Aquinas confirmeth the same in these wordes:

Sed praecepta decalogi sunt de iure naturali, ideo nec in eis nec in a­lijs, Aquin. in lib. 3. sent. dist. 37. art. 4. prout vim eorum continent, licet alicui homini dispen sare.

But the precepts of the decaloge are of the law of nature, & there­fore no man can dispense either with them or with others, that con­teine the force thereof. And the Popes famous archbishop Autoni­nus telleth his holinesse flatly, that his fullnesse of power doeth in no case extend it selfe, to the law divine or law of nature. These are his wordes:

Quantum verò ad illa quae sunt de iure naturali vel divino, iu­risdictio seu potest as papalis non se extendit: sic vero quod ista possit mutare, Antoninus de potest. papae, part 4. tit. 22. cap. 3. par. 1. vel etiam dare eis vim obligandi: & ratio est, quia infe­rior non potest mutare leges superioris: deus autem est superior ad papā.

Concerning those things which are of the law of nature, or law divine, iurisdiction or papall power doth not extend it selfe: so to wit that the Pope can change these things, or giue power obliga­tive unto them: and the reason is, because an inferiour can not change the lawes of his superiour, and God is the Popes superiour. I deeme he be in verie deed. Thus then haue I prooved evidently by the Popes owne doctours, that the Pope can not dispense with the law divine, or with the lawe of nature. It remaineth that I likewise proove, the lawes prohibited in Leviticus to be the lawes of nature: and consequently, indispen­sable by the power of man. First therefore, it is written in the selfe same chapter after the prohibition of the said degrees, in this ma­ner. Nec polluamini in omnibus his, quibus contaminatae sunt universae gen­tes, Levit. 18. 24. quas ego eijciam ante conspectum vestrum, & quibus polluta est terra, cu­ius ego scelera visitabo, ut evomat habitatores suos. Be ye not polluted in al these things with which all nations are defiled, whom I will cast out before your sight, & with which the earth is polluted, whose iniqui­ties I will visite, that it may vomit out the inhabitants thereof. By which words we see evidētly, that the breach of these lawes was wicked & unlawfull amōg the Gentiles: & cōsequently, that the Gentils [Page 69] marrying vvithin degrees here prohibited, transgressed the lavve of nature. For they beeing free from all other lavves, could not bee polluted by the breach of any lavve, save onelie of the lawe of nature.

2 Secondly, euerie one knoweth, and can easilie discerne by na­turall discourse, that a brother to marrie his owne sister, is against the la vve of nature: and yet doth Thomas Aquinas affirme, that there is like prohibition in affinitie.

His vvords be these.

Naturall propinquitie (saith he) cometh alio modo per carnalem co­pulam, Aquinas in 4. sent. dist. 4. ar. 2. quae est etiam actus naturae adgenerationem ordinatus, & exhac causatur affinitas, quae quidem impedit matrimonium eisdem rationi­bus, quibus & consanguinitas.

Naturall propinquitie commeth another vvay by carnall copu­lation, vvhich is an acte of nature ordeined to generation: and of this is caused affinitie, vvhich verilie prohibiteth Matrimonie by the selfe same reasons by vvhich consanguinity doth.

3 Thirdlie, because manie late popish writers doe affirme the same.

Victoria hath these vvords:

Aliqui, vt Archiepi scopus Florent. 3. p. tit. 1. cap. 4. & Palud. in 4. Victor. relict. 4. de potest. papae, pag. 129. ad, 2. d. 40. Videntur tenere, quodin omnibus gradibus prohibitis in Leut­tico, Papa non posset dispensare. & hoc reputat Silvester proba­bilius.

Some, as Archbishop of Florence, and Paludanus seeme to hold that the pope can not dispense, in any of the degrees pro­hibited in Leviticus: And this opinion Sylvester thinketh more probable:

4 Fourthly, because the common opinion of the Fathers was, that all degrees prohibited in the said Leviticus, are prohibited now by the lavv devine. VVhich Iosephus Angles constantly avoucheth to be so, in these vvords.

Duae sunt opiniones, prima omnium fere antiquorum, qui affirmabant omnes gradus in Levit. prohibitos, esse etiam nunc iure divino prohibi­tos. Ioseph. An­gles in 4. S. p. 1. q. 13. ar. 3. Haec fuit S. Bo. Tho. Ric. & Dur. quibus adhaesit Sylvester, affirmās Papam non posse dispensare in gradibus in Levit. prohibitis.

There be twoo opinions:

1 The first was of all the olde vvriters some fevv excepted, vvho affirmed that all degrees prohibited in Leviticus, are novv also prohibited by the lavv devine. This vvas the opinion of Saint Bonaventure, of Thomas, of Richardus, and of Durand, vvith [Page 70] whom Sylvester tooke part, affirming that the pope can not dis­pense vvith degrees prohibited in Leviticus.

This then is true not onely by the scriptures, but euen by the testi­monie of the popes owne doctors, and by the vniforme consent of approved antiquitie.

Absurd therefore is Cardinall Allens opinion, and most disloyall Allens vvords disloiall. are his speeches: when he in his apologie for the seminaries, iustifieth Iames Laborne his opinion against the premisses.

The fourth Conclusion.

THE popes dispensations are as generall as vngodly: his corrupt vassals dailie gaping and expecting, vvho will aske dispensations for euery iote in the law. This conclusion though strange to many mens cogitations, shall be proved by the constant assertion of the best learned popish doctor.

Thus therefore writeth Victoria.

Videmus quotidie a Romana curiatam largas, imo omnino tam disso­lutas Victor. de po­test. papae & conc. relect. 4 p. 139. dispēsationes profectas, vt orbis ferre non possit, non solùm in scandalum pusillorum, sedmaiorum.

VVe see daily so large, yea altogether so dissolute dispensations come from the court of Rome, that the world cannot endure it, nei­ther is that to the scandall onely of the weake, but euen of the per­fect sor [...].

And in another place, the said Victoria saith thus:

Sed clamat experientia in contrarium, & videmus quodnullus quae­rit dispensationes, quin obtineat.

But experience exclameth to the contrarie: and wee see that no man seeketh for dispensations, but hee atteineth the same.

And in another place he saith thus:

Ego nullam dispen sationem in particulari condemno, sed video duo: primum, quod in fine anni sunt tot dispensationes factae, vt nescio an sint Vbi supra pag. 149. tot qui legem servent. Secundo, video quod omnes qui petunt afferunt dispensationes, quos mirum est habere legitimas causas, vt cum eis dis­pensetur in impedimētis matrimonij, & irregularitatis, & in pluralita­te beneficiorum.

I condemne no dispensation in particular, but I see two thinges: First, that in the end of the yeare there are so many dispensations gotten, as I know not if so many keepe the law. Secondly, I see all Loe, for spiri­tual livings & matrimonie, and such like, dispensations are never de­nied. that aske bring dispensations, whom I marvell if they all haue law­full causes, that they may be dispensed withall, in the impediments of matrimonie, and of irregularitie, and for the pluralitie of spiri­tuall livings.

[Page 71] And in another place the said Victoria hath these words.

Et paultim adhanc intemperantiam dispensationum deventum est, & hunc talem statum, vbi necmala nostra nec remedia pati possumus, Victor. vbi su­pag. 151. & ideo necesse est aliam rationem excogitare adconservandas leges. Da mihi Clementes, Linos, Sylvestros, & omniapermittam arbitrio eorum. Sed vt nihil gravius dicatur in recentiores pontifices, certe multis par­tibus sunt priscis illis inferiores.

By Title and litle wee are brought to these in ordinate dispensati­ons, and to this so miserable state, where we are neitherable to en­dure our owne griefes, nor remedies a sligned for the same. And therefore must vve perforce inuent some other way, for conferuati­on of the lawes. Giue mee Clements, Lines, Silvesters: and I will commit all things vnto their charge. But to speake nothing grievous­ly against these latter popes: they are doubtlesse inferiour to popes of old time, by many degrees. I could all eage many other testimo­nies: But this Victoria being of great credit among the papistes, is a most sufficient witnesse in their owne proceedinges.

The first Conclusion.

THe ecclesiasticall povver of all the Apostles, vvas generall ouer all the vvorld, equall with Peters, and the selfe same that Pe­ters vvas.

Christ himselfe proueth this conclusion, when he saith:

Data est mihi omnis potest as in coelo & in terra, euntes ergo docete Mat. cap. vlc. vers. 19. omnes gentes.

All povver is giuen mee in heauen and in earth: goe therefore and teach all nations.

In an other place hee saith thus:

Hoc facite in meam commemorationem.

Doe this in the remembrance of mee. Luc. 22. v. 20. Iohn 20. v, 23

And againe thus:

Quorum remiseritis peccata, remittuntur eis.

VVhose sinnes yee shall forgive, are forgiuen them.

And in another place, thus:

Amen dico vobis, quaecunque alligaueritis super terram, erunt ligata & in coelo, & quaecunque solueritis super terram, erunt soluta et in coelo: Mat. 28. v. 18.

Verily I say vnto you, vvhat things soeuer ye shall bind vpon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and vvhatsoeuer things ye shall loose vpon earth, shalbe loosed also in heauen. All vvhich sayings, Christ spoke and vttered of and to his apostles all, as vvell as to Peter: ma­king them al apostles, as wel as Peter. And as they vvere all apostles as vvel as Peter, so had they all equall povver, not onely of order, but Mat. 10. v. 1. Mark. 3 v. 14. Luc. 6. v. 14. Victor. de po­test. eccles. re­lect. 2. conc. 3. p. 84. of iurisdiction also: which their Victoria recordeth in these vvords:

Adofficium Apostolatus, spectat potestas ordinis & iurisdictionis.

To the office of Apostleship, perteineth both the power of order [Page 73] and of iurisdiction. And S. Cyprian decideth this matter in most plaine and evident words, when he saith thus:

Loquitur Dominus ad Petrum, Ego dico tibi, quiatu es Petrus, &c. & Cypr. de simp­praelat. p. 113. paulo post; Hoc erant uti (que) & caeteri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus, pari consortio praediti & honoris & potestatis, sedexordum ab vnitate pro­fici scitur, ut Ecclesia vna monstretur.

Our Lord speaketh vnto Peter, I say vnto thee that thou art Peter, and vp­on this rocke will I build my Church. &c. and a little after: The same were the rest of the Apostles doubtles, that Peter was: endued with equall fellowship, both of honour and of power: but the beginning proceedeth from vnitre, that the Church may be shewed to be one.

Covarruvias their famous Canonist, albeit he would very gladly defend the Popes pretended power, and have onely Peters power ordinarie and independent: yet can he not denie our Saviour Christ to have given equall power to all the Apostles. These be his very words:

Etenim iuxta catholicorum virorum auctoritates, & communem om­nium traditionem, Covarruvias to. 1. part. 2. §. 9. pag. 242. col. 4. pro­pe finem. apostoli parem ab ipso Domino Iesu cum Petro pote­statem orainis & iurisdictionis acceperunt: it a quidem, vt quilibet a­postolorum aequalem cum Petro habuerit potestatem ab ipso deo, in totum orbem, & in omnes actus quae Petrus agere poterat.

For according to the auctorities of Catholike writers, and the common tradition of all, the Apostles received from our Lord Iesus Christ himselfe, equall power with Peter, both of power and iurisdiction: in so much dout­lesse, as every Apostle had equall power with Peter from God himselfe, and that both over all the worlde, and to all actions that Peter could doe.

Out of which testimonies I note first, that all the Apostles had equall 1 auctoritie with Peter. I note secondly, that all the Apostles had power 2 over all the world, even as Peter had. I note thirdly, that what acte so e­ver 3 Peter could doe, every other Apostle could doe the same. I note fourthly, that the iurisdiction of every Apostle, did extende as farre as Pe­ters. 4 I note fiftly, that Christs speaches to Peter in the singular number, 5 did not argue superioritie of iurisdiction: but did onely signifie the vnitie of his Church. I note sixtly, that all this is confirmed by the opinion of 6 Catholike writers, & by tradition of all generally. For all these sixe points are expressely conteined, (if they be well marked,) in the auctorities alrea­die alledged. The same are confirmed by the testimonie of S. Augustine, in sundrie places of his workes.

Claves (inquit Augustinus) non vnus homo Petrus, sed vnitas accepit Aug. in serm. Petr. & Pauli, apud Canū. Ecclesiae.

Not one onely man Peter received the keyes, but the vnitie of the Church.

In an other place, the same S. Augustine writeth in this manner: Aug. in lib. de agone Christ. cap. 30. tom. 3.

Ecclesiae catholicae personam sustinet Petrus, & cum ei dicitur ad [Page 74] omnes dicitur; amas me, pasce oves meas.

Peter representeth the person of the Catholike Church, and when it is said to him, it is said to all: Lovest thou me, feede my sheepe.

So then, that text of Scripture, which with the Papists is the foundation of popish primacie, to wit, Feede my sheepe: maketh no more for Peters superioritie, then it doth for the supremacie of other Apostles. For as you have heard out of S. Augustine, it was as well spoken to all, as to Peter. Yea, the grosse imagination of papists, concerning the building of the Church vpon Peter, is lively and evidently confuted of S. Augustine in an other place, where he thus writeth:

Tu es inquit Petrus, & super hanc Petram quam confessus es, super August. de verb. dom. serm. 13. 10. 10. hanc Petram quam cognovisti, dicens, tu es Christus filius dei vivi, aedifi­cabo Ecclesiam meam. id est, super meipsum filium dei vivi, ae­dificabo Ecclesiam meam. super me aedificabo te, non me super te.

Thou art Peter saith Christ, and vpon this rocke which thou hast con­fessed, vpon this rocke which thou hast acknowledged, saying, Thou art Christ the Sonne of the living God, will I build my Church: that is, vpon my selfe the Sonne of the living God, will I build my Church. I will builde thee vpon my selfe, but not my selfe vpon thee.

Marke well these wordes, (gentle Reader,) with the other last rehear­sed out of Saint Augustine: and doubtlesse, if plaine and manifest exposi­tion of the Scripture will content thy minde, thou canst not but nowe have thy desire. The great generall Councell of Constantinople, ma­keth the Church of Constantinople equall in Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction, with the Church of Rome. These be the words:

Renovantes quae à s. patribus, 150. qui in hac regia vrbe convene­runt, Concil. Const. 6. can. 36. & à 630. qui Chalcedone convenerunt, constituta sunt; decernimus, vt thronus Constantinop. aequalia privilegia cum antiquae Romae throno obtineat, & in Ecclesiasticis negotijs vt illa emine at, secundus post illam existens.

We renewing the Canons which were set downe by the 150. holy fa­thers, assembled in this royal citie, & by the 630. fathers gathered together in Chalcedon: doe define, that the See of Constantinople have equall pri­viledges with the See of old Rome, and that it excell as Rome in Ecclesi­asticall affaires, beeing the second after Rome.

And long before all this, that famous Councell of Nice distributing circuits, and assigning determinate iurisdictions to the Patriarchall seates, appointed to the Church of Rome prefixed limits, as to the rest. These be the wordes:

[Page 75] Mos antiquus perduret in Egypto, vel Lybia, & Pentapoli, vt Alex­andrinus Conc. Nicen. can. 6. Episcopus horum omnium habeat potestatem, quoniam quidem & Episcopo Rom. parilis mos est.

Let the olde custome continue in Egypt, or Lybia, and Pentapolis, that the Bishop of Alexandria may have power over them all, because like custome hath the Bishop of Rome.

Which Canon is reported in the Councell of Carthage, and there vtte­red in plaine tearmes.

Antiquiores obtineant qui apud Egyptum sunt, & Lybiam, & Penta­polin, Conc. Carth. 6. can. 6. ita vt Alexandrinus Episcopus horum omnium exhibeat solici­tudinem, quia & vrbis Romae Episcopo similis mos est. similiter autem est circa Antiochiā, & in caeteris provincijs privilegia propria reserven­tur metrapolitanis Ecclesiis.

Let the auncient obteine which are at Egypt and Lybia, and Pentapo­lis, so that the Bishop of Alexandria may have the charge of them all, because also the Bishop of Rome hath the like custome. In like manner also, let the proper priviledges be reserved to metropolitain Churches, a­bout Antioch and other Provinces.

By which wordes we see evidently, that this auncient and fa­mous Councell maketh no other account of the Church of Rome, then it doeth of other Patriarchall seates. Which Ruffinus him­selfe, though reputed a great Papist, hath confessed bountifully in these wordes:

Vt apud Alexandriam vel in vrbe Roma vetusta consuetudo ser­vetur, Ruffin. lib. 10. hist. Eccles. cap. 6. vt vel ille Aegypti, vel hic subvrbicarum Ecclesiàrum solli­citudinem gerat.

That the old custome may continue, and that the Bishop of Alex­andria may have the charge of Egypt, as the Bishop of Rome hath charge of the Churches nigh to Rome.

Loe, in Ruffinus his dayes, the Bishop of Rome had his iurisdicti­on limited, which extended onely to certaine speciall Churches of I­talie. For which cause Saint Hierome, a deare friend and great favou­rer of the Church of Rome, confessed for all that, the Bishop of Rome to be of no greater merite, excellencie, or auctoritie, then other Bishops are: as also that the custome of Rome, could not over-rule other Churches.

These are S. Hieromes owne and expresse wordes:

Si auctoritas quaeritur, orbis maior est vrbe vbicun (que) fuerit Episcopus, Hier. epist. ad Evagr. tom. 3. fol, 150. sive Romae, sive Eugubij, sive Constantinopoli, sive Rhegij, sive Alex­andriae, sive Tanis: eiusdem meriti, eiusdem est & sacerdotij. [Page 76] potentia divitiarum & paupertatis humilitas, vel sublimiorem vel in­feriorem Epi scopum facit, caeterùm omnes Apostolorum successores sunt. Sed dicis, quomodo Romae adtestimonium diaconi presbyter ordinatur? quid mihi profers vnius vrbis consuetudinem?

If we looke for authoritie, the world is greater then one citie. Where so ever a bishop shall be, whether at Rome, or at Eugubium, or at Constan­tinople, or at Rhegium, or at Alexandria, or at Tanis; he is of the same merite, and of the same priesthoode. The magnificence of riches, & the basenes of povertie, doth make him higher or lower, but all are the suc­cessours of the Apostles. But thou wilt say, how is a priest made at Rome by the testimonie of a Deacon? why doest thou alleadge vnto me the cu­stome of one onely citie?

Thus S. Hierome agreeth with Ruffinus, Ruffinus with the Councell of Nice, and the Councell of Nice with other Councels, fathers, & Scriptures. And all ioyntly conclude the equalitie of other Bishops and Churches, with the Bishop and Church of Rome.

The second Conclusion.

ALL the Apostles received their vniversall power immediately from Christ, and not from Peter at all; and consequently, their iurisdictions were no lesse ordinarie then Peters was. This to be so, (though this day much impugned by the Papists,) prooveth a great popish Doctour Fran­ciscus a Victoria, in these words:

Omnem potestatem quam Apostoli habuerunt, receperunt immedia­tè Victor. de po­test. eccles. re­lect. 2 conclus. 3. pag. 84. à Christo.

All power which the Apostles had, they received it immediately from Christ.

And in an other place, the said Victoria hath these words:

Lex iniusta Episcopi non obligat, ergo nec Papae. Antecedens est no­tū, Victor. de po­test. Papae, & concilii, re­lect. 4. pag. 157. & concessum ab omnibus; & consequentia videtur not a, quia nō habet maiorem auctoritatem Papa adinferendum iniuriam, quam Episcopus; circa ea enim quae sunt sui officij, & in proprios subditos, non minus potest quàm Papa.

The vniust law of the Bishop doth not binde a man, ergo neither doth the vniust lawe of the Pope binde a man. The antecedent is knowne and graunted of all, and the consequence seemeth manifest, because the Pope hath no more auctoritie to doe an iniurie, then hath the Bishop. For in those things which perteine to his office, and to his proper subiects, he can doe as much as the Pope.

Loe, this great learned Papist, who for his learning is reverenced of all Papists in the world, ascribeth no lesse auctoritie to every Bishop in his dio­cesse, [Page 77] then to the Pope himselfe. Againe, he affirmeth that no bishops au­thoritie is dependent vpon the Pope, but is immediately from Christ: so that papistrie is still confuted and confounded by it selfe, and that by the best doctours of greatest authoritie, even in the Church of Rome. Iose­phus Angles, though otherwise he flatter the Pope and advance his aucto­ritie, yet hath Gods Spirit enforced him to testifie the same truth. These are his wordes:

Si comparemus B. Petri & aliorum Apostolorum potestatem ad guber­nationem Ioseph. Ang. in 4. sent. q. de clavib. diffic, 2. conclus. pri­ma, pag. 6. omnium credentium, tantam alij Apostoli habuerunt potesta­tem, quantam B. Petrus habuit, it a quod poterant quemlibet Christianum totius orbis, sicut modo Rom. Pont. excommunicare, & in qualibet Eccle­sia Episcopos & sacerdotes creare. ratio est, quia omnis potestas B. Petro promissa & tradita, fuit & caeteris Apostolis collata, & hoc sine per­sonarum, loci, vel fori discrimine.

If we compare the power of S. Peter and of the other Apostles, to the government of all the faithfull: other Apostles have even as much power as S. Peter had, so that they could then excommunicate every Christian in the whole world, as the Bishop of Rome doth now, and also make Bi­shops and Priests in every Church. The reason is, because all power pro­mised and given to S. Peter, was also given to the rest of the Apostles, and that without difference of persons, place, or consistorie.

This is the sentence of fiyer Ioseph, who vnwittingly and vnwillingly Magna est ve­ritas & prae­valet, 3. Esdrae 4. 42. (such is the force of veritie,) doeth wonderfully advance the trueth, even while he seeketh to oppugne the same.

1 For first, he graunteth that every Apostle had as much auctoritie as S. Peter.

2 Secondly, that every Apostle had then as much auctoritie, as the Pope chalengeth now.

3 Thirdly, that every Apostle had auctoritie from Christ, to create Priests and Bishops every where.

4 Fourthly, that all this their authoritie was given them, without diffe­rence of person, place, or consistorie.

O mercifull God, blessed be thy holy Name for ever: such is the maie­stie of thy holy Gospell, that the enemies thereof iustly infatuated for their sinnes, doe vnwares even then illustrate thy trueth, when they thinke the most to obscure the same. This I did not see, O God, when I was aban­doned from thee: this I nowe behold, O God, when thou of thy mercy hast called me to thee. Graunt, O sweete Father, that all seduced Papistes may behold the same with me, to the glorie of thy holy Name, the honour of thy Church, and the eternall solace of their owne soules. For more then the Popes owne deare doctours doe teach vs, we desire not at the Popes hands. The generall Councels of Constance and Basil, decreed this matter in these manifest tearmes:

[Page] Ipsa synodus in spiritu Sancto legitimè congregata generale conci­lium Const. Conc. Ses. 4. & Basil. Conc. Sess. 2. & 3. faciens, & Ecclesiam militantem representans, potestatem imme­diatè à Christo habet.

The Synode lawfully assembled in the holy Ghost, making a generall Councell, and representing the Church militant, hath power immediately from Christ.

Thus saith the Councell, and doubtlesse where power commeth imme­diately from Christ, it can not be derived from the Pope. Thirdly, S. Paul had speciall auctoritie over the Gentiles, and largely as much as Peter, if not more: and consequently, since all Christians now, were Gentiles then: the Pope if he will needes have superioritie over his brethren Bishops, must reduce his succession from S. Paul. For thus saith S. Paul of himselfe: [...]. The Gospell Gal. 2. 7. of the vncircumcision was committed to me, even as the Gospell of cir­cumcision to Peter.

The third Conclusion.

KInges have power coactive over Popes, but Popes have no coactive power over Kings: albeit Popes of late dayes, have not onely ex­communicated Princes, but deposed them also. For proofe of this con­clusion, many texts of holy Scripture are consonant. King Salomon de­posed Abiathar, and placed Sadock in his roome. For so the booke of Kings saith:

Abiathar quoque sacerdoti dixit rex, vade in Anathoth ad agrum tu­um, 3. Reg. 2. vers. 27. & 35. & quidem vir mortis es, sed hodie te non interficiam, quia portasti arcam domini dei coram David patre meo, & sustinuisti laborem in omnibus, in quibus laboravit pater meus. eiecit ergo Salomon Abia­thar, vt non esset sacerdos domini. & paulò post: & Sadoc sacerdotem posuit pro Abiathar.

Then the King said to Abiathar the priest, goe to Anathoth vnto thine owne farme, for thou art worthie to die, but I will not this day kill thee, be­cause thou barest the Arke of the Lord God before David my father, and because thou hast suffered in all where my father hath beene afflicted. Salomon therefore cast out Abiathar from beeing priest vnto the Lord, and set Sadock the priest in the roome of Abiathar.

King Iosaphat appointed both Ecclesiasticall and secular Magistrates, commanding them strictly to looke vnto their charge. These be the words of holy writ:

In Hierusalem quoque constituit Io saphat Levitas, & sacerdotes, & principes familiarum ex Israel, vt iudicium & causam domini iudica­rent 2. Par. 19. 8, 9. habitatoribus eius. Praecepit (que) eis dicens: sic agetis in timore domi­ni [Page 79] fidelitèr, & corde perfecto.

King Iosaphat appointed in Hierusalem, Levites and Priests, and Prin­ces of the families of Israel, that they should iudge the iudgement and cause of the Lord to the inhabitants thereof. And he commanded them, saying: Thus shall ye doe in the feare of the Lord, faithfully and with a per­fect heart.

And it followeth in these wordes:

Omnem cau sam quae venerit ad vos fratrum vestrorum qui habitant 2. Par. 19. 10. in vrbibus suis, inter cognationem & cognationem, vbicun (que) quaestio est de lege, de mandato, de caeremonijs, de iustificationibus, ostendite eis vt non peccent in Dominum.

Every cause which shall come vnto you of your brethren which dwell in their cities, betweene kindred and kindred, where soever question is of the law, of commandement, of ceremonies, of iustifications, tell them that they sinne not against the Lord. It followeth thus:

Amarias autē sacerdos & Pontifex vester, in his quae ad deum perti­nent, 2. Par. 19. 11. praesidebit: porro Zabadias filius Ismaelqui est dux in domo Iuda, super ea operaerit quae adregis officium pertinent.

Amarias the Priest and your Bishop, shall beare rule in those thinges which perteine to God: and Zabadias sonne of Ismael captaine in the house of Iuda, shall be over those workes which belong to the office of the King.

These are the expresse words of holy Scripture, which I have alleadg­ed at large, because if they be once applied effectually, they can not but proove my opinion fully.

1 First therefore, as the Queenes most excellent Maiestie that nowe is, appointeth Bishops and Priests: so king Iosaphat appointed Priestes and Levites, so king Salomon appointed Sadock.

2 Secondly, as her Maiestie deposeth Priests: so king Salomon deposed Abiathar.

3 Thirdly, as her Maiestie commandeth her Bishops in Englande: to preach the Gospell, to administer the Sacraments, to reforme abuses, and to execute censures Ecclesiasticall according to the Scriptures: so com­manded king Iosaphat his Priests in Ierusalem: to decide all controversies arising about the lawe, about commandements, about ceremonies, about iustifications, and to teach his people their duetie therein.

4 Fourthly, as king Iosaphat appointed Amarias ruler in spiritual causes, and Zabadias governour in secular affaires, distinguishing their offices, and limiting their iurisdictions: so doth her Maiestie referre Ecclesiasticall af­fayres to her cleargie men, and matters of state to her secular lords, neither confounding their functions, nor disabling their persons.

5 Fiftly, as King Iosaphat did neither beare the Arke, nor burne [Page 80] incense, nor offer vp sacrifice, nor initiate his priests; so neither doth her Maiestie preach the Gospell, administer the Sacraments, consecrate her Bishops, or personally execute any Churchly function. And therefore are the Iesuite Bellarmine his words most absurd, when he saith:

Et iam reipsa Calvinistis in Anglia, mulier quaedam est summus pon­tifex.

And nowe in very deede, a woman is Pope of the Calvinists in Eng­lande.

Hee might more probably have saide, that a woman was once Pope to Romish Iesuits his brethren. For so much he may read this day, painted vp­on the Church walles in Syenna: which in the late repairing of that fa­mous Church, the Bishop would not suffer to be defaced, albeit the Ie­suits made such request vnto him. I will omit to speake of king David, king Iosias, king Ezechias, and others; who all practised like iurisdiction 1. Par. 23. 2. Par. 35. 2. Par. 31. in Ecclesiasticall affaires: one onely text of the Scripture shalbe sufficient, with popish glosses vpon the same. Thus therefore is it written by the holy Prophet, [...] To thee, to thee alone haue I sinned. Where the gemi­nation Psal. 51. of (to thee) after the Hebrew manner and custome, argueth the ve­hemencie of the subiection and gravitie of the trespasse: that is, David beeing king, sinned onely to the king of all kings, God him selfe. Which Euthimius in his glosse vpon the same words, confirmeth in this manner:

Tibi soli peccavi. cum sim rex & te solum commissorum à me scele­rum Euthimius, in psal. 50. iudicem habeam, tibi soli peccasse videor, hoc est, tibi soli iudici sub­iicior. caeterorum enim omniū ego dominus sum, & ob potentiam meam, licere mihi videntur quaecunque libuerint.

To thee onely have I sinned: because beeing a king, and having thee onely iudge over my trespasses, I seeme to haue sinned to thee only: that is, I am onely subiect to thee, as to my iudge. For I am lord over all others, and in respect of my magnificence, whatsoever doth please me, seemeth to be lawfull for me.

Raynerius Snoygoudanus and divers others, have set downe the like in­terpretation, vpon this portion of Scripture. The popish glosse vpon the same text, hath these words:

Tibi soli, quia rex omnibus superior, tantum à deo puniendus est. Glossa ordin. in psal. 50.

To thee onely, because the king is above all men, and can onely be pu­nished of God.

Nicolaus Lyranus a man of no small account with the papists, glosseth the said text in this manner:

Tibi solipeccavi, scilicet tanquam iudici & punire potenti. pecca­verat Lyranus in psal. 50. enim contra Vriam, & alios occasione huius interfectos. tamen quia er at rex, non habebat iudicem superiorem qui posset eum punire nisi [Page 81] Deum.

To thee onely have I sinned: that is to say, to thee onely as to the iudge and him that can punnish. For he had no we sinned against Vrias and o­thers, whom he caused to be murdered by that occasion: but because he was a King, he had no superiour iudge that could punnish him, save God alone.

What can be more plainly spoken? for if none but God be superiour to the King? if none but God can iudge the King? if none but God cā punish the King? (all which the Popes owne doctours affirme, then doubtles, can not the Pope depose the King. The King therefore by popish resolution, is greater and above the Pope. Yea, which is wonderful: Thomas Aquinas, who is as it were the platforme and patterne, or Idaea: according to which the Popes of late yeares doe fashion and frame their lawes, and whose do­ctrine is as the Gospell with the Papists, doth confirme Lyra his expositi­on in these words:

Tibi soli peccavi: dicit glossa, quodrex non habèt hominem, qui sua fa­ct a Aquinas, 12. quaest. 96. ar. 5. ad 3. diiudicet: sed quantum ad vim directivam legis, princeps subdi­tur legi propria voluntate.

To thee onely have I sinned. the glosse saith, the King hath no man, that can iudge his doings: but yet touching the directive force of the lawe, the Prince is subiect of his owne accord vnto the law.

Which Victoria vttereth wisely and learnedly, in these words:

Leges latae à rep. obligant omnes, ergo etiam sifer antur à rege, obli­gant Victor. de po­test. civili, re­lect, 3. pag. 120. ipsum regem; & confirmatur, quia in aristocr atico principatu se­natus consulta obligant ipsos senatores auctores illorum: & in populari regimine plebiscit a obligant ipsum populum: ergo similiter, leges regiae obligant ipsum regem. & licet sit voluntarium regi condere legem, ta­men non est in voluntate sua non obligari aut obligari, sicut in pactis; libere enim qui squis paciscitur, pactis tamen tenetur.

Lawes which the common-weale maketh, binde all: therefore if the King make them, they binde him also. And it is confirmed, because in the aristocraticall government, the lawes of the senate binde the fenatours the auctors thereof: and in popular regiment, the decrees of the common peo­ple binde the people: ergo in like manner, the kings laws binde the king. And although the king make lawes voluntarie, yet is it not in his will to be bound or vnbound, as in covenants: for every one maketh covenants vo­luntarily, and yet is every one bound by his covenants.

Ambrose who freeth Kings from all lawes made by man, shall con­clude this point. Thus doth he write:

Qui tenentur legibus, audent suum neg are peccatum, de dignantur ro­gare Ambr. l. de A­polog. David, cap. 4. indulgentiam: quam petebat, qui nullis tenebatur legibus huma­nis.

[Page 82] They that are bound to lawes, dare denie their sinne, and disdaine to aske forgivenesse: which he desired, that was bound to no law of man.

And againe, he saith:

Rex vtique erat, nullis ipse legibus tenebatur: neque enim vllis adpoe­nam Ibidem, cap. 10. vocantur legibus, tuti imperij potestate. homini ergo non peccavit, cui non tenebatur obnoxius.

He was in deede a king, he was bound to no lawes: for kings beeing free by the power of Empyre, are not punnished by any lawes. He there­fore finned not to man, to whome he was not subiect.

Most impudent therefore and intollerable, is the Popes insolencie: when he exalteth himselfe above Kings and Emperours, threatning them that he can depose them from their scepters and regalties, and dispossesse them of their Empires and dominions. Which for all that, Cardinall Allen is not ashamed to avovch with lying lippes, in the Popes behalfe: in that his disloyall pamphlet, which he published without name in defense of the Seminaries. But such flatterie of feyned titles, a Pope of famous me­morie shall confute. Gregorie surnamed the great, himselfe beeing Pope of Rome: at what time as he was appointed by Mauricius the Emperour, to publish a certaine law sent him from the Emperour: did not refuse to accomplish the said Emperours assignment, but acknowledged him by duetie bound to execute his commandement therein: albeit he thought the law in some part: disagreeable to Gods will. This to be so, the Popes owne words shall witnesse, which be these:

Ego quidem iussioni subiectus, eandem legem per diversas terra­rum Gregor. lib. 2. epist. exregist. indict. 11. epist. 62. cap. 100. partes transmitti feci: & quia lex ipsa omnipotenti Deo minime concordat, ecce: per suggestionis meae paginam, sereni ssimis dominis nunciavi: vtrobique ergo quae debui exolvi, qui & Imperatori obedien­tiam praebui, & pro deo quod sensiminime tacui.

I subiect to your commandement, have caused the same law to be sent through diverse parts of the lande: and because the lawe doth not agree with Gods will: behold, I have intimated so much vnto your Maiestie by my epistle: I have therefore discharged my duetie in both respects, as who have yielded my obedience vnto the Emperour, neither concealed what I thought, in Gods behalfe.

These are the Popes words, besides many others in the same epistle, to the like effect. Which being vttered by the chiefest Pope, are most effectu­all to proove the subiection of Popes vnto Kings.

1 For first, Pope Gregorie acknowledgeth the Emperour, to be his lord.

2 Secondly, he confesseth him selfe to be the Emperours subiect.

3 Thirdly, he graunteth that he oweth loyall obedience to the Empe­rour: for which duetie, he durst not but publish the Emperours law, though in some part, it were very rigorous: and that least he should have bin guil­tie of distoyaltie towards his Prince.

[Page 83] Now that Romish pontificalitie, and pompe of Poperie, came vp first by beggerly Canonists: who to advance them selves, flattered the Pope, and gave him more then princely titles: the Popes owne deare Doctour, (who carieth therefore credite on his backe,) telleth vs, who after he hath rehearsed many lordly titles, and more then royall power, ascribed to the Pope: hath these expresse words;

Sed glossatores iuris hoc dominium dederunt Papae, cum ipsi essent Victor. de po­test. Eccl. re­lect. 1. sect. 6. p. 39. pauperes rebus & doctrina.

But the glossers of the Popes law, gave this dominion (and these royall titles) vnto the Pope, when them selves were blind bayards, and beggerly fellowes.

Thus saith the Popes Doctour: and thus we see, that povertie and igno­rance, were the beginning of Pope dome. For by reason of povertie, they flattered and sought to please: and by reason of their ignorance, they a­vouched many things which they did not vnderstand.

The fourth Conclusion.

THE Pope had no auctoritie to give dominion of the Indians to the King of Spaine, albeit many de­fend the spanish invasion, by vertue of that dona­tion. The latter part hereof, Victoria sheweth in these wordes:

Secundus titulus qui praetenditur, & quidem vehementer asseritur ad instam possessionem il­larum Victor. relect. quinta, de In­dis. pag. 188 provinciarum, est exparte summi Ponti­ficis. dicunt enim quod summus Pontifex est Monarcha & etiam tem­poralis in toto orbe, & per consequens quod potuit constituere Hispani­arum reges principes illorum barbarorum, & it a factum est.

The second title which is pretended, and earnestly affirmed, for the iust possession of those provinces, consisteth in the Popes graunt. For say they, the Pope is a temporall Monarch, even of the whole worlde: and conse­quently, that he could appoint the Kings of Spaine Princes over those Barbarians, and so it came to passe.

The former part of the conclusion, Aquinas prooveth in these wordes:

Ad Ecclesiam autem non pertinet punire infidelitatem in illis, qui Aquinas 22. quaest. 12. ar. 2. in corp. nunquam fidem susceperunt, secundum illud Apostoli, 1. Cor. 5. quid mihi de his qui foris sunt iudicare?

But it belongeth not to the Church, to punnish infidelitie in them, [Page 84] who never received the saith, according to that saying of the Apostle; What have I to doe to iudge of those, that be not in the Church.

Dominicus Soto is of the same opinion, whose words are these: Soto in 4. dist. 5. ar. 10. in med. art.

Ad hoc autem respondetur, in primis Pontificem neque concessisse, imò vero neque (vt cum omni reverentia & obedientia de sanctissimo Christi vicario loquar,) concedere potuisse eorum suorumve honorum do­minium, quasi dominium in eos ipse haberet.

But to this I answer, (be it spoken with all reverence and obedience to the most holy Vicar of Christ) that neither the Pope did graunt, yea neither could he graunt vnto the King of Spaine, dominion over those Indians or their goods: as though himselfe had dominion over them.

It followeth in the same Soto:

Lex fidei dominium rerum ab infidelibus non aufert, quod sibi natur a concessit.

The law of faith doth not take away dominion of possessions from in­fidels, which nature hath graunted them.

Victoria accordeth to Aquinas and Soto, in these words: Victor. in re­lect. 5. de In­dis, pag. 193.

Ex quo patet, quodnec iste titulus est idoneus contrabarbaros, vel quia Papa dederit provincias illas tanquam dominus absolute, vel quia non recognoscent dominium Papae.

Whereby it is plaine, that neither this title is sufficient against the barbarians: either because the Pope gave those Provinces, as beeing absolute lord thereof: or for that they doe not recognize, the Popes au­thoritie.

Iosephus Angles likewise saith:

Hinc neque poterit alicui regi Christiano potestatem dare, vt sibi In­dorum Iosep. Angles, de sacram. ord. pag. 518. regna v surpet; non enim est orbis temporalis dominus.

For this cause he can not give any Christian king auctoritie, to vsurpe the kingdomes of the Indians to himselfe: for he is not the temporall lord of the world.

By which testimonies it is cleare, that the Pope could not give to the Spanish King any iust title over the Indians, because he could not give that which himselfe had not. Yet [...]hust Emperours hold his bridle, and Kings be his footestoole, if they will.

The first Conclusion.

EVery one in what state he dieth, remaineth in the same world without end. For probation of this conclusion, Ec­clesiastes writeth in this manner:

Siceciderit lignum ad Austrum, aut ad Aquilonem, in Eccles. 11. 3, 4. quocunque loco ceciderit, ibi erit.

If woode shall fall to the South, or to the North; in what place soever it shall fall, there shall it be.

Christ himselfe confirmeth the same, in these expresse words:

Et ibunt hi in supplicium aeternum, iusti autem in vitam aeter­nam. Matt. 25. 46.

And these shall goe to eternall punishment, but the iust to life ever­lasting.

And in an other place, he hath these words:

Beati mortui qui in domino moriuntur, amodo iam dicit spiritus vt à laboribus requie scant suis. Apoc. 14. 13.

Blessed are the dead which dye in the Lord, for from henceforth saith [Page 86] the spirit, They shall rest from their labours. Which saying S. Cyprian explicateth in most manifest tearmes. Qualem te invenit Deus cum vocat, talem pariter & iudi­cat. Cypr. in serm. de mortalit. circa medium

As God findeth the when he calleth, so doeth he iudge thee. And in another place hee hath these most excellent and golden wordes:

Hortamur, inquit, dum facultas adest, dum adhuc aliquid de seculo superest, deo satis facere, & ad verae religionis candidam lucem de profundo tenebrosae superstitionis emergere.

Et paullò pòst,

Quum istinc excessum fuerit, nullusiam locus poenitentiae est, nullus satisfactionis effectus. Hic vita aut amittitur, aut tenetur, hic sa­luti aeternae cultu dei & fructu fidei providetur. Nec quisquam aut peccatis retardetur aut annis, quo minus veniat ad consequendam salutem. In isto adhuc mundo manenti, poenitentia nulla sera est: patet adindulgentiam aditus, quaerentibus atque intelligentibus ve­ritatem facilis accessus est.

We exhort, saith he, to satisfie God while we may, while wee are in this worlde, and to come from the depth of darke superstition to the bright light of true religion. When wee shall goe hence, there is no place of repentance, no effect of satisfaction. Here life is eyther lost or wonne, here provision is made for eternall life, by the service of God and fruite of faith. No man is hindred through his sinnes or yeres, but that he may attaine salvation. VVhile one is this worlde, no repentance is to late: the gate is open to pardon, the accesse is easie to such as seeke and understand the truth.

Saint Ambrose writeth in this maner:

Qui enim hic non accipit remissionem peccatorum, illic non erit. Non erit autem, quia adaeternam vitam non poterat pervenire, quid Ambr. tom, i. lib. de bono mortis, cap. 2. vita aeternaest remissio peccatorum: ideoque dicit (David) remitte mihi (peccata) vt refrigerer, priusquam abeam.

He that receiveth not remission of sinnes here, shall not come there: and hee shall not be there, because he can not come to eternall life, for that eternall life is remission of finnes.

And therefore saith David, Forgiue me my sinnes, that I may be refre­shed before I goe hence.

[Page 87] Saint Hierome hath these wordes:

Dum estis in hoc seculo, hortor vos agere poenitentiam. Confi­temini Hier. in Psal. 105. ergo Domino, quoniam in isto tantum seculo misericors est. Hic misereri potest poenitenti, quia ibi iudex est, non est misericors. Hic misericors est, ibi iudex est. hic porrigit manum cadenti, ibi sedet iudex.

While you are in this worlde, I exhort you to doe penance. Con­fesse therefore unto the Lorde, because he is mercifull in this world one­ly. Here he can shew mercie to the penitent: there because he is iudge, he is not mercifull. here he is mercifull, there he is iudge: here hee reacheth his hand to him that falleth, there he sitteth iudge.

Againe, the said Saint Hierome writeth thus in another place:

Obscure licet docemur, per hanc sententiolam novum dogma quod Hier. tom. 9. ad Gal. cap. 6. latitat: dum in praesenti seculo sumus, sive orationibus, sive consi­lijs invicem posse adiuvari. Cum autem ad tribunal Christi veneri­mus, non Iob, non Daniel, non Noe, rogare possepro quoquam, sedv­numquen (que) portare suum onus.

Wee are taught here though obscurely, a newe doctrine that is hidde: that while wee are in this worlde, one may helpe an other, eyther by his prayer or counsell. But when we shall come to the tribunall seat of Christ, then neither Iob, nor Daniel, nor Noe, can make intercession for any man, but every one must beare his owne burden.

Augustine is of the same iudgement in many places of his workes:

Tuus certe dies vltimus, longe abesse nonpotest. Adhunc te praepa­ra: qualis enim exieris de hac vita, talis redderis illi vitae, Aug. in Psal. 36. conc. 1.

The last day doubtlesse can not bee farre hence: prepare thy selfe for it. For as thou shalt depart out of this life, so shalt thou bee restored to that life.

Againe, in another place:

Quod autem dicit adealoca in quibus torquentur impij, iustos etiam sivelint non posse transire: quid aliud significat, nisipost hanc vitam ita receptis in carcere, vt inde non exeant donec reddant novissimum qua­drantem, Aug. in quaest. evang. q. 38. to. 4. pag. 249. per incommut abilitatem divinae sententiae, nullum aux­ilium misericordiae posse praeberi à iustis, etiamsi velint illud prae­bere.

In that hee saieth, to those places in which the wicked are tor­mented, the iust can not come though they woulde, what other thing doeth hee signifie, but the immutabilitie of Gods sentence to [Page 88] be such, as the iust, though most willing, can yeild no helpe of mercie af­ter this life to those that be so in prison, as they can not get out till they pay the last farthing.

Againe, in an other place:

Ille autem iudex novit quantam vnicuique sit daturus gloriam, qui in hac vita per misericordiam gratis iustificando praevenit, quos ille per iustitiam glorificare dispo suit. tempus vero acquirendi vitam aeternam Aug. de fide ad Petrum, cap. 3. circa medium. in istatantum vita deus hominibus dedit, vbi voluit etiam poenitentiam esse fructuo sam.

That iudge knewe howe much glorie he would give to every one, who prevented by iustifying freely in this life through mercie, whome he dispo­sed to glorifie in the other by iustice but time to attaine eternall life God graunted to men in this life onely, where he would have penance to be of force.

The second Conclusion.

CHRISTES bloode is the true and onely purgatorie for mans sinnes, as well quoad poenam, as quoad culpam: that is, both concerning the sinne, and punishment due for the same. This conclusion S. Paul maketh plaine, writing thus to the Hebrewes:

Qui cum sit splendor gloriae & figura substantiae eius, portan sque omnia verbo virtutis suae, purgationem peccatorum faciens, sedet ad dexter ammaiestatis in excelsis. Hebr. 1. 2, 3.

Who beeing the brightnes of his glorie, and the figure of his substance, and susteining all things by the word of his power: did by him selfe purge our sinnes, and sitteth on the right hand of maiestie on high.

And in an other place, he saith thus:

In quo habemus redemptionem & remissionem peccatorum. Coloss. 1. 16.

In whome wee have redemption and remission of our sinnes.

Againe, in an other place:

Hi sunt qui venerunt de tribulatione magna, & laverunt stolas suas, & dealbaverunt eas in sanguine agni. Apoc, 7. 24.

These are they that came from great tribulation, and washed their stoles, and made them white in the bloode of the lambe.

Againe in an other place:

Sanguis Iesu Christi, emundat nos ab omni peccato. 1. Ioh. 1. 8.

The blood of Iesus Christ, doth purge vs from all sinne.

Againe, in an other place:

Is qui non nover at peccatum, peccatum pronobis fecit, vt nos efficere­mur iustitia dei in ipso. 2. Cor. 5. 21.

[Page 89] He that knew not sinne, suffered paine due for sinne for vs, that we might be made the iustice of God in him.

Againe.

Ego sum, ego sum ipse, qui deleo iniquitates tuas propter me. Esai. c. 43. v. 25

I, even I am he, that blot out thine iniquities (not for thy deserts, but for mine owne sake.

Againe in another place:

Ipse vulneratus est propter iniquitates nostras, attritus est propter Esai. c. 23. v. 5 scelera nostra.

He was wounded for our iniquiries, hee was torne in peeces for our offences.

Againe in another place:

Christus nos redemit de maledicto legis, factus pro nobis male dictum. Gal. c. 3. v. 13.

Christ redeemed vs from the curse of the Law, being a curse for vs.

Neither will it helpe the papistes to answere, that these textes of scripture are vnderstood onelie of the guilt of sinne, and not of the punishment due for the same.

1 For first, no scripture maketh that distinction between the guilt of sinne & punishment correspondent to the same.

2 Secondly, no ancient writer did ever so expound such textes of scripture.

3 Thirdly, because their owne doctor Aquinas avoucheth our re­deemer to haue suffered not onely for the guilt of our sinnes, but al­so for the punishment due vnto the same.

These be his words:

Christus dedit maximum exemplum poenitentibus, dum non pro pec­cato proprio, sed pro peccatis aliorum voluit poenam subire. Aquinas in part. 3, q. 15. ar. 1. ad. 5.

Christ gaue an exceeding great example to penitent sinners, while his pleasure was to susteine punishment, not for his owne sin, (which was none at all,) but for the sinnes of others.

And Saint Augustine writing vpon the Psalmes hath these words:

Ergo apud te est propitiatio, nam-sinon esset apuate propitiatio, siiu­dex solum esse velles, & misericors esse nolles, siobservares omnes ini­quitates Aug. in ps. 129. to 8. pag. 1036. nostras, & quaereres eas quid sustineret? quis ante te staret & diceret innocens sum? quis staret in iudicio tuo? spes ergo vna est, quo­apud te est propitiatio.

Therefore with thee is mercie: for if there were not mercie with thee, if thou wouldest onely be our iudge, and not shew vs mercie, if thou wouldest looke into our iniquities, and seeke them, who were able to abide it? who could stand before thee, and say, I am inno­cent? who could stand in thy iudgement? Therefore there is one on­lie hope, because with thee mercie is to be found.

[Page 58] And the same Saint Augustine in another place, hath yet more plaine words:

Dominus noster Iesus Christus mori venit, peccare non venit, com­municando nobiscum sine culpapaenam, & culpam solvit & paenam.

Our Lord Iesus (saith saint Augustine) came to die, he came not to sinne, communicating paine with vs without sinne, he loosed both Aug. ser. 141. de tempore to. 10 the sinne and paine of sinne.

4 Fourthly, because it would followe thereuppon, that Christes workes were verie vnperfect: and yet doth the scripture say:

Dei perfecta sunt opera. Deut. 32. v. 4.

The workes of God are perfect.

But doubtlesse, hee wrought not mans redemption perfectlie, if mans satisfaction must concurre to the perfection thereof: and yet concurre it must perforce if another purgation be established in purgatorie fire, besides that purgation which Christes bloud hath wrought.

5 Fiftly, because Christes satisfaction otherwise had bene in vaine. For if we can satisfy for our selves, or by the help of our neighbors in purgatorie fire: then did Christ in vaine satisfy for vs vpon the Crosse: then did not Christ loose both the sinne & paine of sinne, as Saint Augustine avoucheth.

6 Sixtly, because our satisfaction speaking of the best, is not, nor can be infinite: and consequently, cannot make compensation for infinite transgression.

For as Aquinas saith:

Peccatum contra Deum admissum, quandam infinit atem habet ex infi­nitate Aquinas 3. p. quaest. 1. ar. 2. ad 2. divinae maiestatis tanto enim offen sa est gravior, quanto maior est ille in quem delinquitur.

Sinne committed against God is infinite, by reason of his infinite Maiestie: For so much is the offence greater, by how much he is grea­ter against whom we sinne.

7 Seventhly, because it is flatly against the opinions of the holy fa­thers. Thus saith Saint Augustine:

Primum locum fides cabolicorū divina auctoritate credit, regum coele­rum: Aug. l. 5. hy­pognost, vltra med. sermo. 14. de verb. a­post. l. 1. c. 28. de peccatorū merit & remis. secundum gehennam, vbi omnis apost at a vel a fide Christi alienus, aeterna supplicia experietur: tertium penitus ignoramus, imo nec in scripturis sanctis inveniemus.

The faith of Catholikes by Gods auctoritie, beleeueth the first place to be the kingdom of heaven: the second place to be hell, wher euery apostate or infidell shall bee punished euerlastingly: the third place we are vtterly ignorant of neither shall we find it in the holy scriptures.

[Page 91] which assertion saint Augustine doth often inculcate, in sundrie of his bookes. Saint Hierome likewise teacheth vs, that after the se­paration of the soule from the bodie, there is no resting place, but ei­ther heaven or hell. These are his words:

Quum anima vinculis laxata corporis, volandi quo velit, sive quo iu­re Hier. in c. 9. Amos prope med. capitis. compellitur, habuerit libertatem: aut adinferna ducetur, de quibus scriptum est: in inferno quis confitebitur tibi? aut certe adcoelestia sub­levabitur.

VVhen the soule shall bee leused from corporall bondes, and shall have liberte to goe whither it will, or whither it is compelled to goe: either it shall bee brought to the infernall spirites, of whom it is written, ïn hell who will confesse vnto thee? or doubtlesse it shall be exalted to heaven aboue. To conclude, their famous bishop and ho­ly martyr Roffensis, confessing the late originall of popish pardons, a­mong other reasons, yeldeth this for one:

Quarum prima est, quodolim non erat vsque adeo ecclesiae notum purgatorium. Imo Graecis inquit, adhunc vsque diem non est credi­tum. Roffēsis apud Domin. Soto in 4. sent. dist. 21. q. 1. art. 3

whereof the first reason is, that in old time, purgatorie was not so well knowen vnto the church. yea saith he; the Greekes do not to this day beleeue it.

And doubtlesse, if there were anie purgatorie besides Christs pas­sion, the thiefe that lived wickedly to the last houre, should have had his part therein; who yet went incontinently to paradise, as saith Luc. c. 23. v. 43. the holie scripture.

The third Conclusion.

AFter this life is neither place to merit, demerit, or satisfaction. This conclusiō is proved out of Ecclesiasticus, where it is writtē. Ante obitum tuum operare iustitiam, qui a non est apud inferos inve­nire Eccles. c. 14. v. 17. cibum.

Before thy death, worke iustice, because there is no reliefe to be found among the dead.

Correspondent hereunto, is this saying of Aquinas:

Dicendum, quod mereri & demereri pertinent ad statum viae: vnde bona in Aquinas 22. q. 13. ar, 4. ad. 2. & 1. p. q. 62. ar. 9. corpor. viatoribus sunt meritoria, mala vero demeritoria. in beatis autem bona non sunt meritoria, sed pertinentia ad eorum beatitudinis premium, & sic mala in dam­natis non sunt demeritoria, sed pertinent ad damnationis poenam.

we must answere, that to merit & demerit, perteine to the state of the way: wherefore, good workes are meritorious to suche [Page 92] as be viatores, and liue in this world: and likewise euill workes de­meritorious.

But in the saintes of heaven good vvorkes are not meritorious, but appertaine to the reward of their beatitude.

And in like manner euill workes in the damned are not demeri­torious, but perteine to the paine of their damnation.

Dominicus Soto commenting vpon the maister of sentences, hol­deth the selfe same opinion. For which cause saint Paul exhorteth Dominic. So­to in 4. dist. 19 quaest. 3. ar. 1, ad arg. 1. vs to doe good, dum tempus habemus, while wee haue time.

This the preacher confirmeth in these words:

Viventes sciunt quod morientur, & mortui nesciunt quicquam, & non est eis amplius merces, in oblivione enim est memoria eo­rum. Gal. 6. v. 10. Eccle. c. 9. v, 5,

The living know that they must die, and the dead know nothing at all, neither haue they henceforth a rewarde, for their memorie is forgotten.

Vppon which wordes saint Hierome hath this glosse:

Viventes metu mortis possunt bona operaperpetrare, mortui uero nihil Hier. in 9. cap. eclesiastes. valent adid adijcere quod semel secum tulere de vita. Sed & dilectio eo­rum, & odium, & aemulatio, & omne quod in seculo habere potuerunt, mortis finitur adventu: nec iuste quippe possunt agere, nec peccare, nec virtutes adijcere, nec vitia.

The living may doe good woorkes for feare of death: but the dead can ad nothing to that, which they once tooke with them out of this life. Their loue also and their hatred, their emulation, and what soeuer they could haue in this world, all is ended with death. For they can neither doe well nor sinne, neither addevice nor vertue.

All which, Saint Cyprian comprised in these fewe golden words: Cypria. contr. Demetr. in fi­ne

Quumistine excessum fuerit, nullus iam locus paenitentiae est, uullus satisfactionis effectus.

VVhen vve shall depart out of this life, there will be no place to penance, no effect of satisfaction.

Saint Augustine teacheth the course of Gods iustice to be such, as wee must either attaine remission of our sinnes in this world or ne­ver to expect the same.

These are his wordes:

Morum porro corrigendorum, uullus alius quam in hac vit a locus: nā post hanc quisque idhabebit, quod in hac sibimet conquisierit. Aug. epist. 54 tom. 2. in ini­tio.

There is no other place but this life to reforme our manners: For after this life everie one shall have that, which hee purchased for himselfe in this life.

[Page 93] many other like sayinges the said holie father hath to the like effect and purpose: which I now let passe with silence, thinking that suf­ficient which is alreadie said hereof.

Most miserable therefore are the soules in popish purgatorie, as who by popish doctrine can neither merite nor satisfie for their sinnes.

For if soules in purgatorie can satisfy or merit, then can they also demerite, (because the selfe same reason holdeth in both alike,) and if they can demerite, they can also sinne mortally, and so pe­rish eternallie, contrarie to popish doctrine.

Again, if any mercie can be found after this life: the reason made by saint Paul to the Corinthians which was grounded vpon the chie­fest misterie of our Christian faith is doubtlesse of no force at all: to wit, when hee concludeth of the faith vpon Christ his resurrection from the dead.

Thus standeth the Apostles discourse: they that die in the faith of Christ, are either saved or damned: who if they be saved, then is Infra cap. 9. per totum. Christ risen againe, and become a true saviour: but if they be dam­ned: then doubtlesse is Christ not risen againe, neither become a true saviour. Now to confesse a thirde place, where soules remaine neither saved or damned, but in a perplexe manner, that indeed may stand with popish doctrine, but is flatte against Saint Paules dis­course.

Againe, to hold a third place doth overthrovv another of Saint Paules reasons, when he affirmeth the being in this bodie, to keepe the faithfull from Christ.

For if popish purgatorie be admitted, the soules suffering there shall be as well absent from Christes presence, as when they were in 2. Cor. 5. v. 7. 8. Christes bodie.

But perhaps, saint Paul knew not how to conclude his purpose, or at least was not in love with papistrie. Yet the papistes will say, that it is verie common with the fathers to pray for the dead.

To this I say, that in verie deede it cannot be denied, but that sun­drie of the fathers have both praied themselues for the dead, and haue also approved the praiers of others to the like end. But this will neither establish the popish purgatorie, nor their manner of praying for the dead.

VVhich obiection, because it seemeth to carrie a great maiestie with it, and indeede seduceth many a one, (as which is plainly set downe in verie expresse termes, in many places of the auncient wri­ters,) I purpose a litle to stand vpon it, nothing doubting but to satisfy the indifferent reader therewith through the power of God, so he will yeeld attentiue eares vnto my words.

1 I therefore say first, (as is proved elswhere in this treatise,) that 1. Cor. c. 15. v. 17. 18. [Page 94] what writer so euer affirmeth any doctrine, contrarie to that which is taught in the holy scriptures: he who soeuer he be, must be reiected, and his doctrine in that point contemned.

VVhich thing I doe not barely say, but I haue prooved the same out of the doctrine of the fathers, by the flat and expresse wordes of the fathers themselues. peruse the ninth chapter, of credit to be gi­uen to writers.

2 I say secondly, that it is a seemely, good, and godly maner, to pray for the dead: so our hearts bee rightly disposed, and our prai­ers framed accordingly.

As for example: when it is said of some friend departed out of this life, God grant him a ioyfull resurrection: which is the most orderly and plainest forme, of praying for the dead.

3 I say thirdly, if one say God have mercie vpon the soule, being wel instructed for the true sense thereof: it is not to be reproued, though the other phrase and maner of praying, ought rather to be vsed: e­specially in these daies, when the latter kinde is commonly abused. for albeit the holie and ancient fathers, when they prayed for rest & mercie to the dead, vnderstoode nothing els but the resurrection of the bodie, and the complement that redoundeth to the soule by vnion of the same: yet haue the papistes taught, and this day teach the people to vnderstand therby, the mitigation of purgatorie pains: which the soules of the dead enioy (as they groslie imagine,) either by praiers of the faithfull, or by masses, trentals, and diriges, or by the popes pardons. So that the evill of this maner of praying, consi­steth not in the phrase and praier it selfe: but in the erronius affection of the partie that so praieth.

For the better vnderstanding whereof, we must obserue:

1 First, that it is lawfull to pray for such things, as are verie cer­taine: but not yet accomplished or brought to passe.

And consequently, that it is lawfull to pray for the resurrection of the bodie: as also that the soules in the second advent may be vni­ted againe to the bodies: that so the faithfull may in complete ma­ner, be made partakers of the vision beatificall.

This observation is manifest by that praier which our saviour him­selfe praied: whose actions, as writeth the apostle, are our instru­ctions.

For our Lord Iesus praied for the salvation of his elect, who nei­ther 1 Pet. 2. v. 22. shall nor could perish by any possibilitie.

That he praied for them, is manifest in these wordes:

Non pro mundo rogo, sedpro his quos dedisti mihi, quia tui sunt. Pa­ter Iohn. c. 17. v. 9. 12. sancte, seruaeos in nomine tuo, quos dedisti mihi.

[Page 95] I pray not for the world, but for those whom thou hast giuen me, because they are thine. holy father, keepe them in thy name, whom thou hast giuen me. Yea, the verie elect are commaunded to praye for their salvation, because that is one of the petitions in the Lords prayer, which appertaineth to all, especially to the elect.

And that the elect cannot perish, is euident by this testimonie of the holie gospel:

It a vt in errorem inducantur (sifieri potest) etiam electi: Mat. c. 24. v. 24

So that the verie elect should be seduced, if it were possible.

2 vvee must obserue secondly, that in thē writinges of the fathers, sinne is often taken for the corruption and mortalitie of the bodie: as the papistes themselves doe ever in their romish pardons, vnder­stand by sinne the paine due for sinne.

which observations well remembred, all obiections out of the fa­thers, touching praying for the dead, may bee answered with all fa­cilitie. For first, when the ancient churches offered vp their sacrifi­ces of thankes giving, and prayers for the dead:

2 And secondly, when the fathers doe desire eternall rest vnto the dead: they desire nothing lesse, then that such souls may be delivered out of purgatorie, or haue remission of their sinnes.

vvhich thing I will proue, by two verie sound foundations.

1 The one, because such prayers or oblations were made for those, who (not only as the fathers beleeued, but euen as the papistes them­selves confesse) were then in heaven, where they neither needed nor could be relieved, by such praiers or oblations.

2 The other, because the fathers haue ackowledged so much, by expresse wordes in their writings.

1 The former foundation is evident in the liturgie of S. Chrisostom, Chrysost. in liturg. prope finem. to. 5. p. 1377. who there offered his sacrifice of thankes giuing, for the prophets, apostles, martyrs,, and for our blessed ladie the holie virgin Marie. vvhom all I am well assured, the papistes will confesse to haue beene in heauen, long afore saint Chrysostome was borne.

2 The second foundation is plainly confessed by saint Ambrose, who in his funerall orations for the emperours Theodosius and Valenti­nianus with his brother Satyrus: both confesseth them to possesse eternall rest in heaven, and neverthelesse praieth for eternall rest vn­to them.

which words, though they seeme to implie manifest contradiction: yet are they no lesse exact and sound, then godlie and easie to be vn­derstood: if my rehearsed observations be well marked. For though their soules were in eternall blisse, that is, in heaven: yet neither were their bodies then, neither are they now, neither shall they be, vntill the second advent of our redeemer, in that eternal rest.

[Page 96] VVhich rest that Valentinianus, Thedosius; and Satyrus may en­ioy after the day of dome in complete maner: that is, in soule and bo­die vnited in perpetuall vnion: Sainte Ambrose prayed so in­stantly.

Now for thy better instruction and satisfaction, (gentle Reader,) I will alleage Saint Amhrose wordes, as himselfe hath vttered them.

Of his brother Satirus he saith thus:

Tibi nunc omnipotens Deus innoxiā commendo animam, tibi hostiam meam affero: cape propitius ac serenus fraternum munus, sacrificium In oratione funebri pro Satyro, to. 3. in fine. sacerdotis.

To thee now, O almightie God, I commend his innocent soule: to thee I offer my oblation, accept favourably my brotherly present, the sacrifice of thy priest.

Of Theodosius he saith thus:

Da requiem perfectam servo tuo Theodosio, requiem illam quam pre­parasti In oratione funeb. pro Theod. to. 3. p. 52. sāctis tuis.

Giue perfect rest to thy seruant Theodosius, that rest which thou hast prepared for thy saintes.

Of Valentinianus he saith thus: Ambr. de o­bitu Valent. p. 12. to. 3.

Nulla dies vos silentio preteribit, nulla inhonoratos vos mea transi­bit oratio, nulla nox non donatos aliqua precium mearum contextione transcurret. omnibus vos oblationibus frequentabo.

No day shall passe with silence, none of mine orations shall passe without your honour, no night shall slide away without some pray­er of mine for you. I will frequent you with all oblations.

Thus we see plainly, that Saint Ambrose both offered sacrifice of lawde, and prayed for Valentinianus, Theodosius, and Satirus be­ing dead.

Let vs now proceed a litle further.

Thus saith saint Ambrose of Satyrus:

Intravit in regnum coelorum, quoniam credidit Dei verbo.

Hee is entred into Heaven, because hee beleeved the word of Ambt. vbi su­pra de sing. God.

Thus saith he of Theodosius:

Manet ergo in lumine Theodosius, & sanctorum caetibus gloriatur. fruitur Augustae memoriae Theodosius luce perpetua.

Theodosius therefore abideth in light, and in the glorie and fel­lowship of Saints. Theodosius of famous memory, enioyeth per­petuall light.

Thus hee saith of Valentinianus:

Creaimus quia ascendit a de serto, hoc est, ex hoc arido & inculto loco [Page 97] adillas florulentas delectationes, vbi cum fratre coniunctus aeternae vitae fruitur voluptate.

Let vs beleeue, that he is ascended from the desert: that is, from this drie and vntilled place to those florishing delectations, wherin the fellowship of his brother hee enioyeth the pleasure of eternall life.

These wordes are plaine, and neede no glosse. Saint Ambrose then beleeved, that Valentinianus, Theodosius, and Satyrus were in hea­ven, and enioied eternall rest: and neverthelesse, even then prayed for their eternall rest. But doubtlesse his praiers had beene both vaine and foolish if he should haue praied for that vnto them, which they had and enioyed alreadie. Hee therefore praied, (as my obser­vations declare,) not for the rest and blisse of the soules, which thē possessed eternall rest and blisse: but that the bodies also may bee pertakers of that place and rest, which they wanted them, and shall vntill the day of dome.

And for the better confirmation of this mine assertion, saint Am­brose doth in expresse words so expound himselfe:

For thus he writeth:

Te quae so summe Deus, vt charissimos iuvenes matura resurrectio­ne Ambrosius vbi sup. resuscites. & immaturum hunc vitae istius cur sum matura resurrec­tione compenses.

O high and mightie God, I beseech thee to raise vp most deare yong youthes with mature resurrection, and to recompence the vn­ripe course of this their life, with mature and ripe resurrection.

Loe here in plaine and briefe tearmes, the compendious expli­cation Let this be wel noted. of that popish obiection, and doubt, vvhich so troubleth and seduceth many a one.

And so Saint Ambrose his prayer for the dead, was even this and no other: God give them a ioyfull resurrection.

The fourth Conclusion.

IF popish purgatorie were admitted to be [...]: yet would it follow by a necessarie consequent, that the soules tormented there should perish everlastingly.

This conclusion is thus proved.

There is no salvation to be expected out of the church, as witnes­seth their great councell of Lateran, and the holie fathers accord thereunto. But soules boiling in purgatorie papisticall, bee neither in the church triumphant, because there is no neede of purgation, neither in the church militant, because there is place for merite and satisfaction: ergo they be out of the church: And consequently with­out [Page 98] the state of salvation: and in the state of eternall damna­tion.

And that the best learned papistes stand in doubt of their salvati­on, it cannot with right reason be denied. For in their Masses of Requiem, the priestes are commaunded to pray in these expresse words:

Ne absorbeat eas tartarus: In missa re­quiem pro defunctis.

That hell swallow not them vp and devoure them.

And doubtlesse, if they bee assured of their salvation: it is a vaine and ridiculous thing to pray, that they be not swallowed vp of hell: And consequently, their holie Masse is farced with a bundell of vani­ties. Neither wil it helpe the adversarie to say, that though the soules in their purgatorie can not satisfy for themselves: Yet may the living satisfy for them, which is of as much force, as if they did satisfy for themselves. For as the transgression is personall, so must the satis­faction also bee.

The reason hereof is evident, because to accept ones satisfaction for another: may well stand with acceptation or mercie, but never with iustice.

For which iustice notwithstanding, popish purgatorie was inven­ted, and this day is defended: as their reverend professor of divinity Dominicus Soto, plainly testifyeth in these words:

Respondetur, quod licet tunc moriens satisfacere nequeat, culpa sua fu­it, quod tempus adid antea non elegit: & ideo poena quae per contritionē Soto in 4. dist. 19. q. 2. ar. 5. in fine. nonfuerit ei dimissa, in purgatorio est luenda: vt ratio divinae iustitiae servetur. I answere,

That although he that dieth, can not satisfy for his sins: yet was it his owne default, because he chose not before time for it: And therfore, the punishment which was not remitted by contrition and confes­sion, must be punished in purgatorie: that the order of Gods iustice may be observed.

The 5. Conclusion.

IT is euident even by the opinion of great papistes, that manie soules in purgatorie shall abide there for ever: and yet is that flat against popish religion.

This conclusion shall bee manifest, if I prove three pointes.

[Page 99] 1 First, that everie sinne is mortall.

2 Secondlie, that no mortall sinne can be remitted or forgiven in popish purgatorie.

3 Thirdly, that many depart out of this world, not having their venial sinnes (of the papists so tearmed) before remitted, or forgiven.

For first, if everie sinne bee mortall: and secondly, if no mortall sinne be forgiven in purgatorie: and thirdly, if sundrie be in pur­gatorie, whose sinnes be not all forgiven: it must needes follow by a necessarie sequel, that such persons must continue in purgatorie eter­nallie, because they cannot come from thence vntill their sinnes be remitted wholy.

1 First therefore, that euerie sinne is mortall, is confessed by three great papistes: that is to say, Roffensis, Gersonus, and Michael Baius.

For these three confesse plainlie, that everie sinne is mortall of it owne nature, and onely veniall through Gods mercifull acceptati­on: and therefore may it be iustly punished everlastinglie.

Roffensis writing against Luther, hath these expresse words. Roffensis art. 32. advers. Lu­ther. pag. 328.

Quod peccatum veniale solum ex Dei misericordia veniale sit, in hoc tecum sentio.

That a veniall sinne is onely veniall through the mercie of God (& not of it owne nature,) therein doe I agree vnto you.

Loe, my Lord of Rochester confesseth plainlie, that euerie sinne is mortall of it owne nature.

And Ioannes Gerson sometime chanceler of Paris, that famous v­niuersitie, though otherwise a great papist, can not denie this veritie: for these are his words.

Nulla offensa Dei est venialis de se, nisitantum modo per respectum ad divinā misericordiā, qui nonvult de facto quālibet offensam imputa­re Ioan. Gers. de vita spirituali, lect. 1. p. 3. in 1. corollar. ad mortem, cū illud posset iustissime. Et ita concluditur, quod peccatū mortale & veniale in esse tali, non distinguuntur intrinsece & essenti­aliter, sed solum per respectum ad divinam gratiam, quae peccatum istud imputat ad poenam mortis, & aliud non.

No offence of God is veniall of it owne nature, but onely in res­pect of Gods mercie, who will not de facto, impute euerie offence to death, although he might most iustlie doe it.

And so I conclude, that mortal and veniall sinnes as such, are not dis­tinguished intrinsecallie, and essentiallie: but onelie in respect of Gods grace, which assigneth this sinne to the paine of death, and not the other.

Manie other sentences to the like effect the said Gerson hath, but these may suffice to content anie reasonable mind.

[Page 100] Other papistes are of the same opinion in verie deed, though they do not disclose their mindes in such manifest tearmes.

Thus writeth our father Iesuit Bellarminus:

Respondeo, omne peccatum esse contra legem Dei non positivam sedae­ternam, vt Aug. recte docet. omnis enim iusta lex siue a Deo, sive ab Bellar. de Rō. Pontif. cap. 21. homine detur, ab aeterna dei lege derivatur: est enim aeterna lex, vt malum sit violare regulam.

I answere, that everie sinne is against the lawe of God, not posi­tiue, but eternall, as Augustine rightly teacheth. For euerie iust law, whether it be made by God or by man, is derived from the law of God eternall. For the lawe eternall is, that it is sinue to transgresse the rule.

And this is the common opinion, as I haue proved out of Iosephus Angles.

Neither will it helpe the papistes to say as the Thomistes doe: that veniall sins are praeter non contra legem, besides the law, but not against Legendus est Ioseph. Ang. sup. cap. 7. ar. s the law.

1 First, because saint Augustine defineth sinne generallie to be a gainst the law of God, writing in this manner:

Peccatum est dictum, vel factum, vel concupitum, contra legem aeter­nam Aug. l. 22. c. 27. contra faustū. dei.

Sinne is a saying, or doing, or coveting, against Gods eternall lawe.

Secondly, because as Iosephus Angles their owne doctor saith: e­verie venial sinne is against right reason, and to doe against right re­ason, Ioseph. Angl. in 4. sent. part. 3. p. 215. is to doe against the law of nature, which commaundeth not to depart from the rule of right reason.

3 Thirdly, because we must give an accompt of euerie idle word in the general day of iudgement, as Christ himselfe telleth vs: & for no­other end doubtlesse must this accompt be made, but onely because Mat. 12. v. 36. This reason convinceth doubtles. everie idle word is against the law of God.

This the papistes can never denie, and yet must they likewise con­fesse, that idle wordes bee those sinnes, which they tearme ve­nialles: and consequently that veniall sinnes be against the lawe of God.

Secondly, that no mortall sinne can be forgiven in purgatorie, is confessed of all papistes without contradiction.

Thus writeth Bellarminus:

Manet vltima sententia vera & catholica, purgatorium pro ijs tan­tum esse, qui cum venialib. culpis moriuntur. & rur sum pro illis qui Bellar. lib. 2. de purgat. c. 1. in fine. decedunt cum reatupaenae, culpis iam remissis.

[Page 101] The true and catholike opinion remaineth, that purgatorie is on­ly for those, that die with veniall sinnes: and againe, for those that die with the guilt of sinne, after their sinnes bee forgiven.

And with Bellarminus doe all other papistes agree, that such as die in mortall sinne, goe incontinently to hel.

Thirdly, that sundrie having venial sinnes abide the paines of pur­gatorie, appeareth by Bellarminus his wordes before alleaged, and by Dominicus So to in these wordes:

Qui dixerit verbum contra spiritum sanctum, nō remittetur ei in hoc seculo, neque in futuro. Vbi Gregorius lib. 4. di alogorum, adnotavit ali­qua Soto in 4. s. dist. 19. q. 3. leuia peccata remitti in futuro seculo, per ignem purgationis.

He that shall blaspheme the holie Ghost, shall neither be forgiven in this vvorld, neither in the vvosld to come.

In vvhich place, Gregorius pope of Rome, noted certaine light sinnes to be forgiven in the world to come, by the fire of purgation. Idē habeturd. 25. can. qualis.

And their Aquinas saith thus.

Secundum enim quod peccata venialia sunt maioris vel minoris adhae­rentiae vel gravitatis, citius vel tardius per ignem purgantur.

For veniall sinnes are purged by fire sooner or latter, according to A quini 12. q. 89, ar, 2. ad. 4. their greater or lesser adherence or gravitie.

And for a full accomplishment of this conclusion, Iosephus An­gles vttereth the great perplexitie of papistes, concerning this their purgative imagination.

These are his vvords:

Quo igitur modo remittuntur (venialia) in purgatorio? varij sunt mo­di dicendi. Scotus dicit in instanti mortis, idest, in primo non esse ho­minis, Ioseph. Ang. in 4. senten. de sacr. poenit. pag. 219. propter merita quae homo habuit in vita: Dur andus dicit remit­ti quoad culpam in purgatorio, propter displicentiam quam habent illic animae venialium, cum sint in charitate. Soto asserit remitti quoad culpā in purgatorio, propter actum chariiatis & continuam patientiam, quam dum cruciantur, habent.

Hovv then are veniall sinnes forgiven in purgatorie? diverse hold diversly. Scotus saith, they are forgiven in the instant of death: that is, vvhen man first beginneth not to be, by reason of his merits in his life time.

Durand saith, the fault is remitted in purgatorie, for the displicence of venials, vvhich the soules haue in that place: and that because they be in charity. Soto saith, the sinne is remitted in purgatorie, for the act of charitie and continuall patience, vvhich they have in ther tor­ments. VVhom vvill not this discordant theologie, vtterly dissvvade from papistrie.

The sixt Conclusion.

THe booke of Machabees, (which is the sole and onely founda­tion of popish purgatorie,) is of no force at all to establish the same. This conclusion shalbe evidently prooved, when I shall effe­ctually disproove the authoritie of the said booke of Machabees, wherewith many have a long time beene most miserably seduced. Marke therefore my discourse herein.

To prove that the 2. book of Machabees, (out of which, prayer and sacrifice for the dead, and consequently purgatory is gathered,) is not Canonicall, that is, not penned by the assistance of the holy ghost, I say first, that it is not in the canon of the Hebrewes, neither 1 did the Iewes or Hebrewes at any time repute it, as a part of holy & divine scripture. This S. Hierome witnesseth in these wordes:

Sicut ergo Iudith, & Tobiae, & Machabaeorum libros legit quidem Ecclesia, sedinter Canonicas scripturas non recipit, sic & haec duo volu­mina legit ad aedificationem plebis, non ad authoritatem Ecclesiastico­rum Hier. in epist, ad Chromati­um & Helio­dorum, de lib. Solomonis. dogmatum confirmandam.

As therefore the Church readeth the bookes of Iudith, & of Toby, and of the Machabees, but receiveth them not amongst the Canoni­call scriptures, so doth it read also these 2. volumes for edification of the people, but not to confirme any Ecclesiasticall doctrine. S. Cy­prian hath the very same wordes in effect, in Symb. expositione.

S. Augustine doth testifie the same, when he thus writeth: Cyprian. in expos. Symb. Aug. contra 2. Gaudentii epist. lib. 2. cap. 23. tom. 7.

Hanc scripturam quae appellatur Machabaeorum, non habent Iudaei sicut legem, & prophetas, & Psalmos, quibus dominus testimonium per­hibet tanquam testibus suis: dicens: oportebat impleri omnia, quae scrip­ta sunt in lege, & Prophetis, & in Psalmis de me. Sedrecepta est ab Ec­clesia non inutiliter, si sobriè legatur, vel audiatur: maximè, propter illos Machabaeos, qui pro Dei lege sicut veri martyres, à per secutoribus tam indigna at (que) horrenda perpessi sunt.

This scripture which is of the Machabees, the Iewes repute not as they do the law, the Prophets, & Psalmes, to which the Lord gave te­stimonie as to his witnesses, saying: It behoved all things to be fulfil­led, which are written in the law, in the Prophets, and Psalmes of me: but it is received of the Church not without profite, if it bee read or heard soberly: especially, for those Machabees, who for the lawe of God as true martyrs, suffred of their persecutors so unworthy & hor­rible torments. And their owne deare fryer Bryton telleth vs, that neither is it knowne who was the author of these bookes, neither did Bryto in Pro­log. Mach. the east Church ever receive them. I say secondly, that this second booke (out of which purgatorie is collected,) was never in Hebrew: and consequently, never authenticall among the Iewes. I say thirdly, 2 that many things found & affirmed in the bookes of Machabees, 3 [Page 103] proove the same to be of no credit at all. For first, those for whome Iu­das offred sacrifice & prayer, could not be holpen therwith: because as 1 the text recordeth, they perished for their secretidolatry: & so saith the Glosse also. and consequently, Iudas erred grosly in praying and sacrificing for them, and the author of the booke likewise in commē ­ding Iudas his fact. wherupon it followeth necessarily, that the wri­ter was not directed by the holy ghost: because he concluded prayer for the dead, upō a notorious known fact condēned by the scriptures. Secondly, this booke saith, that the Iewes were led captives into Persia: but they were translated indeed, not into Persia but into Babylon, as their 2 owne Lyranus doth testifie. Thirdly, the second book saith, that Iudas with 2. Mac. 1. 19. others wrote their epistle to Aristobolus in the 188 yere, but the first book 3 affirmeth Iudas to be dead in the yere 152, so that he must perforce write 2. Mach. 1. his epistle 36 yeres after his death. Fourthly, the first book saith, that Anti­ochus 1. Mach. 9. died in Babylon in his bed for sorow: but the second book avouch­eth, 4 1. Mach. 6. that he was slaine in the tēple of Nannea. Fiftly, because the author of 2. Mach. 1. the books of Machabes desireth pardō, if any thing be done amisse. These 5 be his words. Si bene & ut historiae competit, hoc et ipse velim: si autem minus 2. Mach. 15. dignè, concedendumest mihi. If I haue done well and as is decent for the hi­storie, that is my desire: but if not worthily, I must craue pardon. And 2. Mach. 14. 37. doubtlesse, he that writeth by the direction of the holy ghost, needeth no pardon at all. Sixtly, the wilfull murder of Razias is there commended, which commendation can not proceed from the holy ghost. Seventhly, 6 the authour of the Macchabees doeth onely conclude praying 7 for the dead, because Iudas offered sacrifice for the dead. VVhich general illation vpon a particuler fact, is not good in popish maner of proceeding. For as their Maxime saith, which is true indeede:

Privilegium paucorum, non facit legem communem.

The privilege of a fewe, can not establish a generall law: neither will it helpe the papistes to say, that saint Augustine and others al­leaged this booke. For so saint Paul alleaged the testimonies of Tit. cap. 1. 12. 1. Cor. 15. 33. Acts 17. 28. Ethnickes, Epimenides, Menander, and Aratus: and popish divines alleage now and then Esops Fables.

But in what maner & to what end S. Augustine alleaged this book, I have shewed out of Augustine alreadie. Neither yet will it helpe to say, (which some repute for a great argument) that this booke is in the corps of the Bible. For so is the fourth booke of Esdras with­in the corps of the bible: & yet doe the papistes themselves repute it, no better then a fable. yea, which is more to be noted: they will not haue the last end of the Lords praier, to be canonicall: albeit it be found in the greeke originall, and placed in the corpse of the bible.

For the great popish linguist Benedictus Arias Montanus, telleth Arias Mont. in cap. 6. Mat. vers. 13. the reader in his observation vpō that place, that it is not of the text though he can not denie it, to be in the greeke & first originall.

[Page 104] To conclude, neither did Iudas pray himselfe, neither did he will others to pray for remission of sinnes unto the dead: neither is it flatly so said in the Greeke copie, neither did hee offer sacrifice for the sinnes of the dead, but for the resurrection of the body, vnder­standing by sinne the death and corruption of the bodie, which pro­ceedeth of sinne and followeth the same. VVhich my interpretati­on may be gathered out of these wordes of the text it selfe:

Bene & religiose de resurrectione cogitans.

Thinking well and religiously of tbe dead. 2. Mach. 12. 43.

And therefore is the illation of the popish latine translation, so highly commended and strictly commanded by the synod of Trent, vaine, frivolous, and foolish. He that penned the storie, hath with­out all rime and reason infarced the same: because no such con­clusion can be truly gathered, of Iudas his oblation and fact.

The first conclusion.

THe protestants speaking of the wiser and discreter sort, do high­lie reverence the holie fathers and ancient writers, diligentlie reade their workes, and gladly vse them as good helpes and ordina­rie meanes vnder God: for & concerning the exact explication of holie writte. Of this conclusion none can bee ignorant or stande in doubt therof, that seriouslie peruse doctor Iewel, the famous and worthie bishop of Saris burie against Doctor Harding: Doctor VVhit­gift, the most reverend, learned, and vertuous arch bishop of Canter­burie, against M. Cartwright: Doctor Cooper the reverend bishop of winchester, against the Martinistes: Doctor Reinolds, Doctor Sera­via, Doctor Sutliue, and others.

The second Conclusion.

THE Protestants, although they speake and thinke reverentlie of the ancient fathers: yet doe they neither repute their works of equal authoritie with the holie Scriptures: neither to be free from all errours and imperfections. wherein they nothing at all [Page 121] swerve from the modest estimation, which the said holie fathers had euer of themselves.

For proofe of this conclusion. S. Augustine writeth in this maner. Ego solis eis scriptur arū libris qui iam canonici appellantur, hunc timo­rem & honorem didici deferre, vt nullum eorum auctorem scribendo Aug. epist. 19. ad Hero. aliquiderrasse firmissime credam. alios autem it a lego, vt quantalibet sanctitate doctrina (que) praepolleant, non ideo verum putem quia ipsi it a censuerunt, sed quia mihi velper illos auctores canonicos, vel probabili ratione quod a veritate non abhorreat, per suadere potuerunt. I haue learned to give this feare and honour to those onely books of scripture, which are called canonical, that I firmly beleeue no author thereof to have erred in anie point: but yet I read others so, that how holie or learned soever they be, I do not by & by thinke it true, be­cause they say so: but because they perswade me by those canonicall writers, or by probable reason, that that is true they say.

And in another place, the same saint Augustine hath these wordes.

Ego huius epistolae authoritate non teneor, quòd liter as Cypriani vt ca­nonicas Aug. contra Cresconium l. 2. c. 32. non habeo, sed eas ex canonicis considero, & quod in eis divi­narum scripturarum auctoritati congruit, cum laude eius accipio: quòd autem non congruit, cum pace eius respuo.

I am not bound to the authoritie of this epistle, because I take not Ciprian his writings for canonicall, but consider them by the cano­nicall, and what I finde in them agreeable to holy writ, that with his praise do I receiue: but what is dissonāt, that with his favour I reiect.

And againe hee saith of him selfe in this maner:

Negare non possum nec debeo, sicut in ipsis maioribus it a multa esse Habetur dist. 9. c. negare 4. in tam multis opusculis meis, quae possunt iusto iudicio et nulla temeritate culpari.

I neither can nor dare denie, but as in our auncestors, so in my workes also are manie thinges, which may iustly, and without all temeritie be reproved. yea the same saint Augustine opposeth on­ly saint Pauls testimonie against all the writers Saint Hierome could Aug. epist. 19. ad Hier. tom. 2. pag. 50. alledge, about the great controversie, where saint Peter was repro­ved of saint Paul. By which testimonie it is very plaine, that S. Augu­stine did reverence the old writers, but yet did think them men, and to have their errors: & therefore would be not admit for truth what soever they wrote but only that which he foūd to be consonāt to the holie scriptures. And because my L. of Roch. is so highly renowmed in the church of Rome, he shal make an end of this conclusion, where he writeth in this maner: Nec Augustini nec Hieronimi, nec alterius cuinslibet auctoris doctrinae sic ecclesia subscripsit, quin ipsi locis aliquot ab ijs li­ce [Page 122] at dissentire. nam in nonnullis ipsilocis se plane monstrarunt homines Roffensis art. 32. advers. Luth. p. 420. esse, atque nonnunquam aberrasse sequitur: quo fit, vt tametsi propter aliquas humanas hallucinationes, de multis (quae dicti patre, in com­mentarijs suis reliquerunt) dubitare liceat: sanctitatem tamen eorum haud licet in dubium revocare.

The church (of Rome) hath not so subscribed to the doctrine, ei­ther of Augustine or of Hierome, or of anie other writer: but that we may dissent from their opinions in some places. For themselves haue in certaine places shewed plainlie that they were men, and wanted not their errours. VVherefore albeit by reason of humaine frailtie we may lawfullie doubt of manie thinges which the said fathers have left behind them in their bookes: yet may we not now call their ho­linesse into question. In which wordes, our great popish bishop tea­cheth vs three documents.

1 First, that their church giveth everie one libertie, to dissent from Augustine, Hierome, and other writers whosoever.

2 Secondlie, that the fathers have plainlie declared themselves to be men, and to haue had their imperfections accordinglie.

3 Thirdlie, that manie errours are to be found in the commentaries of the fathers. So then our bishop is of my opinion, and so also should the rest be: if they would be constant in their owne doctrine, which is published to the view of the world.

The 3. Conclusion.

NOt that which the greater part of the fathers or moe voices agree vnto, is alwaies the vndoubted truth: but often times that which the lesser part, and fewer persons doe affirme.

For the proofe hereof, Melchior Canus writeth thus:

Scimus frequenter vsu venire, vt maior pars vincat meliorem sci­mus Canus de lo­cis lib. 5. c. 5. pag. 164. non ea semper esse optima, quae placent pluribus: scimus in rebus quae ad doctrinam pertinent, sapientum sensum esse praeferendum: & sapi­entes sunt paucissimi, cum stultorum infinitus sit numerus.

VVee know it often chaunceth so, that the greater part prevaileth against the better. vve know that those thinges are not ever the best, which please the most. we know that in matters of doctrine, the iudge ment of the wise ought to be followed: for wise men bee few, and fooles infinite. Iosephus Angles, Thomas Aquinas, and Petrus Lom­bardus affirme it to be the opinion of the old fathers, of Basilius, of Ioseph. Ang. de creat. rerū dist. 12. q. 1. Ambrosius, of Chrisostomus, of Hieronimus, of Eusebius, of Damas­cenus, of Gregorius, and of others, that the world was created in 6. naturall daies successivelie, as Moises recordeth the same: yet this notwithstanding, saint Augustine holdeth opinion against them all, Tho. Aquinas 1. p. quest. 74. ar. 2. in cor. p. Lombard. l. 2. dist. 12. and saith, that the 6. daies mentioned by Moises were metaphoricall, not natural. Moises dividing those things which were made by parts, [Page 123] for the better capacitie of the rude and ignorant people to whom he spake. which opinion of one onelie Augustine, was ever preferred in the church, as testifyeth Melchior Canus in these wordes:

At communis hic sanctorum consensus nullum argumentum cer­tum Canus de lo­cis. l. 7. cap. 1 p. 116. theologis subministrat, quin vnius Aug. opinio caeteris omnibus ad­versa, probabilis semper in ecclesia est habita.

But this common consent of the holie fathers doth not yeeld any found argument to devines, for the opinion of one onelie Augustine repugnant to the rest was ever thought probable in the church.

All the old writers, Augustinus, Ambrosius, Chrisostomus, Remi­gius, Canus, vbi supra, p. 217. Eusebius, Maximus, Beda, Anselmus, Bernardus, Erhardus, Bernardinus, Bona ventura, Thomas, Hugo, and all the rest without exception, affirme vniformelie citing expresse textes of scripture for their opinion, that the blessed virgin Marie was conceived in o­riginall sinne: & yet doth the late hatched nest of Iesuits, and sundrie other papistes avouche this day the contrarie for the truth. There­fore saith their owne archbishop and greate canonist Panormitanus: that we ought at all times to give more credite to one onelie prelate whosoever alledging the scriptures, then to the resolution of the Panormit. a­pud. Sylvest. de conc. par. 3 pope himselfe, or of his counceil, not grounded vpon the said scrip­tures.

The 4. Conclusion.

THe papistes themselues doe often reiect the generall and com­mon opinion, and follow their owne private iudgements, never remēbring, or litle regarding, that they condemne the like in others.

This writeth their owne Melchior Canus.

Vbi ego si Thomistae omnes cum Scotistis existant, sicum antiquis iunio­res vellent contra me pugnare, tamen superior sim necesse est. non enim Canus de lo­cis, l. 8. c. 5. p. 245. vt nonnulli putant, omnia sunt in Theologorum auctoritate.

wherin, though all the Thomistes stand with the Scotistes, though the old writers with the yong fight against me, yet shall I of necessity have the vpper hand ouer thē. For al things rest not as some do think, in the authoritie of divines. Their owne Cardinal Caietain, notwith­standing his zealous affection towards poperie & his owne popish e­state, did for all that freelie acknowledge the truth in this point: in so much that he preferreth a sense newly perceived, but grounded vpon the scriptures before the old received opiniō of how many fathers so ever. whose words because they are worthie the hearing and reading I wil alledge at large. Thus doth he write. Super quinque libris Mosis iuxta sesum literalem novum (que) scripturae sensum quandoque illaturus sub s [...]ma­tris Caietai, in sua prefat. in 5. li­bros Mosaicos ecclesiae aec apostolicae sedis censura, rogo lectores omnes ne precipites detes­tentur aliquid, sed librent omnia apud sacram scripturam, apudfidei christi­anae veritatem, apud Catholicae ecclesiae documenta ac mores.

[Page 124] & siquando occurrerit novus sensus textui consonus, nec a sacra scrip­tura, nec ab ecclesiae doctrina dissomus, quamvis a torrente doctorum sa­crorum alienus, aequos se prebeant censores. meminerint ius suum vni cuique tribuere, solis scripturae sacrae authoribus reservata est autho­ritas haec, vt ideo credamus sic esse quodipsiita scripserunt. nullus itaque detestetur novum sacrae scripturae sensum, ex hoc quod dissonat a priscis doctoribus. sed scrutetur per spicacius textum ac contextum scripturae, & si quadrare invenerit, laudet deum, qui non alligavit expositionem scripturarum sacrarum priscorum doctorum sensibus, sed scripturoe ip­si integrae sub catholicae ecclesiae censura. alioquin spes nobis ac posteris tolleretur exponendi scripturam sacram, nisitransferendo (vt aiunt) de libro in quinternum.

Being now readie to write vpon the pentateuch of Moses accor­ding to the literall sense, and purposing to bring now and then a new sense of the scripture, vnder the censure of our holy mother the church and apostolike seate: I desire all that shal read my commen­taries, to contemne nothing rashly, but to ponder every thing with the scripture and the veritie of the christian faith, and the doctrine of the catholike church. And if at any time a new sense occurre, which is consonant to the text, and not dissonant from holy writ or doc­trine of the church, although it swarve from the opinion of never so manie fathers: yet let the readers iudge thereof indifferently, and according to equitie: Let them remember to give everie one his right: for this priviledge is onely graunted to the writers of the ho­lie scriptures: that wee must therefore beleeve it to be so, because they haue written so. Let none therefore loath a newe sense of holie scripture, because it dissenteth from the old doctors: but let him ex­actlie consider the text and context of the scripture: and if he find it to agree, let him praise God, who hath not tied the exposition of the holy scriptures, to the opinions of the old doctors, but to the in­tegritie of the scripture it selfe, vnder the censure of the catholike church. For otherwise neither wee nor our posteritie should have a­nie hope to expound the scripture, but onelie to translate out of one booke into another.

Thus we heare the verdict of our Caietaine, our Thomist, our frier, our Cardinall of Rome: by whose resolution it is evident, that no sense, though never so new, no exposition though never so strange, no opinion though different from never so many fathers, ought to bee reiected if it be agreeable to the scriptures. and consequently, it fol­loweth by the said resolution, that everie truth is to be tried by the scriptures and none by the fathers.

[Page 125] For first, our Cardinall telleth us, that he purposeth now & then, to bring newe senses, new Glosses, nevv expositions of the Scrip­tures. 1

Secondly, he saith, that such new senses must not rashly bee con­temned, but duely examined by the scriptures: and then admitted, if 5 they be found consonant to the same.

Thirdly, he teacheth us this golden lesson, that God hath not ty­ed the exposition of the scripture, to the iudgement of any auncient 3 father or fathers whosoever.

Fourthly, he telleth us, that the Apostles and such as only penned the holy scriptures, had this speciall prerogative, that they coulde 4 not erre. All which important pointes, are so learnedly, so gravely, & so christianly observed by this Cardinall, as more cannot be wished: yea, in the selfe same preface hee professeth constantly, that hee will neither expound the Greeke nor the Latine text: but the fountaine Caiet. vbi su­pra. and the originall, to wit, the Hebrew. And his reason is, because the Hebrew onely is authenticall.

Where note by the way, that the Latine edition which the papists tearme vulgata, and which is so magnified by the late councell of 1 Trent, as both the Greeke and the Hebrew must give place unto the same: is of small or no authoritie in respect of the Hebrew, by Car­dinall Caietanus his resolution.

Note secondly, that this Cardinal did dedicate these his commen­taries, 2 (in which all these memorable observations are conteined,) to our holy father Pope Clement him selfe, who perused them and difallowed no part thereof: and consequently, that this doctrine of Caietane is confirmed by the pope. For so mightily hath God alwayes wrought for the truth of his Gospell, as evident testimonies are set downe euen by the adversaries, and remaine this day with them vncancelled, for confirmation of the same. Neither is this the opinion of the popes Cardinall onely, but of Aquinas also his ange­licall and best approoved doctour.

His wordes I will likewise alledge at large, because, albeit they belong, yet can they not be thought tedious to such as loue the tru­eth: as which are most significant and effectuall for the controversie now in hand.

Thus therefore doeth he write:

Licet locus ab auctoritate quae fundatur super oratione humana, sit infirmissimus; locus tamen ab auctoritate quae fundatur super revela­tione divina: est efficacissimus. Vtitur tamen sacra doctrina etiam Aquin. p. 1, q. 1. ar. 8. ad 2. argumentum. ratione humana, non quidem ad probandum fidem, (quia per hoc tol­leretur meritum fidei,) sed ad manifest andum aliqua aliaquae tradun­tur in hac doctrina. Cum igitur gratia non tollat naturam sed perfi­ciat, [Page 126] oportet quod naturalis ratio sub serviat fidei, sicut & naturalis in­clinatio voluntatis obsequitur charitati. vnde & apostolus dicit, 2. Cor. 10. in captivit atem redigentes omnem intellectū in obsequium Christi. Et inde est, quod & authoritatibus philosophorum sacra doctrina vtitur, vbi per rationem naturalem veritatem cogno scere potuerunt: sicut Pau­lus act. 17. inducit verbum Arati, dicens. sicut & quidam poetarum ve­strorum dixerunt, genus Dei samus. sed tamen sacra doctrina huius­modi auctoritatibus vtitur, quasi extraneis argumentis & probabilibus. auctoritatibus autem canonicae scripturae vtitur, propriè ex necessita­te argumentando. auctorit atibus autem aliorum doctorum ecelesiae, quasi arguendo ex proprijs, sed probabiliter. innititur enim fides nostra re­velationi apostolis & prophetis factae, qui canonicos libros scripserunt. non autem revelationi, si qua fuit alijs doctoribus facta.

Although the place of authoritie, which is grounded vpon mans reason, be most weake and infirme: yet the place which is grounded vpon divine authoritie, is most sure and effectuall. neverthelesse, sa­cred doctrine vseth also mans reason, not indeede to establish faith, (for so faith should lose it merite,) but for the manifestation of some other thinges which are deliuered in this doctrine.

Since therefore grace doth not destroy nature, but doth pervert the same, it is expedient that naturall reason be servant vnto faith, e­ven as naturall inclination of the will is servant vnto charitie. wher­vpon the apostle willeth vs, to bring our vnderstanding captive to the obedience of Christ. And from hence commeth it, that sacred doctrine vseth also the authorities of philosophers, when they could by naturall reason haue knowledge of the truth, as Saint Paul al­ledged the saying of Aratus. yet sacred doctrine vseth such authori­ties, as arguments which are externall, and onely probable. But v­seth the authorities of canonicall scripture, as argumentes that are proper, and which conclude of necessitie. as for authorities of the doctors of the church, it vseth them as proper arguments: but which are onely probable, and do not conclude necessarilie. For our faith is grounded vpon revelation made to the apostles and prophets, who wrote the canonical scripture: but not vpon revelation of anie other writers, if anie were made vnto them. Thus saith Aquinas. Out of whose words I gather First, that the authoritie brought from man, is ever insufficient.

2 I gather secondly, that that ground whereupon we must build, as vpon an vndoubted truth, is onelie and solelie the authoritie of the scriptures.

3 I gather thirdlie, that mans reason may never be vsed, to establish a­ny point of doctrine.

[Page 127] 4 I gather fourthlie, that the fathers are to be read reverentlie, and their authorities to be vsed as probable reasons, but not as necessarie demonstrations.

5 I gather fiftlie, that feined romish revelations are not authentical. And consequentlie, that all revelations divulged vnder the name of Saint Bridget and others, are either meereillusions, or of small force, and which can yeeld no sound argument in matters of faith.

Victoria in verie briefe wordes, vttereth this point effectu­allie.

Licet in hoc omnes conveniant, non est tamen mihi certum. Victoria de sacram. p. 118.

Although (saith he) all agree in this, yet doe not I make it certaine.

Navarre singeth the same song in manie places, whereof I will recite onelie one.

Tum quod fundamentum principale ipsius est; quod communis tenet Navar. in en-chir. cap. 7. paral. 4. oppositum, quodip sum etiam ipse assero: sed non obstat, quia a communi recedendum, quum pro contraria est textus velratio, cui non potest sa­tis bene responderi.

Because also his principal ground is, that the common opinion is to the contrarie: which thing I my selfe also graunt. But that is not of force: for we must renounce the common opinion, when there is either text or reason, which can not be sufficientlie answered.

In fine, their owne glosse in their decrees reiecteth saint Augustine roundlie in these words:

Cum enim salva sua pace, Augustinus non bene opponit istis, & it a dor­mit 27. q. 1. c. nupr. avit hic Augustinus.

VVhere saint Augustine by his favour doth not well obiect against this: and so Augustine here was a sleepe.

Loe, when the fathers speake not placentia, everie beggerlie po­pish glosse reiecteth them at pleasure. And yet must wee vnder paine of excommunication admit their authoritie, when they seeme to make for poperie. albeit, they speake never so flatlie against the holie concil. later. 2. sess. penult. scriptures. yea their late councell of Lateran chargeth all preachers vnder paine of excommunication, that they expound the scriptures according to the old doctors, received in the church of Rome.

The first conclusion.

THe written worde or holy scripture, conteineth in it selfe everie thing necessary for our salvation.

For proofe of this conclusion, S. Paul writeth unto Timothie in this manner:

Quia ab infantia sacras literas nosti, quae te possunt instruere ad sa­lutem per fidem in Christo Ie su. 2. Tim. 3. 15.

Because thou hast knowne the Scriptures from thy infancie, which are able to instruct thee to salvation, through faith in Christ Iesus.

Now, if the scriptures be able so to instruct one, as hee may thereby attaine his salvation: it can not doubtlesse be denied with reason, [Page 129] that euerie thing necessarie for mans salvation is conteined there­in.

For which cause the Apostle addeth these wordes:

[...]. Cap. cod. vers. 16.

The whole scripture is given by the inspiration of God: and is profitable to doctrine, to redargution, to correction, to instruction, which is in righteousnesse, that the man of God may be perfect, pre­pared to everie good worke.

In which wordes the holie vessell of God Saint Paul, confirmeth that which he said before, to wit: that the holie scripture is able of it selfe, to instruct vs fullie vnto salvation.

And the Apostle declareth this by an argument drawen from the sufficient enumeration of those partes, which are required vnto our salvation: and withall he commendeth the scripture, of the sufficient cause, end and vse thereof.

The cause is, in that he saith the scripture is [...], that is to say The cause. given by the inspiration of God. The vse is foure fold, whereof the two former pertaine to doctrine: the two latter to life and man­ners. The vse.

1 For first, it is profitable to the doctrine of faith, and holie obedi­ence.

2 Secondlie, to the refutation of errors, contradictions and false o­pinions.

3 Thirdlie, for the correction of abuses as wel publique as pri­vate.

4 Fourthlie, for instruction vnto righteousnes, that is, to leade a godlie and holie life. The end.

The end is, that the man of God, to wit, hee that is the true wor­shipper of God may be sounde, perfect, and most absolute furni­shed in ail kinde of goodnes. which being so, we must needes con­fesse, (if we will not obstinatelie denie the manifest truth,) that the scriptures containe all thinges necessarie for christian doctrine, and for the full accomplishment of eternall life. Neither will it helpe the papistes to answere, (as their wonted maner is,) that the greek vvord ( [...]) signifieth everie, not all: so as the Apostle should say, not the whole scripture, but everie scripture. For first, everie scripture is not so copious or fruitfull, as it can afford vs all those goodlie affects, which saint Paul here rehearseth.

Againe, the selfe same greeke worde ( [...]) is vsed for the whole, by saint Paules owne interpretation in another place of holie scrip­ture, where he hath these expresse words.

[Page 130] [...]. 1. Cor. c. 13. v. 2

And if I have all and the whole miraculous faith, so that I can remove mountaines, but have not love, I am nothing.

In which place the papistes can not possiblie interprete the selfe same greeke word, though they would never so gladlie, but for all & the whole, because otherwise the sense would be most absurd. as which would prove saint Paul to speake of everie kinde of faith, and consequentlie of the iustifying faith with the rest: albeit, it is most cleare: that he speaketh of the miraculous faith onelie, which is often in the verie wicked.

The same greeke word in two severall places of saint Matthew, is likewise taken for the whole.

For in the second chapter it is thus written.

When king Herod heard, hee was troubled and the whole citie of Hierusalem with him. Mat. cap. 2. v. 3. 4.

VVhere if the greeke word ( [...]) were interpreted everie, and not the whole, the sense would be absurd: to wit, everie citie of Hie­rusalem, being yet but one onlie Hierusalem in all. but ( [...]) being taken for the whole, the sense is plaine and easie: to wit, the whole citie of Hierusalem.

So in the sixt chapter it is thus written. Mat. c. 6. v. 29.

Neither was Salomon in all his glorie, araied like one of these.

VVhere if the word ( [...]) bee taken for everie, the sense is not currant, because Christ compareth his bountifull providence over hearbes and flowers, not with a peece of Salomons glorie, but with all and the whole. For whosoever shal otherwise interpret the greeke word [...], shall no litle derogate from the magnificence of Christ his providence, as also frustrate his comparison.

Our holie father Abraham in matters of salvation, doth not send vs to traditions, but to the scriptures of Moses and the prophets.

For thus it is written:

Habent Mosen & Prophetas, audiant illos.

They have Moses and the prophets, let them heare them. Luc. c. 26. v. 29.

As if he had said, now the law is not studied, now the prophets are contemned: now God is not heard speaking in his word:

Some would haue angels come downe from heaven: some desire miracles, other some the dead to rise againe: But to heare Moses and the prophets, that is, to read the scriptures, is the true and only [Page 131] way to attaine eternal life.

And doubtlesse, if the scriptures be meanes to bring vs to salvati­on, (which the papistes dare not denie,) then must they be suffici­ent for that end, or else Christes workes should be vnperfect.

For which cause Saint Iohn writeth thus:

Haec autem scripta sunt, vt credatis quod Iesus est Christus filius Dei, Ioā. c. 20. v. 30. & vt eredentes, vitam habeatis in nomine ipsius:

But these things are written, that yee may beleeve Iesus to be Christ the sonne of God, and that by beliefe, yee may have life in his name▪

Loe, Saint Iohn affirmeth so much to be written, as is sufficient for our beliefe, through which we must be saved.

The popish glosse vpon the same text hath these wordes:

Haec quae fecit Iesus & ante resurrectionem et post, dicit se scripsisse Glossa ordin. super cap. 20 Ioannis. vt fidem astruat qua vita habeatur.

The thinges that Iesus did before and after his resurrection, hee caused to be written, for the establishing of that faith which giveth life.

Nicolaus Lyranus their owne deare doctor, confirmeth the same in these wordes.

In nomine eius. i. per fidem nominis Christi, quia secundum quod dici­tur Act. 4. neque enim aliud nomen est sub coelo datum hominibus, in quo nos oporteat salvos fieri. Lyran. in c. 20. Ioānis.

In his name, that is, through faith of the name of Christ, because as is said in the actes: ther is no other name vnder heaven given vn­to men, in which we can be saved.

S. Hierome, though so much liked of the papistes, is not for all that dissonant from the rest.

For thus doth he write.

Ergo nec parentum, nec maiorum error sequenáus est, sed auctoritas scripturarum, & Dei docentis imperium. Hier. in 9. cap. Ier. tom. 5.

Therefore we must neither follow the errour of our parents, nor of our auncestours: but the auctoritie of the scriptures, and the com­mandemēt of God that teacheth vs. S. August. that grave father, that glistering beame that strong piller of Christs church, doth avouch the same truth in words yet more manifest, writing in this maner:

Cūmulta fecisset Dom. Iesus, nō omnia scripta sunt: electa sunt autem quae scriberentur, quae saluti credentium sufficere videbantur. August. in Ioan. tract. 49. to. 9. in initio.

where as our Lord Iesus did manie thinges, all were not written, [Page 132] but so much was appointed to be written, as was thought sufficient for the salvation of the faithfull.

What more forceable wordes can be wished? what more effectu­all narration can be expected? what more sensible speeches can bee vsed? yet if it be possible to say more herein, the selfe same Augustine will performe it in another place, where he hath these expresse words.

In his enim quae aperte in scriptura posita sunt, inveniuntur illa om­nia quae continent fidem more sque vivendi, spem scilicet, atque chari­tatem. Aug. de doctri na Christ. li. 2. c. [...]. tom. 3.

For in those things which are plainely set downe in the scripture, are found all those thinges, which conteine our faith and maners, that is, hope, and charitie.

Loe, all things that concerne faith, hope, and charitie, are plainly found in holie scripture. where it is diligently to be observed, that Saint Augustine doth not onelie say, that all thinges conteining faith, hope, and charitie, are to bee found in the scripture: but hee doth further say, that all such thinges are plainlie set downe in the scriptures.

VVherevpon I inferre this notable document against popish doc­trine, that albeit manie thinges in manie places of the scripture bee obscure and intricate, (which I willinglie graunt vnto the papistes,) & consequentlie, that the same surpasse the capacity and iudgement of the vulgar sort: yet are all thinges concerning our beleefe, con­cerning our maners, concerning our hope, concerning our charity, concerning our salvation so plaine and so manifest, as everie one even of the meanest iudgement, may easilie perceive, and vnderstande the same: and this the papistes must perforce graunt vnto mee, nei­ther will I require more at their handes.

This is confirmed by my Lord of Rochester, their learned Bi­shoppe and reputed martire.

For these bee his wordes, as hee himselfe hath vttered them:

Scriptura sacra conclave quoddam est omnium veritatum, qua Roffensis art. 37. aduers. Luth. p. 411. Christianis scitu necessariae sunt.

The holie scripture is a cellar, parlour, or storehouse of all truthes, which are needfull to be knowen of Christians.

NOVV gentle reader, by this bishops confession it is evideut, that popish vnwritten traditions are not needfull or necessarie for christians: and so with no reason can they be thrust vppon vs.

[Page 133] Dionysius Areopagita, who lived in the Apostles time, is of the same mind:

These are his wordes:

Omnino igitur non audendum est, quicquam de summa abstrusaque divinitate aut dicere, aut cogitare, praeter eaquae nobis divinitus scrip­tae Dionys. Areo­pag. de divinis nominib. cap. 1. in initio. divinae enuntiarunt.

In no wise therefore may wee make bold to speake, or thinke anie thing of the most high and ineffable divinitie: but that onelie, which holie writ hath revealed vnto vs from heaven.

Melchior Canus, albeit he labour with tooth and naile to prove the consent of the fathers, to yeelde vs an vndoubted argument of Canus de lo­cis l. 7. c. 3. pag. 228. the truth: yet can hee not denie that the scripture is perfect and most sufficient in everierespect:

These are his wordes:

Sedquaer at hic for sit an aliquis: cumsit perfectus scriptur arum canon, sibique adomnia satis superque sufficiat: quid opus est, vt ei sanctorum & intelligentia iung atur & auctoritas.

But some man happily here will demaund: that since the canon of the scripture is perfect, and most sufficient of it selfe to everie end, and in everie respect: what neede have wee to ioine with the same, either the exposition or the authoritie of the fathers.

Thus saith Canus, not denying the sufficiencie of the holie scrip­ture: but requiring the commentaries of the fathers, for the better vnderstanding of the same. whose opinion in that respect I doe not whollie dislike, as is alreadie declared in the ninth chapter.

This being so, it followeth by a necessarie consequent: that neither yong nor old, rich nor pore men nor women, learned nor vnlear­ned, ought to be debarred from reading of the scriptures. which my doctrine was altogether practicall, in the auncient and primitive church.

For confirmation whereof, no greater testimonie can be had, then the old vulgar translations of the bibles.

In which behalfe, I savv verie latelie to my great comfort in the li­brarie of Emmanuell colledge in Cambridge, an English Bible of such antiquitie, as I could not vnderstand perfectlie the greater part of the wordes. vvhich is an evident demonstration, that bibles were in old time translated into the vulgar tongue, so as the common peo­ple might reade them.

Thomas Aquinas, (whose person the church of Rome hath canoni­zed for a saint, and his doctrine for authenticall,) teacheth vs not to beleeue anie thing concerning God, save that onelie vvhich is con­teined in the scripture expresselie, or at least significantlie.

[Page 134] These be his wordes:

Dicendum quod de deo dicere non debemus, quod in sacrae scriptur a non Aquin. p. 1. q. 36. ar. 2. adpri­mum. invenitur, velperverba, velper sensum.

vve must answere, that nothing is to bee verified of God, which is not conteined in holie writ, either expresselie, or else in sense.

And in another place, the same Aquinas saith thus.

Quicquid enim ille (Christus) de suis factis & dictis nos legere voluit, Aquin. p. 3. q. 42. ar. 4. ad 1. hoc scribendum illis tanquam suis manibus imperauit.

For vvhatsoeuer Christ vvould haue vs to reade of his doinges and sayinges, that he commaunded his Apostles to vvrite, as if hee had done it vvith his ovvne handes.

In vvhich vvords Aquinas avoucheth most plainlie, that al things necessarie for our salvation, are conteined in the scriptures. For in Christes deedes, are conteined his miracles, his life, his conversati­on: in his sayings are conteined his preaching, his teaching, hic doc­trine.

If then this be true as it is most true, (for the papistes neither can nor will denie Aquinas,) that whatsoever Christ vvould haue vs to knovv, of his miracles, of his life, of his conversation, of his preaching, of his teaching, of his doctrine, the same is novv vvritten in the scrip­tures: no man doubtlesse, but he that vvill cum ratione insanire, can denie all thinges necessarie for our salvation, to be conteined in the holie scriptures.

vvith Aquinas agreeth their ovvne renovvmed professor and deare frier Franciscus Victoria, vvhose vvordes are these:

Non est mihi certum licet omnes dicant, quòdin scriptur a non contine­tur. Vict. de sacrā. p. 120.

I doe not thinke it certaine, albeit all vvriters say so, because I can not find it in the scripture.

Againe in an other place, he vvriteth in this maner.

Propter quas (opiniones) nullo modo debemus discedere a regula & syn­ceritate Victor. relect. 8. de augmen. charit. p. 308. scriptur arum.

For vvhich opinions we must by no meanes depart, from the rule and sinceritie of the scriptures. I could say much more herein, but nothing can be more effectuall against the papistes, then to confute them by their ovvne approved doctors. And my desire also is to a­voide all superfluous words.

The second Conclusion.

ALL persons ought to read the scriptures diligentlie, because out of them even the simplest of all may gather so much, as shall bee necessarie for their salvation.

This I say, against that popish ridiculous, vnchristian, and pestilent abuse, in vvhich they deliver by vvay of tradition to the people, the scriptures, sacramentes, and church service, in a strange tongue to them vnknowen. vvhich their vngodlie and intollerable dealing. S. Chrisostome most sharplie reprooveth in manie places, vvherof I vvill onelie alledge some fevv.

In his commentarie vpon Saint Paul, he hath these vvordes:

Et vos itaque silectioni cum animi alacritate volueritis attendere, nullo Chrysoft. in proaemio e­pist. ad. Rom. alio preterea opus habebitis. verus enim est sermo Christi, cum dicit, quae­rite & invenietis, pulsate & aperietur. verum quia plures exijs qui huc convenere, & liberorum educationem & vxoris curam gubernan­dae (que) domus in sesereceperunt, atque ideo non sustinent totos se labori isti addicere, saltem ad percipienda quae alij collegerunt excitamini, tan­tum ijs quae dicuntur audiendis impendite diligentiae quantum colligen­dis pecunijs. tametsi enim turpe sit non nisi tantum a vobis exigere, ta­men conenti erimus, sivel tantum prestetis. nam hinc innumera mala nata sunt, quod scripturae ignorantur. hinc erupit multa illa haere seon pernicies, hinc vita dissoluta, hinc inutiles labores. quēadmodum enim qui luce ista privati sunt, recta vti (que) non pergunt: ita qui adradios divi­narum scripturarum non respiciunt, multa coguntur continuo delin­quere, vtpote in longe peioribus tenebris ambulantes: quod ne nobis v­suveniat, oculos ad spelndorem apostolicorum verborum aperiamus.

If therefore you vvil read the scriptures vvith alacritie of minde, you shall neede no other helpe at all: for Christes vvord is true.

vvhen he saith:

Seeke, and yeee shall finde: knocke, and it shall bee opened vn­to yov. Mat. 7.

But for that manie of you are charged vvith vviues, children, and domestical regiment, and so cannot vvhollie addict your selves to this stndie: and yet at least be readie to heare vvhat others haue gathered, and bestovv so much diligence in heering vvhat is said, as you doe in scraping vvorldlie goods together: for although it bee a shame to aske no more of you; yet vvill I bee content, if yee doe so much.

[Page 136] For this is the cause of infinite evils, that you are ignorant in the scriptures. From hence springeth the manifold mischiefe of here­sies, from hence dissolute life, from hence vaine, and vnprofitable labours.

For euen as they that are deprived of this light, can not goe on the right way: so they that doe not behold the beames of holie scrip­ture, are enforced incontinentlie to offend in many things, as wal­king in farre greater darkenesse.

This is the censure of saint Chrysostome: out of which I note,

1 First, that whosoeuer studieth the scriptures seriouslie, and with alacritie, shall finde therein, and vnderstand so much, as is necessa­rie for his salvation. And consequently, that our disholie father the pope, debarreth vs of the ordinarie meanes of our salvation: when hee vppon paine of excommunication, inhibiteth vs to reade the scriptures in our vulgar tongue, vnlesse we have his licence and dis­pensation so to doe.

3 I note secondly, that if it be a shame for such as are charged with wives, children, and families, only to heare sermons, & not to studye the scriptures vvithall: much more is it a shame for others that bee more free, not to read them diligently: and greatest shame of al for a bishop to approve them that wil not so doe.

I note thirdlie, that heresies, dissolute life, and all other evils, pro­ceede of ignorance, and not reading the scriptures.

Againe, the said Chrysostome in another place hath these vvordes.

Propterea obsecro, vt subinde huc veniatis, & divinae scripturae lec­tionem diligenter auscultetis: nec solum cum huc venitis, sed & domi Chrysost. in c. 9. Gen hom. 29. tom. 1. divina biblia in manus sumite, & viilitatem in illis positam magno studio suscipite. & paulo post: tantum igitur lucrum oro, ne per negligen­tiam amittemus, sed & domi vacemus divinarum scripturarum lectio­oni; & hic praesentes non in nugis & invtilibus colloquijs temporis de­coquamus.

I beseech you therefore, that you come hither novv & then, and at­tend diligently the hearing of holie scripture: neither onely when ye come hither, but at home also take the holie bibles into your hands, & with great studie receive commoditie vvhich is in them conteined.

I pray you therefore let vs not negligently loose so great gaine: but vvhen vve are at home, let vs then apply our selues to read the holie scriptures: and being here, let vs not spende our time idlely & vainly.

And in another place he speaketh in this maner:

Hoc igitur pacto, si scripturas diligenter scrutari voluerimus, salutem assequi poterimus: sipenitus in eis ver sabimur, & doctrinam rectam & Chrisos. hom. 52. in cap. 8. Ioannis. vitam erudiemur. Et paulo posi: Non enim fieri potest, vt qui Deum & [Page 137] audiat, & alloquatur Deū assequatur vtilitatem. sequitur: vacemus er­go scripturis dilectissime, et saltē evangelijs, ea frequēter pertractemus.

By this maner then if we will search the scriptures diligentlie, we shall attaine salvation: if we shall be wholie conversant in them, we shall be taught both right doctrine and good life. For it can not bee but he shall get profite, that both heareth and talketh with God.

Let vs therfore studie the scriptures, (my dearest,) and at the least let vs often read the holie gospels.

In and by which words (as we see most evidentlie,) SaInt Chry­sostome greatlie lamenteth, that the people in his time were so neg­ligent, in reading the holie scriptures. vvhat therefore would that holie father say, if he lived in these our daies when the pope burneth such scriptures as the people vnderstand? when the pope commaun­deth all thinges to be done in strange tongues? when the pope ex­communicateth all lay persons be they never so well learned, that reason in matters of their faith?

VVhat would he say, if he heard priestes pronounce absolution in 6. decret. l. 5. c. quicunque. their popish sacrament of penance, which neither the penitents, nor the priestes themselves doe oftentimes vnderstand.

Nay, what would he say, if he were this day in romish churches, where they doe not onely read their church-service in Latine, but al­so Latine homilies, or sermons vnto the vulgar sort, which yet they teatme, an exposition of the scripture? VVhich thing is done in everie festivall day of nine Lessons in the tyme of Mat­tins.

In fine, what would hee say, if hee knew the rude vulgar sort commaunded to heare the gospell read in Latine: and withall should see them listening with their eares, least anie word should not be heard, though impossible to bee vnderstood? vvould he not, and mighte hee not iustlie say with the holie Apostle, that they were madde?

Ves doubtlesse.

Origen, who lived above a thousand and three hundred yeares sithence, doth not onelie exhort the people seriouslie to reade the 1-Cor. 1. 14. vers. 24. Orig. hom. 4. super Levit. propesiuem. scriprures: but withall sheweth plainelie, that in his time, they were reade in the vulgar tongue.

These are his words:

Certe si non omnia possumus, saltem ea quae nunc docentur in ecclesia, vel quae recitantur, memoriae commendemus.

Doubtlesse, if we can not beare away all thinges conteined in the scriptures, at the least let vs remēber those things, which are taught, & [Page 138] read in the Church.

In which words he speaketh not onely of sermons, but also of the gospels, epistles, praiers, lessons, and histories of the bible. For ser­mons are conteined in the worde (decentur) which are preached, and the rest in the word (recitantur) which are read or rehearsed.

And if such thinges had beene read in a strange tongue, the vul­gar sort could not haue committed them to memorie.

Saint Augustine doth not onely exhort to reade the scriptures, but also giveth great encouragement thereto, avouching that the scrip­tures may be vnderstood with all facilitie.

Magnifice igitur & salubriter spiritus sanctus ita, scriptur as sanc­tas modificavit, vt locis apertioribus fami occurreret, obscurioribus Aug. de doctr. Christi lib. 2. cap. 6. autem fastidia detergeret.

The holie ghost hath so magnificallie and healthfullie measured the holie scriptures, that in the obscure places lothsomnes is taken away: and with the places that be plaine and easie, our hunger is sa­tisfyed. And his reason hereof followeth in these next wordes.

Nihil enim fere de illis obscuritatibus eruitur, quod non plani ssime dictum alibi reperiatur.

For almost nothing is conteined in obscure places, which is not most plainelie vttered in some other place. so then by the testimonie of this holie father, so auncient for antiquitie, so holie for vertue, so grave for auctoritie, so profound for his iudgement, so rare for his Loe, the scrip­tures are plaine & ea­sie. wit, so renowmed for his learning, that the papistes hitherto have admired his doctrine as an oracle from heaven: the holie scriptures are easie to be vnderstood: and whatsoever is obscurelie spoken in one place, the same is plainlie told in another.

To conclude, the practise of those godlie Christians, of whom we reade in the Actes of the Apostles, decideth this controversie suffici­entlie: as who beeing meere lay-men, did notwithstanding studie the Act. 17. v. 11. scriptures most seriouslie.

The 3. Conclusion.

TRaditions are to be examined by the holie scriptures the true touchstone of veritie: and to be admitted, when they are found consonant to the same.

This conclusion is evidentlie proved, by the iudgement practicall of saint Cyprian. For he being required by Stephanus then bishop of Where was the magnifi­cēce of pope­dome then? Rome to yeelde vnto traditions, did not terme the said Stephanus by the title of Pope, or holinesse, (as now the romish maner is,) but by the name of fellow or brother, and calling him blind byarde (not [Page 139] Saint Peters successour, who could not erre) did contemne & vtter­lie reiect that tradition, which the said Stephanus requested him to yeelde vnto.

His verie owne words are these:

Nihil innovetur, inquit, nisiquod traditumest? vnde est istae traditio? Cyprian ad Pompeium, pag. 228. vtrumne de dominica & evangelica auctoritate descendens, an de A­postolorum mandat is atque epistolis veniens? ea enim facienda esse quae scriptae sunt, Deus testatur, & proponit ad Iesum Nave. dicens: non recedet liber legis huius ex ore tuo, sed meditaberis in eo die ac nocte, vt observes facere omnia quae scripta sunt. item, Dominus apostolos su­os mittens, mandat baptizari gentes & doceri, vt observent omnia quae cunque ille praecepit. Si ergo aut in evangelio praecipitur, aut Apostolo­rum epistolis, aut actibus continetur, vt a quacunque haeresi venientes non baptizentur, sedtantum manus illis imponantur in paenitentiam, observetur etiam & haec sancta traditio.

Let nothing be renewed, saith Pope Stephanus, but let that bee done which was received by tradition. from whence came this tra­dition? whether doth it descend from the auctoritie of our Lord & of his gospel, or commeth it from the epistles, or actes of the Apo­stles? For God testifyeth that those thinges must be done which are written, and propoundeth them vnto Nave, saying: Let not the book of this law depart out of thy mouth, but meditate in it day & night, that thou maiest observe to doe all thinges that are written. Our lord also sending forth his Apostles, chargeth them to baptize the gen­tiles, and to teach them to doe all thinges vvhich he commaunded them. If therfore it be commanded in the gospel, or in the epistles of the apostles, or actes, that such as came from anie herisie should not bee baptised, but onelie receive imposition of handes for penance, then let this holie tradition be observed.

Thus wee see, that this auncient father, canonized by the pope for an holie and blessed martir, will indeede admit traditions, (as the wiser sort of protestantes do admit with him,) but yet no other traditions, then are found constant to the scriptures:

By which scriptures saint Cyprian examineth the veritie of al tra­ditions, admitting those that be consonant, and reiecting such as be dissonant from the same. At vvhat time the Arrians vvould not ad­mit the vvord [...],) because it vvas not found in the scriptures, the fathers of the councel did not then alledge traditions for proofe thereof, neither did they say, that manie thinges must bee believed, which are not vvritten.

[Page 140] But they answered simplie, that though that word were not exptes­lie written: yet was it virtuallie, and effectuallie conteined in the scriptures. which thing is evident by the testimonie of Athanasius, who writeth in this manner.

Sed tamen cogno scat qui squis est studiosior is animi, has voces tamet­si in Athanasius de decret. nic. synod. to. 2. prope finē. scripturis non reperiantur, habere tamen eas eam sententiam quam scripturae volunt.

Although the wordes bee not founde in the scripture, yet haue they that meaning and sense which the scripture approveth, and intendeth, as everie one that studieth the scripture seriouslie, may ea­sily vnderstand.

Origen giveth counsel to trie all doctrines by the scriptures, even as pure gold is tried by the touchstone.

Thus doth hee write.

Debemus ergo ad testimonium omnium verborum quae proferimus in Origenes in Matth. hom. 25. doctrina, proferre sensum scripturae, quasi confirmantem quem exponi­mus sensum. sicut enim omne aurum quodquod fuerit extra templum, non est sanctificatum, sicomnis sensus qui fuerit extra divinam scriptu­ram (quamvis admirabilis videatur quibusdam:) non est sanctus, qui non continetur a sensu scripturae, quae solūet e sensum solū sanctificare quem habet in se, sicut templum proprium aurum, Non ergo debemus ad confirmandam doctrinam nostram nostram nostras proprios intellectus iur a­re, & quasi testimonia assumere, quae vnusqui sque nostrum intelligit, & secundum veritatem aestimat esse: ni ostenderit eos sanctos esse ex eo, qui in scripturis continetur divinis quasi in templis quibusdam Dei.

Stulti ergo & caeci omnes qui non cognoscunt, quin templum, idest, lectio scripturarum, magnum & venerabilem facit sensum, sicut au­rum sacratum.

VVee must therefore alledge the sense of scripture, for the testi­monie of everie word vvee vtter in doctrine, as which confirmeth the sense of our exposition.

For as all gold which is without the temple is not sanctifyed: so eue­rie sense, which is vvithout the holie scripture (albeit it seeme to some wonderfull,) is vnholie, because it is not conteined in the sense of scripture: which onely sanctifyeth that sense which it hath in it selfe, as the temple sanctifyeth the gold. wee must not therefore for the confirmation of our doctrine, sweare to the sense, which everie one of vs vnderstandeth, and conceiveth to be true, vnlesse wee can shew it to be divine, because it is conteined in the divine scriptures: as in [Page 141] the temple of God.

Foolish therefore and blind are all those, who know not that the temple, to wit, the reading of scriptures, maketh the sense great and venerable, as hallowed gold.

In another place, the said Origen hath these words:

Querimus verba quae dicta sunt, iuxta personae dignitatem expo­nere: Origen. hom. 1. in 1. c. Iere. quapropter necesse est nobis scriptur as sanct as in testimonium vocare. Sensus quippe nostri & enarrationes, sine ijs testibus non ha­bent fidem.

VVee seeke to expound the wordes rehearsed, according to the dignitie of the person: wherefore wee must of necessitie, call the ho­lie scriptures to witnes.

For our iudgements and expositions without those witnesses, are of no credite at all.

Thus wee see, Origen his iudgement, and that nothing can be of credite, which is not grounded vpon the scriptures.

But what? is Origen onelie of this opinion? no verilie, for all aun­cient, grave, and learned fathers, are of the selfe same mind.

Saint Augustine writing against Petilianus, hath these wordes.

Proinde, sive de Christo, sive de eius ecclesia, sive de quacunque a­lia re quae pertinet ad fidem vitam (que) nostram, nos aut angelus de coelo Aug. cont. li­ter. Petiliā. l. 3 cap. 6. tom. 7. vobis annunciaverit preterquā, quod in scriptur is legalibus & evange­licis accepistis, anathemasit.

VVherefore, whether wee speake of Christ, or of his church, or of what other matter soever, which apperteineth to faith or manners, whether we, or an angell from heaven shall announce otherwise thē yee have received in the scriptures of the law and the gospel, accursed be that man.

The same saint Augustine in another place hath these wordes:

Nemo mihi dicat, O quid dixit Donatus, aut quid dixit Parmeni­anus, Aug. de vnit. ecclesiae, c. 10 nō longe abi nitio. aut Pontius, aut quilibet illorum. quia nec catholicis episcopis consentiendum est, sicubi forte falluntur, vt contra canonicas Dei scrip­tur as aliquid sentiant.

Let no man say to mee, Oh what said Donatus, or what said Par­menianus, or Pontius, or anie of them: because we must not con­sent to catholike bishops, if they chaunce to erre in anie thing, and speake against the canonicall scriptures.

Sainte Chrisostome agreeth vniformelie vnto the rest, writing in [Page 142] this maner:

Cum videritis haeresim impiam quae est exercitus antichristi stantem Chrysost. in c. 24. Mat. ho. 49 in locis sanctis ecclesiae, in illo tempore qui in Iudaea sunt fugiant ad montes, idest, qui sunt in Christianitate conferant se ad scripturas. & quare iubet in hoc tempore omnes christianos conferre se ad scrip­turas? quia in tempore hoc ex quo obtulit haeresis illas ecclesias, nulla pro­batio potest esse verae christianitatis, neque refugium potest esse christi­anorum aliud volentium cognoscere fidei veritatem, nisi scripturae di­vinae.

when you shall see wicked heresie, which is Antichristes armie, standing in the holie Church: at that time they that be in Iurie must flee to the mountaines, that is, they that are Christians must flee vn­to the scriptures.

And why commaundeth he at this time all Christians to flee to the scriptures? because at that time, when heresie hath yeelded vp the churches, no proofe can be had of true christianitie, neither anie o­ther refuge is left to christians desyrous to know the veritie of faith, but onlie the holie scriptures.

Againe, the said Crisostome saith in an other place after this ma­ner:

Neque enim quicquam dicere oportet sine testibus sola (que) animi cogi­tatione nam si quid dicatur absque scriptura, auditorum cogitatio clau­dicat, Chrysost. in Psal. 95. prope finem. tom. 1. nunc annueus, nunc haesitans, & interdum sermonē vt frivolum a­ver sans, interdum vt probabilem recipiens. verum vbi è scriptura di­vinae vocis prodijt testimonium, & loquentis sermonem, & audientis animum confirmat.

Neither must we say anie thing without witnesses, and vpon our own cogitation onelie. For if any thing be spoken without the scrip­ture, the cogitation of the auditors halteth, sometime graunting, sometime doubting, sometime reiecting that which is spoken as fri­volous, and sometime accepting it as probable. But when testimo­nie is brought out of the scripture of Gods word, then it confirmeth both the wordes of the speaker, and the mind of the hearer.

And yet the said Chrysostome hath an other place, well worthie to be written in golden letters.

Thus he saith:

Quomodo autem non absurdum est propter pecunias alijs non credere, sedipsas numerare & supputare, pro rebus autem amplioribus aliorum Chrysost. in 2. cor. ca. 7. hom. 13. in fine. sentētiam sequi simpliciter: presertim cum habeamus omnium exactis­tissimam [Page 143] trutinam, & gnomonem ac regulam, divinarum inquam le­gum assertionem. Ideo obsecro & oro omnes vos, vt relinquatis quidnam huic vel illi videatur: deque his a scripturis haec etiam inquirite, & ue­ras divitias discentes eas sectemur, vt & aeterna bona assequamur.

How is it not absurd for money not to credite others; but to tell the money our selves, and yet for more important matters, to fol­low simplie the iudgement and opinion of others: especiallie, vvhen we have the most exact ballance & rule, I mean the assertion of all di­vine lawes. I therfore pray & beseech you al, that you let passe vvhat this mā, or that man thinketh, & search al things out of the scriptures: and learning true riches let vs follovv them, that so vve may attaine eternall beatitude.

Behold here a most godlie exhortation, and grave advise, given vs by this holie father. As vve vvill not saith he, trust others to tell our money, but tell it our selves: much lesse should vve trust others, de­pending vpon them in matter of our salvation, but should our selves learne and knovv the same▪ by diligent reading of the scriptures.

Neither must we beleeve and doe what this or that man saith, but what wee find to be true, by painfull studie of the scriptures.

For which cause, vviselie and gravelie said Tertullian:

Idesse verum quodcunque primum, id esse adulterum quodcunque poste­rius. Tertul. ad­vers. praxe: in initio.

That is: that to be true, vvatsoever vvas first, and that to be coun­terfait vvhatsoever came after.

And for the same end said the holie Prophet:

Lucerna pedibus meis verbum tuum, & lumen semitis meis.

Thy vvord is a lanterne vnto my feet, and a light vnto my path. Psal. 1. 119. nun.

As if he had said, of our selves vve are but darknes, and can not see, except vve be lightened with Gods vvord. And consequentlie, if vve desire to have our sight, our chiefest and principall sight, the invvard and spirituall sight of our soules: vvee must imploy our vvhole in­dustrie in reading the holie scriptures, and vvith all humblenesse of minde studie them day and night.

The fourth Conclusion.

POpish traditions are so vncertaine and doubtfull, as the best lear­ned papistes are at great contention about them, and can not possiblie be accorded therin. For the exact proofe of this conclusion, that intollerable & endlesse strife, which was a thousand and foure hundred yeares sithence betweene Victor then bishop of Rome, and other Bishops of Asia, may suffice if nothing els were said. For on both sides tradition apostolical was alledged and stoutlie avouched, for and concerning the celebration of Easter.

Of this matter, thus writeth Eusebius Caesariensis.

Episcopis autem in Asia coactis, qui morem iam olim ipsis a maioribus troditum sedulo observandum constanter asseverabant, praefuit Poly­crates. Euseb. Caesa­riens. l. 5. c. 23. hist. eccles. qui in ea epistola quam ad Victorem & ecclesiam Romanam scripsit, traditionem ad ipsius vsque tempora deductam, his fere verbis exponit. Nos diem paschatis integre in corrupte (que) recolimus, neque ad­dendo quicquam, neque detrahendo.

The bishops of Asia assembled in councell, Polycrates beeing pre­sident, affirmed constantlie, that that custome ought to be observed, which they of old time had received by tradition. which tradition to have beene continued vntill his daies, the said Polycrates in his epist. to Victor and the church of Rome, sheweth plainelie in these words: VVee keepe easter entirelie, and incorruptlie: neither doe we adde or detract anie thing

And in the same epistle hee telleth vs, that Philip one of the sea­ven deacons, Saint Iohn the Evangelist, Saint Polycarpe, Saint Pa­pirius, Saint Melito, and others, did all obserue the same tradi­tion.

These bee his wordes.

Isti omnes diem paschatis 14. die lunae ex evangelij prescripto obser­varunt, nihil ab eo instituto ac more plane digressi: sed secundum re­gulam & normam fidei eum assidue tenuerunt.

All these have observed Easter the fourteenth day of the moone after the prescripr of the Gospell, declining nothing at all from that custome and ordinance, but dailie reteined it according to the rule and analogie of faith.

But Victor and other bishoppes with him, defended bitterlie [Page 145] a contrarie tradition. For thus writeth the said Eusebius of him:

Uictor qui tum Rom. ecclesiae praeerat, totius Asiae ecclesias cum alijs finiti­mis, tanquam alterius fidei & opinionis, simul omnes (vt complectar brevi) à Euseb. l. 5. c. 24. hist. eccles. communi vnitate ecclesiae amputare conatur, & in eos per literas graviter in­vehitur.

Victor then governing the Church of Rome, indeavoureth to cut off from the common vnitie of the Church, all the Churches of Asia together with others adioyning, and very bitterly inveigheth against them by his letters.

Which fact of Victor, Irenaeus and other Bishops sharpely reprooved in their letters to the said Victor. Which thing Ruffinus plainely testifieth, in these words:

Sed hoc non omnibus placebat Episcopis, quin potius & è contrario scribentes Ruffinus, in sua trans. ei iubebant, vt magis quae pacis sunt ageret, & concordiae atque vnanimitati studeret. deni (que) & extant ipsorum literae, quibus asperius obiurgant victorem, velut invtiliter ecclesiae commodis consulentem.

Yet this his dealing pleased not all Bishops, but contrariwise they wrote vnto him, bidding him to practise rather that belonged to peace, and to studie for concord and vnitie. Finally, their letters are also extant, in the which they sharpely chide Victor, as one that respected vnprofitably the good of the Church.

Thus saith Ruffinus. In like manner, (though with more modestie,) dis­sented Anicetus an other bishop of Rome, from S. Polycarpe bishop of Smyrna. Of which variance, thus writeth Eusebius:

Ne (que) tamen Anicetus Polycarpo poterat persuadere, vt suum observandi Euseb. l. 5. c. 24. hist. eccles. morem deponeret, ne (que) Polycarpus Aniceto persuasit, vt consuetudinem Asia­ticam vllo modo observaret.

Neither could Polycarpus perswade Anicetus, to keepe the custome and tradition of Asia.

Now, gentle Reader, what neede more to be said, for the vncertentie of traditions?

1 For first, these Bishops that thought thus diversly of traditions, lived within one hundred yeeres of Christ: at what time the Church was in good estate, and stained with very few or no corruptions at all.

2 Secondly, the one side doubtles, was seduced with false traditions.

3 Thirdly, S. Polycarpe and other holy bishops of that age, made no more account of the bishop of Rome his opinion, or authoritie, then of an other mans.

4 Fourthly, they were so farre from acknowledging him to be the su­preame head of the Church, that they all reputed them selves his equals: and controlled him as sharply for his doctrine, as S. Paul reprooved S. Peter for his conversation.

5 Fiftly, if S. Polycarpe had cause in his time, beeing the flourishing age [Page 146] of the Church, to doubt of Romish traditions; much more have we cause in these latter daies, to stand in doubt thereof. For now hath iniquitie the vp­per hande, nowe are corruptions more frequent, no we doe errours in every place more abound. Let vs therefore follow S. Augustines advise, let vs ad­mit nothing rashly, let vs examine all doubtfull traditions and doctrines, by the touchstone of veritie, the holy Scriptures. And least any man thinke S. Augustine to be of another minde, these are his owne expresse wordes:

Non audiamus, haec dico, haec dicis: sed audiamus, haec dicit dominus: sunt certe libri dominici, quorum ant horitati vtri (que) consentimus, vtri (que) credimus, v­tri (que) August. de v­nitate eecle­siae, cap. 3. tom. 7. servimus: ibi quaeramus ecclesiam, ibi discutiamus causam nostram.

Let vs not heare, I say this, thou saiest that: but let vs heare, this saith the Lord: for our Lord hath bookes, whose authoritie we both admit, we both beleeve, we both obey: let vs there seeke the Church, let vs there decide our cause.

But what neede many words? For either popish vnwritten traditions, are repugnant to the Scriptures, or consonant to the same. If they be repug­nant, then is there great reason to reiect them: if they be consonant, that must be tried by comparing them to the Scriptures, which is the conclu­sion I defend. But the Papists, perceiving them selves to be convinced by the Scriptures: tell vs plainly, that they must have their cause tried by other meanes. For so writeth my L. of Rochester, in these expresse tearmes:

Contendentibus ita (que) nobiscum haereiic is, nos alio subsidio nostram oportet tu­eri causam, Roffensis, verit. 4. advers. art. Lutheri. quam Scripturae sacrae.

When therefore heretikes, (he meaneth all, not Papists,) dispute with vs: we must vse other helpe in defense of our cause, then the Scripture.

Loe, they dare not be tryed by the Scripture. Which if a papist had not spoken, who would haue beleeved it?

The first Conclusion.

ALL Christians must confesse their sinnes to God, with internall contrition of heart, with full purpose to amend their lives, and with stedfast hope of remission by the mer­cie of God, through the merites of Christ his Sonne our sweete redeemer. Of this kinde of confession, the Scrip­ture speaketh abundantly.

Delictum, meum cognitum tibi feci, & iniustitiam meam non abscondi. dixi Psal. 32. 5. confitebor adversum me iniustitiam meam domino, & tu remisisti impietatem peccati mei.

I have made my sinne knowne vnto thee, and mine iniustice I have not hid. I said, I will confesse to the Lord my iniustice against my selfe, and thou hast forgiven the impietie of my sinne.

Qui abscondit scelera sua, non dirigetur: quiautem confessus fuerit & re­liquerit ea, misericordiam consequetur. Prov 28. 13.

He that hideth his offenses, shall not be directed: but who shall confesse and forsake his sinnes, shall attaine mercie.

Sidixerimus quoniā peccatum non habemus, ipsi nos seducimus, & veritas in nobis non est. si confiteamur peccata nostra, fidelis est & iustus vt remittat 1. Ioan. 1. 8, 9. nobis peccata nostra. If we say we haue no sinne, we deceiue our selues, and the truth is not in vs: but if we confesse our sinnes, &c.

That this confession must be ioyned with hope of remission, S. Chryso­stome teacheth in these words:

Quid proderunt lachrymae & confessio, sinulla adsit abolitionis fiducia? Chrysost. ad Theodor. laps.

What shal teares & confession availe, if there be no hope of forgivenes?

And that we must adde herevnto amendment of life, S. Hilarie teach­eth vs, when he saith: Quid aliud est confessio erroris, quam confessio desinen­di ab errore? Hilar. in 135. psal.

[Page 148] What other thing is the confession of errour, then to confesse that we will forsake errour?

So then, when we be wayle our sinnes, confesse them, and purpose to a­mend our former lives, with stedfast hope of Gods mercie, through attone­ment made in Christes bloode, wee shall doubtlesse have remission of our sinnes. Then though our sinnes be as redde as scarlet, yet shall they be Esay. 1. 17. made white as snow.

The second Conclusion.

VVE must confesse our sinnes one to an other, when we offende one an other. Which fraternall reconciliation done vpon earth, God promiseth to ratifie in heaven. To this confession, holy writ doth seriously exhort vs in many places:

Si offers munus tuum ad altare, & ibi recordatus fueris quod frater tuus ha­buit aliquid adversum te, relinque ibi munus tuum ante altare, & vade prius Matt. 5. 23. reconciliari fratri tuo, & tunc veniens offeres munus tuum.

If thou offer thy gift before the altar, and shall remember that thy bro­ther hath some matter against thee: leave there thy offering before the al­tar, and goe first to be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and make thy offering.

This offering (saith the glosse) is the sacrifice of a good worke: the altar Glossa interl. supera hunc locum. is Christ, to whome we must offer our good actions by faith. And ano­ther glosse saith:

Vade non pedibus, sed animo humili te ei prosternas, in conspectu illius cui oblaturus es: vel petendo veniam, si praesens est. Glossa ordi­nar. in cod. loco.

Goe not with thy feete, but fall prostrate with an humble heart before him, to whome thou makest thy offering: or aske forgivenesse, if the partie be present.

Christ saith in an otherplace:

Si septies in die peccaverit in te, & septies in die conversus fuerit ad te dicens, poenitet me, dimitte illi. Luc. 17. 4.

If thy brother shall offend thee seaven times a day, and shal seven times a day be converted to thee, and say, it repenteth me, for give him.

Confitemini altervtrum peccata vestra inquit apostolus, & orate pro invicem vt salvemini. Confesse your sinnes one to another, saith the Apostle, & pray Iacobi 5. 16. one for another, that ye may be saved.

The third Conclusion.

THere is yet a third kinde of confession commended in holy writ, which is a generall confession of our sinnes: not onely internally be­fore God, but also externally before the ministers of his worde and sacra­ments: but this kinde doth not include in it a total and specifical enumera­tion [Page 149] of our sinnes. This manner of confession made king David before the Prophet Nathan, when he reprooved him for his offences.

Peccaui domino, I have sinned vnto the Lord, saith David. And the Pro­phet answered: Dominus quo (que) transtulit peccatum tuum: the Lord hath for­given 2. Reg. 12. 13, 14 thee thy sinne. In like manner the sinnefull woman, of whome S. Luke maketh mention, confessed her sinnes generally in teares, signes, Luk. 7. 38, 48. and gestures, and received incontinently absolution at Christs handes: for he said vnto her, Remittuntur tibi peccata, thy sinnes are forgiven thee. Which manner of confession is fitly described in the booke of Nehemias, 2. Esd. 8. & 9. in the 8. and 9. chapter. For when Esdras and the Levites did interpret the law vnto the people, then the people acknowledging their offences and the offences of their forefathers, did lament, weepe, & confesse their sinnes before the Levites and the whole congregation: and that done, the Levits repeated their confession, and desired pardon of God for the same. So this The true mā ­ner of confes­sing our sinnes day in the Church of England, the people confesse their sinnes generally before the minister, and in the face of the whole congregation. Yea, in Ger­manie they confesse such speciall sinnes, as grieve and clogge their consci­ences, & for which they stand in most neede to have advise and counsell. Which libertie is graunted in England also: for such as list may confesse their sinnes to the minister privately, and have both his advise and absolu­tion, if he finde them penitent. Which confession and absolution, would It is to be wi­shed, that con­fession were more vsed thē it is nowe a dayes. God it were more in practise then it is: because instruction and consolation might redound vnto the penitent, by vertue of the same. This kinde of con­fession was much frequented in the primitive Church, at such time as the zeale of Gods people was great, and their devotion fervent: then did all confesse their sinnes generally: then were none commanded to confesse specifically: then did Christs ministers execute their functions duely: then did S. Iohn Baptist in zealous manner reproove vice, extoll vertue, thunder out Gods wrath and ire against wicked and impenitent sinners, & with all promise free pardon and remission of sinnes, to all such as would lament their sinnes, amend their lives; reforme their manners, and beleeve in Christ Iesus the innocent lambe, that taketh away the sinnes of the world. Then the Scribes, Pharisies, and great multitudes of people were inflamed with compunction at S. Iohns preaching, bewayled their former lives, confessed Mat. 3. 6, 7, 8. generally their sinnes, and desired baptisme for the same. Then the holy vessel of God S. Paul, wrought great miracles by the power of God; in so Act. 19. 18, 19. much that many of the faithfull came vnto him confessing their sinnes, and such as had followed magicall arts brought their bookes together, and burnt them in the presence of the people.

The fourth Conclusion.

THE Popish specificall enumeration of all our sinnes, is both impos­sible to man, and neither commanded by Christ, nor practised by his Apostles. That it is impossible to be performed by man, the Prophet [Page 150] prooveth, when he saith:

Delicta quis intelligit? ab occultis me is munda me. Psal. 18. 13, 14.

Who doth vnderstand his offences? clense me from secret faults.

Quis potest dicere, mundum est cormeum, purus sum à peccato? Prov. 20. 9.

Who can say, my heart is cleane, I am free from my sinne?

Neither will it serve their turne, to say as Cardinall Caietan doth, that confession is taken two waies: to wit, absolutely; and as it is the act of man. Caietanus in summ. in vl­tima pagella. To confesse all sinnes absolutely, is to leave no sinne vnconfessed: but to confesse all sinnes, as confession is the act of man, is to confesse all those sinnes which are in the power of man: that is, which man doth, or may re­member after diligent examination of his conscience. And therefore saith Caietan, when the Gospell requireth the confession of all sinnes in the Sa­crament of penance: it is not meant of all sinnes absolutely, but of all sinnes which are in mans power to confesse. This distinction, I say, will not serve;

1 First, because this distinction, is not mentioned in the Gospell.

2 Secondly, because there is no more reason for the confession of one, then for the confession of all.

3 Thirdly, because this notwithstanding, a man shal alway remaine per­plexe: as who can never tel, when he hath vsed sufficientinquisition in that behalfe.

4 Fourthly, because one mortall sinne can not be remitted without ano­ther, as all papists confesse; and consequently, either the secret not confes­sed mortalls, are remitted with the confessed mortalls, or none at all be re­mitted by the absolution: if they answer, that none are remitted, because some are not confessed: then shall the penitent never have absolution, be­cause he can never confesse al as is prooved: if they say, the secret not con­fessed mortals, be remitted with the other: then is it not needefull to con­fesse them after, when they come to remembrance: which yet al papists re­quire, as necessarie to salvation.

5 Fiftly, because it followeth herevpon, that penitents are bound to con­fesse their sinnes very many times, which the Popes law requireth but once in the yeere: I proove it, because if they stay any time from confession, they may forget their sinnes through their owne default, and so make frustrate their absolution.

6 Sixtly, because the priests are often so ignorant, that they can not di­stinguish mortall and veniall sinnes: which yet is necessarie in absolution.

7 Seaventhly, because the priest standeth often excommunicate, and often dealeth with reserved cases, and a thousand such like things chance in absolution. Yea, the archpapists this day, perceiving this matter to be so intricate and dangerous: partly by reason of the cases so reserved, partly by reason of innumerable excommunications, and partly by reason of igno­rance in their priests: have invented this poore shift for an helpe, if it may be: to wit, that the Pope shall give to every seminarie priest, full authoritie to [Page 151] absolve from all excommunications and reserved cases what soever: so that now we have so many virtuall Popes in England, as seminarie priests. For every one of them, hath plenitudinem potestatis: and it is a world to consider, how this power is vsed. For because neither the penitent, nor the priest can tell, howe often the partie is excommunicate; the priest for securitie, pro­nounceth every time over every person, these words:

I absolve thee from every bond of excommunication, so farre foorth as I can, and thou standest neede. and this is done in latine.

All which frustrate the same, and open to the penitent the gate of des­peration. That this manner of confession, is neither commanded by Christ, nor practised by his Apostles: may be evidently prooved by their owne ca­non-law, as their owne doctours testifie.

Thus writeth the great Thomist Sylvester Prieras:

Quarto, vtrum ad confessionem teneamur divino iure vel humano? & dico Sylvester. de confess. secun­do, par. 4. quod canonistae videntur tenere, quod sit de iurepositivo. & ad hoc est glossa de pen. dist. v. in summa, quae vult quod instituta sit à quadam vniversali tradi­tione ecclesiae: ideo infert, quod confiterinon tenentur infideles, nec similiter grae­ci, ex quo non acceptaverunt huiusmodi constitutionem, sicut nec votū castitatis.

It is demanded fourthly (saith the great papist Sylvester,) whether we be bound to popish confession, by the law of God, or by the positive law of man? and I say, the canonists holde, that we are but bound by the lawe of man. And of this opinion is the glosse, which is of this minde, that confessi­on was institute by a certaine vniversall tradition of the Church; whereup­on the said glosse inferreth, that infidels are not bound to confession, nei­ther the Greekes in like manner: since they did never approove such consti­tution, no more then the vow of chastitie.

Yea, the Popes own decrees admit no lesse: for these are the words of his canōs; Quibus authoritatibus vel quibus rationū firmamēt is vtra (que) sentētia sa­tisfactionis Depoenit. d. 1. cap. quamvis plenit. & confessionis nitatur, in medium breviter exposuimus. cui autem harum potius adhaerendum sit, lectoris iudicio reservatur. vtra (que) enim fautores habet sapientes & religiofos viros.

Vpon what authorities of foundations of reasons either opinion is groun­ded, I have briefly shewed. Nowe to whether of them, the reader should adhere, I leave it to his owne discretion. For either opinion hath wise and religious men, for the patrons of the same.

Behold here, gentle reader, that not onely the Popes doctours, but his owne canon-law, and the commenters vpon the same: doe all confesse, that confession after popish manner, is onely grounded vpon mans law. Yea, the glosse addeth that both wise and religious men doe so think, though some others hold the contrarie.

Martinus Navarrus, (though he hold a contrarie opinion to the cano­nists, Navar. in en­chirid. cap. 2. de confess, n. 3,) confesseth plainly, that their solemne glosse commonly received and approoved of all canonists, holdeth confession to be commaunded [Page 152] by the Church.

The famous Canonist and honourable Archbishop Panormitanus, was of the same opinion with the glosse, as confesseth Covarruvias in these words: Covar. tom. 1. par. 1. p. 155.

Quam ex nostris pleri (que) secuti sunt, maximè Panormitanus: ex ea asserentes confessionem sacramentalem quae sacerdotibus fit, iure humano institutam esse.

Which glosse many of our canonists have followed, especially Panor­mitan: affirming out of that glosse, that sacramentall confession which is made to priests, was ordeined by the law of man.

This to be true, S. Christome confirmeth in these words:

Non tibi dico vt te prodas in publicum, ne (que) apudalios te accuses: sed obedire Chrysost. supra cap. 12. ad he­brae: homil. 31. post med. e­iusd. tom. 4. te volo Prophetae dicenti, revela domino viā tuam, antedeū ergo tua confitere peccata: apud verum iudicem cum oratione delicta tua pronuncia, non lingua, sed conscientiae tuae memoria, & tunc demum spera te misericordiam posse con­sequi.

I doe not bid thee come forth in publike, neither to accuse thy selfe be­fore others: but I would have thee to obey the Prophet, when he saith, re­veale thy way to God. Before God therefore confesse thy sinnes, before the true iudge in prayer pronounce thine offences, not with thy tongue, but with the memorie of thy conscience: and then hope to have mer­cie.

And in another place, the same S. Chrysostome hath these words:

Peccata tua quotidie dicito, vt deleas ea. sed si confunderis alicui dicere, Chrysost. apud Lombard. in 4. s. dist. 17. dicito ea quotidie in animo tuo. non dico vt confitearis ea conservo tuo, vt tibi exprobet. dicito deo, qui curat ea.

Confesse thy sinnes daily, that thou maist blot them out. But if thou be a­shamed to confesse them to an other, confesse them daily in thine heart. I doe not bid thee confesse them to thy fellow servant, that he may vpbraide thee. Confesse them to God, who can cure the same.

Saint Augustine is very plaine in this point, for these are his expresse words:

Quid mihi ergo est cum hominibus vt audiant confessiones meas, quasi ipsi sanaturi fint omnes languores meos? curiosum genus ad cogno scendam vitam a­lienam, Aug. lib. 10. confess. cap. 3. tom. 1. desidiosum ad corrigendam suam. quid a me quaerunt audire qui sim, qui nolunt à te audire qui sint? & vndesciunt cum à meipso de meipso audiunt, an ve­rum dicam, quandoquidem nemo scit hominum quid agatur in homine, nisi spiri­tus hominis qui in ipso est.

What have I therefore to doe with men, that they must heare my con­fessiōs? as though they shold heale al my diseases? a curious kinde to know an others mans life, and sluggish to correct their owne. VVhy seeke they to heare of me what I am, who will not heare of thee what them selves are? And how know they when they heare me tell of my selfe, that I say [Page 153] truely? since no man knoweth what is done in man, but the spirit of man that is in him.

These are S Augustines owne words, so plaine and effectuall against po­pish, vnchristian, foolish, and execrable confession, as nothing more nee­deth to be said therein.

The fifth Conclusion.

ALbeit Popish auricular confession be so magnified with Papistes, that every one is commanded vnder paine of damnation to beleeve the same, as instituted by Christ himselfe: yet was it not an article of popish faith, for the space of one thousand and five hundred yeeres after Christ. This conclusion, because it is very important, I shal desire thee, gentle Rea­der, to ponder deepely with me my discourse.

Iosephus Angles Valentinus a popish fryer, and bishop of Bosana, in the second tome of that worke which he dedicated to the Pope himselfe Sixtus Quintus, hath these expresse words:

Ante concilium Later. erat haereticum negare necessitatem confessionis, ne­gantes tamen Ioseph. Angl. in 4. sent. q. de confess. p. 255. 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 yet they were not heretikes that denied it. The reason is, because the Church of Rome had not yet declared it to be an article of faith.

Loe, these words conteine effectually, the exact proofe of this conclusi­on, if they be well marked.

1 We must therefore observe first, that who soever beleeveth not sted­fastly every decree of the Church of Rome in matters of faith, is holden of that Church for an heretike.

2 We must observe secondly, that the councell of Lateran, (whereof this fryer speaketh) was holden in time of Pope Iulius the second, and Pope Leo the tenth, that is 1500. yeeres after Christ.

3 VVe must observe thirdly, that vntill fifteene hundred yeeres after Christ were expyred, they that beleeved not popish auricular confession to be ordeined by Christ, were no heretikes. For so, as you see, this fryer tea­cheth, and the Pope him selfe graunteth.

4 VVe must observe fourthly, that the Church of Rome hath no autho­ritie, to coyne any new article of faith.

5 VVe must observe fiftly, that the Church of Rome hath no new reve­lations in matters of faith, but the very same which it had in the Apostles time: both which latter observations, their owne deare Canus telleth vs, in these words:

Omnia siquidem fidei dogmata ab Apostolis accepit ecclesia, vel scripto, vel Canus, de loc. lib. 3. cap. 4. [Page 154] verbo. quoniam ij ministri fuere sermonis, nee vllas in fide novas revelationes ec­clesia habet.

For the Church received all doctrines of faith from the Apostles, eyther by word or writing. Because the Apostles were the ministers of the word, neither hath the Church any new revelations in faith.

Now out of these observations which are evident, it followeth neces­sarily, that confession this day ought not to be an article of faith, no not in the Church of Rome.

1 For first, during the time of fifteene hundred yeeres after Christ, it was no article of faith in the Church of Rome.

2 Secondly, the Church of Rome can not make that an article of faith now, which was no article of faith in the Apostles time.

3 Thirdly, the Church of Rome hath no new revelations, in matters of Christian faith. For so as you have heard, hath their owne Melchior Canus avouched.

Neither will it helpe to say, that auricular confession was an article of faith in the Apostles time, but not then revealed to the Church. For as Ca­nus hath told vs plainly, the Church receiveth no newe revelations of faith.

This doctrine is confirmed by their famous Cardinall Caietan, who a­voucheth two speciall grounds against popish auricular confession. For Caietan. super Ioan. cap. 20. first, although Christ by his opinion instituted confession, yet did he make it voluntarie, and left it in mans election, whether he would confesse, or not confesse. Againe, he telleth vs that the manner of popish confession, to wit, to confesse secretly in the priests eare, was not ordeined by our Saviour Christ. Out of which assertion, I inferre a double conclusion against the Papistes. The one, that confession is not necessarie to salvation. For that which is voluntarie, as to be a Monke, a Nunne, a Priest, a Iesuite; is not ne­cessarie to salvation, as every papist graunteth: but is as a counsell, & worke of supererogation. The other, that popish lawe vrging men to auricular confession, is flat against Christs institution. And thus I weene, I have proo­ved this conclusion.

The sixt Conclusion.

IF Popish confession were ordeined by Christ, as the papists falsely and grossely imagine: yet would it followe by a necessarie consecution, that every Pope should be in daunger of his salvation. This conclusion may seeme somewhat strange: but I proove the fame. By popish doctrine every man and every woman of lawfull yeeres, are bound vnder paine of damnation, to the said confession; and consequently, the Pope beeing ei­ther man, or at least woman, (as is thought of pope Iohn,) is strictly bound vnto the same. Now syr, how our Pope his holinesse shall come to confessi­on, [Page 155] and have absolution of his sinnes, hoc opus, hic labor est. And that the reader may fully vnderstand the difficultie herein: it is to be noted, that no priest can absolve any person from his sinnes, over whome he hath not su­perioritie and iurisdiction but, his holines hath both the swords, his power is above Kings and Emperiours, and over him no mortall creature, no not an Angel of heaven, hath any iurisdiction at all, as holdeth popish faith. The Pope then being subiect to none, & must yet be absolved of some; which some, must haue iurisdiction over him; standeth doubtles in great perplexi­tie, and in no small danger of his saluation. Let us therefore find some poore shift, to helpe his holines if it may be. What if we say, that the Pope hath no mortal sinne, & so is not bound to popish absolution. But, alas, all Popes are not Saints, as is prooved, and so some must perforce have absolution. Let us say, that he may absolue himselfe, as well as he may graunt pardons to him selfe. But, alas, that implyeth contradiction: because so he remaining one and the same man, should be both superiour and inferiour to himselfe: supe­riour, as he did absolve: and inferiour, as absolved. Let vs say, that he volun­tarily submitteth himselfe, and so receiueth absolution. But, alas, so shall his holines still be inferiour to the silly priest: because as S. Paul discourseth to the Hebrewes, he that blesseth, is greater then he that is blessed. Let us say, Hebr. 7. [...]. that the Pope giueth to the priest power ouer him, for that time onely. But, alas, that would be a rare and strange metamorphosis, with an impossibili­tie annexed therevnto. For first, by this meanes the simple priest should be Pope in time of absolution, as having then greatest power upon earth. Se­condly, after absolution, he that was pope, should cease to be pope: and he Argumentum ad hominem. that was not pope, should without election or consecration, be pope again. Which is a thing impossible, euen by popish proceeding. Let vs say, that some other pope hath given this auctoritie to the priest. But, alas, that can not possibly be graunted. For this is a constant axiome with the papists: par in parem non habet potestatem. When two are of equall auctoritie, the one can not make a law for, or against the other. Well, since none of these waies can content his holines; let vs heare what his owne deare vassals can say in his defense.

Iosephus Angles vnfoldeth this great difficultie at large, when he thus writeth:

Canus affert tres opiniones: prima est S. Thomae, & D. Bonaventurae, quibus adhasit Turrecremata. Secunda opinio est Paludani, asserentis habere authori­tatem Ioseph. Ang. in 4. s. q. de confess. p. 257. absolvendi non à Papa, sed à Christo. Tertia est Caietani, dicentis iu­risdictionem quam habet sacerdos absolvendi Papam, nec esse à Christo, neque à Papa, ne (que) ab ecclesia, sed solum ex electione, per hoc scilicet quod papa se subiicit illi illum (que) eligit. Est & quarta opinio, qua tenetur, quod quemadmodum in re­ceptione ordinis datur vnicui (que) simplici sacerdoti potest as iurisdictionis respectu venialis, & mortalis quae poenitens alias confessus est, & etiam respectu cuiuscū (que) [Page 156] peccatoris in articulo mortis: ita datur tunc iurisdictio eidem sacerdoti absol­vendi papam.

Master Canus bringeth three opinions▪ the first is, of S. Thomas and S. Bonaventure, to whome agreeth Turrecremata. The second is, the opi­nion of Paludanus, who avoucheth that the Priest receiveth his authoritie, not from the Pope, but from Christ him selfe. The third opinion is Caie­tans, who affirmeth, that the Priest hath authority to absolve the Pope, nei­ther from Christ, nor from the Pope, nor from the Church, but onely by e­lection: to wit, in that the Pope submitteth him selfe to the Priest, and chooseth him. And there is yet a fourth opinion, which holdeth that as in receiving of priesthoode, power of iurisdiction is given to every simple priest, in respect of veniall sinnes, and of those mortalls which the penitent nath otherwise confessed, and also in respect of every sinner in the point of death: so is iurisdiction then given to the said Priest, that he may absolve the Pope.

Thus saith our reverend bishop, and worthie fryer Ioseph. Out of whose words I note;

1 First, that since our Lord is the God of peace, and not of dissention, as recordeth his holy Apostle in many places: it must needes follow, that this popish doctrine is not of God, which is so devided against it selfe: and 1. Thess. 5. 23. 2. Thess. 3. 16. 1. Cor. 14. 33. therefore said Caietain truely, though vnwittingly, and to another ende: when he denied the priest to have his authoritie, from Christ, or from his Church.

2 I note secondly, that their doctrine is meere opinative, as which is onely grounded vpon mans invention.

3 I note thirdly, that as the priestes iurisdiction is vncerten, so is the Popes absolution also, as which is consectarie therevnto: and consequent­ly, that the Pope standeth in daunger of his salvation. And so, if I be not deceived, the obscuritie of this conclusion is made evident.