AN ABRIDGEMENT OR SVRVEY OF Poperie, Conteining a compendious declaration of the grounds, doctrines, beginnings, proceedings, impieties, falsities, contradictions, absurdities, fooleries, and other manifold abuses of that religion, which the Pope and his complices doe now mainteine, and wherewith they haue corrupted and deformed the true Christian faith, Opposed vnto Matthew Kellisons Suruey of the new Religion, as he calleth it, and all his malicious inuectiues and lies, By MATTHEVV SVTCLIFFE.

LONDON Printed by Melchisedech Bradwood for Cuthbert Burbie. 1606.

TO THE WORTHY and noble Lord, Prince HENRY, sonne and heire to the most puissant King, and our dread Souereigne, IAMES, by the grace of God, King of Great Britaine, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith.

THere are two principall offices, most worthy & excellent Prince, of a true Christian. the first is, To decline from euill: the se­cond is, To do good. And these two, as they are necessarily re­quired in all, so principally in those, which are to command and gouerne others. But the ground of both is the true Catholike and Apostolike Faith; without the knowledge wherof, not only good things are often times refused, as euill; but also things euill embraced for good.

Seeing then our aduersaries the Papists of late time haue both violently and fraudulently sought to bring backe into his Maiesties Domi­nions, [Page]whereof your Grace by the grace of God is vndoubted heire, not onely the heresies and superstitions of Popish religion, but also the ty­rannicall gouernment of the Pope, that is so pre­iudiciall both to Princes and their states, and also to all Christians & their liberties; I haue thoght, I could not doe either to God or my Countrey better seruice, then to declare to the world both their weake and absurd grounds, and their impi­ous and wicked doctrines, and how they haue proceeded in the maintenance and defence of the same. And this I doubt not would appeare far more cleerely, if without preiudice of mens persons, or respect of priuat mens interests, mat­ters might be debated before indifferent Iudges, and soundly tried by the touchstone of holy Scriptures, and none of those excluded from hearing, that professe true Catholicke religion.

My purpose is not, God I take to witnesse, to touch any man particularly, but onely to set forth the trueth of all matters, that the obstacles of Christian vnity, and the causes of the good successe of the Turke being remoued, we may all for the most part consent in the vnity of the Catholicke faith, and conioyne our mindes and forces the better to resist publike enemies.

This I present to your Grace, as the first fruits of my affection and seruice, that thereby learn­ing to eschew euill, and to embrace that which is good and pious, you may, as it followeth in the 34. Psalme, seeke peace & follow after it. Nay you may the better be instructed not only in follow­ing the true meanes of peace, but also obtaine your desires, and for euer truly possesse it. This your affection in pious promoting the true ser­uice of God, & preuēting of the trecherous plots of the factious complices of Antichrist, shall be the foundation of your prosperous estate. It shal increase the ioy of your noble Father our Soue­reigne Lord and King, and glad your Mother, whose hearts ioy you are. S. Iohn reioyced to see the children of that noble lady, to whom he directed his second Epistle, walking in trueth. And this is the affection of all your friends and wel-willers, who reioyce to see the heroicall vertues of your Father budding forth in your Grace. The Prophet Psal. 112, doth assure vs, That his children that feareth the Lord shalbe mighty vpon earth, and that the generation of the righteous shall be blessed. On the other side the aduersaries of religion shal weepe and lament, when they shall see the Pro­phesies of S. Iohn, Apocalyp. 17. and 18, con­cerning [Page]the destruction of the great whore, and the ruines of the city of Babylon accomplished, and the rather, as we hope, by your Fathers and your godly endeuours and meanes. Vouchsafe therefore, most gracious Prince, to giue reading to this Discourse made in opposition of that in­famous libell, which not long since one Matthew Kellison a Priest of Baal, and a marked slaue of Antichrist, presumed to direct to the King your Father: and consider what reason he had to talke of the surueying of religion, seeing his owne re­ligion can so euill abide any examination or sur­uey.

The Lord of heauen blesse you with all spiri­tuall graces, and the rest shalbe added vnto you. This is also the continuall prayer of all the ser­uants of God & your Fathers true subiects, That your Grace may be made a worthy instrument to aduance Gods glory, and that the vowes of your Parents, and all well affected to his Maiesty and to your Grace, may plentifully be perfor­med in you.

Your Graces most affectionat seruant MATTHEW SVTCLIFFE.

THE PREFACE TO THE Christian Reader.

MVch it were to be wished (Christian Rea­der) that the same affection and feruent desire were in all true Christians, and especially in those that are Pastours and Teachers, to mainteine the truth, which we finde to be in false teachers and heretikes to vpholde and mainteine their errors. The Scribes and Pharisees in time past (as our Sauiour Matth. 23, teacheth vs) compassed sea and land to make one of their professi­on. And so in time past did the Nouatians, Donatists and Arians. But what need I to speake of times past, when we see before our eyes the present example of the Masse-priests and Iebusites, and their complices? They spare neither cost nor labour. some write, some dis­course, some practise. one taketh on him one part of the labour, and another performeth the rest. So nothing is left vnattempted, that either fraud could deuise, or ma­lice execute, or industry and labour performe.

Among others, one Kellison (not long since, as is said, my L. Vauxes Butler, but now a drawer of Popish do­ctrine) hath shewed himselfe very busie: and for his part hath gathered together out of the libels of Staphy­lus, Cochleus, Bolsec, Sanders, William Reynolds, and other the Popes Parasits & agents, a whole packe of [Page]slanders, lies, and wicked imputations against Luther, Zuinglius, Melancthon, Caluin, Beza, and other Tea­chers of truth. To this he hath also added diuers frag­ments of certeine idle declamations of his owne, and the most malicious railing termes that either himselfe could deuise, or els finde out in his fellowes inuectiues. And all this put together, he calleth A Suruey of the new re­ligion: by the termes of Noueltie, Heresie, Impietie, and such like; seeking to disgrace that Trueth which we professe.

I did therefore expect, that some learned man or o­ther would take this fellow to taske, and indeed I doe now vnderstand, that a man both learned, graue and eminent in this Church of England hath both vnderta­ken and finished the Answer to his scurrilous discourse. but seeing the same is not yet published, I thought it not amisse in the meane while to requite his Suruey of reli­gion, with this Suruey of Popery, and to draw home this idle wandring Surueyer & Searcher of other mens matters, to a carefull consideration of his owne desperat cause.

His Treatise is most foolishly titled A Suruey of the new religion. for neither shall he euer prooue, that one article of our religion is new, nor doth he dispute against any grounds held by vs, but only telleth of certaine ex­trauagant speeches, partly falsely imputed to Luther, Caluin, Zuinglius, and other priuat men, and partly falsely gathered out of their words by false constructi­ons, but had they held any priuat opinions, that iustly might be censured, what is that to vs? our religion, cer­tes, is not grounded vpon Luther, Caluin, or any late Teacher, but vpon the Prophets and Apostles. neither [Page]is our faith that, which is found in priuat mens wri­tings, but that which is founded vpon holy Scriptures, and conteined in our publicke confessions. he might therefore with more reason haue called it a surfet of his owne fooleries and fantasticall deuices and calumniati­ons, then a suruey of our religion.

Against this idle inuention of Kellison, I haue, I hope, opposed a more diligent and certeine suruey of Popery. for I haue not deuised any thing of mine owne, but truely reported the doctrine which they teach. and herein I do not obiect whatsoeuer is taught by Scotus, Aquinas, Durandus, Biel, Stapleton, Harding, Bel­larmine, or which other Doctours do holde singulerly, nor that which Sanders, Parsons, or such idle fellowes babble in their trifling books, but only that which is ei­ther defined in some Councell, or determined by some Pope, or generally taught or practised by all, or most, or best of our aduersaries, and which I thinke Kellison will not deny. And by these grounds, doctrines and practi­ses I hope to ouerthrow the whole frame and building of Popery, being layd vpon weake grounds, and consisting of many wicked and false doctrines, and being maintei­ned by most leud and wicked meanes and practises.

This Discourse I first deuised for a priuat friend, whose wauering (for I will not say defection, vntill I see surther) I do much lament, and whose settlement I doe much desire. but because I doe thinke the same may doe good to many, who not knowing the trueth we hold, nor the errours, heresies, superstitions, idolatry and impie­tie of Popery, do runne headlong vpon occasion either of malcontentment, or desire of innouation in matters of State, which they consider may soonest be stirred by [Page]quarrels about religion, into strange courses; I haue beene perswaded to make it common. the same also may serue to reclaime the most haggard Papists, if they doe not wilfully shut their eyes, and stoppe their eares against the trueth. thirdly, this may serue to stoppe the mouth of the slandrous Iebusites and Masse-priests, that impu­ting to vs wicked opinions and practises no way defen­ded, are vnable to defend their owne doctrines and pra­ctises, which they publikely professe, and commend. si­nally, I hope wise Christians may learne by these collecti­ons of ours, neither to trust the aduersary, who maketh no conscience of lying or slandring, nor to condemne inno­cent men, before they be heard and conuicted.

Vouchsafe therefore (gentle Reader) to reade our Discourse with attention, and to iudge without partiali­tie. and then I doubt not but thou wilt beware both of the impious doctrines, and of the iniurious and leud practises of Popery.

If any be offended with this surueying course, let him impute the fault to Kellison, who of a drunken butler, is now become a mad surueyer. and if he finde not texts or proofs sufficient to satisfie his humour in proofe of euery allegation in this Treatise; let him thinke, that the mat­ters are of that nature, that either they will be confessed of the aduersary, or els are notoriously knowen to the world, though impudently denied by the polshorne packe of Antichrist.

Finally, as there is but one Faith, one Baptisme, one God; so there is but one true religion, which euery one is to know and to embrace, if he will be saued. And this is grounded vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Iesus Christ being the chiefe corner stone. [Page]but as Athanasius orat. 2, contr. Arianos, sayth of the Arians, Pro Christo apud illos Arius est, that is, They follow Arius as if he were Christ; so we may say of the Papists, The Pope is their Christ, their head, their lode­starre, their Northpole, and all in all. This one true re­ligion is also Apostolicke and Catholicke, and most anci­ent. Tertullian lib. 1. contr. Marcionem, teacheth vs, Whatsoeuer doctrine hath beene brought into the Church after the first publication of the Gospel, that the same is to be reputed heresie. Haeresis deputabi­tur, sayth he, quod postea inducitur. but Popery neuer came from the Apostles, but from the Pope. neither was the same vniuersally or anciently receiued, but onely taught and embraced by the Popes faction of late times, and within certeine limits. finally, this true and aposto­licke religion is of God, and not of the inuention of Popes, or their polshorne Priests, Monks or Friers.

Embrace therefore that religion, that is deriued from the Apostles and Prophets, that is truly Catholicke, A­postolicke, and most ancient, and finally, which hath no authour but God. and beware of all profane nouelties and Popish inuentions. and then as thou walkest by faith in this life, so thou shalt atteine to the vision of the face of God in the life to come, and also reigne with God euerlastingly through Christ, which is the Way, the Truth, and Life.

The Abridgement or Suruey of Poperie.
Conteining a briefe and plaine declaration of the grounds, doctrines, beginnings, pro­ceedings, impieties, falsities, and other manifold abuses of the Popish sect.

CHAP. I. What is meant by Popery or Popish religion in this Discourse ensuing.

TO teach aright saith Plato in Cratylo, we are diligently to expound the termes or words we treat of. and Tully in his first booke of Offices saith, that euery instruction that is vndertaken rightly, ought to begin with a desinition of mat­ters, which we are to discourse of. be­cause therefore I would not be mista­ken, nor haue our aduersaries to take either an occasion of quarrell, or a pretence of euasion: it shall be neeedfull, be­fore we passe any further, to define and declare, what wee meane in this discourse by popery, or popish religion. and so much the rather, for that the Papistes doe hold and pro­fesse the articles of the Creed, and diuers other points de­duced of them, or consonant vnto them, which both the A­postles and ancient fathers, and wee also beleeue and pro­fesse, [Page 2]and vnder colour whereof they abuse simple soules re­cesuing their puddle waters of Popery made sweete with some truth, for the pure streames of Christian doctrine.

By popery therefore wee vnderstand not any point of Christian doctrine generally holden of all Christians, or the doctrine of the Prophets or holy Apostles professed gene­rally by the ancient fathers, and truly termed Catholike (for that we hold and professe as well as the Papistes, and farre more syncerely than they, albeit we detest and renounce all Popery) but all those errors and corruptions in doctrine both concerning faith and manners, which the synagogue of Rome & her louers by colour of the Popes authority, and by his perswasion and enforcement from time to time baue receiued, professed and taught, either contrary to the do­ctrine & institution of Christ and his Apostles, or else aboue the same, and aboue the faith of the ancient primitiue church. Neither doe wee otherwise single Popery from Christian religion, than the ancient Catholickes did distin­guish Arianisme, Macedonianisme, Nestorianisme, Eutychia­nisme, Pelagianisme, and other heresies from the true faith. for although the Arians, Macedonians, Nestorians, Eutychi­ans, Pelagians, and other heretickes did hold in termes the articles of the faith; yet for that the first denied the diuinity of the sonne of God, the second the diuinity of the holie ghost, the third the vnion of the two natures in the person of Christ, the fourth the verity of Christes humane nature, the fift the necessitie of Gods grace, and added diuers nouel­ties to the ancient faith; they were reputed heretickes, and by their heresies ancient Christians vnderstood not any point of Christian faith, but their singuler opinions, which they maintained obstinately against the faith.

The Apostles in the Primitiue Church, did teach that do­ctrine, which they had receiued from Christ Iesus, and deli­uered the same to their successours, and they to others. the first Christians likewise receiued the same pure, and without corruption. but as the enuious man, while the men of the house slept, sowed tares among good corne, as wee read [Page 3]Matth. 13. so false Apostles and heretickes from time to time haue gone about with their cockle and tares to corrupt the syncere doctrine of the faith, abusing the negligence of true teachers to their owne aduantage; but yet none more cunningly and fraudulently, than the Popes of Rome and their complices. for other heretickes were soone espied by their opposition to the doctrine of the Apostles and Pro­phets, & Christs true Church, timely bewraying themselues, but these vnder the titles of Apostolicke men and Ca­tholickes haue corrupted the Apostolicke and Catholicke faith, and vnder the name and title of the Church haue vn­dermined the foundations and doctrine of the Church, and vnder their sheepes clothing haue couered their rauening and wooluish natures. and so haue they lurked many yeeres mingling their traditions and inuentions with the doctrines of faith, and for truth deliuering erroneous and superstitious doctrines, and vnder the name of Christ endeuouring to e­rect the kingdome of Antichrist.

At the first they clogged religion with diuers superfluous and superstitious ceremonies, & loaded Christians with the burthen of their decretales and censures. but in the end they corrupted both the worship of God, & the doctrine of faith. Boniface the 3. obtained of Phocas, that the church of Rome should be reputed head of other churches. and this was the beginning of the Popes supremacy. In the wicked assembly vnder Irene that semipagan empresse at Nice the doctrine of the worship of images began first to be established. & this the Popes of Rome willingly embraced, vsing this occasion to establish their own kingdome, & to free themselues from the gouernment of the Emperour. then also the superstiti­ous worship of Saints reliques began to be authorised, and vnwritten traditions vnder the title of Apostolicke authority to be commended, as appeareth in the third action of that synode. The French king Charles the great, and his father Pipin and other their successors endowed the church of Rome with great temporall possessions, which made them strong and powerfull.

Nicolas the 2. in a certein synode at Rome first de­creed, that Christes body was present in the eucharist, and handled with the priests hands, and pressed with the teeth: and this fell out about the yeare of our Lord 1059.

Gregory the 7. first beganne to handle the temporall sword, and manifestly to oppose himselfe against the Roman emperor. before his time, saith Otho Frisingensis, we doe not read of any Emperor excommunicated by the Pope. Nether did euer anie Bishop of Rome presume to depose the emperour before him. some alledge Ambroses exam­ple. but that sheweth, that bishops neuer tooke vpon them, to depose princes, but only to refrain from communicating with them. that which Gregory the seuenth beganne, that in the end his successors obteined. for by their practises they subdued the emperor, and gaue way to the Turke.

The doctrine of transubstantiation was first established by Innocent the third in a synode at Lateran, about the yeare of our Lord 1215. then also came in the necessity of auri­cular confession.

The communion vnder one kind was brought in first by the synode at Constance about the yeare of our Lord 1414. there also it was decreed, that the accidents in the eucharist did subsist without a subiect.

In the conuenticle of Florence about the yeare of our Lord 1439. the doctrine of purgatorie, and the Popes su­premacy was decreed by the authority of the synode. there also the doctrine of the 7. sacraments was first propounded to the Armenians, as proceeding from the synode. neither doe we read of the forme of extreme vnction, and other Popish sacraments there set downe, before this time.

The rest of the errors and superstitions of Popery were established and confirmed in the conuenticle of Trent, a­bout the yeare of our Lord 1564. for before that time the schoolemen disputed pro and contra. but since that, they haue made it vnlawfull to hold otherwise, then that synode prescribeth, in matters there newly determined.

Now they haue as it were giuen a perfect forme, and [Page 5]full authoritie to that doctrine, which before was not ei­ther perfectly knowen of all, or in all pointes allowed of all. so that whatsoeuer the Papistes vant of the antiquitie of their doctrine; yet it is most euident, that the full esta­blishment of it, as it is now deliuered, cannot be proued or shewed before this conuenticle. then their missals, Bre­uiaries and offices receiued a great alteration, or rather a new forme. then they innouated diuers points of doctrine both concerning faith, and manners.

To relate all the particular errors and abuses of the Ro­mish Church were a matter infinite. for there is no point almost, wherein the Papists varie not from the auntient Church, the article concerning the holy Trinitie excepted. beside that they vary in their doctrine and practise dailie. but the principall points of Popery, wherein we charge them to haue digressed from the doctrine of the Apostles and primitiue Church of Christ, are these.

First they haue taught nouelties, 1 and false doctrine concerning the verie grounds of faith. the Apostle teach­eth vs, that the Church is built vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Iesus Christ being the Cheefe cor­ner stone. but they beleeue the church to be built vpon the Pope. Irenaeus lib. 3. c. 1. saith that the Apostles did first preach the Gospell, and afterward deliuer the same in scriptures, that they might be a foundation and pillar of our faith. they doe make the traditions of the church not written equall to the scriptures, and vpon them, nay vpon the decretales of Popes, and practise of Massepriestes doe build their faith. all antiquitie esteemeth holy scriptures to be the canon of our faith, and therefore calleth them canonicall. But the Romanists esteeme them to be an vnperfect canon without their traditions, and the Popes decretales and determina­tions. Bellarmine lib. 4. de verb. dei c. 4. saith they are neither necessary, nor sufficient without traditions. The fathers neuer accounted the bookes of Tobiah, Iudith, Ecclesiasticus, Wis­dome, and the Machabees equall to the bookes of the law and Prophets extant originally in Hebrew, as appeareth by [Page 6]the testimony of Hierome in prologo Galeato, of Athanasius in synopsi, of Nazianzen in carm. of Epiphanius and diuers others old and new writers. the Papists in the synode of Trent decree them to be of equall authoritie with the rest. the auncient catholikes euer esteemed the Hebrew text of the old testament, and the Greeke of the new to be more authentical, then anie translation. the conuenticle of Trent hath made the old latin vulgar translation of the bible au­thenticall: and doth not giue that honor to the originall bookes of the bible. the canonicall scriptures, we say, re­ceiue their force from the author of them. and this is to be prooued by the consent of fathers, and by arguments from scriptures, law and reason. they say that scriptures re­ceiue force and authoritie in respect of vs from the Church, or rather from the Pope. Papists are neither willing, that scriptures be turned into vulgar tongues, nor will permitte them to be read of the vulgar sort without licence, or pub­lickly read in vulgar tongues in the church. finally they say they are obscure and hard to be vnderstood, and speake what they can in their disgrace.

Secondly they teach erroneously concerning Christs na­turall body, 2 and concerning his office. the body of Christ they beleeue to be both in heauen, and on earth on euerie altar at one and the selfe same time. they also hold, that his body is really vnder the accidents of bread and wine, giuing him a body neither visible nor palpable, nor in any sort like to ours. they teach further, that his body is in diuers places, where it filleth not the places, and that his one body hath relation to diuers places. they beleeue, that the soules of the faithfull before Christes comming were in hell, or at least in Limbo, which is a part of hell, and were thence de­liuered by Christes going to hell, as if his crosse had wrought nothing for them. they teach that Christ as man is omni­scient, and per consequent omnipotent, and that he was vir perfectus, that is, a perfect or growne man from the first in­stant of his conception. his office of mediation they giue to the virgin Mary, to Angels and to Saints, they make also [Page 7]Saints our redeemers, teaching, that by their merits Chri­stians obteine their desires, and are deliuered out of pur­gatorie. to Masse-priests they giue priesthood according to the order of Melchisedech, and say that they offer vp Christs body and blood really for quicke and dead. finally they make the Pope head, spouse and monarke of the Church.

Neither doe they teach more catholikely of Christes mysticall body, then of his naturall body. 3 for they subiect the same to the Pope, and exclude all from Christ, that are not subiect to the Pope, the true members thereof they per­secute, and make heretikes and reprobates, and such as liue without order or law, professing their religion outwardly, true members of Christes body. the Church, say they, is al­waies so conspicuous and visible, that euery one may see it and discerne it. the true markes of the church, that is, true doctrine, and the sincere administration of Sacraments, and holinesse of life, they denie, assigning most common and vncerteine markes, as vnitie, vniuersalitie, antiquitie, succession and such like.

The Pope they make a most certeine and infallible inter­preter of Scriptures, and iudge of matters of faith. 4 they giue him authoritie to make lawes for the whole Church, and power to binde mens consciences. they make him more so­uereigne then a generall Councell, and say that his power in giuing indulgences reacheth into purgatorie. they say he hath power to excommunicate and depose kings, and to giue away their kingdomes to others.

Betwixt the Catholicke church and Roman church they make no difference equalling a part to the whole. 5 they say also, that the Roman church can neither erre nor faile.

The worship of God consisteth in spirit and trueth, 6 but they place the same in certeine externall rites and ceremo­nies, and in meere humane inuentions and deuices. nay for God they worship creatures, not onely giuing diuine ho­nour to the Sacrament, but also to crucifixes and images of the Trinitie made of wood, stone and colours. they doe al­so adore not onely saints, but rotten bones and ragges, they [Page 8]know not of whom. to Saints they pray, they make vowes, they confesse their sinnes: to saints they erect churches and altars: to their images they burne incense and present diuers oblations, and finally in the honour of Saints haue deuised particular masses and offices, transforming the Psalmes and wordes of Scriptures to Angels and Saints.

Their doctrine concerning the Sacraments is most ex­orbitant. for they doe not onely adde vnto water in Bap­tisme salt, 7 spittle, oile, and diuers other ceremonies, partly idle, partly superstitious, but also vnto the two Sacraments instituted by Christ, they equall confirmation, matrimonie, penance, orders, and extreme vnction, making them Sacra­ments, as well as Baptisme or the Lords Supper. in Con­firmation they haue deuised both a new signe and new wordes. in extreme Vnction they haue deuised new formes. in the ordring of Priestes they say, accipe potestatem offerendi sacrisicium in ecclesia pro viuis & mortuis, that is, receiue po­wer to offer sacrifice in the church for quicke and dead. in Penance they vrge a necessity of confession, strange formes of whipping, and vncerteine hopes and new deuices of sa­tisfaction. from Matrimonie they exclude Priestes, monkes and friars, and make it a Sacrament, albeit they know neither certeine signes, nor words of the institution of it. but the in­stitution of the Lords supper they haue quite abolished. for that which Christ ordeined to be receiued of the Commu­nicants, that the masse-priest doth offer for quicke & dead, and in the honour of Saints and Angels, of which there is not one worde spoken in the institution. our Sauiour in bread and wine instituted his last supper. these neither leaue bread nor wine, but make Christians eaters of mans flesh, and drinkers of mans blood like the canibals, & Cyclopes. Christ ordeined this Sacrament in remembrance of his death and passion. these make of the same a sacrifice in ho­nour of Angels and Saints. the cup of the new testament they take from Christians, abrogating, as much as in them lieth, the new testament established in Christs blood. and yet they say Christians sinne mortally, if they heare not [Page 9]Masse euery Sunday and holiday.

Of grace they speake, as men deuoid of grace, and know­ledge. 8 for by grace, by which we are saued, and made acceptable to God, they vnderstand nothing else but either charity, or a habit not distinct from Charity. so that albe­it they exclude not grace from the worke of our saluation, yet making grace a habit or vertue, they ouerthrow grace, and ascribe the merit of our saluation, not to Gods mercie through Christ, nor to the merit of his Passion, but pro­perly to our owne workes and merites. diuers of them saie that men are predestinated for their merites foreseene, and all hold, that men were reprobated for their sinnes fore­seene before. they say further, that the vnregenerat hath freewill as well as the regenerat, and that not onely in mat­ters of this life, but also to doe workes of piety and other supernaturall effectes.

The doctrine of faith they haue also much corrupted. 9 for they make Charity the forme of faith, as if faith were without forme or life of it selfe, and as if the iust man did not liue by faith. to this purpose they say that not onlie wicked and reprobat men, but also the diuels of hell maie haue true and iustifying faith. they hold further, that by faith we are not onely to hold whatsoeuer is conteined in holy scriptures, but also whatsoeuer is deliuered by traditi­on, or determined by the Pope. and lastly that no man is to beleeue, that he shall assuredly be saued, but rather to hold, that he that is truly iustified, may be damned.

Concerning the law of God they teach both contrary to reason and law. for first they cut out the 2. 10 commandement in their offices of our Lady and their primers, because it cannot well stand with the Popish worship of images. se­condly they teach that concupiscence without our consent is not sinne, albeit the law say, non concupisces. thirdly they say, that it is sinne as well to transgresse the Popes decrees, as Gods lawes. fourthly they beleeue, that the Pope is able either to dissolue the law, as for example, where he absol­ueth subiectes from their obedience to princes, and chil­dren [Page 10]from their duty to parents, or at the least to dispense with the transgressors of the law, as for example, with per­iured persons, adulterers, Sodomites, murtherers, assassi­nors, theeues, sacrilegious persons and such like. fiftly they beleeue that a man is able perfectly to fulfill the law. of which it followeth that man is able to liue without all sinne, which as Augustine sheweth lib. 4. de bono perseuerat. c. 2. & 5, and Hierome aduers. Pelag. is flat Pelagianisme.

In their doctrine of praiers they offend much. 11 yet is the practise of Papists farre worse, than their doctrine in this point. our Sauiour teacheth vs to goe to his father in his name: they go to God by the intercession of Saints. nay of­tentimes they run to Saints, Angels, and the blessed Virgin without once thinking of God, especially if they thinke no more than they vtter in their praiers. they pray in a tongue which they vnderstand not, which is rather prating than praying. they pray for remission of sinnes for the dead, not knowing whether they bee damned or no. they pray before stockes and stones. nay they put their trust in them. for if this were not so, why should they hope for better successe at the image of our Lady of Loreto or Monserat, than at any o­ther image or forme of our Lady?

They beleeue, 12 that almes satisfie for sinnes, and that those are best bestowed, that are giuen to Monkes and Fri­ers, and such idle vagabonds and plagues of states: whereas the first ouerthroweth Christs merits and satisfaction, the se­cond is an occasion of all the mischiefes brewed by these mothes of religion, and blemishes of state.

They teach, 13 that it is mortall sinne, not to fast on Saints vigiles, embre daies, and other times appointed by the Pope, and that fasting standeth in eating fish, and abstaining from our suppers and such obseruances, and finally that such fasts doe not only satisfie for sinnes, but also merit heauen.

Conscience they know not. 14 for they make no conscience to cut Christian mens throats for not yeelding to all their abhominations, and thinke it conscience to obey the Popes decrees, though very vnlawfull.

Neither can they well auoid sinne, 15 that know not what sinne is. The virgin Mary by most of them is acquited from originall sinne. and they define sinne to bee, not onely the transgression of the law of God, but also euery transgressi­on of the law of the Pope; nay euery breach of the law of man, which vtterly taketh away the difference betwixt the lawes of God and man.

Of the state of soules departed they seeme to know little truly, although some say, they know too much. 16 for they do not say as we doe, that there are two waies after this life, the one of the faithfull to eternall life, the other of the wicked to eternall death, but they say, that some go into purgatorie, and others into limbus puerorum. and out of purgatory they say soules are deliuered partly by masses, and partly by in­dulgences.

All these points of erroneous & false doctrine, and all o­thers, which either contrarie, or beside the word of God, the Pope, and his complices haue inuented, and brought into the church of Rome, we call Popery. and this is the subiect of this discourse, and the doctrine against which we dispute. let no man therefore thinke, because the Papists maintaine many points of Christian religion, that either we reprehend that truth, which they and we defend, or that they can de­fend the errors of Popery, because they hold some trueth. but either let them iustifie their errors; or else they shall bee forced to confesse, that the proper doctrine of Popery is wicked and erroneous.

CHAP. II. Of the grounds and foundations of Popish religion.

AS Popery is diuers from Christian religion, so hath the same other foundations than Christian religion. The doctors of Trent in the fourth session of that synode [Page 12]hauing pronounced them anathema, that shall not receiue all the bookes of the Bible, as they are found in the old Latin vulgar translation, and read in the church of Rome, for holy and canonicall, or that shall wittinglie contemne the traditi­ons of that church, doe signifie that this is the foundation of the confession of faith, which they meant to publish. so it ap­peareth they ground their faith beside canonicall scriptures vpon apocryphall writings of Tobiah, Iudith, Wisedome, Ec­clesiasticus and the Machabees, and diuers fragments of books not found in the Hebrew text of the Bible, and vpon traditions not written, but deliuered from hand to hand from the Apostles, as they say, and so come to their hands. but where they speake of scriptures, it is to be obserued, that they doe not simply allow them, but as they are contained in the old vulgar translation, and as they are expounded by the Church of Rome. those which vnder any pretence doe reiect the old translation, or vse any interpretation contrary to the Romish Churches meaning, they condemne.

Stapleton in his booke intituled Principia doctrinalia doth deliuer vnto vs seuen grounds or principles of his religion. the first is the Church, the second the Pope, the third the means vsed by the Pope in iudgement, the fourth the Popes infallibility in iudgement, the fifth his power in taxing the canon of Scrip­tures, the sixth his certaine interpretation of Scriptures, the se­uenth his power in deliuering doctrine not written. these I say are his grounds and principles absurdly deuised, confusedly disposed, and ridiculously propounded, as God willing, shall be shewed otherwhere. now it is sufficient to declare, that whatsoeuer he bableth elsewhere of scriptures, coun­cels & fathers, yet heere they are all suppressed in this diuisi­on, or at the least concealed vnder the name of the Church, or Pope, which in his preface to Gregory the 13. hee calleth supremum numen in terris, that is, the supreme God of the world, and who to him is all in all. likewise in his preface to his re­lection of doctrinall principles, hee seemeth directly to ex­clude the scriptures. Christianae religionis fundamentum habe­mus saith he, ab ipsis literis apostolicis & euangelicis uliud. that [Page 13]is, we haue another foundation of Christian religion diuers from the writings of the Apostles & Prophets. if he exclude not scri­ptures, yet he admitteth them no otherwise, than according to the interpretation of the Pope, and his complices. nay without the Popes declaration he doth tediouslie discourse, that Christians are not to receiue the canon of scriptures.

The decretale epistles of the Pope no doubt they admit for the foundation of their faith. for in the rubricke of their decrees c. in canonicis. dist. 19. they doe determine that the Popes decretales are to bee numbred among canonicall scriptures. inter canonicas scripturas, say they, decretales epistolae connume­rantur. likewise Gelasius c. sancta Romana. dist. 15. defineth that the Popes decretale epistles are to bee receiued with vene­ration.

In the same decretale Gelasius authoriseth the Romane martyrologe or legends of martyrs. neither can Kellison, or his kettle companions deny this to be one of the grounds of his rammish, I would say Romish religion, seeing these martyrologes and legendes conteine diuers traditions, which the conuenticle of Trent will haue all Papistes to re­ceiue with equall affection to scriptures.

Canus lib. 1. loc. theolog. c. 1. assigneth tenne places, out of which he saith, diuines are to draw arguments. the first is the authority of scriptures. the second the authority of tradi­tions not written. the third is the authority of the catholike church. the fourth the authority of councels. the fifth the authority of the church of Rome. where wee are to note that more honestly than his companions hee maketh the church of Rome to differ from the Catholike church. the sixth is the authority of ancient fathers. the seuenth the authority of Romish schoole doctors. the eighth naturall reason. the ninth the authority of Philosophers. the tenth the authority of writers of stories. so wee see how hee buildeth his faith vpon men, as well as vpon God, and matcheth traditions not written with the most diuine writings of the Prophets and Apostles, and conioyneth the authority of councels and fathers, nay of schoolemen and Philosophers with the [Page 14]testimony of holy scriptures framing to vs rather an hu­mane then a diuine foundation of Christian faith.

Martin Perez a plaine dealing Papist knowing, that all those points of doctrine, which are in controuersie betwixt his fellowes and vs, are grounded rather vpon tradition then scripture, doth entitle his whole discourse of these matters, de traditionibus, that is, a discourse of traditions.

Finally Bellarmine lib. 2. de Pontif. Rom. cap. 31. doth call the Pope the foundation of the building of the church, Funda­mentum aedisicij ecclesiae, and in his preface before his bookes de pontisice Rom. he saith, that the seat of Peter, or the Popes chaire, is the approued stone, the corner, and pretious stone pla­ced in the soundation, of which the Prophet I say speaketh. c. 8. and 28. and with him concurreth Sanders in his booke of the Rocke of the church. Stapleton also declareth the matter most plainely in praefat. in relect. princip. doctr. where he saith, that the foundation of the knowledge of Christi­an religion is necessarily placed in the authority of the Pope teach­ing vs, in whom he saith, he heareth God speaking to vs. his wordes are, in hac docentis hominis authoritate (he speaketh of the Pope) in qua deum loquentem audimus religionis nostrae cognoscenda fundamentum necessariò pom credimus. and this others must necessarily also hold. for they hold him to be the supreme interpreter of scriptures, and an infallible Iudge of all controuersies of religion, and a law-giuer to our consciences, binding all mens consciences by his lawes; which is the common opinion, as Bellarmine lib. 4. de Pontifice Rom. c. 16. saith of all casuistes. a pitifull case there­fore it is, wherein the Papistes stand, whose consciences are chained with so many bondes.

This then being found in the suruey of the grounds of Popish religion, let vs also consider what conclusions may be hence inferred, that we may as well suruey the conclusi­ons as the premisses. 1 First it followeth, that these grounds being blasphemous both in regard of the spirit of God which is the enditer and author of holy scriptures, and al­so in regard of Christ Iesus, the foundation of the church [Page 15]and finisher of our saith, the doctrine and religion of Po­pery cannot be cleere of blasphemie. for to match Popish decretales with holy scriptures, and the Popes determi­nation with Gods law, is derogatory to Gods holy spirit, and a plaine disparagement to Gods holy law. likewise it is blasphemous to accuse the holy scriptures of insuffici­encie and imperfection, and to attribute more certain­tie and perspicuitie to the decretales of the Pope, then to the lawes of God. it is also blasphemous either to re­moue Christ out of the foundation of the church, or at the least to ioyne the Pope with him in the foundation, and that as a more necessary foundation for the knowledge of Christian religion, as Stapleton saith. the same also is di­rectly contrary to the words of the Apostle. 1. Cor. 3. Ephes. 2. and of S. Iames. c. 4. in the first of which places we finde, that no other foundation can be layd of the church, but Christ Iesus. in the 2. we reade, that the Church is founded vp­on the Apostles and Prophets, Iesus Christ being the cheefe cor­ner stone. in the 3. we vnderstand, that there is only one Law-giuer and Iudge, which is able to saue and destroy. it is finally very impious and blasphemous to assirme, that the Pope is a more certaine and superiour Iudge, then God himselfe speaking to vs in scriptures, or then the Apostles and Prophets, that were ledde into all truth by the spirit of God. of other blasphemies of Popery we shall haue further occasion to speake hereafter.

Secondly seeing the Papistes are not certaine of their grounds, it must needes follow, 2 that the religion of Pa­pists is most vncertaine. that they cannot be certain of their grounds diuers arguments declare. for neither are they certaine whether Clement, Leo, or any other sitting in the Popes chayre be true Pope. nor canne they assure them­selues, whether the decretales, which goe vnder the names of Popes, were indeed their decretales, whose names they cary. Antonius Contius a learned Papist in a certaine anno­tation of his added to the ch. sancta. dist. 15. in Plantins editi­on, saith, that all the decretales set out vnder names of Popes [Page 16]before Siluester, are false. and this he saith he hath shewed manifestly. further it cannot be proned, that all the deter­minations of the Popes are right and equall. nay contrarie, we haue by diuers most certeine demonstrations prooued, that both concerning scriptures, faith, the law, sacraments, praier, the worship of God, and diuers pointes of faith they haue determined contrary to the rule of saith, as shall hereafter more particularly appeare. Thirdly it were plaine impudencie to say, that the Apostles instituted the conse­cration of the Paschal Lambes, the forme of hallowing of churches, salt, water, and all Popish trinkets, the form of praying vpon beades, and the rest of the Romish traditions. neither shall Kellison euer be able to iustifie all those re­portes, which his teachers haue receiued by tradition, and publikely heretofore set forth, and now read out of their le­gendes. Fourthly diuers of those 84. canons, which goe vn­der the names of the Apostles are disclaymed by the Papists themselues, and the rest cannot be proued, that they were made by the Apostles. of the actes of the Nicene Councell the Papists themselues haue no certainty. Most confesse 20. as Ruffin, and Pope Stephen, & others in c. vigint. dist. 16. Gra­tian vnder the testimony of Athanasius telleth vs of 70. c. septuaginta dist. 16. now one Alphonsus a pisa a Iebusite hath published 80. canons. the acts of the councell supposed to be held vnder Siluester Bishop of Rome are all conterfeit, as the barbarous stile, and strange forme of gouernment repre­sented in those acts, and diuers barbarous names and other arguments doe signifie. sometimes Peter Crabbe the col­lector of councels doth set downe diuers actes of councels not only differing, but also repugnant one to another. fift­ly diuers bookes are set foorth vnder the name of fathers, that no man can certeinly say were written by the fathers, whose names they cary. Nay some of them doe containe doctrine contrary to the faith professed by the fathers. sixt­ly they are not certaine either what is the sense of the Ro­mane church, diuers doctors yeelding diuers interpretati­ons of scriptures, or what is the old Latine translation. for [Page 17] Sixtus Quintus setteth out the old vulgar Latin translation after one sort, and Clement the eight after another. and he that alloweth the translation of Sixtus Quintus must nedes condemne that of Clement the eight, & contrariwise. finally seeing diuers Papists assigne diuers grounds of their faith, and scarce two of many doe agree in all points concerning their foundations and the assurance of them; how can they pretend either vnity, or certainty in their religion?

Thirdly the foundations of Popery being laid vpon false decretals, and lying legends, 3 hardly shall our aduersaries be able to deny their religion to be false, and full of lies. that the Popes doe in their decretales report notorious lyes it is apparent by the decretale set out vnder the name of Inno­centius. c. quis nesciat. dist. 11. where he denieth, that anie taught or gathered churches in France, Spaine, Afrike, Ita­ly beside S. Peter, and those which were sent by him and his suc­cessors. and likewise by the decretale of Gregorie the 4. c. in praeceptis, dist. 12. where it is said, that all causes are to be refer­red to the church of Rome, as to the head, and from thence to receiue direction, from whence it receiued his beginning. and by the chapter in nouo. dist. 21. where it is said, that the rest of the Apostles made Peter their Prince, and infinit others. that the legendes, which are the ground and receptacle of many tra­ditions, are ful of lies I haue shewed els where. if Kellison the Suruey or deny this, let him proue vnto vs, that S. George killed a dragon ready to deuour the kings daughter of Si­lena, and conquered Palestine; that Catharine ouercame 50. Philosophers, and conuerted the Empresse and the gene­ral of the emperors army, and broke a wheele with her prai­ers, that with turning killed 4000. pagans. that S. Nicholas being an infant fasted Wednesdaies and Fridaies. that Ber­nacus yoked harts. that Saint Brendan sayled into Paradise. that a crucifixe of wood resaluted Bartilmew a monke of Durrham, that the blessed Virgins body was caried into heauen by Angels, that her house was carried ouer the seas first into Dalmatia, and then into Italy, and lastly to Loreto, and the rest of those tales.

Fourthly, 4 the Pope being the foundation of the church, it followeth, that as oft as the Pope dieth, the church is with­out foundation. it followeth also that the Pope going to hell, as it appeareth by the chap. Sipapa. dist. 40. that he may, the foundation of the Church should lie in hell. that the Pope falling into heresie, as Liberius, Honorius 1. Iohn the 22. and diuers others haue done, that the Church should faile; which be matters absurd, and impious to affirme.

Fifthly, 5 feeing diuers old traditions are now out of vse, as for example, that of celebrating baptisme at Easter, and praying standing betwixt Easter and Whitsontide, and of praying with our faces turned to the East, and such like, it must needes be granted, that the foundations of Popery are ruinous. for why may not the like happen to other traditi­ons, as to these? and if traditions be temporary and ruinous, which they make equall to holy scriptures, what can they al­leadge for the continuance and perpetuity of the Popes de­cretales, which are not only contrarie to holy Scriptures, but also repugnant one to another?

Sixthly, 6 the old translation differing from it selfe in the e­ditions of Sixtus Quintus and Clement the eigth and others set out at Colein, Louain and Antwerpe, and much more from the originall bookes of the old Testament in Hebrew, and new in Greeke, and the interpretations of the scriptures be­ing so diuers in the chiefe doctors of the Romish church, and so repugnant to the meaning of the holy Ghost, it doth necessarily follow, that Popish religion is composed of con­trary pieces, and cannot be the faith of Christ, which is one, and hath onely one firme foundation.

Finally, 7 there can bee no consent or vnity in the points of Popish doctrine, for that the same consisteth of contrary o­pinions of Popes, and is grounded vpon contrary traditions, contrary legends, contrary interpretations of fathers and schoolemen, and either of traditions or decretales contrary to scriptures, or of sentences of fathers contrary to decre­tales, and Romish traditions.

CHAP. III. Of the wicked doctrine of Papistes concerning the law of God, and the performance thereof.

LOng it were to relate all the wicked and false doctrines of Popery in euery point of Christian faith. beside that the same is performed largely by diuers learned men in di­uers ample volumes. we will therefore heere speake onely of some principall points of religion, and shew how they haue beene by our aduersaties most notoriously abused and corrupted, and so proceed to intreat of the beginnings, pro­ceedings, impieties, falsities, contradictions, and other a­buses and defects, that are generally found in Popery.

First, then wee finde, that they haue not only taught im­piously of Gods law, but also reiected the same for their owne traditions. generallie they hold that the Popes lawes bind in conscience, and that it is sinne to transgresse them. but if this were so, then were not the knowledge of sinne by the law, as the Apostle teacheth vs, neither were the law of God perfect, nor a certaine rule of Christian life, nor were God the onely lawgiuer, that could saue and destroy.

Bellarmine lib. 1. de stat. peccat. c. 3. saith that there are certaine sinnes, or transgressions of the law, so light and lit­tle, that they deserue not eternall death. but this doth fru­strate the sanction or vigour of the law, that pronounceth them accursed, which continue not in all things, which are writ­ten in the booke of the law to do them, as we read Galat. 3.

The Scotists and most Papists now hold, that the Virgin Mary was neither conceiued in sinne, nor euer committed sinne. but the Apostle Rom. 5, saith, that by one man sinne entred into the world, and death by sinne went ouer all. and Galat. 3. he sheweth how the scripture hath concluded all vn­der sinne.

All of them hold, that in the regenerate concupiscence [Page 20]is no sinne. yet can they not deny, but that concupiscence is forbidden by the law of God. and thereupon the Iebusites in their censure of Colein denie all to bee sinne, that is re­pugnant to the law of God. Let Christians therefore ima­gine whether they will follow the Apostle, that sheweth sin to bee knowen by the law, and that concupiscence is sinne, or the Iebusites denying the same.

The Iebusites of Collein fol. 194. affirm, that what the law commandeth concerning the loue of God with our whole hart, mind & soule, pertaineth not to vs in this life. as if God had giuen a law to soules in the life to come, and not to men in this life. this error our Sauiour confuteth Matth. 22. where he assoileth the Scribes question concerning the grea­test commandement in the law.

The same fellowes fol. 48. affirme that a regenerate man is able to performe the law of God perfectly. but if this be so; then they are deepe plunged in the heresie of the Pela­gians, who were condemned for holding, that Christians are able to liue without all sinne.

The Papists teach, that we are to bee iustified and saued by the workes of the law. but the Apostle 2. Cor. 3. tea­cheth contrarie, that the law is the minister of death.

The law of God forbiddeth vs the hauing of other gods beside him, in which commandement wee are also forbid­den to giue the honour of God to creatures. but Papists be­side God in heauen haue a God on earth, as appeareth eui­dently by the chap. satis dist. 96. and diuers glosses of cano­nists, and glosing flatteries of Papistes. they worship the sa­crament also as God, and Bellarmine lib. de monachis c. 14. doth call Saints Gods by participation. the honour of God they giue to Saints and Angels, yea to the images of Christ, of the Crosse, and of the Trinity. in the honour of Angels and Saints they say masses, and offices, they erect churches, altars, and images, and burne incense vnto them. they call vpon them, sweare by them, make vowes, and confesse their sinnes vnto them.

The second law of the first table prohibiteth the making [Page 21]of grauen images. to the intent to bow vnto them, and to worship them. but Papistes do both make them, and praie and crouch before them. they do also offer gifts, and burne incense vnto them, as the heathen did to their idols. nay, which the heathen did neuer, they giue the same honour to a picture of Christ, or of the Crosse, or of the Trinity, which they giue to God himselfe. praying to the Crosse they say, ô Crosse of Christ protect me, ô Crosse of Christ defend mee from all euill.

The third law forbid deth periury, the vaine vse of swea­ring, and all abuses of Gods holy name and word. but little is the same regarded by the Pope and his complices. for they do not onely breake their oathes, but also lightly dispense with periured persons. Gregory the seuenth, as in his life ap­peareth, forswore the papacy, and yet regarded not his oath. the like we find related of Pope Formosus. commonly they loose and assoile subiects from the bond of their oath to Princes. absoluit Gregorius 7. omnes a iuramento, quos fidei te­nuit obligatio, saith he that wrote the life of Henry the fourth. Paschal the second hauing solemnly sworne to the Empe­rour presently brake his oath, as we may see in Otho Frisingen­sis, and diuers other historiographers. Gregory the twelsth, as Theodoric. à Niem testifieth tract. vnion. 6. c. 29. was pub­lickely accounted a periured person, periurus publicus. Charles the French King, as Theodoric. à Niem tract. vnion. 6. c. 14. testifieth, chargerh Gregory the twelfth and Peter de luna with periury. violauerunt sidem, fregerunt votum, promissum non te­nuerunt. and againe ô magnum & scelestum facinus! saith hee speaking of their periuries. Innocent the seuenth hauing vowed and sworne to vnite the papacy, would not doe it. notwithstanding his oath, as wee read tract. vnion. 6. c. 39. quam vouit, & iurauit facere noluit vnionem. in the conuen­ticle of Constance it was decreed by this wicked synagogue, that oathes and promises were not to be holden being made to heretickes. the periury of Ladislaus, which Eugenius the fourth induced him vnto, cost the losse of many mens liues. Gulcciardine histor. lib. 8. doth testifie, that the Pope decreed, [Page 22] that it should be lawfull, to recall all couenants and promises made by the Popes predecessors. that impious fellow Pius the 5. in his Bul against Queene Elizabeth of pious memory did excom­municate such, as would not take armes against her. and yet her subiects were sworne to obey her. all Papists commonly are great swearers and forswearers. in the Roman Catechisme in 2. mandat. they complaine that their people were giuen to swearing and cursing. Quis non videat, say they, omnia iure­iurando assirmari, omnia imprecationibus & execrationibus re­ferta esse? they sweare by saints, bread, salt, and other crea­tures, infringing Gods commandement Deut. 6. that re­quireth men to sweare by his name. Finally the Popes and their complices most shamefully wrest and turne scriptures, making them serue to their humours and pleasures.

The fourth commandement concerneth the sanctifying of the Sabbath. but the Papists profane it by worshiping Idols, and frequenting the idolatrous masse. Iulius the se­cond vpon the solemne day of Easter fought a bloudy bat­tell with the French at Rauenna, and the Duke of Guise vpon the sabbath massacred the Saints of God at Vassi. and so lit­tle do they respect the Lords honour, that they make more account of our ladies festiuals, and of the daies of Francis, Dominicke, and Thomas Becket, then of the Lords day.

The fifth commandement requireth obedience of chil­dren to parents, and of subiects to princes. yet Gregory the seuenth, Paschall the second, Alexander the third and diuers Popes by their decretales haue armed the sonne against the father, and the subiect against his prince. neither was the late league of the French rebels against Henry the third and Henry the fourth set forward and confirmed by other more, then by the Pope. the Popes of Rome stirred vp rebel­lion against Henry the eight in England, and against Queene Elizabeth both in England and Ireland. Allen and Parsons in their wicked libell against Queene Elizabeth directed to the nobilitie and people of England and Ireland endeuor by all meanes to perswade her subiects to rebellion, and to laie violent hands vpon her. Cardinall Como in his letters to Par­ry, [Page 23]that came into England with a full resolution to murder the Queene, doth promise in the Popes name not only in­dulgence and pardon for his sinnes, but also reward on earth and merit in heauen.

The sixth commandement forbiddeth murder. But Pa­pists thinke they doe God good seruice, when they murder true Christians. from this fountaine haue proceeded all their cruell executions in England, France, Italy, Germa­ny, Spaine and other countries. Natalis Come; in his history testifieth that in the massacre of France An. D. 1572. they murdred aboue sixty thousand of all sorts of persons. their garments are died in the blood of innocentes. nay they cruelly poison and murther those of their owne religion, if they be opposite vnto them in faction. Gregory the seuenth caused not only bloody warres to be stirred vp against the Emperor, but tormented, and murdred such, as he plea­sed at Rome. Alexander the sixth for euery word put men to death. Iulius the second promised reward to him, that could kill a Frenchman, as Budaeus de Asse testifieth. but as Lactan­tius saith massacring and piety cannot stand together. longè diuersa sunt carni ficina & pietas, nec potest aut veritas cum vi, aut iustitia cum crudelitate coniungi.

The seuenth commandement as it forbiddeth adultery, fornication, Iust, and all vncleanenesse; so it requireth pu­rity of life, and chaste and vndefiled behauior. but among Papists adultery and fornication is reckened among lesser sinnes, as appeareth by the Chapter, & si clerici. de iudicijs. the Pope permitteth whores in Rome and exacteth tribute of them, as is notoriously knowen to the world. the same is also testified by the glosse of the constitution prouinciall beginning with the word licet. de concubin. cleric. remouen­dis. by Agrippa de vanit. scient. c. de lenocinio. by Sansonino lib. dei gouerni. c. corte de Roma and diuers others. of late in the castle of Wisbich among the Iebusites and Masse­priests one defended, that whores were in Rome cum appro­batione, and with as good authority as any citizen, or as the Pope of Romc. the Popes and their complices disallow honest [Page 24]wedlocke of priests, and yet allow, or at the least winke at such, as keepe concubines and whores. Theodoric à Niem tract. v. nemoris vnionis c. 33. sheweth that in Gascoigne, Spaine, Portugall and other countries it was lawfull for Popish Bi­shops and Priests to keepe concubines.

The commandement against theft as Canisius in his cate­chisme confesseth c. de decalogo forbiddeth also vsury, simo­ny, rapine, sacrilege and all vniust gaine. yet vsury and simony yeeld no small reuenues to the Popes coffers. the historie of Matthew Paris doth in euery kings reigne de­clare infinit pillages what by vsury, what by simony com­mitted in England by the Popes. speaking of Gregory the ninth his factors he saith, they vexed England by vsury, per Caursinos & vsurarios Angliam vexarunt. he saith also how they held vsury for a little fault, and simony for none. vsuram pro paruo, simoniam pro nullo inconueniente reputauit, saith he speaking of the Popes agent. Felin sheweth, that without the rent of Symony the church of Rome would come to contempt. in Rome of late times the Popes haue erected diuers banks of vsury, called monti di pieta, as appeareth in Onuphrius in the liues of Iulius the third, Paul the fourth, and Pius the fourth, and there money was to be had for ten or twelue in the hundred, and sometime for lesse. Vrbane the sixth, as Theodoric à Niem lib. 1. de schism. c. 22. testifieth, sold chali­ces, crosses and images. the same man doth make strange reports of the practises of Boniface the ninth to get money. omnia benesicia vendidit. si non potuit habere pecunias, accepit porcos, sues &c. lib. 2. de schism. c. 10. he sayth he solde all be­nefices, and when he could not haue money he tooke pigs, cattell, and such wares. the merchants of Babylon now take money for masses, sacraments, and indulgences, and extort both from quicke and dead. the secular Priests charge the Iebu­sites to be most cunning fellowes in extorting of money. in Spaine they haue a rime shewing, that they haue turned all Gods commandements into practises of gaine, es el prime­ro ganar dinero, that is, the first commandement is to get money. all Gods commandements they haue turned into these [Page 25]two, Todo para mi, nada para vos. all for me, nought for you.

The ninth commandement doth directly forbid false witnesse, and whatsoeuer is vnder that conteined, as lying, detraction, and all leud speeches tending to the hurt or dis­grace of our neighbour. but the Papists, as if lying, slander­ing, and bearing false witnesse had beene commanded, so forge and falsifie scriptures, fathers, councels, histories and all good authours, as their expurgatory tables, counterfeit decretall epistles, and false allegations of bastard authours and others do testifie, and shall more at large be declared hereafter. their late books also are full of execrable lies and slanders against M. Wickliffe, M. Husse, Hierome of Prage, Luther, Caluin, Zuinglius, Melancthon, and all the profes­sors of truth. the Pope he hireth men to speake lies & slan­ders, and his complices delight to heare them. Allen and Parsons in their resolutions of cases of conscience teach their disciples, how to dissemble, lie, and forsweare themselues cunningly. the canonists and other the Popes parasites call him a god on the earth, the head and spouse of the church, and beare him in hand, that he cannot erre.

Finally where the last law saith, thou shalt not couet, the con­uenticle of Trent teacheth, that concupiscence is no sinne. the Papists hold also, that it is lesse sinne for Friers & Masse­priests to lust, and commit fornication in thought, than to marry. the Popes of Rome, haue not onely coueted, but also vsurped diuers parts of the Empire. and thus hoping to be saued by the law, the Papists not onely by their practise, but also by their doctrine ouerthrow the law. the Pope by his dispensations annulleth and frustrateth the law. his com­plices more regard the Popes decretales, than the eternall law of the liuing God.

This law of God they say may bee persectly performed by the assistance of Gods grace. and as touching the substance of the action, they hold that it may be performed without grace, ex quo efficitur saith Bellarmine lib. 5. de lib. arbit. c. 9. tot am Dei legem abs (que) auxilio gratiae quoad substant iam actionis ab homini­bus recte seruari posse. in the same booke c. 2. hee saith that [Page 26]without any speciall helpe of God man may know veritatem mo­ralem or the morall law, with the circumstances thereof. which is not onely contrary to scriptures, declaring mans weakenesse and blindnesse, but also ouerthroweth the necessity of Gods grace. for if man without grace both knoweth the truth, and is able according to the substance of the action to per­forme the law, then is he not dead in trespasses and sinnes, as the Apostle saith, nor doe the Papists beleeue in Christ, which saith, without mee you can doe nothing. doth it not then appeare that popery is false, erroneous, and repugnant to Gods law, & the ancient faith, in the doctrine of the law?

CHAP. IIII. Of the damnable doctrine of Papists concerning faith and iustification.

THe Apostle teacheth vs, that the iust shall liue by faith. but the Papists doe so handle the doctrine of faith, that the same cannot quicken any, but is like rather to be the oc­casion of the fall and death of many. first they teach that iu­stifying faith is nothing else, but a firme assent to the word of God. but if a firme assent to euery word of God do iusti­fie, then are Christians iustified by beleeuing that there is a Diuell, as well as beleeuing that there is a God, and as well are they iustified by beleeuing the curses of the law, as be­leeuing that grace and mercy is offered them in Iesus Christ. nay as well may the Diuels haue iustifying saith, as faithfull Christians. for they do giue their assent to the word of God, and beleeue, that hee is truth. but these are most damnable doctrines.

Secondly they say, that Christians are as well to beleeue the traditions of the church not written, as the holy scriptures. the doctors of Trent will haue both receiued, with equall affection. the authors of the censure of Colleinsol. 91. teach Christians to beleeue, not only such things as are reuealed in scriptures, but also such points as are deliuered from hand to [Page 27]hand. but if this be granted, then will it follow, that Christi­ans are as wel to beleeue the Pope, or the Church of Rome, as God himselfe. and that faith is built vpon mans word, and not onely vpon the word of God. and lastly that faith is built not only vpon vncertainties, but also vpon falshood. for such are the traditions of the church of Rome. many are vncertaine, and some very false and erroneous; as is particu­larly shewed in diuers treatises, against Romish traditions.

Thirdly they teach, that faith is a gift and light, by which a man being illustrated doth firmly assent & adhere to those things, which are reuealed by God, and proposed to vs by the Church. est Dei donum & lumen saith Canisius Cathechismi c. 1. quo il­lustrat us homo firmiter assentitur atque adhaeret ijs, quae vt cre­dantur sunt diuinitus reuelata, & ab Ecclesiae nobis proposita. now by the church they vnderstand the Pope, and church of Rome. but of this it followeth first, that the Church of Rome hath no faith. for how can a Church propose and teach matters to itselfe? this doth vtterly destroy the nature of relations, and therefore I thinke the learned Romanists will hardly confesse this to be true. it followeth next, that Christians are neither to beleeue in Christ, nor to professe the articles of the faith, vnlesse the Pope and Church of Rome propose them vnto vs. but this is most absurd and im­pious. for we beleeue in God, and not in the Pope, nor in the Church adhering to him. that these consequents are good it is euident, because they no lesse require that the ar­ticles of faith be proposed to vs by the Church of Rome, than that they be reuealed by God.

Fourthly as well doth Canisius require, that Christians be­leeue, that the whole body of Christ be contained in the eu­charist, as Papists do hold it, as the article of the Trinity, the creation of the world, and Christes incarnation. for all these articles he ioineth together Catech. c. 1. §. 4. but hee could not say worse, if he meant to ouerthrow the whole Christian faith. for the Popish real presence of Christs body & bloud in the sacrament is contrary to Christs meaning, to words of scriptures, exposition of fathers, the nature of sacraments, [Page 28]and to humane reason and fense, as at large is iustified in my bookes de missa against Bellarmine.

Fifthly they teach, that the wicked and reprobate, nay that the diuels of hell may haue true faith. but our Sauiour Christ saith Iohn 3. that whosoeuer beleeueth in him shall not perish, but haue euerlasting life. so it followeth by the doctrine of Papists, that the reprobate, and the diuels of hell may be saued.

Sixthly they affirme, that charity is the forme of faith. but the Apostle teacheth vs, that the iust doe liue by faith; of which it followeth that faith hath a forme of it selfe, where­by it quickneth vs. furthermore it is an absurd thing to make one vertue or habit the forme of another. and if this were tolerable, that one qualitie were the forme of another, yet would it seeme farre more probable, that faith should be the forme and life of charity and workes, for that without faith it is not possible to please God, than that charity should be the forme of faith, which doth follow of faith.

Seuenthly the Iebusites of Collein fol. 122. teach that faith is onelie of generall propositions, and hope of particulars. so it fol­loweth of their doctrine, that no Christian ought to be­leeue, that he or any other particular person hath his sinnes forgiuen, or is of the body of the church, or shall be saued. but if this were true, then do not the Iebusites beleeue, that themselues shall rise againe, or appeare in iudgement. fur­ther, then can they not beleeue that Pope Clement, or Leo, or Paul is the head of the church, or that they are to subiect themselues vnto him, or that this particular Church of Rome is the true Church, and such other particular pro­positions.

Eightly they teach, that we are not iustified by the remissi­on of sinnes, or by imputation of Christs righteousnesse. but the Apostle 1. Cor. 1. sheweth, that Christ is made to vs iustice, wisedome, sanctification and redemption. and that Abra­ham, beleeuing it was imputed to him for righteousnesse. the Prophet Isaias cap. 53. sheweth that by his stripes wee are healed.

9 They say that wee are iustified by the law, and by the works there of. but the Apostle Gal. 3. saith it is manifest that no man is iustified by the law before God. and Rom. 4. he shew­eth, that Abraham was not iustified by the workes of the law. doth it not then manifestly appeare, that these false Apostles of Antichrist teach doctrine contrary to the Apostle, and are not the children of Abraham, or partakers of his faith?

10 Thomas Aquinas 2.2. q. 4. art. 3. teacheth that Chri­stians are not bound to confesse their faith at all times. and this his followers diligently practise, that by their wicked teachers are taught to aequiuocate and dissemble their faith and profession. but true Christians are alwaies boldly to professe their faith, and to yeeld a reason of the same. for this is the doctrine of the Apostle S. Peter, whom wee are ra­ther to credit, than these false Apostles.

11 For a lay man to dispute of matters of faith they count it mortall sinne, especially knowing that the Pope hath forbid the same vnder paine of excommunication, as Nauarrus teacheth enchirid. c. 11. but this sheweth, that Pa­pists do rather seeke to suppresse the faith then to teach mat­ters of faith. the same also appeareth, for that they commend ignorance, and Thomas Aquinas 2.2. q. 2. art. 6. saith, that all are not bound to haue explicit faith. Linwood in his glosse vpon the constitution beginning ignorantia de summa Trinit. holdeth that it is sufficient for lay men and simple people to beleeue the articles of the Creede implicitely, or to beleeue as the Catholicke Church beleeueth. and this is the faith that Hosius commended in the colliar. but it sheweth, that our aduersaries seeke to intertaine the people in ignorance of matters of faith, while the masse-priests sport and intertaine themselues with all delights, and liuing idly reape the fruits of poore mens labours.

12 Thomas Aquinas p. 3. q. 7. art. 3. denieth that Christ hath faith. which is as much, as if hee should make Christ the authour of our faith a Pagan and an Infidell. further the same ouerthroweth the Popish definition of faith. for either Christ did not firmely beleeue Gods word, or else [Page 30]he had faith. now to say that is, plaine blasphemy. neither is that defence materiall, that Christ knew all things by reason of the hypostaticall vnion of two natures in one person. for that did not ouerthrow his humane nature, nor hinder him for hauing faith without all imperfection.

Finally they teach, that the Pope onely is to order, and to publish the Creed. for that is the doctrine of Thomas Aqui­nas 2. 2. q. 1. art. 10. and the rest, no question, beleeue it. but it is sufficient to ouerthrow not onely the Nicene and Constantinopolitan confession, but also the Apostles Creede and faith of Christ. for whatsoeuer face our aduersaries doe set on matters, they shal neuer shew, that these anciēt Creeds did either depend vpon the authority of the Pope, or were by him ordered, published, or confirmed. nay many Popes we read of, which, for any thing we can vnderstand, did not beleeue the Apostles Creed. vpon this weake foundation of infidel Popes the miserable Papists do build their wind-shaken faith. wee doe not therefore maruell, if they relie more vpon workes, then this faith, and if they trust rather to be iustified by good works, than the Popes erroneous faith. but if they would consider what true faith is, and how the same applieth Christ vnto vs, and vniteth vs vnto him, then would they abandon the errors of Popery, of which wee haue giuen a tast in this article of iustification by faith in Christ.

CHAP. V. What Papists doe meane by the Gospell.

THe preaching of the Gospell to Christians is the glad­some declaration of Gods fauour offred to vs through Christ Iesus. and therefore the Angell Luc. 2. speaking of the Sauiour of the world, declared, that he brought them ti­dings of great ioy that should be to all people. but the Papists by their new and strange doctrine do so confound the law and the gospell, as if they sought to depriue Christians of this [Page 31]ioy, and meant to alter the title of Christs most ioifull Go­spell. for first, as if Christ had not beene a Sauiour, or a Re­deemer, but a lawgiuer, that was to propound a new law, wherewith Christians were to bee newly charged, they call the Gospell the new law. but neither is the law of Moses contained in the two tables abolished, nor was it Christs in­tention to surcharge his people with new lawes and new bonds, but to free them from the curse of the law, and to redeeme them. as for the orders concerning sacraments we may not repute them to be properly lawes, but meanes and directions for the right applying of Gods graces vnto Chri­stians. further the new law that God speaketh of was written in mens harts, as wee read Hierem. 31. and Heb. 8. but the lawes of the new Testament, which the Papists speake of, are partly written in scriptures, and partly in decretales. the Papists therefore making Christ a new lawgiuer doe ouer­throw his couenant of grace.

Secondly this new Law or Testament, as they say, is the loue of God shed into our hartes. for so doth Bellarmine teach lib. 1. de verb. dei. c. 3. but grant this, and then the new testament doth not include remission of sinnes. for loue is one thing, and remission of sinnes another. but that the new testament doth include remission of sinnes, first our Sauior doth sig­nifie, where he calleth the cup of thankesgiuing, the cup of the new testament for remission of sinnes; and Chrysostome in 2. Cor. 3. and Theodoret, Oecumenius, and Theophylact vpon the same place directly affirme.

Thirdly, Thomas Aquinas 1.2. q. 107. art. 4. saith, that the preceptes of the new law (or of the Gospel) as touching the in­ward workes of vertue, are more grieuous then the precepts of the law of Moyses. quantum ad opera virtutum, saith he in acti­bus interioribus &c. praeceptanouae legis sunt grauiora. this is directly contrary to the words of our Sauiour Math 11. my yoke saith he, is easie, and my burden light. furthermore the same maketh the Gospell not to be a doctrine of Christian liberty and redemption, but of bondage and greeuance.

Fourthly, the censurers of Collein fol. 204. say, that this is the [Page 32]proper doctrine of the Gospell, if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandements. and with them in effect doth Bellarmine lib. 1. de verb. dei. c. 3. consent, where he saith, that the new testa­ment is nothing, but Charity shed into our harts by the holy Ghost. but this confoundeth the law and the Gospell. for no man can deny, but that Charity is required by the law. further the same is contrary to the doctrine of the Apostles. the law, saith the Apostle Rom. 4. worketh wrath. and ephes. 2. he saith we are saued by faith, and that not of our selues, for that it is the worke of God, not of workes, least any should boast. but our aduersaries confesse that Charity is a worke, and not without the cooperation of freewill. the fathers also teach otherwise. Hierome dial. aduers. Pelag. opposing the law to the Gospell, sheweth that the foundation of workes is laid on the law, but that the building of faith and grace is laid vpon the same in the Gospell. Theophylact. in praefat. Euan­gel. sheweth vs, that the Gospell doth declare to vs good things, as remission of sinnes &c. and that we obteine them without our labour. sinally herein the Papists dissent from their master Peter Lombard sent 3. dist. 40. for he saith, the decalogue is a killing letter, but the decalogue requireth performance of all things commanded.

Fifthly, Peter Lombard saith, that only earthly things were promised in the old testament, and only heauenly things in the new, as we read sent. 3. d. 40. but our Sauior Christ teacheth vs to aske for our daily sustenance in the Gospell. and to those that performed Gods eternall law, eternall life was promised in the old testament. or else the reward had not beene correspondent to the worke.

Sixthly, they teach generally, that there are three euange­licall Counsels, to wit, of chastitie, pouertie, and obedience. as if these were the principall points of the Gospell, or as if the obedience to monkish rules, and forswearing of mari­age, and giuing all to monkes were required of vs in the Gospell. further it is absurd to thinke, that chastity, and renouncing all for Gods sake, and perfect obedience is not commanded in the law of God.

Seuenthly the Friers purposing to ouerthrow Christs Gos­pell, about the yeare of our Lord 1256. published another new Gospell, which they called Euangelium aeternum. as if Christs Gospell should continue but for a time, and their Gospell were to continue for euer. Of this Gospell thus writeth Matth. Paris in his collection for that yeare. Fratres noita quaedam praedicabant, legebant, & docebant deliramenta ex libris Ioachimi abbatis, incipitque eorum liber, Euangelium aeternum &c. that is the Friers did preach, read & teach certaine new fooleries out of the bookes of abbot Ioachim, and their booke began thus, The eternall Gospell. so it appeareth what respect these fellowes Faue of the Gospell of Christ. Nay albeit the booke was most blasphemous; yet did not the Pope pu­nish the authors, but onely commanded the same to bee a­bolished secretly.

Finally all the comfort, that the Papists giue their follow­ers out of the Gospell is this, that Christ is the meritorious cause of our saluation, but the rest they assigne to mens owne labours and workes, teaching them how to merit heauen by giuing to Monkes, and putting on Friers coules, and how they are to goe on pilgrimage, and to buy indulgen­ces, and how to passe through Purgatory. and this is the Gospell of Papists. of saith they talke only as of a dispositi­on to iustification, and little do they trust in Christs mercy, flying to Angels, to our Lady, and Saints: and to Christs iustice, remitting our sins, and accepting vs freely through faith in him, they giue nothing.

CHAP. VI. Of the impious doctrine of Papists concerning Christ our Sauiour.

AS Christ is made vnto vs by God wisedome, iustice, san­ctification and redemption, so those which teach false do­ctrine concerning him do goe about to turne our wisdome into foolishnesse, and to depriue vs of true righteousnesse, [Page 34]holinesse and redemption. but whether the Papists haue done so or no, that resteth now to be discussed. we doubt not to challenge them, as infinitly guilty herein for first they say, that Christ was vir perfectus, a perfect man from the first instant of his conception. but this destroieth not only the distinction of ages, but ouerthroweth Christs humane na­ture. for rules of reason teach vs to distinguish children from men, and this is the course of nature. man is first con­ceiued, then borne, then a child, and so in time he grow­eth a man of perfect years. the same is also contrary to scrip­tures, that shew how Christ was conceiued and borne, and was first an infant, and then a man of perfect age. this er­ror proceeded of the false vnderstanding of these words of the Prophet, mulier eircumdabit virum.

Secondly Peter Lombard lib. 3. sent. 10. dist. teacheth that Christ as he is man, is not any thing, but in respect of the vnitie of the person. quidam dicunt, saith he, Christum secundum homi­nem non esse personam, nec aliquid, nisi forte secundum sit ex­pressiuum vnitatis personae. and this opinion he alloweth, and would haue the distinction to be remembred. but all Christians that professe the faith of Christ, and rehearse the Creed of Athanasius confesse, that he is not only some­what as man, but also a perfect man. they also know, that the opinion of the master of schoolemen followed by di­uers ouerthroweth Christs humanity.

Thirdly, they take from Christ, both faith and hope, and all vpon their vaine conceit, that Christ was not viator, but comprehensor, that is, was not in the way, but alwaies as man was glorified and enioyed the vision of the God-head. in Christo non fuit sides saith Thomas Aquinas. 3. p. q. 7. art. 4. ergo nec spes; that is, Christ had neither faith nor hope. he speaketh of Christ according to his humane nature. and this opinion is commonly followed of others. so that which they falselie obiected to Caluin, concerning the vttering of certain words of desperation, that doth rightly fall vpon the Papists, who blasphemously make him not only a desperate man without hope, but also an infidell without faith.

Fourthly the master of sentences lib. 3. dist. 1. determineth, that the Father and the holy Ghost might haue beene made man, and yet may. sicut filius homo factus est, ita puter vel spiritus sanctus potuit, & potest. as the sonne was made man, so likewise the father and holy ghost might and yet may. which is not farre from the heresie of the Patripassians. for they held that the father did suffer death for vs: these holde that he might haue taken our nature vpon him, and haue suffe­red death for vs.

Fiftly, Thomas Aquinas 3. q. 3. art. 6. teacheth that the three persons in the Trinitie might assume one humane na­ture. tres personae diuinae subsistunt vni naturae diuinae, sayth he, ergo possunt etiam vni naturae humanae subsistere. so he shew­eth that the Patripassians held no incommodious opinion, and introduceth an absurd heresie of the passion of the ho­ly Ghost.

Sixtly they holde, that the body of Christ may be in many, yea almost in insinit places at one time, and that the same is wont so to be. Multis adeo (que) ferè insinitis simul locis adesse potest & solet, sayth Bellarmine lib. 3. de Christo c. 11. and so it must needs be, if his body be really present in euery Popish altar, and consecrated host. but it implieth a contradiction to be continued, and not to be continued: both which do follow if a bodie, which is continua substantia, be discontinued in place.

Seuenthly, denying Christ to be [...], and affirming that his diuine essence had a beginning from some other, they fall within the compasse of the errour of the Tritheits, affirming that there is one essence not begotten, another be­gotten, another proceeding: which heresie doth teare the vnitie of the Godhead into pieces, and plainly make more Gods then one. so running with violence vpon Caluin with­out cause, they run themselues out of breath, and fall head­long into most grosse heresies.

Eighthly, the scholemen determine, that the sonne of God might haue assumed any other nature beside that of man. of which it followeth, that as God was made man, so [Page 36]he might haue beene made a stone, or other creature. which is an opinion most blasphemous, and derogateth from the mystery of Christ his incarnation.

9 They deny resolutely, that Christ as man profited in wis­dome. but that is contrary to the words of the holy ghost, to the doctrine of the fathers and ouerthroweth his humane nature. Ambrose in his booke de incarnat. dom. sacrament. c. 7. saith that Christ did profit in humane vnderstanding. habet & in Christo scientia aetates suas, saith Tertullian lib. de pudicitia. that is, Christs wisedome was diuers according to diuers ages. Maxentius in profess. fid. cath. saith, he profited in yeares and wisedome according to his humane nature, and not according to his diuinitie.

10 Generally they hold, that Christs soule was omnisci­ent, and not ignorant of any thing. but the scriptures shew, that Christ according to his humane nature was ignorant of the day of iudgement, as wee read Marc. 13. Nazianzen. lib. 2. de filio saith, he knew it as God, but was ignorant of it as man. neither doth this imply any imperfection, or defect. for then is ignorance a fault, and an imperfection, when we are ignorant of things, which wee ought to know.

11 The master of sentences lib. 3. dist. 6. saith that Christ as man by grace hath both all knowledge, and all power. sola gra­tia habuit ille homo, non meritis vel natura, vt osset Deus siue Dei silius, vt haberet omnem scientiam & potentiam, quam habet ver­bum, cum quo est vna persona. now if Christ as man haue all knowledge, and all power transfused into his humane na­ture, why should the Papists condemne the Vbiquitaries, or how can they denie his presence in all places?

12 By reason of their opinion of Christs fruition of the vision of the Godhead, and his glorification, they affirme, that Christ was neuer troubled in soule with any perturbati­on or sadus. Christi anima iaminde ab initio, saith Bellarmine, omnibus alijs spiritus sancti donis ita repleta fuit, vt nulla vn­quam vera perturbatio aut tristitia locum in cahabuerit. lib. 4. de Christo. c. 2. but this doth crosse the plaine text of scrip­ture. nunc anima mea perturbata est, that is, now my soule is [Page 37]troubled saith Christ. Iohn 12. and Matth. 26. my soule is sad vnto the death. and it taketh from Christ all humane affecti­on. Ambrose de fide ad Gratianum, sicut susceperat voluntatem meam, suscepit & tristitiam meam. as he hath taken our will, so he hath taken on him our sadnesse.

13. Bonauenture in 3. sentent. dist. 15. saith that Christ in the time of his most bitter passion was in the greatest ioy, that might be, in summo gaudio. but the scriptures do with diuers words of great dolour expresse his passion. the Prophet saith he was broken for our iniquities, and that he was a man full of sorrowes, and the fathers are full in describing of the bit­ternesse of his sorow. Thomas Aquinas also 3. q. 15. art. 6. hol­deth, that there was in Christ true dolor, and true sadnesse. and the ordinary glosse in Psal. 87. ex persona Christi dicitur, repleta est malis anima mea. 1. doloribus. that is in the person of Christ it is said my soule is filled full of euils, that is of greefes. neither will the distinction of the sensitiue, and reasonable soule serue for any couer of this error. for mans soule accor­ding to the essence thereof cannot be diuided.

14. That Christ hath satisfied the wrath of God for our sinnes the words both of the Prophets and Apostles doe assure vs, verè languores nostros ipse tulit saith the Prophet Isay c. 53. he hath truely borne our infirmities and caried our sorowes. the Apostle also saith, that we are reconciled to God by the death of his sonne. but the Papists doe diminish the merit of Christ his satisfaction, and deny, that he hath satisfied for the temporall paines of our sinnes.

15. Bellarmine lib. 4. de Christo c. 11. holdeth that the fa­thers before Christ were not freed from hel before he came from limbus patrum. but both scriptures and fathers teach vs, that all the faithfull were redeemed and deliuered out of the handes of our enemies by the death of Christ vpon the crosse, and not by his harrowing of hell or limbus patrum. so it appeareth that they doe eneruat, as much as in them lieth, the crosse of Christ and the effect of his death and passion.

16 Bellarmine lib. 4. de Christo c. 16. saith that Christs soule [Page 38]for three daies passed the place of the damned, and the re­ceptacle of heathenish children. but neither doe scriptures, nor fathers speake of any, that came out of the place of the damned, but rather the contrary. for the Prophet saith, that out of hell there is no redemption: and Origen is therefore pla­ced among heretikes, because he beleeued, that the diuels and the damned should in the end be saued. are not these fellowes then damned teachers, that place the Sauior of the world among the damned?

17. the master of the sentences lib. 3. dist. 12. §. 3. doth aske the question, whether the man Christ could sinne, and so be damned. non immerito quaeritur saith he, vtrum homo il­le potuerit peccare, vel non esse deus. and if he could sin, then he doubteth not, but he might also be dāned, si potuit peccare, potuit dānari. in the end he concludeth wisely, that if the soule of Christ had not been vnited to the God head, he might haue sinned. est sine ambiguitate verum, saith he, candem, si esset & non vnita verbo, posse peccare. nay Durandus in 3. sent. dist. 12. saith in a certein case Christ might be damned, and that it is no more inconuenient to say, that Christ is damned, then to say, that Christ hath suffred and is dead. non est magis incon­ueniens dicere Christum esse damnatum, quàm passum & mor­tuum. heere therefore Kellison and Parsons and their con­sorts may finde those blasphemies in their good masters, which they seeke greedily in Caluin, but finde not.

18. Certein Papists, as the Master of the sentences shew­eth lib. 3. dist. 12. §. 5. suppose that the sonne of God might haue assumed our nature in the sexe of a woman. quidam ar­bitrantur, saith he, deum potuisse assumere hominem in foemineo sexu, vt assumsit in virili. and he doth not deny it. but this inconuenience would haue followed, that the sonne of God should haue been the daughter, and not the sonne of man. such absurdities are they, which haue sounded in time past in Christian mens eares.

19. Thomas Aquinas 3. q. 49. art. 1. assigneth three means, by which Christ hath wrought our saluation, whereof the first is, for that by his example he hath prouoked vs to cha­ritie. [Page 39] tribus modis, saith he, causauit nostram salutem, pri­mùm per modū prouocationis ad charitatem. but the scriptures shew, that he is therefore called a Sauiour, because he hath saued his people from their sinnes. and if for this cause hee might be called a Sauiour, then euerie one, that prouoketh vs to charitie, might be a Sauiour.

20. Commonly they teach, that Christ is only the meritori­ous cause of our iustification, saluation, and redemption. and Kellison p. 261. assigneth this for a reason, because he deserued grace for vs at Gods hands, by which together with our coopera­tion wee may bee saued and redeemed. but if he be the merito­rious cause only of our iust [...]cation, saluation, and redemp­tion, then is he not properly our Sauiour, and redeemer, nor doth he iustifie vs. for not he that meriteth at our friends hands, that wee should be ransomed out of the hands of our enemies, but our friend that paieth our ransome is our redeemer. so this blasphemous wretch denieth Christ to be properly our redeemer, and Sauiour, and next he maketh euery man his owne Sauiour and redeemer.

21. Likewise the same surueior pag. 262. telleth his fol­lowers, that Christ hath therefore freed vs from the tyranny of the diuell, and captiuity of hel, because he hath procured vs grace, by the which, when the diuell by him selfe, or the world, or the flesh prouoketh vs, wee may resist mauger all the force of hell. which is as much, as if he should say, that Christ hath not ouerthrowne or triumphed ouer our enemies, but hath procured vs grace to ouerthrow the diuel, and to triumph ouer him, our selues. that he is not the strong man, that hath bound vp the Diuell, that had vs in possession, but that he hath made vs strong, and able to binde the Diuell. of the deliuerance from sinne, and from the curse of the law by Christ he maketh no mention. and if you aske him what he meaneth by grace, he will tell you of charitie, or a habit not distinct from charity. such is the blasphemous doctrine of these impostors. they ascribe the worke of their redemp­tion immediatly to themselues, and a farre off to Christ.

22. He telleth vs further pag. 336. that Christes death was [Page 40]sufficient to haue redeemed the Deuils and damned also. but this assertion supposeth a contradiction, viz. that the same Persons may be both saued and damned. it supposeth also, that the Deuils and the damned may be saued, which is an assertion direct contrary to the decree of God concerning their damnation. would not then such impostors with their vaine supposals be chased from among Christians, and pla­ced among the damned crew, of which he himselfe some­time talketh? I doe the rather make mention of his con­temptible fellow, albeit he deserue no place among the learned, because he gaue vs the first occasion to make this Surueie.

22. Clement the sixth in the chapter vnigenitus. extr. com. de poenit. & remiss. doth apply these words from the sole of the foote vnto the head there is nothing whole: vnto Christ, as if Christ had nothing whole in him: whereas the Prophet Isay c. 1. doth speake of the sinfull people of the Iewes. for a little before he said. ah finfull nation. is not then this a proper comparison, to match the immaculate lambe of God, with an impure and finfull people, and is not this a plaine abuse of scripture?

23. The same man in the same place saith, that the shed­ding of one drop of Christs blood would haue been suffici­ent for the redemption of all mankind. his words are, pro re­demtione totius humani generis suffecisset. but Kellison in his suruey pag. 256. goeth much further, and saith, that Christ with one teare, or one word, and not only with one drop of blood, might haue redeemed vs. thus these impudent wretches euacuate the crosse of Christ, and make his death superfluous. which wee would the rather maruell at, but that they are teachers of Antichrist, and opposite to Christ, and enemies of his crosse.

24. For the most part they ioin the merites of Christ and his mother, and other Saintes together, and of them they make a treasure, out of which the Pope may bestow indul­gences to such as neede them or desire them. but it is absurd to thinke, that the Pope or any mortall man hath power to [Page 41]dispose or dispence Christes merites. For he himselfe hath formerly disposed of them. beside that it is a great dispa­ragement to Christes merites, either to supply them with the merits of Saints, or to make Saints and mortall men re­deemers, and Sauiors and deliuerers from sinne.

25. Bellarmine lib. 1. de indulgentijs affirmeth, that Christ had superfluous merites. as if Christ had not knowen how much was sufficient, or left others to discerne of his merits, better then he did himselfe.

26. The scriptures teach vs, that by the merits of Christs death only we haue remission of sinnes. but Thomas Aqui­nas p. 3. q. 49. art. 1. saith, that by charity wee obteine remissi­on of sinnes. Caritate consequimur veniam peccatorum, saith Aquinas.

27. Of the virgin Mary most of them say, that she was con­ceiued without originall sinne, and of Hieremy and S. Iohn Baptist that they were sanctified in their mothers wombe. of which it followeth that Christ is not the redeemer of all mankind. for what needed they a redeemer that were not borne sinners, nor subiect to the curse of the law?

28. But nothing is more blasphemous, then that they teach that dogs and hoggs, mise and birds and other brute beastes doe eate the true bodie of Christ, when they eat the Sacrament: nay that such beasts doe eat their God. but this is the opinion of Alexander Hales, of Thomas Aquinas, and the schoolemen best reputed of. and the master of senten­ces holding the contrarie lib. 4. sent. dist. 13. is therefore cen­sured. now herein they passe the idolatrous gentiles. for the Aegyptians did not eate those creatures, which they adored as Gods. these deuoure their God and Sauiour, like bread.

29. They say that Christs true body is in the sacrament. and yet he hath neither flesh nor bone, that can bee felt or seene there. this therefore is not farre from the heresie of Valenti­nus, and destroieth the verity of Christs humane nature, as Aquinas 3. q. 5. art. 2. confesseth. if hee had taken a heauenly body, as Valentine beleeued (saith Aquinas) then could not the truth of Christs humane nature haue beene saued, which requi­reth, [Page 42]flesh and bones. In the 24. of Luke our Sauiour sheweth, that he had a body, that both had flesh and bones, and was to be selt and seene.

31. In their abominable masse they make their polshorne Priests mediators for Christ, making them to pray, that God would looke vpon the body and bloud of Christ with a pro­pitious and serene countenance. supra quae, saith the Priest looking vpon the sacrifice, as they call it, of Christs body and bloud, propitio ac sereno vultu respacere digneris, & accep­ta habere &c.

32. They compare also the sacrifice of the body & bloud of Christ to the sacrifice of brute beasts offered by Abel, and to the sacrifice of Melchisedech; praying that God would accept Christs body and bloud, as hee accepted the sacrifices of Melchisedech and Abel: which is a most blasphemous com­parison.

33. In the masse also they confesse their sins to God, to Angels and Saints iointly, and not to Christ. nay they vse the mediation of Christ, in their confession of sinnes to An­gels, and Saints, preferring them as much before Christ, as a Prince is to be preferred before mediators and hushiers.

34. In a certaine prouincial constitution beginning autho­ritate. de sentent. excom. they excommunicate by the authori­ty of God Almighty, and of Saints, and leaue out Christ.

35. They say Masses in honour of Angels and Saints. but he in whose honour a sacrifice is offered is greater then the sacrifice. doth it not then appeare, that while they pretend to offer Christs body and bloud in honour of Angels and Saints, that they make him inferiour to Angels and Saints?

36. They call the Pope the head, king, spouse and foun­dation of the church. but this cannot bee without extreame wrong to Christ. for one king dome cannot admit two kings, nor a viceking while the king is present, nor can one woman haue two spouses, or one body two heads, or one house two diuers foundations. the Apostle 1. Cor. 3. sheweth that no man can lay other foundation then that which is alreadie laid. Ephes. 5. he saith Christ is the head of the church, & the [Page 43]Sauiour of his body. the synagogue of Rome therfore sheweth her selfe a strange beast, that will needs haue two heads, and two foundations being altogether so diuers.

37. S. Iames sheweth, that there is but one lawgiuer of the Church, that is able to saue and destroy. the doe therefore spoile Christ of his honour, that giue this title of lawgiuer to the Pope.

38. They doe also preferre the Pope before Christ. for Christs body when the Pope goeth on progresse is sent be­fore with the baggage, and when the Pope is neere goeth out to meet him, while all the gallants of rome attend on the Pope.

39. They giue authority to the Pope to draw soules out of purgatory by his indulgences, and to make portsale of Christs merits. but he that is sold is neuer equal to the seller. neither can the Papists shew, that euer Christ deliuered one soule out of Purgatory.

40. Papists beleeue that the Pope hath often times crea­ted his creator, or at the least made Christs body and bloud. but that Christ made the Pope it cannot be shewed. doth it not then appeare, that by many degrees the Pope excelleth Christ in the opinion of Papists?

41. Nay they make S. Francis and Dominicke equall to Christ in diuers things, and in some things superiour, as their bookes of conformities and legendes doe testifie. they call S. Francis Iesum typicum. that is, a figuratiue Iesus, and say that Dominicke and Francis did more miracles then Christ. but the Pope gaue both these two all their credit. he must there­fore needs surpasse Christ in accompt of Papistes.

42. In the conuenticle of Trent, Cornelius Bishop of Bitonto said, papa lux venit in mundum, the Pope the light came into the world. and Simon Begnius in the councell of Lateran called Leo the tenth, the lion of the tribe of Iuda: and cried out, Te Leo beatissime saluatorem expectauimus, that is, we, blessed Leo, haue looked for thee our Sauiour.

43. Beno the Cardinall sheweth, that Gregory the seuenth, cast Christs body into the fire, burning the Sauiour of Pa­pists. [Page 44] Pius the fifth also is said to haue cast an agnus Dei into the fire, as Catena in his life reporteth. into this contempt haue the Pupists brought their Gods.

44 Theodorie. à Niem lib. primo de schismate sheweth, that Vrbane the Pope melted crosses and images of siluer to paie souldiers. thus that which they pretend to honour as God, they sell and giue away in seruice of the Diuell.

45 They giue equall honour to a crosse of woode and mettall, and to Christ. and looking on a wooden crucifixo they say, thou hast redeemed vs. who then seeth not, what little accompt they make of Christ?

46 A trentall of Masses the Masse-priests sell for lesse sometimes than sixe pence; and yet they say Christs bodie is offered in euery Masse. are they not therefore more wic­ked traitors than Iudas, who would not fell Christ for lesse then 30. pence?

47 The Priesthood according to the order of Melchise­dech is proper to Christ by the Apostles doctrine. but the Papists make euery pild pated companion a Priest after the order of Melchisedech.

Finally the office of mediator properly belonging to Christ, they communicate with the virgin Mary, whom they suppose to be more mercifull then Christ. they giue it also to Angels, and Saints and Masse-priests. Turrecremata sum­mae lib. 1. c. 40. speaking of Priests saith, they are mediators re­conciling sinners to God. ministerium peragunt mediatoris omni­potenti Deo, qui offensus fuerat, peccatores reconciliando. the schoolemen say also that Saints may be called redeemers, and that is confessed by Bellarmine lib. 1. de indulgentijs.

Infinite it were to report all the blasphemous speeches and practises of Papists against the honour of Christ Iesus. but this may serue to shew, that they rather blaspheme than honor Christ, speaking so wickedly of his person, so blasphe­mously of his bodie, so falsly of his actions, and taking away his honour, and giuing the same to others.

CHAP. VII. The strange, contradictorie and false opinions of Papists concerning the sacraments.

AS Sacraments are seales of Gods grace, and holy my­steries, by the which God worketh our sanctification; so are they enemies of Gods grace and the sanctification of Christians, that peruert the Apostles doctrine, and Christs institution concerning sacraments. how then the doctors of the synagogue of Rome shalbe able to excuse themselues, and to prooue themselues not to be enuious of the good of Christians, I report me to their common doctrine, and pra­ctise concerning this argument. for first they denie that the sacraments of the law of Moyses did open heauen, and there­upon thrust all the ancient fathers downe to hell, and place Abrahams bosome there, as appeareth by the doctrine of Francis a victoria art. 1. de sacrament. in com. but this argueth first, that God worketh diuersly by the sacraments of the law and gospell, and is changeable in his operation, which is absurd: and next that Christ is not one yesterday and to day, as the Apostle teacheth. and thirdly placeth the father of all faithfull people in hell, damning all that beleeued in Christ before his comming to hell. and fourthly denieth that their sins were remitted that beleeued in Christ before his comming. and lastly ascribeth more to sacraments deui­sed by men, such as is extreme vnction, and other Popish sa­craments, than to circumcision, and the Paschal lambe, and other sacrifices and sacraments instituted by God.

2. The master of the sentences dist. 1. lib. 4. holdeth, that all that died before circumcision vnder the law were damned. but others contradict their master.

3. The synode of Trent pronounceth them anathema, which shall say that there are either more, or fewer sacraments of the new law than seuen: to wit, baptisme, confirmation, the eucha­rist, penance, extreme vnction, order, and matrimony. but this curse falleth first vpon the old Latin interpreter, that Apo­calyps. [Page 46]17. calleth the mystery of the great whore sacramen­tum mulieris. the same also falleth vpon Saint Augustine and most of the ancient fathers, that neuer knew, nor acknow­ledged more than two sacraments properly and truly so cal­ed, to wit, baptisine and the Lords supper. de latere dormi­entis prosluxerunt sanguis & aqua, quae sunt nostrae redemptionis sacramenta. that is, out of Christs side (sleeping on the crosse) flowed water and bloud, which are the sacraments of our redemp­tion, as saith Augustine in gloss. in 4. ad Ephes. & super Psal. 40. Iustin in his 2. apologie, Ambrose de sacramentis, Tertullian, Dionysius called Areopagita, Chrysostom, Cyril, Gregory, Cy­prian, Rahanus, Paschasius, whersoeuer they talke of the num­ber of the sacraments of our redemption, mention only bap­tisme and the eucharist, and where they speake in general [...] of holy mysteries mention diuers more, and others than the seuen popish sacraments. beside that it is absurd to thinke, that mariage and Priesthood and penance were of one na­ture vnder the law, and of another vnder the gospel.

4 The same synode doth curse them also, that shall say, that all the aboue named 7. Sacraments were not instituted by Iesus Christ. where it is apparent, that mariage was institu­ted in paradise, and priesthood vnder the law. it is certein also, that the fathers before Christ did rise by repentance from their fals. furthermore what man among the Papists is able to shew, where the determinat words, and the exter­nall signes and rites of popish sacraments were instituted by Christ? if then Canisius in his catechisme c. de sacramentis. teach truely, that Sacraments haue certaine determinat words, and set rites: then is it certaine, that neither Popish confirmation, nor Popish orders, nor Popish penance, nor matrimony, nor extreme vnction was instituted by Christ. and therefore Francis à victoria de Sacramentis in cō. deriueth the determination concerning seuen sacraments from the Florentine councell vnder Eugenius the 4. hoc determinatum est saith he speaking of seuen sacramēts, in concilio Florentino sub Eugenio 4. and there indeed we finde first, that the mat­ter of Popish confirmation is chrisme made of oile and [Page 47]balme, and the forme set downe in these words, signo te si­gno crucis & confirmo te Chrismate &c. and yet now the Pa­pists haue left off balme. the matter of extreme vnction is oile, and that for a strange medecine the Priests put in the eies and other organs of sences. the forme of extreme vn­ction is this, per istam sanctam vnctionem & suam pijssimam misericordiā indulgeat tibi dominus &c. The matter of priest­hood is the Chalice, and the host: and the forme, take power to offer Sacrifice in the church for liuing and dead, and so foorth. but no man will affirme, that Christ instituted the forme and matter of these Sacraments, vnlesse he be either starke mad, or mad-like desperate. in matrimony they are neither able to afrigne certaine forme, nor certaine matter.

5. All Papists hold, that the Sacramentes of the new law both conteine grace, and conferre grace ex opere operato, that is by the worke wrought, as may appeare by the canons of the seuenth session of Trent, & by the common proctors of the Popes cause. Sacramentum confert gratiam ex opere operato, saith Nauarrus in his enchiridion, and Bellarmine lib. 1. de sacrament. c. 14. saith they iustifie. and this is the com­mon opinion of all. but first it is absurd to attribute as much to matrimonie, confirmation and extreme vnction, as to baptisme and the lords supper. secondly it is absurd to make Priests forsweare matrimony, seeing it contemeth grace, and worketh it, as they say. for of this grace the Masse-priests haue extreame neede. thirdly if grace bee nothing else but charitie, or a habit not distinct from it; it will be a hard mat­ter to shew, how charity may be conteined in oile, or the rites of matrimony, or externall signes. fourthly no Papist can shew, that such as receiue their popish confirmation, or order, or extreme vnction, or are maried, are more iust, then they were before. finally God worketh by Sacraments that which he promiseth. but we doe not read, that euer he promised iustification, or grace to maried folkes, or to such as are greased in order, or extreme vnction. the master of the sentences lib. 4. dist. 2. §. 1. saith, that some Sacraments giue remedies against sinnes, and helpefull grace, others on­ly [Page 48]giue a remedy, as wedlocke. alia in remedium tantùm sunt. sayth he, vt coniugium.

6. Bellarmine lib. 1. de sacramentis, and Canisius in the Catechisme teach, that sacraments are externall signes. and yet the inward contrition of penitent sinners, and the con­sent of the parties maried appeareth not externally. further, this being granted, it will follow, that the body and blood of Christ in the eucharist are no sacrament, because they ap­peare not to the eyes, nor can be discerned with other sen­ses. so the Papists whatsoeuer they bragge of their masse, giue no sacrament to their followers, but onely bare acci­dents, shewes and shadowes.

7. In the seuenth session of the conuenticle of Trent they curse such, as shall say, that the receiued and approued rites of the Catholicke church may be contemned, omitted or changed. but this curse falleth vpon their owne pates. for themselues haue omitted loue feasts frequented at the time of the Communion, & the old rite of Christians then kissing one another, and the vse of milke and hony in bap­tisme, of which Tertullian speaketh lib. de coron. milit. and of milke and wine mentioned by Hierome in Isaiae c. 55. and the formes of dipping in baptisme.

8. Thomas Aquinas 3. p. q. 64. art. 8. sayth, that the in­tention of the minister is required in the administring of the sacrament. intentio ministri, sayth he, requiritur ad perfectio­nem sacramenti. and this is so necessarily required by all Pa­pists in consecration of the eucharist, that without the same, they say, there is no consecration. the being then and per­fection of sacraments depending vpon the priests intenti­on, it followeth, that the state of things in the Roman church wil be brought to very great vncerteinty. for neither can it be proued, that he that ordered the Pope, had an in­tention to order him, or that the Romish priests haue an in­tention alwayes to baptize and consecrate, or the parties a­mong them, that do mary do intend any such matter. how then can the Papists be assured that the Romish church is the true church, or that the Popes iudgement is infallible, [Page 49]or whether they be idolaters or no, when they worship the sacrament, when they are vncerteine, whether the Pope be either well ordered, or baptized, or whether their Priests be well ordered, and haue truely consecrated the eucharist?

9. The master of the sentences lib. 4. dist. 3. §. ex his. determineth, that true baptisme is administred in the name of Christ only, or the father only, or the holy Ghost only. ex his a­pertè intellexisti, sayth he, in nomine Christs verum baptisma tradi. vnde nihilominus insinuari videtur verum baptisma dari posse in nomine Patris tantùm, vel Spiritus sancti tantùm, si ta­men ille qui baptizat sidem Trinitatis teneat. But this is as much as if he should say, that euery Priest may alter Christes institution, and that their owne orders and rites are not to be altered. Thomas Aquinas. 3. p. q. 66. art. 6. doth con­demne his masters opinion.

10. Thomas Aquinas 3. p. q. 66. art. 4. determineth, that Christians may be baptized in lie, or in beefe broth, or por­redge. in lixiuio & aquis sulphureis sieri potest baptismus. he saith also, the water is not changed by boiling flesh in it. doe we then maruell, if Masse-priests be so fat Christians, seeing they allow baptisme in lie and beefe broth? this certes is far from the decencie, that is required in the administration of holy mysteries, and sauoureth of strange curiosity. heereto also may be added, that they baptize bels, and giue them names, and this the Germanes touch in their grieuances.

11. Vrbane the Pope c. super quo. 30. q. 3. giueth that au­thority to women, which all Papists allow not the fathers certes neither knew it, nor allowed it.

12. The conuenticle of Trent sess. 7. pronounceth him anathema, that shall say, that baptisme is not necessarie to sal­uation. but this falleth on Thomas Aquinas, 3. q. 68. art. 2. that supposeth it sufficient to haue baptisme in voto, & those which allow baptisme as wel of bloud and the holy ghost, as of water. the conuenticle of Trent thinketh it all one to say, that baptisme is not necessary, and that baptisme is free. as if man not sinning necessarily had not free will to commit sin.

13. Martin ab Aspilcueta in enchir. c. de baptismo, saith, he [Page 50]doth sin, that annointeth him, that is baptised with chrisme kept ouer the yeare. of which sinne neither the Apostles nor ancient fathers euer heard any thing.

14. Kellison in his Suruey doth not take them to bee per­fect Christians, that are not confirmed after his popish fashi­on. but this fashion of greasing was neuer knowen to the an­cient fathers. furthermore this being granted the Papists in England should be very imperfect Christians, the most of them wanting this supposed vnctuous consignation.

15. The sacrament of baptisme they say may be admini­stred not only by Priests, but also by laymen and women. but they doe not permit any to consigne men with chrisme but their Prelates. and for that they bring foorth the testi­mony of Euscbius a bishop of Rome de consecrat. dist. 5. ma­nus. so sarre doe they preferre their owne inuentions before Christs institution: and so little are they ashamed to alleadge counter fait writings.

16. Whether the sacrament of the cucharist bee one or more sacraments, they stand in doubt, because in a certaine collect the same is both called sacramentum and sacramenta. and Thomas Aquinas 3. q. 73. art. 2. resolueth, that it is one formally, and two materially: so that materially hee maketh more than seuen sacraments.

17. In this sacrament of the eucharist they require bread of wheat, and wine of the grape as the matter of the sacra­ment. and yet they say neither bread nor wine remaineth therein after consecration.

18. They say Christs body is truely in the host, and his bloud in the chalice after consecration. and yet is he neither felt, nor seene there, nor can a bodie of that quantity be con­tained in so little roome.

19. Thomas Aquinas 3. p. q. 75. art. 3. will not grant, that bread and wine is annihilated after consecration. as if there could at one time be no bread nor wine in the sacra­ment, and yet no annihilation of the bread and wine; or as if no part of bread and wine remaining, it might not be said properly to be brought to nothing.

20. Franciscus a victoria in his booke of sacraments c. de eucharistia, wil not yeeld, that the Priest may consecrate bar­ly bread, because barly, as he saith, is meat for horses. but he saith that rie bread may well be consecrated, forasmuch as that is bread for men. yet others thinke otherwise.

21. The accidents of bread and wine wee see remaine in the sacrament. but they cannot tell, how they should subsist, where there is neither bread nor wine.

22. Christ ordained this sacrament to be eaten and drun­ken, but the Papists oftentimes neither eat nor drinke the sa­crament, but carrie it about, or hang it vpon the altar.

23. If a mouse or other liuing creature take away the consecrated host, they will haue the same to be taken, if it be possible, and to be burned, and the ashes to be kept for re­liques, as we read in the treatise de defect. in celebrat. miss.

24. They beleene that Christs body is in the eucharist, because Christ said, this is my bodie. why then doe they be­leeue, that his soule and bloud is there, seeing hee spoke there of neither?

25. In the sacrament they tell, how sometime there hath appeared true flesh, true blond, and Christ in the forme of a child. but if this be true, then is he not there, as they hold, sub specie aliena, that is, vnder another kind.

26. Thomas Aquinas 3. p. q. 77. art. 2. will haue other ac­cidents to be sounded in quantity, as in their subiect. but it is absurd, to make one accident the subiect of another, and yet doth this absurdity being granted little relieue them. for they cannot shew how the accident of quantity should sub­sist without subiect.

27. They say that accidents in the sacraments due nou­rish. but of that it followeth, that accidents are turned into substance: which is more than alchymisticall tran [...] [...].

28. In the sacrament they see by experience wormes to be engendied if it be long kept, and that both the kinds are corrupted. but it is blasphemous to say, that either Christs body and blood are corrupted, or that wormes can issue and be engendred thereof. to auoid this inconuenience they [Page 52]say, they are engendred of the accidents, or of the bread and wine returning againe. For the engendring of wormes of meere accidents is absurd. and for the returne of bread and wine they can bring foorth no words of scripture.

29. Thomas Aquinas p. 3, q. 77. art. 7. confesseth, that Christs body is not broken in the Sacrament. and gladlie would he shew, how the accidents there may be broken. but he traueileth with vanitie, and bringeth foorth nothing but foolerie.

30. Commonly Masse-Priests say that Christ at his last supper did eat himselfe, and drinke his owne blood before it was shed. matters that imply manifest contradiction, and dissolue rules of reason.

31. Now the spaniards will not denie, but they are ca­nibals and eaters of mens flesh, that eate the same whether rosted, broiled, baked or otherwise dressed. why then should not the Masse-priests be auoided as eaters of mans flesh, and drinkers of mans blood, as they say themselues, albeit they eate Christs flesh and drinke his blood prepared vnder o­ther formes?

32. The fathers say, that Christs bodie is meate for the soule, and not to be eaten with the teeth. but Nicholas the second will haue it torne with teeth, as his words import c. ego Berengarius. de consecrat. dist. 2. others will haue it swal­lowed into the belly.

33. Christians abhorre to heare, that Christs bodie should be eaten and his blood drunken of brute beastes. but Papists teach and confesse both.

34. Christ gaue his disciples the cuppe of the new testa­ment. the Pope and his complices sacrilegiously take the same from Gods people.

35. Christ said, take and cate. the Masse-priests suffer them that haue them to gape and gaze, and giue them of­ten nothing to eate.

36. Christians beleeue, that they receiue the same Sa­crament, that Christs disciples receiued at his last supper. but Thomas Aquinas 3. p. q. 81. art. 3. saith the disciples receiued [Page 53]it passible, and such as it then was. but now no man can re­ceiue his true body but he must receiue it as it is in heauen, that is, as it is glorified and impassible.

37. They say that the eucharist is both a Sacrament and a sacrifice, and for those two ends instituted. but that impli­eth a plaine contradiction. for as the sacrifice is offred to God, so the Sacrament is ordeined and giuen to men.

38. If poison after consecration be mingled in the Sa­crament, Thomas Aquinas 3. p. q. 83. art 6. will haue the same kept among Saints reliques. but what Christian will re­scrue poison for a relique?

39. The Apostle saith Christ was once offred the Masse­priests say he is offred continually, and that for quicke and dead: a matter vnknowen to Christs Apostles.

40. Our Sauiour instituted this Sacrament for a remem­brance of his death and passion. but the Masse-priests offer the Sacrifice of his bodie and blood for quicke & dead, for sicke, for hole, for sailers, for trauellers, in the honor of Sainte and Angels, for peace and good successe in all things. which bee matters neuer thought vpon in the institution of this Sacrament.

Finallie they haue no lesse strange, false and contrary po­sitions in their doctrine of matrimony, order, penance and extreme vnction: which they make Sacraments. but by this it may appeare sufficiently, how litle they regard either the institution of Christ, or the doctrine of the ancient ca­tholicke church in the matter of Sacraments. I shall also haue occasion otherwhere to touch these pointes particu­larlie.

CHAP. VIII. That poperie is a mixture of old and new heresies.

IT were long to insist vpon euery article of Popish do­ctrine. I will therefore rather in a generality shew the qua­lities, proceedings, and practises thereof, running through [Page 54]the whole, then dilate the absurdities and falsities of euery particular, standing vpon euerie small point. now then that I haue touched the grounds, and certaine principall doctrines of Popery, I haue thought good to shew, that the rest is nothing but either old or later heresies. They glory in their workes, and hope to bee iustified by the law, as may be gathered out of Bellarmines disputes de iustificatione, and also out of diuers of their treatises of good workes. the Ie­busites of Collein censur. fol. 22. say, that all their life and salua­tion consisteth in the precepts of the law, whose fulnesse is loue. they doe also extoll the merits of their workes. but the A­postle Rom. 2. taxeth them that glory in the law, and Galat. 3. condemned those false Apostles, that taught iustification by the law.

2. They make Gods law void by their traditions of wor­shipping images, maintaining publike stewes, banks of vsury and such like practises. the which is noted as an error in the scribes and pharisies, reprobastis mandatum Dei, saith our Sa­uiour Marc. 7. per seniorum vestrorum traditionem. and as they had their Talmud, so haue the Papists their decrees and decretales, which they follow as the law of God.

3. The Monks and Iebusites are also like to Pharisies. di­cebantur pharisaei, saith Epiphanius haeres. 16. ante Christum, co quod separati essent ab alijs, propter spontaneam superfluam reli­gionem apud ipsos receptam. the Pharisies were so called, for that they were separated from others for voluntary and supersluous re­ligion receiued by them. they compassed also sea and land to make Proselytes, and when they had won them, they made them twise more the children of hell, then they were them­selues, as our Sauiour Matth. 23. teacheth vs. so likewise for a spontaneous and superfluous shew of religion these irreli­gious Iebusites and Monkes do separate themselues from o­thers, and take great paines to winne Proselytes to the syna­gogue of Rome, and in the end abuse many, and make them much worse than themselues.

4. In their supersophisticall exposition of the law, and their often washings and affectate holinesse they imitate the scribes, [Page 55]who for this cause by Epiphanius haeres. 15. ante Christum, are enrolled in the catalogue of heretickes.

5. By their often washing in holy water, the Papists hope to wash awaie sinnes, as the Hemerobaptists among the Iewes, which for this were reputed heretiks, as Epiphanius sheweth, haeres. 17. ante Christum. but there he telleth them, that nei­ther drops nor riuers of water, nor the whole ocean can wash a­waie sinnes.

6. The Dositheans were reputed heretickes for their af­fectation of virginity, and abstinence from mariage, and pu­nishing their bodies. why then should not the like accompt be made of those Papists, that runne into the same errors not sparing their bodies, more than they did whom the Apo­stle Coloss. 2. reprehendeth?

7. Iohn the 23. was condemned in the councell of Con­stance for denying the immortality of the soule. the like o­pinion, as Zegedinus in spec. pontif. and others report, had A­lexander the sixth, Leo the tenth, Clement the seuenth, and diuers other Popes. this heresie therfore they seeme to bor­row from the Sadduces, or rather from the Epicures.

8. Among the followers of Christ the first heretikes were the Capernaites, that beleeued that Christs flesh was to be eaten, and his bloud to be drunken really: and that both were to be receiued into the mouth and swallowed downe into the belly. the same notwithstanding is taught by Pope Nicolas c. ego Berengarius de consecrat. dist. 2. and generally is beleened among the Papists. his words are, sensualiter tra­ctari, and dentibus sidelium atteri. as if Christs body were handled with hands sensually, and torne with teeth of the faith­full grosly.

9. With Simon Magus the Pope and his mates thinke it no sinne, either to buie or to sel the gifts of the holy ghost. thereof commeth the mart of Masses, the portsale of indul­gences, the chaffering for benefices and all spirituall linings and dignities. Mantuan Calamit. lib. 3. saith they sell chur­ches, altars, sacraments, yea heauen and God himselfe. the bi­shop of Chems onus eccles. c. 23. saith, that Priests did sell [Page 54] [...] [Page 55] [...] [Page 56] Christ more execrably than did Iudas. Furthermore both Si­mon Magus, and the Papists count it a small sin to vse com­mon women. Finally both the followers of Simon Magus and the Monks and Friers worship the images of their foun­ders. this Augustine de haeres. c. 1. accompted heresy in Simon and his followers. docebat detestandam turpitudinem indiffe­renter vtendi foeminis. and againe, imagines & suam & Helenes praebebat discipulis adorandas.

10. Irenaeus lib. 1. aduersus haeres. c. 23. reputeth the Basi­lidians, heretikes in regard of their vse of images, enchantments and diuers superstitious exorcizations. What is this then but a sentence against the Papists, that coniure water, and salt, and other creatures, saying, exorcizo te creaturasalis, and exorcizo te creatura aquae, and so foorth. they doe also abuse the name of God in their exorcismes, and yet make exor­cists an order, & that order a Sacrament of the church. lastly they doe follow Simon Magus in magicall inchantments, and vse images most superstitiously to diuers purposes.

11. Carpocrates also worshipped images, and for that was put into the catalogue of heretikes by Ireney lib. 1. aduers. haeres. c. 24. Marcellina one of his followers adored the ima­ges of Iesu, Paul, Pythogoras and Homer. colebat imagines Iesu, & Pauli, & Homeri, & Pythagorae, adorando, incensum (que) ponendo, saith Augustine haeres. c. 7. so likewise Papists adore and burne incense to the images of Saints, yea somtime to the images of heretikes and no Saintes; as for example, to the images of George the dragon killer, of Catherine, of Pa­pias and such like.

12. The Carpocratians and Basilidians did conceale and hide the mysteries of their religion, lest holy things should be cast to dogges, as we read in Ireney lib. 1. c. 23. and Epiphanius in hae­res. 24. and 27. and what doe Papists? doe they not likewise abuse the same wordes of casting holie things to dogges a­gainst Gods people, to exclude them from talking of the mysteries of religion, and reading scriptures?

13. Epiphanius haeres. 34. testifieth, that the Marcosians did baptise in an vnknowen language, and Ireney lib. 1. c. 18. [Page 57]sheweth, that they anointed with Chrisme such as they bap­tized, and that they had a kind of extreme vnction for the dead. Epiphanius saith also, that Marcus in the eucharist brought in [...] or transubstantiation, & that his follow­ers accounted themselues perfect. in their steppes therefore the Papists tread, vsing tongues in administring Sacraments not vnderstood of the vulgar sort, greasing their sicke, and them whom they baptize, beleeuing transubstantiation, and accounting Monkes and Friers in the state of perfection. but as Ireney saith, perfectus apud cos nemo, nisi qui maxima mē ­dacia apud eos fructificat. both old and new heretikes tell abo­minable lies, and for proof alledge forged and apocryphall writings.

14. The Papists consecrate euery yeere paschal lambes, and obserue the Iewish Iubiley, and in their massing sacri­fice vse Iewish apparell and ceremonies, as Durand confes­seth. Innocentius in c. per venerabilem. qui filij sunt legitimi. de­termineth that Deuteronomy is now to be obserued. quod ibi de­cernitur in nouo testamento debet obseruari, saith he. if then the Nazarites were iustly condemned for heretikes for ming­ling Iewish ceremonies with Christian religion, as Augustine de haeres. c. 9. and Epiphanius in haeres. 29. testifie; then wee doe the Pope and his poleshorne flocke no wrong to call them heretikes. both Papistes and Nazarites bragge much of their reuelations and miracles. this is therefore another point of heresie wherein both concurre.

15. The Heracleonites gaue their followers departing out of this life extreme vnction, and murmured wordes in an vncouth language ouer them. feruntur, saith S. Augustine de haeres. c. 16. suos morientes nouo modo quasi redimere, id est, per oleum, balsamum & aquam, & inuocationes, quas Hebrai­cis verbis dicunt super capita eorum. this is also in part testified by Epiphanius in haeres. 36. this practise therefore is common to the Papists with them. and both of them abuse the words of S. Iames c. 5. where he talketh of anointing the sicke, and draw them to their purpose.

16. The followers of Helzai, and heretikes called Osseni, as [Page 58]Epiphanius haeres. 19. ante Christum tostifieth, vsed to sweare by bread and salt and other creatures, and worshipped the spittle and reliques of two of their sect. the same Helzai taught his disciples also to pray in a tongue not vnderstood, saying to them: let no man aske the interpretation, but only say these wordes: and then followed certeine barbarous termes. the Papists therefore swearing by bread and salt and other creatures, and worshipping the ragges and excrements of their Saints, and praying in Latine, that is not vnderstood of the vulgar sort, doe heerein rather imitate heretikes, then true Christians or catholikes.

17. Marcion extolled virginity. A Marcione saith Epipha­nius haers. 42. virginitas praedicatur. yet did he corrupt a may­den. he gaue also women power to baptise, as Damascene de haeres. testifieth. Irenaeus lib. 1. c. 30. saith, that he & Saturninus began first to teach abstinence from liuing creatures. he taught also, that by Christs descending into hell diuers mens soules were thence deliuered, as Epiphanius witnesseth. finally he se­parated mariages for religion. so likewise Masse-priests and votaries praise virginity, wallow in fornication. allow women to baptise. beleeue that eating of fruit & roots is better, than eating of flesh. separate married couples entring by consent into monasteries: and beleeue that not only the patriarkes were deliuered out of limbus patrum, but that Traians & Fal­conillaes soules, and diuers others were by their saints fetched out of hell. as for purgatory, that is a part of hell, it is the Popes inheritance, and from thence, they say, he may deli­uer whom, and as many as he list.

18. The Messalians beleeued, that baptisme was onely auaileable to cut away former sinnes. so likewise doe Papists teach. against them both, Theodoret de diuin. decret. c. de bap­tismo, teacheth, that baptisme is the earnest of future graces, and the communication of Christs passion. and againe, non vt dicunt amentes Messaliani baptismus nouaculam imitatur, quae praeces­serunt peccata auferens. hoc enim ex superabundanti largitur. likewise both Papists and Messalians mumbled ouer their praiers, and thought to be heard for their much babling. the [Page 59]Papists for saying the ladies rosary, and certaine number of creeds, and pater nosters haue many indulgences giuen them by their holy father.

19. The Angelikes were condemned for worshipping and praying to Angels. Synodus quae conuenit Laodiceae saith The­odoret. in Coloss. 3. lege prohibuit, ne precarentur angelos. this is also testified by S. Augustine de haeres. c. 39. Epiphanius hae­res. 38. condemneth the Caians for inuocating Angels. and Tertullian de praescript. aduers. haeret. sheweth that this heresie proceeded from Simon Magus. this condemnation of the Angelikes therfore serueth against the Papists, that inuocat, worship, and say Masses in the honour of Angels.

20. S. Augustine taxeth the Seuerians for their forged mi­racles. Philumena one of that sect, as he testifieth, de haeres. c. 24. did worke a strange miracle drawing a loafe of bread out of a narrow mouthed glasse. but all their miracles are nothing to the popish miracles reported in legends. Bellar­mine maketh miracles a marke of the Church. heerein there­fore they resemble heretickes.

21. The Tatians and Encratites condemned mariage, as not so pure, as single life. so likewise Papists thinke that it cannot stand with the perfection of orders. in the chap. proposuisti. dist. 82. they call mariages fleshly pollutions. and in their legends account them corruptions.

22. As the Manichees condemned mariage in their Priests called electi, so do the Papists. they abstained from the cup in the eucharist as Leo ser. 4. de quadrages. doth testifie, and as it may be gathered out of the chap. relatum. and comperi­mus, dist. 2. de consecrat. and so doe the Papists. the Mani­chees giue Christ no solide body, and place it in diuers pla­ces. this heresie therefore is also common with them to the Papists. lastly both Manichees and Papists abstaine from flesh in their fasts, but vse other delicate and banqueting dishes.

23. From Montanus the Papists haue receiued their laws of fastings, and learned to aduance their vnwritten traditi­ons. from him also they haue borrowed their sacrifices for [Page 60]the dead, and their doctrine of purging small sinnes after this life. S. Augustine epist. 86. ad Casulanum sheweth, that he found not in any commaundement of Christ or his Apostles what daies we are to fast, and what not. as Apollonius, & Eusebius write li. hist. 5. c. 57. he did first appoint lawes for fasting. Ter­tullian montanizing in his booke de corona militis, derineth sacrifices for the dead from tradition, and from his Para­clet. and in his booke de anima, teacheth that small sinnes are done away after this life. Epiphanius in haeres. 48. shew­eth, that Montanus disputed, that the scriptures were not perfect. and with him in this point do Papistes concurre.

24. The Papists take Rome to be their Hierusalem, as the Pepuzians did the town of Pepuza. and both of them admit women to baptize. nay among the Papists we read of a wo­man that was Pope, which was a degree aboue the Pepuzi­ans, that neuer made a woman chiefe priest.

25. With the Catharists the Papists bragge of their me­rits, purity and perfection. further they will not admit he­retickes relapsed. lastly as the Catharists, so Papists sometime vse rebaptization, as the histories of France and Flanders te­stifie against Papists.

26. The Iacobites and Armenians were condemned for heretikes for making the images of God the father, and God the holy ghost. Imagines, saith Nicephorus lib. hist. 18. c. 52. patris & spiritus sancti effigiant, quod est perquam absurdum. yet doe the Papists offend therein, and giue these images diuine honour; which is more than those heretikes did.

27. The worshippers of the crosse called Chazinzarij were reputed heretikes, as Nicephorus hist. lib. 18. c. 54. testifieth. crucem tantum, saith he, adorare & colere dicuntur. yet is ei­ther tantum added, or else he meaneth they worshipped no images, but the crosse. for if he should say they worshipped not God, then had they beene pagans. with them also the Papists concurre. for they adore the crosse and pray to it, which I doubt, whether those foolish heretikes did.

28. The Collyridian heretikes worshipped the Virgin Mary and offered cakes in her honour. how then can the [Page 61]Papists shift their hands of this heresie, that worship the Vir­gin, and more deifie her then they did, offering their con­secrated cakes; nay offring Christ himselfe, as they say, in her honour. some say they worshipped her as a God. but that doth not appeare by any presumption. some say they offered triangular cakes. as if Epiphanius did allow round cakes, and onely condemne triangular cakes, whose whole purpose was to shew, that she was not to bee adored. she was a virgin, saith he, and honorable, but not to be adored. he sheweth that to giue a­doration to creatures is idolatrie, and gentilisme. non dominabi­tur nobis, saith he, haeres. 79. antiquus error, vt relinquamus vi­uentem, & adoremus ea, quae ab ipso facta sunt.

29. The councell of Franck ford vnder Charles the great condemned the second Nicene councell vnder Irene, and all that worshipped images set vp in churches; which is a plaine condemnation of the error of the Papists in this behalfe. they pretend that this councell was disallowed by Adrian the Pope. but what if Liberius should haue condemned the councell of Nice, when he ioined with the Arians? and what if Marcellinus, when he sacrificed to idols, should haue con­demned Christian religion? shall all Christianity depend vpon one mans pleasure?

30. S. Augustine de haeres. c. 68. telleth vs of an heresie of certaine fellowes, that went barefooted. est alia haeresis, saith he, nudis pedibus semper ambulantium. the barefooted friers therefore and such as go on pilgrimage barefooted, are to take his report, as a sentence pronoūced against themselues.

31. The Apostolikes were condemned as heretikes, for that they receiued none into their communion, that had wiues, or possessed goods in propriety. for Clergie men and Monkes in those daies had both wiues and goods in property, as S. Au­gustine de haeres. c. 40. sheweth: Apostolici, quise isto nomine ar­rogantissime vocauerunt, saith he, non receperunt in suam com­munionem vtentes coniugibus, & res proprias possidentes, quales habet Ecclesia Catholica & monachos & clericos plurimos. see therefore I pray you, how he excludeth Papists with the A­postolikes out of the Catholike Church.

32. The Heraclites saith Isidore orig. lib. 8. c. de haeres. were heretickes that receiued onely Monkes, and excluded maried folkes out of their company. monachos tantum recipiunt, coniugia respuunt. they beleeued not also, that children dying yong should possesse the kingdome of heauen. and doe not all sects of Monkes and Friers among the Papists exclude married folkes out of their cloisters? doe not the Masse-priests also exclude all children dying before baptisme, yea where it was much desired, out of the kingdome of heauen?

33. Priscillian saith Augustine haeres. 70. disioined married folkes. his words are, coniuges disiungens. his followers to hide their filthie opinions and beastlinesse make no account to forsweare themselues. propter occultandas contaminationes & turpitudines suas habent in suis dogmatibus, iura, periura, secre­tum prodere noli. they refuse also to eat flesh, as vncleane meat. and come not the Papists neere them in these points, that se­parate Monkes and Priests that doe marrie from their wiues, and teach their schollers to forsweare themselues? the Rhe­mistes in Act. 23. say that oathes taken against Papists, which they falsly call Catholikes, may and must be broken vnder paine of damnation. this periury is also allowed by 2. rinegued En­glish traitours Allen and Parsons in their resolutions of cases of conscience, wherein they teach their schollers to play the villaines, and to periure themselues with a good popish con­science. the Carthusians also and diuers Monkes forsweare eating flesh, which they cannot doe in reason, but that they thinke it lesse cleane than fish.

34. The Helcesaites make Christ in heauen to differ from Christ on earth, as Theodoret. de haeret. fab. c. de Helcesaeis doth testifie. Christum non vnum dicunt, saith he, sed hune quidem supernè, illum infernè. so Papists aboue make Christ visible and palpable. but in the Sacrament neither visible nor pal­pable.

35. The Eutychianistes deny, that Christ after the vnion of the two natures had a true body, but as Leo signifieth ser. 6. de teiumo 7. mensis, a body without shape, dimensions or cir­cumscription. they said also that Christ was both in heauen [Page 63]and earth, at one time: against whom Vigilius disputing lib. 4. contr. Eutych. c. 4. saith, that the flesh of Christ, when it was on earth, was not in heauen, and being now in heauen, is not on earth. and these points of Eutychianisme the Papists haue re­teined. for they say, Christs body is really in the eucharist, where no shape nor dimensions of a body do appeare. they saie also that Christs body is both in heauen and earth at one time, which taketh away all circumscription from Christs body, and is contrarie to the doctrine of Vigilius. Theodoret also Dial. 2. doth refute this heresie by similitude of the eu­charist; for that the substance of bread remaineth in the Sacrament after consecration.

36. The Papists also in many points conspire with the enemies of Gods grace the Pelagians. Augustine de haeres. c. 88. saith that they hold, that without grace a man may per­forme all Gods commandements. and Bellarmine de grat. & lib. arb. lib. 5. c. 5. & 9. hath these words, solis naturae viribus posse aliquem ad breuissi [...]ū tempus omnia sernare, scilicet, diui­na mandata. he shifteth off the matter by adding, quoad sub­stantiam operis. but the Pelagiani no doubt being pressed would say so much. nay if man haue freewill, as well to ob­serue the law, as to breake the same; then must he needes be able alwaies to performe all the law by force of his freewill.

The Pelagians beleeue, that a man may bee without all sinne; so likewise doe the Papists in effect. for they say, that euery man hath freewill to abstaine from all sinne, and Bel­larmme lib. 4. de iustific. c. 11. saith that man is able to performe the law of God perfectly: of which it followeth necessarily, that he may be without sinne. for he that performeth the law of God perfectly, is without all sinne.

They teach that concupiscence by baptisme is sanctified, and being before euill, doth afterward beginne not to be euill, as may be collected out of S. Augustine lib. 6. contr. Inlianum c. 6. and their argument is, for that the guilt of concupiscence is remoo­ued by baptisme. the Papists also hold, that concupiscence after baptisine is no sinne, and of this it followeth, that con­cupiscence is sanctified by baptisme.

The Pelagians say, that we haue a strong and firme freewill not to sinne, and the censurers of Colein̄ and Bellarmine in diuers places affirme, that sinne is subiect to our will, and that man by freewill hath power to doe good, and to ab­staine from euill. he that list to fee diuers other points of concordance betwene Papists and Pelagians, let him read my last challenge. Andradius handling the point of freewill saith, that Philosophers by force of their freewill were able to atteine true faith and iustice, by which they might be sa­ued. doe not then Papists come neere Pelagians?

37. The Donatistes, as S. Augustine saith haeres. 69. belee­ued, that Christs church was confined in Afrike, and remained in the faction of Donatus. quod ecclesia Christian Africa, & Do­nati parte remanserit. they rebaptized also catholike Christi­ans. the Papists likewise confine the church within the iu­risdiction of Rome, and saction of the Pope. they presume also to rebaptize better Christians then themselues.

38. As the Circumcellions, so the Papists thinke it merito­rious to kill all that are opposite to their sect, as the practi­ses of Pius the fifth, Sixtus the fifth, and other Popes against Queene Elzabeth, the French King Henry the third and fourth, Prince Maurice and diuers other Christian Kings and Princes, the massacres of France and Flanders doe shew. Sixtus Quintus did commend the execrable murder com­mitted by Iames Clement a Dominican Frier. Iohn Ghineard a Iebusite was hanged for mainteining the bloody doctrine of murdring Princes excommunicat by the Pope.

39. Sigebertus Gemblacensis doth accompt it an heresie to beleeue, that the Pope can assoile subiects from their o­bedience, or excommunicat such as will not rebell against Princes. haresis saith he, pestilentissima populū percellit. yet this heresie doe Papists mainteine both by their doctrine, and practise.

40. The Audeans or Anthropomorphites did imagine God to haue a shape and figure like to a man. which if the Papists doe not beleeue, then why doe they worship God the father in the similitude of an old man? and if this bee [Page 55]not the likenesse of God, but of an apparition, why doe they giue Gods honor to their owne fancies?

41. Origens heresie was, that he beleeued, that the dam­ned might in the end be saued, as Augustine de haeres. c. 43. shew­eth. from this they digresse not far, that beleeue that Traiaus soule was fetched out of hell by the praiers of Gregorie. fur­thermore if Purgarorie be in hell; why may not soules as wel be fetched out of other partes, as that part of hell?

42. Eunomius taught, that so a man were of his religion, it skilled not greatly what sinnes he committed. asseuerabat, saith S. Augustine de haeres. c. 54. quod nihl cuiquam obesset quorum­libet perpetratio ac perseuerantia peccatorum, si huius, quae ab ipso docebatur, fidei particeps esset. so likewise the Popes grant indulgences to all those, that fight for their sect, whatso­euer outrages and villanies they haue committed. neither do Priests refuse absolution to any of their sect, if they be ruled by them. Bellarmine lib. 2. de eccles. c. 2. requireth neither faith, nor vertue in a Christian, if he professe outwardly the Romish faith.

43. The Apostle 1. Tim. 4. doth condemn them as heretiks, that forbad men to mary, & entoined them abstinence from certaine meats. recte posuit prohibentium nubere, saith Theodo­ret in 1. Tim. 4. ne (que) enim caelibatum, aut continentiam vitupe­rat, sed eos accusat, qui lege lata ea sequi compellunt. but Papists by lawes forbid the mariage of Priests, and of such as haue vowed single life, and haue made diuers lawes against eating flesh, burning all that teach otherwise.

44. The heretikes called Anomi were condemned for corrupting the law of God. but I haue shewed that the Pa­pists by their irregular doctrines and traditions haue not on­ly corrupted it, but also disanulled it for the most part.

45. Irenaeus aduers. haeres. c. 2. rangeth them among he­retikes, that accuse scriptures, as if they were not right, or not of authority, or diuersly to be vnderstood, or not sufficient with­out tradition. quasi non rectè habeant, neque sint ex authoritate, & quia variè sunt dictae, & quia non possit ex his inueniri ve­ritas ab his, qui nesciant traditionem. all which qualities are [Page 66]incident to the Papists. for they complaine of their flexibi­lity and insufficiency, and without the churches determina­tion make them to vs of no authoritie. Tertullian lib. de prae­scrip. aduers. haeret. saith some heretikes by their hand, others by expositions peruert scriptures; alius saith he, mancel scrip­turas, alius sensu expositiones interuertit. the Papists excell in both. for by their additions and false versions they haue fal­sified scriptures, and their commentaries in cases controuer­sed are nothing but peruersions and false expositions of scriptures. Turrian writing against that worthy seruant of God Master Sadeel, doth call the scriptures delphicum gladi­um, or an instrument seruing to diuers purposes. others call them a nose of waxe, or a shipmans hose: some esteeme them a matter of strife.

46. Isidore lib. 8. orig. c. de haeres. doth declare them to be heretikes, that doe otherwise vnderstand the scriptures, then the meaning of the holy ghost requireth. quicunque aliter scripturam sacram intelligit, saith he, quàm sensus spiritus san [...]i flagitat, licet de Ecclesia non recesserit: tamen haereticus po­test appellari. but this is a common fault of Papists through­out all their bookes of controuersies and commentaries.

47. As the Herodians did giue the title and honour of Christ to Herode, and were therefore reputed heretickes by Damascene lib. de haeres. so the Papists do giue Christs titles and honour to the Pope, calling him the head, and foundati­on, and spouse of the Church: yea the king of kings, and Christ. why then should they not be called papall heretickes, aswell as the other Herodian heretickes?

48. Damascene accounteth them heretickes, that were e­nemies to the knowledge of Christians, and misliked their study of scriptures. Gnosimachi, saith he, omni Christianorum cognitioni ac scientiae ita aduersantur, vt vanum & minus neces­sarium laborem esse dicant corum, qui in diumis scripturis ali­quam exquirunt scientiam. the Papists likewise condemn lay­men, that read & study scriptures especially in vulgar tongs, and commend ignorance. they doe also speake high commendations of a colliars faith, and thinke it sufficient, [Page 45]without more adoe, that they beleeue, as the Church doth.

49. The Ethnophromans are likewise put in the role of heretickes, for that they brought in diuers heathenish du­stomes into the church, as we may read in Damascene de hae­resibus. if then the Papists haue their right; they are there also for their carnenal, candle bearing, holie water, censing of images and infinite such trickes to bee calendred among heretickes.

50. The dislike of second mariages expressed c. de his. 31. q. 1. and for that they debarre such from Priesthood, is bor­rowed from the Montanists.

51. In the Roman Cathechisme part. 1. in exposit. 3. art. fid. they teach, that our Sauiour passed out of his mothers wombe, as the raies of the sunne do pearce through the sub­stance of glasse. quomodo solis radij concretam vitri substanti­am penetrant. but this heresie doth quite ouerthrow the ar­ticle of the natiuity of our Sauiour.

52. The conuenticle ofsect. 6. Trent teacheth vs alwaies in this life to doubt of Gods fauour towards vs, and of our own saluation. but this heresie sheweth that the Papists teach infidelity, ra­ther then true faith.

53. Finally if heresie be an opinion contrarie to faith as Ocham saith, or to scriptures, as Robert Grosthed affirmeth, apud Matth. Paris in Henrico 3. or to conclusions deduced out of scriptures, as the councell of Basil signifieth apud Aen. Sylu. de gest. concil. Basil. lib. 1. then are all the opinions of Papists condemned by the church of England for heresies, as being repugnant to canonicall scriptures, and the faith de­duced out of them.

And these heresies albeit anciently condemned are yet generally holden by the Papists. but if I should rehearse the particular heresies of Popes and their chiefe doctors, there would be no end of the rehearsall. Gelasius the Pope in his epistle to the Bishops of Picenum saith, that the substance of man is depratied by originall sinne. which importeth rather the destruction of nature, than the losse of grace, according to his opinion.

The master of sentences lib. 2. dist. 31. teacheth, 2 that the flesh only, and not the soule is made vncleane by originall sinne.

Likewise lib. 1. dist. 24. 3 he saith that names of number put nothing in the Trinity, which ouerthroweth the real distin­ction of the three persons in the Trinity.

Againe lib. 1. dist. 17. he saith, 4 that the holy ghost is no­thing but charity, whereby we loue God. his addendum, saith he, quòd ipse idem spiritus sanctus est amor, siue charitas, qua nos diligimus Deum & proximum. which ouerthroweth the sub­sistence of the holy ghost.

Iohn the 22. 5 as we read in the letters of Michael Cesenas placed after the workes of Occham, denied the personall di­stinction of the father, the sonne, and the holy ghost. he de­nied also that the soules of the faithfull do see God before the day of iudgement.

The abbot Ioachim, 6 as we read in the chap. damnamus. de sum. trin. & sid. cath. saith, that the father, the sonne, and the holy ghost are one, non vnitate essentiae, sed collectionis tan­tum, not by vnity of essence, but by vnity of collections as diuers citizens make one people: which ouerthroweth the vnity of the diuine essence.

Albert vpon the first booke of sentences dist. 7 9. and Tho­mas Aquinas in scripto confesse, that speaking of the persons of the Trinity, we may say three eternals adiectiuely; which is direct against the Creed of Athanasius.

The Friers of the order of Dominicke and Francis, 8 anno D. 1243. as Matth. Paris testifieth in Henrico 3. p. 593. taught, that the diuine essence is not formally the same in the holy ghost, that is in the father and the sonne: which may not stand with the deity of the holy ghost.

Augustine Steuchus in princip. genes. saith, 9 that coelum em­pyreum was coeternall with God. hee might as well haue made two Gods.

The same man in Genes. 2. saith, 10 that Adam should haue di­ed, although he had neuer sinned. he denieth also that sinne is the cause of death, opposing his opinion to the Apostles do­ctrine Rom. 5.

Hector Pintus in Danielis 12. denieth the resurrection of infants dying not baptised.

To let others passe for this time, 11 and to talke only of the rubicundious Cardinal Bellarmine, whom our chatemiticall Masse-priests, call master, first lib. 2. de Christo. c. 26. hee saith, that it is not repugnant to one person, to be both the sonne and the holy ghost; as if there could be three persons, there being but two onely.

Secondly euery act, whereby virginity is lost, 12 he calleth coinquination and turpitude, lib. 1. de matrimonio c. 5. as if the mariage bed were not truely vndefiled, as the Apostle saith Heb. 13.

Thirdly he saith, that Christ neuer had, 13 but the Christian church for his spouse, de cleric. lib. 1. c. 24. which excludeth the church of God before Christ from his espousals, and from the right of the Catholike church, which is truely his spouse.

14 Fourthly in his booke de bonis operibus hee seemeth to allow community of wiues.

In his second booke de amiss. grat. c. 18. he teacheth, 15 that the magistrate sinneth not, in appointing a seuerall place of the city to common whores, like a lusty Cardinal allowing whores, but like a false Apostle condemning mariage.

In his booke de monachis c. 14. 16 he saith the Saints doe par­ticipate the nature of God. but better diuines than hee define, that Gods essence is incommunicable.

In his first booke de purgatorio c. 10. he confesseth, 17 that a man may be called his owne Sauiour and Redeemer. thus he hath brought his schollers to a faire passe. for diminishing and de­nying the merit of Christ in our formall iustification, and re­demption, he would make them beleeue, that euery man may redeeme and saue himselfe.

And thus you haue seene a large packe of popish heresies at the first suruey. but wee shall adde more, if neede bee, at our next.

CHAP. IX. A catalogue of diuers notorious impicties and bla­sphemies contained not onely in Popish bookes, but also in the corps of Popish religion.

IF it be no small sinne to take the name of God in vaine, how haynous a sinne is it to blaspheme the holy name of God? all sinnes compared to blasphemy saith Strabus in Isaiae c. 18. may seeme light. so grieuous it is, that the scriptures sometime auoid the naming of it, and in liew thereof vse the word ofIob. 1. Benediction. yei is blasphemy so common in the mouthes and writings of Papists, that al the rest of their impieties, though otherwise intolerable, seeme small in comparison. hardly can they speake without blaspheming. the Roman catechisme in the exposition of the third com­mandement, or the second as the Papists recken, confes­seth against them this abuse. quis non videat, say the authors of the catechisme, omnia iureuirando affirmari, omnia impreca­tionibus & execrationibus referta esse? that is, who seeth not that all things are affirmed with oathes, and that all mens mouthes are full of cursings and execrations? whosoeuer hath beene conuersant among Papists knoweth this to be true. they teare God in peeces, and neither respect the lawes of God nor man; albeit the emperor in the law ne quis luxuri­etur &c. calleth this tearing and blaspheming vnnaturall luxurie.

They teach, that the body of Christ is in the Sacrament blood, flesh, and bone, and call it their Lord and God, and yet like Canibals, they cate and swallow downe their Lord and God, and make no bones of it.

Blasphemously also they affirme, that a dogge or a hogge eating a consecrated hoste, doth eat Christs true bodie. If a dogge or hogge, p. 4. q. 45. saith Alexander Hales, should eat a consecrated hoast, I see no cause, but the Lordes body should go therewithall in­to [Page 71]to that dogges or hogges belly. and Thomas Aquinas 3. p. sum. where some of his fellowes were ashamed of this error, re­prehendeth them for it, allowing this beastly deuouring of Christs body.

Gregory the seuenth, as we read in Beno Cardinalis, consul­ted with this God of paste; & when he could receiue no an­swere threw him into the fire. Ioannes Portuensis, as he repor­teth, disclosed the matter. tale quid fecit Hildebrandus, vn­de deberemus viut incendi, saith he. this fact, saith Beno, was, that he threw the sacrament of the lords body into the fire, be­cause he could receiue no answere of it against the emperor.

Pius the fist cast one agnus Dei into the water of Tiber, another into the fire, as saith Hierome Catena in Pius his life. Cresciuto il Teuere. saith he, pio vi gittò vn agnus dei, & il fuo­co appreso in vna casa piena di fieno, vi si git to vn altero. if then latria be due to the images of Christ; then did Pius cast that into the fire and the water, that he worshipped as God.

Clement the sixth in the chapter vnigenitus ext. com. de poenit. & remiss. maketh the Romanistes thus to cry to the Pope, domine aperi eis thesanrum tuum fontem aquae viue. Lord open to them thy treasure, the founteine of liuing water. as if the Pope had with him a treasure of graces, and as if his indulgences were the water of life. The Masse-priests euery day sell Christ, and that for meere trifles. Brigit therefore, as one reporteth in a treatise called onus ecclesiae. c. 23. saith they are worse then Iudas, for he sold Christ for good mony: these sell him for euery commoditie. pro omni mercimonio.

The honour of God they ascribe to the Virgin Marie, and to Saints. Confessing their sinnes they ioyne Mary with God, and leaue out Christ, saying consiteor deo omnipo­tenti B. Mariae semper virgini &c.

Likewise in a certaine prouinciall constitution beginning authoritate dei omnipotentis de sent. exc. they pronounce ex­communication by the authority of God and our lady, and vouchfase not once to name Christ.

Against the breakers of their lawes they denounce the anger of Peter and Paul, as appeareth commonly in late [Page 72]decretales. Christ they quite forget.

Horatius Tursellinus in an epistle to Peter Aldobrandini pre­fixed before the history of our Lady of Loreto, and allowed much by the Iebusites, saith, that God made the Virgin Mary, as much as could be companion and partaker of his power and Maiesty, and gaue to her the rule both of heauenly things, and of men on earth; and that God himselfe, as sarre as is requisit for mans defence, doth at her pleasure gouerne the earth, the sea, the heauens, and nature, and at her becke giueth diuine treasures and heauenly gifts. matrem suam praepotens ille dens diuinae maiesta­tis potestatisque sociam, quatenus licuit, asciuit. huic olim cae­lestium mortaliumque principatum detulit, ad huius arbitrium, quoad hominum tutela postulat, terras, maria, coelum, naturam (que) moderatur. hac annuente, & per hanc diumos the sauros morta­libus, & coelestia dona largitur.

Bernardinus likewise in Mariali doth say, that all graces come downe from God by Mary, as sense and vigor de­scend from the head to the other members of the body.

Bonauenture, or rather some wicked falsary vnder his name, hath transformed the praises and honor of God set out by the Prophet Dauid to the Virgin Mary.

Commonly they giue power to the Virgin Mary ouer her sonne. iure matris, saie they, impera redemptori.

In the Roman Breuiary she is called dulcis amica dei, and the happie gate of heauen, and to her they pray, to haue their bands loosed. In the missal of Sarum they pray thus, per te ma­ter aboleri filiorum slagitamus crimina, nosque omnes introduci insempiterna paradisi gaudia, as if she were the sauiour of the world.

The missals and breuiaries are full of impieties. for beside the confession of sinnes made iointly to Angels and Saints with God, first they offer the Masse-cake, as they say; for the redemption of their soules, pro redemptione animarum suarum. secondly, they make the Priest a mediator to God for the body and bloud of Christ, as if by his praiers God did accept his owne and onely begotten sonne. supraquae propitio ac se­reno vultu respicere digneris, say the Masse-priests speaking of [Page 73]Christs body and bloud. thirdly, they compare Christ to brute beasts, and the sacrifice of Christs body and bloud to the sacrifice of Abel, that offered brute beasts. digneris accep­ta habere, saie they, sicut accepta habere dignatus es mu­nera pueri tui iusti Abel. fourthlie they desire God that Angels maie carie Christes bodie into Heauen. fifth­ly they make God oftentimes a mediatour or intercessor to Saints, as appeareth by this praier, praesta quaesumus, vt quem doctorem vitae habuimus in terris, intercessorē habere me­reamur in coelis. the same is also proued, for that Saints know nothing done in earth, as some of them suppose, vnlesse it please God to reucale matters vnto them; which if he do, then is God a mediator betwixt the Papists and Saints. sixthly they pray to the crosse for increase of iustice, and par­don for sinne, augepijs iustitiam, reis (que) dona veniam. seuenthly in coniuring salt, they pray it may be salt exorcised for the saluation of them that beleeue, vt essiciaris sal exorcisatnm in salutem credentium. it were infinite to report all their blas­phemies, and these may serue for a tast. only this may not be forgotten how praying before a certeine counterfet pic­ture of Christs face giuen, as they say, by Christ to Veronica, they pray thus, salue sancta facies impressa panniculo, nos ab omni macula purga vitiorum, atque nos consortio coniunge bea­torum. haile holy face, printed in a cloute, purge vs from all blot of sinne, and icine vs to the companie of blessed spirits in heauen.

Bellarmine alloweth this common saying of Friers spea­king to the crucifixe, thou hast redeemed vs, thou hast reconci­led vs to thy father, as we may read lib. 1. de cult. sanct. c. 23.

That the Gospell is a rule of perfection they denie. but they doubt not to giue that honour to the rules of Benet, Brendan, Francis, Dominicke and such authours of sects. of the holy scriptures they speake more blasphemously, than the Turkes and Saracens. for they honour the bookes of the old testament, albeit they oppugne the Christian faith: wher­as the papists professe the faith, but speake euil of scriptures. some call them a nose of waxe, others a dead letter, the Rhe­mists [Page 74]call them a killing letter. Stapleton in his doctrinall prin­ciples end enoureth to proue that all heresies proceed from scriptures. the surueying Kellison p. 158. of his suruey, saith the diuell doth wrap himselfe from top to toe in scriptures: as if scriptures were the habit of the diuell. pag. 41. he saith the letter of scripture with a false meaning is the word of the diuell. Turrian writing against Sadeel doth cal scriptures Delphicum gladium, or an instrument to all purposes. Bellarmine de ver­bo Dei accuseth them as imperfect and insufficient. neither is there any swad amongst them, but he hath somewhat to say against scriptures.

To the images of the crosse and crucifixe, they giue as much honour as they giue to God. they giue the same also to the images of the Trinity, teaching their followers, that it is but one honour, that is giuen to the image & the thing represented by the image. but the things being two, and that so different, as there is no proportion betwixt them, they must needs blaspheme giuing the name and honour of God to these base creatures

The Pope aduanceth himselfe aboue all that is worship­ped, and refuseth not the name and titles of God. in the chap. satis, dist. 96. he is called God. and heereupon Steu­chus in his treatise for defence of Constantines donation: au­dis, saith he, summum pontisicem à Constātino Deum appellatum & habitum pro Deo? In the chap. quoniam. de immunitate in 6. he calleth himselfe the spouse of the church. in the chap. inter corporalia. de transla. praelat. we read these words, quando Pa­pa dissoluit matrimonium, vnletur quod Deus solus dissoluit ma­trimonium. he is called a God in the earth by Felin. in c. ego N. de iureiurādo. and by Baldus m l [...]g. vlt. C. sententi [...]e reseindendae. Abbas Panormitanus expresly saith, that Christ and the Pope haue but one consistory. the glosse in c. cum interextr. Ioan. 22. de verb. signif. doth call the Pope our Lord and God.

Further he maketh a scorne of Christian religion. Iulius the second, vpon Easter day sought with the French at Ra­uenna. Gregory the seuenth his armie vpon their good Fri­day fought with Henrie the 4. in S. maries church he sought [Page 75]to murther the Emperour by throwing downe a stone vpon his head from a vault. Sixtus the fourth his agents at the e­leuation of the sacrament indeuoured to murther Laurence and Iulian de medicis, as Volaterran Geograph. lib. 5. testifieth. that of Gregory is written by him that wrote the Emperours life, and by Beno Cardinalis. Leo the tenth called the gospel a fable. commonly the Popes send the sacrament before them, together with their baggage and the scullery.

And as if Christ had giuen vs no sufficient rules of re­ligion, so he inuenteth and confirmeth daily new religions, as for example of late the religion of the Iebusites, and in former times the rules of Benet, Francis, and Dominike.

His followers fall downe like beasts before him and wor­ship him as God. Paulus Aemilius lib. 2. telleth how the Ambassadors of Sicily cried thus to the Pope, thou which takest away the sinnes of the world haue mercy vpon vs, thou which takest away the sinnes of the world giue vnto vs peace. and Simon Begnius bishop of Modrusa in the Councell of Lateran ses. 6. calleth Leo the 10. his sauiour. te beatissim [...] Leo saluatorem exspectauimus, saith he. Stapleton writing to Gregory the 13. calleth him, supremum numen in terris. his epistle is extant before his doctrinall principles. they call him the vicar of Christ, the monarch of the church, the head, the spouse and foundation of the church, most blasphemously ascribing to him the honor due to Christ.

Most shamefully also they racke scriptures to apply them to the Pope. Thomas Waldensis that fleering frier in his pro­logue before the first tome of his works; turneth the words which the apostle spoke to Christ, to Martin the fift. Domine saith he, salua nos, perimus. Lord saue vs, we perish. declaring that the Pope is the sauiour of friers. Cornelius bishop of Bi­tonto in the conuenticle of Trent, vttereth these blasphe­mous speeches, the Pope the light is come into the world, but men loued the darknesse more then light.

Antoninus part. 3. doth compare Dominike with Christ, and saith he wrought more miracles then Christ. dominus Christus, saith he, est dominus absolutè & authoritatiuè, Domi­nicus [Page 76]possessiuè. that is, Dominicke is Lord of the world by posses­sion, Christ by authoritie and absolutely. likewise the booke of conformities of Christ and Francis doth conteine nothing, but blasphemous comparisons betwixt them two. Francis they call the figuratiue Iesus, and in heauen they say, he and his company is kept in Christs side. To S. Dominike & his company they giue a place vnder our Ladies gowne. Ful­bertus bishop of Charters saith Radulphus niger, was nouri­shed with our Ladies milke. they tell also blasphemous tales of Alane de rupe the author of our Ladies Rosary, and say that he was very familiar with the blessed virgin.

Finally it is no maruell, if Romish religion be full of im­pieties and blasphemies, seeing the same was deuised by Popes, that were most impious and great blasphemers. Be­net the 9. and Syluester the second, gaue themselues to the di­uell, as Beno testifieth. Gregory the 7. in a solemne Councel was condemned for a sotthsayer, a necromancer and a wicked fellow. the Councell of Pise, as Theodoric à Niem lib. 3. c. 44. reporteth, condemned Gregory the 12. and Benet the 13. as notorious wicked men. Alexander the 6. as is said, be­leeued not that there was a God. Iohn the 23. in the Coun­cel of Constance was conuinced, that he beleeued not the resur­rection. Leo the 10. and Clement the 7, by Papistes them­selues were reputed atheistes. Paul the 3. was a great magi­cian, and very familiar with Cecco d'ascoli. Iulius the 3. called for his gambon of bacon al dispet to di dio, that is, in despite of God, and said that he had more reason to be angry for a pea­cocke, then God for an apple. Boccace in his second nouell bringeth in a Iew maruelling, how Reme could stand, in which there was no religion at all.

If I should report all the blasphemies of particular au­thors, I should fill vp a whole volume with them. onely thus much I thought good to say, for to giue you an assaie of greater matters. Faber in his booke aduers. anatomen mis­sae fol. 25. compareth Christ to the drunken Silenus. annon saith he, mirisi [...]us Silenus suit Christus? in another place he calleth Christ an iuchanter. Bellarmine lib. 1. de sanct. beat. c. [Page 77]13. alledging a place out of Iustine martyr, but most falsely, placeth angels before the holy ghost, and would haue them worshipped together with the holy Trinitie. to the Pope al­so in his Preface before his bookes de Pontif. Rom. and in his booke de Pontif. Rom. c. 31. he giueth the proper titles of Christ. but I cannot in this short treatise report all. he that list to see diuers examples of Parsons his impieties and blas­phemies, let him read my answer to his Warneword, and 3. conuersions. Kellison is conuinced of the same crime in my answer to his Suruey.

CHAP. X. That Popery is a sinke of heathenish idolatry.

OF this argument I haue spoken at large in my last chal­lenge. much therefore I shall not need to say in this briefe suruey. yet for that we perceiue, that by the secret and cunning practise of the Diuell, the idolatrie of the heathen nations, ouerthrowen by the preaching of the Gospell, is brought backe againe vnder colour of Christianity, briefly we are to say somwhat of the former argument. It may please God percase to open the eies of some Papists, and to worke a detestation in them of popery, if they may see, that as a sink it hath together with heresie receiued into it self most grosse and heathenish idolatrie. but this is prooued first by these words of the law Exod. 20. thou shalt haue no other Gods be­fore me. for this being directed principally against the hea­thenish worship of more Gods than one, certaine it is, that whosoeuer doth worship more Gods than one, or giueth the honour of God to creatures, is an idolater. but this fault is diuersly incurred by the Papists. for first they call the Pope their Lord and God, in gloss. in c. cum inter. extrau. Ioan. 22. de verb. signific. and both Felm, and Baldus, as I shewed in the last chapter, doe call him a God on the earth. absolutely also he is called God in the chap. satis, dist. 96. and diuers other places. secondly they cal the sacrament their Lord and God, [Page 78]as appeareth by Allens treatise de sacrsic. eucharist. c. 41. and Bristow in his 26. motiue. neither will they deny, but they giue vnto it diuine honour, as to God. thirdly Bellarmine lib. 1. de cult. sanct. c. 9. doth call Saints Gods by participation. but whosoeuer is God by participation, hee is absolutely God. for the deity is not communicable to any creature. lastly to the sacrament, and to the crosse they giue diuine honor say­ing to the crosse, ô crux, aue spes vnica, and falling downe like beasts before the pixe. they doe also make vowes to Saints, sweare by Saints, and confesse their sinnes iointly to them, and to God. therefore plainly are they idolaters. for these are honours not due to any but to God, as at large I haue shewed in my treatise against Bellarmines disputes de culiu sanctorum.

My second argument is drawn from the second comman­dement directed against the heathenish idolatrie of those, 2 which worshipped God in grauen images. for that forbid­deth the making either of grauen image, or likenesse to the intent to adore it or worship it. but the Papists both make such images and pictures, and fall downe before them, and worship them. to the crosse they pray,In breuiar. Rom. auge pijs iustitiam, reis (que) dona veniam. that is, increase righteousnesse in the godly, and grant pardon to sinners. to these images they burne in­cense, as did the heathen to their idols. nay Alexander Hales p. 3. q. 30. art. vlt. and Thomas Aquinas 3. p. q. 25. art. 3. and other schoolemen affirme, that what honour is due to the originall, the same is also due to the image. which is more than the heathen euer supposed. lastly they kisse these images, touch them with their beads, and because they are blind, set vp light before them.

Thirdly we read Deut. 4. that God to represse the idolatry of his people told them, 3 that when they heard him speake out of the fire in mount Horeb, yet they saw no likenesse of any thing. do they not then run into this sin, that make the like­nesse of God, and represent God the father in the image of an old man, and God the holy ghost in the figure of a doue? if this be not idolatry, yet it is certainly idolatry to giue the [Page 79]same honour to one of these images, which they giue to God. neither will they denie, that it is idolatrie to giue Gods honour to creatures. they must therefore either de­nie these images to be creatures, or confesse themselues to be idolaters.

Fourthly, where God by the Prophet Psal. 81. 4 forbiddeth the hauing of new Gods, or worshipping strange Gods, saying, non erit in te Deus recens, ne (que) adorabis Deum alienum, wee are taught, that it is idolatry to haue new Gods, or to worship strange Gods. but the Papists euerie day make new cruci­fixes, and new Gods of the altar, and the Pope also canoni­zeth new Saints, which euery one of his followers is bound to worship. these are also most strange Gods. for neither were they knowen to the people of God before Christ, nor were any such things worshipped by the ancient catholike Church. finally some crucifixes are so euilfauoured, and some saints so huge and monstrous, that they are more fit to scare crowes, than to be worshipped of Christians.

The holy scriptures Amos. 5. and Act. 7. 5 condemne them for idolaters, that worshipped and serued the host of hea­uen. but the Papists deny not, but that Dulia and seruice is due to Angels, and Saints, and all the host of heauen, and accordingly they doe them seruice in most ample man­ner.

The gentiles are condemned Psal. 114. 6 for that they wor­shipped images of siluer and gold, and the worke of mens hands. images I say, that had mouthes & spoke not, eies & saw not, noses and smelled not, hands and handled not, feete, but walked not, and that were not able to viter one word out of their throte. now gladly would I haue any Papist to shew me, that their ima­ges are of other matter and forme, and that they haue more perfect senses, then the images of the gentiles. the lady of Loreto, notwithstanding the report of her great miracles, neither seeth, nor speaketh one word.

The gentiles did thinke they offred sacrifices pleasing to God. yet the Apostle 1. Cor. 10. 7 because they were offered without warrant, saith, they offered them to diuels. if then [Page 80]the Papists haue no warrant for their sacrifices in the honor of Angels and Saints, then are they to be reputed as idola­ters and sacrificers to diuels.

The Prophet Hicremie c. 8 7. declareth them to be idola­ters, that built high places neuer commanded by God, and made vowes to the Queene of heauen, and serued her. but this is iust the case of Masse-priests, that in euery great church haue high altars, and that without commandment of God, or precedent of ancient Catholikes. they doe also make vowes to our lady, whom they call the Queene of hea­uen, and serue her most diligently, saying more aue Mariaes, then praiers to God.

In the booke of Baruch c. 9 6. the Babylonians are reputed to beidolaters, for that they caried their Gods of gold, siluer, wood, and stone vpon their shoulders, adorned them with costly ap­parell and iewels, worshipped them, albeit their faces were dusty, and they vnable to gard themselues from rust, cor­ruption, and theeues. why then should not the Papists be so reputed likewise, seeing they adorne dumbe idoles, and worship them, that cannot gard themselues from corrup­tion and rust, and are often stollen away by theeues, or molten to serue base vses? is it more ridiculous in the hea­then to cary about their images, then for the Papists?

The idolatrous Iewes were condemned for saying to a stocke, 10 thou art my father, and to a stone thou hast begotten me; as we read Hieremy 2. and yet the Papists before stocks and stones say pater noster, and the babling Friers in their chaires turning to a little crucifixe of wood or mettall set by them, say, thou hast redeemed vs, thou hast reconciled vs. and this Bel­larmine lib. 2. de cult. sanct. c. 23. is not ashamed to allow. but all of them together must be thrust into the rolle of ido­laters.

S. Iohn giueth Christians warning to keepe themselues from grauen images 1. Iohn. 5. but why so, 11 if there were no ido­latry in worshipping them? either must the Papists denie their images to be simulachra, and themselues to worship them, or confesse themselues to be idolaters.

The Israelites Iudges 10. 12 confesse their seruice of Baalim or other Lords, to be leud and idolatrous, and God taxeth them there for seruing and inuocating other Gods. if then the Papists call vpon their volto santo, or their crosses, or the Queene and hoast of heauen, and serue them; they can­not cleere themselues from the faultes of the idolatrous Is­raelites.

The worship of Angels both by scriptures and fathers is condemned as idolatrous. the Apostle Coloss. 2. 13 exhorteh Christians to beware, least they be seduced by humility and re­ligion of Angels. the Angell Apocalyps. 22. forbad Iohn to worship him, and addeth this reason, for that he was his fel­low seruant. the worship of Angels by the councell of Lao­dicea c. 35. is declared to be idolatrous. Christians must not leaue the church saith the councell, and make meetings for the idolatrous worship of Angels. Theodoret in Coloss. 2. saith that by this councell those were condemned, that praied to Angels. S. Hierom. in epist. ad Riparium saith, that Christians neither adore Angels nor Archangels. we honour them with loue saith S. Augustine de ver. relig. c. 55. and not with seruice, nor do we build temples to them. God will not haue vs to adore Angels saith Epiphanius haeres. 79. finally Tertullian de praescript. ad­uers. haeret. sheweth, that the seruice of Angels was accounted to be idolatrie, and that it descended from Simon Magus. but the Papists cannot denie, but they serue Angels. they also pray vnto them in their publike letanies saying, sancte Mi­chael, sancte Gabriel, sancte Raphael, omnes Angeli & Arch­angeli orate pro nobis. in their Masse they confesse their sinnes to Angels, saying, confiteor Beato Michaeli Archangelo. in their breuiaries they praie to an Angel vnknowen, whom they call their gardian. but praying to them, and seruing them they shew themselues to haue a tacke of heathenish idolatrie.

It appeareth both by scriptures, 14 and practise of the church, that to burne incense to grauen images hath beene reputed idolatrous. the idolatrous Iewes 2. Paral p. 30. are noted as burning incense to their idols. Marcellina burned [Page 82]incense to the images of Iesus, Paul, Homer and Pythagoras, and is therefore taxed by S. Augustine de haeres. neither did the heathen Emperours require more at the hands of Chri­stians, than that they should offer certaine graines of incense to their Gods. but euery man knoweth how the Papists place images on their altars, and continually offer incense vnto them. they burne also incense in the honour of Angels and Saints, and set vp lights before their images.

They that offer sacrifice to creatures are idolaters. 15 for sa­crifice is the highest honour, that is done to God. and this the Papists themselues confesse. but the Masse-priests offer the sacrifice of praiers and praises to Angels and Saints, and incense to their images. they offer also the body and bloud of Christ, as they say, in honour of them. neither can they excuse themselues by saying. that they offer not the sacrifice of the Masse to Angels or Saints. for in the time of the law no sacrifices were offered in the honour of any creature. nei­ther is there any difference betwixt offering to God, and in the honour of God.

Saint Ambrose teacheth vs, 16 that to worship the crosse or crucifixe is plaine idolatrie and paganisme. Inuenit Helena crucem Domini, saith he,De obitu Theodosij. regem adorauit: non lignum vit (que), quia hic gentilis error, sed adorauit illum, qui pependit in cruce. Helena found the Lords crosse, and adored her king; not the wood; for that is the error of the gentiles. but she adored him, that hung vpon the crosse. the Papists therefore adoring the wooden crosse, naie adoring euery sticke put a crosse, are grosse ido­laters, and like the gentiles, if Ambrose may sit iudge.

Epiphanius haeres. 17 79. sheweth that the diabolicall inuenti­on of images hath adulterated the seruice of God, and brought in spirituall fornications.

18 The councell of Francford, vnder Charles the great shew­eth, that images being worshipped in Churches, are idols, as may be gathered out of these words that are in his booke de imaginibus. non nos imagines in basilicis positas idola nuncupamus, sedne idola nuncupentur, adorare & colere eas recusamus. we doe not call images placed in great Churches, idols, but wee re­fuse [Page 83]to worship and adore them, least they should bee called idols.

Hierome in Abacuc. 2. writeth, that all peruerse opinions, 19 which of the inuenters thereof are adored, are grauen images. and by that he meaneth idols. but I haue shewed, that Pa­pists maintaine many hereticall opinions.

Finally their owne confession doth testifie against them. 20 for Bellarmine doth confesse lib. 2. de imaginib. c. 5. that an idol is a false similitude, and representeth that, which is not. but Papists worshipping S. George that killed the dragon, and S. Catherine that broke the wheele, and the image of God the father, worship false images. for neither shall they proue, that God is like an old man, or that the images of George & Catherin expresse any truth. they say also, that it is idolatry to giue diuine honour to creatures. but they giue diuine honour to the sacrament, to the crosses and to the images of the Tri­nity: which I hope they will not deny to be creatures.

Neither doe they bring any better excuses, then the hea­then idolaters. Bellarmine lib. 2. de imaginibus c. 24. saith, that images are not worshipped by them per se & propriè, that is for themselues, and properly. but well could the gentiles say as much.

Againe he saith, they worshippe not images as Gods. so like­wise did the gentiles answere, as Lactantius sheweth instit. lib. 2. c. 2. non ipsa, inquit, timemus &c. we doe not feare them, say the idolaters speaking of images, but them, to whose like­nesse they were made, and for whose sakes they were consecrated. the same may be prooued by the testimonie of S. Augustine in psal. 113.

Lastly they say, they put no trust in images. but neuer did the gentiles trust so much in the images of Iupiter or Iuno, as the Papists trust in the images of our Lady of Loreto, Iames of Compostella, the Rood of Mantua, and such like.

CHAP. XI. That Popish religion neuer came from Hierusalem.

TRue Christian religion was first preached in Hierusalem, and from thence was deriued throughout all nations vnto the endes of the world. ye shall be witnesses vnto me saith our sauior to his Apostles Act. 1. both in Hierusalem, & in all Iudaea, and in Samaria, and to the ends of the world. and herein was the Prophesie of Isay. c. 2. fulfilled, that told vs long be­fore, how the law should goe foorth out of Zion, and the word of the Lord out of Hierusalem. neither neede we insist much vp­on this point. for Stapleton in his relection of doctrinal prin­ciples contr. 1. q. 5. confesseth so much, and euery odde Masse-priest, that taketh vpon him to handle these matters, is still talking of the beginning of religion at Hierusalem. but little wot they poore soules how little aduantage this bringeth to their cause. for if they be not either impudent or desperate, they will neuer say, that these grounds, these do­ctrines, these heresies and idolatries which before are menti­oned, came from Hierusalem. but should they runne beside themselues with fury, yet will they neuer be able to proue their assertion.

To giue them further particular instances, gladly would I haue Kellison the surueior, or (because he is bu [...] a kettler newly come foorth with the droppings of Diuinity, out of Stapletons tubs, and Aquinas his water barrels) the stoutest champion of the Pope to proue the principall pillars of Po­pery to haue come from Hierusalem. Petrus Fontidonius in a Sermon of his in the conuenticle of Trent told his audito­ry, that the two principal pillers of the Roman church were the Masse, and the Pope. let vs then see, whether any of thē can shew, that these two came from Hierusalem. we haue inuincible reasons to the contrarie. for first Missa is a Latine word, as Bellarmine de missa, and the lernedst of the aduer­saries confesse. but it is not likely that Latine Masses should [Page 85]come from Hierusalem. secondly the Latine Masse doth dif­fer much from that of S. Iames, both in the canon, and other parts. thirdly Gregory saith, the Apostles consecrated, saying only the Lords praier. fourthly the massemonger Priests con­fesse, that Celestine made the introit, and Gelasius & Gregory other parts: which were no bishops of Hierusalem, but of Rome. fifthly the Easterne church to this day defieth the La­tin Masse, which it is not like it would haue done, if it had come from Hierusalem. sixthly there is no probabilitie, that in Hierusalem these words & aeterni, and mysterium fidei were added in the consecration of the cup. for Christ vsed them not, neither are they Hebrew but Latine. seuenthly in Hie­rusalem it was neuer beleeued, that Christ either did eat vp himselfe, or offer himselfe to his father at his last supper, or that he offered himselfe twise, or that there was any priest after the order of Melchisedech, but Christ. for the Apostle to the Hebrewes teacheth contrarie. finally we neuer read that the Christians in Hierusalem beleeued, that some Masses were wet, some dry, some in the honor of Angels, some in the honour of Saints, some in the honor of confessors, some good for pigges, others for horses, some for quicke, some for dead; or that all those trickes and skips are commenda­ble, which the Masse-priests vse at the altar; or that Christ ordeined either the consecration of Churches with the al­phabet in Greeke; or that Priests were to vse those ceremo­nies, which now are frequented in the church of Rome in the celebration of the Masse.

That the Pope came not from Hierusalem, 3 it appeareth first, for that among al the ministers of the church described Eph. 4. and 1. Cor. 12. there is no Pope, nor monarch of the church expressed. we read of Apostles, Prophets, Euange­lists, Pastors and others: but the Pope is quite forgotten. which is most vnlikely, especially considering that he is by the Papists supposed to be the head and foundation of the church. secondly the name is rather Latine, then Hebrew, or Syriake. for some deriue it from papè, because the Pope is the wonderment of the world. some from [...], some from [Page 86]the 2. syllables of pater patrum. Thirdly at Hierissalem neuer was there any termed by the name of Christs vicars general, or that wore a triple crowne, and had a gard of Switzars at­tending vpon him. fourthly Saint Peter neuer tooke vpon him to depose kings, or to translate kingdomes from one to another, which the Pope now vsurpeth. fifthly the Popes de­cretales and decrees, which conteine the Popes office and authority, and the marrow of his religion, haue proceeded from Rome, and not from Hierusalem. sixthly we read, that the law of God, and not the Popes lawes came from Hieru­salem. finally the faith and doctrine of the Pope for the most part hath beene inuented and published since Hierusalem came to bee subiect to the Saracens and Turkes. if then it came from the Turkie Hierusalem, it must needes be rather Turkish, then Christian. the decretales are rather like the Alcoran, then the new testament. the force that the Pope vseth against Christians proceedeth rather from Mahomet, then from S. Peter. The pilgrimages to Rome are like the pilgrimages to Mecha. lastly both Turkes and Papists wor­ship Saints, and pray for the dead alike.

To proceede a little further, 4 the Romish fine Sacraments added to the Sacrament of baptisme and the Lords supper, had neuer allowance by the Apostles remaining at Hierusa­lem. for albeit mariage, Priesthood and repentance were al­waies practised by the people of God vnder the law, yet were they not vsed as Sacraments. neither in these matters did either the people of God vnder the law, or the first Christians vse the Popish orders and formes or Sacraments now at Rome frequented. in time past neither were Priests prohibited to marry, nor were there any times limited for mariage, nor was it deemed vnlawfull for gossips to marry.

In Hierusalem neuer was any such forme of ordering of Priests knowen, 5 as is vsed in popery, where they say receiue power to offer sacrifice for quicke and dead. Nor did the Christians of Hierusalem beleeue, that there were seven or­ders, and euery one a Sacrament, and yet but one Sacrament in all, or that Priests were to haue shauen crownes.

To thinke, 6 that the first Christians at Hierusalem confes­sed their sinnes euery yeere at the least in the Priests care, is most absurd. likewise to say that the forme of absolution that is now vsed, was then knowen. thirdly Christians then did neither lash themselues, nor thinke to satisfie for sinnes by eating saltfish or going barefoote. lastly they neither belee­ued, that Christians were to satisfie for their sinnes in purga­tory, nor that the Pope caried the keies of purgatory, and could deliuer soules from thence by indulgences.

This forme of Confirmation, signo te signo crucis, 7 & con­firmo te Chrismate salutis &c. was by authority first establi­shed in the conuenticle of Florence vnder Eugenius the 4. a Venetian, and not by any, that came from Hierusalem. he also ordered that oile and balme should be the matter of this Sa­crament. Bonauenture and Alexander Hales affirme, that Confirmation was instituted at Melda. popish confirmation is far degenerated from that Confirmation that was vsed in the primitiue church, and which we retaine in England.

The forme also & matter of extreme vnction was there appointed by Eugenius. 8 the doctrine of the character, and effectes of extreme vnction are not to be found, but in the frapling schoolemen.

Now he that should seeke for the originall of holy water, 9 and holy salt, and holy candles at Hierusalem, he should but seeke to draw water out of a flint, and as well might he light a candle in the sea water. in the Roman missal we find these words, I exorcise or coniure thee thou creature of water, and ex­orcizo te creatura salis, and such like. but Stapleton should shew these things out of some Hebrew or Syriake missal.

The eating of Paschal lambes, I confesse, 10 was vsed at Hie­rusalem: but not by Christians, but by Iewes, obseruing the ceremonies of Moyses his law.

The Romish missals, breuiaries, our ladies Psalters, 11 the rosaries and such like bookes and ceremonies came out of the closet of the Popes breast, and not from Hierusalem, as I thinke our aduersaries will confesse, if they bee put to the question.

In Rome vpon good Friday they make agnus Dei, 12 of ho­ly wax, and holy chrisme, and these, they say, do defend Chri­stians from lightning and tempest. hiagnia fulgure & tempesta­te fideles & credentes defendunt, saith Durand. rational. diumor. lib. 6. c. 79. but this ceremony came neuer from Hierusa­lem. neither did the Christians there beleeue anie such do­ctrine.

When a church is consecrated the bishop sprinkleth the wals with holy water, 13 knocketh at the dore, and saith, attollite principes portas vestras. then he maketh crosses on the paue­ment, and describeth all the Greeke and Latin alphabet, as Durand sheweth lib. 1. rat. diuin. c. 6. but if popery had come from Hierusalem, it is more likely, hee should describe the Hebrew alphabet. such abuses of scripture and foolish cere­monies, certes, neuer came from the Christians of Hicrusa­lem, but from the followers of Antichrist at Rome.

The conuenticle of Trent maketh the old Latin vulgar translation authenticall. 14 but if the same had hoped to proue the Romish religion by the practise of the Church of Hieru­salem, the same would neuer haue neglected the Hebrew text.

The Church of Hierusalem diligently obserued Gods commandement concerning the making and worshipping of granen images, 15 and the whole worship of God. we may not therefore thinke, that either the Christians there made the images of God the father, and the holy ghost, or else worshipped and burnt incense to them: and very absurd it were, if any man should suppose, that the Popish inuocation and worship of Saints and Angels is to be proued by their practise. Philo in legat. ad Caium saith, the Iewes thought it impious, either in picture, or grauen worke to represent God, that is inuisible. inuisibilem Deum pingere aut singere nefas duxe­runt maiores nostri, saith he. neither if we runne through the Bible shall wee find any precedent of the popish inuocation and worship of Saints vsed in the Romish church.

Finally if the Church of Hierusalem had knowen or suspe­cted, 16 that S. Peter or his successors had been designed Christs [Page 89]vicars general, and monarchs of the Church, and appointed to giue lawes to the whole world; then would they neuer haue suffered him to depart from Hierusalem.

The Pope and his complices therefore must seeke some other place, than Hierusalem, whence to deriue their do­ctrine, lawes, ceremonies, and formes of gouernment, or else they will neuer find out the true descent of their church. In Babylon, certes, they shall rather find out these matters, than in Hierusalem.

CHAP. XII. That popish religion was neuer taught either by the old Prophets, or by the Apostles of Christ Iesus.

FAithfull Christians, as the Apostle teacheth vs, 1 Ephes. 2. are built vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Iesus Christ himselfe being the chiefe corner stone. and this the Papists must needs confesse, although much to their griefe, vnlesse they will denie the words of the Apostle. but popery is built vpon the Pope and vpon his decretales and deter­minations, and supported stoutly by his purple Cardinals, and the merchants of Babylon the Masse-priests, and nei­ther vpon Christ nor the doctrine of the Apostles and Pro­phets.

The Apostle 2. Tim. 3. sheweth, 2 that the scriptures are able to make vs wise to saluation, and are giuen of God, that the man of God may be absolute, and made perfect vnto all good workes. but Papists teach, that they are an imperfect rule, and without traditions vnsufficient. for that is the doctrine of Bel­larmine, and all his consorts. they doe also raile against ho­ly scriptures, and call them a dead and killing letter.

The holy Prophets brought no message to those nations, 3 to whom they were sent, but they confirmed the same by the testimony of God, that sent them, saying, thus saith the Lord. and the Lord hath spoken it. but the conuenticle of Trent [Page 90]confirmed their doctrine by their owne pleasures for the most part. and albeit sometime the same alleadgeth scrip­tures, yet their best and common argument was, placet nobis. their schoole doctors also for matters controuersed doe more commonly alleadge the Popes decretales, than holy scriptures.

Rom. 10. 4 we read that faith commeth by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. but Camsius in his catechisme de sid. & symb. signifieth that we are not to beleeue Gods word reuea­led, vnlesse the same be also propounded by the church. and by the church he vnderstandeth the Pope and his adherents.

Peter and Iohn Act. 4. shew, that God is rather to be obeied than man. 5 but the Romish church doth excommunicate all that hearken not to the Pope, whatsoeuer is contained in the scriptures to the contrary.

The conuenticle of Trent Sess. 4. teacheth vs that we are to imbrace traditions not written, 6 with equall affection to traditi­ons and holy scriptures. but this doctrine was not knowen either to the Apostles or Prophets. nay Moyses doth teach quite contrary. ye shall put nothing to the word, which I com­mand you, nor shall ye take ought therefrom, saith he, Deut. 4. and S. Paul Galat. 1. if any man preach vnto you otherwise, than that ye haue receiued, saith he, let him be accursed. this curse therefore doth fall on the Friers and Masse priests, that preach the Popes doctrines, which they shal neuer proue to haue beene receiued from the Apostles, though they read vntill their eies drop out of their heads.

The religion of Papists doth for the most part consist in praiers to Saints, 7 Masses and offices in the honour of An­gels, the Virgin Mary, martyrs, confessors, and the Popes canonized creatures, in erecting of crosses and crucifixes, and other images, in burning incense before images. nay they giue diuine honour to creatures, which themselues can­not denie to bee idolatrous. cum Christus adoretur adora­tione latriae, consequens est, quòd cius imago sit adoratione latriae adoranda. seeing Christ, saith Thomas Aquinas p. 3. q. 25. art. 3. is worshipped with latria (or honour properly belong­ing [Page 91]to God) it followeth, that his image is also to be worshipped with the adoration of latria, or diuine worship. either therefore must our aduersaries shew, that the Prophets and Apostles offered sacrifices in honour of Angels and Saints, and made praiers vnto them, and set vp images to be worshipped in temples, and vsed to burne incense vnto them, and to honor them after the manner of Papists, or else they must confesse that their religion proceedeth not from the Prophets and Apostles. how hard this proofe will bee, it may appeare in this, that Gods lawes Deut. 4. and Exod. 20. directly forbid the making of grauen images after the likenesse of God, and the worship of idols, and Christ ordeined the eucharist to be receiued in commemoration of his death and passion, and neuer so much as mentioned the offering of his owne body and bloud or other sacrifices in the honour of Saints and Angels.

The Masse-priests that plotted the ruine of religion at Trent sess. 6. ascribe mans iustification to his workes, 8 and ex­clude iustification both by Christs iustice, and by faith ap­prehending Christ and beleeuing in him. but both the Pro­phet Abacuc chap. 2. and S. Paul Rom. 1. affirme, that the iust do liue by faith. the Apostle also 1. Cor. 1. saith, that our Sa­our Christ is made wisedome and righteousnesse vnto vs. which if it were wrought by our workes, then should we haue beene made wisedome and righteousnesse vnto our selues. nay the Apostle Rom. 3. saith, if Abraham were iustified by workes, that then he had wherein to reioice, but not with God.

Popish religion consisteth most in externall ceremonies, 9 as for example in salt, holy water, holy candles, incense, rin­ging of sacring belles, adoring crosses and images, greasing of sicke men and masse-priests, shauing of crownes, vowes, Monkish rules and such like toyes. but these fooleries were neuer knowen either to the Apostles or Prophets. Nay our Sauiour Matth. 15. teacheth that in vaine they seeke to wor­ship God, that teach for doctrines the precepts of men. he shew­eth also Iohn 4. that true worshippers worship God in spirit and truth. and the Apostle Coloss. 2. condemneth such as put re­ligion [Page 92]in touching, fasting and such like vaine ceremonies.

The Masse-priests call the Pope the spouse and head of the church. 10 but if he meane to deriue his authoritie from the writings of the Prophets and Apostles, he shall declare him­selfe to want both head and braine. for in the Canticles c. 2. and Ephes. 5. the title of spouse of the church is declared to belong to Christ, and him only the scriptures declare to be head of the Church. Gregory lib. 4. ep. 38. ad Ioan. Constanti­nopol. sheweth that neither Paul, nor Andrew, nor Iohn, nor Peter was the head of the vniuersall church, but all members of the church vnder one head.

The Prophets and Apostles doe teach vs, 11 that the church of God consisteth of sheepe and lambes. and such was Peter commanded to feede. God saith by his Prophet Isay c. 11. that there shall be no hurting nor killing in all his holie mountaine, and that the wolfe shall dwell with the lambe, and the pard he with the kidde. but the Romish Church is full of blood, and wholy vpholden by cruelty. in France the Pope and his complices haue caused aboue two hundred thou­sand persons to be murdered for the profession of the true faith. the fires and butchers axes of their executioners haue consumed also infinit Christians in Italy, Spaine, England, Scotland, Germany, and the Low countries. very ignorant therefore he is of the doctrine of the Prophets and Apo­stles, that supposeth, that the massacring Romish church is founded vpon the doctrine of the Apostles and Prophets.

The Prophet Daniel doth prophecy how a certaine king shall arise, 12 that shall speake words of blasphemy against the most high, and consume his Saints, and that shall thinke that he may change times and lawes. the Apostle also 2. Thess. 2. sheweth, that there shall come a departing, and that the man of sinne shall be disclosed, and exalt himselfe against all that is called God, and that he shall sit in the temple of God. S. Iohn also in his Apocalypse sheweth, that Antichrist shall rise after the de­cay of the Roman Empire, and giue life to that state, and that the great whore shall sit vpon the seuen hils, and haue her garments died red in the blood of Saints. but this argueth [Page 93]that the Pope is Antichrist, and that Popish religion is not Christian religion grounded vpon the doctrine of the Apo­stles and Prophets, but rather Antichristian heresie foun­ded vpon the Popes decretales, and schoolemens fond and foolish inuentions.

Finallie it is not only desperate ignorance, 13 but also meere madnesse to affirme, that the grounds, doctrines, heresies and blasphemies, which before we haue spoken of, are deri­ued out of the writings of the Prophets and Apostles. would Kellison the Popes grand surueier vndertake to prooue vnto vs all the Popes traditions concerning the Masse, the dirges and offices for the dead, purgatory, indulgences, holy wa­ter, holy candles, paschal lambes, rascall Friers and Monkes and such like trash by the testimony of the Apostles and Pro­phets, he should but lose his labour, and percase his wits too. for in their diuine writings such fond, superstitious and impious doctrines haue no defence nor shelter. but if hee meane to find their true beginning, then must he search the Popes decretales, the writings of schoolemen and canonists and other the Popes adherents, and there he shall not only find out the first authours, but also the rest of the nouelties, fooleries and impieties of the synagogue of Satan.

CHAP. XIII. That poperie was either condemned, or not know­en by Kings and Princes professing Christian religion in old time.

THe Popes Agents, when they are vpon their owne dunghils, and among their owne disciples and fauorers, doe make great crackes, as if the Popish religion, which is now taught at Rome, were the only religion professed by an­cient kings, princes and emperors of Rome, that made pro­fession of the Christian faith. but who so list to read the an­cient confessions of Christian kings, and the lawes made [Page 94]by them, both for mainteinance of the Christian faith, and for the repressing of diners errors, shall finde, that the grounds, doctrines, impieties & absurdities of Popery were either disallowed by them, or vnknowen vnto them.

The first Christian king of Britaine, 1 if we may beleeue Bede, and others of latter times (for in more auncient histo­ries there is no record of such a king or such matters, as then passed) was Lucius. but we doe not finde, that the Popish Masse was then hatched. or that Eleutherius bishop of Rome pretended the vniuersall monarchy of the Church. nay wee read, that Irenaeus doth make as great account of other chur­ches, as of Rome, albeit the same be first placed in regard of the splendour and authority of that citie. furthermore Lu­cius neither had images nor worshipped them, nor did he giue Latria to the crosse. of Purgat one and indulgences he could not heare any thing, for that Eleutherius as yet tooke not vpon him to deliuer soules out of Purgatory, nor to grant pardons a poena & culpa. finally if Kellison seeke to prooue the articles of Popery before mentioned by the te­stimony of Lucius; you shall soone see, that the man will be at a stand.

The first Christian Emperour of Rome was Constantine the great. 2 but many actes of his declare, that he was neither a slaue of the bishop of Rome, nor a professor of Popery. for first by his authority both was the councell of Nice assem­bled, and the actes thereof established, as Enschius in vita Constantini, and other ecclesiasticall writers doe testifie. se­condly that faith, which the councell of Nice published, he professed. but therein is not one article of Popery establi­shed, but rather diuers refuted, as namely the doctrine of Papists concerning Christs humanitie, and the Popish reall presence, and dissoluing priests mariages. for if Christ be true man, then is not his body inuisible and impalpable in the Sacrament. againe if Christs body be ascended into heauen, then is not the same in euery pixe. if the same be to come from heauen, then is not the same to creepe out of a pixe. if mariage of Priests be honorable, and not to be dissolued, as [Page 95]was decreed in the counceil of Nice by the aduice of Paph­nutius: then doe the Papists teach doctrines of diuels, that condemne such mariages, and separate Priests from their wiues. thirdly all the actes of that councell were confirmed, and not only receiued by Constantine. but that sheweth that the Bishop of Rome then had no more authoritie in his prouince, then the Bishop of Alexandria in his, as the sixth canon of the Nicene councell testifieth. the 4. canon sheweth that the Bishop of Rome had no greater authority in ordei­ning bishops, then other metropolitans. the fifth canon e­qualleth his power in excommunication to that, which o­ther Bishops had. to abridge this matter, we finde, that the Bishops of Rome. were as well subiect to the canons of the councell of Nice, as other Bishops. finally we finde, that Constantine made lawes for church gouernment in his time, and not the Bishops of Rome. Nay the bishops of Rome, as is said in the counterfet donation of Constantine, had their priuileges from Constantine, and not contrariwise. priuilegi­um Romanae ecclesiae pontifici contulit, saith the author of that donation, vt in toto orbe Romani pontifices vel [...]saecendotes ita hun [...] caput habeant, sicut iudices regem. so it appeareth, that the preeminence of Roman bishops ouer all Priests procee­ded from the Emperours grant, and not from any ordinance of Christ, or diuine authority.

Likewise we read, that the councels of Constantinople, 3 E­phesus and Chalcedon were called by the authority of Empe­rours, and that their acts and decrees were ratified by them, and not by the bishops of Rome, more than other bishops, as is pretended.

Further in the confessions of faith published by those councels, and receiued by Theodosius, Martian [...]s and other Christian Emperours, there is not one article of popery so much as mentioned. nay albeit the bishops of Rome oppug­ned the decree of the councell of Chalcedon concerning the priuiledge of the Church of Constantinople; yet preuailed they not. lastly the condemnation of Eutyches in the coun­cell of Chalcedon doth ouerthrow the popish reall presence [Page 96]of Christs body in the sacrament, and transubstantiation. for if Christ haue a true body, that is circumscriptible & solide, then is not Christs body really in euery consecrated host. and if that, according as after the vnion of the natures both remaine, so the bread and wine remaine after consecration, as the fathers of that councell pretend; then awaie flieth the fancy of popish transubstantiation.

Recaredus King of Spaine, 4 assembled the third councell of Toledo, chased Arianisme out of his dominions, publi­shed a confession of the faith, which all Christian bishops of that countrey receiued, and gouerned and confirmed the councell. publico regis edicto confirmatum est concilium. the councell was confirmed by publicke proclamation of the king, saith the compiler of the acts of that councell. finallie in all the acts there is not one article of popery confirmed. but the 21. canon, that alloweth Psalmes to be sung at burials, doth vtterly ouerthrow dirges and masses for the dead, and the doctrine of purgatory. for how can they chuse but sorrow for the dead, that beleeue their friends soules to be in pur­gatorie? the 22. canon forbiddeth dances and immodest songs on holy daies. the 16. canon is directed against the worship of idols. the 11. canon reproueth Priests, that ab­solue publike sinners without due acts of repentance. which is an abuse very common in the masse-priests. finally in this synode the Spaniard followed the rules of the Church of Constantinople, and not of Rome, as appeareth by the second canon.

Iustinian the Emperour, 5 as is reported in the law inter cla­ras. Cod. de sum. Trin. published a confession of faith, which he commanded to be receiued throughout his dominions. but therein is not any article of popery mentioned. nay di­uers of his lawes concerning the ordination of bishops, the ordering of Churches and other ecclesiasticall matters de­clare, that vnto his time the gouernment of the Church be­longed to kings and princes, and that yet the Pope had not vsurped his generall authoritie, nor excluded temporall Princes. he decreed that the sacraments should be admini­stred [Page 97]contrarie to the Popish forme in an audible voice, and in atongue that might be vnderstood. 6

Gregory the first acknowledged himselfe subiect to the Emperour, and willing to execute his commandements: which sheweth, that the Emperour as yet held his authority and would not yeeld it to the bishop of Rome. his faith also was the same, which other Emperours professed. for as yet Antichrist had not gained the primacy. Gregory himselfe in his epistle to Serenus of Massilia praiseth him, for that hee suffered not images to be adored: and no man needeth to doubt, but that Maurice the Emperour concurred with him in matters of faith.

Leo the fourth in the chapter de capitulis. dist. 11. profes­seth, 7 that he will see the Emperours orders by all meanes kept. de capitulis vel praeceptis imperialibus vestris &c. irrefragabiliter custodiendis, saith he, quantum valuimus, & valemus, Christe propitio & nunc & in aeuum nos conseruaturos modis omnibus profitemur. this therefore is an argument, that the christian faith as yet was maintained by the authority of the Empe­rours, & that the bishops of Rome had then made no altera­tion by their decretales, as not hauing as yet setled their su­preme and tyrannicall authority in the Church. in the time of this Leo neither was transubstantiation, nor the necessity of auricular confession in the Priests eare for all sinnes, nor communion vnder one kind heard of.

Beda in the Preface of his Ecclesiasticall historie praiseth king Ceolulphus, 8 for that he heard the wordes of holy Scriptures diligently. but now among papists lay-men are not commen­ded for hearing scriptures. at that time neither were the 7. sa­craments confirmed, nor the Popes doctrine of Purgatorie and indulgences once deliuered.

Irene though a semipagan Empresse, 9 and a worshipper of images, yet did not giue diuine worship to the crucifix or images of the Trinitie.

Charles the great in a synod at Francford condemned the idolatrous decrees of the 2. Nicene synode assembled vnder Irene. Ansegisus lib. 2. c. 19. sheweth, that he decreed, that [Page 98]nothing should be read in the church beside canonicall scriptures. the same author reporteth diuers lawes made by him and his sonne Ludouic contrarie to the practise of the moderne Romish church. Kellison therefore should worke a woonder, if he could prooue, that either of these Empe­rours beleeued, that the bishop of Rome was head of the church, and had both the swordes, and ruled both on earth and in Purgatorie. neither shall he be able to shew, that they beleeued that publike seruice and sacraments were to be ce­lebrated in a tongue not vnderstood, or that those were the Apostles successors, that neither preached nor administred the Sacraments.

Before the conuenticle of Laterane Christian kings and princes knew now what transubstantiation ment. 11 neither did they receiue the doctrine of the communion vnder one kinde before the synode at Constance. in the conuenticle of Florence vnder Eugenues the 4. the doctrine of the seuen Sa­craments, of Purgatorie, of the Popes supremacie began to be in more reputution. the rest of their heresies the Pope and his complices could not procure to be authorized before the conuenticle of Trent. and yet the French refused to ad­mit the actes of that conuenticle, and the Emperor Charles the fift by his agents protested against them. the Queene of England, king of Denmarke, Princes of Germany and manie other States resolutely reiected and contemned them.

So we see that the doctrine of the Romish church was ne­ner receiued by many Christian princes, 12 especially this forme of doctrine, that is prescribed by the conuenticle of Trent. the Popes excommunications, prouisions, rapines, violence and tyranny we finde to haue beene of most Chri­stian kings resisted. when the Popes of Rome began to lift vp their heels against the Easterne Emperors Leo Isauricus; and others, and to excommunicate them; they neglected their censures, and in the Easterne parts were obeied as before. Henry the 4. emperour of Rome draue Gregory the 7. out of his seate, and appointed another in his place. Henry the 5. his sonne tooke Paschalis prisoner, and made him sweare to [Page 99]certeine articles. he broke them afterward, I confesse, but that is rather an argument of the Popes perfidiousnesse, then a proofe against the Emperours authoritie. neither did the Emperors succeeding for many yeares cease to defend their right against the Popes encrochments and vsurpation, vntill such time as the Popes by force of armes and rebellion of subiects had preuailed against them. and when they could not by force resist, yet did they often publish their com­plaints, as appeareth by the message of Maximilian the first, to the Pope, by certeine memorials of Charles the fift con­cerning wrongs offered by the Pope, by the greenances col­lected by the princes of Germany presented to Adrian the 6. by the apologies of the Bohemians, English, French, and other nations.

Philip the French king writing to Boniface the 8. vsed these wordes. Sciat tua maxima fatuitas, 13 nos in temporalibus nulli subesse. I do thy great foolery, saith he writing to him, to wit, that for temporall matters we are subiect to none. the same king did also handle the Popes nuncioes according to their de­seruing.

Henry the 2. as Matthew Paris testifieth, 14 forbad the pai­ment of Peter pence; and such as appealed to the court of Rome he cōmitted to prison. appellantes ad curiam Rom. man­dauit custodiae. afterward writing to the bishop of Colein he threatueth to impugne the Pope, and to thrust out of his kingdom all his fauourers. Papam & omnes suos, saith he, manifestè impugnabimus, & quicun (que) in terra mea inuentus fuerit, qui Papae posthac adhaerere voluerit, expelletur è regno. happie had he beene, if he had alwaies persisted in this purpose. the kings of England afterward by their lawes against prouisi­ons restrained the Popes authoritie: and in the end that fa­mous and worthy Prince King Henrie the eight did vtterly exclude the Pope and his Agents from all iurisdiction within his kingdome.

Furthermore albeit some princes were so sencelesse, 15 that they felt not the wrongs offered them by the Pope; yet did such as loued the honour of their country, neuer cease to [Page 100]complaine thereof. Alan Chartier sheweth that Priests in the eies of the people were become most vile, and that the hearts of men were alienated from the Popes obedience. corda hominum ab obedientia (scilicet Papae) alienata. Iulian the cardinall writing to Eugenius the fourth sheweth it was to be feared, lest the lai­tie should fall vpon the clergy. ne irruerent in ecclesiasticos laici. The Germans in the end of their grieuances, say, that they neither would suffer, nor could indure the wrongs offered them by the Pope. Dixerunt Germani Principes, saith he that reported their grieuances, se onera Papae nec perferre velle, nec tolerare posse. Nicholas de Clemangis sheweth, that both Princes and others murmured against the Popes exactions. Charles the French king inueying against Benet the 13. signifieth, that God would displace the Popes out of their seates for op­pressing and spoiling Christs sheepe. facti sunt greges mei in rapinam &c. propterea cessare eos faciam, vt non pascant vlterius gregem meum. these words Charles applied against the Pope. the English being excommunicated in king Iohns time, cal­led the Popes agents marcidos ribaldos, that is rotten ras­cals, and signified, that they would not indure their tyranny. Petrus de Ferrarijs in form. resp. rei conuenti. bewaileth the mi­serie of Christian princes. that indured so many wrongs at the Popes hands, and made themselues his slaues, and yet prouided no remedy for it. heu miseri imperatores & principes seculares, saith he, qui haec & alia sustinetis, & vos seruos Pontificum fa­citis, & mundum per eos infinitie modis vsurpari videtis, nec de remedio cogitatis! Christian Princes and Kings therefore haue alwaies abhorred the Popes tyranny, & refused his re­ligion, and the more christian they haue shewed themselues, the more resistāce they haue made both against his corrup­tions in doctrine, and his vsurpations and abuses in gouern­ment. Vlrichus Vttenus in his preface to Laurentius Vallaes treatise against the counterfet donation of Constantine doth thus exclaime against the Popes, as enemies and spoilers of all Christians. annon fuerunt Christianorum hostes illi pontifi­ces, qui omnium ad se opes attraxerunt, onmibus liberis seruitu­tem moliti sunt? qui imper to reges, pe [...] unia ci [...]es de [...]l aliabant? [Page 101]were not the Popes enemies of Christians, which drew vnto them­selues the wealth of all, and endeuoured to oppresse all free men? which spoiled kings of their gouernement, and the subiects of their monie?

CHAP. XIIII. That the auncient Britans and English were not first conuerted to Popish religion.

LEt that abide in you, saith S. Iohn 1. epist. 2. which you haue heard from the beginning. so likewise we say, let vs abide in that faith, and let that faith abide in vs, that was first preached by the Apostles schollers and successors in this I­land, and let vs not be caried away by the poleshorne crew of the Pope to beleeue popish nouelties and fables. that the auncient Christians of this land whether Britans, English or Scots, were not conuerted to popish religion, that is now predominant in the kingdome of antichrist, we haue three most euident demonstrations to assure vs.

Frst those doctrines and grounds of Popery, which be­fore I haue mentioned, 1 will neuer be proued to haue beene taught by the first planters of Christian religion in this land. and very absurd it were to suppose them to haue beene the authors of those heresies, impieties and blasphemies, which are so rife in Popery. If S. Peter or S. Paul, or any of their schollers did plant religion heere, we must not thinke, that they taught one thing, and wrote another, or that the schol­lers preached otherwise then they had learned from their masters. If Ioseph of Arimathaea did first conuert the Britans, and Fugatius and Damianus confirme them in the faith, or if Austen the Monke and his fellowes did first conuert the Saxons or English; yet can it not bee shewed, that any one of these did teach, that the traditions of the church of Rome and holy scriptures were with equall affection to be recei­ued, or that the doctrine of Popish holy water, paschall lambes, tosaries, images and such like traditions, is the word [Page 102]of God, or that Christs true body is torne with teeth and receiued downe into the belly, and may be eaten of dogges and hogges, or that Christians are iustified by extreme vn­ction, or eating saltfish and redherrings vpon fridaies and fa­sting daies, or that incense is to be burnt to images, or the Sacrament adored for God, and caried about in procession, or the rest of the points of Popery before mentioned. either therfore let Parsons shew vs, that the seueral points of Pope­ry before touched were taught by S. Peter the Apostle, and Eleutherus, and Gregory Bishops of Rome; or else he must know, that whatsoeuer he fableth of his three supposed con­uersions, the same will make for the destruction of Popery, and the ouerthrow of the cause, which he mainteineth.

Secondly we are able to prooue, 2 that all these corruptions of doctrine, superstitious deuises, impieties, & blasphemies, which we refuse, haue beene receiued and established in the synagogue of Rome, not onely since the Apostles times, but also since the time of Eleutherius and Gregory the first. the idolatrous worship of images was first confirmed by the se­cond coūncell of Nice vnder the Empire of Irene, and by lit­tle and little brought into the Westerne church, being long oppugned by the bishops of France, Germany and Britain.

That the images of the crosse and Trinity should be wor­shipped with latria, was not allowed in that idolatrous coun­cell, but first taught by Thomas Aquinas and his followers, and grounded not vpon Gods word, but vpon this rule of Philosophy, that the same motion is directed to the image, and the thing imagined. which rule by him is mistaken, be­ing meant of the species or representation of things in our vnderstanding, and not of materiall images, that come not within our vnderstanding.

The Popes authority began to be established first by the rebellion of Gregory the second, and Gregory the third, that cau­sed Italy to reuolt from the Emperour vnder pretence of worship of images. and afterward the same was confirmed by Gregory the seuenth and his successors, that by force and violence ouerthrew the empire, and made way by the diuisi­ous [Page 106]of Christendome to the victories and conquests of the Turkes and Saracens. Boniface the third obteined of Phocas, that the church of Rome should be reputed head of other churches. Boniface the 9. as Theodoric à Niem in his booke of schisme testifieth, by fraude vsurped first the temporall go­uernment ouer the Citie and territorie of Rome, which be­fore that belonged either to the emperor, or to the citi­zens. and thus by fraud and violence the Pope made him­selfe great, and by little and little exalted himselfe in the church, and erected the kingdome of Antichrist.

The carnall eating and presence of Christs body in the sacrament was first decreed by Nicolas the second in the Chap. ego Berengarius. dist. 2. de consecrat. for there we read first, that Christs true body is handled with the hands of Priests, bro­ken and torne with the teeth of the faithfull. his words prescri­bed to Berengarius are, verum corpus & sanguinem domini nostri Iesu Christi esse & sensualiter non solum sacramentum, sed in veritate manibus sacerdotum tractari, frangi, & fidelium dentibus atteri.

Transubstantiation got reputation first by the decree of Innocent the 3. as we read in the chapter Firmiter. de sum. Trin. & fid. cath. for there he decreeth, that the bread is tran­substantiate into the body, and the wine into blood, by the power of God. but yet two inconueniences will heere fall out, if we yeeld to his words. for there he saith, that Christ is both the priest and the sacrifice, and that this transubstantiation is wrought by the power of God. whereof the first ouerthroweth the priesthood of the polshorne priests of Baal, the second doth take away the efficacie from these wordes, hoc est enim corpus meum, and hic est sanguis meus, and ascribeth all to the power of God absolutely.

In the conuenticle of Constance we finde it first resolued, that the accidents of bread and wine doe remaine without sub­iect, and that the Pope is Christs immediate vicar. and sess. 13. that although Christ did institute the eucharist in bread and wine, yet lay-men were onely to receine it vnder one kinde.

Auricular confession was established by Innocent the 3. [Page 104] in the chap. omnis vtriusque sexus. de poenit. & remiss. for be­fore that it was free to confesse, or not to confesse. the do­ctrine of confession was enlarged by the canonistes and schoole-men.

In the conuenticle of Florence we reade, that the forme of ordring masse-priestes, of popish confirmation and extreme vnction, and of other popish sacraments was then first setled by law. there also Purgatorie and the Popes supremacy was first enacted by force of law.

Clement the 6. in the chapter vnigenitus. extr. de poenit. & remis. did first deuise the treasure of indulgences. Boniface the 8. and Sixtus the 4. ordred the Popish Iubiley.

That the Pope is aboue the Councel, it was first decreed in the councel of Lateran vnder Leo the 10. who also begā first to thunder out his excommunications against M. Luther.

Finally the conuenticle of Trent gaue finall complement to the Popish doctrine of Traditions, of the Latine vulgar translation, of concupiscence, of formal iustification by cha­ritie and works, of seuen sacraments, of the sacrifice of the masse, of purgatorie and indulgences, of framing the ima­ges of God the Father and the holy Ghost, and the rest of their heresies and abuses. for what before the schoolemen had taught vainlie, that began now by the decrees of the Pope and his complices to be established, and held for law. then also the missals, breuiaries, offices and other rituall bookes began to be confirmed by the Popes authoritie.

Thirdly it is an easie matter to prooue, that the doctrine of S. Peter and of the times, wherein Ioseph of Arimathaea, Eleutherius and Gregory the first liued, is direct contrarie in diuers points to popish religion. S. Peter 1. ep. 2. exhorted all Christians to submit themselues to kings and gouernors. but the Pope commandeth subiects to rebell and take armes against princes, and excommunicateth such as refuse so to doe, as appeareth by the excommunication of Paul the 3. against king Henry the 8. and of Pius the fift against Queene Elizabeth: both which are extant in Sanders his libell de schismate. S. Peter 1. ep. 1. would haue Christians to trust per­fectly [Page 105]on gods grace. the Papists teach their disciples to distrust gods grace, and to doubt of their saluation, and to trust ra­ther in their owne works and merits. he saith we are not re­deemed with corruptible things, but with Christes most preci­ous blood. these teach, that men are redeemed after a sort by indulgences, and by the satisfaction and merites of Saints, to whom Bellarmine in his booke of indulgences doubteth not to giue the title of redeemers. S. Peter exhorteth Chri­stians to desire the sincere milke of Gods word, that they may grow thereby. the papistes barre men from hearing Gods word in tongues which they vnderstand, and send them to beleeue the traditions of the church of Rome, and the impure trash of the schoolemen, and the Popes decretales. he excludeth the lordship of Popes ouer Gods inheritance: these false teachers enforce it. he exhorteth vs to make our election sure: these fellowes teach, that Christians cannot be assured of their election or make it sure.

Ioseph of Arimathaea and the godly bishops, that liued in his time, and diuers hundred yeeres after him, continued, we doubt not, in the doctrine of the Apostles and Prophets. and therefore we may not thinke, that they taught, that Christ had a bodie inuisible or inpalpable, or that his body was in heauen and earth at one time, and yet not continued to it selfe, or that his soule was omnipotent or omniscient, or that Christians were to beleeue that dogges and hogges did eat Christs body, and yet that all the communicants, saue the Priest, were to be excluded from the cup of the new Te­stament, or that Christ is onely the meritorious cause of our iustification and saluation, and that formally we are iustified and saued by our owne workes, or that remission of sinnes cannot be obtained vnlesse we come to auricular confession, and haue the Masse-priests absolution, or that the Pope by his indulgences out of superfluous merits of Saints is able to deliuer soules from purgatory, or other popish heresies and wicked doctrines before mentioned. for these doctrines are contrarie to the holy scriptures, in which the summe of the Apostles preaching is conteined.

Gregory the first lib. 4. epist. 32. doth dislike the title of v­niuersall bishop, and calleth it sacrilegious and prophane. he doth also condemne the worship of images lib. 7. epist. 109. and lib. 9. epist. 9. and commendeth Serenus the bishop of Massi­lia for reproouing the adoration of images. neither doth he allow any more than the historicall vse of them. that Pur­gatory which Gregory the Dialogist speaketh of, differeth much from popish purgatory being rather designed for ve­niall sinnes, than for satisfaction for temporall paines after the fault remitted. lib. moral. 19. c. 16. hee sheweth that the bookes of the Machabees are not canonicall scriptures. and lib. 14. moral. c. 32. that Christs body is solide, and not like a spirit, and lib. 4. dial. c. 55. that things aboue in the eucha­rist are vnited to things below, summa imis consociantur. of which it followeth, that there is no such presence, as the Pa­pists imagine, nor any transubstantiation. for if the bodie of Christ residing aboue be vnited to things below, then is not Christs body included within the accidents of the host, nor is the bread and wine abolished.

Augustine the Monke brought with him a crosse, and the image of our sauiour in a table, and did sing litanies, as Bede testifieth lib. 1. hist. Angl. c. 25. but we doe not read, that hoe filled Churches with images, or that hee worshipped Christs image, or the crosse with latria, or that in his lita­nies he called vpon Saints or Angels. Bede saith they praied to God, litanias canentes &c. domino supplicabant.

If then we cannot find the points of popery, which we re­fuse, in the writings of the Apostles, or in any record men­tioning the doctrin of Ioseph of Arimathaea, Eleutherius, Gre­gory or Austen, but rather find them to bee opposite to their doctrine, and denised afterwards, then vnlesse we meane to remooue the ancient limits and bounds set downe to vs by our fa­thers, and to refuse the counsell of the holy ghost Prouerb. 22. wee may not returne to popery. forasmuch as the first conuerters of the inhabitants of this land were no authours nor fauourers of popish superstition, heresies, impieties and blasphemies.

CHAP. XV. That popish religion is most falsely termed Catholike religion, and Papists Catholickes.

CAtholicke religion, 1 as Vincentius Lirinensis in his com­monitory chap. 3. doth teach vs, is that, which alwaies hath beene beleeued, and of all Christians. wee are to hold, saith he, that which alwaies hath beene beleeued of all Christians. for that is properly Catholicke. but the faith of the Romish church conteined in the Popes decretales and disputes of the canonists and schoolemen hath not alwaies beene be­leeued of all Christians. their faith therfore is not catholike, the assumption is proued not onely by the nouelties of the decretales, glosses of Canonists and summes and resolutions of the schoole diuines, but also by the falsehood and con­trarieties of the doctrine therein conteined. Nicholas in his decretale ego Berengarius. de consecrat. dist. 2. teacheth, that Christs body sensually is handled with the hands of Priests and torne with teeth. but this is contrary to scriptures, fathers and truth. Innocent in the chapter firmiter. de sum. trinit. & fid. cath. saith, that the bread is transubstantiat into Christs body. which is false, for Christ saide of bread which hee tooke, this is my bodie. The Canonists honour the Pope as a God on earth, as the head, foundationmonah, rcand spouse of the Church. the schoolemen brabble one with another, and sometimes change their owne opinions. Bellarmine lib. 2. de purgat. c. 3. confesseth that Thomas Aquinas changed his opinion concerning the merit of soules in Purgatorie. most schoole-men build doctrines of faith vpon Philosophicall grounds, and vary both from scriptures and fathers in their doctrine of the diuine attributes, of Christs body and soule, of merits, of sacraments, and diuers other points. how then can we repute these doctrines to be catholike?

It is the Property of Catholikes, saith Vincentius Lirinensis commonit. c. 34. to keepe the doctrine committed to them, and [Page 108]left with them by the auncient fathers, and to auoid profane nouel­ties. but the doctrine of schoolemen concerning the diuine attributes, concerning the examples of the persons of the Trinitie brought by the master of sentences, the eating of Christs body by brute beasts, and diuers other points is ful of profanenesse and nouelties. their reasons also are more phi­losophicall and sophisticall, then Apostolicall. all the points in controuersie betwixt vs and them are mere nouelties, as the decretales, whereon they depend, declare.

Leo epist. 3 81. saith, that there is one true, only, perfect and inui­olable faith, whereto nothing can be added, and from which no­thing can bee taken. but vnto this faith the Popes haue ad­ded their determinations concerning traditions, the carnall reall presence of Christs body and blood in the sacrament of the Lords supper, transubstantiation, the communion vn­der one kind, the Popes vicarship generall, and vniuersall power, purgatory, indulgences, the worship of images, and diuers other pointes of doctrine. doth it not then appeare, that popery is nothing else but a corruption of doctrine comming in after the publication of the Christian Catholike faith, and added vnto it?

Furthermore as the Apostolike doctrine is catholike and vniuersall, 4 so hereticall opinions are particular, and peculi­ar to certaine sects, and persons, and times. but wee haue shewed, that Popery is nothing else, but a packe of old and new heresies.

Lastly by many particulars it may be proued, 5 that the do­ctrine of Papists hath neither beene taught at all times, nor imbraced of al christians, nor spred ouer al the world. which doth plainly declare, that neither the doctrine is catholike, nor the professors thereof truely termed Catholickes.

First they teach that the scriptures are an imperfect rule, 1 and vnsufficient without traditions, and speake lewdly of them calling them a nose of waxe, a killing and dead letter, a matter of strife, and what else they list to deuise in their reprochfull humours. but neuer did Catholickes so teach. the Apostle 2. Tim. 3. saith, they are able to make vs wise to saluation. and [Page 109]that they are giuen of God to make the man of God perfect. S. Augustine lib. 2. de doct. Christ. c. 9. saith, that all things necessarily belonging to faith or manners are conteined in plaine places of scriptures. the ancient fathers do euery where speake honorably of scriptures, and Ireney saith, it is the propertie of heretikes, when they are conuinced by scriptures to ac­cuse them.

Secondly, these are speciall points of Popery, 2 viz. that the Pope is the foundation, head, and spouse of the church: that his decretales concerning matters of faith are infallible: that vnwritten traditions are the word of God not written, and equall to scriptures: that the old Latine vulgar translation of the bible is authenticall. for the most of this is deliuered and determined in the conuenticle of Trent sess. 4. the rest is holden by the canonists, and the Popes proctors. these do­ctrines are contrarie to the wordes of the Apostle 1. Cor. 3. who sheweth vs, that no other foundation can be laid, but Christ Iesus: and Ephes. 2, where it is said that the faithfull are built vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Iesus Christ being the chiefe corner stone. Irenaeus lib. 3. aduers. haeres. c. 1. sheweth that the scriptures are the pillar and foundation of our faith. Chrysostome hom. 6. in Matth. saith the church is Hieru­salem, whose foundations are laid vpon the mountains of the scrip­tures. that the Pope should be the foundation of the church and not be subiect to error in determining matters of faith, is contrary both to scriptures and fathers, as I haue alrea­dy shewed in my bookes de pontifice Rom. the diuersitie and contrarietie of diuers editions of the old Latine vulgar tran­slation of the bible we haue proued heretofore. that it dif­fereth from the originall, it is apparent, and Arias Monta­nus, Erasmus, Caietan and diuers others acknowledge it. the fathers in matters of doubt send vs to the originals. the fals­hood of Romish traditions, & the repugnance betwixt them and scriptures I haue proued in my booke de scripturis a­gainst Bellarmine.

Thirdly, 3 the Papists allow no interpretations of scrip­tures against that sense, Cont. Trident. sess 4. which the church of Rome holdeth. con­tra [Page 110]eum sensum, quam tenuit, & tenet sancta mater ecclesia. and by the church they vnderstand the Pope principally. but that was neuer the opinion of Catholikes. nay the Pope and his followers allow diuers interpretations contrarie to the iudgement of all auncient fathers and catholikes. they be­leeue that these words of Christ, feede my sheepe, do properly belong to the Pope, and that thereby he hath power to de­pose Princes. these words Hiercm. 1. I haue appomted thee ouer nations and kingdomes, they transferre to the Pope. Boniface the 8. in the chap. vnam sanctam. extr. demaior & obed. doth there­of conclude, that the Pope hath power to iudge all earthly prin­ces. Innocent the 3. in the Chap. solitae. de maior. & obed. be­cause it is said, Genes. 1. that God made a greater and lesser light in the firmament, collecteth, that the Pope is aboue the empe­rour. Christ said, do this in remēbrance of me. they interpret it, as if Christ had said, offer vp my body and blood to my fa­ther, and do it in remembrance of Angels and Saints. Christ said, search the scriptures, and drinke yee all of this, which they expound, as if he had forbidden laie-men either to search scriptures, or to receiue the cup. They haue also infinite other such like peruerse interpretations of scriptures contra­rie to the exposition of Catholike fathers: and yet stiffle maintaine them.

4. Catholikes neuer allowed the legends of S. George. S. Christopher. S. Catherine, S. Vrsula, S. Cyprian the magician, and such legends, as the Papists reade in their churches pub­likely, and beleeue them as traditions of their Elders, and grounds of faith. the legend of S. George, of Cyricus & Iulit­ta, of Abgarus, and of the inuention of the crosse is condem­ned by Gelasius c. sancta Romana. dist. 15.

5. Tho. Aquin. opusc. cont. errores Graec. saith, it is a matter of faith to beleeue the determinatiō of tho Pope in matters belonging to saith or maners. a matter neuer beleeued by Catholikes.

6. Bellarmine and others say, that the Popes lawes doe bind vs in conscience. but this neuer entred into the thought of Catholikes. S. Iames. c. 4. saith, we haue only one lawgiuer and iudge, that can saue and destroy.

7. They beleeue, that images are to he made and wor­shipped: and consequently fil euery corner of their churches with images. they also thinke it lawfull to picture God the father like an old man, and the holy ghost in the figure of a doue. but the law of God expressely forbiddeth the wor­ship of grauen images, and all such similitudes. and Lactan­tius lib. 2. instil. c. 19. saith there is no religion, where such images are. S. Augustine de fid. & symbolo saith, that it is impi­ous to place the image of God in the church. tale simulachrum deo nefas est Christiano in templo collocare.

8. The Iebusites of Collem in their censure teach, that we are iustified by the law, and that our life and saluation doth con­sist therein. but the Apostle teacheth vs, that the law is the minister of death. and Irenaeus testifieth lib. 3. aduers. haeres. c. 20. that the law being spirituall doth only manifest sinne, and not kill it. and so doe Catholikes beleeue.

9. The conuenticle of Trent sess. 5. teacheth, that concupi­scence is not sinne in the regenerat: but the Apostle Rom. 7. sheweth the concupiscence is sinne. and all true Catholikes must needes confesse it, seeing it is forbidden by the law.

10 Bellarmine and his consorts beleeue, that all Christi­ans are able to performe the law perfectly. but Catholickes beleeue, that this sauoureth of Pelagianisme. for if they be able to performe the law of God perfectly, then may they liue without all sinne; which Augustine and Hierome in their disputes against the Pelagians declare to be heresie.

11 Papists beleeue, that the Pope is able to dispence with oathes, and to absolue subiects from their obedience and fe­alty to their Princes. but Catholickes assure themselues that it is impious to take Gods name in vaine, and to violate law­full oathes vpon the Popes, or any other mans warrant.

12 Papists teach, that the Virgin Mary was exempt from originall sinne, as we may perceiue by Bellarmine lib. 4. de a­miss. grat. c. 15. and by the decrerale of Sixtus 4. and this is the most common opinion. but Catholickes thinke contra­ry. for the Apostle Rom. 5. saith that through the offence of one, all men are subiect to condemnation.

13. They beleeue that the blessed virgins house was ca­ried out of Galiley into Dalmatia, and from thence into Ita­ly by the ministery of Angels, and that the same is now at Loreto. but Catholikes laugh at such fables, and esteeme the worship of her image there to be idolatrous.

14. They celebrate the feast of our Ladies conception, and of the assumption of her body into heauen, as appea­reth by their missals and breuiaries. but Catholickes drslike both, as grounded vpon apocryphall fables, and lying le­gends. S. Bernard epist. 174. speaking against the feast of her conception saith, she needed no false honours.

15. Catholickes neuer beleeued, that Christ had a body inuisible, impalpable, and not comprehended in a place. S. Augustine de essentia diuinitatis, saith, that Christ according to his humane nature is visible, corporal and local. but our aduer­saries teach, that his true body is in the sacrament, where it is neither seene, felt, nor circumscribed in a place.

16. They speake reuerentlie of Christs body, and hold it blasphemy to say, that the same may be cast into the fire, or eaten of dogs or hogs, or other brute beasts. but the Pa­pists doe not so much as goe about to cleare themselues of this blasphemy.

17 . They teach, that Christ had a body like to ours in all things, sin except. the Papists beleeue that his body is really in the sacrament, and conteined in the compasse of a conse­crated host, and that the same is inuisible, and able to pene­trat other solide bodies without the dissolution of their sub­stance. but such abodie no man euer yet had, nor by nature can haue.

18 . They beleeue, that euery body is continued to it self, or as Logicians call it, continua quanutas. but Papists beleeue, that Christs body is in heauen and earth, and euery altar, and yet not in the middle places: whereby it followeth, that Christs head in heauen is not continued to his feet being in a consecrated host in earth.

19. Vigilius lib. 4. cont. Eutych. saith, that Christs body be­ing now in heauen is not on earth, and that is the faith of Catho­lickes. [Page 113]but the false and pretended catholickes beleeue, that his body is both in heauen and earth, and diuers distant pla­ces at one time.

20. Catholickes beleeue, that Christ only is our redee­mer. for so the Apostle teacheth vs, Rom. 3.1. Cor. 1. and diuers other places. but Bellarmine in his first booke of in­dulgences teacheth vs, that saints and others may be called redeemers. all his consorts also teach, that the Pope by his indulgences redeemeth soules out of purgatorie.

21. Catholickes acknowledge that Christ is our iustice. for so the Apostle 1. Cor. 1. expresly saith. they beleeue also that we are iustified by faith in him, as we read Rom. 5. but Kellison in his suruey and his consorts teach, that he is onely the meritorious cause of our iustification, and that we are formal­ly iustified and saued by our owne workes.

22. Catholickes doubt not to make their election sure, and being iustified by faith haue peace with God, and are per­swaded that nothing shall separate them from the loue of God. for all this is Apostolike doctrine. but Papists teach their followers to doubt of their election, and of the grace of God towards them; and depriue them both of peace of consci­ence, and of all assurance of Gods grace.

23. Catholickes beleeue, that Christ was wounded for our transgressions, and that he hath borne our infirmities, and that by his stripes we are healed. for so the Prophet Isay cap. 53. teacheth vs. but the pretended popish catholickes do lash themselues, and hope by their owne stripes to heale their sinnes and to satisfie for them. and without this sa­tisfaction they beleeue, that no man can obteine remission of sinnes.

24. Catholickes euer spared their owne bodies. but cer­taine heretickes and idolaters did vsually afflict their bodies and lash themselues before their idols. in lashing of them­selues therefore the Papists imitate the Priests of Baal, and not true Catholickes.

25. Catholickes beleeue, that their sinnes are purged by the bloud of Christ, as we read Hebr. 1. but Papists beleeue [Page 114]that their sinnes are purged in purgatory, and by their owne satsifactions.

26. The Greekes to this day neuer beleeued Purgatory, neither doe any of the ancient fathers beleeue that after our sinnes are remitted, Christians are to satisfie for temporall paines, either in this life or in purgatory. the doctrine there­fore of purgatorie will neuer be proued Catholicke.

27. The Apostles and ancient fathers neuer knew nor heard of the doctrine and treasure of the Popes indulgences. this doctrine of Papists therefore is to bee abolished, as not Catholicke.

28. True Catholickes neuer beleeued, that Christians were iustified by mariage. the master of the sentences saith it is onely a remedy against sinne. but Papists hold they are iusti­fied by marriage, aswell as by other Sacraments.

29. The doctrine of the conuenticle of Florence concer­ning the forme of priesthood, popish confirmation, extreme vnction and their number of seuen sacraments cannot bee proued to be Catholicke.

3. . Bellarmine lib. 2. de effectu sacrament. c. 3. and other his consorts affirme, that Christians are instified by the sa­craments ex opere operato, or by their owne act and worke wrought. whereby it followeth, that they are iustified by greasing, crossing, and such like acts. but this doctrine is not catholicke. the Greekes to this day acknowledge no such doctrine nor is any such thing to bee found in ancient writers.

31. The Greekes to this day renounce the Popes supre­macy. the ancient fathers neuer heard of a triple crowned Pope, with a crossed slipper, and a guard of Suitzers. the doctrine therefore of the Popes generall vicarship taught by Bellarmine in his bookes de pontisice Rom. and by others is not Catholicke.

32. Papists teach, that some sinnes are done away by ho­ly water, and without repentance, and that such sinnes de­serue not death. but the Apostle Galat. 3. sheweth him to be accursed that abideth not in all the words of the law to doe [Page 115]them, and Rom. 6. saith, that the wages of sinne is death. this is also the faith of all Catholickes. but of the efficacy of holie water to doe awaie sinnes, true Catholickes say nothing.

33. Papists offer the sacrifice of the masse pro redemptione animarum suarum, for the redemption of their soules. but Ca­tholikes doe not hope for redemption, but by the sacrifice of Christ once offered vpon the crosse.

34. They make Christians eaters of mans flesh, and drin­kers of mans blood really and literally, as their words in the chapter, ego Berengarius. dist. 2. de consecrat. do import. but our Sauiour saith, that the spirit quickeneth, and Saint Augustine tract. 25. in loan. sheweth that Christs flesh is not to be recei­ued with our mouth or teeth. vt quid paras dentem, saith he, why doest thou prepare thy teeth?

35. They make their Priests creators of their creator, as Innocentius in his bookes de myster. missae, stella Clericorum, and Boner in his speech to the Priests in Queene Maries time in expresse words doe declare. but Christians and Ca­tholikes abhorre to heare Priests called creators, or God to be made a creature.

36. They make the Priest to intercede for Christs bodie and blood saying, supra quae propitio & sereno vultu respicer [...] digneris, &c. vpon which vouchsafe, saith the Priest speaking of Christs body and blood, to looke with a propitious and se­rene countenance. but true Catholikes do hope, that God will looke vpon them fauourably for the sacrifice once offred on the crosse by their Lord and Sauiour Christ Iesus.

38. They compare the sacrifice of Christs body & blood in the Masse with the sacrifice of Abel, that offered brute beastes: which no Catholike euer did.

39. They make God an intercessor to Saints, praying to him, that by the intercession of saints they may obteine their desires, and saying that God reueleth our thoughts to saints: which is farre from the doctrine and beleefe of Catholikes.

4. . True Catholikes neuer added these words & aterni, and mysterium sidei, to the words vsed by Christ in the conse­cration of the cuppe, as the Papists doe in the Masse.

41. True Catholikes beleeue, that Christ was once onlie offered to his father for the sinnes of the world. the Apostle Hebr. 9. saith that Christ was once offered to take away the sinnes of many. but the Papists say, that Christ offered himselfe twise, and that euery priest doth offer him vp, and cat him vp continually in the Masse.

42. True Catholikes neuer confessed their sinnes in the celebration of the Lords supper to the Virgin Mary, to Michael the Archangell, and to other Angels and Saints. let Kellison but name vs one Catholike father, that made such a confession, or els we must needes conclude, that he and his consorts be idolatrous Masse-priests.

43. True Catholikes neuer beleeued, that they could doe pennance by a procurato or atturnie, as the Papists beleeue they may.

44. Neither did they euer beleeue, that no Christians could be absolued from their sinnes without auricular con­fession, and the Priests absolution, as the false Romish Ca­tholikes doe.

45. The false catholikes beleeue that the Popes are the successours of Peter, but true Catholikes neuer beleeued or thought them to be successors of that holy apostle, that nei­ther taught nor administred the sacraments, and in liew of feeding, cause Christs sheepe to be massacred and killed.

46. True Catholikes are often persecuted, but perse­cute none. Optatus lib. 2. contr. Parmen. speaking of himselfe and his fellow catholikes, which of vs, saith he, hath persecu­ted any man? but the Papists like cruel wolues persecute all, that are not of their owne opinions.

47. Catholikes keepe their words and performe thehir promises, yea though it bee to their hindrance. Papistes teach, that faith is not to be kept with heretikes, and bur­ned Iohn Husse in the conuenticle of Constance contrarie to the emperors safe conduct and faithfull promise.

48. In the 13. session of the conuenticle of Trent the masse-priests curse al, that shal affirm, that the principall fruit of the eucharist is remission of sinnes: which falleth vpon al Ca­tholikes, [Page 117]that shall beleeue Christs words Matth. 26. this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for remissi­on of sinnes.

49. Christ taught true Catholickes to pray to the father in his name. neither euer do we read that true Catholickes did pray thus, aue maris stella, Dei mater alma, atque semper virgo, foelix coeli porta, solue vincula reis, profer lumen caecis. or that they hoped to come to heauen, or to haue remission of sinnes by the Virgin Maries praiers and intercession.

50. True Catholickes neuer said to a crucifixe of wood, thou hast redeemed vs, thou hast reconciled vs to thy father. nor did they pray to the crosse, as the Papists doe saying, ô crosse of Christ protect [...]m [...]. nay Ambrose de obitu Theodosij, sheweth, that Helen finding the crosse did not worship it, but Christ, that hanged vpon the crosse.

51. True Catholickes neuer consecrated anie paschall lambes, as the Masse-priests are prescribed to doe in their missals.

52. True Catholickes neuer said any Psalter in the honor of our Lady, nor repeated an hundred and fifty aue Maries, and after euery fifty aue Maries one creed, and after euerie tenne Aue Maries one Paternoster, as he Papists doe after the prescription of their ladies psalters and rosaries.

53. Neuer did true Catholikes deuise new religions, nor allow the swarmes and sects of Iebusites, Franciscans, Domi­nicans, and the filthy rable of Friers, which we see in the Romish church.

Finally all those deuises, trickes, fooleries, nouelties and impieties of Popery, which we refuse, were neuer admitted by true Catholikes, or allowed in the practise of Catholike religion.

CHAP. XVI. That Popish religion is not the auncient religion of the primitiue church.

ID verius quod prius, saith Tertullian lib. 4. contra Marcionem. that is true that is former, and that is former, that was from the beginning, and that was from the beginning, that came from the Apostles. Hierome also epist. 65. ad Pammach. & Ocean, said to a certaine newly vp-start teacher in his time, cur profers in medium, quod Petrus & Paulus edere noluerunt? why dost thou now bring foorth that, which neither Peter nor Paul would euer teach? if then Popish religion were that auncient religi­on, which the Apostles first published; then had the Papists cause to reioice, but if Popery be nothing els, but cockle, that hath beene by heretikes, and others the diuels mini­sters sowen in the Lords field since the first plantation of the Gospel, and if the principall points thereof prooue new de­uises brought in by the Pope and his complices many ages since the Apostles time, then I hope euery Christian will re­iect the same as nouelties, and Papists hereafter will blush to talke of antiquitie.

That Popish religion is not the auncient religion of the primitiue church, it may be proued, first by the grounds of Popery, that are of a later standing; next by the founders and cheese authors of this sect, that are not ancient; third­ly by the particular points of Popery, whose originall is found in later authors; and lastly by the repugnance be­twixt the doctrine of Popery, and Christian religion.

The principall grounds of Popery are the Popes decre­tales, 1 the acts of certain late councels, the disputes of school­men, and glosses and commentaries of the Popes cano­nists, and proctors. but the Popes decretales had no autho­ritie of law before the time of Gregory the ninth, who first published them, and authorized them, before his time Gratian and others had made diuers rapsodies and collecti­ons [Page 119]of the Popes decrees, but the canonistes themselues doe not allow them for law. beside that, not one of the Popes before the time of Gregory the 7. who is the first that tooke vpon him to giue law to the whole church, and whose epi­stles are first recorded in the great bullary, took vpon him to publish his decretales for lawes, if any decretales be set out before his time vnder the names of auncient bishops of Rome, the stile, arguments, simplicity, and fooleries contei­ned in them bewray them to be counterfet.

The Popes authority beganne to flourish about the times of Boniface the 3. who, as Platina saith, obteined of Phocas the Emperour, that the church of Rome should be called and holden the head of other churches.

The councell of Rome, that authorised the Popish real presence of Christs body and blood in the Sacrament was celebrated vnder Pope Nicolas the 2. some 1050. yeares af­ter Christ. the 2. Nicene Councell that established the worship of images in some sort, was assembled long before vnder the reigne of Irene; but the actes of the councell could not bee receiued in the Westerne church till long after, the councel of Lateran, that decreed transubstantiation, was assembled in the times of Innocentius the 3. the councell of Constance, that first brought in the communion vnder one kind, and the subsistence of accidents without subiect, was summoned about the yeare of our Lord 1414, the synode of Florence that first established the 7. sacraments, and beganne to talke of their formes, and confirmed the Popes supremacy and Purgatory, published her decrees about the yeare of our Lord 1439. the actes of the conuenticle of Trent, that made vp a complete body of Popery were confirmed by Pius the 4. in the yeare of our Lord 1564. and this is the antiquity of those conuenticles, that doe principallie confirme the do­ctrine of Popery.

The scholemen crept into the church about the yeare of our Lord 1200. the father of them al was Peter Lombard, that flourished some 1140. yeares after Christ.

The canonists began after the times of Gregory the ninth, [Page 118] [...] [Page 119] [...] [Page 120]that liued and flourished about the yeare of our Lord God 1230.

The chiefe founders of Popery were the Popes by their authority, the Cardinals by their counseill, the Monkes and Friers by their bookes and preaching, the Masse-priests by their massing and practising, the dinel himselfe by his craft, malice and violence. the Popes authority in ecclesiasticall canses was not great before the times of Boniface the third. nor in temporall matters before Gregory the seuenth. Boni­face the ninth, as Theodoric à Niem testifieth, by craft entered vpon the temporall inrisdiction of Rome. The cardinals were but parish priests vntill such time, as the Pope of a Priest be­came a Prince. the monkes in the West church are de­scended from Benet of Nursia that liued about the yeare of our Lord 530. the Friers arose out of the bottomlesse pit a­bout the yere of our Lord 1230. their first fathers were Fran­cis and Dominicke. the last brood of Friers flew abroad into the world vnder the leading of Ignatius Loyola, a lame soul­dier, anno Dom. 1540. the diuell being bound vp for a thou­sand yeere, counting from the time of Constantine, began to be loosed againe about the time of Innocent the third, and by all fraud to worke in the heads of Popes, Friers, Monkes and Masse-priests, and with violence to make opposition against all those, that preached the truth.

The foundation therefore of Poperie being so lately laid, and the chiefe founders thereof beginning to stirre so long after the times of the Apostles, and ancient fathers; it were great simplicitie, if we should affirme poperie to be ancient.

But the same doth most clearely appeare by the particu­lar doctrines of poperie, which the Popes factours main­taine against vs. first they hold that holy scriptures are im­perfect, and no sufficient rule of faith. Bellarmine lib. 4. de verbo Dei c, 12. affirmeth, that they are onely apart of the rule. but none but heretickes in ancient time did derogate from scriptures.

2. They teach, that holy scriptures and the traditions of the church are to be receiued with equall affection. but [Page 121]that was first determined in the 4. session of the conuenticle of Trent.

3. In that wicked conuenticle also they first determined, that the old Latine vulgar translation of the Bible should be authenticall.

4. That the bishop of Rome is souereigne iudge of al con­trouersies of religion, and the principall interpreter of scrip­tures, is a point taught of late, since Friers began to steele their faces with a double maske of impudency.

5. Before the late conuenticle of Trent wee neuer read, but that concupiscence was sinne both in the regenerat, and vnregenerat, as being contrary to the law of God.

6. Stapleton in his preface to his relection of doctrinall principles is the first man that euer taught, that wee heare God speaking in the Pope, and that the church is founded vpon his authoritie.

7. The first that euer called the Pope a God on the earth are the Popes canonists. they likewise began first to call him the head, and spouse of the church, an vniuer­sall bishop.

8. The Papists of late time only began to prohibit scrip­tures to be read publickely in vulgar tongues, and to repine at Gods people, that desire to reade them in those tongues. for the ancient fathers exhort men to reade scriptures.

9. Since Dioclesians time wee do not reade of any that burned bookes of scriptures besides Papists. neither did any since his time hold out his feet to be kissed.

10. Of late time Papists beleeue no Catholicke church, but that which is subiect to the bishop of Rome, whereas in time past the Catholicke church was held to bee dispersed through all nations, and not vniuersally subiected to other head, than Christ.

11. The Romish church now obserueth not the old ca­nons of the Apostles, as they are commonly called. ex 84. Apostolicis canonibus, sayth Medina de sacror. hom. continent. c. 105. quos Clemens Romanus pontifex & eorundem Apostolo­rum discipulus in vnum coegit, vix sex aut octo Latina Ecclesia [Page 122]nunc obseruat. Martin Perez also de tradit. part. 3. c. de autho­rit. cc. Apost. confesseth, that the Apostles canons now are not well obserued.

12. The ancient Christians did neuer confesse their sinnes to the blessed virgin, to S. Michael, to Peter and Paul, and other saints, as the Romish Masse-priests do.

13. Of late the Clerke at Masse hath taken vpon him to absolue the Priest, and to pray for him: a matter both strange and absurd.

14. The confession of the faith set out by Pius the fourth, concerning Romish traditions, instification by works, the seuen sacraments, the sacrifice of the masse, indulgences and such like points of Popery, was neuer heard of before the time of that wicked Pope.

15. The Papists can not shew, that any Christian before of late durst cut out the second commandement out of the first Table, as they haue presumed to do in their short Cate­chismes. This they did, knowing themselues to be guilty, in worshipping images, of the breach thereof.

16. The decree of Sixtus the fourth concerning the con­ception of the blessed virgin without originall sinne, is but a late deuice.

17. It is not long since the Papists taught, that veniall sinnes are done away with holy water.

18. He should be very shamelesse, that would say, that Christians in time past did whip themselues either going in procession, or before the crucifix, as now Papists doe, ho­ping to redeeme their sinnes with their owne blood.

19. Ancient Christians neuer beleeued, that it was sinne to transgresse the Popes lawes, as the resistance of the chur­ches of Asia against Victor, of the churches of Afrike against Sozimus and other Popes declare.

20. Of late time friers, especially the Capucins, haue atti­red themselues like chimney sweepers, & burners of houses.

21. The rules of monks and friers are diuers from the rules of Christian religion, and can not be elder then the or­ders of monkes and friers.

22. Gregory the seuenth, as Otho Frisingensis sayth, was the first that did excommunicate the Emperour, and taught that he had power to assoile subiects from the others of obe­dience to Princes.

23. The vse of priuate masses without communion is but new, as the old ordinall of Rome, that hath no masses of that nature declareth. the canons of the Apostles forbid Christians to depart before they receiued the communion.

24. Innocent the third in the chap. omnis vtrius (que). de poenit. & remiss. did first bring in a necessity of auricular confessi­on. he also was the first father of the monster transubstanti­ation, as we find by the chapter firmiter. de sum. Trinit. & fid. Cathol.

25. Purgatory for satisfaction for temporall paines of sinnes, whose guilt before was remitted, was first deuised by schoolemen.

26. The Iubiley among Christians was first deuised by Bo­niface the eigth. he also decreed first, that all temporall prin­ces and others vpon paine of damnation must bee subiect to the Pope.

27. Popish indulgences are but of a late stampe, and the schoole doctrine thereof much latter, the Papists themselues being as yet not fully resolued, what to thinke of them.

28. Clement the sixth, first deuised the treasure, out of which indulgences are supposed to be granted, as appeareth by the chap. vnigenitus. extr. depoenit. & remiss.

29. The doctrine of cases reserued to the Pope is not once spoken of in the writings of the fathers. and yet the Masse-priests make a great matter of them.

30. The doctrine of the Popes penitentiarie taxe for dispatch of pardons for murders, incest, sodomie and all villanies, I thinke, Kellison will not contend to bee verie ancient.

31. Bellarmines doctrine lib. 1. de verb. Dei. c. 3. concer­ning the new Testament, where he saith, it is nothing else, but the loue of God shed into our harts by the holy Ghost, is new. for it contradicteth Chrysostome, Theodoret, and others in 2. Cor. [Page 124]3. who teach that the new Testament is God grace remit­ting sinnes.

32. The prohibition of mariage betweene spirituall gos­sips is a late deuice of the Pope for gaine.

33. The separation of maried couples for religion before consummation of mariage, without consent of both the par­ties, is both new and wicked.

34. The popish ceremonies vsed in baptisme are of a late inuention, as for example salt, spittle, candles and po­pish exorcismes.

35. Of late they haue begun to exorcise salt in salutem credentium, for the saluation of the faithfull, and holy water to cast our Diuels, and to driue awaie discases. these consura­tions are not found in the old Romish ordinals.

36. The Masseppriests haue now gotten a new tricke to sprinkle the altar with holy water, and to say, thou shalt sprin­kle mee with hyssope, and I shalbe clensed: applying the scrip­tures contrary to the meaning of the holy ghost.

37. Honorius the third in the chapter, sane cum olim. de celebr. miss. did first ordaine, that the sacrament should bee worshipped, and safely kept, and caried with light to those that are sicke.

38. Halfe communions are direct contrary to Christs in­stitution, and the practise of the church; and first established in the conuenticle of Constance.

39. The Masse cannot be old, for that Nauclerus, Platina, Polydore and others confesse is was innented by diuers au­thors long after the Apostles times.

40. The praiers for the dead now found in the Masse are not to be seene in the booke called Ordo Romanus.

41. In old time the fathers neuer beleeued, that Christ had a body inuisible and incircumscriptible, and that might bee in heauen and earth and many places at one time.

42. The godly bishops of old time did neither swinge the chalice about their head, nor make crosses about it, when they celebrated the eucharist.

43. The saying of seruice and administration of Sa­craments [Page 125]in tongues not vnderstood is a foolish noueltie.

44. Now in the Roman Catechisme they teach, that euery Masse-priest consecrating worketh three miracles. but in old time they were neuer taken for such workers of miracles.

45. The Papists after their Pater noster, say their aue Ma­ria, and pray to our Lady. which practise is neither ancient, nor Apostolicall.

46. The Psalter of our Lady and her peculiar offices, and Masses in honour of Saints will not be iustified by anci­ent precedents.

47. Hardly will the Papists bring a precedent of 300. yeers old to prooue, that Christians praied to the crosse for encrease of iustice, and remission of sinnes.

48. In the missall of Sarum the Priest saith to the sacra­ment, aue, or haile, and boweth to it contrarie to all ancient practise.

49. The worship of Papists must needs be new, for that both their Saints are new, and their praiers and offices new.

50. The missals, breuiaries and offices of our Lady haue their antiquity from the conuenticle of Trent.

51. Popish idolaters worship the sacrament, and the crosse with diuine honour. but they shall neuer bring allowance of antiquitie for this practise.

52. They burne also incense to dumbe images kisse them and bow to them. but these vnchristian trickes were not knowen in old time.

53. Of late time they haue decreed, that the Pope is a­boue the councell. but it is since the councell of Constance.

54. Now the Pope pretendeth right to handle the tem­porall sword. but that did not the Bishops of Rome for a thousand yeeres after Christ.

55. Of late time the Pope hath troden vpon the necks of Emperours. but in ancient time the bishops of Rome were subiect to Emperours.

56. In time past the bishops of Rome were persecuted and martyred. now the Popes of late time persecute and mar­tyr others.

Finally all the points of doctrine differing from the faith o this church, which the Pope and his complices seeke now to thrust vpon Christians, are for the most part no­uelties.

And this doth clearely appeare in this, for that they are contrary to the doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles, as before hath beene particularly declared. the same is also coutrary to the doctrine of the fathers and ancient churches practise, as we shall declare heerafter.

Further the Papists haue turned the whole seruice of God into a massing mommery. Finally for God they worship Saints and dumbe images. the institution of Christ Iesus in the eucharist they haue altered. new sacraments they haue deuised. are they not then ashamed to call popery ancient Christian religion?

CHAP. XVII. That Poperic is repugnant to auncient councels.

MVch doc Papists bragge of councels. Campion saith the first, last, and midst are his. concilia generalia, mea sunt, generall councels, saith he, are all for me. thus saith Cam­pion, and great crackes doe others also make, when they come once to mention councels. but if councels doe make so much for the Popes cause, as these Popish agents prae­tend, what is the reason, why the Pope is so much afraid, when he doth but ouce he are the name of councels? Gaguine in Carolo 7. saith, that the Popes resuse to assemble generall councels, searing lest their large authority should be restrained by their decrees. Petrus de Alliaco also in his treatise de refor­mat. ecclesiae sheweth that many supposed, that the Popes were negligent in gathering councels, that they might more fully rule at their pleasure, and vsurpe the right of other churches. the au­thor also of the booke entitled onus Ecclesiae doth alledge the same reason, why councels were so slowly assembled. ex­perience certes teacheth vs, that nothing is more fearefull to [Page 127]the Pope, then the name of a lawfull and christian councell, Gregory the 12. and Petrus de Luna, as Theodorio à Niem te­stifieth, by all meanes delaied the assembly of a councel, and Martin the fifth, notwithstanding the decree of the councell of Constance for assembling councels from euery ten yeares to ten yeares, would no more heare of the matter. of late time Clement the 7. reiected the petition of diuers princes requiring a generall councell. and Paul the third would not yeeld to haue one, before such time as he had so setled his affaires, that no man should dare to speake the truth freely, or to touch his authority. Nay albeit Trent were no indiffe­rent place for vs; yet did not Iulius the third thinke him­selfe safe inough there, nor did he rest vntill such time, as he had remoued the councell to Bononic. lastly whatsoeuer they heere speake magnifically of the councell, yet otherwhere they say the Pope is aboue the councell, and that without his confirmation the actes of the councell are of no force. and so they bring the authority of councels to a low price.

But admit the authority of councels to be as great, as the Papists would haue them; yet neither doe they esteeme much of councels, nor doe councels make much for them.

For the time of assembling prouinciall councels we find diners canons. the councell of Nice c. 5. decreed, that pro­uniciall conncels should be assembled twise euery yeare. visum est per singulos annos in singulis prouincijs bis in anno concilium epis­coporum sieri. the like course we finde taken in the 20. ca­non of the councell of Antioch. but the Pope regardeth nei­ther. The councell of Constance sess. 39. an. 1417. decreed, that from thence foorth generall councels should be celebra­ted, vt amodò concilia generalia celebrentur: and that the first should beginne within siue yeares after the end of the coun­cell, the second 7. yeares after that, and that so from tenne yeares to tenne yeares councels should perpetually be cele­brated. deinceps de decennio in decennium perpetuò celebrentur. but the Popes haue made a scorne of this decree.

The cannons of the Apostles decree, that a bishop should be ordeined by two or three bishops. but the Pope suppli­eth [Page 128]the roome of Bishops oftentimes with Abbots & tituler bishops, as is proued by practise, & confessed in part by Bel­larmine. the sixth canon excommunicateth bishops and Priests, that vnder pretence of religion put away their wiues. the Masse-priests separate such violently from their wiues, and forbid men to marie vpon pretence of religious vowes.

The ninth and tenth canons determine them worthy to be excommunicated, which being present at the oblation of the eucharist doe not communicat. qui facta oblatione non communicauerint, and againe, qui sacram communionem non percipiunt. the Papists esteem them that heare masse only, good Christians, and doe little regard these canons.

The seuenteenth Canon pronounceth him vnworthie, nay vncapable to bee Bishop or Priest, that keepeth a con­cubine. which is a plaine sentence against most of the Ro­mish clergie.

The 28. canon forbiddeth Bishops and Priests to strike Christians offending. but popish prelats cut Christian mens throats, albeit they offend not.

The 36. canon prescribeth bishops their limits, and for­biddeth them to ordeine clerkes out of their iurisdicti­on. but this is not obserued by the Pope nor his compli­ces, that ordaine certaine Priests of Baal and send them for England, where they haue no iurisdiction.

The 83. canon deposeth him that shall vse reprochfull words against the Emperour, or Magistrate, qui imperato­rem aut magistratum contumelia affecerit. yet doe Popes raile vpon Emperours and Magistrates, that displease them, at their pleasure.

The 84. canon leaueth Iudith and Tobia & Wisedome out of the catalogue of holy bookes of scripture. the conuenti­cle of Trent reckoneth them in the canon as well as the best.

When diuers in the councell of Nice went about to pro­hibite the vse of wiues to Bishops Priests and Decons, Paph­nutius resisted their determination, and the synode consen­ted vnto him, as Socrates lib. 1. c. 8. Sozomen. lib. 1. hist. c. 22. Nicephorus lib. 8. hist. c. 9. doe testifie.

There it was determined also c. 5. that those, which by one bishop were excommunicated, should not bee receiued of others, vt hi qui ab alijs excommunicantur, ab alijs ad communi­onem non recipiantur. all which notwithstanding the Pope se­parateth married Priests from their w iues, & receiueth most infamous offenders being e xcommunicated, when they ap­peale to him.

The Pope also manifestly breaketh the 6. canon, which boundeth his iurisdiction, and giueth like iurisdiction to the bishop of Alexandria and Rome.

The 18. Canon forbiddeth clergy-men to follow filthy gaine, and to put out their mony to vsury. all which notwith­standing the Popes taske rents of publike whores at Rome, as is publikely knowen and testified to the world, and ordi­narily haue their b ankes of vsury called by them monti di pie­tà, where men may borow mony, at 12.10.8. and sixe in the hundred, as Onuphrius witnesseth in the liues of Iulius the 3. Paul the 4. and Pius the 4.

In the councell of Ancyra c. 10. deacons protesting, that they would mary, and could not conteine, were permitted to continue in the ministery aster mariage. hopostea si ad nuptias venerint, ma­neant in ministerio. the same councell c. 16. condemneth So­domits, that liue against reason to 15. yeares penance. and can. 20. putteth adulterers to 7. yeares penance; and c. 23 inflicteth vpon soothsaiers, or magicians 5. yeares penance. but the Pope, as he neglecteth the punishment of adulte­rers, Negromancers, & Sodomites, which in Rome and Ita­ly aboūd, as euery trauailer knoweth, that is acquainted with the manners of that country; so he forbiddeth the mariage of deacons, and separateth such, as mary, notwithstanding any protestation they can make.

The councell of Neocaesarea can. 2. condemneth her, that shall mary two brethren. yet doe the Papists accompt the mariage of Queene Catherine to prince Arthur and Henry the 8. King of England his brother lawfull, because the Pope dispensed with that mariage. so we see neither the Pope, nor his complices regard councels, if they make against their profit or pleasure.

Bishops, Priests, Deacons committing adultery, and pra­ctising vsury are greuously punished by the councell of Eli­beris. c. 18. and 20. but now these offences are common a­mong Masse-priests. and the Pope sheweth them by the chapter & si clerici. d [...] indicijs. and by his example, how little he regardeth the actes of councels against these sinns. in the same synode can. 34. Christiās, are forbidden to light candles in the churchyarde in the day time, and c. 36. to set vp pictures in Churches. cereos per diem saith the councell, placuit in coemi­terio non incendi. and againe placuit picturas in ecclesia esse non debere, ne quod colitur aut adoratur in parietibus deping atur. yet Papists do superstitiously set vp lightes in church yards, and fill their churches with images and pictures.

Those which accuse their brethrē falsly by the first councel of Arles c. 14. are shut from the communion to then dying day. de his qui accusant fratres suos, placuit saith the councell, cos vsij, ad exitum non comunicare. the same councel decreeth that no bishop should tread downe his fellow Bishop. yet the Popes and their complices doe hire parasites and scrrilous companions to traduce and falsely to accuse their brethren and all good bishops are now troden downe by the Pope.

The Councell of Gangra condemneth those that dispraise mariage, or doe taxe him that eateth flesh; or that despise the oblation of a maried priest, or make meetings without the church, qui extra ecclesiam scorsim conuentus cilebrat, or that take a pride in virginity, or vse peculiar habits, and despise those that vse common apparell, or depart from their parents vp­on praetence of religion. quicum (que) silij à parentibus praetextu diuini culius abscedunt. the same likewise condemneth those women, which cut their haire propter dminum cultum, for re­ligion sake; or that contrarie to scriptures and ecclesiasticall canons shall b ring in new precepts. but Papists despise mati­age as pollutions and fleshly life, and esteeme monkes that eate no flesh more holy and perfect then other Christians. they despise also the oblations of married Priests, & Monks and Friers haue their conuenticles apart. further the Masse­priests extoll their pretended virginity, and Monkes and [Page 131]Friers vse peculiar habits, and despise such as vse common apparrell. Children among them depart from their parents and creepe into monasteries, and nunnes cut their haire, when they vow to enter into religious houses. finally accor­ding to the diuersity of monkish sects they obserue diuers rules and precepts without warrant of holy scriptures or ec­clesiasticall canons, and doe many things contrarie to holy scriptures.

The second councel of Arles c. 23. pronounceth that Priest to be sacrilegious, that shall suffer men superstitiously to light candles, or to worship trees, fountaines, or stones: and those that worship such things are condemned as Infidels. and yet maste-priests suffer Christians at Candlemas, and in diuers processions to goe about with candles, and great pil­grimages are made by their followers to stockes, and stones, and welles after a paganicall fashion.

The councell of Laodicea c. 35. condemneth such as wor­ship Angels, or assemble together to honour them. and c. 36. that vse exorcismes or enchantments, or that read bookes in the church, that are not canonicall. the same excludeth the bookes of Tobia, Iudith, Wisedome, Ecclesiasticus and the Machabees out of the canon. the which acts forasmuch as they condemne the superstitious worship of Angels, the coniurations of Masse-priests in casting out of Diuels, and the reading of lying legendes, and the false canon of the conuenticle of Trent, are no more regarded by Papists, then as if there neuer had beene any such made.

The councell of Constantinople c. 2. restreineth the ambi­tion of Bishops, that began to stretch forth their hands to the diocesses of their neighbours, and c. 5. giueth the next place of dignity after the Bishop of Rome to the bishop of Constantinople. which also was confirmed by the authority of the councell of Chalcedon. that councell also addeth this rea­son, because Constantinople was called new Rome. but the pope neither regardeth the acts of this councell, nor the reasons thereof, but encrocheth vpon euery bishops iuris­diction, calling himselfe vniuersall bishop, and challenging [Page 132]his authority not from the priuiledge of the city, but from Christs institution.

The 3. councell of Carthage c. 24. decreeth, that nothing more be offered in the sacrament of the Lords body and blood, then he hath appointed, to wit bread and wine mingled with water. but this ouerthroweth the masse vtterly, wherein the Masse-priests say, they offer neither bread nor wine, but Christs body and blood. the same synode decreeth, that the bishop of the metropolitan see shall not be called the Prince of Priests, or cheefe priest, or any such title. which ouerthroweth the pride and arrogance of the Pope, that will needes be called the cheefe Priest, the head and monarch of the church, and o­ther farre more arrogant titles.

The formes of ordring Priests and deacons prescribed by the fathers of the fourth councell of Carthage the Popes complices in the synod of Florence haue quite altered. like­wise haue they abolished those canons of the councell, that concerne his house, apparell, study, preaching. nay they accompt him now a bishop sufficient, that preacheth not, if he be formally greased and apparelled. in the 100. canon women are forbidden to baptize. mulier baptizare non prae­sumat. the Popes decretales contrariwise allow women to baptize.

The fist councel of Carthage c. 14. reproueth altars erected by vaine reuclations and dreames: and it meaneth such, as are supposed to be made ouer some martirs reliques. but that is the case of many Popish altars, who are erected for the most part vpon supposall of reliques, and vaine dreames.

By the 4. canon of the first councell of Toledo it appea­reth, that subdeacons married wiues. the same synod con­demneth those, that receiue the eucharist and cat it not, and which beleeued Christ to haue an imaginarie body, such as that is, which the Papists suppose to be in the eucharist.

The councell of Mileuis, c. 22. forbiddeth appeales to Rome. ad transmarina qui putauerit appellandum à nullo infra Africam in communionem suscipiatur. this canon therefore cannot stand with the Popes supremacy.

The councell of Agatha c. 13. forbiddeth Nunnes to bee vailed before the age of forty yeares. the synagogue of Rome admitteth them before twenty, and few after forty. the same councell separateth the monasteries of men and women. the Papists put them neere together.

The councell of Orevge pronounceth them guilty of Pe­lagianisme, that say the liberty of the soule remained after the fall of Adam, and that a man can doe that, which is good of himselfe.

The 8. canon of the councell of Turon sheweth, that bi­shops had wiues & dwelt with them, although they are com­manded to vse them as sisters.

The 3. councell of Toledo was summoned by K. Recaredus, who by his authority proposed a forme of faith which was allowed by the councell. the same also followed the forme of the Easterne church. all which the synagogue of Rome now misliketh.

In the 6. synode the Emperour presided, as appeareth by diuers acts of that synode. there it was decreed c. 13. that Priests and Deacons should not bee separated from their wiues. that none should fast on Sundaies or Saturdaies in Lent. that Christ should not be painted in the similitude of a lambe; and that the communicants should receiue the sacrament with their hands. all which canons condemne the moderne practise of the synagogue of Rome.

The 2. Nicene councell saith, that God is not to bee formed. and Act. 7. that the crosse and other images are not to be wor­shipped with latria. which is direct contrary to the doctrine of Papists.

The councell of Lateran vnder Innocent the third, men­tioneth onely two sacraments in the chap. Firmiter. de sum. Trinit. & fid. Cath. there also somewhat is saide of pe­nance. but the same is not reckoned there as a sacrament.

If then later councels make sometime against Papists; lit­tle are they to hope for proofe of their heresies out of the first ancient councels. the popish sacrifice of the bodie and bloud of Christ conteined really in the eucharist, the com­munion [Page 134]vnder one kind, transubstantiation, the adoration of the sacrament, the Popes supreme power in dispensing a­gainst lawes, or rather in breaking lawes, the popish worship of images, Angels and Saints, and the rest of their heresies shall neuer be prooued out of ancient councels. but easilie may they be reprooued by them.

CHAP. XVIII. That Popery is not the faith of the ancient fathers of the Church.

TO handle this point fully would require a large volume. but we will onely alleadge a few arguments for proofe of our assertion, referring the Reader for the rest to our lar­ger disputes against the Papists, wherein we challenge them, that in no one point of faith in controuersie betwixt them and vs they iumpe with the fathers. and that may appeare in a generality first, for that in most points, and that of greatest difference they are destitute of fathers. as for example where they go about to proue the booke of Machabees and others not found in Hebrew, to bee equall to the bookes of the 4. Euangelists. that scriptures are to bee read publickely in a tongue not vnderstood of the hearers. that the Latin vulgar translation is more authenticall, than the originall bookes in Hebrew and Greeke. that Christs body may be both visi­ble and inuisible at one time, and is in many places also at once. that the body and bloud of Christ is really and car­nally conteined and offred for quick and dead in the masse. that Christians not consecrating are to receiue the commu­nion onely vnder one kind. that in purgatory soules satisfie for temporall paines of sinnes remitted. that the Pope by dispensing the merits of Saints by indulgences is able to de­liuer soules from the paines of purgatory. that charity is the forme of faith, and is that grace, that maketh vs acceptable to God, and diuers other doctrines of that nature.

Secondly they oftentimes acknowledge the fathers er­rors. [Page 135] Bellarmine de gratia primi hominis c. 16. taxeth Theodo­ret and Procopius for their opinion concerning the cheru­bim set for the guard of Paradise. haec opinio, saith he, tam est inepta & ridieula &c. like wise lib. 2. de concilijs c. 8. he repre­hendeth Irenaeus, Cyprian, Chrysostome, and Oecumenius. Ca­nus lib. 7. loc. theol. c. 7. rehearseth diuers of the fathers, and namely of those, which beleeued, that Adams soule was cre­ated before his body, and that Angels were created before the world, and that denied, that the soules of the faithfull doe see God before the last iudgement. generally they taxe Origen for diuers heresies and nouelties, Eusebius for fauou­ring Origen and Arius, Papias and Irenaeus for holding the he­resie of the Millenarians, Cyprian for rebaptizing heretickes, Hilary for teaching, that Christ in his passion felt not any paine, as wee may see in Lombard seut. lib. 3. dist. 15. Russine for maintaining both the errors of Origen and Pelagius. in these points therefore and such like they follow not the fa­thers by their owne confession.

Thirdly diuers bookes are published vnder the name of the fathers, that were neuer written by them. as for exam­ple the decretales that beare the names of the ancient Bi­shops of Rome, the canons of the Apostles, diuers actes of the Nicene councell, of the councell of Sinuessa, Neocaesarea, Rome vnder Syluester, and diuers others, the commentaries vpon Iob set out vnder the name of Origen, certaine treati­ses of Sion and Sina, and of the inuention of S. Iohn Baptists head, set out vnder the name of Cyprian, a sermon de assump­tione beatae Mariae, set out vnder the name of Hierome, diuers sermons and epistles set out vnder the name of Ambrose, Chryso­stome and other fathers, diuers legendes condemned by Ge­lasiu [...] c. sancta Romana. dist. 15. and some of these the ad­uersaries themselues deny not to be counterfet, as doth ap­peare by the censure of Gelasius aboue mentioned, of Eras­mus; Caietan, Sixtus Senensis, and other Popish writers. now they that bring foorth counterret and basterdly wri­tings of heretikes, and men vnlearned, in liew of the testi­monies of fathers, must first proue, that the writings alled­ged [Page 136]by them are authenticall before they can say, that they al­ledge fathers.

Fourthly the fathers were not all of one opinion. Chryso­stome homil. 18. in Genes. Nyssenus de creat. hommis c. 18. Hie­rome lib. 1. in Iouinianum and others suppose, that if Adam had not fallen, neither woman should haue beene subiect vnto man, nor should mankind haue beene propagated by mari­age. but S. Augustine lib. 14. de ciuit. dei. c. 21. and lib. 9. de Genes. ad lit. c. 3. and Eucherius and others are of a contrarie opinion. Hierome in c. 1. Eccles. and others doe hold, that Sa­lomon repented himselfe of his sinnes. Augustine in Psal. 126. thinketh otherwise. concerning the beginning of soules, and their estate also after this life the fathers are diuided. some thinke, that after diuorce the party innocent may marry, o­thers thinke contrary. great difference also there was in the beginning about the feast of Easter, the fast of Saturday, and Lent. these therefore that alledge a father or two, where the soundest and best learned thinke otherwise, cannot say, that fathers make for them.

Finally, albeit all the fathers should speake against the Pope, yet doe not the Papists value them at any thing. si to­tus mundus sententiaret contra Papam &c. if all the world should giue sentence against the Pope, saith a canonist, yet are we to stand to the Popes determination. commonly the Papists make as light accompt of fathers, as any men, if they speake a­gainst them. Caictan in the beginning of his commentaries vpon Genesis signifieth, that he goeth against the streame of the doctors in expounding scriptures. The Popes regard them not one straw, if they talke against their triple crowne, two swords, or glorious and pompous state, as may appeare by the light accompt made of S. Bernardes bookes de considera­tione ad Eugenium. all of them, if the Pope defineth other­wise, reiect the fathers with great facility. Bellarmme lib. 1. de verb. dei c. 3. declaring his opinion of the new testament departeth from the exposition of Chrysostome, Theodoret, and other fathers.

Generally in the accompt of the bookes of canonicall [Page 137]scriptures of the old testament, they reiect the testimony of Hierome in prologo Galeato, of Ruffine in the exposition of the Creede, of the councell of Laodicea c. 59. of Athanasius in sy­nopsi. of Gregory Nazaanzen in his verses, of Epiphanius lib. de ponderib. & mensuris, and diuers other fathers; and will haue the bookes of Tobiah, Iudith, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdome, and the Machabees to bee of equall authoritie with the law and the Gospell in despight of all the fathers.

Contrarie also to their opinion they preferre the old La­tine vulgar translation of the bible before the Hebrew text of the old, and the Greeke text of the new testament, that is, the standing puddles before the cleare fountaines of holie scriptures.

The fathers exhort Christians, the Papists dehort them from reading and hearing scriptures read in tongues vnder­stood. Origen homil. 2. in Isaiam wisheth, that all Christians would performe that, which our Sauiour Christ speaketh of searching scriptures. Hierome writing vpon the Coloss. c. 3. heere, saith he, it is shewed, that lay-men ought to haue the word of Christ, not only sufficiently, but also abundantly, and that they ought to teach and admonish one another. Ghrysostome also in his 9. homily in 1. ad Corinth. attend, saith he, as many of you, as are secular persons, and gouerne wife and children, how the Apo­stle doth command you also to read the scriptures aboue all, and that not lightlie and careleslie, but with great diligence.

That the Pope should be aboue all councels, it neuer en­tred into the fathers thought. nay all of them haue recourse in matters of doubt concerning faith, not to the decretales of Popes, but to the determination of generall councels, next after holy scriptures.

The bishop of Rome oftentimes consulted with learned fathers concerning the interpretation of scriptures, and no learned bishop did in time past attribute more to the bishop of Rome, then to other bishops. the Papists therefore ma­king the Pope that is often blind in matters of religion su­preme interpreter of scriptures, digresse from all the fathers, and haue not so much seuce heerein, as litle children, that [Page 138]know that blinde-men cannot iudge of colours.

The conuenticle of Trent determining, that traditions and holy scriptures are with equall affection to be receiued, digresse from all the fathers, that make not traditions, but the scrip­tures to be canonicall, and of sacred authority.

The Papists, that say, that scriptures are not authenticall to vs without the determination of the Pope, and Romish church are of an opinion contrary to all the fathers, who deriue their authoritie and credit from God, and not from man.

Bellarmine lib. 3. de eccles. c. 16. saith, that Hierome, Apol­linaris, and Hippolytus were deceiued in the exposition of the ninth chapter of Daniel concerning the times of Anti­christ.

In his 2. booke de Purgatorio c. 1. he reiecteth the opinion of Ambrose, Hilary, Lactantius, Hierome and Aleuinus, that teach, that as well good, as bad neede to be purged.

In the number of 7. Sacraments the conuenticle of Trent departeth from the opinion of all the fathers. for not one can be alledged, that saith there are iust 7. Sacraments, and neither more, nor lesse. Ambrose in his books de Sacramen­tis, and de initiandis in myster. mentioneth onely two. so doth Iustine Martyr long before him in his 2. apology. S. Au­gustine lib. 3. de doctr. Christ. c. 9. reckneth only the Sacra­ment of baptisme and of the body and blood of Christ, where he talketh of sacraments. he saith also, Christ left but few and easie. but Popish sacraments are many, and hard to be performed.

The fathers no where mention spittle, salt, blowing, light and such ceremonies, as the Pope hath added to baptisme.

These words this is my body, are expounded figuratiuely by Tertullian lib. 4. contr. Marcion. Origen in leuit. Chryso­stome homil. 46. in Ioan. Augustine contra Adimantum and lib. 3. de doctr. c. 16. & in comment. in psal. 3. but the Papists in this exposition forsake all the fathers.

Gregory dial. lib. 2. c. 43. willeth those to depart, that com­municate not. si quis non communicet, saith he, det locum. the [Page 139]Apostles canons doe excommunicate him, that departeth before communion. the same is also confirmed by the chap. si quis. dist. 2. de consecrat. the Masse-priests therefore in the practise of their priuate Masses depart from the canons of the Apostles, and all the fathers.

Innocentius the third, lib. 4. de myster. missae c. 6. thought that Christ consecrated without words. others beleeue, hee consecrated by praier. the moderne Papists reiect both.

Bellarmine lib. 4. de eucharist. c. 26. maketh the best proofe hee can for the communion vnder one kind. but it appea­reth by his silence, that the fathers are all aduerse to him.

Gelasius in the chap. comperimus. de consecrat. dist. 2. con­demned those of sacriledge, that receiuing one kind abstained from the cup. and Lyra in 1. Cor. 11. declareth, that in the primitiue Church all Christians receiued both kinds.

The fathers speaking of the sacrifices of Christians call them sacrifices of praise, and spirituall sacrifices, and signifie, that the eucharist is a commemoration of Christs only sacri­fice on the crosse. that is confirmed by the testimony of Iu­stin in dialog. cum Tryph. of Tertullian. lib. 4. contr. Mar­cion. of Eusebius lib. 1. de demonstr. euangel. of Cyprian aduers. Iudaos. c. 16. of Basil in Isaiae c. 1. and others. this is proued partly by the same authours, and by Chrysostome in Psal. 95. & in epist. ad Hebr. homil. 13. and Theodoret. in epist. ad Heb. c. 8. & 10. and by diuers others amplie cited by mee in my bookes de missa against Bellarmine. all which doe shew, that the Papists bringing an external and reall sacrifice of Christs body and bloud actually offered, as they teach, by euerie Masse-priest into the church, are departed quite from the doctrine of the fathers.

Canus lib. 7. loc. Theol. c. 1. confesseth that all the fathers, which speake of the Virgin Maries conception, teach that she was conceiued in originall sinne, as Ambrose in Psal. 118. ser. 6. Augustine in Psal. 34. Chrysostome, Eusebius Emissenus, Re­migius and others. yet most of the Popes proctors especiallie the Franciscans reiect these fathers.

The fathers with one confent teach, that we are not to fast [Page 140]between Easter and Pentecost, nor vpon Sundaies, as Bellar­mine de bon. oper. in part. c. 23, consesseth. yet doth he reiect their authority, and all Papists doe contrarie.

Leo in epist. ad Rusticum Narbonensem, and all the fathers almost denie publicke penance to Priests and Deacons fal­len into notorious crimes. but the popish faction regardeth them not one iote.

Bellarmine lib. 1. de eucharist. c. 11. saith, that Augustine did not well weigh these words of Luke, I will drinke no more of the fruit of the vine.

Augustine lib. 22. de ciuit. Dei c. 10. saith that Christians doe not worship martyrs, or erect remples in their honour. lib. 1. de morib. eccles. c. 3. he denieth that we are to adore any ereature. Hierome also ioineth with him in this opinion me­pist. ad Riparium. but the popish sect doth not regard what they say, nor followeth their doctrine.

Finally it were an easie matter to shew the fathers to bee aduerse to popery in all materiall controuersies. but what shall wee neede to doe it, seeing their late corruptions and false allegations of fathers doe plainlie testifie, that they doe not hope for victory, if the fathers may be truely alleadged? of late they haue set out indexes expurgatory teaching Prin­ters how to falsifie fathers. Sixtus Senensis inepist. ad Pium 5. ante biblioth. sanct. sheweth how that Pope had caused the fathers to bee purged, or rather corrupted. expurgari feci­sti omnium authorum catholicorum, saith he, & praecipuè vete­rum patrum scripta. Pameluts hath most shamefully corrup­ted Cyprian. and the like course all Papists take with the bookes of the fathers lately set foorth.

Somtime also they confesse the corruption of fathers. Ae­neas Sylu. lib. 1. de gest. concil. Basil. sheweth, how Popes stand vpon these words, vocaberis Cephas, and lanch into the deepe, and such like, neglecting the exposition of all the holy doctors. posthabitis omnino omnium sanctorum expositionibus. Alan Chartier saith, they reiect the holy doctrine of fathers. sanct [...] patrum doctrine reiectae & posthabitae sunt. Matth. Paris in Wilhelmo Conquest. speaking of Hildebrandes decree against [Page 141]maried Priests, saith, it was made without consideration, and a­gainst the iudgement of holy fathers, inconsiderato iudicio contra sanctorum patrum sententiam.

CHAP. XIX. That Popish religion was neuer testified by the blood of Christian martyrs.

STrange it were, if the martyrs of Christ should turne from Christ, and testifie for Antichrist. yet because the aduer­saries of truth doe boast of ancient martyrs, and Bristow in his 15. motiue doth place Martyrs, as setters foorth of the Popes glorious kingdome, we are briefly to shew, that the testification of Martyrs maketh nothing for popish religion. and that appeareth first, for that the Papists refuse to bee tried by the doctrine of the Apostles, which were principall Martyrs.

Secondly we haue shewed, that the principall points of Po­pery were neither taught, nor receiued during the time of the primitiue Martyrs, nor many ages after, and that ma­ny points now taught and receiued among Papists, were then refused as heresies.

Thirdly Papists adore idols and burne incense vnto them. but the ancient Martyrs were therefore martyred, & cruelly put to death, because they would not consent to the wor­ship of idols, nor burne incense to them.

Fourthly the practises of Papists declare, that they are more like to the heathen Emperors, and persecutors of Christians, then to the ancient martyrs of Christs church. for as they massacred Christians for maintenance of the A­postolike faith, so do the Popes and their complices massa­cre all that stand for the same. as they by sword and fire sought to vphold idolatry; so doe these. as they hated them deadly, which taught the true faith; so doe these.

Finally the confession of the faith published by Pius the fourth, and that doctrine, which the conuenticle of Trent [Page 142]hath of late confirmed, and commanded to be taught and beleeued, is in many points contrarie to the faith of anci­ent martyrs, and in all points of controuersie betwixt Pa­pists and vs vtterly vnknowne to them.

The holy Apostles commend scriptures, 1 and so doe anci­ent martyrs. but Papists accuse them of insufficiencie, ob­scuritie, flexibility, and call them a nose of waxe, and a killing letter.

Ancient martyrs were burned and put to death, 2 because they would not deliuer holy scriptures to be burnt. the Pa­pists doe burne scriptures, and suspect such for heretikes as reade them in vulgar tongues.

The Apostles and Primitiue martyrs beleeued the scrip­tures, because they came from God. 3 the Papists will not haue scriptures to bee belecued, vnlesse they be deliuered by the Pope.

They taught neither heresie, 4 nor impiety, nor noueltie. but Popish religion, as before is declared, is full of heresies, impieties, nouelties.

In ancient time the Bishops of Rome were martyrs. now those, 5 that call themselues their successors, doe murder Gods Saints, and make them martyrs.

Ancient martyrs taught, 6 that one God was to bee ado­red. the Papists giue diuine honour to the crosse and cru­cifixe, and call the Sacrament, their Lord and God.

Ancient martyrs did breake downe images. now the Pa­pists erect them, 7 fall downe before them, and worship them.

Finally ancient martyrs neuer beleeued, that either doggs or hogs could eate Christs body, 8 or that the same was in a­ny place, where it could neither be felt nor seene, or that the same was both in heauen, and earth, and euery pixe at one time, or that bread is transubstātiated into Christs body, or that Christians do with their teeth eate mans flesh, or with their throats swallow mans blood, or that the bishop of Rome is lord and monarch of the church, or that he can fetch souls out of Purgatorie, or that there is a treasure of Saints me­rites, out of which indulgences are granted, or that Christi­ans [Page 143]are iustified by extreme vnction, or eating fish, and such like Popish deuises.

Neither is it materiall, that these holy martyrs are put in Popish calenders. for the Iewes bragged of their father A­braham, and adorned the sepulchers of the Prophets, al­though they neither abode in the faith of Abraham, nor fol­lowed the doctrine of the Prophets.

Further, Bristow telleth vs, that S. Stephen helped all those, that sought vnto him. but his proofes are drawne out of le­gendes, and certeine counterset sermons of S. Augustine. in his 22. chapter de ciuit. dei. c. 8. there is no such matter; and yet these reports, that are there inserted seeme to be none of S. Augustines. but suppose certein superstitious persōs should pray to S. Stephen; yet S. Stephen neuer taught them so to do, nor allowed such formes of praiers.

Lastly he talketh of Fisher, More, the Charterhouse monks, and diuers that died in king Henry the 8. & the late Queens reigne for the Popes cause, and telleth vs, that they were of his religion. but it is first denied, that they were martyrs, and next that Fisher, and More, were of the moderne Romish religion. the first is proued, for that they died for the Pope, and not for Christ. Secondly they died as traitors, either by open rebellion, or by ouert act oppugning the Princes au­thoritie. the second is euident, for that diuers of them died before the conuenticle of Trent, which hath now published a new forme of faith, and decreed many things, which then were not knowen nor beleeued as matters of faith. these fel­lowes therefore are liker the Martyrian heretikes, then to Christs martyrs. and if they be honored of any, it is of re­bels, leaguers, and traitors combined with the Pope, and forrein enemies against their Prince and countrie. so likewise the Circūcellions were honored of their consorts, as martyrs. yet Augustine epist. 58. speaking of them saith, they liued as robbers, and were honored as martyrs. viuebant vt latrones, ho­norabantur vt martyres.

CHAP. XX. That Popery is a meere humane deuise, and not in any sort to be deduced or proued out of holy scriptures.

In matters of religion we are diligently to take heede, that we passe not beyond the commandements of God, vpon whose word only all true religion is founded. Whatsoeuer I command you, saith Moyses Deut. 12. take heede you doe it. you shall put nothing thereto, nor take ought therefrom. our Sauiour Christ Matth. 15. telleth vs, that they worship God in vaine, that teach for doctrines mens precepts. finally the apostle Coloss. 2. condemneth [...], or voluntary worship taken vp by men without warrant: and well doth the old Latine inter­preter of the bible translate that word, superstition. let vs then a litle consider, whether Popish religion be deriued out of holy scriptures, or else bee onlie a packe of humane deuises.

The masse, as our aduersaries themselues confesse, was fra­med at seuerall times, and by diuers authors. Polydore de in­uentorib. lib. 5. c. 10. saith, S. Peter after consecration vsed only the Lords prayer, and that S. Iames, and S. Basil did encrease the mysteries. out of Walasridus, Platina, Naucler and others we reade, that Caelestine made the introit beginning iudica me deus, that Damasus added the confession said by the Priest, and Gregory the Antiphona, and Kyris eleeson, and Telesp ho­rus Gloria in excelsis, and Gelasius certaine oraysons or clau­ses of oray sons, and the praier te igitur, and Syricius com­municantes. and so we see how it was peeced by little and litle.

In the consecration of the cuppe they haue added to the words of our Sauiour the words & aeterni, and mysterium fidei. Innocentius c. cum Marthae. de celebrat. missar. saith first, that they were added by the Apostles, albeit not found in the go­spell. as if it were not a simple matter to thinke that they did not write, that which they thought sufficient. he saith again, [Page 145]that they are proued out of the words of the Gospel. but his proofes are ridiculous. for he must shew that these words were vsed, where they are placed: which he doth not so much as once endeuor to doe.

The Masses in honour of Saints and Angels are deui­sed by men, and that very lately. Thomas Aquinas, as is said, deuised the office said on corpus Christi day. who deuised the masses and offices said in honour of S. Francis and S. Dominicke and other late Saints, the Papists themselues doe not know.

The Psalter of our Lady, as some thinke, was deuised by Bonauenture. her Offices are of a latter stampe. all are meere humane deuises without any ground of scripture.

That Priests offer Christ to his father for the sinnes of quicke and dead, nay for sicke horses and pigges, and what­soeuer necessities else can be imagined, is a deuise of man, and no way to be iustified by Christs institution.

Christ instituting baptisme said, baptize: and not spit, and salt, and grease, and light candles. he said also to his Disci­ples being present, take and eate: and not gape and gaze. the ceremonies therefore vsed in baptisme, and in the masse by Papists proceed not out of Gods word.

It is also a meere humane deuise that no Priest may say Masse without water and fire, and is prescribed, not by e­uangelicall authority, but by the Pope in the chap. literas tu­as. de celebrat. missar.

The worship of the sacrament, and the custody thereof in a pixe dependeth on the decretale Sane cum olim. de cele­brat. miss. and was first brought in, and inuented by Honori­us the third.

The practise of Priests in saying canonicall houres com­meth from no canon of scripture, but from the constitution presbyter. de celebrat. missar.

In ancient time the reliques of martyrs were buried in the ground, and might not be touched. but humane curiosity hath thought it better now to dig them out of the ground, and to place them in the altar, and to worship them, and that [Page 146]without any instruction or direction of holy scriptures.

Popish litanies, wherein Papists pray to Angels & Saints, and sometime to those which are no Saints, are diuers from the formes of praiers prescribed in scriptures: and lately brought in by the deuise of superstitious Monkes, Friers, and Masse-priests.

Benet, Francis, Dominicke and other authors of feined religions, tooke not their rules from the Gospel, but thought they could frame a more perfect religion then the Gospell.

The Popes triple crowne, guard of Suizzers, crossed slip­per, and such like deuises will hardly be found in the writings of the Apostles. S. Peter certes neuer wore any such crown, nor had any such guard.

Where they praie to the crosse in the breuiarie and say, increase righteousnesse in the godly, and grant pardon to sinners, they doe it of their owne head, and shall neuer find any such praier in scriptures.

Boniface the eight first ordeined the feast of the Iubiley, and Clement the fifth appointed the feast of corpus Christi. but if you aske their warrant, they will shew you some other authority, than from the Apostles.

Sixtus quartus ordained the feast of our Ladies concep­tion, and another Pope of her assumption: but both vpon false grounds, supposing that she was conceiued without sin, and that her bodie was taken vp into heauen. they maintain the same also by lies and apocryphall fables.

Finallie it is an easie matter to shew, that the formes and signes of popish confirmation, extreme vnction, and other new made sacraments are prescribed by Popes and their ad­herents, without warrant of holy scripture.

CHAP. XXI. That popish religion in diuers points is directly contrary to holy scriptures.

NEither is popery only destitute of warrant out of scrip­tures, but also directly contrarie in some points to holy [Page 147]scriptures. In the law Deut. 12. we are expressely forbidden to adde to the law of God, or to take from it. The Papists offend both waies. for to the lawes of God they adde the precepts of the Romish church and decretales of Popes, and say they binde the conscience. they doe also cut out the se­cond commandement concerning the worship of images, as their short catechismes and primers doe testifie, and by false interpretations corrupt Gods law.

In the first commandement we are forbidden to haue o­ther Gods beside the God of heauen and earth. but the Masse-priests, as before is declared, call the sacrament their Lord and God, and honour the Pope as a God on earth, and giue diuine honour to creatures: which is as much as if they should expresselie command their followers to haue o­ther gods.

The law forbiddeth vs to make grauen images and simili­tudes, to the intent to worship them. the Pope comman­deth his followers to make them, and to worship them, and burneth such as teach contrary.

The Apostle calleth concupiscence in himselfe sinne. the Masse-priests of Trent denie it to bee sinne in the rege­nerate.

Our Sauiour in the fifth of Iohn commanded his follow­ers to search the scriptures. these followers of Antichrist for­bid Christians to search the scriptures translated into vulgar tongues without licence.

At his last supper after the blessing he said, take and eate. but these good fellowes say, gape and gaze on the Priest saying masse, and eate not, but rather keepe the sacrament in the pixe.

He said, doe this in remembrance of me. they doe it in re­membrance of Angels and Saints, and obserue not that forme which hee prescribed.

The Apostles of Christ did receiue and eate the sacra­ment. the false Apostles of Antichrist commaund their schollers to heaue it, to adore it, and to carrie it about in procession.

In the conuenticle of Constance the Popes adherents esta­blish the communion vnder one kind, and where Christ said, drinke yee all of this, they say, drinke not all of this.

Christ taught his Disciples to pray to his father, and to say Pater noster. they teach their Disciples to praie to our Lady, and to say, mater nostra, or at least mater miscricordie.

God in the 50. Psalme saith, inuoca me, call vpon mee. and the Apostle 1. Tim. 2. sheweth, that there is but one onely mediator betwixt God and man. they teach vs to call vpon Saints, and say they are our intercessours.

When S. Iohn Apocalyps. 22. would haue worshipped the Angell, he said to him, see thou doe it not. these say, see thou doe it.

The Apostle 1. Cor. 14. commandeth him that speaketh in a strange tongue, or that is not vnderstood to keepe silence in the Church. he addeth, that praiers in a strange tongue, or without vnderstanning are without fruit. but the Romanists contrarie do enioine their Priests to reade scriptures, and to say seruice in Latine, which of the vulgar sort is not vnder­stood. Coster in his Enchir c. de precibus latinè recitandis saith, that he that praieth in Lattin, albeit he vnderstand not what he praieth, receiueth fruit by his praier. hune tertium fructum (o­rationis) non minus percipit, saith hee, qui non intellecta àse lin­gua precatur, quàm qui verborum intelligentiam assequitur.

S. Paul 2. Tim. 3. teacheth vs, that scriptures are able to make the man of God perfect. Bellarmine lib. 4. de verbo Dei, saith, they are imperfect, and insufficient without traditions.

The Apostle Hebr. 1. saith God spake by the Prophets. and this is to be vnderstood, when the holy Prophets deliuered scriptures to Gods people. Staple ton de author. eccles. in di­uers places denieth, that God speaketh in scriptures. and his meaning is, that he speaketh in the Pope.

Both Prophets and Apostles teach, that the iust shall liue by faith. but the Masse-priests say faith of it selfe is dead, and that the life and forme thereof is charity.

The Scripture saith, it is better to marrie than to burne. the Papists teach that it is better to burne with [Page 149]lust then to marrie after the vow made of single life.

The Apostle 1. Tim. 3. will haue a bishop chosen, that is the hush and of one wise. and Hebr. 13. saith, that mariage is honourable among all. the Papists admit no maried men liuing with their wiues to be bishops, and count marriage in Priests pollution.

The Apostle saith, the law is the ministration of death, and that by the workes of the law no flesh is iustified. the Masse­priests teach their followers, to seeke for life in the law, and by the workes thereof say, that all the faithfull are to bee iustified.

Finally, poperie in effect is nothing else but a contradi­ction in most things to the words of holy scripture.

CHAP. XXII. That the founders and defenders of popery doe most wickedly abuse holy scriptures.

ALl which notwithstanding, the Papists for proofe of their false doctrines doe alleadge scriptures; but yet so, as any man may see, if hee be not wilfully blind, that they wickedly abuse scriptures, and wrest them contrarie to their true sense and meaning. Auentinus lib. 7. annal. Boior. speak­ing of Gregory the seuenth, saith, he forced the scriptures to serue his purpose by false interpretations. diuinas scripturas falsò inter­pretando s [...]e causae seruire coegit. and Aeneas Syluius lib. 1. de gest. concil. Basil. speaking of other Popes saith, they expound the words of Christ, not as the meaning of the holy ghost requi­reth, but according to their owne humor. verba Christi, non prout sensus sancti spiritus exposcit, sed suopte ingenio interpre­tantur. so in times past false teachers, as S. Peter testifieth, 2. Pet. 3. peruerted scriptures to their owne destruction. and I would to God, that it were to their owne destruction only. but helas! such seducers destroy both themselues and their credulous followers.

Innocentius 3. c. solitae. de maior. & obed. expoundeth these [Page 150]words Hieremy 1. behold I haue placed thee ouer nations and kingdoms: of the Pope, as if the holy Ghost had appointed him ouer Nations and kingdomes, and made him superior to the emperor; whereas he seemeth rather to be appointed by the diuell then the holy Ghost.

Likewise these words Genes. 1. God made two great lights in the firmament of heauen, the greater to rule the day, the lesser to rule the night: he supposeth to be meant of the Pope and Emperor, as if the Pope were the great light ruling by day, and the Emperor the lesse light ruling by night.

In the chapter nouit de iudicijs. he doth vnderstand these words Deut. 1. thou shalt iudge the great, as the small; neither shalt thou accept any mans person: of the Pope, and of kings, as if by the law of God the Pope were made iudge of kings, and were as well to ouerrule them, as the most contempti­ble Masse-priest of his owne rascall retinue.

Againe where we read 1. cor. 5: that the seruant standeth or falleth to his owne master, he concludeth in the chapt. nimis. de iureiurando, that lay-men are not to compell clerkes to take oathes before them, as if all clerkes were the Popes slaues, and to fall downe before him, and to serue him.

Clement the fift. c. si dominum. de reliq. & venerat. sanct. out of these words, praise God in his Saints, concludeth, that we are to keepe the feast of Corpus Christi day.

Boniface the 8. extr. de maior. & obed. c. vnam sanctam. concludeth, that the Pope is aboue all men, because we read Genes. 1. that in the beginning, and not in the beginnings, God made heauen and earth. as if the Pope were the beginning mentioned in that place.

Likewise of these words 1. Cor. 2. the spirituall man iudgeth all, and is iudged of none: he concludeth very wisely, that the Pope is iudge of all men, and not to be iudged of any.

Againe where we read in the Gospell, behold heere are two swords: he presumeth the meaning of those words to be, that the Pope hath two swords. he doth also in the same place abuse the words of God Hierem. 1. ecce constitut te ho­die [Page 151]super gentes & regna, in the same manner that Innocentius did, as is shewed before.

In the chapt. per venerabilem. qui filij sunt legitimi. Innocen­tius concludeth that Deuteronomy is to be obserued of Chri­stans, because Deuteronomium importeth as much, as the second law.

By the place which the Lord hath chosen, spoken of Deut. 17. he vnderstandeth the Popes see. locus quem elegit dominus A­postolicasedes esse cognoscitur, saith he.

By the priests of the stocke of Leui he vnderstandeth the Cardinals. his words are these, sunt sacerdotes leuitic [...] generis fratres nostri.

Vocaberis Cephas, id est, caput. thou shalt be called Cephas, that is, a head, saith Anacletus in a certaine decretale epistle. and c. sacrosancta, dist. 22.

Suscitabo super eos pastorem vnum, saith God by his prophet Ezech. c. 34. that is, I will set ouer them a shepherd. and he prophecieth of Christ. but Turrecremata lib. 2. sum. c. 2. ap­plieth these words to the Pope.

The priest sprinkling himselfe and the altar with holy wa­ter, as is conteined in the missale in the consecration of ho­ly water, saith, thou shalt sprinkle me o Lord with hysope, and I shall be cleane, as if the Prophet had prophesied of holie water.

When a church is consecrated the Bishop without saith, attollite principes portas vestras, and then answereth a certein quidamet fellow within, quis est ille rex gloriae? and then out steppeth a fellow with a mitre, and saith, I am the king of glo­ry. thus doe they play with the words of holy scripture, and blasphemously applie the words spoken of Christ to a mum­ming Masse-priest.

Alexander the third, treading vpon the Emperours necke vttered these words of the 91. Psalme to his disgrace, thou shalt walke vpon the Lion and Aspe: and Boniface the eigth, for these words, remember man that thou art dust, said to the bi­shop of Genua, remember man thou art Gibelline, and with them thou shalt be beaten to dust.

The canonists in the chapter translato. c. de constitutionibus, beleeue, that the Pope hath power to make lawes, because the Apòstle saith translato sacerdotio, necesse est vt legis transla­tio siat. but in these words the Apostle speaketh not of the Pope, but of Christ and his priesthood.

Turrecremata lib. 1. sum. c. 90. finding these words 2. King. 7. I will establish the seate of his kingdome for euer: imagineth, that this prophecy sheweth, how the Popes kingdome shall endure for euer. and lib. 2. sum. c. 80. by the faithfull seruant set ouer the whole family, Luke 22. hee vnderstandeth the Pope, which as hee saith, is set ouer the whole Church. and lib. 1. c. 8. expounding these words Apocalyps. 4. sedes po­sita est in coelo, & supra sedem sedens, & in circuitu eius sedil [...] 24. & super thronos 24. seniores. by the seat he vnderstandeth the Popes see, and by heauen the church of Rome, and by him that sate vpon the seat, the Pope; and by the 24. elders, the Cardinals.

Isay 40. we reade quis appendit tribus digitis molem terrae: and by these words Hosites confess. Petricou. c. 10. supposeth to bee meant, that the signe of the crosse is to bee made with three singers.

Bellarmine in his preface vnto his booke de Pontif. Rom. doth wrest the words of scripture spoken of Christ the cor­ner stone laid in the foundation of the Church, and draw­eth them most impudently to the Pope.

These words of the Prophet, adducentur regi virgines post eam, which are meant of the church, the synagogue of Rome in their missal vpon the feast of S. Catherine wrest so, as if they had beene meant of her.

On the feast of Clement, in their missall they apply these words, thou art a Priest for euer according to the order of Mel­chisedech, to Clement.

On the feast of Cecilia likewise in the missall these words, audi filia & vide, & inclina aurem tuam &c. which are spoken of the church, they applie to Cecilia.

These words, ego ex ore altissims prodiui, primogenita ante omnem creatur [...], they applie in their breuiaries to the Vir­gin [Page 153] Mary, as if she were the first borne before all creatures.

Thus it were an easie matter to bring infinite examples out of the bookes of our aduersaries, and to make it appa­rent, that they make no conscience of wresting scriptures. but these are sufficient for this first taste.

CHAP. XXIII. That the Pope and the principall proctours of his cause are great forgers and falsifiers of fa­thers, profane writers, and of publicke records.

SEing then they make so little scruple to wrest the words of holy scriptures, wee may not thinke, that our aduer­saries will be scrupulous in falsifying either publicke records, or the writings of the fathers and other authors. for first wee find diuers counterfet writings auouched by them, which were neuer written by those, who are pretended to be the au­thours. vnder the names of the Apostles they haue set forth canons, which conteine diuers errors. in the 46. canon they condemne the baptisme of heretickes. in the 84. canon Ez­dras and Nehemias is omitted, and Clements epistles put a­mong canonicall scriptures. Leo c. Clementis. dist. 16. and Isidore c. canones. in the same distinction, and Gelasius. c. san­cta Romana. dist. 15. doe reckon them among apocryphall writings; which they would not doe, vnlesse they were counterfet.

2. They haue also falsified the acts of councels. of the acts of the councell of Sinuessa, Peter Crabbe setteth out 3. copies neuer a one agreeing with the other. the stile is so simple, that it can no way agree with the forme of speech of those times. the like falsitie is committed in the acts of the councell of Rome supposed to bee assembled vnder Syluester.

Russine reporteth onely 20. canons made in the councell of Nice, and Stephen bishop of Rome c. viginti. dist. 16. con­firmeth [Page 154]his saying. but Gratian vnder colour of the autho­rity of Athanasius saith there are 70. as appeareth by the chap. septuagint. dist. 16. now one Alphonsus of Pisa a Iebusite, hath published 80. canons of that councell translates, as he saith, out of Arabicke.

In the sixth councel of Carthage, Sozimus bishop of Rome was conuicted manifestly to haue falsified a canon of the Nicene councell concerning appeales to the bishop of Rome.

Paschasius one of the Popes agents in the 16. action of the Councell of Chalcedon thrust in a peece of counterfeit stuffe into a canon of the councell of Nice, as if that coun­cell had said, that the church of Rome had alwaies the prima­cie. this he did, or at the least some vnder his name, as appea­reth in the acts of that councell.

Likewise Bellarmine lib. 2. de Pontif. Rom. foisteth in the same words into the sixt canon of the Nicene councell. but he may be conuinced of falsitie by the testimony of all anci­ent copies, and of Russine, and all that record the canons of Nice in their histories.

Pius the fist in certaine letters of his to the emperor Maximilian recorded in his life written by Hierome Catena, alledgeth a false canon of the councell of Nice, to prooue, that the Pope is gouernor of all Christian Princes.

Bellarmine lib. 1. de cult. sanct. c. 19. doth falsifie the 7. ca­non of the sixth synod to prooue the inuocation of saintes. and this falsification is also committed by those, that haue lately published the actes of councels. but they may bee conuinced by the originall copies in Greeke, and by all an­cient editions of that councell in Latin.

In the 35. canon of the councell of Laodisea, Surius and Carrauza in their editions of the decrees and acts of coun­cels for angelos write angulos, least it should appeare, that the worship of angels is condemned by that councel as idola­trous. but this grosse falshood is discouered by Theodoret in Coloss. 2. and Chrysostomes homilies vpon the same epistle, and confessed by Bellarmine lib. 1. de cultu sanct. c. 20.

In the chapter renouantes. dist. 22. the 36. canon of the 6. [Page 155]synod is notoriously falsified. for there it is ordred that the church of Constantinople shall not be magnified as Rome, directly contrary to the sixth synodes meaning, and contrary to the actes of the councel of Constantinople and Chalcedon.

Gratian hath corrupted the 22. canon of the councell of Mileuis, adding these wordes, nisi forte sedem Romanam ap­pellauerit, whereas expresly that councel forbad priests and deacons to appeale beyond the seas. this appeareth by the chap. placuit. 2. q. 6.

The donation of Constantine is confessed to be counterfet by Cusanus, Valla, and diuers papists; yet still mainteined by Gregory the 13. in his new correction and edition of the canon law.

The constitution also of Ludouicus dist. 63. c. ego Ludoui­cus, is manifestly forged, as may appeare by the contradi­ction of the copies of Gratian, and Volaterran Geograph. l. 3. and for that it contradicteth the histories of those times.

The Popes agents haue also counterfeited two epistles vnder the name of Iustinian and Iohn bishop of Rome, and thrust them into the code C. de sum. trin. & fid. cath. l. inter claras. Alciat. parerg. lib. 5. c. 23. testifieth, they are not found in ancient copies. and the contradictions and no­torious falsities declare them to haue beene deuised of pur­pose for the aduancement of the church of Rome.

Alexander the 3. vpon colour of some counterfet grants, doth in his registre affirme, that the kingdome of England from the first time the same was conuerted to Christianitie, was vnder the defence and subiection of the prince of the Apostles. and that which belonged to him the Popes do now challenge as their owne proper right.

Boniface the 9. as Theodoric à Niem lib. 2. de schism. c. 6. doth testifie, would antedate any grant of his for money. vendidit prioritates datarum plus offerentibus: which is a no­torious tricke of falshood.

Bellarmine lib. 3. de bonis operib. in part. c. 11. doth confesse, that the epistle of Clement to Iames is counterfet, and did he not confesse it, yet may the same be prooued by most eui­dent [Page 156]arguments.

The decretall epistles set out vnder the names of ancient bishops of Rome before Syluester are most shamefully for­ged. the stile, and repugnancie, which they carie with the state of things in those times doe plainly conuince them to be such. Contius also in his annotations in c. septuagint. dist. 16. doth confesse it, and saith he hath prooued it.

Bellarmine lib. de monach. c. 40. acknowledgeth, that the epistle of Anicetus concerning shauing of crownes, is not vndoubtedly authenticall. he might as well haue said, plain­ly forged.

Melchiades 12. q. 1. c. futuram. telleth how Constantine was Christened, and gaue his seate and other great possessions to the church of Rome. yet it cannot be denied, but that Melchiades was dead before the time of Constantines Chri­stening.

Vnder the name of Clement they haue published cer­teine constitutions, which they call Apostolicall. yet Gelasi­us doth account them apocryphal. vnder his name also passe certeine counterfet recognitions.

The bookes of Tertullian and Origen are often cited. yet doth Gelasius note them as corrupted. the commentaries vpon Iob set out vnder the name of Origan were written by an Arian heretike.

Diuers treatises set out vnder the names of Abdias, Pro­chorus, Martialis, Africanus, Egesippus, Amphilochius, and other ancient fathers, were neuer written by the authors, whose names they beare. yet are they commonly alledged by our aduersaries.

Vnder the names of Cyprian, Hierome, Ambrose, Chryso­stome, Basill, Nazianzen, Augustine, and other fathers, the Papists haue published diuers commentaries, treatises, ser­mons, epistles, praiers, and fragments most vnworthy their piety, and learning. Bellarmine de bonis operib. in partie. lib. 2. c. 15. confesseth that the sermons d [...] tempore, that goe vn­der S. Augustines name were collected by a later author. the sermons ad Eromitas, are taxed by Paulus Langius in Chroni­co [Page 157]Citizensi, and by Hilgerius. his Manuall sauoreth of Pela­gianisme. his meditations in some editions are ascribed to Anselmus. Bellarmine lib. 2. de missa c. 16. reiecteth certaine epistles, that goe vnder the name of Hierome and Damasus, as foolish. and certes very foolish he must needes be, that alloweth all the bookes, set out vnder the names of these fa­thers, as authenticall.

In their expurgatory indexes they put out, and put in what they please in the bookes of diuers authors. Sixtus Se­nensis in epist. ad Pium 5. ante biblioth. sanct. saith, he caused the writings of fathers to be purged. Bertram is shamefully mangled, and visibiliter changed into inuisibiliter. Posseuin in his booke entitled selecta bibliotheca, sheweth how Hermes, Melito, Cabasilas, Anastasius and other authors are to bee corrupted. for so we must say rather then corrected.

The writings of the fathers they alledge most falsely. Bel­larm. lib. 1. de sanct. beat. c. 13. corrupteth a place out of Euse­bius de praeparat. euangel. lib. 13. and another out of Eusebius de praeparat. euangel. lib. 13. and another out of Euscbius his history lib. 4. c. 14. and infinit places out of Origen, Ter­tullian, Hilary, Hierome, Augustine, Chrysostome, and other fathers, as I haue particularly declared in my answers to his most corrupt allegations.

Adrian the Pope in his epistle alledged in the 2. synode of Nice citeth these words as out of Basil. deiparam virgi­nem, sanctos Prophetas, Apostolos & martyres suscipio, qui pro me apud deū supplicant &c. which words are no where found in Basil. Nay the terme of Deipara was first by act of the Ephesine Councell deuised to meet with the heresie of Nesto­rius, which was celebrated long after Basils time.

To prooue that the Popes decretale epistles are to bee reckoned among canonicall scriptures, Gratian c. in canonicis. dist. 19. doth falsifie S. Augustine.

In our country the Papists haue falsified a statute anno 2. Henrici 4. c. 15. by adding these words, ac etiam communita­tes dictiregni, thereby to authorise their cruell burning of Christians, as by statute, whereas in the originall rolle no such words are to be found. so it appeareth, that all the [Page 158]cruell executions of Christians in Quene Maries time were contrary to law. he that looketh into the originall record in the tower shall find this most true.

We may therefore say of our aduersaries that, which Hie­rome in symbolum Russini saith of men of their quality. peruer­si homines ad assertionem dogmatum suorum sub virorum sancto­rum nomine interseruerunt ea, quae illi nunquam scripserunt: nonnulli Hiberas naenias libris authenticis praeferunt. peruerse men for proofe of their opinions, haue interlaced, vnder the names of holy men, things which they neuer wrote. and some preferre idle fables before authenticall bookes.

May we thinke them then honest men, which practise such falsitie?

CHAP. XXIIII. That Popery standeth much vpon heathenish ob­seruances and customes.

CHristian religion intendeth the ouerthrow of heathe­nish impietie and idolatry. Yet such is the craft of Sa­tan, that by the ministery of the Pope he hath established many heathenish customes vnder colour of Christian religi­on. for first as the lawes of heathen nations were partly writ­ten, and partly vnwritten, so our aduersaries haue one word of God written, and another vnwritten, & as we reade sess. 4. concil. Trid. do esteeme both with equall affection. but the Apostle teacheth vs, that the scriptures are able, to make vs wise vnto saluation, and Ireney lib. 3. c. 1. saith the scriptures are the pillar and foundation of our faith, ne (que) hominis consuetu­dinem sequi oportet, sed Dei veritatem, saith Cyprian lib. 2. epist. 3. that is, we are not to follow mens customes, but Gods truth. our church saith Saluianus lib. 5. de prouident. des, is more happilie founded vpon the scriptures only. videtur nostrae ecclesia ex vna seripturafeliciùs instituta.

Secondly the schoolemen build their opinions as well vpon Aristotle and other Philosophers, and their authority, as vp­on [Page 159]the Prophets and Apostles. Bernard of Luzemburg in ca­tal. haeret. sheweth how the doctors of Colein defined, that Aristotle was the forerunner of Christ in naturalibus, as Iohn Baptist was his forerunner in diuinis. writing vpon the first booke of Lombards sentences dist. 3. they seeke out the di­stinction of the 3. persons in the Trinitie by similitudes drawen out of Philosophy. by the same also they hope to finde out the eternall generation of the sonne of God, albe­it the Prophet doe declare it to be menarrable. and the like they attempt in disputing of the proceeding of the holie Ghost.

Gratian in the chap. decretis. dist. 21. talking of diuers orders and degrees in the Romish hierarchy, confesseth that this difference was diduced from the gentiles. horum discretio, saith he, a gentilibus maximè introducta est, qui suos flamines, alios simpliciter flamines, alios archislamines, alios protoslamines appellabant.

Gregorie the first writing to Mellitus, as we may read in Bede lib. 1. hist. Angl. c. 30. permitted the English to build boothes in the day of the dedication of their churches, and to kill oxen for the praise of God: which were customes of pagans seruing idoles.

Boniface the 4. consecrated the Church called Pantheon, wherein Cybele, and all heathen Gods were worshipped, to our Lady and all Saints, as is testified by Platina, Iohn di Pineda and others. this sheweth that the worship of Saints is succeded in liew of the worship of Idols and heathen Gods.

Baruch c. 6. speaking of the Priests of the gentiles, saith, they haue their heads and beards shauen. from them there­fore came the Popish shauing of their Prìests heads and beards.

From them also the Papists borow the scourging them­selues before the crosse and other images. for before their idoles the Priests of Baal did lance themselues. the Priests of Cybele did also whip themselues as, Apuleius testifieth.

The gentiles did keepe secret the mysteries of their reli­gion. [Page 160]so doe the Papists likewise, vttering the canon of the Masse in a low voice, lest the people should heare it, and reading the scriptures in vnknowen and strange languages. and they yeelde this reason, lest holie things should bee cast to dogges.

The best ground, that Bellarmine laieth for proofe of the Popes monarchy is, for that the gentiles thought that forme of gouernement best. but God in disposing of matters of ecclesiasticall gouernment boroweth no precedents from the gentiles.

Thomas Aquinas p. 3. q. 59. art. 1. by a Philosophicall argu­ment drawen from the similitude betweene our sprituall and corporall life, proueth the number of his seuen sacra­mentes.

By Philosophy also the Popes agents proue, that one bo­dy may be in many places at once, and yet sill no place. out of holy scripture certes they are not able to deriue anie proofe for it.

The worship of Saints is a meere tricke of Gentilisme. for as the Gentiles had one principall god, and diuers demie and inferior gods, so haue the Papists. Ambrose in chap. 1. ad Rom. saith the gentiles vsed the mediation of others to God, as men vse to come to princes by tribunes and hushiers. so likewise doe the papists. they gaue the honor of God to crea­tures, honorem nominis Dei deferunt creaturae. so likewise doe Papists.

Likewise the worship of images is a meere inuention of Pagans. in the book of Wisdome c. 14. they are called idoles of the nations. this is plainly declared by Athanasius in his treatise against idolatry, and Cyprian de idolorum vanitate. Ambrose in Psal. 118. ser. 10. saith, gentiles did worship wood, because they thought it to be the image of God. gentes lignum ado­rant, quia dei imaginem putant. so likewise Papists worship images, not because of the matter, but because they repre­sent the image of God. and in his commentaries vpon the first chapter to the Romanes, he saith the gentiles changed the glory of God into the likenesse of men, so that the forme of a [Page 161]corruptible man is by them called God. and so likewise Papists call the image of God, God; and the image of Christ, Christ; and change the glory of the incorruptible God into the likenesse of man.

At Rome the temple of Romulus and Remus is now turned into the church of S. Cosmas and Damianus. The temple of Faunus into the church of S. Stephen, and at Loreto the church of Iuno Cupra into the chappell of our Lady of Lore­to. Gregory in his dialogues lib. 2. c. 8. sheweth, that Benet in stead of Apollo substituted S. Martin in the castle of Cassi­num, and that he erected an altar to S. Iohn in the place, where an altar stood dedicated to Apollo. nay so litle diffe­rence there is betweene paganisme and popery, that the i­mage of Inpiter in brasse doth now serue in S. Peters church at Rome for the image of S. Peter, as euery one may see, and their antiquaries dissemble not.

The Gentiles did deifie their Emperours and benefa­ctors, and erect temples & altars in their honour. And what doe Papists? doe not they canonize their Popes, and do not Popes canonize Saints? and do they not erect temples and altars to Saints? they will not deny it. but S. Augustine lib. 22. de ciuit. Dei. c. 10. sheweth, that Christians built no tem­ples nor altars to martyrs, as gods. nos, saith he, martyribus nostris non templa sicut dys, sed memorias sicut hominibus &c. fabrica­mus. nec ibi erigimus altaria.

Heathen nations, as Tertullian sheweth vs, did so dispose of God, that they assigned the chiefe Empire to one, and distributed his offices and duties to many. diuinitatem sic disponebant, vs im­perium summ [...] dominationis penes vnum, offieia eius penes mul­tos esse vellent. so the Papists acknowledging one God in termes, doe assigne the parts of his gouernment to manie Saints, making our Lady chiefe of all, as may appeare by their practise, and by the expresse words of Horatius Tursellinus before rehearsed. to S. George they assigne the charge for the warres, to S. Antony the custody of swine, to S. Apollonia the cure of the toothach, to S. Roch and S. Sebastian the re­medy against the plague, to S. Fiacre the healing of quar­tan [Page 162]agues, to S. Margaret the charge of women in trauell of childbirth, to S. Lewes the gouernment of horses.

Eusebius hist. eccles. lib. 7. c. 17. sheweth, that ancient Chri­stians, after the custome of the Gentiles, kept the images of those with them, of whom they had receiued benefites.

In the Masse also diuers trickes are borrowed from the Gentiles. they did offer for the dead, and so likewise do the Papists. Polydore lib. 6. de inuentorib. c. 9. proueth the yeare­ly sacrifice for the dead out of Macrobius and Cato. and c. 10. the 9. daies sacrifice out of Horace. fichat sacrificium pro mor­tuis, saith he, nono die. from thence also he fetcheth mourning and mourning blackes.

The vse of burning incense, saith Polydore lib. 5. de inuen­torib. c. 10. came from the heathen. apud nos Leo tertius idem fiers sanxit, saith he, quod etiam ab Ethnicis seruabatur. then he bringeth Virgiles testimony for burning incense.

From the heathen the Priests also take their washing of hands at Masse. ab Ethnicis sumptum est, saith Polydore, apud quos sacrificantes primùm omnium n [...] uius lausabant.

Likewise of them they borrow their skippings and tur­nings. for as Apuleius saith, the Priests turned about, sprinkling the bloud of the sacrifice.

The clause of the masse, as appeareth by the testimony of Apuleius lib. 11. of the golden asse cited by Polydore de inuento­ribus lib. 5. c. 11. came from the Gentiles. for as the Priest said there, [...], so the Priest saith heere, ite missa est.

The consecrating of images Durand deriueth from the example of Nabuchodonosor, that called all his Princes to the dedication of the golden image. as wee read rational. diuin. lib. 1. c. 6.

The gentiles did not sacrifice without fire and water. no more doe Masse priests, as appeareth by the chapter literas tuas. de celebrat. miss.

In their praiers the Masse-priests turne themselues to the East. and this custome Polydore lib. 5. de inuent. c. 9. doth prooue to haue beene borrowed from the gentiles. for God forbad his people to pray toward the East.

The Masse-priests carrie about their corpus Domini vpon a hackney, when the Pope goeth in progresse. so likewise did the Priests of Isis carry the image of their goddesse a­bout with them, and the Chaldeans the fire, which they wor­shipped as God.

Choul in his booke of the religion of the Romans confes­seth, that tunicles, albes, and the pompe and ceremonies of the Masse haue beene taken from the Aegyptians and Gentiles.

That Purgatory came from the Gentiles it cannot be de­nied. Virgil Aenead. 6. doth testifie so much. ergo exercen­tur poenis, veterum (que) malorum, saith he, supplicia expendunt.

So likewise the Papists suppose that soules are there pur­ged for their sinnes. likewise from them they borrow their purgation by holy water, as is signified by Polydore de inuen­toribus lib. 6. c. 1.

As the Gentiles beleeued, that euery one had his good and bad genius, so the Papists assigne to euerie Christian a good and bad Angell.

The Gentiles allowed no married Priests, as Hierome. lib. 1. contra Iouin. doth testifie. the same practise haue Papists vsed concerning their Priests.

The 2. councell of Arles c. 23. sheweth it to be a custome of Pagans, to worship trees, or stones, or founteines. yet our English Papists cease not to go on pilgrimage to S. Wi­nifrides well, nor to worship stockes and stones.

How then can the Papists call themselues Christians, that haue in fresh practise so many heathen customes?

CHAP. XXV. That poperie borroweth also diuers fashions from the Iewes.

VVHat they haue not from the Gentiles, that for the most part of their ceremonies is borrowed from the Iewes. from them also I haue shewed how they haue bor­rowed diuers heresies. with the Pharisies they boast in the [Page 164]law, and are more curious in obseruing their owne traditi­ons, than the law of God.

With the Hemerobaptists they sprinkle themselues conti­nually with holy water. with the same they consecrate their clergie, as the Leuites were consecrated Numbr. 8. by the law of Moyses. they doe also borrow their shauing at the time of their ordination from the law. God speaking of the consecration of Leuites, aspergantur aqua lustrationis, saith he, & radant omnes pilos carnis suae.

Innocentius the third in the chapter per venerabilem, pro­ueth the supreme authority of the Pope, and of his see, out of the words of the law Deut. 17. thence also hee proueth his Cardinals. nay to shew himselfe more Iewish, hee tieth Christians to the obseruance of the ceremoniall lawes of Moyses contained in Deuteronomy.

In the chapt. cleros. dist. 21. they endeuour to proue the seuen orders of their clergy, & their seuerall functions from the Leuiticall law.

The burning of incense at the altar Polydore lib. 5. de in­uentorib. c. 10. sheweth to haue beene borrowed from the example of Aaron. quod thus adoletur ad altare, id primus fe­cit Aaron, saith he.

The Iewes began their feasts with washing of hands. and from thence doth Polydore think, that the washings of masse-priests at the altar are deriued.

As the Iewes adorned the tombes of the Prophets, so doe Papists adorne the tombes of their martyrs hoping to bee relieued by them.

Durandus rational. diuin. lib. 1. c. 6. deriueth the conse­cration of Churches, altars, and vessels, and the greasing of them from the law of Moyses. and this is also proued by the chap. tabernaculum. de consecrat. dist. 1.

The apparrel of Priests is transsiumpted from the Iewish ceremoniall law, as Durandus witnesseth lib. 3. rat. diuin. c. 1. sacrae vestes, saith he, à veteri lege videntur assumptae. praece­pit enim Dominus Mosi &c. and againe, noster Pontifex plura, quàm octo induit vestimenta, quamuis Aaron non nisi octo habu­isse [Page 165]legatur, quibus moderna succedunt.

From thence also the Masse-priests haue borrowed their altars, sacrifices and priesthood. for in the Gospell wee find none of these things instituted, as they vse them.

Alexander the first did institute the consecration of holy water in imitation of the aspersion of the ashes of the red cow.

The burning of incense by Durand. rat. lib. 4. c. 8. is draw­en from the manner of the Priests of the law, and out of the 30. chapter of Exodus.

The salutation, Dominus vobiscum, is borrowed from Boos Ruth. 2. who with like words saluted his reapers. as if the Masse were onely to bee said in haruest time, and among mowers and reapers.

The feasts instituted in the dedication of churches are deriued from the first of Machabees c. 4. because the Iewes did keepe holy the day of the dedication of the temple.

Durand. rat. diuin. lib. 6. c. 6. proueth the foure ember fasts by the example of the Iewes. nam & Iudaei, saith he, quater in anno ieiunabant. and hee alleadgeth a braue reason for it, viz. for that the foure elements of the body being corrup­ted, by these foure fasts may be purged.

In the later end of the missale the Papists shew, how the paschale lambe is to be consecrated; which is is a ceremony sauouring of the reliques of the Leuiticall law not yet suffici­ently purged out of popery.

The heauing and lifting of the sacrifice the masse-priests borrow from the ceremoniall law, wherein a heaue offering was prescribed. and from thence also commeth the swinging of the chalice about the priests head.

Garret from the testimonie of Auerroes and other Rab­bines goeth about to prooue the popish real presence of Christes body and blood in the Sacrament. Robert Parsons in his booke of 3. conuersions endeuoureth to prooue prai­ers for the dead by the corrupt custome of the Iewes.

Finally it were an easie matter to shew, that many other popish cymbales and ceremonies are drawne partly from the Gentiles, and partly from the Iewes. but by this, which I [Page 166]haue already brought, it appeareth sufficiently, that Popish religion is either grossely heathenish, or ceremoniously Iewish, or at the least corruptly and stiffely hereticall.

CHAP. XXVI. That Popish religion is full of contradictions, and contrary opinions.

AS truth is alwaies consonant to it selfe, so in falshood there is much iarring and contradiction to specifie this matter by examples, we need to seeke no further, then in the corrupt and false religion and doctrine of Papistes. for notwithstanding their crackes and bragges of vnitie, hardly shall you name any point of doctrine, wherein the chiefe founders and defenders of Popery hold not singular opini­ons, and varie one from another. nay whosoeuer hath ley­sure to peruse the whole corps of their doctrine, shall finde, that it conteineth strange peeces and points one contradict­ing another. In the article of the Trinitie, wherein we agree with the common doctrine of Papistes, they are so curious and contentious, that they agree not, almost in any point a­mong themselues.

First they contend about the distinction of the diuine at­tributes, whether it be real, or formal, or imaginary, or rationis. Dionysius Richel in lib. 1. sent. dist. 2. saith, that this is one of the chiefe difficulties of diuines, and that about it there is great dis­sention, and contention. hee telleth further, how Aegidius doth heerein lance Thomas, and others runne vpon both.

Aegidius in lib. 1. sentent. dist. 2. would haue the persons of the Trinitie distinguished by a certeiue thing in one, that is not in another: which displeaseth the rest of his consorts.

Most of the schoolemen deny the examples and simili­tudes of the master of sentences lib. sent. 1. dist. 3. brought to illustrate the vnitie of the essence & Trinitie of the persons: and that, which one affirmeth, another misliketh.

Bonauenture saith, that a man may atteine to the know­ledge of the holy Trinitie by the light of reason. others say contrarie.

The Scotistes lib. 1. sent. dist. 5. inueigh against Henricus de Gandauo for his singular opinion about the eternall genera­tion of the sonne of God.

Aegidius holdeth, that the sonne of God is able to beget another sonne: which displeaseth Thomas and Bonauenture, and is very strange diuinitie.

Thomas Aquinas 1. q. 32. art. 4. holdeth, that doctors may hold contrary opinions, cire a notiones in diuinis. he teacheth also, that the holy Ghost doth more principally proceed from the father, then from the sonne: which others mislike.

If then they agree not about the doctrine of the holy Tri­nitie, what little hope can we conceiue, that they will better accord in other matters? Durand denieth Theology to be scientia. Thomas and Richard hold that it is.

About the words vti, and frui, there is great varietie of opinions, some dissenting from their master, others one from another, as their disputes in 1. sent. dist. 1. doe testifie.

Pighius lib. 1. de eccles. hierach. c. 2. saith, that Scriptures are not aboue our faith, but subiect vnto it. Stapleton lib. doct. princip. 12. c. 15. teacheth, that the church and scriptures are of equall authoritie.

Eckius in enchirid. loc. com. c. de ecclesia, determineth, that the Scriptures are not authenticall without the authority of the church. Bellarmine thought best to passe ouer this questi­on without resolution.

Nicholas Lyra, Hugo de S. Victore, Dionysius Carthusianus, Hugo cardinalis, Thomas de vio and Sixtus Senensis lib. 1. bib­lioth. S. reiect the last seuen chapters of the booke of Hester, as not canonicall Scriptures. the conuenticle of Trent, and most popish doctors of later times hold them to be cano­nicall.

Iohn Driedo lib. 1. de scriptur. & ecclesiast. dogm. denieth the booke of Baruch to be canonicall scripture. Bellarmine lib. 1. de verb. Dei, and most of his sellowes be of a contrary opinion.

Caietan and Erasmus in their Commentaries vpon the Epistles to the Hebrewes, of Iames, Iude, the second of Pe­ter [Page 168]and the 2. and the third of Iohn doe dissent from the rest of their fellowes, and that partly concerning the authors, and partly concerning the authoritie of those epistles.

Iames bishop of Christopolis in praefat. in Psal. and Canus lib. 2. loc. theolog. c. 13. affirme, that the Iewes haue depra­ued, and corrupted the originall text of the old restament: an opinion false & blasphemous, & therefore contradicted by Bellar. lib. 2. de verb. dei. and by diuers of his consorts.

Sanctes Pagnmus in Praefat. interpret. suae biblior. and Pau­lus bishop of Foro Sempronio lib. 2. c. 1. de die passionis domini, deny, that the vulgar Latin translation of the Bible was made by Hierome. Austen of Eugubium and Picus Mirandu­la hold contrarie. Bellarmine and D [...]sedo say, that it is part his, and part others.

Alexander Hales and Durand hold, that the diuine attri­butes are not distinguished, but in respect vnto creatures. Henricus and Albertus in 1. sent. dist. 2. hold contrary.

Richardus in 1. sent. dist. 3. holdeth, that the mysterie of the Trinitie may be demonstrated by naturall reasons. Sco­tus, Maronis and Thomas affirme the contrary.

About the faculties of the soule called potentiae the schoolemen are diuided into three sectes, as may appeare by their disputes lib. 1. sent. dist. 3. some hold, they are all one with the substance of the soule; others that they are ac­cidents; the third, that they are betweene substances and accidents.

Abbot Ioachim, and Richard de sancto victore taught, that the diuine essence might generare & gigni. the contrarie is taught by Peter Lombard and his followers.

Peter Lombard lib. sent. 1. dist. 17. taught, that charity, wherewith we loue God, and our neighbour, is the holy ghost, and that it is not any thing created. but now most of his followers in this point forsake him.

In the 24. dist. of his first booke of sentences Peter Lom­bard saith, that the words of number spoken of God are spoken only relaturely, and that the word Trinity implieth nothing positiuely, but onlie priuatiuely; which because it o­uerthroweth [Page 169]the mysterie of the holy Trinity, is almost ge­nerally contradicted by his followers.

In the 44. distinction of the same booke he saith, that God can alwaies doe whatsoeuer he could euer doe, and that he willeth whatsoeuer hee would at any time, and knoweth whatsoeuer hee knew at any time. but his Disciples hold direct contrary.

Thomas p. 1. q. 46. art. 2. holdeth, that the world, or at the lest some creature might haue beene from euerlasting. so likewise holdeth Bonauenture and some others. Richardus maintaineth the opposite opinion, and that rightly, for that the other sauoureth of Arianisme.

The master of sentences in 4. dist. 1. and Gabriel and Vega lib. 7. pro Conc. Trid. c. 13. hold, that not onely substances, but accidents also are created.

Alexander Hales q. 9. m. 6. & q. 10. m. 1. and Thomas p. 1. q. 45. art. 4. affirme, that onely substances are created.

About this question an omnium aeuiternorum sit vnum ae­uum vel multiplex, there are 5. different opinions, the first of Scotus, the second of Thomas, the third of Durand, the fourth of Henricus, the fifth of Bonauenture.

Likewise about this question, quae sit ratio formalis, cur Angelus sit in loco, there are fiue opinions all repugnant one to another.

Thomas and Richardus doe affirme, that two Angels can­not be in one place together. Scotus, Occham and Gabriel hold the contrarie.

Thomas holdeth, that Angels haue not intellectum agen­tem & possibilem. Scotus doth directly contradict him.

Scotus and Gabriel teach, that both Diuels and good Angels doe vnderstand naturally both our thoughts, and the thoughts one of another, but to Thomas p. 1. q. 57. art. 4. this seemeth absurd.

Antisiodorensis lib. 2. sum. saith that Christ had Angelum custodem. other schoolemen denie it.

Scotus in 2. sent. dist. 1. holdeth, that the soule and an An­gel do not differ as two diuers kinds. others teach contrary.

Some doctours hold that Angels consist of forme only: [Page 170]others hold contrarie, as appeareth by their disputes in 2. sent. dist. 3.

The second councell of Nice Act. 5. determineth, that Angels & soules are corporall. nemo dixerit, saith the coun­cell, vel angelos, vel daemones, velanimas, incorporeas. but this opinion will not now bee beleeued of any learned Papists. Why then should they rather beleeue that synode in the ar­ticle of worship of images, than in this?

Scotus saith, that the will is the only subiect of sinne. Thomas denieth it.

Concerning the place of paradise there are three different opinions. some hold, that it reacheth to the circle of the Moone. Thomas in 2. dist. 17. and Bonauenture doe place it vpon a high mountaine, they know not where. others place it in the East.

Concerning the nature of free wil there are diuersities of opinions among schoolemen and others, as Iosephus An­gles in lib. 2. sent. dist. 24. and 25. sheweth particularly.

Richardus holdeth, that freewill cannot be changed by God. others for the most part hold the contrary.

Thomas, Bonauenture, and Setus hold, that grace is not a qualitie infused, but a qualitie inherent in the soule. Alexander Hales and Scotus hold, that it is a quality infused.

Iosephus Angles in lib. 2. sent. dist. 26. rehearseth three seue­rall opinions of schoole-doctors about the diuision of grace, in gratiam operantem & cooperantem: whereby it may euidently appeare, that Papists in talking of grace goe about to shut out Gods grace.

Most schoolemen and others affirme, that Adam and Eue beleeued not Gods words concerning the forbidden fruit. Bellarmine lib. 3. de amiss. grat. c. 6. saith they beleeued.

In the same booke c. 9. Bellarmine saith Adams offence was greater then that of Eue: contrary both to ancient do­ctors, and to schoolemen.

Lib. 5. de amiss. grat. c. 17. he sheweth great diuersities of opinions among his schoolemen & fellowes about orginall sinne. and himselfe dissenteth from all.

About the conception of the blessed Virgin, whether it was in originall sinne, or not, there haue beene not onely contradictions, but also tragicall stirres and contentions.

Certeine schollers of Aquinas beleeue and teach, that no man being of yeares of discretion can be iustified by the absolute power of God, without the act and concurrence of free will. Scotus, Vega, and Caietan hold contrary. both their opinions are touched by Iosephus Angles in 2. sent. dist. 27.

Richardus in 2. dist. 27. art. 2. q. 1. Scotia in 1. dist. 17. q. 1. art. 1. and Durand in 1. dist. 17. q. 2. and others, hold, that a man may merit the first grace do Congruo. Gregorius Arimi­neusis in 2. dist. 26. Lyra in Ioan. 1. Waldensis and others denie it. Sotus. lib. 2. de not. & grat. c. 4. saith, that the former opi­nion is neere to Peligiamsine.

Gregorius Ariminensis and Capreolus in 2. dist. 27. q. 1. hold, that no man without the illustration of Gods speciall grace can attaine to the knowledge of any moral truth. but Thomas and Scotus in 2. dist. 27. doe hold contrary.

Durand placeth originall sinne in the carnall appetite. Thomas placeth it in the whole substance of the soule. Scotus differeth from both, and placeth it in the will of man.

Iosephus Angles in 2. dist. 27. rehearseth three seuerall opi­nions about this question, whether a sinne of omission may be committed without a positiue act.

The same man reckoneth 5. different opinions about the difference of mortall and veniall sinnes. and three opini­ons concerning this question, what is sinne of malice.

Catharin and Caietan doe striue about faith of infants, and diuers other matters; and greater would the contention haue beene, if the matter had not been taken vp, or at least silence commanded by the Pope.

Bellarmine lib. 1. de pontif. Rom. c. 12. saith, that the keies of the church are nothing, but order and iurisdiction. the Master of sentences, and Caietan de iust. & auth. pontif. Rom. hold, that they containe somewhat more.

Pighius lib. 4. hierarch. eccles. c. 8. holdeth, that the Pope [Page 172]cannot fall into heresie, nor be deposed. Turrecremata lib. 4. sum. p. 2. c. 20. saith, that the Pope falling into heresie ipso facto is deposed before God. there he addeth also, that the Pope neither for manifest, nor for secret heresie is deposed. Caietane in tract. de authorit. Pap. & concilij. c. 20. & 21. saith that the Pope prouing a notorious heretike is not deposed ipso facto; but that he may and ought to be deposed by the church. Bellarmine lib. 2. de pontif. Rom. c. 30. holdeth, that if the Pope be a notorious hereticke, he then of himselfe ceaseth to be Pope.

Hostiensis in c. nouit. de iudicijs, and Austen Triumphus in summa de potest. eccles. q. 1. art. 1. and others very triumphant­ly affirme, that the Pope by the Law of God hath full power ouer the whole world, and that as well in ciuill, as ecclesi­asticall causes. Turrecremata, Driedo, Sotus, Sanders and o­thers reckoned by Bellarmine lib. 5. de pontif. Rom. c. 1. are content to abate somewhat, and say, that directly the Pope hath not power ouer all the kingdomes of the whole world.

Petrus De Alliaco, Gerson, Almain and others in their trea­tises de potestate ecclesiae, hold, that a generall councell is aboue the Pope. Turrecremata lib. 2. sum. c. 99. & 100. confesseth, that the councell of Constance, and Basil decreed, that the councell is aboue the Pope. and so must it needes be, or els nei­ther was Iohn the 23. or Petrus de Luna rightly deposed, nor Martin the sift rightly chosen. others notwithstanding hold, that the Pope is aboue the councell, as Iacobatius de concilijs, San­ders de visibili monarchia, and Bellarmine lib. de concilijs. others auerre, that although the Pope be aboue the councels, yet he hath power to make the councell aboue himselfe, as may be gathered out of the glosse in c. non si. 2. q. 7. and in c. in synod. dist. 63.

In the chap. in nouo. dist. 21. it is said, that Peter was made Pope by these words, thou art Peter. but in the chapter con­siderandum, and Fidelior. dist. 50. the contrary thereof is de­termined.

In the chapter secundum. dist. 19. it appeareth, that Ana­stasius not only held opinions contrarie to other Popes, but [Page 173]also published contrarie decretales. contra decreta praedecesso­rum, & successorum suorum haec rescripta dedit, saith Gratian: likewise Stephen did annull the acts of Formosus, and Iohn the 9. cancelled the acts of Pope Stephen.

Turrecremata lib. sum. 2. c. 111. saith, that Iohn the 22. did publish a decretale contrary to that, which Nicolas the 3. determined, concerning Christs pouertie. and in his third booke c. 57. he proueth, that a Pope may define against the canons of his predecessors.

Euaristus determined, that all mariages not consecrated by a priest were incestuous, as Platina, and Genebrard in Chronolog. doe testifie. but now the current opinion is other­wise.

Concerning the kingdome, seat, and proceedings of An­tichrist, Papists hold different opinions, as may appeare by the disputes of Bellarmine.

Iansenius denieth, that the comming againe of Helias can be proued out of Ecclesiasticus c. 48. Bellarmine lib. 3. de pentif Rom. wondreth, that he should be of that opinion.

Francis victoria relect. 2. de potestate eccles. q. 2. and Al­phonsus a Castro de haeret. iust. punit. saith, that as well bishops, as Apostles did immediatly receiue iurisdiction from God. Turrecremata lib. 2. Sum. c. 54. and Iacobatius de concilijs, hold, that the Apostles receiued their iurisdiction from Pe­ter, and other Bishops from Peters successor. Caietane in tract. de auctorit. Papae. Dominicus a Soto in 4. dist. 20. and Hernaeus de potestate Papae teach, that the Apostles receiued their pow­er from God, and all other bishops from the Pope. and this is also Bellarmines opinion.

The Romane catechisme in the exposition of the Creed, Waldensis lib. 2. c. 9. Turrecremata lib. 1. c. 3. and others doe shut out excommunicat persons from being members of the church. but this is misliked by others, as Bellarmine lib. de eccles. milit. c. 6. confesseth.

Alexander Hales 3. p. q. vlt. art. 2. and Turrecremata lib. 1. de eccles. c. 30. affirme, that in the time of Christes passion only the Virgin Mary had true faith. Bellarmine lib. 1. de [Page 174]eccles. milit. c. 17. maruelleth at them for it, and condem­neth their opinion.

Maior in 4. dist. 24. q. 2. saith, that by Gods law Priests are forbidden to marry. with him also doth Clichtouey con­curre de continent. sacerd. c. 4. but Thomas in 2.2. q. 88. art. 11. and Bellarmine holdeth that the vow of continency is annexed to Priest hood by the lawes of the church only.

Gregory the first forbad mariage within the 7. degree. Yet without the 4. degree schoolemen commonly hold mariages lawfull. likewise they haue contrary opinions as touching affinity, and mariages betweene gossips, as may appeare by their disputes in 4. sent. dist. 40. & 41.

Innocentius the 3. permitted men in Liuoma to marry their brothers wiues, as appeareth c. sin. de diuortijs. but, I thinke, few Papists now will allow this for law. the Master of senten­ces in 4. dist. 2. saith, that mariage doth not conferre grace. alia in remedium tantùm sunt, saith he speaking of sacraments, vt coniugium. his disciples teach all contrary.

In time past mariage contracted by words of the present time might bee dissolued, though Alexander decreed con­trarie in c. licet. de sponsa duorum.

Thomas Aquinas 3. q. 52. art. 2. saith, that the soule of Christ as touching the essence descended to limbus patrum. Bellarmine lib. 4. de Christ. c. 16. faith the soule of Christ did for three daies passe through limbus puerorum, and the place of the damned.

Thomas 3. q. 76. art. 5. saith, Christs body is in the sacra­ment, but not as in a place. Bellarmine saith, it is there lo­callie.

The master of the sentences in 4. dist. 13. holdeth, that heretickes and schismatickes consecrate not. the schoolemen in this point are aduerse to him.

The master of the sentences would not yeeld that Christs body is deuoured by mise, or brute beasts. but the masters of Paris in this point censure their master for it and say, ma­gister hic non tenctur.

Marsilius de Padua writeth, that Clerkes are subiect to se­cular [Page 175]princes. the canonists in c. tributum. 23. q. 8. and in c. quamuis. de censibus in 6. hold, that both their persons and their goods are exempted. Francis. victoria relect. 1. q. vlt. de potest. eccles. and diuers others cut the controuersie in the midst, and hold, that they are free for their persons and their goods partly by the law of God, and partly by priuiledges of princes, and partly by neither.

How the soules of Saints departed do know, what we say or doe, Bellarmine bringeth in three diuers opinions lib. de cult. sanct. c. 20.

Caietan in Exod. c. 20. taketh an image and an idole for one thing. Bellarmine lib. 1. de cult. sanct. c. 7. reproueth him for it.

Ambrose Catharine tractat. de imaginibus. saith, God prohi­bited images simply: but that this prohibition was positiue. others deny both images to be forbidden, and the second comman­dement to be positiue.

Occham, Maior, and Richardus are of opinion, that a sa­crament cannot be defined. Scotus in 4. dist. 1. q. 2. holdeth, that it may be defined imperfectly. Ledesma in tract. de sa­crament. in genere q. 1. art. 2. saith it may properlie bee de­fined.

Finally to shew the contradictions of Papists we need to seeke no further, than to Bellarmine. who in euery contro­uersie bringeth in different opinions of men of his side.

Gardiner a pillar of popery did oftentimes contradict himselfe and his fellowes. sometimes hee swore against the Popes supremacy, sometime like a forsworne creature hee stood for it. somtime he consented to the dissolution of mo­nasteries, as sinkes of Sodomy, and all tibaldrie and villany; sometime be spoke for them. his booke entituled Marcus Constantius is full of contradictions. M. Foxe hath scored vp great multitudes.

The contradictions of Robert Parsons in his book of three Conuersions, I haue noted in my answeare to that treatise.

The whole masse also of Poperie doth consist of con­trary pieces, as I haue shewed in the contradictions of the [Page 176]doctrine of the Masse, of purgatory, of indulgences, of the Pope, and diuers other principall points, and haue proued the same in treatises of that argument.

For example they say the Masse is an vnbloudy sacrifice, and yet teach, that euerie Priest doth really offer and drinke Christs bloud.

Sometime they say the sacrifice is but one sacrifice, yet in the canon they say sacrifices in the plurall number.

Sometime they say the Priest only offereth this sacri­fice. but in the canō they make the people to offer sacrifices.

In the canon they pray, that Angels may carry Christs body vnto Gods high altar. but all confesse, that Christs body is in heauen before.

There also they make the Priest a mediatour for Christ. but where they speake soberly, they make Christ a mediator both for the Priest and others.

In heauen they say Christ is visible and palpable. on the altar they make him inuisible, and impalpable.

They say the Masse is an externall sacrifice. yet no man euer yet could see Christs body externally sacrificed.

In purgatorie they say soules suffer extreme paines. but in the Masse they saie they sl [...]epe in peace.

They teach, that Christians may performe the law of God perfectly. but they will not grant, that they may liue without sinne; which is all one.

Talking of auricular confession they make it necessarie. but in the chap. Petrus doluit. and lachrymae. dist. 1. de poenit. they denie it.

The Pope calleth himselfe seruant of seruants. yet doth he take vpon him as lord of lords.

Order they say is one sacrament. yet they teach also, that there are seuen Orders, and euerie one of them a sacrament: which is as much, as if they should make one seuen, and se­uen one.

The Pope, they saie, is head of the Church. but that is as much as if they should teach, that their Church in the va­catio nis headlesse.

If then the catholicke faith be one, and those that pro­fesse the faith agree in one; then cannot popery be the true Catholicke faith, that containeth so many contradictions.

CHAP. XXVII. That popery is a most foolish and absurd religion.

AS the lawes of God are full of wisedome, and giue vs a true vnderstanding; so when man of his owne braine vndertaketh to adde vnto his commandements, the same in proofe falleth out to be nothing, but vanity and foolery. the same wee sind verified in the additions of the superfluous re­ligion of Papists. for although it haue a shew of wisedome, as the voluntarie worship of Angels had, of which the Apo­stle Coloss. 2. speaketh; yet compared with the wisedome of God reuealed in the Gospell, it is meere foolery.

For first what is more foolish, then to forsake the liuing springs of holy scripture, out of which do sally waters of life, and to follow after the puddle streams of Romish traditions? of scriptures we are assured, that they are the word of God. but no man can affirme that of Romish traditions, or the Popes decretales, that either professeth piety, or loueth truth. is it not then strange, that any Christians should bee so foolish, as to match the word of man with Gods word, and where we haue a certaine rule, to seeke for a broken, vn­certaine, and crooked rule?

Againe, it is most absurd, not to beleeue the scriptures without the Popes warrant. but to say that Christians are not to beleeue in God, nor in Christ Iesus, nor to receiue the rest of the articles of our Creed, vnlesse the church of Rome doe deliuer them vnto vs, is not only a peece of great foolery, but also a very high streine of madnesse. and yet this is the doctrine of Popery. for Stapleton saith, that the church must needes consigne the scriptures vnto vs, and the authoritie of the church both he and others giue to the Pope. likewise in their catechisme the Papists signifie that faith is of things onely proposed to vs by the church. so that if [Page 178]the church propose not the articles of faith, we are not to be­leeue them, if these men teach truth. further this sheweth the Romish church to consist of a packe of infidels. for if the same beleeued not without the authority of the church, then did she beleeue nothing of Christ; seeing the Papists acknowledge no other Church, but that of Rome, and no church can teach it selfe.

Finally this is as much, as if they should say, that the law of the Prince is not to be receiued, vnlesse it be proposed by the crier, or other such like officer.

The Masse-priests of Trent sess. 4. most absurdly prefer the old Latin vulgar translation of the Bible before the ori­ginall text. which is as much, as if they should preferre S. Hierome and other interpreters before the Prophets and A­postles, and the streames before the fountaines.

Generally they forbid scriptures to bee read publickely in vulgar tongues. but they permit most fabulous legends to bee read publickely.

The holy scriptures they will not permit to bee read in vulgar tongues of the multitude without licence. but they are content that any of their followers should reade the Popes decretales, or the miracles of their god of paste, or the history of our Lady of Loreto, and other such lying legends without licence.

To say that the Pope is the head of the vniuersall church is meere foolery. for grant that, and it will follow, that the Church is sometime without head, as in the time of vacati­on of the papacy; and sometime a monster with two or three heads, as when two or three Popes reigne at once; and sometime a mad Church, as hauing a mad and franticke head.

The church they say albeit catholicke, yet is alwaies visi­ble. but this being granted, it followeth, that vniuersall things may be the obiect of sense, and that the church of Rome before our times is not the church, because no man can now see it.

They hold also, that the true church may alwaies be seene [Page 179]and discerned. but this being so, how happeneth it, that the Pagan Emperors in time past, and the Turkes now doe nei­ther see it, nor discerne it? for we may not thinke, that if they knew the church, they would hate it, and persecute it.

They beare men in hand, that the Pope desining out of his chaire cannot erre. but it is as much as if they should say, that a blinde man sitting in a chaire cannot do amisse in iudging colours, or that the Pope should be more wise sit­ting in a chaire, then standing in a pulpit, or walking in a hal; sitting at the table in his chaire, and feeding daintily, then disputing in schooles:

They call him Christes vicar. yet our Sauiour did neither weare triple crowne, nor thunder out his excommunicati­ons against Gods children, nor persecute & cut the throates of Christians.

By the right of S. Peter the Pope challengeth power to depose Princes, and to translate kingdomes. yet it is absurd to thinke, that Peter had any such power.

They know, that Peter was charged to feed Christs sheepe. are they not then absurd fellowes, that beleeue the Pope to be S. Peters successor, that neuer feedeth nor teacheth, but rather murdroth and massacreth Christians?

Peter was neuer borne vpon mens shoulders, nor did he giue his feete to be kissed of his followers, as a fauour. nay when Cornelius fell downe at his feete, he willed him to rise vp, and would not suffer himselfe to be worshipped. are they not then strange fellowes, that beleeue the Pope to be S. Peters heire, who is heaued on mens shoulders, and re­quireth that Princes and all others should kisse his feete and worship him?

They permit publicke stewes, and forbid honest wed­locke. they dispence with adulterie and fornication very ea­sily, as appeareth by the chap. & siclerici. de iudicijs, but de­pose and burne their priests and friers, if they ioyne them­selues in honest marriage with lawfull wiues. are they not then absurd fellowes, that make good euill, and euill good?

Euery continued quantitie is in one place. are they not [Page 109]then strange teachers, that say Christes body is in many pla­ces at once, and that it is in heauen, and in earth, and not in the middle place, nor continued to it selfe?

Reason teacheth vs, that accidents haue their being in a subiect. but these fellowes against reason say they subsist in the Sacrament without a subiect.

The Aegyptians absteined from eating such creatures, as they worshipped for God. but the Masse-priests, as men more senselesse, then the barbarous heathen nations, haue no sooner made their God, but they deuoure him. and heereof proceeded such a scandale, that Auerroes for this onely cause pronounced the Romish religion to be the most foolish and absurd religion of all others.

Christes body in heauen, they confesse, is to be felt and seene. how then commeth it to passe, that this bodie being at the same time in the Sacrament, as Papistes say, is neither felt nor seene? is not this notorious patcherie?

They confesse also, that Christes body is of a iust length, breadth, and thicknesse. are they not then absurd fellowes, that beleeue, that such a body can be conteined in a piece of an host no bigger then a counter? and are they in their wits, that teach that one host being consecrated, Christes whole body is there, and that the host being broken, Christs body is also whole in euery peece thereof?

Are they not also impious and absurd fellowes, that say, that a dogge, a hogge, a mouse, or a sparrow, may cate vp the Sauiour of the world?

That the same man should be both a creature and a crea­tor, nay a creator of his owne Creator, is an absurditie pas­sing the boundes both of religion and reason. and yet this is a peece of Popish diuinitie. Innocentius lib. 4. de myst. mis­sae. c. 19. sayth, that dayly a creature is made the creator. ita ergo quotidie creatura sit creator. and in Stella Clericorum we finde these words, Sacerdos est creator sui Creatoris: that is, a Priest is the creator of his creator.

Papistes also make Christians barbarous Canibales, and eaters of mans flesh, and drinkers of mans blood.

Nay when they eate his flesh, they suppose they drinke his blood by a necessarie concomitance, making Christians both to cate and drinke with one breath. and in a certeine prouinciall constitution, beginning, ignorantia. de summa Trinit. the Masse-priests teach their followers, neither to cate, nor to drinke Christes body, but to suppe it vp perfectly, tritum modicè sorbere perfectè.

Christes blood hath redeemed vs, and saued vs, as holie Scriptures teach vs. but the papistes say, that Christes bloud is really in the chalice after consecration, in which notwith­standing we reade in stories, that both Victor the third, and William archbishop of Yorke, that liued in the daies of Ana­stasius the 4. was poisoned.

In the Sacrament they confesse, that wormes may be en­gendred, and that the consecrated wine may be corrupted. is it not then a most absurd peece of doctrine, to hold, that Christs body and bloud should be in the Sacrament, where vermine is engendred, and which is subiect to corruption?

Is it not also extreme folly to abandon Christ, in whose name we are commanded to pray to the Father; and to pray to God in the name of Saints, which is no where comman­ded, but rather forbidden as derogatory to Gods honour?

In the office of our Ladie at Matins in a certeine antipho­na, they say, gaude Maria virgo, cunctas haereses sola interemisti in toto mundo. Resoice virgin Mary, thou onely hast killed all he­resies in the whole world. but what more foolish, then without warrant, to ascribe this to the virgin Mary, and to take this honour from almightie God?

They also say their Pater noster before stockes and stones. but what is more absurd, then to pray to those, that cannot heare, and to looke for helpe of them, that cannot helpe themselues?

The Masse-priests in their praiers looking vpon a little woodden crucifixe, say, thou hast redeemed vs. thou hast recon­ciled vs to thy Father, as Bellarmine lib. 2. de cultu sanct. c. 23. confesseth. may we then thinke, that these are well in their wits, that make a peece of wood, or mettall, their Sauiour, [Page 192]and take this honour from the Sonne of God, to giue it to a dumbe image?

In their breuiaries they pray thus to the crosse, auge pijs iustitiam reisque dona veniam. iner [...]ase iustice in the godly, and grant pardon to sinners. are they not very blockish then, trow you, that thus pray to a blocke, and hope to finde pardon of a dumbe creature?

At Cahors in France they pray to Christs winding-sheete, which they call sudarium, saying, holy sudary pray for vs: and againe, sudarium Christi liberet nos à peste, & morte tristi. the winding sheet of Christ let it deliuer vs from the plague and hea­uy death. as if a sheete could pray for vs, or deliuer from the plague. doe they not deserue to be trussed in a cloke­bagge, whose trust is in a counter fet winding-sheete?

They giue the same honor to the sacrament, and to the crosse, that is due to God, very absurdly transferring the glorie of God to creatures. are they not then absurd wor­shippers, that cannot distinguish betwene God and crea­tures? and doe they not very absurdly deny themselues to be idolaters?

Absurdly also they celebrate the feast of the crosse whereon our Sauiour was dishonored, not celebrating the feast of the asse, on which he was honored. Durand rat. diui. 7. c. 11. disputing this matter is much pusseld about it.

They beleeue verily, that images haue talked and walked, and all this because it is said so in the legend. but they shew themselues very foolish, that beleeue legends, and beleeue not the scriptures, that say they haue mouthes and speake not, feete and walke not.

The grounds of their religion are very absurd and foolish: for they sound themselues vpon the Pope and his decre­tales; the Pope being oftentimes soolish and ignorant, and his decretales being rude, false, and oftentimes ridiculous. Baldus in c. 1. de natur. seud. saith, that Pope Celestine the sift was a simple fellow. vnum pecus. Innocent the 3. in the Chap. solitae. demaior. & obed. argueth, that the Pope is aboue the Emperor, because the sunne is bigger then the moone. an [Page 193]argument meerely lunaticall. in another place he gathereth, that we are now to obserue the laws of Deuteronomy, because Deuteronomium signifieth a second law. Bonisace the eight in the chap. vnam sanctam. extr. de maior. & obed. proueth the Pope to be aboue al Princes, because we reade Genes. 1. that God in the beginning made the world. Clement the 6. in the chap. Vni­genitus extr. de poenit. & remiss. saith, that vnlesse the ouer­plus of the merits of Christ had beene bestowed in dispensing the treasure of indulgences, that the same had beene void and super­fluous, and like treasure laid vp in a napkin. that the decretales are full of lyes we shall declare, when we come to speake of Popish-lies.

They say it is a point of faith, to beleeue, that the Pope is Saint Peters successor, and head of the church. yet if the Priest, that baptised the Pope had no intention to baptize him, then he is no member of the church: if he that ordred the Pope had no intention to order him, then is he no priest. If he haue no intention to consecrate, then doth he not con­secrat. so all dependeth vpon mens secret and vnknowen in­tentions.

They confesse also, that Christs body is not in the sacra­ment, if the priests haue no intention to consecrat; of which it followeth, that all Papists, for ought they know, are absurd idolaters.

Their ceremonies are full of foolerie. first in the masse the Priest absolueth the clerke, and then the clerke absolueth the Priest, which is all like, as if one mule should scratch ano­ther. it is absurd also to put the keyes into a boies hand, that is no Priest.

The Priest kisseth the altar, and praieth for remission of sinnes by the merites of Saints whose reliques are there contai­ned. so a stocke kisseth a stone, and forgetting Christ praieth for remission of sins by the merites of Saints, whose reliques are said to be there, where there is no reliques at all, and per­case the bones of dogs, or apes, or other beasts, for ought the wise masse-priest knoweth.

In the Missale of Sarum after the priest hath consecrated, [Page 194]he maketh a low legge worshipping the worke of his owne hand, and saith aue, which is as much, as God saue you sir, or you are welcome to towne.

The priest is apparrelled like a moriske-dancer, and skip­peth and danceth about the altar like an ape in a chaine. his head is shauen and well greased, his hands washed, but his hart vncleane. and this gallant taketh vpon him, not only to offer Christ in sacrfice, but also to swallow him downe like a pill without chawing.

The Friers for the most part are apparrelled like chim­ney-sweepers, or burners of houses, with a hood vpon their head like a bagge of hippocrace.

The Popes when they are first chosen doe cast mony a­broad saying, argentum & aurum non est mihi, as is prescribed lib. 1. caerem. but most vnlike they are to him, whose words they abuse. further, absurdly they deny themselues to haue mony, when they cast mony a broad, and inioy so great riches.

When they take the Pope from the perced stoole, where his humanitie is tried, they say he hath raysed the poore out of the dust. ex stercor ariae eleuantes dicunt, suscitat de puluere ege­num. and yet absurdly this beggar, as they say, is lord of lords and King of Kings.

Their demands and answers in matters of religion are not very wise. Austen asketh of Gregory, as Bede reporteth lib. 1. hist. Angl. c. 28. whether a woman with child were to be baptised, as if not shee, as well as others. Boniface of Mentz asked the Pope; if it were lawfull to eat Bacon. and he answereth, yea: but prouided alwaie, said he, that it be dried with smoke, or boyled.

Their legends are feriall. Ruffine one of S. Francis his schollers disputing with the diuell, told him he would doe Sir reuerence in his mouth. Ruffinus dixit diabolo, aperi os tu­um, & ego stercorisabo in illud.

S. Francis in an award betwixt a wolfe,See S. Francis his conformitie, &c. and the men of Eugubium, condemned the townesmen in expenses, and speaking to the wolfe he said, brother wolfe. it is reported [Page 195]also that he preached to swallowes, and said, sorores meae hi­rundines audite verbum dei.

S. Aidus, as Capgraue telleth, hauing compassion on 8. hungry wolues gaue them 8. of his lambes, and after they were eaten got them out of the wolues belly by praier.

Austen the monke by praier obteined, that the men of Dorset, that had scorned him, and all their posterity, had tailes. belike the race is now failed. the whole legend is full of foolish fables. but I shall haue occasion to speake thereof elsewhere.

The reasons of their religion are absurd. Coemiterium, saith Durand. l. 1. c. 5. dicitur a cimen, quod est dulce, & sterion quod est statio &c. vel quia ibi sunt cimices, vel vermes vltra modum foetentes. and againe, [...] dicitur quasi pollutū antrum. in the same booke c. 4. he saith, the bell-rope betokeneth the hu­mility & life of preachers, and the measure of mans life. it is great pity that the Iebusites and masse-priests are not haltred with this signe of humility, and compassed with this measure.

Lib. 3. cap. 10. he saith the priests stole betokeneth the light yoke of the Lord. Stolalene domini iugum significat. lib. 3. c. 11. speaking of the vestiment called dalmatica, he saith it hath wide sleenes, because charity ought to be stretched out to our enemies. Charitas enim extendi debet etiam vsque ad ini­micos.

The schoole distinctions are as absurd, as the doctrine of Papists. they distinguish betweene the worship of latria, and doulia, as if that were proper to God, this to creatures. but the vse of these Greeke words admit no such distinction. beside that distinguishing termes they giue in effect the ho­nour of God to creatures.

They say the first iustice is without workes, the second is of workes. but the holy scriptures speake but of one sort of iustice, whereby Christians are to be iustified before God.

They speake strangely of opus operatum, & opus operans. but scriptures acknowledge no such inkepot termes, nor doctrine.

The distinction of merits of congruity and condignity is [Page 196]as absurd as the rest. for how can a man that is vnworthy of fauour, be said to merit?

With the sprinkling of holy water they thinke to driue away Diuels. but it is most absurd to thinke, that they are scarred with water.

In the church seruice they vse a tongue not vnderstood. but in the primitiue church, as Aquin. in 1. Cor. 14. confesseth, that was counted madnesse. they pray also like parrats, and know not what they say: which is foolish and fruitlesse.

In consecrating of churches they write the Greek Alpha­bet vpon the pauement. but what is more foolish than to teach stones the Alphabet?

They doe also grease the altar and set vp lights before crosses, that euerie simple soule may see their soolery.

And when their Disciples lie a dying, then they put light in their hands, and grease their eies. but it is ridiculous to shew light to dead men, or to thinke that men can see better hauing oile in their eies.

What then remaineth, but that we beseech God to open the eies of Papists, that they may in the end see the fooleries and absurdities of that superstitious religion, whereto now they are so much addicted?

CHAP. XXVIII. That popish religion doth keepe Christians in blindnesse and ignorance of God and godlinesse.

IF none but fooles despise wisedome and instruction, as the wiseman Prouerb. 1. teacheth vs; then cannot we thinke the Papists wise, that not onely delight in ignorance, but al­so debarre lay-men from all ordinary meanes of instruction in the doctrine of true piety.

That they delight in ignorance, it appeareth, in that they commend the colliars faith, that could answeare the Diuell nothing, but that he beleeued as the Church beleeueth, albeit [Page 197]he knew not what it was. they doe also teach their follow­ers, that for simple people it is sufficient to beleeue the arti­cles of the faith implicite. for so saith Linwood in Gloss. in c. ignorantia. de sum. Trinit. Thomas Aquinas 2.2. q. 2. art. 6. compareth Gods people to asses, and their teachers to o­xen, & saith it is sufficient for them in matters of faith to adhere to their superiours. and although he say, that they are to be­leeue the articles of the Creed explicite, yet Syluester in sum­ma in verb. fides; expoundeth it, that they are to beleeue these articles explicitè, as farre as they direct vs to the last end. in 2.2. q. 82. art. 3. Thomas saith, that the women and simple people are most deuout. and M. Cole a man not lightly accoun­ted of among the Papists, said openly, that ignorance was the mother of deuotion.

That they deprine lay-men of all ordinary meanes of in­struction in matters of faith, it appeareth first, for that they seldome permit scriptures translated into vulgar tongues to be read by them. but Scriptures as the Apostle teacheth vs 2. Tim. 3. are profitable to instruct.

Secondly, they expressely forbid them to bee read pub­lickly in the Church. their seruice also and administration of sacraments, is for the most part in tongues not vnderstood of the vulgar sort.

Thirdly they wil not suffer lay-men to dispute of matters of faith. for they are excommunicate, if they do it, as Na­uarrus in enchirid. in 1. praecept. c. 11. declareth.

Fourthly, their preachers seldome teach the people. and when they doe it, yet as Dante canto. 29. saith, they preach their owne inuentions, and tell idle tales without edificati­on. Cornelius Agrippa de vanit. scient. c. de theolog. saith, that for the Gospell, and Gods word they preach meere toies, and hu­mane inuentions. pro euangelijs & pro verbo Dei meras nugas & humana verba crepant praedicantes euangelium, adulterantes ver­bum Dei.

Fifthly, if either any preach the truth syncerely, or else speaketh against the impieties and heresies of poperie; then is hee either forced to abiure, or else adiudged to the fire.

Finally all bookes of religion in vulgar tongues, whereby Christians may come to the knowledge of the truth are sup­pressed, and by great penalties forbidden.

This we find by experience, that both Priests and people are most ignorant of matters of faith, where poperie is pro­fessed. and first to begin with the Popes, Alphonsus à Castro lib. 1. de haeres. saith, that diuers Popes haue beene vtterlie vnlearned. constat plures Papas adeo illiteratos esse, vt Gramma­ticam penitus ignorent. this sentence now in later editions they haue caused to be razed out of the booke. but yet it is not to be forgotten, that one Pope for fiat, said siatur.

Laziardus epit. c. 183. speaking of Gregory the sixth, saith he caused another to be consecrated with him for saying of masse, seeing he was rude and ignorant of letters. vt dictum est, alium se­cum consecrari fecit, cum esset rudis literarum.

Felin c. si quando. de rescriptis, saith, the Pope cannot bee deposed for want of learning. Papa propter defectum literatu­rae non potest deponi.

How simple clerkes they were, it appeareth, for that, as Auentinus testifieth annal. lib. 3. Pope Zachary condem­ned Virgilius a bishop of Germany as an hereticke, for saying there were antipodes. Paul the second, as Platina testifieth, determined them to be heretickes, that named the word academy, and was an enemie of learning.

Iohn Peccham in the prouinciall constitution, beginning ignorantia sacerdotum, thinketh it sufficient for Priests, either by themselues, or by others once euery quarter to expound the articles of the Creed, the ten commandements, the two commandements of the Gospell, the seuen workes of mer­cy, the seuen deadly sinnes, the seuen principall vertues, and seuen sacraments, and that without any curiosity.

Platina complaining of the ignorance of Priests of his time crieth out, quanta ignoratio, cum suispsius, tum doctrinae Christiana? what ignorance, saith he, is in them, as well of them­selues, as of Christian doctrine?

The two points of a bishops mitre, as Durand in his ratio­nal. teacheth, signifie the old and new Testament. but Lois [Page 199]Mersilius an Augustinian frier, being asked, what the two stroppes of the mitre that hang on the bishops backe doe meane, said, they signified, that he neither vnderstood the old, nor new testament. And this is the case of most popish prelates.

Matthew Paris in Willielmo Conquaest. saith, that clerkes were then so vnlearned, that such as vnderstood their Gram­mar were a wonderment to their fellowes.

Neither can it otherwise bee, seeing so many for bribery, simony and carnall respects were woont to bee preferred to liuings. venalitate curiae Romanae, saith the author of aureum speculum, inaniter praeficiuntur lenones, coqui, stabularij equorum, & pueri. through the bribery of the court of Rome bandes, cookes, horsekeepers, and boies are vainly preferred to the gouernment of the Church.

The author likewise of the treatise entituled onus ecclesiae, c. 23. saith, that bishops admitted vnn orthy men to charges without all choice, and due examination. indignos beneficiatos ad­mittunt, absque omni delectu, & debita examinatione instituunt.

Aluarus Pelagius lib. 2. de planct. eccles. art. 20. complain­eth, that the bishops of Spaine commit thousands of soules to some yongue nephews of theirs, to whom a man would be loth to commit two peares. Episcopi alicui nepotulo suo committunt mul­ta millia animarum, cui non committeres duo pyra.

What the learning was of their best preachers, we may vnderstand by the profound sermons of frier Menot, Mail­lard, Bromyard, and their fellowes; which were full of ridi­culous fables, and voide of all edification and learning.

The Germans of late complained to Adrian the 6. Gra­uam. 47. that bishops aduanced vnlearned idiots, vnsit, vile, and ridiculous fellowes to the order of priesthood. episcopi, say they, saepenumero indoctos, idiotas, inhabiles, viles (que) ac ludicras perso­nas ad sacerdotij functionem admittunt.

The ridiculous reasons of Durand in rationali diuinorum, and deriuations of wordes in their legends and glostes, doe bewray singular ignorance.

The monks and fries now can scarce reade their canonical [Page 200]houres, for the most part. in the monastery of Fulda the monkes accused Rabanus Maurus, as is testified in his life, for that he was so studious in Scriptures, and neglected their temporalties. and now lest children should mocke the po­pish priests, that cannot reade their masse with true accents, euery word in common missals, is accented. and yet as we reade in the chapter retulerunt. de consecrat. dist. 4. one bap­tized an infant saying, in nomine patria, filia, & spirita sancta.

Neither is it materiall, that diuers are learned in lawes, or philosophy. for what is that to the instruction of Christians in faith and manners? Bernard. lib. 1. de consid. taxeth Euge­nius for this point. daily, saith he, lawes sound in thy pallace, but the lawes of Iustinian, and not of the Lord.

The schoolemen also are skilfull in logicke, and in decre­tals; but the Scriptures and fathers they reade not, as Fer­dinand Vellosillo in the preface of his aduertences ingenious­ly confesseth. they do rather handle curious questions, then matters of edification.

The guides then being thus blind, what blindenesse may we thinke is in the multitude guided by them? may we not say of them, like priest, like people? Nay Vincentius de sine mundi, saith, that they did not heare sermons, nor know the articles of the faith. praedicationes non audiunt, articulos fidei nesciunt.

Iohn Billet in his prologue de diuin. offic. saith, that few in his times vnderstood, either what they heard, or what they read.

Commonly Papists are called Catholikes if they heare Masle, albeit they vnderstand not what is said, but only gape and gaze one the Priest. when they saie, pater noster qui es in coelis, they neither know what is pater, nor what is noster, nor what is, in caelis.

God giue them therefore the light of his word to direct them, and grant that they may vnderstand the truth, that they bee not in the number of those, that see not light at noone time, and perish for want of knowledge.

CHAP. XXIX. That Popish religion giueth the reines to licen­tiousnesse of life, and leadeth Christians the broade-way to destruction.

TRue religion restreineth mens affections, and directeth Christians in the right way. the Psalmist ps. 119. asking this question wherewith a yoong man shall redresse his way? an­swereth, in taking heede thereto according to Gods word. the same also directeth vs by a strait and narrow way vnto life. enter in, saith our Sauior, Matt. 7. at the strait gate: and after­ward, for the gate is strait, and the way narrow that leadeth vnto life. but popish religion looseth the reins to allicentiousnes, and leadeth Christians by a broade, pleasant and easie way to the end of their desires. for first they account adultery & fornication small sinnes, and giue libertie to euery Bishop to dispence with them, as they teach publikely in the Chap. & si clerici. de iudicijs. de adulterijs, & alijs criminibus, quae sunt minora, saith Alexander the third, potest episcopus cum clericis post peractam poenitentiam dispensare.

Next they allow publike stewes both in Italy and Spaine, and in Rome it selfe the Pope maketh a great gaine of them.

Cornelius Agrippa de vanit. scient. c. de Lenocinio, saith, that the reuenue of the Pope arising of the tribute of whores, a­mounteth to twentie thousand crownes. but now it farre pas­seth that summe. the glosse vpon a certaine prouincial con­stitution of Otho, de concubinis cleric. remouend. saith, that it seemeth reason, that the church should winke at the sinne of lea­cherie. nam & mareschallus Papae de facto exigit tributum à me­retricibus. for de facto the Popes marshall exacteth a tribute of whores. this is also testified by Ioannes Andreas in c. inter o­pera. de spon. & matrim. a certaine Masse-priest also in Wis­bich mainteined not long since, that whores were in Rome with approbation, and with as good right as any citizen of Rome, or as the Pope himselfe.

Thirdly it is notorious, that Masse-priests both in Italy and Spaine and other places keepe concubines. the same is also testified by Aluarus Pelagius de Planct. ecclesiae. Theodoric à Niem tractat nemor. vnion. and diuers others. Cornclius A­grippa de vanit. scient c. de lenocinio reporteth, that they kept whores to hire. Ambrosius Ansbertus in Apocalyps. 18. saith, that archdeacons take mony of adulterous Priests. archidiacont a presbyteris adulteris pretium accipiunt.

Fourthly they teach, that concupiscence is no sinne. and in Italy and Spaine the common people goe as commonly to common women, as if it were no sinne.

Lastly, albeit the Friers and Priests condemne such sins, yet if any come vnto them for absolution, they deny it not, and that vpon some small hope of almes, or else some other small satisfaction. and this is the reason, that lust doth reigne in Popery.

The Germaines in their greeuances complaine, that the fa­cility of granting indulgences was a warrant for men to cō ­mit all filthinesse: and In Italy it is knowen, that they that come oftenest to confession are most loose liuers. after their offence they come for absolution, and after absolution of­fend againe.

The way also, by which Popish Priests leade their follow­ers, is broade, easie and pleasant. Bellarmine de eccles. mili­tant. c. 2. requireth in a true member of the Catholike church, neither inward faith, nor other vertue, but only, that he pro­fesse outwardly the Romish religion and be subiect to the Pope; a matter of no great difficulty.

If a man take vpon him the habit of a Monke or a Frier, they make it a second baptisate, and that state, they say, is a state of perfection. so you see how easie a matter it is with Papists, not only to be a true member of the church, but al­so a perfect Christian. for who cannot take vpon him a Fri­ars or Monkes weede? in the apologie for Herodotus it is testified, that a certaine Frier taught, that the only way for the Diuell to be saued, was to put on Saint Francis his coule.

Further they teach, that the Pope hath power, to grant [Page 203]pardons for fornication, adultery, incest, rapes, murders, periurie, trechery, sodomitrie, maranismes and all vices, as appeareth by the Popes penitentiary taxes, and that for no great sums of money. now what more easie then to obteine the Popes pardon?

If a man heare Masse euery Sunday & holyday, and con­fesse at shrouetide, and be houseled at Easter, and fast from flesh, and obserue the rest of the Romish precepts and cere­monies, he is taken for a good Catholike. but these are mat­ters to be performed without any great difficulty.

The Papists also teach, that Christians are iustified by ex­treme vnction: which is a matter to bee obteined at euery pild Priestes-hands.

They promise also generall indulgences to such as visit certaine churches at Rome, and else where; which may bee done with small labour.

Now for veniall sinnes they say, that knocking of the brest, and holy water is remedy sufficient. for such matters they say Christians neede not to repent them. they hold also, that holy water is good to driue away diuels. but in no place is there want of holy water.

If a man liue all his life most leudly and loosely, yet if he confesse to a priest when he lieth a dying, and promise sa­tisfaction, he faileth not to haue absolution; and if he satis­fie not in this life; yet they hold, that either by Masses, or indulgences, he may be deliuered out of Purgatory. but indulgences are not deare, and Masses are dogge cheape. a trentall is not valued at 30. pence, nor whole fardels at great sums.

By euery small good worke, nay by eating red-herrings and saltfish on fridaies, and such obseruances they hope to merit heauen. so broad they make the way to heauen, and so easie a matter to come thither.

Finally as Eunomius promised them, that professed his faith reward in heauen, howsoeuer they liued; so likewise doe the Papists promise heauen to their followers, so they professe and set forward the Popes cause. whether they be murdrers [Page 204]of Kings, or massacrers, or rebels, or filthie whore-mongers, or Sodomites, it skilleth not; the Masse-priests promise not only pardon, but also reward in heauen, so they die in the Popes obedience, and professe his religion.

This religion therefore that giueth such liberty to sinners, and leadeth them such pleasant waies, feeding the eies of people with sights, their eares with pleasant soundes, and satisfying all their senses with carnall pleasures, cannot bee true.

We could also specifie the same by infinit examples, and by particulars shew, that papists run the broade way, but that we reserue it to the next Chapter.

CHAP. XXX. That Popish religion bringeth foorth such bitter fruits, that the professors thereof haue no reason to boast of their workes.

GOod trees are knowen by their fruits. let vs then see what fruits haue come of Popery, that we may know, whether the tree be good or no, from whence they haue is­sued. Bristow in his 39. Motiue imagineth, that we haue nothing to say against his consorts, and therefore braggeth much of workes, and despiseth his aduersaries, as running the broade-way to destruction. but when his consorts shall see our discourse concerning the fruits & effects of Poperie, and their strange & enormous wicked liues, they will wish, that for this matter we had neuer beene called in question. First then wee saie, that the Papistes erre in the doctrine of workes, and next that their liues are so disorderly, as if they did only study to excell in all wickednesse, leudenesse and villanie.

Christians beleeue, that the law of God is a perfect rule of good life. but they hold, that not only Gods lawes, but all scriptures are imperfect, and insufficient without traditi­ons.

Christians beleeue, that the perfection of Christian life consisteth in the Gospell. but these teach, that the rules of Benet, Francis, Dominicke and other monkes and friers, doe direct vs to a further perfection, then is commanded in the Gospell.

They doe as well beleeue, that the lawes of the Pope do binde our consciences, as Gods lawes, and thinke, that the workes done according to the Popes lawes do as well please God, as the works commanded in Gods lawes.

They make more conscience to absteine from flesh on Friday, then to murder Christians, as their curiositie in keep­ing that forme of fast, and their crueltie in murdring and massacring Christians doth declare.

The Masse-priests giue absolution to most haynous sin­ners, and enioyne them penance afterward. the Pope grant­eth indulgences to most horrible offenders.

They beleeue not that concupiscence is sinne, or that it is better for Votaries to marry then to burne, or that Veni­all sinnes deserue the curse of the law, or eternall death.

They teach that euery Christian is to satisfie for the tem­porall paines due to sinnes, and that either in this life, or in the life to come, in purgatorie.

They beleeue that a man may be iustified by extreme vnction, and other popish sacraments, and by the works of the law, and not by faith in Christ Iesus.

They suppose, that euery man is able to performe the workes of the law perfectly. of which it followeth, that, as the Pelagians taught, a man may liue without sinne.

Finally by their workes they hope to merit eternall life; which is directly contrary to the Apostles doctrine Rom. 6. who teacheth vs, that eternall life is the gift of God.

If then the Papistes erre so grossely both in the doctrine of works, and also in the rule of our works, it is not like, that their works are excellent.

Nay we finde by practise, that their workes are for the most part impious, and displeasing vnto God, as for exam­ple the adoration of the crosse and sacrament, their blasphe­mous [Page 206]praiers to the virgin Mary, to Angels and Saints, their sacrilegious taking of the cup of the new testament from Gods people, their worship done to Antichrist, their per­iuries and rebellions against Princes; their murdring Gods saints, their mainteining of publicke stewes and bankes of vsury, and such like. the rest cannot much please God or man: as for example, the begging of vagabond friers, the forswearing of mariage, the eating of muscles, cockles and red herrings in Lent, the taking of ashes on Ashwednesday, the ringing and singing for dead men, the shauing of priests crownes, the greasing of sicke men, of altars, bels, and such like toies and ceremonies.

But to let these workes passe, wherin the papistes please thēselues more then God or good men, we wil declare, that no sect of heretikes euer did cōmit more heinous offences, or offended more commonly in matters by themselues not denied to be sinnes, then the principall of the Popish sect. the forme of confession commonly prescribed to Romish penitents by the ordinall is this. Confiteor quia peccaui nimis in superbia, inani gloria, in extollentia tam oculorum quam ve­stium & omnium actuum mcorum, in inuidia, in odio, in auari­tia tam honoris, quam pecuniae, in ira in tristitia, in acedia, in ven­tris ingluuie, in luxuria Sodomitica &c. so they confesse them­selues guiltie of all their 7. deadly sinnes, and adde Sodomie and many other villanies.

Of their publike stewes in Spaine, Italy, and Rome it selfe, and of the concubinage of Masse-priests, we haue spo­ken before.

Boccace in his second nouell sheweth, that the Pope, Car­dinales, Prelates, and other citizens of Rome did liue dishonest­ly, and offend not only in naturall, but also in Sodomiticall luxury. non solo nella naturale, maanchora nella Sodomitica.

Hulderichus of Augusta in his epistle to Pope Nicolas, de­clareth, how the Popish clergy refusing mariage committed incest and abominable Sodomiticall villanies, both with men and beasts. Sub falsa continentiae specie placere volentes grauiora vides cōmittere, masculorum ac pecudum amplexus non reformidane.

Petrarch in his 106. sonnet doth call Rome, a slaue of le­cherie and gluttony and drunkennesse, and saith, that luxurious­nesse is come to extremitie in her

De vin serua, di letti, e di vuiande
In cui lussuria fa l'vltima proua.

In his nineteenth epistle he chargeth the court of Rome not onely with incontinency, and vnbrideled lustes, but also with all perfidiousnesse, impieties and villanies. Quicquid vsquam persidiae & doli, quicquid inclementiae superbiae (que) quicquid impu­dicitiae & effrenatae libidinis audisti aut legisti, quicquid deni (que) impietatis & morum pessimorum sparsim habet aut habuit orbis terrae, totum istic cumulatim videas, aceruatim (que) reperias.

Vguetinus in his visions doth diuers times exclaime against the sodomiticall abominations of the friers. Iterum at (que) ite­rum, saith the collector, de scelere sodomitico verbum intulit. speaking against Priests he said, they gaue themselues to fol­low harlots and luxuriousnesse, and supposed gaine to be godlinesse. neither may we thinke the Masse-priests haue now changed manners, as may appeare by Iohn Casaes sonnets, and a leud booke entitled Cicalamento del Grappa; both of them appro­uing the sinnes of Sodome, and iustifying the citie of Go­morrha in respect of Rome. in the visitation of the abbeies of England in king Henry the 8. his daies such abominations were discouered, as of modest men cannot handsomely be reported. Huntington lib. 5. and Cestrensis report, how An­selme in one synod forbad priests marriage, but in the next made lawes against Sodomites, and there condemned eight ab­bots beside inferior monkes, priests, and friers. At Gant, as ap­peareth by recordes, foure Franciseans and one Augustinian frier were burnt for Sodomy since these late troubles. the manners of the Italians are knowne to those, that haue tra­uailed that countrey, and therefore I need not to speake much of them.

Luitprandue lib. 6. c. 6. saith, that the Popes palace in his time was become a brothell house. Lateranense palatium, olim sancto­rum hospitium, nunc est prostibulum meretricum.

Gregory the 12. as Theod. à Niem tract. 6. vnion. c. 34. [Page 208]reporteth, chargeth two and twenty monasteries with impi­etie and filt by life. pene omnis religio, & obseruantia dicti ordi­nis, ac dei timor abscessit, libido ac corruptio carnis inter ipsos ma­res & moniales, necnon alia multa mala, excessus, & vitia, quae pudor est effari, per singula sucereuerunt.

Cardinals, saith4. Brig. 49. Brigit in her reuelations, giue themselues without restreint to all pride, coueteousnesse and delights of the flesh. and againe, now the stewes are in more esteeme, then the true church of God.

Catherine of Siend c. 125. saith, religious men should resem­ble Angels, but are woorse then diuels.

Breidenbach in the historie of his peregrinations, speak­eth generally of the men of his time and saith, recessit lex à sacerdotibus &c. that is, the law is departed from priests, iustice from princes, counsell from elders, good dealing from the people, loue from parents, reuerence from subiects, charitie from prelats, religion from monkes: and so he goeth on not sparing any.

Walter Mapes, that liued in the daies of Henry the se­cond, testifieth, that the clergy did study wickednesse and impie­ty. and calleth them heires of Lucifer, and blinde guides.

Robert bishop of Aquila in his sermons mentioned by Six­tus Senensis Biblioth. lib. 3. turning himselfe to his countrey of Italy vttreth these words with great vehemency, ô Italia plange, ô Italia time, ô Italia caue &c. that is, O Italy lament, ô Italy feare, ô Italy beware, lest for thy obstinacie the wrath of God doe not waxe cruell against thee. thou art euery day more and more hardened, perseuering in thy sinnes and maliciousnesse. euery where men set vp bankes of vsury. all places are desiled with most foule vices of the flesh and most shamefull sodomy. pride in pompous shewes hath now possessed cities and the country. blasphemies against God, periuries, lies, iniustice, violence, op­pression of the poore and such like vices doe superabound. and all this is spoken of the Popes countrey.

I need not tell, saith Platina in Marcellino, how excessiue the couetousnesse of priests is, and of those especially, that are in prin­cipall places, nor how great their lust, ambition, pompe, pride, sloth, ignorance of themselues, and of Christian doctrine is growne, [Page 209]how corrupt their religion is, and rather dissembled, then true; and how corrupt their manners are, in prophane men, whom they call secular to be detested, seeing they offend so openly and pub­likely, as if they sought praise thereby. in Gregory the 4. he hath these words, in omnem luxum & libidinem se effundit ecclesia­sticus ordo: writing of Iohn the 13. he saith, he was a man con­taminated from his youth with all filthinesse and dishonesty. in the life of Gregory the 6. speaking of three Popes, he calleth them three most foule monsters.

Wernerus infasciculo temporum, bewaileth the state of the church, as if holy men were failed, & truth perished frō the sons of men. speaking of the times about a thousand yeares after Christ, he saith, Christian faith began to faile, and that then men began to giue themselues to soothsaying, and witch-craft.

Apud pleros (que) religionis nostrae primores, saith Picus Miran­dula in orat. ad Leonem 10. ad quorum exemplum componi, at (que) formari pl [...]bs ignara debuisset, aut nullus aut certe exiguus dei cultus, nulla bene viuendi ratio atque institutio, nullus pudor, nulla modestia. he saith, that in the principall of the clergie there was neither religion, nor good life, nor shame. afterward he tax­eth the luxuriousnesse of all estates, but especially the furiousnesse of lusts, the ambition, couetousnesse and superstition of the Romish Clergie.

Marcellus Palingenius in virgine, complaineth of a gene­rall corruption of manners throughout the world.

imo libenter saith he
Destituam hunc mundum, innumeris (que) refertum
Fraudibus at (que) dolis, incestibus, at (que) rapinis,
Est vbi nulla fides, piet as est nulla, nec vlla
Iustitia, & pax & requies, vbi crimina regnant
Omnia.

He saith, that all vices reigned, and that there was neither faith, nor piety, nor iustice in the world: viz. among the Pa­pists.

Matthew Paris in Henrico tertio complaineth, that religion was trodden vnder foote, and that vsury and simony reigned.

Erasmus de amicab. concord. saith, that if a man looke neerely, [Page 210]he shall find all filled with fraudes, iniuries, rapines. si quis propiùs inspiciat, inueniet fraudibus, iniurijs, rapini [...]referta omnia.

Hereupon Petrus de Aliaco lib. de reformat. ecclesiae com­plaineth, that certaine barators had destroied the church, which the fathers had formerly built. primitius theologi ecclesiam aedifi­cauerunt, quam nunc baritatores destruxerunt.

Simony and Vsury among the Romanists is so common, that as Matth. Paris saith, they accompt the first no sinne, the second a small sinne. Felin in c. ex parte. de offic. & potest. iudic. delegat. saith, that without the rent of Simony the popes sea would grow contemptible. heu Simon regnat, per munera quae (que) regun­tur, saith one in hist. Citizensi. Theodoric à Niem lib. 2. de schism. c. 7. saith, that vsury did then so much preuaile that it was accompted no fault. Paul the 4. and Pius the 4. in their times were great banquiers and vsurers, as we may see in their liues written by a Parasite of the Popes called Onu­phrius. If we should speake of particular men, we should find no end of their villanies. Wernerus speaking of Iohn the 12. saith he was wholy giuen to lust. totus lubricus.

Beno, Platina and others testifie, that Siluester the 2. and Benedict the ninth were Magicians, and the Diuels sworne ser­nantes.

Gregory the 7. was deposed by the councell of Brixia, as a notorious necromancer possessed with a diabolicall spirit.

Iohn the 23. was conuicted in the councell of Constance to be an incestuous person, a Sodomit, and an atheist denying the immortality of the soule, as we reade in the actes thereof.

Clement the 5. as Hermannus testifieth, was a publike for­nicator. the same is also testified by Mattheo Villani hist. l. 3. c. 39. against Clement the sixt.

Sixtus the 4. passed Nero in cruelty and all villany.

Gaude prisce Nero, saith one, vincit te crimine Sixtus;
Hic scelus omne clauditur, & vitium.

Marullus and others testifie against Innocent the 8. that he had sixteene bastards, and was a dull fellow giuen to carnall pleasures.

Of Alexander the 6. we reade, that he wasted the world, [Page 211]ouerthrew law and religion. neither could Onuphrius dis­semble his vices.

He that listeth to see the like testimonies against Masse­priests, Monkes, Friers, and their complices, let him reade the second booke of my answere to Rob. Parsons his warne-word.

But what should proofes neede in so plaine matters? if the Popes, whom they call most holy, be such, we must not imagine, that their base slaues, and dependants are better.

The practise of this sect doth iustifie this charge most ful­lie. of late time they haue murdred millions of Gods Saints. In England of late they attempted to destroy the King and his house, to blow vp the Lords & Commons in Parliament assembled, and to cut the throtes of all good men. they nei­ther respect King nor friend, old nor yoong, oath nor pro­mise. Among themselues there is neither iustice nor honesty. poore people are abused with superstitious shewes, and dis­sembled grauity. through the practises of Popes, Christen­dome is diuided, and the kingdome of Turkes enlarged.

Can those therefore bee good men, that doe such leud acts? and haue they reason to boast of works, whose liues are so defiled with all vices?

CHAP. XXXI. That in Popery a base accompt is made of Princes, and all lay-men.

HOly scriptures doe giue honorable titles not only to Kings and Princes, but also to all the people of God. Princes Rom. 13. are called superior powers, and Gods mini­sters for our good. and in diuers places they are dignified, as Gods anoynted. Christians are also called Saints, and Gods he­ritage, and his sonnes and children, and heires of Gods kingdome annexed together with Christ. but the Masse-priests and polshorne crew make but a base reckoning of them. for first they appropriat to themselues the title of Gods [Page 212]inheritance, calling themselues [...] and clericos, as if the Popes greasie shauelings were only Gods inheritance, and the rest were profane and common persons.

Secondly in the church they diuide themselues from lay-men, as if lay-men were not holy inough to communicate with them in Gods seruice, or else as if they were vnwor­thy to come neere the Popes poleshorne and greasie com­plices.

Thirdly they call themselues only spirituall men, as if the lay-people were grosse and carnall, and without sense and feeling of piety. they doe call themselues also Gods annoin­ted, interpreting these words touch not mine anointed, of their owne greasie company.

Fourthly the state of matried folkes is termed a damned state of life, as appeareth by their decretales de conuersione coniugatorum, where they talke of married folks entring into monasteries no otherwise, then as if they should talke of the conuersion of sinners. Syricius c. plurimos. dist 82. doth talke of maried folkes, as of men profane and vnholy; and Inno­centius in the same distinction c. proposuisti. doth interpret these words of the Apostle, those that are in the flesh cannot please God, of married folkes, as if they were in the flesh and could not please God. for otherwise his conclusion is of no valew.

Fiftlie they call lay-people imperfect. for that is a worde vsed by Faber contra anatomen missae. the state of perfection they ascribe commonly to Monkes and Friers. some call them doggs and hoggs, and proue, that scriptures are not to be permitted to be read in vulgar tongues, because holie things are not to bee giuen to dogs, nor pearles cast before swine.

Thomas Aquinas 2.2. q. 2. art. 6. compareth Gods peo­ple to asses, holding, that it is sufficient for them to adhere to their superiors in matters of saith, because we read Ioh 1. that the oxen were at plow, and the Asses fedde by them.

Summa Rosella, and Siluester in his summe in verb. fides, doth take lay-men and simple people to be all one. and [Page 213]commonly they call them idiots and rude fellowes.

6 Pops Alexander trod vpon the Emperors necke, calling him a lion & basiliske. and Boniface the 8. indeuoreth to make Kings his subiects.

7 They make Kings and Princes their hang-men & ex­equutioners, forcing them to put Gods Saints to death, whom the woluish inquisitors before haue condemned.

Finally they take from Princes all command and autho­rity in the church, not suffering them either to make ecclesi­asticall lawes, or to meddle with ecclesiasticall persons. as for other Christians they doe excommunicate them, curse them, burne them, massacre them, and set them together by the eares, that one may teare another, if they repugne a­gainst their commandements.

Can we then esteeme Popery to be Christian religion, that holdeth Christians in so base accompt? and will Chri­stians indure this yoke of bondage put vpon their neckes by the Popes faction, that endeuoreth to take all liberty from Christians?

CHAP. XXXII. That Popery is a doctrine of diuels.

THe diuel being the author of all vntrueth and falshood, it may well be said, that all the lying and false doctrine of papists is of the diuel. but beside this, there are particu­lar reasons, why we call Popery the doctrine of diuels. for first diuers points of popish doctrine are specially said to pro­ceed from the diuell, and next the best proofes and meanes which our aduersaries haue to maintaine their doctrine, are from the diuell.

The Apostle 1. Tim. 4. calleth the prohibition of mar­riage, and lawes of abstinence from certaine meates, do­ctrines of diuels. for speaking of doctrines of diuels after­ward he specifieth the same, saying, forbidding to marry, and commanding to absteine from meats, which God hath created. [Page 214]but Papists by law expressely forbid marriage to priests, and others that haue vowed single life, and the eating of flesh on fasting daies, and white soule in lent. neither can they excuse themselues, for that they doe not condemne mar­riage as simply euill, or flesh as vncleane. for Thcodoret sheweth, that such came within the compasse of the Apo­stles censure, as by law prohibited these things, further nei­ther did the Encratites or Manichees absolutely forbid mar­riage as vncleane, but as not fitting such as tende to perfe­ction.

Epiphanius in haeres. 79. esteemeth the superstition of those women, that offred the sacrifice of a cake in the honour of the virgin Mary, to be diabolicall. totum hoc opus est diabo­licum, & spiritus immundi doctrina. but Papists doe offer their masse cakes in the honour of our Lady, and of Saints.

Likewise he calleth it a doctrine of diuels, to giue diuine worship to dead men. but this is a common practise among Papistes. for by Saints they sweare, and to them they con­fesse their sinnes, and in honour of them they build chur­ches and altars, and say masses: all which are speciall points of diuine honour.

Further he sheweth, that the desire that men haue in making grauen images is a diuelish indeuor. simulachrificum studium diabolicus conatus. but where is there more labour bestowed in making images, then in the synagogue of Rome?

S. Chrysostome homil. 9. in epist. ad Coloss. saith, that the diuel first brought in the superstitious worship of Angels. diabolus su­perstitionem angelorum introduxit. heere then we vnderstand, whence the Papists haue their worship of Angels.

From the diuell also hath the Pope learned to aduance himselfe aboue al that is worshipped, and to take vpon him, as if he were God. Apocalyps. 9. we read, that the smoke that darkned the sunne and the aire came out of the bottomlesse pit, and that locustes came out of this smoke. but this smoke is nothing else but the fumes of the errors of Popery, which haue long darkned the brightnesse of the truth, and the lo­custes are the monks and friers, which with their poysoned [Page 215]doctrine drawne from hell haue infected the mindes of sim­ple people.

About the yeere of our Lord 1256. as Matthew Paris te­stifieth, the friers published a booke entituled Euangelium aeternum, composed of certaine dreames of abbot Ioachim. and this, say they, exceeded the gospel written by the foure Euangelists, as farre as the Sunne the Moone, or the kernell the nut. but the author of the Romant of the Rose, where he speaketh of the hypocrisie of friers, testifieth, that this booke came from the great diuell.

Fut or baille (c'est chose voire) saith he,
Pour bailler commun exemplaire,
Vn liure de par le grand diable
Dit l'euangile perdurable.

That the Popes haue serued the diuell, it appeareth by Iohn the 12. that called vpon the diuell, as he plaid at dice, by Syluester the 2. and Benet the 9. that were necromancers, by Gregory the 7. thatMatt. Paris in With. Conq. confessed at his death, that by the counsell of the diuel he had stirred vp Gods anger against the world, and diuers others: but seruing the diuell, it is not like­ly, but they learned somewhat of him.

Delrius lib. 4. de Magia. c. 1. q. 3. §. 5. testifieth, that the diuell appeared to a certaine abbot in forme of an Angell, and commanded him to say Masse. but he would not haue perswaded it, vnlesse he had well liked it. Dibdale a Masse­priest in England coniured the diuell to tell him, whether Christes body was present in the Sacrament or no. he said it was. and this was a great satisfaction to the Papists present, as is said in a booke of miracles, that passeth from hand to hand.

In the 2. Nicene councell act. 4. a certaine monke proo­neth the worship of Images by the testimony of the diuel.

I sengrenius in libro de Maria in veteri ottinga, prooueth that the virgin Mary, was to be worshipped by the witnesse of the diuel, that said his aue Maria.

In the 2. booke of conformities fruct. 2. they make proofe by the diuels testimonie, of the vertue of indulgences gran­ted to the church of Assisium by the meanes of S. Francis. [Page 216]Likewise lib. 3. conformitatum fruct. 8. a certaine [...]i [...]el tolde one, as is said, how Angels were present at the death of S. Francis. daemon dixit cuidam angelos interfuisse in transitu B. Francisci. another told, how S. Francis his soule passed through Purgato­ry. by the testimony of another diuel, they prooue that S. Francis had Christs wounds imprinted in his body, and that he and Christ onely of all that were in heauen had these markes. the wordes of the booke of conformities are these. diabolus dixit, quod Christus videns, quod Franciseus sibi da­tus esset pro signisero tanti ordmis, ipsi suorum vnlncrum stigma­ta impressit. and againe, diabolus adiuratus à quodam sacerdote de veritate dicenda, post plura per os mulieris apud Ranennam morantis nomime Zantese sic inquit, in coelo sunt tantum duo sig­nati, scilicet Christus & slomachosus Franciscus.

Baronius in his 4. tome, prooueth Iohn and Paul to be mar­tyrs by the diuels testimony. daemones clamantes ex corporibus obsessorum Ioannem & Paulum martyres esse testabantur. so heere we see whence the Papists haue the worship of Saints.

In the 77. lombard legend it is said, that Dioclesians sonne being possessed with a diuel, the same diuel cried out, that he wold not dislodge before Vitus came. lo heere a braue testimonie of the holinesse of S. Vitus.

Finally the massacres and cruell executions done by the Papistes of late yeeres vpon the Saints of God, haue procee­ded from no other fountaine, then from the malice of the diuel. for he was a murderer from the beginning. and Apo­calyps. 12. we read, that the great red dragon, that is, the di­uel persecuted the woman, which was a figure of the church of God, and caused her to flie into the wildernesse. from the same fountaine also doe issue all the forgeries, lies, and calumniations of Papists, whereby they haue gone about to suppresse the truth. for the diuell is the father of lies, and from their father the diuel the lying friers and Masse-priests haue learned their lying deuises. who then is of God must needs hate this religion, that is partly inuented, and partly mainteined by the diuell.

CHAP. XXXIII. That Papists can haue no assurance of the truth of their religion.

OF the trueth of our Christian faith we are assured. for the articles thereof were deliuered by Christ, taught by the Apostles and Prophets, conteined in Scriptures, and confessed by the catholicke church of all times. but it is not so with Popery. for neither did Christ deliuer it, nor the A­postles and Prophets teach it, nor is the same conteined in Scriptures, or confessed by the catholike church of all times, but dependeth partly vpon traditions not written, and part­ly vpon the Popes determinations, and partly vpon the opinions of schoole-men and canonistes, and the monkes and friers. now what assurance I pray you, can any Papist haue of these doctrines?

First no man yet could euer tell what these traditions are, which the Priests of Trent would make equall to Scriptures. Bellarmine lib. 4. de verb. dei talketh at randon. but he dare not come to particulars, nor directly expresse them.

Secondly, they dare not define, where these traditions are to be found. if they say in the decretales; then all future tra­ditions are cut off, and former traditions founded on the Popes opinions. if they say in the legends, their traditions will prooue lies and fooleries. for such are the legends. if they tell vs of the pure fountaines of traditions of Caesar Ba­ronius, as Pope Sixtus the fift doth, they will be laughed at, that were not auised of their groundes, before the time of this babling and confused Cardinal.

Thirdly, they cannot shew, why some traditions should be obserued, and others not. but if traditions were to be recei­ned with equall affection to holy Scriptures, then might none be abolished.

As for the determinations of Popes, they can alledge no reason, why they should be true. if they bring the wordes [Page 218]of Christ to Peter, they concerne them nothing, that are so vnlike to Peter. if they bring Christs promises to his church, they concerne them much lesse. for they are rather enemies, then members of the church. but were they members, yet what man is priuiledged so, that he cannot erre, but those which for writing of holy Scriptures were led into all truth by the holy Ghost, which is the spirit of truth?

Finally there is such contention betwixt the schoolemen and canonists, and such diuersity of opinions among the se­uerall Doctors of both the sides, that it is bard to say whe­ther any of them teacheth truly, and most certaine, that ma­ny of them teach falsely. nay scarce any point of doctrine is deliuered by schoolemen, wherein they dissent not one from another.

Now if they say, their faith is founded, not only vpon the Popes determinations, and Apostolike traditions, but also vpon holy scriptures, yet holding as they doe, this shall not any whit releeue them.

For first they cannot assure themselues, that the Latine vulgar translation of the Bible is more true, then the origi­nall text in Hebrew and Greeke. for all the fathers with one consent preferre the original fountaines before all versions.

Secondly they must needes stand in doubt, which is the old Latine vulgar translation. for if they allow that which was set out by Clement the 8. then cannot they allow of that, which was set out by Sixtus Quintus, the one so much dif­fering from the other. nor if they approue this, can they fol­low that.

Thirdly they doe not beleeue the scriptures, because God speaketh in them, nor the traditions because they are Gods worde, as they hold, but because the church doth tell vs, which are canonicall scriptures, and consigneth them vnto vs, and doth further deliuer vnto vs these traditions not written. for this is Stapletons opinion in his bookes de doctri­nalibus princip. and authorit. ecclesiast. defens. and is confessed of most Papists. but if the authoritie of scriptures, and tra­ditions in respect of vs, doth so depend vpon the church, [Page 219]that no man can be assured of either, without the authority of the Church, then doth the faith of Papists rest vpon the Pope, who, as they say, is chiefe gouernor of the church. the which will bring the Papists to great vncertainty. for who is so mad, as to beleeue, that a blind Pope can well iudge of colours, or so senselesse, as not to beleeue Gods word without the Popes warrant?

Fourthly they receiue not the articles of the faith, because they are contained in scriptures, but because they are deliue­red vnto vs by the Pope.

Thomas Aquinas 2.2.9.1. art 10. saith, that the ordring of matters of faith, and the publication of the articles of the Creed belongeth to the pope, & that Athanasius his Creed was receiued, because it was allowed by the Pope. and this by others is deliuered in more grosse termes. Stapleton in his doctrinall principles saith, that the last resolution of matters of faith is in the Popes desinitiue sentence. and Bellarmine lib. 3. de verb. dei c. 4. goeth about to shew, that the Pope is the supreme iudge, to whom the interpretation of scriptures, and last resolution of all controuersies of religion is to bee referred.

But the papists can neither assure thomselues, that he that sitteth at Rome is true Pope, and S. Peters true successor, nor that his determinations are certeine or true. That the Pope is S. Peters true successor, it will be hard to proue, con­sidering that he preacheth not, as S. Peter did, nor S. Peter weare a triple crowne, and command temporall Princes, as he doth. it is very hard also to know, whether he bee true Pope or no after the common vnderstanding of Papists. for vnlesse he bee baptized, and truly ordred and chosen, he is no true Pope. but it is hard to know, whether he were bapti­zed, which dependeth vpon the Priests intention, which is vncerteine and hidden. it is also more hard to vnderstand, whether he were truly ordred or not. for if he were not bap­tized, then is he not capable of Priest-hood, as Innocentius saith c. ventens. de presbytero non baptizato. and if he that or­dred him, had no intention to doe it, then receiued he no [Page 220]orders. lastly it is a matter most difficult, to know, whether the Pope was rightly chosen, or else by Simony, or violence, or other meanes intruded. so it is alwaies most vncertaine, whether the Pope be S. Peters successor, and a lawfull Pope, yea or no.

In the Popes determinations also there is great vncertein­tie and doubt. for neither can the Papists, that were not pre­sent in the Popes consistory, beleeue for certeine, that the Pope hath thus or thus determined, vnlesse they will be­leeue, either this or that Masse-priest, that telleth him so, or the notary that subscribeth the decretale, or the decretale it selfe: nor can they assure themselues, that the Popes deter­mination is true. If they beleeue euery Masse-priest, or No­tarie; then is the faith of Papists built vpon euery pild pated Priests report, or notaries subscription. if they beleeue the Popes decretales, because they find them written; then doe they giue more credit to the Popes decretales, then to holy scriptures: which is most absurd and impious. that the Pope determineth infallibly true, how can they assure themselues, seeing the scriptures pronounce all men liers, and subiect to infirmities? furthermore we reade, that the chiese Priests vnder the law erred diuerssie, as the offence of Aaron in making the golden calfe, of Vriah the Priest, that made an altar, after the forme of that of Damascus, of Annas and Caiphas, that condemned Christ Iesus, doth plainlie declare. Peter also erred in denying his master and dissua­ding his passion, and in Iudaizing, and dissembling his reli­gion. the bishops of Rome haue erred, as Lyra confesseth in Matth. 16. and may erre, as Adrian lib. de sacrament. c. de cōsirmat. determineth. The examples also of Marcellinus, Li­berius, Felix, Anastasius the 2. Vigilius, Honorius the first, Iohn the 23. and other Popes doe proue the same. S. Augu­stine epist. 19. doth testifie, that the writers of canonical scrip­tures only are priuiledged so, as they cannot erre. of other writers he thinketh otherwise. and this is also the opinion of other fathers. finally reason may perswade vs, to acknow­ledge this truth. for we see no more in the bishops of Rome, [Page 221]then other bishops, and lesse then in other learned men. but other bishops and learned men both haue erred, and may erre. if they say, that Peters chaire is priuiledged; then must they shew, that the bishops of Antioch & Alexandria, which haue as much right to Peters chaire, as Rome, haue ne­uer erred. but this they know cannot be done.

Thus we see, that neither in the Romish traditions, nor in the Popes decretales there is any certainty, all depending of the Popes supposed determinations, of which no cer­taintie can be had. the same also may be shewed by the con­trarie opinions of popish doctors in euery point of contro­uersie, and for that all their errors are plainly conuinced both by scriptures and fathers. but because they place their principall defence in the sacrifice of the Masse, we will only shew their want of assurance in this point.

First then no Papist in the world is able to shew, that ei­ther the whole Masse, or the canon was instituted by Christ, or the Apostles. nay we see plainly words newly thrust into the forme of consecration of the cup; and popish doctors themselues confesse, that diuers parts of the Masse haue beene made by seuerall Popes.

Secondly, they cannot shew for a thousand yeeres after Christ, that any Priest was ordeined to offer Christes bodie and blood really for quicke and dead.

Lastly, suppose the Masse were lawful, & the Priest lawful, and all the rest of the lawlesse and superstitious tricks lawful; yet can no man assure himselfe, that the Priest hath truely consecrated. for first no man can tell whether the man at the altar be a Priest, vnlesse he know, that he was baptized, and that the bishop ordring him had an intention to doe it. Secondly no man can assure himselfe, that either he had an in­tention to consecrate, or pronounced the wordes of conse­cration, or not. for they are pronounced softly.

Are not the Papistes then miserable, who are so vncertaine of their Masse, and know not, whether they worship bread, or God, whether they serue God or creatures, whether they be Christians or idolaters?

CHAP. XXXIIII. That Popery is repugnant to the lawes of Nations.

BVt could the Papists perswade themselues, that their Massing sacrifice were lawfull and the rest of their reli­gion were true; yet who would not abhorre that religion, which is grounded on such foundations, and conteineth such impieties, heresies and false doctrines, and is so repug­nant both to Catholike religion, and all antiquity?

Further we finde, that it ouerthroweth the lawes of nati­ons, dissolueth the bands of alliance and kinred, preiudi­ceth the authoritie of Kings and Princes, hazardeth their liues and persons, oppresseth the liberty of Christians, both for matters of conscience, and their temporall estate, and is maintained by lies, calumniations, forgeries, periuries, fire and sword, and most dishonest and wicked means.

The lawes of nations require, that oathes, promises, com­pactes, leagues and treaties of trade and commerce be ob­serued and kept. but all these bonds neither Popes nor Pa­pists regard. Formosus being deposed from his bishopricke, swore, that he would neuer resume the same againe. yet re­garded he not his oath. Gregorie the 7. was made Pope con­trarie to his oath, as appeareth in the life of Henrie the 4. Paschal the 2. solemnely swore to Henry the Emperor, to obserue certeine articles agreed vpon betwixt them. but he was no soner out of his hands, but he broke his oath, rebel­led against the Emperor, and excommunicated him. Charles the French King, as Theodoric a Niem testifieth tract. nemor. vnion. 6. c. 14. chargeth Gregory the 12. and Benedict the 13. with violating their oathes, vowes and promises. Violarunt sidem saith he, fregerunt votum, promissum non tenucrunt. Omiphrius chargeth Alexander the 6. with more then Punicke persidious­nesse. persidia plus quam punica. Guicciardin in his history spea­king of Clement the 7. saith, he regarded his oath but little. era di poca sede. he sheweth also, how Iulius the second endeuo­red [Page 223]to prooue, that the church, that is, the Pope, as he meant, was not bound by any oath. and that appeareth to haue beene most currant doctrine by diuers perfidious prankes plaied by Leo the 10. Clement the 7. and diuers other Popes mentioned by Onuphrius, and diuers of the Popes owne friends and parasites.

Neither doe they only breake oathes themselues, but perswade all their complices to doe the like. the Bishop of Verdune, as we reade in Conradus Traiectensis relateth, how Gregory the 7. esteemed faith to be sacrilege, and them to bee loyall, that broke their othes to the emperor. periuria sidelita­tem dicit, fidem sacrilegium sacit. Henry the 4. also, as we read in Helmoldus complained, that his subsects by the in­stigation of the Pope rebelled against their lord, and broke their saith and solemne oathes. lenarunt manus contra dominum & regem suum, & violauerunt sidem, & iuramentorum sacra­menta.

In the councell of Constance the Pope and his complices persuaded the emperor most dishonorably to violate his safe conduct granted to Iohn Husse. there also it was decreed that faith was not to be held with heretikes. they endeuo­red lately to persuade the emperor Charles the fift likewise to breake with Luther. Paul the 3. in his bull against King Hen­ry the 8. did pronounce them accursed, that would not breake oathes, and couenauts made with him, or with his subiects. Eugenius the 4. was the cause that Ladislaus King of Poland did breake with the Turke. the like practises haue diuers Popes vsed to cause subiects to rebell against Princes. Innocentius the 3. moued the English contrary to their oaths to rebell against King Iohn. and the like course did Paul the third take against King Henry the eight, and Pius the sist a­gainst Queene Elizabeth of blessed memory. the late tray­tors were diuers of them tied by speciall oathes to King lames. but with gun-ponder they meant to blow away oaths, and honestie. Finally it may truly be said of the Pope, and his complices, that they take themselues no further bound by their oathes, then their profit requireth. so one said also [Page 224]in expresse termes of them. multis annis iam peractis, nulla sides est in pactis. for many yeares they haue regarded no com­pactes. and by this stratagem they haue preuailed against the Emperors, and other Princes, and setting the Christian world vpon a flame, haue warmed themselues by the fire.

We read also that diuers leagues and treaties of peace by the wicked perswasions of Popes and their adherents and a­gents haue beene violated. The Spaniarde and English in time past enterteined peace one with another, but Pius the fifth by his agents set the one nation against the other. by the practises of Popes and their agents we find, that the freuch King Charles the 9. broke the articles of peace both with his subiects and other Princes, and caused many thousand inno­cents to be murdred and massacred throughout his king­dome anno 1572. Philip the 2. King of Spaine had not bro­ken the priuiledges of the low countries, nor the articles of the pacification at Gant anno 1576. but that he was moned thereunto by the continuall perswasions of the Pope. nay Paul the third doubted not to curse all those, that would not breake with king Henry the 8. vpon his excommunication.

Furthermore, by the lawes of nations, warres are either publickely proclaimed, or after refusall of restitution of goods wrongfully taken, by some heraulds or others de­nounced. but the Pope contrary to all lawes, caused the Spaniardes anno 1588. to come against England, before any warre was denounced. the same course also did Paul the 3. hold in his warres against the Germans. neither doe the pa­pists end euour any thing more, then to take Christians on sleepe, and so to steale vpon them and to cut their throates. and this appeared lately most clearely in the cruell conspira­racy of the ponder men, and vndermining papists.

Great respect is alwaies had to ambassadors and agents sent to treat of war or peace. And this isC. in [...]genti­um, dist. 1. confirmed by the lawes of al nations. but Popes haue oftentimes euill entrea­ted the Emperors ambassadors. Gregorius 7. nuntios Hen­rici Imperatoris carceri mandauit, as we reade in Orthuinus Gratius in certaine epistles set downe together with the [Page 225]Emperors life. another Pope killed Frederic the 2. his am­basladors, that brought newes of his good successe in Pale­stine. the Marques of Montigni and earle of Bergues in the beginning of the troubles of the Low countrey, being sent into Spaine to mediate some good conditions with the king, were imprisoned and done to death. and now they are esteemed simple, that wil trust the Popes vassals, or treat with them without hostages.

Finally by the lawes of nations, kings haue soueraigne power ouer their subiects. and neither can subiects abandon their Princes, nor oppugne them, nor may kings oppresse their subiects, or suffer them to be massacred by the adhe­rents of antichrist or others. but by the doctrine of papistes all Kings are subiect to the Pope, as they teach in the chap. vnam sanctam. extr. de maiorit. & obed. and diuers other places. the same also is prooued, for that diuers Popes take vpon them to take away Princes crownes. the Popes do di­spense with the oathes of Princes made to their subiects, and with the oathes of subiects made to their Princes. of which, many calamities doe proceede. Papa cum Achaiae principem saith Pachymeres lib. hist. 1. c. vlt. iureiurando, quod Paleologo dederat soluisset, contmentium bellorum causam prae­buit. the Pope absoluing the Prince of Achaia from his oath gi­uen to Paleologus, was cause of diuers troubles one following vpon the necke of another. and the like inconueniences haue fol­lowed vpon the like presumption of Popes in taking vpon them to controll kings, and to stirre their subiects against them. but what need we to seeke for examples in ancient histories, when the calamities hapning in France by occasi­on of the league against the King, and in England and Ire­land by the Popes insolent excommunications and dispen­sations in this case, are so fresh in memorie? is it not then maruell, that so many nations should embrace the doctrine of Popery, that is so repugnant to the lawes of nations, and rights both of Princes and subiects founded on the lawes of nations?

CHAP. XXXV. That Popery dissolueth the bondes of kinred, and alliance, and ciuilitie.

THere is no bond straiter then that, which is betwixt parents and their children. and naturally men are encli­ned to loue their kinsmen and allies. but this false religion, which is professed by Papists, and founded vpon the Pope, dissolueth all bandes of alliance and kindred, and setteth the children against the parents, and the parents against the children. Paschale the 2. and his adherents, as Helmoldus testifieth, armed the sonne against the father. Paschalis & Pontifices Germani, saith he, silium Henricum contra patrem armarunt, & vicerunt. likewise Gregory the 9. made Henry the sonne, head of a strong league against Frederic the 2. his father, as is testified by Auentinus in annal. Boiorum. Henri­cum Caesarem, saith he, missis legatis aduersus patrem conspira­tionis valentissimae principem facit. the same man speaking of Innocentius the 3. assirmeth, that he set coosen against coo­sen, brother against brother, and sonne against the father. Spectante at (que) concitante Romano sacerdote, saith he, Philippus & Otho cognatas acies inter so committunt. frater aduersus fra­trem, silius aduersus parentem consligere cogitur. Marius Belga lib. de schism. c. 4. sheweth, how certaine Popish prelates set the sonnes of Ludouicus Pius against the father, & that Gre­gory the 4. consented vnto it. contrariwise Pius the 5. as we reade in his life written by Hierome Catena testifieth, how Philip the 2. of Spayne consented to the death of his sonne Charles suspected not to fauor popish religion. non pepereit, filio suo proprio, saith he, abusing the words of holy Scripture sed dedit eum pro nobis. he spared not his owne sonne. but gaue him for vs. In the histories written concerning the persecutions of the church of late time by the Popish faction in England, France, Flanders, Italy, and else-where, we reade, that di­uers haue beene betraied by their owne kinsfolks, brethren, [Page 227]and friends, and finde that fulfilled, which our Sauior Christ foretold vs, Luc. 21. how Christians should be betraied of their parents, brethren, kinsmen and friends. In Spayne they force parents, to bring woode to burne their children, and chil­dren to set fire to their parents. Alphonsus Dias came poste from Rome, and caused his owne brother to be murdred for that he had embraced true religion. it is reported, that in England Queene Marie, if she had liued any longer, would haue caused the bones of her owne father to haue beene digged vp and burned.

It is also a common practise of children in places where Popery reigneth, to abandon their parents, and to professe monkerie. Airault of Angiers in France, a man of good note, lost his onely sonne, by the entisement of the Iebu­sites, perswaded to enter into their superstitious order; nei­ther could the father euer after heare what was become of him. and so haue many parents beene depriued of their sonnes and daughters vnder colour of religion, oftentimes drawen away to serue the Masse-priests abominable lustes. this among Papists is counted religion. but the example sa­uoureth rather of Turkish, then Christian religion. for as the children of Christians are taken from their parents and friends and made Ianizars, and so emploied in the warres against Christians; so these nouices are by fraud and wilie deuises stollen from their Christian parents and friends, and afterward emploied in the defence of antichristian doctrine against truth, and the professors thereof.

Finally they that professe Popery zealously doe forget oftentimes all lawes of common ciuility. lately the pou­der-men Papists had thought to cut all their countrimens throtes. the Masle-priests esteeme lay-men no otherwise then dogges and hogges commonly when they appeare be­fore magistrates, that are not of their owne religion, they giue them no reuerence. Alexander the third trode vpon the Emperor Fredericke Barbarossaes necke. Adrian the 4. suffered him to hold his stirrop. other Popes haue vsed Kings and Princes as their stassiers. and for their hands they [Page 228]giue Christians their feete to kisse.

Neither is this a fault of the practise, but also of the do­ctrine of Popery. for these facts they commonly defend, and forbid al speech, communication, dealing with excom­municate persons. os, orare, vale, communio, mensa negatur, saith Nauarrus in enchirid. c. 27. these words spoken of Leui, Deuter. 33. which said to his father and mother, I know you not: are applied to all, that enter into any order of monkish reli­gion, as we may perceiue by the doctrine of Bellarmine lib. de monach. c. 36.

Whosoeuer therefore looketh for filiall obedience at the hands of his children, had neede [...]o looke, that they be not nouzled in Popery. whoso expecteth for kind and frindly vsage must not consort himselfe with Papists, who towards Christians vse neither respect of kinred, nor of friendship, & vpon euery warrant of the Pope take themselues absolued from their obedience to their superiors, whether they rule in church or common welth, and by all meanes suppose them­selues bound to cut Christian mens throts.

CHAP. XXXVI. That Popish religion either disannulleth, or great­ly preiudiceth the authoritie of Kings and Princes.

CHristian religion doth giue an eminent authority and prerogatiue to Kings. S. Peter 1. epist. 2. exosteth all Christians to subinit themselues vnto them. and S. Paul Rom. 13. teacheth euery soule to be subiect to the higher powers. Ter­tullian in his treatise ad Scapulam sheweth, that the Emperor was next vnder God, supreme gouernor. colimus imperato­rem, saith he, sic quomodo & nobis licet, & ipsi expedit, vt ho­minem a deo secundum. we honour the Emperour &c. as a man, that hath the next place to God. can we then with any reason suppose Popery to sauour of Christian religion, that either maketh the Emperour and other Kings subiect to [Page 229]the Pope, or else taketh awaie a great part of his autho­ritie?

That the Papists hold all temporall Princes to bee inferi­our and subiect to the Pope it cannot be denied. Innocentius the third in c. solitae. de maior. & obed. disputing this matter, compareth the Pope to the Sunne, and the Emperour to the Moone, as if the Emperour were as many degrees inferior to the Pope, as the Moone is to the Sunne. quanta est inter solem & lunam, tanta inter pontifices & reges differentia cogno­scitur.

Clement the sift in the chapter Romani principes. de iureiu­rando, declareth, that the Emperors of Rome haue submit­ted their heads to the bishop of Rome. sua submittere capita non reputarunt indignum. againe he sheweth, how they ought to take an oath of fealtie and obedience to the Pope.

The author of the Glosse in c. Romani. clem. de iureiurando, assigneth all this subiection of Princes to Christ his institu­tion. Iesus voluit, saith he.

In the chapter Pastoralis. clem. de sent. & reiudicat. the Pope determineth that by right of the Papacie he hath supe­rioritie ouer the Empire, and that in the vacancie of the em­pire himselfe hath the right of the Emperour.

Bonisace the 8. writing to the French king, gaue him to vnderstand, that he was the Popes subiect both in spirituall and temporall matters. scire to volumus, saith he, quod in spi­ritualibus & temporalibus nobis subes. in the chapter vnam sanctam. extr. de maior. & obed. hee determineth, that the Pope hath both the swords, and that he hath power both to make kings, and to depose them. spiritualis potestas pote­statem terrenam instituere habet & iudicare, si bona non fuerit. that is, the spirituall power hath right to ordeine the earthly po­wer, and to iudge the same, if it be not good.

Iosephus Vestanus lib. de osculat. pedum Pontisicis. p. 137. among the dictates of Gregory the 7. setteth downe this for one, that it is lawfull for the Pope to depose the Emperour.

Pius the fist in his blundring bull against Queene Eliza­beth our late dread soueraigne, blusheth not to affirme, that [Page 230]the Pope alone is made a Prince, and set ouer all nations and kingdomes to pull vp, to destroy, to dissipate and spaile, to plant and to build. hunc vnum, saith he, super omnes gentes, & ommae regna principē constituit, qui cuellat, destruat, dissipet, disperdat, plantet & aedisicet. This also is the doctrine of modern Iebu­sites and their complices. Bellarm. lib. 5. de Pontis. Rom. c. 6. speaking of the Pope, teacheth, that he hath power to change kingdomes, and to take from one, and to giue to another, if it be necessary for saning soules. and this he offreth to prooue. Po­test mutare regna, saith he, & vni auferre, at (que) altericonserre, si id necessarium sit ad animarum salutem, vt probabimus.

The Iebusites of France in a discourse intitled la veritè de­fendue, blush not to defend the Popes vsurped power in de­posing Princes: nay to assirme, that this great authority is prositable for Princes.

Ghineard a Iebusite was hanged in Paris anno 1594. for writing and mainteining diuers seditious positions concer­ning the Popes authority in disposing the crowne of France, and translating the same from the family of Bourbon.

Parsons in his warne-word p. 2. f. 127. alloweth the depo­sing of Henry the 3. of France. neither would he haue desi­red, that the Bull of Pius the sift against Queene Elizabeth might be suspended against the Papists, but that he ima­gined, that she was iustly deposed. the same man in his se­ditious booke of titles lib. 1. c. 1. endeuoreth to proue, that the succession in kingdomes by necrenesse of blood is by positiue lawes of the common-welth, and may vpon iust causes be altered by the same. in his third chapter he pretendeth, that not only vnworthy claimers may be put backe, but also that kings in posses­sion may be chastised and deposed. his drist in the fourth chap­ter is to shew, that the people sometimes may lawfully proceed against princes. is it not then strange, that the factious schol­lers of this seditious teacher are still harbored in the bowels of this state?

William Rainolde, a rinegat English-man, in a certeine trea­tise set out vnder the name of William Rosse, and titled, de iusta reip. Christianae supra reges impios & haereticos authoritate [Page 231]&c. doth in expresse termes defend the wicked league of the French rebels against the King, and giue the people power to depose their kings. the same man in the 2. chap­ter of that booke assirmeth impudently, that the right of all the Kings and kingdomes of Europe is laid vpon this foundation, that common-welthes, or the people may depose their kings.

I us omnium Europae regum & regnorum, saith he, hoc funda­mento nititur, quod resp. possint suos reges deponere. In all Eu­rope therefore it will be hard to find more arrant traitors, then himselfe and his complices.

Bellarmine lib. 5. de pontif. Rom. c. 6. saith, it is not lawfull for Christians to tolerat a king, that is an insidell, or an heretike, if he goe about to draw his subiects to his heresie or infidelity. non licet Christianis tolerare regem infidelem aut haereticum, si ille pertrahere conetur subdit os ad suam haeresim aut infidelitatem. a hard sentence against his Maiesty, if Papists had power to iudge him.

Emanuel Sain his booke called aphorismi confessariorum, holdeth these aphorismes in verbo princeps. viz. that a prince may be deposed by the common-welth for tyranny, and also if he doe not his duty, or where there is iust cause, and that another may be chosen by the greatest part of the people. in the word ty­rannus he affirmeth, that a tyrant may be deposed by the peo­ple, although they be sworne to bee obedient vnto him, if being admonished he will not amend. now to the Popish faction all are tyrants, that will not admit their Popish superstition, though otherwise they bee neuer so mild and gentle. and so it appeareth they accompt of our gratious king, whom of late they haue sought trecherously to murder.

If then we admitte this common doctrine of Papists of the Popes authoritie in deposing Kings, and giuing them Law; we diminish the authority of Kings, and make them subiects to the Pope. which is a matter abominable to be ei­ther taught or beleeued. we doe also indanger, not only the state of all Kings, but also of their kingdomes. for how can any King stand against the violence of the Pope, if he haue authority to depose Kings? by this vsurped authority Gre­gory [Page 232]the 7. wrought Henry the Emperor and his subiects ma­ny troubles.

Paschall the 2. made the sonne to rise against the father; and the subiects against their Princes, and in the end caused the en peror to be taken prisoner, and to resigne his Empire. the same man also, as he subdued the father, so quarreled he with the sonne, and caused his subiects to take armes against him.

Innocent the 2. by force of armes thought to vanquish Ro­ger King of Sicilia, and in a pitched field had preuailed a­gainst him, if the sonne had not succoured his father Roger.

Adrian the 4. and Alexander the 3. did so farre preuaile against Fridericke the first, that he held the stirrop to the first, and was troden vpon by the second.

Celestin the 3. proudly demeaned himselfe against Henry the 6. casting the crowne from his head, with his foote, as he kneeled before him, as we reade in Rogor Houeden.

Innocent the 3. brought the Emperors Philip and Otho to destructiō by his furious persequution. the same man caused King Iohn of England to surrender his crowne, and was the cause of the losse of Normandy to the English. Neither did he alone offer wrong to Iohn King of England. for before his time king Henry the second had receiued a great scorne of the Pope in the cause of Thomas Becket. Gregory the 9. and Inno­cent the 4. with great fury set vpon Friderike the 2. and em­ploied Christians, that had made vowes to fight against the Saracens, to the ruine of the Emperor.

Iohn the 22. Benet the 12. and Clement the 6. with impla­cable hatred prosequuted Lewes of Bauier, and that for no other cause, then for that he tooke on him as Emperor, without the Popes allowance. and for the same cause Harold encurred the Popes displeasure, not submitting himselfe to receiue his crowne of the Popes faction. Boniface the eight while he sought to subdue Philip of France, and the houle of Colonna in Italy, troubled both Spaine and Italy. the Popes of late time haue caused all the stirres in Germany, Italy, France, Flanders, England and Scotland. the leaguers of [Page 233] France, were confirmed in their rebellion by the Pope, and droue King Henry the third out of his pallace, and killed him by a Dominican Frier, as he beseeged Paris; and long withstood the king now reigning. Vpon the excommunica­tion of Paul the third, the papists of England rebelled against King Henry the eight. in his bul of excommunication recor­ded by Sanders he commanded his subiects to resist him, and to throw him out of his kingdome. principibus viris ac ducibus Angliae, saith he, caeterae (que) nobilitati praecipit, vt vi & armis se Henrico opponant, illum (que) è regni sinibus eijcere nitantur. by the Popes excommunications the rebellion was raised in the North of England by the Erles of Westmerland and North­thumberland, and diuers tumults in Ireland against Queene Elizabeth. nay albeit our King be not denounced excom­municat, yet did the gun-pouder Papists seeke to blow him vp with the principall men of England. neither had the Spaniards anno 1588. any better ground to inuade England, then the Popes commandement and warrant.

Seeing then the Pope taketh vpon him a superiority ouer all Kings, & seeketh to depose all such, as will not conforme themselues to his will; it is much to be wondred, that Chri­stian princes, that doe embrace his doctrine, doe not see, in what danger they stand, either to be disgraced, or dispos­sessed of their crownes. disgrace it is to acknowledge any in earth their superiour, and an euident danger to fall out with the Pope, where the subiects are affected to Popery.

CHAP. XXXVII. That Kings professing Popish religion are ei­ther no Kings, or but halfe Kings.

BVt were not Kings in danger to lose their crownes and Kingdomes liuing vnder the Pope; yet haue they no reason to take vpon themselues as free Kings and Princes, or to beleeue, that they can enioy all the right that belon­geth [Page 234]to lawfull Kings and Princes.

For first no King can freely dispose of matters belonging to his gouernement, that acknoledgeth any man to be his superior. as for example, Herode and other Kings, that ru­led vnder the Romans, who could proceed no further, then pleased the Emperors, and people of Rome. if then the King of Spaine, or France, or other nations do acknowledge the Pope to be his iudge and superior, he may not refuse his iudgement, or resist his authority.

Secondly we find, that Kings before Christs comming in the flesh gaue lawes both to the chiefe priests, and to all their people; and not the chiefe priest either to the Kings of Israel and Iudah, or to the people, as may appeare by the lawes of Moyses, Iosue, Dauid, Salomon, Hezekia & Iosiah. we do also read, that Constantine & other Christian Kings, vntill the times of Charles the great and long after, gaue lawes to the Bishops of Rome and other clergy-men, as may be eui­dently proued by the lawes yet extant Cod. de sum. trinit. & sid. cath. de episc. & Cleric. de episcop. audient. de haereticis, and in diuers other titles, and books. but where any bishop of Rome all this time made any law to bind either kings, or their subiects, we find not, vnlesse we list to admit counter­fet decretales for currant lawes, which no man of any vn­destanding will doe, nor any modest Papist can require. wherefore taking vpon them authority to make lawes to binde both Kings and their subiects, the Popes plainly de­clare, that Kings lining vnder the confusion of Antichrists tyranny, are no kings.

Thirdly Bellarmme lib. 1. de pontif. Rom. c. 7. determineth that temperall Princes are no gouernors of the Church. and ge­nerally both the Pope and his complices teach, that kings haue no power, either to make ecclesiasticall lawes, or to reforme abuses of doctrine, or to settle matters ecclesiasti­call. finally the Papists of England in their glosing petitions to his Maiesty, wherein they pray his fauour, yet will allow him no authority, saue only in temporall and ciuill causes. doth it not then manifestly appeare, that Papists take from [Page 235]kings halfe their authority, and giue the same to forreiners, and publike enemies?

Fourthly in temporall matters, which they are content to leaue to the disposition of Kings, they restraine them in such sort, that they wil not haue them either to rest in peace, when the Pope commandeth them to make warres, or to make warres further then the Pope permitteth. Bomface the eight in c. vam sanctam. extr. de maiorit. & obed. sheweth how princes are to vse their swords, ad nutum & patientiam sacer­dotis. that is, at the Popes beck, & as long as he listeth to suffer it.

Fiftly the Pope shareth halfe the kings reuenues, claim­ing tenths, first fruits, subsidies, and other rights out of ec­clesiasticall liuings. he doth also claime the disposition of diuers ecclesiastical liuings in diuers cases, and right to con­firme bishops, and getteth great summes of money for par­dons, licences, and other rescripts, and faculties.

Sixtly, if a king need a dispensation against an ecclesiasti­call law, or an absolution from an offence. he is sent to Rome to obteine it if be can, and oftentimes such faculties and ab­solutions cost full deare. King Henry the 8. spent great summes of money to be diuorced from his brothers wife, and yet failed of his purpose. Fredericke the 2. could not be absolued from his excommunication by Gregory the 9. but it cost him 125. M. ounces of gold, as Nauclere and Iuan de Pineda a Spaniard doe signifie. Iohn the king of England to obteine absolution was forced to resigne his crowne.

Seuenthly, Alex. inder the fourth in the chapter quia non­nulli. de immunit. eccles. in 6. exempteth the possessions and goods of clergie men from tolle and custome.

Finally Bomface the 8. in the chapter clericis. de immuni­tat. eccles. m 6. doth excommunicate both kings and others, that impose taxes and subsidies vpon the clergy. and this is the common doctrine of the Popes agents. Bellarmine de exemptione clericorum c. 1. setteth downe these propositions, that clerkes in ecclesiasticall causes are free from the command of secular Princes by the law of God. and againe, that clerkes are not to be iudged of secular iudges, albeit they transgresse [Page 236]temporall lawes. and lastly, that Princes in respect of clerkes are not soueraigne Princes. Emanuel Sa in his Aphorismes for confessaries, first printed and alledged by him, that wrote the Franke discourse, hath these wordes, clerici rebellio in re­gem non est crimen laesaemaiestatis, quia non est subditus regi. the rebellion of a clerke against the king is no treason, because he is not the kings subiect. nay of late both the masse-priests and their firie followers haue thought it meritorious to rebell against the king.

And consonant to this doctrine is the practise of papists, for in matters of contention betwixt the Pope and their kings, they take part with the Pope, and rebell against their kings, as the rebellions of the Germaines and French in time past, of the English and Irish against king Henry the 8. and Queene Elizabeth; of the leaguers of France against king Henry the 3. and 4. doe manifestly declare.

When the Pope doth giue law to Princes, they take themselues bound to execute it, and vpon euery excommu­nication rise in armes against them, and seeke to depose them.

In ecclesiasticall causes they runne for direction to the Pope, and care not a straw for the ecclesiasticall lawes of their kings.

When the Pope commandeth a Prince to execute his bulles, they are ready to follow the warres. if he command them to surcease, they forsake their kings in the midst of his conquests.

If the Pope leuy tenthes or subsidies vpon the clergy, or Monkes, or Friers, they willingly beare all burthens, and to him they runne for dispensations, and all faculties.

Kings also seeke to the Pope in their owne cases for di­spensations, and absolutions, where the Popes law saith, they are necessarie.

Finally both the possessions and persons of clergy men are the Popes to dispose, as may appeare, for that he layeth what charge he listeth on their possessions, and sometimes alienateth them to mainteine his warres, and findeth their [Page 237]persons prest to doe him seruice.

If then kings beare themselues as inferiors to the Pope, and receiue lawes at his hands, and are excluded from all disposition and rule in ecclesiasticall causes, and both draw their swords and put them vp at his command, and suffer him to taxe their subiects, and run to him for faculties and dispensations, and finally can neither dispose of the posses­sions of the church, nor of the persons of church-men; we may boldly say, that Poperie either maketh kings no kings, or but halfe kings.

CHAP. XXXVIII. That Kings liue not in any securitie of their liues where Popery is professed by their subiects.

DAuid the man of God would not suffer any of his fol­lowers to lay his hands vpon Saul, although God had appointed him to succeed in the kingdome, and reiected Saul. and great respect alwaies haue Christians had to their soueraigne Lords and Princes. In the canons attributed to the Apostles c. 83. euery contumelious spech against the Emperour, or magistrat is iudged worthy of punishment. what are we then to thinke of the Popes of Rome and their complices, that not only curse and raile against princes and magistrates, but also stirre vp all the world against them, if they will not yeeld to their Lordly will and pleasure? such certes are the children of Belial, and not the seruants of God. I hope therefore Christian Princes will open their eies, and euery day grow more wary in their dealings with the popes of Rome and their agents, which are no lesse dan­gerous in respect of their liues and persons, then their roiall estats and kingdomes.

For first they hold, that is lawfull for the Pope to change kingdomes, and to take from one, and to giue to another, as Bellar­mine in expresse termes determineth l. 5. de pont. Rom. c. 6. [Page 238]And this is declared by the continuall practise of Popes, who these many yeares haue gone about to take from one, and to giue to another, now giuing the kingdome of Sicily and Naples to the French, now to the Spanish, now challen­ging it themselues. the kingdome of Nauarre is holden from the French king by no better warrant, then the Popes grant. by the same also the Spaniards and Portingals haue diuided the Indians betwixt them. Boniface the eight by his bull made Philip and the kingdome of France subiect to Albert. Philippum cius (que) regnum Alberto regi subijcit, saith Pla­tina in Bonifacio 8. but what king doth not with his sword de­fend his state, and chooseth not rather to loose his life, then his kingdome?

Secondly they teach, that the Pope is to iudge of Kings, as is defined by the extranagant vnams. inctam. de maiorit. & obed. they giue the Pope also power to depose kings, and to take away their crownes. but it were great simplicity to thinke, that any magnanimous Prince will either lose his crowne, or submit himselfe to be iudged by a pole-shorne Pope without force. nay sooner will he hazard his life, then either loose his crowne, or submit himselfe to the Popes iudgement.

Finally, both by their doctrine and practise it appeareth, that the Popes and their agents haue sought to murder, em­poison and destroy such kings and princes, as either were ex­communicat by them, or else were opposite vnto them. Gregory the 7. watching the Emperor, that was wont to pray in the church of S. Mary. as Beno testifieth, hired a fellow to place great stones vpon the beames or vault of the church right ouer the place where he praied, which being throwne downe might kill him. his words are these. imperator solitus erat frequenter ire ad oration: mad ecclesiam S. Mariae, quae est in mente Auen­tino. Hildebrandus autem cum per exploratores omma eius opera solicitè inquircret, locum in quo frequentius imperator, velstans vel prostratus orabat, notari secit, & quendam promissa pe­cunia ad hoc induxit, vt supra trabes ecclesiae occultè lapides magnos collocaret, & ita aplaret, vt de alto super caput impera­toris [Page 239]demitteret, & ipsum contereret. againe the same Beno saith, that the Pope went about by secret traitors to destroy the emperor. eisdem diebus parauit imperatorem perdere per occul­tos proditores. and when by secret trechery he could effect nothing, by publike force and armes he sought to subdue him.

Innocent the second hauing raised an armie fought with Roger King of Sicilia in a pitcht field, thinking to destroie him.

Philip the Emperour, and his successor Otho were both brought to their destructiō by the practises of Innocent the 3 about this time also Iohn king of England was poisoned by a Monke of Swinsted-abby, for that he was supposed to be ad­uerse to the Popish faction. his empoisonment is particular­ly set downe in Caxtons chronicle.

Henry of Lucemburg the emperour was poisoned in the Sacrament by a Dominican frier about the yeare of our Lord 1313. quidam religiosus, saith Vrspergensis, porrexit im­peratori intoxicatam eucharistiam. the same is also testified by baptista Igantius, supplementum Chronicorum, Textor in offici­na. c. veneno extincti, and diuers others. Sleidanus saith, the Frier was moued thereunto by Clement the fifth. and the reason was, for that the Emperour grew too strong in Italy. this act committed by a Dominican Frier, was the cause of the death of manie Friers of that order slaine by the Emperors souldiers.

Matthew Paris in Henrico 3. testifieth, that Pope Inno­cent the 4. was charged with the empoisonment of Fridericke the Emperor by the meanes of Peter de Vinea, and that the fame of the Pope was not a little stained by this foule fact. obsor­duit domini Papae fama, saith he, per hoc non mediocriter. in the end he was murdred by Mansrede, as is said, not without the secret practise of the Pope.

Ioan the Queene of Naples being taken by her enemies was murdered with the priuitie and consent of Vrbane the sixth.

Charles the king of Naples by the bloody councell of Cle­ment [Page 240]the 4. caused Conradmus and Frederike duke of Austria to be put to death. vita Conradim mors Caroli, said Clement, which cost that yoong Prince his life.

Sixtus the fourth was the principall contriuer of that trea­son, whereby Iulian de medic [...]s was slaine, and his brother Laurence hurt in the church of Reparata at Florence at the elcuation of the sacrament. conscio & adinuante pontifice, saith Volateran Geograph. lib. 5.

Alexander the 6. caused Gemes the Turkes brother to bee empoisoned, being hired thereto by promises and mony by the great Turke. so little conscience doe Popes make of mur­dring princes.

Paul the 3. in his bull against Henry the 8. King of Eng­land exhorted the Nobles and principall men of England to oppose themselues against him with force and armes, and sent Cardinall Poole to forraine princes, to stirre them vp a­gainst the king, giuing him and his people as a pray to his enemies, and by all meanes seeking to destroy him.

Pius the fifth excommunicated all that would not take armes against Queene Elizabeth our late dread Soueraign, and by secret practise stirred her subiects against her.

Sixtus Quintus anno 1588. in his declaration against the foresaide Lady exhorteth her people to lay hands on her, to arrest her, and to concurre to her punishment. and to this ende tendeth the most seditious and wicked libell set out by Allen, yet not without the helpe of Parsons, and directed to the nobility and people of England and Ireland.

When force preuailed not, the Popes of Rome and their adherents by trechery sought to murder her. William Parry anno 1584. resolued to murder that innocent Queene, and his purpose did so well please Pope Gregory the 13. that Car­dinall Como in the Popes name promised him pardon of all his sinnes, and a great reward besides for his indeuour. Mon­signor, saith he, his holinesse hath seene your letters, with the credential note included, and cannot but commend the good dispo­sition, which as you write, you hold for the seruice and benefit of the publike weale: wherein he exhorteth you to continue vntill [Page 241]you haue brought it to effect. and that you may be holpen by that good spirit, that hath mooued you, he granteth you his blessing and plenary indulgences, and plenary remission of all your sins. assuring you beside the merit which you shall haue in heauen, that his holines wil make himself your debtor to acknowledge your de­serts in the best sort he can. thus the Pope promiseth heauen to a wicked murderer: and with him concurred one Benedict Palmio a Iebusite of Venice, and other Iebusites and Masse­priests in France, all setting this assassin & cutthroate on to murder an innocent Queene. Parsons that ringleader of trai­tors, when an English gentle man went about to discouer this treason, by all meanes disturned and distwaded him, furthering with his desires this most wicked resolution of Parry, as is cuident by his letters dated the 18. of October an­no 1598. which are yet to be shewed.

That which Parry entended, diuers other traytors also promised to performe, as Sauage enduced thereto by the perswasion of D. Gifford, and other priests at Paris; Ballard, who was set on by Allen; Somerfield, who was encouraged in the enterprise by Arden, and a Romish maste-priest; Pa­tricke Collen, Yorke and Williams, who were enduced thereto by sir William Stanley, Hugh Owen, Holt, Sherwood, Gifford, Worthington and others to commit this villanous fact.

In the end Lopez the Queenes Physicion vndertooke to empoison the Queene vpon hope of a great summe of mo­ney, and one Squire promised Walpoole to practise the same treason, damning himselfe, if he did not execute that trea­cherous act, and receiuing the Sacrament vpon it. such zeale haue these wicked Iebusites to doe mischiefe. neither doe they now desist from these wicked attempts, as their treacherous plots against king Iames declare.

Of late time Henry the 3. of France was most shamefullie murthered by a Dominican Frier called Iames Clement, and the fact was highly praised by the Pope.

The like fact did Peter Barrier attempt against Henry the fourth, animated therein by diuers Iebusites & masse-priests, as appeareth by his confession set downe in record.

Iohn Chastell stroke the same king with a knife, thinking to murder him, and this he learned, as he confessed in his examination, of the Iebusites.

The late Prince of Orenge was first wounded by Iohn Iau­regui, and afterward murdred by Balthasar Gerard. both which were perswaded by Masse-priests and Friers, that such facts were meritorious. finally diuers haue beene hired and sent by the Popes agents to murder Prince Maurice, as namely Michael Reinichon, Peter du Four, and Peter Panne. and this is euidently declared by their confessions, by diuers presumptions, and by their execution for this cause.

If then such rewards be promised to such, as attempt to empoison, and murder Princes; let all Christian Princes beware, how they admit such neere their persons, as beleene this wicked doctrine. and let them neuer forget the villa­nous treason of the English-miners and gun-pouder-men.

If Papists thinke it meritorious to kill princes excommu­nicate by the Pope, and are therein animated by him and his agents; then can Godly Princes haue no assurance of their liues before they roote out all the professors of this King-killing and bloody religion. and this appeareth eui­dently by the treason contriued the fifth of Nouember last.

CHAP. XXXIX. That Popery laieth greeuous burthens on mens consciences.

OVr Sauiour Christ Matth. 23. denounced a woe to the Scribes and Pharisees, for that they shutte the Kingdome of heauen before men, and neither entred themselues, nor suffered others to enter therein. he taxeth them also, for that they bound heauy and importable burthens on mens shoulders, and did not so much as once touch them with one of their singers. but better may the same woe be denounced against the Pharisaical Fri­ers, Monkes, and Masse-priests, which keeping the people of God from the knowledge of Gods word, and nouzeling [Page 243]them vp in ignorance, as much as in them lieth, do fast shut the kingdome of heauen against them, and while they seeke to mainteine their pompous state, and refuse to heare all speech of reformation, neither enter themselues, nor suffer others to enter into the kingdome of heauen. Furthermore they doe not onely tie their followers to obserue vnwritten traditions, as did the hypocriticall Scribes and Pharisees, but also lay vpon them diuers other most heauy and gree­uous burthens.

First they presse men with diuers heauy statues and laws. for example, they binde men to confesse to their parochial priest once euery yeere. they require that confession be simple, humble, pure, faithfull, frequent, naked, discreet, willing, bashfull, full and secret, &c. according to these verses:

Sit simplex, humilis confessio, pura, fidelis,
At (que) frequens, nuda & discreta, libens, verecunda,
Integra, secreta, & lachrymabilis, accelerata,
Fortis, & accusans, & sit parêre parata.

And vnlesse all mortall sinnes be confessed, they say it auai­leth nothing. but who can either tell all his sinnes, or ob­serue all these conditions? they also binde men to keepe cer­taine holy-daies and set feasts and fastes, and that with cer­taine conditions. Further they teach, that all Christians are to obserue the statutes of the church of Rome and decretales of Popes, and actes of their pretended councels.

Secondly, euery transgression of the statutes of the Romish church, and of the Popes decretales they punish with greeuous penalties. to eate flesh on fridaies, to eate egges in Lent, to reade holy Scriptures in vulgar tongues, without recantation, is capitall.

Thirdly they hold, that euery law of the Romish church doth binde in conscience. nay if subiects rebell not against their Princes, and lay handes vpon them, they teach that they sinne mortally. if then all transgressions of the Popes lawes be sinne; then are Papistes tied with infinite chaines of sinnes. they loose all these lawes, I confesse, lightly, but alwaies this scruple will remaine, whether they haue rightly [Page 244]confessed, and haue fully satisfied, and are iustly absolued.

Fourthly the censures of the Romish church euen to Pa­pists haue alwaies seemed intolerable. Peter de Aliaco in his booke de reformat. eccles. complaineth of it, and sheweth how the sword of the church by frequent excommunicati­ons is growne contemptible. hee complaineth also of the multitude of irregularities. adde hereunto the greeuances proceeding of suspensions and interditements, and then the burthen must needs seeme more greenous.

Fiftly, such as doe not in matters of faith or Sacraments iumpe with the Romish church, they pronounce heretikes, as appeareth by the chap. ad abolendam. de haereticis. they giue them also ouer to the secular power to be put to death.

Sixtly they make Kings and Princes their butchers and executioners, sorcing them by sentence of excommunicati­on to cut the throat of Christes lambes, whom they most wrongfully haue pronounced heretikes.

Seuenthly they burthen their clergy & their religious or­ders both of men and women with a vow of single life, al­beit they finde themselues most vnable to performe it. they force also the monkes, friers, and nunnes to obserue mon­kish rules, which are oftentimes full of fooleries, and stande for the most part vpon externall ceremonies.

Finally like to Scribes and Pharisees they haue brought into the church infinite traditions and ceremonies. nay the conuenticle of Trent doth paragon and make equal vnwrit­ten traditions to Gods written worde. and yet no Papist euer yet could tell, what those traditions were, or in what bookes they were to be found. In baptisme they vse salt, spittle, blowings, lights, and greasing in the Masse the priest turneth, heaueth, skippeth, swingeth the chalice to and fro, moppeth, moweth, ducketh, speaketh some­times high, sometimes lowe, and maketh no end of cere­monies. the consecrating of salt, holy-water, oyle, pas­chal lambes, new houses, new shippes, is not done without many ceremonies. in hallowing and rehallowing of chur­ches, saying of canonicall houres and offices many ceremo­nies [Page 245]passe, but few to purpose. the Bishop in consecrating a church walketh round about it, as if there were no entrance in. and in the end abusing a versicle of a psalm saith, attollite portas principes vestras. and entring maketh the Greeke and Latine alphabet, and setteth lights before crosses, made on walles, and greaseth stones. the yeare of Iubiley aboun­deth with ceremonies. the Pope knocketh first at S. Peters church dore with a golden hammer, shewing that no man obteineth indulgences, but he must spend gold. then the Priests shew their wares, and ignorant people goeth about visiting certeine churches and reliques, of which we neuer read word in the Gospell, or writings of the fathers.

The Papists therefore are intangled with a miserable yoke of bondage, and are vtterly ignorant of the liberty where­with Christ hath made vs free. God open their eies, that they may see, and giue them grace, that they may feele their burthens, and shaking off the yoke of Antichrist may in the end bee partakers of the light of the Gospell, and submit themselues only to Christs yoke, that is easie and light.

CHAP. XL. That Popish religion is very grieuous in regard of the Popes and Masse-priests manifold taxes and exactions.

IT followeth now, that we shew, how the Pope and his pole-shorne crew doth aswell pole Christian mens pur­ses, as greeue their consciences. wherein I neede not to vse any long discourse, seeing the same is apparent not only by practise, but also by confession of the Papists themselues. commonly they buy the papacy in grosse, and therefore no maruell if they sell it by retaile.

Vendit Alexander, saith one of Alexander the sixt,
Vendere iure potest, emerat ille prius.

But this was not his fault alone. Benet the 9. sold the Papacie for 1500. pound (of gold) to Gregory the 6. as Beno testifi­eth. [Page 246] Benedictus 9. Papatum, saith he, pro libris mille quingentis vendidit Gregorio 6. and no man now obtaineth that place but for great summes of mony, and large promises, as the discourses of diuers late conclaues testifie.

Therefore no maruell, if they seeke mony greedily both before and after they come to sitte in the Popes chaire. Bri­git in her reuelations saith, the Pope hath turned all Gods commandements into this one, viz. giue mony. conuertit de­cem praecepta in hoc vnum, da pecuniam. for mony they sell churches, priest-hood, altars, masses, crownes, fire, incense, praiers, yea heauen and God himselfe.

Venalia nobis, saith Mantuan,
Templa, sacerdotes, altaria, sacra, coronae,
Ignis thura, Preces, caelum est venale deusque.

Fridericke the 2. for one absolution paied to Gregory the 9. an hundred twenty fiue thousand ounces of gold, as is re­corded in the pontificall, or 120. thousand as Naucler, epi­tome rerum German. Iohn of Pineda and others doe recken.

Iosephus Angles in 4. sentent. c. de indulgentijs signifieth, that the King of Spaine paieth sometime to the Pope a hun­dred thousand duckets for one indulgence. Leo the 10. gaue such a scandale by the sale of indulgences in Germanie, that men beganne to examine more narowly these popish com­modities: and the rather, for that the profit of this sale came to Magdalene the Popes honest sister.

Boniface the ninth, as Theodoric à Niem testifieth lib. 2. de schism. c. 11. sold benefices, as he was hearing Masse. in missarum solennijs benesicia vendidit.

Mitred prelates sell imposition of hands, ecclesiasticall liuinges, church censures, and whatsoeuer is reserued to their office, as the Germans complaine in their grieuances. Theodoric Trudo complaineth, that Christs sheepe-foldes were broken downe with hammers of siluer. Malleus argenti consregit ouilia Christi.

The rascall Masse-priests sell Masses, dirges, sacraments, sacramentall ceremonies, and other Romish wares, euerie man according to the faculties giuen him by the Pope. Bri­git [Page 247]in her reuelations bringeth in Christ complaining, how Priests dealt worse in selling him, then Iudas, for that he sold him for monie, they for euery commodity. deteriores sunt Iuda, qui pro solis denarijs me vendidit, illi autem pro quouis mercimo­nio. the Papists themselues know, that the Masse-priests and Iebusites sent from the Pope into England liue vpon sale of their faculties.

Of these pillages diuers haue complained from time to time. and yet we find, that the Popes would neuer abide any reformation. Matthew Paris in Henrico 3. speaking only of the rapines of one Popes legate, saith, he had extorted more, then was remaining behind in England, excepting the church ornaments. nec remansit eadem hora saith he, vt veraci­ter dicebatur, tantum pecuniae in Anglia, exceptis sanctorum vasis & ornamentis ecclesiarum, quantum à regno extorserat Anglicano. he compareth the Kingdome at that time to a vine-yard spoiled by euery one that passed by, and rooted vp by the wild bore of the wood. he saith, that the court of Rome like a gulfe swallowed vp euery mans reuenues. quae curia instar bara­thri potestatem habet, & consuetudinem omnium reditus absor­bendi. Boner in his preface before Gardiners booke de vera o­bedientia saith, that the Popes pray, or spoiles in England were equall almost to the Kings reuenues. the Emperor as Matth. Paris testifieth in Henrico 3. reprehended the king of Eng­land for suffering his country to be empouerished so shame­fully by the Pope. imperator reprehendit regem Angliae, quod permitteret terram suam tam impudenter per Papam depaupe­rari.

Lewes the 9. in his pragmaticall sanction complaineth, that his kingdome was miserably brought to pouerty by the Popes exa­ctions, and therefore expressely forbiddeth them. exactiones & onera grauissima pecuniarum, saith he, per curiam Romanam ecclesiae regni nostri impositas vel imposita, quibus regnum nostrum miserabiliter depauperatum existit, siue etiam imponendas, vel imponenda leuari, aut colligi nullatenus volumus. The Vniuer­sity of Paris in an appeale from Leo the 10. taxeth the insati­able auarice of the court of Rome confounding lawes and canons [Page 248]by expectatiues and reseruations.

Bernard in ser. 6. in psal. qui habitat. complaineth, that in his time the offices of the church were turned to gaine, and that monkes were polled, Masses said, and psalmes song for mony. ipsa quo (que) ecclesiae sacrae dignitatis officia in turpem quae­stum & tenebrarum negotium transiuêre. nec in his salus amma­rum, sed luxus quaeritur diuitiarum. propter hoc tondentur, propter hoc frequentant ecclesias, missas celebrant, psalmos de­cantant.

In the articles of complaints made by the senat of Paris, and exhibited to Lewes the 11. it appeareth, That 25. hun­dred thousand crowns were drawne out of France in the time of Pius the 3. and great summes euery yeare, vpon pretence of diuers faculties comming from Rome.

Iames Archbishop of Mentz paid diuers great summes of mony for his pal, and dying professed, that his death grie­ued him not, but that the poore people of the cuntry was a­gaine to pay mony to the Pope.

Valla in his treatise against the forged donation of Con­stantine accuseth the Pope, for that he made gaine of church matters, and of the gifts of the holy Ghost. Papa. saith he, rem ecclesiasticam & spiritum sanctum quaestus habet. and therein he saith, he did woorse then Verres, or Catiline, or any rob­ber of the common treasure.

Theodorie à Niem nemor. vnion. tract. 6. c. 37. speaking of the Popes eschequer, compareth it, to the sea, into which all riuers flow, and yet it runneth not otter. he sheweth also, how his officers doe scourge poore Christians worse then Turkes and Tartarians. he compareth the Popes collectors to wic­ked spirits tract. vnion. 6. c. 36. collectores camerae, saith he, [...]nalignis spiritibus aequales. in his third booke de schismate c. 22. he sheweth how Gregorie the 12. to make mony sold the chalices, crosses, and iewels of the church.

Alan Chartier sheweth, that by the Pope and his com­plices the church was made a den of theeues, and Gods sanctu­ary a common market place, and lastly that the Gospell, and ca­nons being suppressed, trassike was made for benefices, and gaine [Page 249]sought euery where. vos ecclesiam dei effecistis speluncam la­tronum, saith he, & sanctuarium diumum, vt iam sit forum cau­ponatorium. sancta euangelia sunt suppressa, & canones sublati. exercitium autem simoniae & lucri quam maxime vberis re­gnant.

Iohn of Sarisbury lib. 6. polycrat. c. 24. affirmeth, that the Pope to all men is become intolerable, and that he delighteth in the spoiles of the church, and esteemeth gaine Godlinesse, and spoi­leth countries, as if he meant to gather treasure like to that of Craesus. Ipse Romanus pontisex omnibus ferè est intolerab. lis. laetatur spolijs ecclesiarum. quaestum omnem reprt [...] pie [...]tem. pr [...]uivciarum diripit spolia, ac si thesauros Craesi studeat repa­rare.

Vrspergensis in his chronicle sheweth how all men sought to Rome what for dispensations for offences, and what for decision of matters of iustice, he might haue added sutes for benefices. and thereupon he saith, that whole streames of mony come thither. gaude mater nostra Roma saith he, quo­niam aperiuntur cataractae thesaurorum in terra, vt ad te conflu­ant rius & aggeres nummorum in magna copia.

Ioannes Andreas in 6. de elect. & electipotest. c. fundamenta. saith, that Rome was founded by robbers, and yet retaineth a tacke of her first and originall qualities.

Albericus à Rosate in verbo Roma saith, that Rome receiueth no sheepe without wooll, and heareth only such as giue. curia Ro­mana non petit ouem sine lana. dantes exaudit, non dantibus ostia claudit.

Ioannes Petrus de Ferrar. insorm resp. rei conuent. sheweth that the Clergie by diuers trickes ensnared the people and enlar­ged their iurisdiction. nota, saith he, quomodo, & quot modis isti Clerici illaqueent laicos, & suam iurisdictionem amplient.

The Germains in their complaints exhibited to the Popes legat, declare, that the burthens laid on them by the Romish church were vrgent, intolerable, and no longer to be borne, vrgen­tissima, at (que) intolerabilia, penitus (que) non ferenda. and least anie man might suspect their faith, they prooue their allegation by a hundred particular greuances.

Petrarch therefore doth rightly call Rome, couetous Baby­lon, l'auara Babylonia. and in his epistles without titles he sheweth, that nothing in the Popes court was more sought then money.

For money the Pope dispenseth with incestuous persons, with Sodomites, with Paricides, with Iewes and Mahome­tans, and with most flagitious and wicked men, as appeareth by his penitentiary taxe printed at Paris anno 1520. and found among the treatises published in diuers volumes, and made by diuers lawyers.

For money he selleth sinnes, granteth indulgences, Iubi­lies, cruciataes, and all manner of pardons.

For money he promiseth heauen, and assureth his fauo­rites of deliuerance out of Purgatorie.

For money he selleth benefices and all spirituall offices. Heu Simon regnat, saith Paulus Langius in Chronico citizensi. per munera quae (que) reguntur. alas Simon now sitteth as king, and all things passe for bribes. Boniface the 9. did make simoniacall compacts, first by mediators, then by himselfe. Primò per media­tores, deinde per semetipsum simoniam exercuit. for so saith Theodoric a Niem. l. 2. de schis. c. 7. he saith also, that first fruits of benefices were first by him exacted and in the 8. Chap. of that booke, he saith, he sold one and the same licnesica to two.

Finally this generation taketh of quicke and dead, and maketh a great reuenue of publicke stewes, and vsury. the tribute of whoores is a matter publikely knowne, and may be prooued by the testimony of the glosse in c. licet. de concu­bin. cleric. remou. which is one of the prouinciall constituti­ons of Otho. and Agrippa de vanit. scient. c. de lenocinio. and Sansouinuo in lib. de. 1. gouerni de regni. c. corte de Roma, and others. the Popes practise and gaine by vsury, is prooued by the bankes called monti di pieta, whereof mention is made by Onuphrius in diuers Popes liues. Theodoric à Niem de schism. lib. 2. c. 7. saith, that vsury was so rise in Rome in the daies of Boniface the 9. that it was reputed for no sinne. Vsura tantum inualuit, vt foenus amplius non putaretur peccatum. Mat­thew Paris also in Henry the 3. doth say as much, and great­ly [Page 251]complaineth of Roman Caursins, and vsurers.

Are not then our moderne Papists simple to continue vnder the gouernment of Antichrist, where they are pil­led both aliue and dead, and spoiled by diuers fraudes, and brought to extreme pouerty through manifold oppres­sions and exactions?

CHAP. XLI. That the Popish church hath no true Bi­shops, nor Priests.

THe gouernment of the Popish church being so bur­densome and dangerous cannot well be tolerated by rules of policy. but if the same be against both scriptures and canons of the church, then as repugnant both to religi­on and Christian policy it is to be abandoned of all Christi­an common-wealthes. let vs then consider, what allowance it may haue either of scriptures or ancient canons.

The Apostle Act. 20. saith, that the holy ghost hath appoin­ted Bishops to gouerne the Church of God. in quo vos spiritus sanctus posuit Episcopos, regere ecclesiam dei, saith he, speaking of the Bishops of Asia. but the popish church hath no true Bishops. and that is prooued first, for that bishops cannot be orderned but by true Bishops. but the prelats of the Romish church are ordeined by the Pope, that is no Bishop. the proposition is granted. of the assumption the first part is not denied. in the second part our aduersaties insist firmely and affirme the Pope to be a true bishop. but how can he be a Bishop, that neither preacheth, nor can preach, nor admini­streth the Sacraments, nor succeedeth the Apostles in their Apostolicall office? the Apostle 1. Tim. 3. sheweth that the office of a bishop consisteth in the worke, and not in the ti­tle. qui Episcopatum desiderat bonum opus desiderat.

Secondly antichrist can ordeine no true bishops. but that the Pope is antichrist I haue declared in my fist booke de Pontif. Rom. and it is apparent in that he teacheth doctrine [Page 252]contrary to that which we haue receined from Christ Iesus. and is plainly described in the Reuelation by the whoore of Babylon Apocalyps. 17. and by the beast like a lambe rising out of the earth Apocalyps. 13. which are figures of Anti­christ.

Thirdly, none but the successors of Christs apostles can ordaine true bishops. but the Pope succeedeth Iulius Caesar, rather then Simon Peter. for Simon Peter fed Christs flocke. he murdreth Christs lambes.

Fourthly, neither heretikes nor simoniacall persons haue power to ordeine bishops, as the master of the sentences lib. 4. dist. 25. prooueth by the authoritie of Cyprian, Inno­cent the first, and Leo. and this is the practise of the Romish church at this day, who refuseth to allow them for bishops, that are ordred by such as they repute heretikes or schisma­tikes. some determine otherwise, but they repugne against the Romish churches practise.

Finally, no woman can ordeine bishops. but Pope Ioan was a woman. and therefore all ordeined by her, and their successors are no bishops by the confession of the aduersa­ries themselues.

Howsoeuer it is, the Papists cannot assure themselues, that they haue any bishops. for no man is ordeined bishop, vnlesse he that ordeined him had an intention to order him a bishop. but of this intention no man can assure himselfe.

Furthermore the Popish synagogue hath no true priests. for their priests are all ordred to sacrifice for quicke and dead.

The forme of priesthood say the Masse-priests assembled at Florence is this, accipe potestatem offerendi sacrificium in ec­clesia pro vinis & mortuis. and this is prooued also by their rituall bookes, and by Bellarmines confession, lib. deord c. 9. but such priests were neuer appointed by Christ, or his A­postles. neither is there any footestep of such an ordination to be found in ancient fathers.

Secondly, no true priests can be ordeined by other, then true bishops, and the Apostles successors. but such bishops [Page 253]the synagogue of Rome wanteth.

Lastly true priests and ministers of the Gospell are ordei­ned to preach Gods word truely, and to administer the Sa­craments sincerely. but popish priests are not ordered to this end.

If then that cannot be the church, that wanteth priests and bishops; then are we not to looke for the true church among the papists. but Hierome in dialog. contr. Lucifer. de­nieth, that to be the church, that hath no priests. and Cyprian lib. 4. epist. 9. teacheth, that the church is a people or flocke vni­ted to the bishop.

Againe, if all the ordination of bishops and priests in the Romish church dependeth vpon the Pope, and the Pope be not mentioned either Ephes. 4. or 1. Cor. 12. where all the ministers of the church giuen to the same by Christ, are mentioned; then doth the ordination of Roman priests and prelates take his beginning not from Christ, but from An­tichrist.

Lastly, if the function of masse-priests doth consist in saying Masse, and the Masse be prooued to be an humane inuention; then is the Romish priesthood an humane in­uention. but otherwhere we haue sufficiently declared, that the Masse was by little and little peeced togither, and is a meere humane inuention: nay an inuention contrarie to Christs institution of the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

CHAP. XLII. That Popery cannot be mainteined without forgery and falshood.

THis point of it selfe alone would require a large dis­course, if we should prosecure particularly and distinct­ly, whatsoeuer our aduersaries haue herein offended. for whether we respect the diuers kinds of forgeries, or the pla­ces of authors forged and falsified by them, it were a great worke to comprehend them all. we will therefore choose [Page 254]out some few examples out of many, whereby all true Chri­stians may haue cause sufficient to suspect them in the rest.

First then we charge them with falsity, for that as much as in them lieth, they haue gone about to suppresse Gods eternall word comprised in the old and new testament. that this is falsitie, it is apparent by the law, qui testamentum. ff. ad legem corneliam de falsis. for by that law they are condemned qui testamentū amouerint celauerint. that is, which shall amooue or conceile a testament. but the Pope and his complices for­bid expressely all translations of the new testament made by our doctors, and only grant certaine translations made by themselues, and that with hard conditions: as is declared in the index of forbidden bookes reg. 3. and 4. but publike­ly they will not haue scriptures red in vulgar tongues.

Secondly they burne the holy scriptures vnder pretense of false translations. but the law formerly cited doth pro­nounce him a falsarie, that shall abolish or cancell or burne a mans testament. the words of the law are these: si quis te­stamentum deleuerit: that is, if any shall cancell a testament.

Thirdly it is falsity to cancell, or breake the seales of a testament, as the practise of the law of this land declareth. how then can the Popish synagogue of Rome excuse it selfe, that depriueth the lords people of the cup which our sauiour Christ calleth the new testament in his blood? is not this, all one, as if the same should breakē the seales of Gods testa­ment?

Fourthly they haue added their owne traditions to the old and new testament, receiuing with like affection and re­uerence both scriptures and traditions, as they write sess. 4. synod. trid. Bellarmine speaketh no otherwise of traditions, then as if they were the word of God not written. but to adde to a mans testament is forgery. hominis testamentum saith the Apostle Galat. 3. nemo spernit aut superordinet. no man despi­seth a mans testament, or taketh vpon him to adde vnto it.

Fiftly they haue added to the canon of the old testament the bookes of Tobia, Iudith, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdome, the Ma­chabies and certaine fragments not extant in the originall [Page 255]bookes of scriptures. but to ascribe bookes to the spirit of God, which were not published by the authority of Gods spirit, is an audacious kind of falsity. that they are not ca­nonical scriptures, it is proued by the testimony of the coun­cell of Laodicea, of Hierome in prologo Galeato, Athanasius in synopsi, Nazianzen in carminibus, and diuers others.

Sixtly, certaine Friers anno D. 1256. in Paris, for Christs gospell published an other gospell, which they termed eter­nall. fratres noua quaedam praedicabant, legebant, docebant deli­ramenta ex libris Ioachim abbatis, incipit (que) eorum liber Euange­lium aeternum, as Matthew Paris testifieth. but no greater falsitie by men pretending Christianity can be committed, then in exhibiting a false Gospell. S. Paul Galath. 1. pro­nounceth such teachers accursed.

Finally, the conuenticle of Trent hath committed an egre­gious falsity in making the old Latine translation of the bi­ble authenticall. for the same in many places dissenteth from the orginall bookes, as by conference it appeareth, and as Isidore Clarius in his preface to the translation of the bible, Erasmus, Caietane and diuers other learned interpreters con­fesse, and declare. diuers editions also of this Latine transla­tion doe much differ, as appeareth by the bibles set foorth by Sixtus quintus, Clement the eight, and diuers others. but that cannot be true, that discordeth with it selfe. quod dis­sonat, verum esse non potest. neither can they excuse them­selues of falsity, that exhibit a false copy, for the true ori­ginall, and authenticall bookes of scriptures.

Likewise haue our aduersaries corrupted and falsified both the acts of councels, and the writings of the fathers. for first they suppresse the true acts of many councels, and the true bookes of many fathers, such especially as touch the authority of the bishop of Rome. Posseuin in his select bi­bliotheke counselleth his consorts, to keepe the Greeke origi­nall bookes of councels and fathers from the view of yong students. but to suppresse the depositions of witnesses all law adiudg­eth falsity.

Secondly they haue set foorth diuers false actes and ca­nons vnder the names of the Apostles, of the synode of Nice, of Rome vnder Siluester, of Neocesaria, Sinuessa and o­ther synods, which themselues cannot denie to be diuersly falsified. Isidore c. canones. dist. 16. and Leo c. Clementis. dist. ead. and Gelasius c. sancta Rom. dist. 15. doe number these canons among apocryphall writings. the canons themselues condemne the baptisme of heretikes c. 45. and once dipping in baptisme c. 49. and Saterdaies fast. c. 65. and alloweth the 3. booke of Machabees, and Clements epistles for canoni­cal scriptures; and yet pope Adrian c. sextam synodum. dist. 16. alloweth them.

Russin in his history, and Stephen Bishop of Rome c. vi­ginti. dist. 16. allowe only 20. canons of the councel of Nice. others in c. septuaginta. ead. dist. say there are 70. one Al­phonsus of Pisa of late in his summe of councels, hath set out 80. canons of that councell. Sozimus in the 6. councell of Carthage was taken alleaging a false canon of that councell for appeals to Rome. Paschasius, or some vnder his name, cor­rupted a canon of that councell, as if the same had decreed that the Church of Rome had alwaies had the primacy. Pius the fifth in certaine letters of his to the Emperor alledgeth, that the councell of Nice made the Pope of Rome gouernor of all Chri­stian Princes. the falsification is notorious, and is extant in his letters set out by Hierome Catena.

Of the acts of the councell of Sinnessa there are 3. copies extant in Surius, and different each from other. they con­tradict themselues also. for where in the latter end it is said, that the first See shall not be iudged of any, the fathers of that councell notwithstanding condemned Marcellinus. damnauerunt eum extra ciuitatem.

The actes of the councels of Neocaesarea and Ancyra are so simple, and so repugnant to the state of those times, that blindemen, albeit void of sight, may feele them to be coun­terfet. in ancient stories there is no mention of them. nay in times of persecution, and before Constantines time it is [Page 257]not likely that so many bishops could meete, or would make such acts, and canons, as are imagined to be made in those councels.

The synode supposed to be assembled at Rome by Silue­ster, contemeth diuers fabulous points, as namely the re­port of Constantines leprosy, of Nunnes professing virginitie after the age of 72. yeres. The bishops names are barbarous. the stile is Gothike. the number of bishops there assembled is incredible. it is therfore meere impudency to affirme the acts of that synode to be authenticall.

The 18. canon of the councell of Chalceden, and the 36. canon of the 6. synode that giueth equall authority to the see of Constantinople and Rome, is falsified. both by Gratian and Gregory the 13. in his new edition of the canon law. for vnder colour of those canons they determine quite contrary to canons, that the Church of Constantinople should not be equall to Rome.

The fift councell of Carthage c. 3. determineth that bi­shops, priests and deacons should absteine from their wiues in the time of their turnes, or seruice, [...]. but the Romanistes dist. 33. c. placuit. haue falsified this canon by adding subdeacons, and excluding bishops, priests, and dea­cons from their wiues at all times.

The councell of Mileuis c. 22. forbiddeth Priests, and inferiour clerks to appeale to Rome. but Gratian falsifying the canon, addeth these words, nisi forte sedem Rom. appel­lauerint. which is direct contrarie to the meaning of the councell.

In the 35. canon of the councell of Laodicea the worship of Angels is termed idolatrous and expressely forbidden. but Carranza in his summe falsifieth the canon, and for An­gelos, writeth Angulos.

Bellarmine lib. 1. de sanct. beatitud. c. 19. sheweth, that in latter editions of councels his consorts haue established the inuocation of Saints by the 7. canon of the 6. synode. but all ancient copies declare both him and his consorts to be no­torious forgers of false canons.

It were an easie matter to shew the falshood of our aduersa­ries in diuers other canons. but the breuitie of this discourse will not permit any larger number of witnesses in this point.

Thirdly, vnder the names of fathers they haue set out diuers counterfet treatises, and haue falsly both translated the Greeke fathers, and alleadged both Greeke and La­tine writers. vnder the name of Clement they haue publi­shed diuers constitutions, and doe alledge them verie fre­quently. yet doth Gelasius c. sancta. dist. 15. set a marke vpon them, as Apocryphal. to him also they ascribe certaine re­cognitions and epistles, which sauour not of an apostolicall spirit.

Vnder the name of Origen they publish certaine Com­mentaries vpon Iob, which conteine plaine Arianisme. and his lamentation which is noted by Gelasius as Apocryphal. Tertullians and Russins treatises are diuersly cited. yet not al­lowed by Gelasius c. sancta Romana. dist. 15.

Vnder the authoritie of Abdias, Martialis, Prochorus, Amphilochius, and diuers ancient fathers, they couer diuers of their owne bastardly inuentions, no way agreeing with those times.

Cyprian is said to haue written the treatise de reuelatione capitis Ioannis, wherein mention is made of king Pipin, and a booke de montibus Sion & Sinah, and diuers other treatises, neither according with his phrase, nor with those times.

Hierome is made to father a sermon de assumptione B. Ma­riae, a tract. de 7. gradibus ecclesiae; the rule of monkes, and diuers other counterfet treatises. and yet the rule of monks is said to be collected by one Lupus in the time of Martin the fift.

The sermons ad fratres in eremo, and diuers others de tempore & sanctis, attributed to S. Augustine, are plainely counterfet. so are his meditations also and soliloquies. in those meditations the worship of Angels is taught, which Augustine in his booke de haeresib. condemneth for an here­sie. in the soliloquies we reade the fable of Longinus. in his manual c. 16. we reade, that it is in mans power to merit the [Page 259]kingdome of heauen: which is plaine Pelagianisme, condem­ned by S. Augustine. the bookes entituled scalae paradisi, de duodecim abusionum generibus, de vita Christiana, de assump­tione beatae Mariae, and diuers others of that nature set out vnder the name of S. Augustine, are but grosse deuises of slow bellied monkes and friers.

Vnder the name of Basil and Chrysostome, they haue set out counterfet Masses, and diuers epistles, homilies and treatises, that are no where found in Greeke, nor any whit sauour of the diuine spirit of those fathers. nay so shamelesse they are, that they sticke not to set out Masses vnder the name of Iames and Marke.

The like practise they haue vsed in the workes of other fathers. but to father bastardes vpon wrong fathers, is a no­torious tricke of falsitie, as appeareth by the law cum suppo­siti. Cod. ad l. Corn. de falsis.

By their expurgatorie Indexes they cause the fathers writings to be changed, not onely by false additions, but al­so by detractions. Sixtus Senensis in epist. ad Pium 5. antè biblioth. sanctam, sheweth, how that Pope did handle or ra­ther mangle and change the fathers writings. expurgari & emaculari curasti, saith he, omnia catholicorum scriptorum, ac praecipuè veterum patrum scripta haereticorum aetatis nostrae faeci­bus contaminata & venenis infecta. so vnder this colour it was an easie matter to take out what he listed. In Bertram they change visibiliter into inuisibiliter, and cut out whole lines and sentences. Posseuin a shamelesse Iebusite teacheth his schollers, how Hermes, Melito, Cabasilas, Anastasius, Anto­nius Abbas and other authors were to be corrupted and fra­med to his purpose.

Fourthly they haue corrupted diuers lawes, and some they haue forged vnder the name of diuers Emperours and Kings. vnder the name of Constantine the Pope challengeth a right to most kingdomes of the Westerne Empire. but the donation set out vnder his name both by testimony of lear­ned men, and by diuers arguments is prooued counterfet.

Likewise the constitution of Ludouicus dist. 63. c. ego Ludo­uicus, [Page 260]is a plaine bastard. for it contradicteth Constantines donation, was neuer executed, and differeth from it selfe, as appeareth by the diuers editions of Gratian and Volateran Geograph. lib. 3.

The law inter Claras. Cod. de sum. Trin. & fid. cath. is not found in ancient copies, as Alciat testifieth Parerg. lib. 5. c. 23. likewise the same is disprooued by diuers other argu­ments alledged by me in a treatise of Popish forgeries and lies.

In the Popes archiues they shew a solemne donation of the crowne of England, made by king Iohn, and the state, to the Pope. but the same is cleerely counterfet, being neither executed by the king, nor allowed by the state.

The statute anno 2. Henr. 4. c. 15. is plainly falsified by the Popish clergie in a prouinciall constitution made at Oxford, by adding, ac etiam communitates regni. whereas in the ori­ginall role yet extant in the Towre there are no such wordes found. it appeareth therefore, that by forgery they haue made statutes to serue their turnes for the burning of Chri­stians, and that they haue murdred them hitherto contrarie to forme of law.

Finally vnder the names of ancient bishops of Rome they haue published diuers counterfet epistles differing from their forme of writing in stile, and conteining matters not agreeing with the times, when they are supposed to be writ­ten. Clement epist. 1. writeth to Iames of the death of Peter, who died diners yeeres before Peter. and epist. 2. taketh vp­on him to instruct Iames an Apostle.

Anacletus in his first epistle would haue all matters re­ferred to the church of Rome. but at that time the church of Rome had no such prerogatiue. neither was it reason, that S. Iohn the Euangelist then liuing, all matters should be re­ferred rather to Anacletus then to him. in his 2. epistle he saith, the 72. disciples were instituted by the Apostles: which the Gospel saith were appointed by Christ.

Euaristus in his epistle talketh idlely of ordeining Priestes without titles, and consecrating churches, and stone altars, [Page 261]whereas these customes came not into the church vntil ma­ny yeeres after.

Sixtus beginneth his epistle thus, Sixtus vniuersalis apo­stolicae ecclesiae episcopus. but Gregory the first long after him condemneth this title, as proud and Antichristian.

Hyginus wrote to the Athenians. but it is not like, that a Greeke, would write to Greekes in Latin.

Calixtus mentioneth those heretikes, which denied re­pentance to such as fell in time of persecution. but this was the heresie of Nouatus, who troubled the church long after Calixtus his time.

Pontianus ioineth Christ with Peter. but that was no stile in his time.

Marcellinus in his 2. epistle doth insinuate, that the Empe­rour then professed Christian religion, and disputeth a­gainst the Arians, that were not in the world in his time.

Melchiades 12. q. 1. c. futuram ecclesiam, telleth vs, how Constantine was christened, and gaue his seat and other pos­sessions to the church of Rome. and yet it is apparent, that he died before Constantines Christening, and before any thing was giuen by him to the church.

It is an easie matter to shew other epistles attributed to an­cient bishops of Rome to be counterfet. but it is needlesse, considering how Antonius Contius in annot. ante c. viginti. dist. 16. confesseth, that all the decretals of Popes before Siluesters time are counterfet, and saith, that he hath prooued it. Mul­tas supra in praefatione rationes adduxi, saith he, quibus omnium Pontificum, qui Siluestrum praecesserunt, decretales falsas esse manifestè ostendi. but in Plantins edition of the canon lawe, they haue taken away this Preface, with notorious impu­dency couering their grosse falsities.

Thus we see, how they haue forged whole bookes, trea­tises, epistles, lawes & other instruments. if then they haue dealt so falsly in whole instruments & books, we may not thinke that they are more scrupulous in adding or taking a­way words, or sentences, and falsifying parts. c. in canonicis. dist. 19. in the rubricke they tell vs, that the Popes decretales [Page 262]are numbred among canonicall Scriptures, and pretend Augu­stines authoritie. but he saith no such thing, lib. 2. de doctr. Christ. c. 8. they adde these wordes, & ab ea alij: vnto the words of S. Augustine.

Dist. 1. de consecrat. c. Iacobus, they say, that Iames and Ba­sil did deliuer to vs, missae celebrationem, that is, the forme of celebrating Masse, and cite Synodum sextam, c. 32. whereas it is onely said, that they taught how in the holy celebration of the Lords Supper, the cup was filled with wine and water.

C. species. dist. 2. de consecrat. these words species & simi­litudo illarum rerum vocabula sunt, with the rest following are pretended to be taken ex Paschali Gregorij papae. but most falsely.

C. vtrum. de consecrat. dist. 32. these words vtrum sub fi­gura, an sub veritate hoc mysticum calicis sacramentum fiat, with all the chapter following, are alledged as spoken by S. Augustine. yet neither is the place signed, nor can those words be found in any place of S. Augustine.

In the chapter in Christo. dist. 2. de consecrat. taken as is pretended out of Hilary lib. 8. de. trinit. these words corpus Christi quod sumitur de altari, are foisted into the text.

Into the words of consecration of the cuppe they haue thrust in these words, & eterni & mysterium fidei, committing falshood in the very canon of the Masse.

Durand Rat. diuin. lib. 4. c. 4. alleadgeth Pope Cyprian for proof of holy water. Cyprianus Papa ait, quod ideo aqua be­nedicta homines asperguntur, quia valet ad sanctisicationem, saith Durand. but neither can he find a Pope of that name, nor any such words in the writings of Cyprian.

Pius quintus in his Missall out of the 2. booke of Ma­chab. c. 12.46. writeth, Peccatis mortuorum, for peccato, and for 2. M. writeth 12. M.

Turrecremat a lib. 2. c. 12. summae de ecclesia. maketh Chryso­stome to call Peter the prouost and head of his brethren, and to affirme, that they ought to preach Peter: matters neuer thought of by Chrysostome.

Pope Syricius alledgeth these words, S. cerdotes mei semel [Page 263]nubant, out of Moyses. but no where in all the fiue books of Moyses are any such wordes to be found. in the 3. action of the 2. synod of Nice, Basil is made to say, that the honour giuen to the image redoundeth to the originall. but such words are no where found.

Bellarmines forgeries are infinit. in his 2. booke de Pont. Rom. c. 31. he falsifieth the wordes of Hierom in an epistle to Da­masus writing, hanc Petram, for illam Petram. as if Hierome called Damasus the foundation of the church, where he ex­presly meaneth Christ the rocke.

In his booke de reliquijs cap. 3. he alledgeth certaine ob­scure bookes and counterfet testimonies for the proofe of the worship of reliques. in the same place alledging Eusebi­us his historie lib. 4. c. 14. he maketh him say, that S. Iames his chaine is had in great veneration. whereas he saith no such thing, but rather sheweth in what honorable account holy men were holden in ancient time.

Lib. 1. de sanct. beat. c. 13. citing Eusebius de praeparat. euan­gel. lib. 13. he maketh him to vse these wordes, nos quotidie id factitamus. nam verae pietatis milites, vt dei amicissimos ho­noramus. whereas no such wordes are to be found. he saith onely that Christians honor the blessed soules of such as contend for true pietie.

Lib. 2. de pont. Rom. c. 31. he falsifieth the wordes of the councell of Chalcedon making the same to say, that Leo did preside and gouerne the church, as the head the members. for neither was this epistle, that is cited, the act of the coun­cel, nor is it said there, that Leo was head of the church, as Bellarmine would haue it, but that he ruled his clerkes, as the head the members.

Likewise in the same booke and Chapter rehearsing the titles giuen to the bishops of Rome, he saith, that Eusebius in his chronicle anno D. 44. doth giue them the title of Pon­tifex Christianorum. but Eusebius doth not so much as once mention the bishops of Rome in that place.

Lib. de monachis c. 31. he changeth Chrysostomes words in c. 19. Matth. making him to say, that it is easie to absteine from [Page 264]marriage, where he saith onely, that it is possible. and in his booke de Monachis c. 27. alledging a place out of the 15. homily of Chrysostome, vpon the first to Timothy, he addeth these words, id est, Christo nubit.

It were infinit to rehearse all the places which he hath fal­sified, and not necessary, considering that I haue set downe so many in diuers treatises written against him alreadie. the false allegations of Harding are particularly noted by bishop Iewel of reuerend memorie. Stapleton is conuinced of false­hood both by D. Fulke and D. Whitaker. of Parsons and Kellisons forgeries and false allegations I haue spoken my selfe somewhat largely, and shall percase haue occasion to speake of them further hereafter.

Wherefore if it be the propertie of heretikes, and not of catholikes to mangle the sentences of fathers; then Papists heerein doe declare themselues to be heretikes and not Ca­tholikes. non conuenit orthodoxis, say the fathers of the 8. coun­cel act. 8. circumtruncatas patrum voces deflorare. hareticorum hoc potius proprium est. heerein therefore they shall neuer be able to cleare themselues of a speciall note of heretikes,

CHAP. XLIII. That Popery cannot be well vpholden without calumniations and lies.

AS iustice is accompanied with trueth, so wicked causes cannot be vpholden without lies and calumniations. a matter cleerely verified by the practise of the papists, whose false and erromous doctrine is built vpon lies and calumni­ations, as vpon two pillers. by their calumniations they seeke to bring good men into obloquie and hatred, by lies they would willingly grace their owne false religion, and bring a scandale vpon the truth.

To make proofe heereof we need not to goe farther, then to their wicked libels lately published against Luther, Cal­uin, Zuinglius, Oecolampadius, Beza, and all that haue been actors in the defence of truth, to the lying traditions, and [Page 265]legends of the synagogue of Rome, to the feined miracles of supposed Romish saints, to the Popes decretals and de­crees, and to the diuers treatises set foorth of late time in defence of their faction and heresie.

Against Luther they haue hired one Staphilus a rinegat Christian, and Cochleus a fellow not woorth a cochle shell to speake as much shame, as their malicious wits could deuise. from these two Surius, Laingeus, Stapleton, and all the ken­nell of curres let loose to barke against him, haue borrowed the subiect of their slanders. if any thing more be obiected by later libellers, that proceedeth of late inuention. Bel­larmine de notis ecclesiae & in praefat. de Christo, and others charge him with teaching that Christ suffered according to his diuinity. he in his booke de concilijs, from whence the ground of this slander is taken, saith onely, that he had to do with cer­teine Nestorians, which denied that the diuinity could suffer. so it appeareth these words were the Nestorians. and Luther di­sputing against them sheweth, that the person of Christ con­sisting of two natures could and did suffer. and if he did say, the diuinitie did suffer, he tooke the word of the nature for the person, as auncient fathers, and namely Vigilius contra Eutychem haue done. Vigilius saith, the diuinitie of Christ was nailed with nailes, consixa clauis.

Campian rat. 8. Bellarmine in praefat. in controuers. de Chri­sto, charge Luther to haue said, that his soule hated this word [...]. which is a meere slander. he saith onely, if he shoulde hate the worde, and beleeue the thing defined in ancient councels, that he should not therefore be an heretike.

Bellarmine lib. 4. de ecclesia militante c. 13. Cregorius de Valentia, and others say, that Luther learned of the diuel, that the Masse was naught. but Luther hath no such wordes. he saith onely, that the diuell went about to make him despaire hauing so long saide Masse, which long before he had lear­ned to be naught.

Others adde, that in a certeine disputation at Lipsia, Lu­ther should say, that the contention begun by him against popish abuses, was neither begun for Gods honour, nor would end for [Page 266]Gods honour. but wickedly that which Luther spoke of his aduersaries, that for to please the Pope, tooke vp the buck­lers against him, they apply to Luther himselfe, and his own actions.

Some say, that he taught, if the wife refuse, the husband may goe in to his maide, whereas he declareth onely how husbands vse to threaten their froward wiues, not commen­ding either any such act, or threates.

His life is traduced by them commonly, as if he were gi­uen to wine. but not onely all that knew him, and speake in­differently, testifie the contrary, but also Erasmus his aduer­sarie, that had reason to reprooue him, if there had beene cause. Lutheri vita omnium consensu probatur, saith Erasmus in ep. ad Thomam Card. Eboracensem. id non leue praeiudicium est, tantam esse morum seueritatem. Luthers life is approued by consent of all, and that is no small preiudice, that such is the sin­ceritie of his manners, that his enemies can not sinde what to ca­lumniate.

Finally they obiect, that endeuouring to cast out a diuell he was euill entreated by the party possessed, and that going to bed merry he died the same night. but the first is refuted by Luthers doctrine, who commonly taught, that Christi­an doctrine is not now to be confirmed by miracles. the se­cond is a slander falsely deuised by such, as neither were at Luthers death, nor desirous to vnderstand the truth. Sleidan lib. 16. reporteth, that he was long sicke before, and that feeling his sicknesse to grow extreme, he called his friends, and spending his time in praier & pious exhortations quiet­ly departed this life. and this is also confirmed by Melan­cthon in Luthers life, and was testified by al that were present at his end.

The principall libeller that vndertooke to raile against Caluin was Bolsec a rinegat frier. who hauing either himselfe written, or suffering others to publish diuers impudent slan­ders in his name, did in a publike synod in France retract the same. but his recantation they regard not: his first malitious reports they wilfully embrace. Campian rat. 8. chargeth Cal­uin [Page 267]with saying, that God is the author of sinne. but his words instit. lib. 1. c. 18. doe euidently discharge him. flagitiorum causa extra humanam voluntatem quaerenda non est, saith he.

Bellarmine lib. de notis eccles. c. 9. telleth vs, how Caluin taught, that hell was nothing else, but the horror of conscience. but no such words could euer yet be found in Caluin. he saith that the horror of conscience is a part of hellish paines: but that Hell should bee nothing else, he neuer saied, nor thought.

Caluin is also charged for speaking contumeliously against Saints, and calling them shadowes, monsters, and such like names. but he is much wronged. for either he spake of Chri­stopher, and Catherine and such like forged Saints, or of Do­minick, Medard and such like superstitious fellowes, who are rather for their cruelty and other vices to be hated, then ho­nored for any holinesse.

Posseuin lib. 3. de notis verbi dei c. 74. chargeth Caluin with atheisme for teaching, that the sonne of God was God of himselfe or [...]. but Bellarmine excuseth him, and dis­chargeth him, confessing he said well, if he spoke of the son in respect of his diuine essence.

The Rhemists in their annotations on the 5. to the Hebrews affirm, that Caluin taught that Christ despaired. and the same sclander was also bruted abroad by Campian Rat. 8. but ne­uer did any such words passe from his mouth, or his penne. and if the Papists will not beleeue me, let them beleeue Bellarmine, who lib. 4. de Christo c. 8. expresly affirmeth that Caluin saith, that Christ despaired not. Calumus dicit, saith he, Christum non desperasse.

Others giue out, that he was conuicted of Sodomy, and burned on the backe for his offence at Noyon. but the notori­ous wickednesse of those that first deuised this slander may be refuted by diuers plaine arguments. first Sodomites are not burned on the backe in France, but burned at a stake. secondly neuer was he conuented before any iudge either for that or other matter. Lastly, the sincerity of his life re­pugneth to such beastlinesse. neither was it like, that he [Page 268]would haue so violently pursued the Romanists for their vnnaturall abominations, vnlesse he had beene cleere of all suspition in that behalfe.

Bellarmine lib. 4. de eccles. c. 14. saith that Caluin went a­bout to worke a miracle by compact with one Bruley. but he sheweth himselfe therein miraculously impudent. for in the same chapter he confesseth, that Calum in the preface to his Institutions should complaine, that wrong was offered chri­stians by those, that required miracles at their hand, seeing they taught the doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles, which was confirmed by innumerable miracles. further it is a shamelesse tricke to alledge the testimony of Bolsec who was hired to write, what he could, against Caluin.

Finally Bellarmine and Coster saie, that Calum was eaten vp with lice, and died blaspheming and calling vpon the diuell. a diuelish slander refuted by Galasius, Beza and the publike testimony of the city of Geneua. a litle before his death, say they, he called his fellow ministers vnto him, exhorted them with many words full of piety and affection, and departed this life ra­ther like to one falling a slepe, then dying.

Beza is charged for affirming, that Christ had two hypo­stases or personall subsistences. but his aduersaries deale with him calumniously. for he confesseth and teacheth, that Christ was one person, albeit the same Christ was very God and very man, the two natures being vnited in one person, and the soule and the body being vnited in one man.

Feuardentius in Iacob. 3. and Stapleton in prompt. hebdom. 3. quadrages. and others raile at Beza for his verses, which he made being a yong man. But Beza did first condemne those verses himselfe, as being made while he was an impure Pa­pist. and yet compare them with the Italian rymes, that are euery where extant, and with the verses of Casa and other Italians, they may seeme modest and chast in respect.

Finally of late time the shamelesse Iebusites of France published a pamphlet of Bezaes recantation, and reconcili­ation to the Pope fraught with diuers lies. but Beza him­selfe refuced their impudent lies, and now the Papists them­selues [Page 269]selues will not deny, but that this was a lying and impudent pamphlet.

This is also the practise of Papists from time to time, to sclander and to bely the seruants of God. In the 8. session of the conuenticle of Constance the Masse-priestes charge Wicklesse, that he taught, that God must obey the diuell. a mat­ter no where sound either in termes, or in sense in his wri­tings. they said also, how he taught, that Princes being in mortall sinne are not to be obeied. his drift was only to shew, that prelates liuing loosely were vnworthy of their places, al­beit he did not detract from the efficacy of sacraments mi­nistred by them. the right of kings against the vsurpations of the Clergy he stoutly mainteined.

In the same wicked assemblie Iohn Husse was accused, that he taught, that there was a fourth person besides the trinity, and that he called Gregory a rymer, neither did it auaile him, that he denied these accusations most constantly. for his accusers were heard, and his defences little regarded. he was also most falsely charged with driuing the Germans out of the vniuersity of Prague: wheras it was proued, that the Germans did voluntarily depart thence, for that they pretended their ancient priuiledges to be infringed.

Against Bucer they giue out, that dying he turned Iew; and blasphemed the name of Christ. a matter deuised without proofe or probability, and conuinced by all that were pre­sent with him at his death.

Grineus was present at the end of Oecolampadius, and testi­fied, that he died most quietly, godlie and christianlie. and with him concurreth Wolfangus Capito. yet are not the Pa­pists ashamed to giue foorth, that the Diuell st angled him. of whom I would but aske only one question, to wit, who these witnesses were, that saw the Diuell committing this act?

Our English Papists seeke matter to obiect against bishop Iewell of reuerend memory, but finde none. only they tell vs diuers false allegations are found in his bookes. but all their accusations are answered, and rest so without replie, [Page 270]although the shamelesse aduersaries desist not to alledge matters diuers times answered. they saie further, that D. Ste­phens, and William Raynolds were cōuerted to Popery by reading his bookes. but the first was a simple fellow, and drawne away with hope, the second ranne away forced by despaire.

Against Bishop Granmer they haue denised diuers slan­derous tales, as if he were vnlearned, inconstant, and caried about his wise in a tronke. but for the first his learned wri­tings and disputes wil testifie, that it is vntruth. furthermore, very vnlike it is, that he should haue beene emploied in so great affaires, if he had not beene singularly learned. his constancy appeareth in his continuall trauailes against the Popes authority and Popish errors. the last is an improbable tale deuised by some standrous Popish parasite. and well de­serue they to be cased in cloke-bagges, that doe beleeue it. for he had sent his wife away before into Germany. and had he not, yet this deuise is improbable, if not impossible.

Sanders, Rishton, Stapleton, Parsons, and their pewfellows haue published diuers slanders against king Henry the eight, Queene Elizabeth of blessed memory, and diuers of their loyall subiects. but it is not to be maruelled, if fugitiues and traytors raile against their Princes, and all that fauour the state.

The vnwritten traditions of the Synagogue of Rome are nothing but lies deuised, and falsely fathered vpon the A­postles, and their successors. Bellarmine de verb. dei lib. 4. c. 3. esteemeth the canon of the Masse to be a tradition. yet was the same denised since the Apostles times. and is not found in that forme of Masse, which is in the old Romish or­dinall. in the Apostles time certes Christians neither praied for Popes, nor for Emperors. nor did Cosmas and Damia­nus and other Saints, mentioned in the canons, liue in the times of the Apostles, or their next successors.

Innocent the third c. cum Marthae. de celebratione missar. deter­mineth, that these words of the canon, tum leuauit oculos in caelum ad patrem, and mysterium sidei, and such like not men­tioned in the gospell, are receined from Christ by tradition. [Page 271]but of his assertion he alledgeth no proofe. neither can he shew reason, why Christ should omitte words now reputed so necessary.

The worship of Images in the second councell of Nice is called an Apostolike tradition. yet neuer doe we reade, that any Apostle, or Apostolike man did teach it. Naie the law of God doth expressely forbid the making of all Images or similitudes, to the end they should be worshipped.

Some say, that praiers and sacrifices for the dead are con­firmed by Apostolike traditions. yet our Sauiour sheweth, that we are to worke, while we haue light, and appointed the eucharist to be receiued of the communicants, and not to be offered for quicke and dead.

The kissing of the altar, and blessing of incense, Masse-priests doe beleeue to be commanded by tradition. from the same founteine doe issue the washings of hands, turnings of the Priest, the swinging of the chalice here and there, the a­doration of the host, the pompous perambulation of the host in the pixe, and other ceremonies of the masse. but these traditions are founded vpon lies and fables, and are partly Iewish, partly Heathenish, and all of them mere hu­mane inuentions and deuises. nay som of them are fond and rediculous, as the kissing of stones and stocks; some repug­nant to scriptures, as the adoration of the sacrament, with that honour, that is due to God.

In the missall salt is exorcised for the saluation of such as be­leeue, and water is hallowed for the driuing away of the power of the enemy. for the same end also candles are blessed. but that these creatures haue these effects, we doe not learne, but out of lying traditions, and the authors of them.

From traditions also the bishops suffragan doth challenge power to baptize belles. and belles so baptized say they, doe driue away diuels. this is recorded by Martinus de Arles tra­ctat. de superstit. numer. 3.9. & 14. and of this abuse the Germans complaine in their greeuances.

Agnus dei, as the Papists feine, doth purge sinnes as well, as the blood of Christ. but this is a lying tradition, and contrary [Page 272]to scripture. for there we learne that sinnes are purged not by lambes of waxe, but by the blood of Christ, the immacu­lat lambe, that taketh away the sinnes of the world.

Such are also the rest of those Romish traditions, which the conuenticle of Trent maketh equall to holy scriptures.

The legendes conteine more lies then leaues. for proofe I reporte me to the legendes of S. George, S. Christopher, S. Catherin, S. Margaret, and the rest. S. George bad the Kings daughter of Silena to cast her girdle about the Dragons necke. which she did, and the dragon followed her like a gentle dog. sequebatur eam, velut mansuetissmus canis. when S. George was put into a frying pan full of boiling lead, ma­king the signe of the crosse, he was therein refreshed, as if he had beene in a bath. coepit in eo quasi in balneo refoueri.

S. Christophers staffe being pitched into the ground be­gan to beare leaues, and 8. M. men presently beleeued in Christ, saith Iames de voragine. he telleth further, how di­uers arrowes being shot at S. Christopher did still flote in the aire, and could not come at him: and that one arrow a­mong the rest leaped backe and stroke out King Dagnus his cie. matters very improbable, and to say no more, not found in any authenticall history.

Catherine King Costus his daughter, being but 18. yeares of age is said to haue beene learned in all liberall sciences. in the legend also we read, how Maxentius the emperor would haue forced her to sacrifice to the Gods, and for that pur­pose prepared a wheele, which was turned by an Angel with such violence, that it killed 4000. gentiles. it is said also, that she conuerted the Empres, and one of the Emperors cheefe capteines called Porphyrius. matters contrarie to all stories, and not only not spoken of in histories.

S. Margaret was swallowed of the diuell in the figure of a Dragon. but making the signe of the crosse the Dragon burst, and out came S. Margaret safe and sound, as we reade in the legend. it is there said also, that she tooke the diuell by the haire of the head, and bette him. but how these lies may be beleeued, that is the question.

S. Francis, as Bonauenture and Bartholomew de Pisa re­count, was diuers times taken vp into the aire, called wolues his brethern, and swallowes his sisters, and had the markes of Christ imprinted in his hands, feete, and sides. and these fa­bles the Romanists beleeue.

Speculum exemplorum dist. 7. c. 41. telleth how frier Leo saw two ladders reaching from the earth to heauen, and that Christ sate at the toppe of the one, and threw downe all the Friers, that came that way, but that our lady, that sate at the toppe of the other, receiued all that came that way.

Caesarius Hesterbach lib. 7. c. 35. telleth, that a nunne cal­led Beatrix, ranne away with her louer, and liued certeine yeares in a publike bordell. yet because she serued our lady deuoutly, it is said, that our lady supplied her place, and was taken for Beatrix all the time of her absence, and in the end procured her as good grace in the nunnery, as any of her fellowes.

Thus the Papists can confirme any point of their do­ctirne with leasings. infinite such like leasings are conteined in the legendes.

The miracles reported in the legendes are nothing but miraculous lies.

Alexius staid so long in the church porch, that the image of our lady spoke, and bad the sexten let him in, as we reade Lombard leg. 89.

S. Christina being placed vpon a wheele by her own father, and hauing fire kindled vnder her; and oile cast vpon it, for her further torment, the legende saith that the flame brea­king out burnt 1500. men. there also we reade, how Christ descending tooke her to himselfe, and baptized her in the sea, and that hauing her tong cut out, she spake notwithstan­ding, and that her brests being cut milke issued out for blood. loe I pray you a maid, that gaue milke.

When Eustachius a soldier sometimes of Traians followed a hart, it is said, that the hart standing still Eustachius saw a crucifixe betweene the harts hornes, which spoke to him [Page 274]through the harts mouth, and asked him, why he did fol­low that hart. it is reported also in the legend, that being put into a bull of Brasse burning red hot he continued there 3. daies without hurt.

S. Brice being accused to be father of a base child, he cau­sed the same child not being yet 30. daies old, to confesse, that Brice was not his father. he did also carie hot coles in his bosome without burning his flesh, or clothes.

Our English Saints also wrought great and strange mira­cles, if we may beleeue Capgraue. S. Aidus espying 8. wolues, that were fore hungred, gaue them 8. lambes of meere com­passion. afterward being sory for the losse of his lambes, he praied and had the same 8. lambs safe and sound out of the wolues belly. when wild beasts were hardly pursued, they came to him, as to a sanctuary.

S. Adrian being called vpon by a boy, that was beaten, the masters hand was staid in the aire, and could no more touch him.

S. Dunstane being in his mothers wombe, as is sayd, wrought miracles, lighting, and putting out all the candles in the church. being a man he tooke the Diuell by the nose, as he looked in at a window, at the least, as we read in the legend.

S. Eanswide perceiuing a peece of timber to be too short for the work, where she would employ it, drew it out to a iust length by praier. the same saint caused also water to runne vp a mounteine.

S. Goodric with the signe of the crosse tamed wolues and serpents, in such sort that they lay with him by the fire side without offering any hurt.

I cannot stand long to recount many of this kinde of ly­ing miracles. neither shall I greatly need to rehearse more, seeing these doe shew how much our aduersaries relie vpon lies.

Neither doe Popes or their agents absteine from lying. In the 3. booke of Gregories dialogues we reade, how a beare was commanded to keepe the Hermite Florences sheepe. I [Page 275]doubt whether euer Gregory told any such fable. it was sure some later Pope.

Innocentius in the Chap. quis nesciat. dist. 11. telleth vs, that none founded churches in Italy, France, Spaine, Africke and Sicily, but those whom Saint Peter and his successors made priests, and that none taught in those countries beside S. Peter and such as he sent. a lie directly repugnant to Scriptures, which testifie, that S. Paul preached in those countries being appointed by God thereto, and not by man; and refuted by diuers ancient histories and fathers, who write, that di­uers others preached there beside S. Peters priests and mes­sengers. S. Augustine epist. 162. sheweth, that the Gospel came into Aphrike out of other countries, then those that belonged to the church of Rome.

Gregory the 4. c. in praeceptis. dist. 12. saith, that all bishops causes, and the discussing of matters of religion belongeth to the See of Rome, and that religion tooke her beginning from thence. a matter apparantly false. for religion began at Hierusalem, and not at Rome, and Councels in ancient time determined the differents in causes of Religion, and not the bishop of Rome, who was as well subiect to the decision of the general councell, as other bishops.

Anacletus c. in nouo. dist. 21. saith, that the rest of the A­postles made Peter their Prince. which is contradicted by the Papistes themselues, that deriue Peters authoritie from Christ.

Nicolas dist. 22. c. omnes, telleth vs, that Christ gaue to Pe­ter the right of the kingdome both of heduen and earth. but of this earthly kingdome belonging to Peter, this is the first man that euer told newes.

Anacletus dist. 22. c. sacrosancta. affirmeth, that both Pe­ter and Paul were crowned with martyrdome in one day, and at the some time. but this leasing is refuted by Prudentius peri stephan. Hymno 12. Arator in act. Apost. lib. 2. Augustine serm. 18. de sanctis, and others.

Innocent the 4. c. ad apostolicae. de sent. & re iudicat. affir­meth, that Sicily is the speciall patrimony of Peter. est speciale [Page 276]patrimonium Petri. but no where doe were reade, where ei­ther Christ gaue, or Peter claimed this patrimony.

Clement the fifth c. Romani. Clem. de iureiurando. most boldly and impudently writeth, that Emperors hauing the crowne set vpon their heads sweare fealty to the Pope. a mat­ter certes, which Bellarmine the Popes proctor would blush to affirme. for albeit he would willingly gratifie the Pope whith any thing, yet dare he not say, that the Roman Em­pire is holden in fee of the Pope. and thus the Popes runne on headlong heaping priuileges on Rome, and building the tower of Babel by lies.

The same is also practised by Bellarmine, as I haue shewed in diuers discourses written against him; by Baromus, as my speciall exceptions taken to his volumes fraught with lies and fables, do declare; by Parsons and Kellison as by my an­sweres to their bookes it may appeare.

Turrecremata lib. 3. sum. c. 9. affirmeth, that Helena and 3000. Iewes were conuerted to Christian religion in a coun­cell at Rome vnder Siluester: but other more true stories re­port, that she was alwares a Christian, and holpe to conuert her sonne Constantine.

Lib. 2. sum. c. 300. he saith, that Paul did some things, which he afterward retracted. quaedam fecit, quae postea reuo­cauit.

The Emperor Henry the fourth by the Romanists is most vniustly standred, as if he had prostituted his owne wife to his sonne, and done other such like abominable actes. mat­ters merely deuised by the Popes agents.

Fridericke the 2. was a most noble Prince and greatly prai­sed by the Cardinall of Cusa, Aegidius Romanus, and others. yet was he most vniustly reuiled and standred by Gregory the 9. Innocent the 4. and their agents, as it doth appeare by the testimony of Matthew Paris in Henrico 3.

Capgraue telleth, how a hundred and fifty of Ioseph of A­rimathaea his company sailed out of France into great Brita­ny vpon Iosephes shirt: a small barge certes for so many pas­sengers.

Antoninus hist. part. 3. reporteth, how an innumerable troupe of the order of Dominske were seene in heauen coue­red vnder the blessed virgins gowne.

Stapleton in his prompruarie dominica 2. aduentus broch­eth vs a barrell of lies. first he saith, that Sebastian a certeine musician was put in prison for demaunding liberty of conscience, by the last Queene; and that one Gifford was imprisoned by her likewise, for the same cause after he had enterteined the Queene very bountifully at his house; and that Shelley was committed for presenting a request in the behalfe of the pa­pists. matters meerely imagined and deuised by lying com­panions; and foolishly reported by him. the two first we cannot learne euer to haue beene committed. the third was imprisoned for plaine treason.

The Papists accused the people of Zuricke for teaching, that the virgine Mary had more sonnes then one, and that Iames died for them, as we may reade in Sleidan lib. hist. 4. and Bellarmine lib. 4. de iustific. c. 1. saith, we little regard good works, and lib. 2. de amiss. grat. c. 1. he accuseth the Albrgians, as they are called, and Caluin for holding the error of the Manichecs; which they alwaies renounced and detested. In his bo [...]ke de Matrimonio c. 2. he blusheth not to charge them, whom he calleth Lutherans, and Caluinists with hold­ing, that matrimonie is not of God. a point expresly denied by them.

Finally it is an easie matter to shew, that the foundation of Popery is laid vpon lies, and that the charge, which Pa­pistes giue vpon their aduersaries, is ordinarily enforced by most wicked imputations and standers.

CHAP. XLIIII. That the cause of Popery is mainteined by fire and sword.

MVch are simple people abused by calumniations de­uised against good men, and hardly are Christians [Page 278]able to discerne falshood from truth, and to iudge what is truely alledged, what falsly, vntill such time as matters be duly examined. yet neither can trueth be vtterly suppres­sed, nor do lies passe alwaies for good paiment. Those there­fore, whom they cannot abuse with lies, and false allegations, the Pope and his complices seek cruelly to destroy with fire and sword.

The holy Ghost Apocalyps. 17. sheweth vs, that the pur­ple whoore should be drunke with the blood of the saints. and Apocalyp. 13. that the 2. beast should kill such, as would not worship the image of the beast, that is, that the Pope should persecute to the death such as would not submitte them­selues to the kingdome of Antichrist, in which the image of the Roman Empire was after a sort reuiued. and this wee see verified by experience in the cruell gouernement of the Popes of Rome and their adherents.

Their lawes against all such as dissent from them in opi­nion concerning the sacraments are most rigorous. they are degraded, and deliuered ouer to the secular power to be burned, as it appeareth by the law ad abolendam. de haereti­cis. nay they punish such as are suspected, if they cannot cleere themselues, with no lesse rigor then the rest. all that communicat with them, receiue them, or succor them, are in great danger. such as giue them counsell are reputed in­famous, as is determined c. si aduersus. de haereticis. the goods of heretikes are adiudged confiscate. neither are they puni­shed only while they liue, but also after their death, being depriued of the communion of Christians, and of buriall. Alexander the 4. c. quicunque haereticos. de haereticis in 6. ex­communicateth, and depriueth of Christian buriall all such, as goe about to bury heretikes, or their fauorers. neither doe they admitte the repentance of such as are adiudged relapsed, but deliuer them ouer to be burnt by their executioners, as we may reade in the chapter super co. de haereticis. in 6.

The spanish inquisition is yet more rigorous, then the former laws of Popes. for vpon any wicked or lewd fellowes accusation an honest man may be attached, imprisoned, tor­tured, [Page 279]and, if he acquite himselfe not the better, either fami­shed in prison, or burnt most cruelly.

And by these lawes we finde, that infinit Christians haue beene done to death in Spaine, Italy, France, Flanders, Eng­land, Scotland, Germany and other Christian countries. Me­tera [...] in his history of the troubles of the low countries re­porteth, that fiftie thousand persons were executed by the actes of iudges and inquisitors in the low countries, during the reigne of Charles the fift. In England during the times of Queene Mary, they spared neither old nor yongue, no­ble nor base, learned nor vnlearned. nor did they respect ei­the sexe of women, or the simplicitie of the common sort.

Pius quintus testifieth, that Philip the 2. spared not his owne and onely sonne Charles, being accused by the inqui­sitors. in the daies of Gregory the 13. a gentleman of Valedo­lid in Spaine cut wood, and set fire to burne two of his owne daughters condemned for the Gospell, in that countrey cal­led heresie. and if king Henry the 8. had liued longer, it is thought the Papists would haue perswaded him not to haue spared his Queene. so cruel was the Popish faction in pro­secuting the innocent. nay if either Queene Mary had lon­ger liued, or Popery longer reigned in England, this bloody crew had caused the daughter to disenterre her own father, and to burne his bones, as some haue reported.

Sometime without forme of law they murder infinit num­bers of innocent persons, for the least suspicion of doctrine contrary to the opinions of the church of Rome. for this cause Innocent the 3. and his successors proclaimed open warre against the Albigians and Valdensians, and ceased not vntill hee had destroied all, that durst manifestly oppose themselues vnto their heresie and tyranny.

In Bohemia they had not the like successe, their armies be­ing often ouerthrowne by the poore people of the country, which defended their liues against their cruelty. but neuer did they cease to persecute that nation.

Paul the 3. sent great forces into Germany, seeking by the armes of Charles the fift, to reestablish his antichristian king­dome [Page 280]in that countrey. the same Pope stirred vp rebels both in England and Ireland against Henry the 8. that had shaken off his heauie yoke.

Pius the fift in his Bull commanded Queene Elizabeths subiects to rebell against her, and raised many troubles both in England and Ireland, seeking to ouerthrow the state, if he could. the same man not preuailing by intestine sedition, sought to set both French and Spanish vpon the English, as we may reade in his life written by Hicrome Catena.

In the times of Gregorie the 13. that bloody massacre, that for euer shall make Papistes insamous, was committed in France. Natalis Comes histor. lib. 23. testifieth, that sixtie thousand persons were massaacred, at that time. Circiter sexagin­ta hominum millia, saith he, varijs in locis per illud tempus tru­cidata suisse dicta sunt in Gallia. and so extreme was their crueltie, that like bloody wolues, they neither spared sexe, nor age, nor qualitie. vel puberes, vel impuberes, saith he, tru­cidati sunt, ne (que) vllius sexits, vel aetatis, vel dignitatis habita est ratio.

Anno 1588. they brought vpon England great forces, with fire and sworde, seeking the vtter subuersion of this king­dome. but the Lord from heauen blew vpon his enemies, and dispersed them.

In France they conspired against the king, and bound themselues by oath to exclude the house of Bourbon from the right of the crowne, and to roote out all that should speake against the Pope, & his erroneous doctrine, and for that cause raised great tumults and stirres, as we may reade in the memorials of the league.

The like course for many yeeres haue they taken in the Low countries, where the strength of Italy and Spaine hath beene consumed, and a way made for the good successe of the common enemy of Christendome the Turke.

Finally the Popes and their emissaries the Iebusites doe delight in nothing more then in tumults, warres, seditions, massacring, and shedding of the blood of innocent Christi­ans. The massacre of Paris is painted in the Popes palace, as [Page 281]a matter, wherein he taketh chiefe delight.

The Iebusites, albeit once banished out of France, cease not to sound the alarme against such, as are opposite to their faction.

Andreas Fabritius in praefat. in harmon. August. confess. set out 1576. speaking to the Emperor exhorteth him to gird his sowrd vpon his thigh, and to subdue heretikes, the most perni­tious enemies of Christians. accingatur gladio suo super femur po­tentissimus imperator, haereticos, & christiani nominis pernitiosis­simos hostes sub iugum mittat. Pius Quintus, as we may read in his life, exhorted his Italian troups, that went into France a­gainst them of the religion, to kill all, and to take none aliue. Posseuinus also a cholerike Iebusite in a treatise entitled il sol­dato Christiano, speaking vnto the same soldiers assirmeth, that it is their duty to kill al professing our religion, or other­wise, that they shall betray their faith, and lose all hope of salua­tion.

In England of late, perceiuing themselues to be too weak to preuaile by plaine force, certaine vndermining Papists set on and resolued by fiery Iebusites and murdrous Masse­priests, conceiued such a treason, as cānot be sampled by any former precedent, nor found described in any old or new hi­story. their intention was at one instant with fire and gun­powder to consume the King, the Queene, the Prince, the Prelates of the Church, the Nobles, Knights, and Burgesses of the realme, the Iudges and all that attended the honoura­ble court of Parliament. nay not content herewith they had a further practise to destroy the Kings roiall lignage, to massacre all the professors of religion throughout the king­dome, and to deliuer their country as a praie into the hands of Strangers. The principall actors were Thomas Percy, Catesby and Fauxe: the principall counsellors Garnet, Hall, Baldwin, and diuers other of the damned crew of Iebusites; their aiders the damned crew of reconciled recusants.

Can we then thinke these men to belong to Christs flocke, that vse this woluish cruelty? longè diuersasunt carnisicina & pietas, saith Lactantius, nec potest aut veritas cum vi, aut institia [Page 282]cum crudelitate coniungi. that is, piety and butcherly cruelty are two diuers things, and neither can truth with force, nor iustice be coupled with crueltie. Matthew Paris sheweth, that in the times of Innocent the third, Christians were accused by a wri­ting sent from heauen for shewing no pity vpon widowes and or­phans, and shewing lesse mercy, then did the pagans. viduae & orphani ad vos clamant quotidie, saith that writing, quibus nul­lam facitis miscricordiam. pagani habent misericordiam, at vos non habetis. but much more reason haue we to vse these words to the moderne Iebusites and their complices. for they are more mercilesse then Turkes. the Turkes suffer Christians to inioy their religion, and these doe not. therefore the Italians, as Natalis Comes in his history testifieth, say, it is better to liue vnder the Turke, then vnder the Spaniards and Popes inquisi­tors. and for this cause the kingdome of Hungarie, and prin­cipality of Transiluania hath chosen rather to seeke for suc­cor at the hands of Turkes, then to endure the cruell and tre­cherous executions of the Pope, and his bloody inquisi­tors. vp then o Lord and scatter these thy bloody enemies, that seeke to scatter and massacre the sheepe of thy pasture, and let not those preuaile any further, that make warres a­gainst the Lambe, and all that follow him, and constantlie professe his truth these wolues haue conspired and sworne the destruction of the professors of religion. At Bayon anno 1585. a league was concluded betwixt France, Spaine and o­ther Princes. the articles were these, as is euident by the French histories. The Spanish king shall warre vpon the king of Nauarre. the dukes of Ferraria and Sauoy with the aid of Ger­man horsemen shall translate the wars into France. the Germans shall hinder all succor to come to them of the religion. the Cantons of Suizzerland, that adhere to the Pope, shall oppresse the other Cantons. Monkes shall giue their names for souldiers. and all shall endeuor to kill the Lutherans. so you see, that the finall end of their designes is murder and cruelty. their meanes, fire, sword and gunpowder their contentment wast and de­solation.

What reason then haue Christians to slugge and sleepe [Page 283]when danger is so neere them? doe they thinke, that papists want gun powder, or poison, or that they wil not hurt if they recouer strength? as well they may thinke, that wolues wil cease from crueltie, and Serpents cast away their poison, and tyrants prooue gentle foster fathers, and Turkes turne Christians.

Nay such Princes as are not Papists, are not much to trust them, if they satisfie not the Popes will in all things. Gregory the 7. killed and empoisoned all, that were opposite to his deseings. he excommunicated the emperor Henry the fourth, because he would not suffer him quietly to sell ecclesiasticall prelacies. his successors made warres vpon Henry the sift, Fridericke the 1. Philip, Otho and Fridericke the 2. for that they could not bee suffered to dispose of the landes of the Empire. Lewis of Bauier was persecuted for no other cause, then for that he would not receiue his crowne at the Popes hands. for this cause also Harold King of England became e­nemy of the Clergy, because he tooke the crowne, before it was deliuered by Popish prelates. Philip the faire King of France was persecuted by Boniface the 8. for that he would not acknowledge himselfe to be the Popes subiect. and yet did they not know any other religion, then that, which the Pope then professed.

Finally Henry the 3. of France, albeit superstitiously addi­cted to popery, yet could he not escape the butcherly hands of the popish leaguers, that suborned a Dominican Frier to kill him, for that he would not at their appointment make warres vpon his subiects.

To conclude therefore this point, there is no way of secu­rity for Christians against the Popes cruelty and his adhe­rents practises, then manfully to resist their vsurpations, wa­rily to take heede of their mines and gunpowder, and neuer to trust their sweete words and guilefull promises. with cle­mency they are not to bee mitigated; but with resolution and iustice they may easily be subdued.

CHAP. XLV. That the practises, and treaties of Popes and their complices with Christians, are not to be trusted.

THe Prophet describing a wicked man saith, he laid hands on such as were at peace with him, and broke his couenant. A­mong heathē people the Thracians were very infamous for breaking their oathes and promises. [...], was in times past a common prouerbe. but neither among heathen people, nor among such as professe to know God, doe we reade of any more foedifragous or periurious sect, then the Popes of Rome and their complices.

Others percase breake both oathes and promises. but no man in time past euer taught, that faith and oathes giuen to others ought to be broken, as doe the Romanistes. in the conuenticle of Constance they not onely made void the Em­perours charter of faseconduct giuen to Iohn Husse, but also by publike act determined, that saith was not to be holden with heretikes.

They absolue subiects from their oathes of allegeance, which as Sigebert in his Chronicle saith, sauoureth of here­sie. Pius quintus not onely absolued the late Queenes sub­iectes from their allegeance, but also denounced them ex­communicate, that continued firme in their allegeance.

Iulius the second went one point further, and disputed, that the church was not bound with othes, as Guicciardine in his historie reporteth. now euery man knoweth, that by the church he vnderstood the Pope.

With this wicked doctrine their execrable practise very well accordeth. Gregorie the 7. by a publike sentence of a synode was declared periured.

Paschal the 2. confirmed certeine couenants betwixt him­selfe and the Emperor by solemne chartres, seals and othes: literis, sigillis, inramentis, saith Otho Frising [...]nsis lib. 7. but im­mediately [Page 285]he brake all.

Fridericke the 2. as Matthew Paris testifieth, accused Gre­gory the 9. for teaching persidiousnesse and periury. quod persidi­am & periurium doceret. and yet his disciples hold, that the Pope, when he teacheth, cannot erre in matters of faith.

Gregory the 12. as Theodoricke a Niem tract. vnionis 6. c. 29. writeth, was charged to be a publike forsworne person, and by him called periurus publicus. lib. 3. de schism. c. 3. he saith, he deceiued the world with his oathes and vowes. votis & iura­mentis suis decepit mundum. likewise he saith tract. 6. c. 39. vnionis. that Innocentius would not admit the vnion of the Papacy, albeit he had before vowed, and sworne to doe it. Charles the French King chargeth both him and Peter de Luna with breaking their oathes, as Theodoric a Niem wri­teth tract. nemoris vnionis lib. 6. c. 14.

The Bohemians for this persidious dealing of the Popes complices would not come to the councell of Basil without good pledges.

Alexander the 6. was more perfidious, then any Carthagi­gian, as in his life Onuphrius testifieth. perfidia plus quàm punica.

When Iulius the third was in petition, he swore both to the French and Spanish, as is testified in Pelegrino Inglese, but performed neither to the one nor to the other.

The Masse-priests of Trent promised safeconduct to all that would come to Trent. but contrary to the same, Verge­rius and others were excluded out of the synod, and diuers doctors comming out of Germany, could not be heard to dispute, and hardly escaped with their liues out of the place.

Charles the 9. of France, anno 1572. with monstrous oaths and solemne promises, drew the Queene of Nauarre, the admirall and many other noble-men and gentle-men vnto Paris. but it cost them full deare, and lost them all their best men. for there that noble Queene was poisoned, there the king of Nauarre was taken prisoner, and the rest trecherous­ly murdred. and so farre was the Pope from condemning this fact, that he caused the same to be set out in tables in [Page 286]his pallace among the triumphant acts of Popes.

In France and Flandres vpon surrenders of townes sel­dome did our aduersaries regard either oath, or promise. diuers edicts haue beene published by the French king for the pacification of troubles, but they prooued nothing, but traps and engins to take men, that ment simply and plainly. the capitulation with them of Sancerre, was megerly perfor­med. The duke of Alua and his complices contrary to pro­mise murdred the garrison of Arlem, Narden, Zutphen, and diuers other townes.

Of late we thought our selues secure, hauing peace with all the world. but euen then we were neerest danger, and could not haue escaped it, if God had not discouered the mine, the powder, the traine, and the whole packe of tray­tors.

In the yeare 1588. while the agents of Spaine and England were treating of peace, the enemies came vpon vs, hoping sodenly to ouer-whelme vs with warres being taken vnpro­uided.

No treatie could be more solemnly agreed vpon, or con­firmed, then the pacification of Gant, after the surprise of Antwerp. yet was neither promise nor oath kept therein; but rather vnder confidence of these promises and oathes, many poore people were surprised.

First then wee say, that our hope is, that God will de­stroy them that speake lies, and not hold them guiltlesse, that shall sweare falsly, dishonoring his holy name. this we are assured, that he abhorreth the bloody and deceitfull man.

Secondly, we may rightly conclude, that such as looke for performance of oathes and promises at the hands of the Pope and his complices, further then necessitie and profit vrgeth them; are verie ignorant of their doctrine and pra­ctises. we may say also, that they are very weake and simple. for once any plaine dealing man may be abused. but to of­fend diuers times in one fault, and oftentimes to runne into the same trap, argueth great weakenesse, negligence and wilfulnesse.

Finally albeit princes, that liue vnder the Popes lawes were willing to keepe touch, and to performe promises; yet we must remember, how easily the Pope dispenseth with oathes, and how necessary it is for them to breake all coue­nāts, if the Pope once declare the cōtrary party to be an he­retike, or schismatike. In the Clementine Romam. de iureiuran­do. the Popes forbid all princes vnionem, parentelam, confoe­derationem, that is, peace, contracting of alliance, and confede­ration with such, as are their enemies. and if any contract be made, then must the same be dissolued vpon paine of ex­communication, when the Pope pleaseth. so all the assu­rance, that Christians can haue of amitie with the Popes vas­sals, dependeth on the Popes pleasure, and his pleasure is founded vpon his profit, and necessitie: and our securitie standeth in watching their mines and gunpowder treasons. God grant therefore all Christians grace to beware, that they be not entrapped with false and perfidious promises; nor vndermined with their subtilties, nor blowne vp with treason: and giue our aduersaries that light of reason, that they may see, that oathes made by the name of God in iust and honest causes, are not to be dissolued either by the Pope or any other, nor their treasons to be warranted by a­ny Popish facultie.

CHAP. XLVI. That the chiefe founders and mainteiners of Popery haue beene commonly noted for wicked and prophane men.

FAithfull Christians and the citizens of the city of God, as the Apostle teacheth vs Ephes. 2. are built vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Iesus Christ being the chiefe corner stone. but our Sauiour Christ was an high priest, most holy, innocent, and vndersiled. and his Apostles and Pro­phets were holy men, and endued with speciall graces fit for that function. let vs then see what manner of men the [Page 288]first authors and principall vpholders of Popery haue bene, that by the different qualities of the one and the other, we may the better esteeme of true religion, and more perfectly learne to hate the superstition, heresie, tyranny, and all the abhominations of the Popes of Rome and their wicked faction.

The mystery of iniquity beganne to worke in the Apostles time, as S. Paul testifieth. for then false teachers beganne to spread their poison, and after the departure of the Apo­stles, rauening wolues entred into the Church not sparing the stocke. by little and little also heathenish and Iewish ceremo­nies began to be receiued in diuers places, and as S. Augu­stine saith, the world grew full of presumptions. but Antichrist began not to shew himselfe openly before the times of Phocas the emperor, who at the ernest solicitatiō ofPlatina in Bonifacio 3. Boniface the third granted, that the church of Rome should be called and accounted the head of other Churches. so then the principall agent in the erection of the papacy was Phocas, a barbarous Thracian by nation, and a common soldier, by tumult ad­uanced to the empire, and one that began his reigne with the slaughter of his master, of the Empresse, and their chil­dren.

The next was Irene a proud insolent and cruell woman, that among others, murdred her owne sonne. for vnto her time the worship of God continued in the church of Rome without any notable corruption. but she with the helpe of Adrian Bishop of Rome, and other superstitious persons first brought in the idolatrous worship of images and Saints.

Gregory the 7. was the first, that by force dissolued Priests mariages, and exalted the miter of the Pope aboue the crownes of emperors and kings, taking vpon him first to de­pose them from their seats. but among all the Popes you shall not finde any more abominable. Beno testifieth he was a necromancer, a murderer, an empoysoner, and a sacrilegious and impious person. the synode of Brixina condemned him for diuers abominable crimes. Matthew Paris in Willelmo con­quastore writeth, that being readie to depart this life, he [Page 289]confessed, that by the Diuels perswasion he had prouoked the wrath of God against mankind. he threw the sacramēt into the fire, because he could obteine no succh answere of it, as he de­sired, and liued scandalously with Mathilda. a fit fellow therefore he was to aduance the whorish, sacrilegious and murdrous religion of the later Rome, that is so much dege­nerated from the former.

Paschall the 2. that atchieued that, which Gregory the. 7. and others his predicessors had begun, was a periured per­son, and a firebrand of sedition and trouble. he set the sonne against the father, and the subiects against their princes. ha­uing preuailed against the Emperor he would not suffer his body to be buried. and hauing gotten into his hands the bodie of Clement the Antipope he caused the same to bee burned.

Alexander the 3. a great patron of the Popes authoritie betraied the emperor Friderike Barbarossa to the soldan, sen­ding his liuely portrait vnto him, and perswading him to de­stroy him. he trode most proudly vpon the Emperors neck, and abused wordes of scripture most impiouslie to his pur­puse.

Innocent the third, that first established auricular confes­sion, and transubstantiation, two principall bulwarks of the Popes kingdome, and was a principall doer in the decre­tales, raised bloody warres against the Christians in France, that would not allow his authority, caused the bones of Al­mericus to be burned, for that he had preached against the worship of Images, and shewed himselfe a bloody wolf and a deuourer of Christs flocke, and an impure fellow.

Thomas Cantipratensis a Dominican Frier reporteth, that this Innocent after his death appeared to S. Luitgard, all bur­ning in flames.

Honorius the third, that first authorized the idolatrous worship of the Masse-cake, as appeareth by the chapter sane cum olim. de celebrat. missar. was proud, cruell, vitious, and superstitious. he forbad honest mariage to Priests, and main­teined the filthy religion of Monkes and Friers. Dominike [Page 290]and Francis, and the locusts, that came out of the bottome­lesse pit of hell were first allowed by him. his malice and anger were shewed vpon the Scots, that had killed Adam Bishop of Catnesse. for he caused 400. to be hanged, among which many innocents were comprehended, and caused their children to bee gelded, that he might extinguish their race.

But one of the principall builders of this Romish Babylon was Gregorie the 9. for he gathered the decretales of Popes together, and gaue then ferce of lawe, as appeareth by his preface before the decretales. some say, he was the cosin of Innocent the third. but his manners doe declare him rather to haue beene his sonne. he excommunicated the Emperour Friderike, that warred vpon the Saracens, and stopped the good successe, and the course of the victories of the Chri­stians against them. secretly he murdred the Emperors em­bassadors, published lying decretales against him, as we may read in Matthew Paris. finally, to enrich his nephewes, or ra­ther his bastards, he set all Italy on a flame.

Boniface the eight, Clement the sift, and Iohn the 22. who made vp the body of the canon law, which is the strength and sinewes of Popery, did not degenerate from their pre­decessors. of Boniface the eight it is said, that he entred like a soxe, reigned like a lyon, died like a dog. he caused his prede­cessor Celestine to renounce the papacie, and afterward im­prisoned and murdered him. his owne friends confesse, that he sought to subdue the world rather by force of armes, then by re­ligion. his vnspeakable pride, taking vpon him both as Pope and Emperor, & challenging power to translate kingdomes from one to another, of his owne friends could not be dis­sembled. he that continueth the history of Vrspergensis, wri­teth, that Clement the 5. was a notorious fornicator. hic, vt ha­bet Chronicon Hermanni, publicue suit Fornicator. Villani al­so in his chronicle testifieth, that he was a filthy fellow. for the wickednesse and abominable life of Iohn the 22. Petrarch made the sonnet Fiammadal ciel: wherein he beseecheth God, that slames from heauen might streame down and consume [Page 291]the court of Rome. It greeued him not a little, that the Pope did keepe his sister, hauing with a great price bought her of her brother Gerard.

Iohn the 23. by whose authority the councell of Constance was assembled, was conuinced to be an incestuous person, a So­domite, and a most abominable atheist, denying the immortality of the soule, as appeareth by the acts of that councell, and the appendix. and yet this is the synode, that condemned the doctrine of M. Wicklesse, and established the communion vnder one kinde, and the subsistence of accidents without substance, and diuers other points of Popery.

The councell of Florence, wherein the Popes supremacy, purgatory, and diuers points of popish doctrine concer­ning the sacrments were confirmed, had his strength from Eugenius the fourth, that by the councell of Basill was con­demned as an hereticke, and by the citizens of Rome driuen out of the city as a publike enemy. he was the cause of the periury of Ladislaus, that broke with the Turke, and of the defait and slaughter of the Christians at Varna.

The three principall authors of the wicked decrees, and anathematismes of the conuenticle of Trent, were Paul the third, Inlius the third, and Pius the fourth: whereof the first was a parricide, a lechour, a necromancer and an empoysoner, as is testified by Vergerius, Sleidan and other. Iulius the third was a sensuall epicure, and a filthy sodomite, as is testified in a certaine preface before the story of Iouius, and declared by certein rymes and verses made vpon him, and Innocentius de Monte, a boy made Cardinall by him. Pius the fourth, as the common report went, died betwixt two concubines, and was infamous for lechery and villany, & odious to the Romans for his vices.

To speake generally of later popes the only founders and belmelters of Popish religion, we finde, that they haue been the greatest scandales of Christian religion, and the princi­pall authors of the calamities of Christendome. Bernard in serm. 1. in conuers. S. Pauli complaineth, that iniquity taking his beginning from the Popes of his time, was spred out ouer the [Page 292]world. egressa est iniquitas, saith he, à senioribus iudicibus vi­carijs tuis, qui videntur regere populum tuum. Petrarke in his epistles without title, saith, the court of Rome was not a city, but a house full of diuels, and wicked spirits, and a sinke of vice and shame. non ciuitas, sed lemurum, & laruarum domus, & vt bre­uiter dicam, scelerum & dedecorum omnium sentina. Iohn of Sarisbury in Polycrat. lib. 6. c. 24. saith, that Popes doe therefore die the faster, least they should corrupt the whole church. ideo mea opinione papae frequentius moriuntur, ne totam corrumpant eccle­siam. Warnerus in Martino 2. Adriano 3. & Stephano, crieth out, heu, heu, quomodo obscuratum est aurum! alas, alas, how is the golde obscured! he compleineth also of the scandales, that happened in the papacy, and of their emulations, sects, and contentions, and saith, that truth failed among the children of men. Theodoric a Niem de schism. lib. 3. c. 42. saith, that so much iniquity was gone from the Popes, that the catholike faith was darkned thereby, and religion suffered shipwracke, and all vertues were departed from all sorts of men, vt catholica fides obnubiletur, & omnis religio naufragium patiatur, virtutes ab omnibus recesserint. Platina in Sergio 3. saith, that Popes getting their places by bribery neglected Gods worship, and persecuted their enemies like most cruell tyrantes, that afterward they might with more security satisfie their lusts, when there was none to con­troll them. Ioannes Marius de schism. part. 3. c. 5. testifieth, that all the euils of christendome haue proceeded from the ma­lice, ambition, and auarice of wicked Popes. a malitia, ambitio­ne, & auaritia sceleratorum paparum omnia mala in mundo pro­ueniunt. Robert Grosted, as Matthew Paris testifieth in Henri­co 3. did bitterly inueigh against the couetousnesse, vsury; simo­ny, rapines, excesse and luxuriousnesse of the court of Rome. nei­ther doth Budaeus de Asse, or Valla contra Donationem Con­stantini, say lesse against the Popes, then he.

Next to the Popes the Cardinals, Masse-priests, Monks and Friers, and of late yeares the Dominicans, Franciscans and Iebusites are the chiefe aduancers, teachers, and defen­ders of Romish heresies. of which if we say litle, men may suppose, there is no more to be said; if we say what they de­serue, [Page 293]and is in authenticall bookes reported of them, it would exceede the proportion of this short Suruey. onlie thus much we say of many things, that may be said. Bri­git in her reuelations testifieth, that Cardinals are excessiue in pride, couetousnesse, & al delights of the flesh, 4. Brig. 49. cardina­les, extenti & effusi sunt ad omnem superbiam, cupiditatem & delectamentum carnis. Pelaguis lib. 2. de planct. eccles. art. 16. saith, they are encreased in riches, but much diminished in pietie. aucta est possessio, diminuta religio.

The same man lib. 2. de planct. leccles. art. 20. saith, the prelates of the church haue declared their sinnes like Sodome. Peccatum suum, sicut Sodoma praedicauerunt. Mantuan Al­phonsi lib. 6. saith, that the priests hate their flocks, and care not to feed them, but to poll them and mocke them.

Pastores, saith he, odere pecus, nec pascere curant,

Sed tondere greges, pecori (que) illudere tonso.

Catherine of Siena c. 125. saith, that religious men pretend angels liues, but for the most part are woorse then diuels. Religi­osi collocati sunt in religione velut angeli, sed quam plurimi sunt daemonibus deteriores.

What the Iebusites are, I report me to the French care­chisme of Iesuites set out by a Papist, and a learned man; and to the discourses of the secular priests against them. they shew they are couetous, false, proud, cruell, malicious, and di­uels incarnate. for the rest, I referre them ouer to the 2. booke 2. chap. of my answer to Rob. Parsons his Warn-word, a man, in whom most of the capitall vices of the Iebusites may be specified.

The chiefe mainteiners of Popery in our times, if we speake of lay men, were Charles the 9. of France, Henry the 3. his brother, Philip the 2. of Spaine, the duke of Alua, the duke of Guise, and his brethren, the earle of Westmerland, the head of the rebellion in the North. but if we seeke all histories, we shall hardly finde woorse men. Charles the 9. was a notori­ous sweater, a perfidious and licentious prince. Henry the 3. was superstitious and altogether giuen to carnall delights. What Philip the 2. was, his wiues, and sonne, and the inno­cents [Page 294]done to death by him for religion will speake one day. the Duke of Guise and Alita were cruell and bloodie men, perfidious, and wicked atheists. the first more giuen to pleasure, the second to auarice. Charles of westmerland was a rebell to his prince, and a man consumed with his own delights and pleasures.

Is it not then a matter ridiculous, that Masse-priests should so excessiuely commend this religion, that had such founders and fauorers, as these are, and which, as we see, was inuented and confirmed by wicked men, and vpholden by fraude and force?

CHAP. XLVII. That Popery in many points is more absurd and abominable, then the doctrine of Mahomet.

THe impieties and abominations of Turkish religion are so many, that hardly can we recount them, and so odi­ous and horrible, that no Christian can take pleasure to heare them. and yet if we please to looke into the secret my­steries of Popery, and to examine all the odious and abo­minable doctrines of the Romish synagogue, we may well make question, whether of the two religions deserueth more to be abhorred and hated. for first the Turkes do speake well of the law and the Prophets, and handle books of scriptures with great reuerence. Antonie Geoffrey in his 2. booke of Tur­kish ceremonies reporteth, how the Turkes accompt the gos­pels among holy scriptures. inter sacras literas habent nostra euangelia, saith he. but the Papists speake euill of scriptures, and call them sometimes a dead and killing letter, sometimes a matter of strife, sometime a nose of waxe. they doe also han­dle them very rudely, and without respect.

Lastly they will not haue them to be authenticall in respect of vs, without the Popes consignation and testimony.

The Turkes neuer burned their Alchoran, or the writings of the Prophets and Apostles vpon pretence of false transla­tions. [Page 295]but the Papists haue often times burned holy scrip­turs, as appeareth by the ecclesiasticall histories of France, England, Germany and other places.

Postell in his history of Turkes sheweth, how they teach that perfection is conteined in the gospell. and Gifford lib. Calui­noturcis. 3. c. 9. confesseth, that they beleeue all religion to be therein conteined. but Papists doe rather hope to finde per­fection in the rules of Monkes and Friers, then in the gos­pell, and therefore accompt rather the state of Monks to be a state of perfection, then the liues of Christians after the rule of the Gospell. the Masse-priests of Trent doe make traditions equall to scriptures, and commonly they deny scriptures to be a perfect rule of life and doctrine.

The doctors of Turkish religion were neuer so simple, as to thinke the traditions of their church to be equall to the Alchoran of Mahomet. But the Masse-priests of Trent will haue traditions not written, and holy scriptures to bee recei­ued with equall affection.

Such as blaspheme Christ, are punished by the Turkes most seuerely. but Papists teare him in pieces with their blas­phemies, and such are thought to be most cleare of heresie, which sweare most wickedly, and blasphemously.

Auerroes of all religions accompteth Popery to bee most absurd, for that Papists worship a peece of a Masse-cake for their God, and yet presently deuoure him, and swallow him downe into their bellies.

No Turkes euer allowed the eating of mans flesh, or be­leeued, that it were possible for a man to swallow downe a whole and perfect man without hurt, or diminution, or bru­sing of his body. but Papists make their followers eaters of mans flesh, and say, that euery one eating the sacrament doth eate vp Christs body whole and entire, and yet beleeue that they neither breake his flesh, nor digest it.

Euery Mahometan, albeit he beleeueth not Christ to be God, yet would be ashamed to say, that doggs and hogges and other brute beasts may eate Christs body. but the Pa­pists, albeit according to the Christian faith they professe [Page 296]Christ to be true God, yet they teach, that dogges and hogges doe eat his body, as ofte as they eate consecrated hosts.

The Turkish Priests beleeue, that Christ was true man, & that his body is visible and palpable. but the Masse-priests giue him a body in the sacrament, that is neither visible, nor palpable, nor in any respect like to our bodies.

The Turkes doe teach, that after this life some are placed in paradise, some damned to hell, as Postell writeth in his hi­story of Turkes: a third place they know not, nor doe they beleeue, that their Calipha or high Priest is able to deliuer soules out of the nether part of the earth by his indulgen­ces. but the Papists beleeue a third place beside heauen, and the place of the damned, and suppose that the Pope is soue­reigne lord of purgatory, and can deliuer soules thence by his indulgences.

Among the Turkes we doe not read of anie, that euer doubted of the immortality of the soule, as Menauinus de re­lig. Turc. testifieth. but among the Papists many doubt of it. for else why should Leo the x. lateran. concil. sess. 8. forbid men to dispute against the immortality of the soule? some deny it, as did Iohn the 23. as is testified in the appendix to the councell of Constance, and many other atheisticall Pa­pists, who haue nothing of religion, but an outward bare profession.

Turkes do beleeue, that God hath a body. yet doe they not suffer any image or similitude of God to be made. but Papists albeit they professe God to be a spirit, yet most ab­surdlie they doe make diuers corporeall Images of God.

The law of God prohibiting the making and worship of grauen images and other likenesses, is diligently obserued of Turkes. Georgeuitz in his booke de moribus Turcarum saith, he neuer saw any images in the temples of Turkes. with him also in effect concurreth Zigabenus in elencho Ismaelit. and sheweth, that such as worship images by the Turks are called idolaters. but Papists fill al the corners of their churches ful of images, and idolatrously doe they worship them. nay because they [Page 297]perceiue their practise to be contrariant to the law of God, therefore in their briefe catechismes they raze out the com­mandement against images.

Mahomet neuer called himselfe God, but the Prophet of god only. neither did his followers euer giue him the title or honor of God. nay some of them beleeue, that Cosdroes was vanquished by the romans, because he called himselfe God. but Papists call the Pope God, as we read in Baldus in c. vlt. cod. sent. rescind. and the Pope calleth himselfe God after a cunning sort c. satis. dist. 96.

The Turkes are not so absurd, as to beleeue, that their Calipha, Mufti, or high Priest cannot erre, because he suc­ceedeth Mahomet, and sitteth in his chaire. but the simple Papists most absurdly thinke, that their Pope, albeit he bee ignorant and foolish, yet cannot erre, as long as he teach­eth out of the papall chaire. In all the histories of Turkes we cannot finde, where any Ianizars or Turkish Friers thought it lawfull, or attempted to blow vp the Turkes pal­lace, or parliament house. but Thomas Percy, Catesby and their consorts attempted and thought it lawfull to blow vp the parliament house, the king and principall men of Eng­land. the Papists therfore passe Turkes in barbarous and per­fidious cruelty.

We do not reade, that any Calipha of the Turkes did skin any of his Priests. but Iohn the 22. as Platina recordeth, did pull the skinne from the Bishop of Cahors. happy had he beene, if his body had beene inuisible and impalpable, as the Papists make Christs imaginary body in the sacra­ment.

Mahomet, as Zigabenus in Saracenicis telleth vs, wrote only 113. fables. but the Papists in their legends, and bre­uiaries, and Caesar Fabulonius, I would say Baronius, haue written more then x. M. fables, and commend to their fol­lowers most fabulous fooleries.

Among the Turkes the Priests may not begge. but the Iebusites and other mendicant Friers count beggery a peece of perfection. and much it were to be wished, that they did [Page 298]only begge. for oftentimes they either take by force, or steale most cunningly.

Septemcastrensis de relig. Turc. c. 14. testifieth that the Turkes in their fasts abstaine from all meat and drinke. doth it not then appeare, that they fast better then Papists, that drinke wine and eate all dainty fishes and banketting meats, vpon their fasting daies.

The Turkes doe not beleeue their religion to be true, or their Alcoran to bescripture, because their Calipha doth tell them; but because they take it, to haue come from God. but the Papists neither beleeue scriptures, nor the articles of faith, vnlesse the Pope doth particularly tell them, that the scriptures came from God, and that their Christian faith is Apostolicall and most true.

The Turkes beleeue not, that any can be iustified by ex­treme vnction, or eating red-herrings and salt-fish. but the Papists both teach it, and beleeue it, and burne all that shall hold, beleeue or teach the contrary.

The Turkes albeit seruile in their manner of life, yet nei­ther kisse the feete of their Calipha, nor heaue him vp to be adored by his followers are not then the papists in this point more slauish and miserable, then the Mahometans?

Finally Mahomet neuer taught his followers to kill Kings excommunicated by the chiefe Priest of Turkes, or to rebell or take armes against the Sultan or Emperor of Saracens, as oft as their chiefe priest should command them. nor did he teach his followers, that the Calipha of Turkes could dis­pense with the law of God, or assoile subiects from their oathes made to princes. but the Popes bastardly children the Iebusites doe giue all this power to their holy father, and he is nothing nice in taking it vpon him. and so farre haue they proceeded in this damnable doctrin, that no prince can stand assured of his life, that hath any of this generation a­bout him. this doctrine cost Henry the third of France, and the prince of Orenge their liues, and put both Henry the 8. of England, and his daughter Elizabeth, and Henry the 4. of France to their plunges, and brought them into great dan­ger. [Page 299]And of late time the King, the Queene, their children, the Nobles, and prelates of England and the Commons assembled in parliament were deseined to the slaughter, and had beene destroied, if God had not discouered the tre­chery.

Were Christians then so patient, as to tolerate heresie; yet it argueth great stupidity, if they should endure a religion more absurd, foolish, and abominable then Mahometrie.

CHAP. XLVIII. That Christians are lesse oppressed vnder the Turke, then vnder the Pope.

HOw great miseries they endure, that liue vnder the Turks gouernment, those can best relate, that haue tra­uailed Turkie, and haue experience of their lawes and cu­stomes. we doubt not but they are many and extreme, con­sidering the rigour of the Turkish tyranny. yet if we will be­leeue those, that are as well acquainted with the gouerne­ment of the Pope and his vassals, as with the gouernement of the Turke, we may assure our selues, that it is lesse gree­uous for Christians to liue vnder the Turke, then vnder the Pope, or his vassals. and this also may be prooued by assured demonstrations.

For first the Turke forceth none to imbrace his religion, nor punisheth any for professing other religions. but the Pope and his faction in France, Flanders and other countries vseth all manner of enforcement to drawe men to Popish re­ligion, and punisheth with all seuerity such, as be contrary to him.

Secondly Mahomet commanded his disciples to be re­conciled to Christians, if they desired it, as Zigabenus saith in Saracenicis. [...]. but the Papists admitte no leagues, or treatie, or pacification with the true professors of religion, but seeke their destru­ction, whensoeuer they can preuaile against them.

Thirdly Turkes haue no inquisitors, nor rackes or tor­ments for such, as hold Christian religion, but suffer them quietly, if they be not tumultuous and troublesome to the state. but the Pope & his complices search out poore Chri­stians by their inquisitors, that haue as good sent, as bloud hounds, and suffer them not to hide themselues either in woods, holes or deserts. and such as they finde they racke and torment, and some they poison, some they famish, some they burne, by all meanes purposing to destroy the race of their aduersaries.

Fourthly Turkes doe not vse to massacre Christians, or to murder them without sentence of Law, and lawfull procee­ding. but the barbarous and bloody executioners of the Pope in France at diuers times haue massacred many thou­sands of harmelesse and disarmed Christians, killing them neither by lawfull warre, nor by any forme of iustice.

5. Commonly the Turkes hauing vanquished Christi­ans, doe spare such as yeeld, and take them captiues, and sel­dome is it seene, that they kill women and children. but the Papists in France massacred men, women, and children, & like fierce woolues haue sought the blood of all manner of Christians opposite to them.

6. In the Turkes dominions Christians are burdened with tribute, but paying the same they are quit. but that is nothing to the oppressions of Christians vnder the Pope, and his vassals. for there they pay both to the Prince and to the Pope. and neither are they free aliue or dead from pay­ments to Masse-priests. but if any Christian differ from them in matters of faith, no tribute can acquite him so, but his goods are confiscate, and his person seased. and this is eui­dent both by the chap. vergentis. de haereticis. and by their common practise.

7. The Turkes deale not so perfidiously with Christians, as doe the Papists. they empoison not men by trechery, nor commonly breake solemne oathes and promises. but the Popes and their complices teach their followers to keepe no faith with such Christians, as they cal heretikes. nay whe­ther [Page 301]they bee excommunicate or no they respect not, but murder all that are opposite to them, if they can, as appea­red by their late bloody practise against the King and par­liament.

Lastly the Papists doe prohibite buriall to Christians, as appeareth by the chapter sicut. de baereticis. they iudge them also being dead, and digge them out of their graues, and burne their bodies. and so they dealt with Wickleffe, Bucer and Phagius in England, and with Almaricus and others in other places. but this inhumanity the Turkes will be asha­med to practise against their greatest enemies.

What Christian then, that is not past all feeling, will not abhor this inhumanity, & more then Turkish crueltie of pa­pists that neither dead nor aliue can endure true Christians?

CHAP. XLIX. That the ambition, couetousnesse, contention, and practise of Popes is the principall cause of the decay of the Christian empire, and a great occasion of the good successe of the Turkes.

AS the strength of the Roman empire was the bulwarke, that kept off the Turke, and other barbarous nations, from the inuasion of Christendome, and the most potent meanes, to vnite Christians in the common defence of Ca­tholike religion, and to defend those countries, that profes­sed it; so it is apparent, that those, that haue weakened the Emperours, and caused dinision among Christian princes, haue also giuen way to the conquests of Turkes, and decaied the strength of Christians. but no man needeth to doubt, but that the Popes aboue al men in the world haue through their ambition, contention, and tumultuous practises both ruinated the Empire, and set Christians at contention a­mong themselues.

For first the spirit of God Apocalyp. 13. sheweth, that an­tichrist figured by a lamberising out of the earth and speak­ing like a dragon, should succeed the Emperour, and after a sort repaire the empire figured by the beast like a leopard, that rose out of the sea. S. Iohn saith, he did all the first beast could doe. he also caused the earth to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. all which is perfectly fulfilled in the Pope. for he possesseth Rome, and although he cal­leth himselfe the successor of Peter; yet taketh he vpon him to manage both the swords. he also healed the wound that Rome receiued by the decay of the Empire, making all Chri­stians to worship the Roman See, and calling his followers Roman catholikes.

Further the Apostle 2. Thess. 2. declareth, that one thing did withhold the comming of Antichrist, which through the working of the mystery of iniquity was then approch­ing; and that Ambrose, Hierome, and other fathers doe in­terpret of the Romane empire. so we see still an opposition betwixt the Roman Empire, and the kingdome of Anti­christ, and that the decay of the one, should be the rising of the other.

Thirdly we see by practise, that the Popes by all meanes haue gone about to diuide, and to weaken the Roman Em­pire. for first vnder colour of the contention about the wor­ship of Images they caused Rome and Italy to rebell against the Emperors of the East, as we may read in the histories concerning Leo Isauricus, & diuers that succeeded him. next they brought the Gaules into Italy, and diminished the em­pire, diuiding as much, as in them lay, the West frō the East, and confirming the right of Charles the great, and his suc­cessors, but alwaies keeping Rome, and a good part of Italy to thēselues. Afterward hauing preuailed against the Easterne Emperors, they set vpon the Emperors of the West, and by setting the subiects against their kings, and the sonnes a­gainst the fathers by their anathematismes and excommuni­cations, they haue brought the Emperors to that passe, that they receiue their crownes from the Pope, and are not able [Page 303]to defend themselues and their subiects from the common enemy without the aide of other Christian princes. further, if at any time the Emperors warred aganst the Saracens and Turkes abroad; then did the Popes by all meanes endeuor to take from them and their agents their townes and castles at home. they did also withdraw their supplies, and employ those, that had vowed to serue against the Saracens, to serue against the Emperor, as Matth. Paris in Henrico 3. doth te­stifie. Alexander the third sent the soldan Fridericke Barba­rossaes portrayt, then seruing against the Saracens, persuading him to kill him, if he would settle his affaires. Gregory the 9. inuaded the emperors dominions in Italy, and drew Fride­ricke the 2. out of Asia to defend his owne possessions at home, when he was almost in possession of the victory a­broade. Lastly it is publikely knowne, that they haue set French and Spanish together about the quarrell of the king­dome of Naples. Innocent the thrid by his excommunication of king Iohn set both his subiects, and the French against him, and was the cause of the losse of Normandy to the Eng­lish. Iulian the Cardinall set the Germans against the Bohe­mians. Paul the third was the principall motiue of the warres of Charles the sift against the Germans. and to shut vp this discourse in few words, not only Nicholas Machiauel in his Florentine history affirmeth, but also all histories testifie, that the Popes of Rome haue beene the principall causes of all the warres and stirres of Europe, that haue beene for this 4. or 5. hundred yeres last past. they are the causes of the massacres of France, of the troubles of the low-countries, of the late rebellions in England, Scotland, and Ireland, of the contentions betwixt French and Spanish in Italy, of the per­secutions in Germany, and Spaine, and other countries.

Fourthly the Popes of Rome by deuising and confirming many orders of Monkes and friers, by admitting such swarmes of idle lozels into orders, and mainteining them by chanting of Masses for soules, forcing them to forsweare mariage, haue not only caused many vnnatural murders, but also hindred the propagation and increase of men. they [Page 304]haue also withdrawne men from defence of the common-wealth, and placed them in dennes of licentious idlenesse, and laid the charge of the common defence vpon few.

Fiftly exempting both the goods and the persons of reli­gious men and clerkes from common charges of the com­mon-wealth, they haue weakened the states of princes, and laid all the burthen vpon the weakest part.

Finally by their idolatries they haue displeased God, and by their periuries haue made good the leud cause of the Turkes. Therefore we are not to maruell, if the Christians haue not prospered in their expeditions into the holy land. for what successe could Christians looke for, considering the notorious abuses cōmitted in the army by worshipping idoles, blaspheming Gods holy name, violating Christs in­stitution of the Eucharist by celebration of prophane mas­ses? Could Ladislaus king of Poland, and his army preuaile against the Turkes, hauing begun the warre contrary to arti­cles of peace solemnely sworne? but let vs mainteine the re­ligion of Christ, and not of antichrist, and let vs abolish the idolatrous worship of images, and the inuocation of saints, and let vs abandon the damned Masse, and serue God as he hath appointed, and finally let vs not violate our promises and oathes, nor abuse gods holy name; and then, no doubt, but we shall prosper in all our enterprises against the Turke, or other enemies of the Church. for hitherto not the Turks forces, but the multitude of the sinnes, idolatries, blasphe­mies and other abuses of Christians, haue made them flie before their enemies, and ouerthrowne their armies.

CHAP. L. That the moderne church of Rome is much dege­nerated from the faith and manners of the ancient Romans.

THe Church of Rome, when Paul wrote vnto it, excelled in all pietie and vertue, and was famous throughout the [Page 305]world. but as al things else, so both faith and vertue through tract of time fainted, and in the end began to faile in that ci­tie. of late time we finde, that neither that zeale in matters of religion, nor that integritie and honesty of maners which was in the ancient Romanes, doth continue in their posterity. Adrian the 6. in his instructions giuen to his legate, that was sent into Germany, confesseth freely, that many and grieuous offences for many yeeres haue beene committed at Rome, and from the toppe of the Popes crowne passed downe to the inferior gouernors of the church, and that no man did his dutie, but that all went astray, and none was voide of faults. Plurimis nunc an­nis, saith he, grauiter, multis (que) modis peccatum est Romae, & inde à Pontificio culmine, malum hoc, at (que) lues ad inferiores om­nes ecclesiarum prafectos defluxit. neminem enim esse, qui suum faciat munus, aberrasse omnes, & ne vnum quidem ex omni nu­mero vacare culpa.

Duarenus in praefat. in lib. de eccles. minist. & benefic. confes­feth, that the manners of such, as were called church-men, were decaied, and that the later constitutions of Popes were woorse, then the first. illud, saith he, fateri velinuiti cogimur, mores ho­minum ecclesiae titulo insignitorum ita paulatim degenerasse, vt posteriores constitutiones Pontificumfere anterioribus cedant.

Guicciardine lib. hist. 2. sheweth, how the authority of Chri­stian religion grew euery day lesse and lesse, by reason, that in the affaires of the church men were altogether departed from ancient customes. Le cose della chiesa, saith he, allontanatesi totalmente dalli antichi costumi faceuano ogni di minore l'authoritâ della Christiana religione.

Machiauel in his Florentine history directed to Clement the 7. confesseth, that by reason of the mutation, that had hap­ned in Christian religion, great scandales and discords had growne in the world.

Many of the chiefe rulers of the church, saith Picus Miran­dula in orat. ad Leon. x. after whose example others ought to con­forme themselues, haue either little or no religion, no order in their liuing, no shame nor modesty. apud pleros (que) religionis no­stra primores, ad quorum exemplum componi & formari plebs [Page 306]ignara debuisset, aut nullus, aut certè exiguus deicultus, nulla bene viuendi ratio, at (que) institutio, nullus pudor, nulla modestia.

Platina in Gregor. 4. wisheth, that Lewes Pius in his time had beene aliue. so much did the church stand in neede of his lawes.

Res & pietatemiampridem perdidimus, saith Auentinus lib. 3. annal. Boiorum. virtuti nullus est honos. inuicem inuidere, fraudare, fallere, longinqua consuetudo est. that is, we haue long since lost our substance, and pietie. there is no honor giuen to vertue. we haue vsed to enuy one another, and to practise fraud, and deceit a long time together.

Primitiui Theologi, saith Petrus de Aliaco lib. de reformat. eccles. ecclesiam aedificauerunt, quam nunc quidam Baritatores destruxerunt. the Diuines of the Primitiue Church, built the church: but now certaine later barators haue destroied it.

And that this is true, it may be prooued by diuers parti­culars. in time past the bishops of Rome suffered for true re­ligion. now they cut the throats of all such as professe truth.

The ancient bishops of Rome fed Christs flocke, and were subiect to Christian Emperours. now the Popes kill Christs lambes, and set their feete vpon the neckes of emperors.

In the primitiue church holy scriptures were read in the church, and taken only for the word of God. but now in the Romish church lying legends, and fables are read in the church, and lying and vncertaine traditions are made equall to scriptures.

In time past it was accompted folly, to reade scriptures in tongues vnknowen, and the Apostle sheweth, that it is vn­profitable to pray in a strange language. but now the Romanists both reade scriptures, and pray in languages not vnderstood of the multitude. and yet defend it as well done.

In ancient time no man euer beleeued, either that the scriptures were made to vs authenticall by the Popes deter­mination, or that the Popes determinatiō in matters of faith was certeine. now all is turned vpside downe. scriptures are made vncerteine and obscure, and the Popes determination is made most liquide and certeine.

The ancient bishops of the church preached diligently, liued vprightly, dealt with their people mercifully. now the Popish bishops preach not, nor leade their liues according to their profession, but contrariwise liue scandalously, and are the only bouchers to murder all, that shall either repre­hend the abuses of the church, or their corruptions in man­ners. and the powdermen and vndermining Papists follow their steppes.

Ancient Christians suffered most cruell torments and death, because they would not worship images. now the Romanists put all to death, that will not worship images.

The ancient Romans according to S. Paules doctrine be­leeued not to be instified by the workes of Gods lawe. the late Romanistes hope to bee iustified by the workes of the Popes Lawes.

They looked for no peace by their owne satisfaction, but by the redemption wrought by Christ Iesus. these moderne fellowes beleeue, that they can satisfie for their owne sinnes, and trust in the redemption procured them by the Popes in­dulgences.

The Romans, vnto whom S. Paul wrote, were obedient to Kings. these loose the bonds betweene kings, and their sub­iects, and stirre vp traytors to blow vp their princes.

They diligently obserued Christs institution in admini­string the sacraments, and neither spit in the faces of Chri­stians baptized, nor stole away the cup from the communi­cants. the moderne Romish priests spit on those, whom they baptize, and refuse to administer the cup to others then themselues.

Finally they are digressed from the ancient Romans in all those particulars both concerning faith and maners, where­in I haue shewed, that they differ from ancient Catholikes, and haue deuised meere nouelties,

CHAP. LI. That the Romish Church, that now is, was inui­sible in old time.

MVch doe our aduersaries boast of the visibility of the Romish church, supposing, because the scriptures speake much of the glory of the kingdome of Iesus Christ, that al that honor belongeth to the church of Rome of late times. but while they mistake things spirituall for things corporall and externall, and suppose things vntrue, all this their boast and glory will turne to their great preiudice and shame. for first the beauty of the church consisteth rather in inward vertues, then in outward shewes and apparell. Se­condly, be it, that the church is alwaies seene and apparent to the true members of the church; yet the moderne Romish church, and the glory thereof was neuer seene either of the Apostles or ancient fathers of the Church, or of ancient Christians.

For what, I pray you, is the church of Rome, but a multi­tude of people professing the moderne saith of the Romish synagogue, & communicating with the same in sacraments, and subiecting themselues to the Popes holinesse? this is confirmed by the testimony of Bellarmine in his booke de ec­clesia, and of Canisius in his catechisme c. de fide & symbolo, and I hope will not be denied by any Papist. but such a church shall neuer bee shewed in ancient time. and that we shall proue by inuincible reasons. for first we finde not, during the time of the Apostles, any such head of the church as the Pope, nor any such sholders, as the Cardinals, nor any such rotten members, as the chantery priests singing Masses for soules departed, as Monkes liuing in heards like swine, as friers begging for fashion sake, and yet abounding in all things necessary.

2. The Pope with his triple crowne, two swordes, cros­sed pantofle, and his guard of Suizars, and purple Cardi­nals [Page 309]following him, began onely of late time to be visible. if such a sight had appeared in the time of the ancient fa­thers, they would haue woondred at it, as a thing most mon­strous, and vnbeseeming him, that pretendeth to be the successor of Peter.

3. While S. Peter liued, no man euer saw a church perse­cuting of Christes disciples, and deliuering them ouer to haue their throates cut by the secular power. nor did either the bishops of Rome, or the ancient fathers for more then a thousand yeeres after Christ, imprison, torment, or kill such Christians, as were not of their faction and opinion.

4. The ancient church of Christ did neither excommu­nicate kings, nor assoile their subiects from their obedience, commanding them vpon paine of excommunication to rise vp in armes against them, and to depose them. the Romish church therefore, which doth all these things, was not then visible. neither can any Masse-priest shew vs where in old time miners and powder-men sought to blow vp the princi­pall men of the state.

5. So long as the primitiue church continued in the do­ctrine and steppes of the Apostles and ancient fathers, the same was ruled by the holy Scriptures, and canons of coun­cels, and then the decretales of Gregory the 9. Boniface the 8. Clement the 5. Iohn the 22. and other later Popes were not in the world. who can then say, that the Roman church or­dred by these decretales was then visible?

6. The moderno Romish church, beside the two Sacra­ments instituted by Christ, beleeue other 5. Sacraments, and hope as well to be saued by greasing, when they lie a dying, as by Baptisme, and the Lordes Supper. but such a church was altogether inuisible both in the Apostles time, and long after.

7. Now Papistes beleeue, that Christians receiuing the Sacrament, swallow downe Christes body into their sto­macke: nay they teach that dogs, hogs, and brute beasts, eating consecrated hostes, doe also deuoure Christs bodie. but such a company of Canibals, and blasphemers against [Page 310]Christian religion were neuer taken for Christes church, for more then a thousand yeares after Christ.

8. The Roman church commandeth Christians to keepe the feast daies of monkes and friers, and other saints, to heare Masse, vpon ember daies in Lent, and fridaies to ab­steine from flesh, to goe to auricular confession at the least once a yeare, and not to celebrate marriage vpon certaine daies. but if all the monkes and friers in the world were set to seeke such a church, and if the Masse-priests of the Ro­mish. church were ioyned with them; yet could they not finde such a church for a thousand yeeres after Christ.

9. In the Romish missals the priest praieth, that God would be pleased to accept of the body and blood of Christ, and that for the merits of the blessed virgin, of Cosmas and Da­mianus and other saints. but where such a wicked and blas­phemous company, as make not onely saints, but also the idolatrous Masse-priests mediators for the body and blood of Christ, haue beene reputed the church of Christ, and was visible before these wicked missals were framed, we find not in any ancient record.

10. The Romish church worshippeth the crosse and the images of the Trinity with Latria, or diuine worship. but such a church for a thousand yeares was neuer visible in the world.

11. In the missals, breuiaries and other rituall bookes of the Romish church we finde diuers praiers and confessions to Angels, to the virgin Mary, and other saints, nay to the crosse and the image giuen to Veronica. and these praiers are both practised and defended by the church of Rome. but if all the Popes lanterne-bearers, and disciples were set to seeke for such a church in the time of the ancient fathers, they should but lose their labour, and spend their wits in vaine.

12. The Apostles canons, as is said, doe excommunicate such, as doe not communicate being present at the celebra­tion of the Eucharist. we may not therefore thinke, that the Romish synagogue was visible in those times, seeing they [Page 311]thinke it sufficient for their disciples, to be present at the Masse, although they receiue nothing.

13. In the primitiue church no man euer heard, that Christians gaped and gazed on the priest administring the Lords supper, or that they receiued the one kinde, and not the other. the Popish church therefore in those times was inuisible.

14. In those times also neither was the Eucharist cele­brated, nor the Scriptures read in tongues not vnderstood of the multitude. nor did the people pray in strange toongs, which they vnderstood not. the missificall congregation therfore of papists, which pray, not knowing what they say, and being present at the reading of Scriptures, and celebra­tion of Sacraments in strange tongues, vnderstand nothing, was not yet crept out of Cacus his denne, nor apparent in the world.

15. The moderne Papistes beleeue, that such as in this life satisfie not for their sinnes committed after Baptisme, are to satisfie for the same in Purgatorie. They beleeue also, that the Pope by his indulgences is able to redeeme soules out of Purgatory, and to remit all the temporall paines due for sinnes. but such a church as this, was neuer to be seene for a thousand yeeres after Christ.

To abridge this discourse, it were an easie matter, by di­uers other points of faith, and diuers other customes in ad­ministring the Sacraments, and diuers other formes of go­uernment all newly inuented, practised and maintained by the synagogue of Rome, to declare and proue, that the same is a new model of a church neuer seene, nor knowne to anti­quitie. but by these few particulars the same doth most cleerely appeare already.

If the Papists then seeke to bring vs backe to the formes of the ancient church; then must they abandon the Pope and his adherents, embracing the moderne faith and do­ctrine of sacraments lately broched by the idle school-men, and confirmed in the late conuenticle of Trent, and adhere to the church of England, which as it professeth the Apostles [Page 312]doctrine published by ancient councels of the church, so it renounceth all heresies and nouclties brought in by Papists and other heretikes. and as it renounceth their false do­ctrine, so it detesteth their treacherous practises.

CHAP. LII. That the marks of the church, and motiues to the moderne Romish faith alledged by Papists, may as well be alledged by heathen men and Turkes, as by them.

AL this notwithstanding, the Papists challenge to them­selues the name, title, and authority of the church, and bring foorth a whole squadron of motiues to draw simple soules to like of their sect, and to intangle them with their errors. Bellarmine de notis eccles. c. 3. saith, that the proper markes of the church are these: the name of Catholikes, anti­quitie, continuance, vniuersality, succession of Bishops, consent in doctrine, miracles, prophecies, temporall felicity, and such like. others bring vnity, vniuersality, holinesse of life, and such like. Bristow in his Motiues standeth vpon the names of Catholiks and Heretikes, miracles, visions, scriptures, traditions, fathers, martyrs, going out, rising afterward, succession, immutability, vnitie, iudges infallible, obedient subiects, visibility, and other markes of like nature. But as well may the Turkes and idola­trous heathen nations alledge these markes and motiues, as the Papists: and some of them doe better agree to Turkes, and idolatrous Paynims, then to idolatrous and hereticall Papists.

For as Papists call themselues Catholikes, and giue the name of heretikes to others; so doe the Turkes cal themselues Musulman, or true beleeuers, and heathen idolaters called themselues Pious worshippers of the gods. and in regard of themselues both Turkes and Paynims take Christians to be impious persons, and heretikes. the Turkes call Papists [Page 313]idolaters, and the heathen in time past called Christians Atheists.

As for antiquitie, it agreeth farre better to Paynims and Turkes, then to Papists. for heathen idolatry was long be­fore the doctrine of Popery, and the Alcoran is more an­cient then the Popes decretales, that being published by Mahomet within 630. yeares after Christ, these being com­mended, and confirmed by Gregory the 9. who entred an. D. 1227.

3. Idolatry, as it beganne soone after the flood, so it hath euer since continued. the blasphemous religion of Turkes har [...] continued euer since the time of Mahomet. but Pope­ry neuer receiued a perfect forme, before the conuenticle of Trent, and in most places now is decaied.

4. The heathen idolaters alledge for themselues ampli­tude and vniuersality, as well as the Papists: and so may the Turkes also. for in time past all nations worshipped idoles, faue the Iewes: and in our times farre more nations are de­luded by Mahomet and his priests, then by the Pope and his Masse-priests, the Popes doctrine being confined within a few nations of Europe, Mahometisme poslessing the grea­test part of Asia, and Afrike, and no small parts of Europe.

5. The Turkes euer since Mahomet haue had a succes­sion of Caliphaes and priests, and among the heathen there neuer wanted a discent of sacrificing idolaters. but the Pa­pists cannot deriue their succession from the Apostles ei­their in doctrine or discent of Popes. for neither is their doctrine apostolicall, nor are the Popes the Apostles suc­cessors. beside that, they are vncerteine, both who were true Popes, and which succeded after Peter, and diuers bishops and Popes of Rome.

6. The Paynims with one consent in time past worship­ped idoles, neither did any one among them call the matter in question. the Turks are so resolute in religion, that they will haue no disputing against any point of their doctrine. but Popish schoolemen call all points of their religion in question. neither doe they so well agree in any article, but [Page 314]there be some, that hold singular opinions. the Scotists differ from the Thomistes, and diuers opinions are holden by the canonists contrary to the schoolemen. of late in England the Iebusites and secular priests did contend about diuers questions, and now the difference is rather stopped, then ended.

7. In the Alchoran the Turkes pretend, that Mahomet did diuers miracles. we reade also, that the gentiles tell of diuers woonders done by their gods, and their sooth-saiers and Priests. Nauius, as Liuy telleth vs, cut a whetstone in sunder with a razor. the papists therefore haue no reason to stand so much vpon miracles.

8. Mahomet also is said to haue foretold things to come, and the gentiles alledge innumerable oracles of their gods concerning future matters, which as they say were verified by the euents. if you compare the prophecies of the legen­dary saints, there is no reason why they should be preferred before the other.

9. In temporall matters both Turks and heathen empe­rors haue had farre better successe then the Papists. the Ro­man Emperors being pagans ruled the world, and now the Empire of Turkes is more large, then that of the Pope; nay of late time the Popes haue made few attempts against the Turks, that haue prospered. if then we iudge of matters ac­cording to outward successe; then are the Papists vtterly o­uerthrowne.

9. The Turkes and Paynims haue beene better vnited among themselues, then the Popes of Rome and their adhe­rents. In the Romish church we reade of 27. or more schismes. but neither haue the idolatrous priests, nor the Caliphaes and priests of the Turkes beene so diuided.

10. Neither if we looke among the Emperors of Rome, or the Turkish priests, shall we find more periured, luxuri­ous and abominable persons, then Iohn the 12. Landus, Ser­gius the third, Gregory the 7. Sixtus the fourth, Alexander the sixt, Paul the second and third, and the bougerly Monkes and Masse-priests. holinesse therefore can no more bee a [Page 315]marke of the Romish church, then of the Turkes and Pay­nims, and their congregations. nay among the Turkes and Paynims we neuer reade any such bloody execution, as was intended by the popish faction in England against the king, and his house, and the whole state.

11. The Paynims and Turkes being iudges, the Papists will be taken for heretikes, as well as others are condemned for heretikes by the Papists.

12. It is before shewed, that Turkes doe as well esteeme of scriptures as Papists, and no lesse doe value their traditi­ons, then they. The heathen also with great solemnity loo­ked into their oracles, and bookes of Sibylles, and had them in more reuerence, then the Papists haue their legendes and decretales.

13. The Turkes no lesse esteeme their Saints and mar­tyrs, then the Papists esteeme such as died in the Popes quarrell. heathen men also stoode alwaies much vpon their forefathers, and had more reason to bragge of old customs, then the Papists, whose fashions for the most part haue but a late beginning.

14. The Papists, we know, are a sect going out of Christs church, and rising long after Christs time, hauing not perfi­ted the confused Babell vntill the times of the conuenticle of Trent. but the heathen idolaters do fetch their pedegree from men, that liued before Moyses his law, and the Turkes pretend great antiquity, and auerre, that the idolatrous pa­pists are gone out of the church of God, and not they.

15. The mutabilitie of Popery is easily proued by their change of Lawes, alteration of gouemement, variety of old and new missals, breuiaries and other rituall bookes, by the difference betwixt the doctrine of schoole-men, and cano­nists, and faith of the fathers, by their mutable rites, Saints, Saints daies, and calendars. but the heathen alledge, that they and their ancesters haue alwaies persisted in the wor­ship of their gods. and the Turkes doe firmely obserue their Alchoran without addition or detraction.

16. Where the Papists talke of their infallible iudges, the [Page 316]heathen idolaters and Turkes haue cause to laugh at them. for who is so deuoid of sense, to suppose, that a Pope, that is ignorant of matters of faith, learning, and vertue, is a iudge of the mysteries of Christian religion, and of matters of lear­ning? doe blind men iudge of colours, or dease men of sounds? the Turkes assure themselues, that Mahomet is a farre better iudge, then the Pope, and the old Romans doubted not, but that their Augures, and Priests knew more in religion, then the later Popes.

Finally while the Papists leaue the doctrine of faith con­sonant to holy scriptures, and the administration of sacra­ments and worship of God according to Christs instituti­on, and other proper markes of the church, standing who­ly vpon the lustre of the world, and outward markes and signes of their Satanicall Synagogue; they alledge nothing, which the very heathen idolaters and Turkes, cannot bring with better reason, then they.

CHAP. LIII. That true Papists cannot be true, nor loy­all subiects.

AMong other markes of the Romish church and mo­tiues to Popery Bristow alledgeth this for one, that it maketh obedient subiects. but if we looke either into the pra­ctises, or lawes of the Romish church, we shall rather finde this allegation to be a marke of the whorish impudence of that strumpet, that hath abused the world with her false do­ctrines and abominations, then obedience of subiects to be a marke of the Romish church.

For first, who I pray you were they, that diuided Italy from the easterne Empire, and caused the Italians to with­draw their obedience, and to sease on the Emperors reue­nues? were they not the Popes of Rome, and their compli­ces, who vpon pretence of the Emperors dislike of the wor­ship of images, caused the Emperors subiects to rebell, and [Page 317]began to aduance the authoritie, credite and state of the Pope? Againe, who called in the French against the Greeks and Lombards, but the Popes of Rome? Thirdly, who cau­sed the sonnes of Henry the 4. and Fredericke the 2. and of Lewis the piteous, to rebell against their parents, but the Pope and Popish prelates? Fourthly, who stirred vp the subiects of Henry the 4. and 5. of Fredericke the 1. and 2. of Lewis of Bauier, of Philip, Otho, and other Emperors, to take armes against their soueraigne Lords, but the Popes of Rome and their agents? Finally who oppugned king Iohn of England, and fought against the Emperors formerly named? were they not all Papists, and the Popes vassals, and the for­mer Emperors and kings subiects? it cannot be denied. For by the Popes excommunications, they were deterred from their obedience and dutie; and honoring antichrist for Christes vicar, at his commandement they oppugned their lawfull princes.

To come neerer to our selues and our times, we sinde that the rebels of Yorkeshire and Lincolneshire in king Hen­ry the 8. his daies, were papistes. for their ensignes were cha­lices and masse-cakes, and the fiue woundes, and their prin­cipall stirrers were monkes and masse-priests, and their lea­ders men superstitiously affected. likewise the rebels in De­uonshire and Cornewall in king Edwards daies, were men wholly addicted to Popery. they would haue their Masses and their dirges, their crosses and their banners, their grea­sings and their Popish trinkets and ceremonies; or else they would haue their heads broken.

Against Queene Elizabeth our late dread soueraigne, vp­on the roring of the Popes bull, the Northren rebels anno 1569. fell into armes. both leaders and followers were the Popes deare children. this was also the motiue of all the troubles and insurrections in Ireland.

His Maiestie also, that now raigneth, hath not found any so troublesome, disloyall and trecherous, as his subiects popishly affected. the Erle of Goury had brought too much popish leuaine out of Italy to be a good subiect. Watson and [Page 318] Clarke, that conspired the destruction of the king and state, were Masse-priests. Brooke, Marcham, and Copley their ad­herents were Masse-louers. Faux and the late powdermen were zealous Papists.

Henry the 3. of France, was oppugned by no other then the popish leaguers. the duke of Guise and his house were therein principall agents, and all the rest were affected and deuoted to the Popes seruice. the Dominican friar, that most shamefully murdred his liege souereigne Lord, was the Popes vassall, and set on by the Iebusites. the same facti­on stood in armes against king Henry the 4. now reigning, and not being able to resist by force, by treason sought to destroy him. Iohn Chastel a scholler of the Iebusites, and Ghineard a Iebusite were therefore executed. so also was Pe­ter Barriere, that incited by Iebusites and Masse-priestes came with a ful resolution to take away his Soueraignes life.

Parsons, Campian, and other Masse-priests and Iebusites, were sent into England by the Pope for no other cause, then to make a side for the execution of the Popes bull, as ap­peareth by the Popes faculty granted to Campian and Par­sons.

Neither were Parry, Sauage, Ocollen, Yorke, Lopez, Squire and others, that haue beene executed for attempting either by the sword, or by poison to take away the late Queenes life, set on by others, then the Pope and his bloody faction. God grant that his roiall Maiesty may escape their treche­rous plots, whose heads, no doubt, are as busie plotting a­gainst him, as they euer were against his predecessor. and that he neede not to doubt of it, they declared the same e­uidently in the treacherous plot of Brooke, Watson, Clerke executed for the same at Winchester. but most cleerely was the same resolued by the practise of Catesby, Percy and Fauxe, and their intended rebellion and fiery treason.

It may be the Pope and his faction will deny, that they are the authors of these stirres, rebellions and treasons. but the Popes bulles, their owne hand-writings, their confes­sions, their euident acts of treason, the deposition of wit­nesses, [Page 319]and the defences made by diuers Papists, who main­teine these rebellions and treasons, shall alwaies plainly con­uince them. Sanders in his booke de visibili Monarchia doth mainteine the rebellion in the North against Queene Eliza­beth, and both he and Bristow and others doe number those rebels among Popish martyres. Thomas Becket, that stirred vp forraine enemies against his prince and country, and stood against his Prince, is worshipped by the popish facti­on for a great saint. Iames Clement that killed Henry the third of France was highly praised by Sixtus Quintus in his consi­story. and al the seditious masse-priests, that came into Eng­land to stirre rebellion are by little and litle put into the ca­talogue of Martyrs, as dying for Popish religion, or rather for practising treason.

Neither doe these acts of rebellion and treason proceed from sodeine motions, but rather from the lawes & rules of Popery. for first they hold, that the Pope is aboue the King, and hath power to depose him and to giue away his kingdome. if then the Pope doe depose the king, and giue away his Kingdome, all his Popish subiects must forsake him.

Secondly they teach that if the Pope doe commande the subiects to take armes against the King, that they are bound to rebell against him, and to lay hands vpon him, if they can, vpon paine of damnation; and this is meritorious in the opinion of the Pope. if then rebels be good subiects, then these fellowes may be reputed good subiects.

Thirdly Cardinall Como in his letters written to Parry in the Popes name sheweth, that it is meritorious to kill a king excommunicat; and so was both he and Iames Clement per­swaded by the Iebusites and Masse-priests. and may a man, trow you, beleeue them to be good subiects, that thinke it lawfull to kill their leege-Lords vpon the Popes warrant?

Lastly they hold, that euery king, that is by the Pope ex­communicat and declared a tyrant, ipso facto is deposed, and may be slaine by any man. for so Emanuell Sa the Iebusite doth determine in his aphorismes. some say further, that [Page 320]an hereticall king ipso facto loseth his kingdome, and those, that are not so forward, affirme notwithstanding, that the Pope may assoile subiects from their obedience, and dis­pense with oathes. but all such deserue the title of rebels and traitors, and those kings stand in great danger, that trust such trustlesse and pretended subiects.

But it may be said, that all Papists in England are not of this opinion. I grant it may be so de facto. but if they be true Papists, and truly deuoted to their holy father; then must they obey the Popes bulles and acknowledge his doctrine. and this the Masse-priests and Iebusites, that lurke in diuers places of England attending their pray, both know and pra­ctise. for, as traitors, they teach conditionall obedience vn­till the Popes further pleasure be knowen, they interteine intelligence with forraine enemies, they receiue their autho­rity from the Pope, they depend vpon him and not vpon the king, they are gouerned by the Popes lawes, and not by the kings lawes. Finally the 5. of Nouember last the Iebu­sites, Masse-priests, and their adherents of the popish facti­on in England, determined to destroy the King and state, and to make a generall insurrection and massacre through­out the whole kingdome; and had done their vttermost, if God had not preuented their malicious dessines and pur­poses.

They may also alledge in excuse of papists, that to kings, that be of their owne religion, they are most obedient, and deuoutly affected. but first this obedience and deuotion is conditionall and temporary, that is, if, and so long, as the Pope commandeth not the contrary.

For if the Pope excommunicate the King of Spaine, cal­led by them the Catholike King, hee is in no better termes then others.

The Emperors that were excommunicat by the Pope within these 3. or 4. hundred yeares were of the Popes reli­gion. yet did it not auaile them. Henry the third of France was superstitiously addicted to Popery; yet was he murdred by a Dominican Frier. and Henry the fourth being reconci­led [Page 321]to the Pope and scornefully whipped in the person of his ambassador, scaped not the blow of Iohn Chastel.

Secondly, kings professing Popish religion are not obeied in ecclesiasticall matters. For as Bellarmine teacheth, they are no gouernours of the Church. others say they haue no power to make lawes concerning ecclesiasticall causes. so it appeareth they lose halfe their authority.

Thirdly, Bellarmine and others exempt the persons of the Clergie from the iurisdiction of temporall Lords. doth it not then appeare, that popish kings are Commanders but of one halfe of their subiects?

Lastlie, they doe exempt the goods of the clergie from the disposition of the Prince. so we may see, that the King loseth halfe his reuenues, where popish religion beareth swaie.

To conclude therefore it is apparent by the premisses, that all true Papists professing and practising the Popes do­ctrine, are vtter enemies, and in hart euill affected to Kings professing a contrary religion, and depend on strange and forreine Princes, rather then vpon their owne Kings. well they may temporize hauing dispensations for it: but if op­portunity bee offred to the Pope and his faction, to shew their malice; we may assure our selues, we shall finde them like our English powder-men, that is traitors and enemies of the prince and state. and Kings professing Popery are but the Popes vassals, and vnderlings, and during the Popes good will and pleasure. further they haue but halfe their kingly authority, and rule but halfe their subiects, and lose halfe their reuenues. which whosoeuer either teacheth or alloweth, he may say and sweare obedience in temporall matters, as long as he list: but wise men will neuer hold him for other, then a temporary, and vndutifull subiect.

CHAP. LIIII. That such Papists, as positiuely hold all the hereti­call and false doctrines of the moderne church of Rome, cannot possi­blie be saued.

THere are many false prophets gone out into the world, saith S. Iohn 1. epist. 4. speaking of his times. and Reuelat. 9. he telleth vs, that in the later times of the church, a starre shall fall from heauen, and that he, that is signified by that starre, shal open the bottomlesse pit, out of the smoke wher­of shall come locustes, that haue haire like women, teeth like lions, habergeons of iron, and tailes like scorpions. we may not therefore thinke, but that now also false prophets are stirring abroad, and that swarmes of locustes are flying in euery kingdome, seeking by glozing pretence to deceiue the simple, by viperous calumniations to bite true teachers, with armes to oppugne princes, and with the poison and reliques of their herolies to sting and hurt all that shall pro­fesse the trueth.

The Iebusites and their consorts the friers and Masse-priests pretend the sauing of mens soules, but they are false teachers, and the very locustes mentioned by S. Iohn, and sent foorth by the Pope designed by the starre Apocalyps. 9. let all Papists therefore beware, how they listen to their he­riticall and damnable doctrine, which who so beleeueth and followeth positiuely, cannot be saned.

The word of God is true. If any man, saith Iohn Ren. 14. worship the beast and his image, and receiue his marke in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drinke of the wine of the wrath of God: afterward he saith, hee shall be tormented in fire and brimstome before the holy Angels and before the Lambe. but whosoeuer is reconciled to the Pope, and submitteth himselfe to the lawes and kingdome of antichrist, doth wor­ship the beast and his image. whosoeuer openly professeth [Page 323]Popery, receiueth the Popes marke in his forehead. whoso­euer yeeldeth to the practise of Romish religion, receiueth his marke in his hand. let Papistes therefore stand vpon their guard, and looke well to their consciences. for albeit San­ders and Bellarmine with all their skill haue endeuoured to prooue, that the Pope is not antichrist, yet all Bellarmines wrangling discourse is refuted in my fift booke, de Pontif. Rom. and Sanders his demonstrations stande also dissolued by M. Whitakers of pious memory. beside that, neither they nor any of their consorts can assigne any other state, vnto whom these prophesies may so well agree, as to the Pope, and his kingdome. if then our reasons cannot resolue them, yet the perplexitie of our aduersities in this controuersie may helpe to informe them and perswade them, that the beast there spoken of, is the Pope, and that his image is the Romish gouernment, whereby the old empire of Rome is in a certaine sort represented and restored.

Furthermore Apocalyps. 22. we finde, that dogges, enchan­ters, whoremongers, murtherers, idolaters, and whosoeuer loueth or maketh lies, shal be excluded out of the kingdome of hea­uen. but like to dogges the Pope and his adherents refuse Gods word preached vnto them, and teare them in pieces, that seeke to feed them with the bread of life. diuers of the Popes haue beene great Magicians, Necromancers, and En­chanters, as Benet the 9. Gregory the 6. and 7. Syluester the 2. Paul the 3. and many of their followers follow also but too much this damnable practise. the Masse-priests like cun­ning enchanters, suppose that bread and wine is turned into flesh and blood in their magicall Masses, they permit pub­like stewes, keepe concubines, and to monkes, friers, and masse-priests forbid lawfull marriage. they haue murdred and massacred millions of Christians, to erect and vphold their antichristian kingdome. the 5. of Nouember last, they attempted a treason neuer before heard of, minding to mur­der the King, his Lords, and the Commons assembled in parliament, and to massacre all opposite to them through­out the realme. they erect idols in churches, and euerie [Page 324]corner of their streetes, and in high waies, giuing latriam and diuine honour to the crosse, and to the images of the Trinitie, and calling the Sacrament their Lord and God, and making vowes, praiers, confessions to saints, and burning incense to images, and saying Masse in the honour of saints and angels. finally they doe not onely forge standers against M. Luther, Zuinglius, Caluin, and other true teachers, but also against vs all, as if we taught, that God is the author of sinne, and that Christ despaired, that there is no hell but horror of conscience, and such like abhominable doctrines, which we expresly detest. they giue out also, that we condemne good works, and teach rebellion, and their hearers delight to heare these lies.

S. Paul hauing rehearsed diuers works of the flesh, Gal. 5. and namely, adultery, fornication, vncleannesse, wantonnesse, idolatrie, witchcraft, and diuers others of that nature, and a­mong the rest, heresie, seditions, he concludeth, that those that doe such things shall not inherite the kingdome of God. but ne­uer was any sect more subject to these workes of the flesh, then the Papists. their idolatries, heresies, rebellions, mur­ders, and witchcraft, I haue before noted. adultery and for­nication they account to be small sinnes, c. at si clerici. de indicijs. their vnnaturall lustes are testified in diuers records and bookes. their clergie cannot choose but be vncleane, when they resuse marriage, and forsweare it. their massacres and murders, and rebellions are recorded in many histories. and the memory thereof will now be recorded in actes of parliament. that they allow publike stewes, themselues de­ny not. and doe they thinke, that wallowing like swine in their fleshly workes, they shall be saued?

Athanasius in the end of his Creed saith, it is not possible a man should be saued vnlesse he beleeue the catholike faith. but this catholike faith the Papists beleeue not intirely, for nei­ther doe they giue to Christ humane flesh, nor make him a perfect man, thrusting his body into a small piece of bread, or rather into the accidents of bread, where it is neither seene nor felt, as other mens bodies are. further they doe [Page 327]not beleeue his ascension, or that he shall come from hea­uen to iudge quicke & dead, as is conteined in that Creedo, making their followers beleeue, that his body is vpon euery altar, and not being able to deny, that he shall come out of the pixe, seeing they teach he is there.

Our Sauiour Christ Matth 15. teacheth vs, that such wor­ship God in vaine, as teach for doctrines mens precepts. but the doctrine of Popery, as it addeth to ancient Catholike religion, is nothing but a masse of humane inuentions, de­uises, and precepts: their decretales are the Popes deuises: their formes of worship conteined in the missals and breui­aries are merely humane.

From mans deuise proceeded the popish worship of An­gels, Saints, Images. the most part of the resolutions of ca­ses of consciences is grounded on the Popes lawes, finallie the turnings, skippings, heauings, greasings, spittings, and other ceremonies of Masse-priests and their followers pro­ceede from mans inuention. Popery therefore by Christs rule is nothing but wearinesse and vexation of mens soules, while they seeke to serue God by those meanes.

By the chapter si Papa. dist. 40. we learne, that the Pope may be remisse and negligent in his office, and silent in teaching, and leade innumerable people with him into hell. but if the Pa­pists are to adhere to the Pope, and to follow him; how can they escape when he leadeth them into hell, that they runne not headlong into hell themselues also? If then they will not beleeue scriptures, nor fathers; yet their owne de­crees may teach them, that following the Pope innumera­ble Papists runne hedlong into hell.

Besides the testimonies of scriptures and fathers and the confession of Boniface in the chapter si Papa. dist. 40. diuers reasons teach vs, that the Papists holding firmelie and posi­tiuely the erroneous doctrine of the moderne church of Rome, cannot be saued. for first no man can come vnto the father but by Christ Iesus, as he testifieth of himselfe Iohn 14: he sheweth also, that he is the way the truth and the life. the Apostle 1. Tim. 2. teacheth vs, that there is no mediator be­twixt [Page 326]God and man, but the man Christ Iesus. but the Papists as they pretend, come to God not only by Christ, but also by the Virgin Mary, by Angels and Saints. they seeke out al­so new waies, & content not themselues with such, as Christ taught vs. finally they beleeue, that the Pope by his indul­gences, and euery Masse-priest by his Masses is able to re­deeme mens soules.

Secondly he that buildeth his faith vpon other founda­tion then the doctrine of the Apostles and Prophets, doth build vpon sand, and not vpon a firme foundation. but the Papists build their faith vpon the Popes decretales, vp­on vnwritten and vncerteine traditions, vpon the doctrine of the Romish church, vpon miracles and prophesies repor­ted in the Romish legends, and such like fables. doe they not then build vpon rumous foundations?

Thirdly the papists hope to be iustified by the law, and to be saued by their workes. But the Apostle Rom. 3. teach­eth vs, that man is iustified without the workes of the law, and Rom. 6. that eternall life is the gift of God through Ie­sus Christ our Lord.

Fourthly the law of God pronounceth him accursed, that abideth not in all the words of the law to doe them. and a plaine matter it is, that no man can be saued, that wilfully breaketh Gods law and neuer soroweth, nor craueth par­don for his transgression. but the Papistes teach doctrine contrary to Gods law, and enforce their followers to breake it, and that in diuers points. God commandeth vs to haue no other gods but him. but they honour the Sacrament, and the images of the Trinity, and crosse with diuine wor­ship. they doe also impart Gods worship to the virgin Ma­rie and to saints. he forbiddeth the taking of Gods holie name in vaine. the Popes of Rome doe dispense with oathes, and enforce men oftentimes to breake them. God com­mandeth vs to honour our parents. the Pope setteth the children against their parents. finally, they allow publike stewes, and set vp shops of vsury, and massacre innocent Christians, directly against Gods commandement, and that [Page 327]without all remorse of conscience, or feeling of their sinnes.

Fiftly, papistes hope to obteine remishon of sinnes by their owne satisfactions, by indulgences, by the paines of Purgatorie, by masses, by auricular confess. on, and popish absolution of Masse-priestes, and diuers humane deuises. but relying vpon these broken reedes, there is no hope for them to be saued for without the onely sacrifice of Christ Iesus applied to vs by true faith, there is no hope of remissi­on of sinnes.

Sixtly, without true faith it is not possible to please God. but their peruerse doctrine of faith, and the innumerable heresies of papists do declare, that they haue no true faith.

Seuenthly, the Prophet Dauid Psal. 15. demanding who shall rest vpon Gods holy mountaine, answereth among other things, he that slandreth not with his tongue, nor doth euil to his neighbour. but the Papists, as is formerly shewed, haue no other meanes to vphold their ruinous state, but by lies and slanders, treasons, rebellions, murders, and massacres of innocent Christians.

Finally, it is not possible, they should be saued, that are ignorant of the meanes of their saluation, and hold heresies repugnant to the apostles doctrine of the law, of the gospel, of repentance from dead workes, and other articles of the faith. but the Papists beleeue, that Christ is only the merito­rious cause of their saluation, as if he had merited only, that they might sause themselues, they teach also, that men are iu­stified formally by their owne works, & that their supposed sacraments, and their pilgrimages, and voluntary obseruan­ces of the precepts of the Romish church, and works per­formed according to the Popes decretales, and conuenticle of Trent, do iustifie. Lastly they teach and beleeue doctrine contrary to the law, to the gospel, to the Apostles doctrine of repentance and good works. are they not then in mise­rable case?

Now if any man aske, what is then become of all those, that either now die, or in time past are dead in places where Popery is, or hath beene professed? I answer: that of those, [Page 328]that held the foundation, and liued well, we hope well. but we denie that such as liued before the conuenticle of Trent held Popery positiuely. we hope also, that many there are among the papists now, which conform themselues to them in outward ceremonies, and yet beleeue not the errors of Popery positiuely, but hold themselues to the old Aposto­like saith. and of these mens saluation we haue no cause to despaire. God grant that the rest also may reuoke their er­rours, see their deformities, returne with a sincere heart to Gods true church, and so be saued.

CHAP. LV. A briefe recapitulation of the principall points of the former discourse, and an exhortation both to Papistes and true Christians.

THus we see, and I pray God all Christians may dili­gently consider, what is meant by popish religion. brief­ly, it is a collection of diuers corruptions and errors main­teined by the Pope and his adherents, either contrary, or a­boue the Apostles doctrine. this religion we haue shewed to haue beene built vpon weake, vncerteine and salse foun­dations; and auerre, that it is contrarie to the doctrine of Gods law, and of true faith and iustification through Christ. the same also teacheth erroneously of the Gospell, and di­minisheth the merits of Christ our mediator and redeemer.

Further, it hath corrupted the doctrine of the sacraments, and brought in many old and new heresies. it is compacted of diuers impieties, blasphemies and idolatries, and neuer came from Hierusalem. it was neuer taught by the Prophets or Apostles, nor professed by ancient Christian Kings.

It is not that religion, to which the ancient Britans and English were conuerted, nor doth it deserue to be called Catholike, or ancient. it is found to be repugnant to anci­ent councels, and to the faith of the ancient fathers.

It is a religion diuers from that of the ancient Martyrs of Christ Iesus. A religion deuised by man, and not deriued out of holy scriptures. A religion whose founders & defen­ders doe wickedly wrest and abuse scriprures, fathers and o­ther writers. A religion consisting of heathenish and Iewish obseruances. A religion full of contradictions and contrari­eties. A religion steined with many fooleries and absurdi­ties. A religion keeping Christians in ignorance of true pi­etie, and loosing the reines to all voluptuousnesse and disor­der. A religion deuoid of good workes and piety. A religi­on that maketh a base accompt of Gods people, and tea­cheth doctrines of Diuels. A religion of whose grounds and doctrines the professors thereof haue no assurance. A religion repugnant to lawes of nations, of kinred, alliance and common ciuilitie. A religion preiudiciall to the autho­rity of Kings, and dangerous in regard of their states and persons. A religion that laieth greeuous burthens on mens consciences, and eateth vp Christians through manifolde exactions. A religion without true bishops and priests, and wholy mainteined by false allegations, forgeries, calumnia­tions, lies, fire and sword, periury and breach of couenant. A religion whose chiefe founders and mainteiners haue beene commonly noted for wicked and profane men. A re­ligion more absurd in diuers points, and that oppresseth Christians more greeuously, then Mahometry. A religion by whose practise the empire of Christians is decaied, & the power of the Turke enlarged. A religion professed by de­generated Romans, neither for faith, nor life comparable to their ancesters, and by a church, that was neuer visible vntill of late time, nor can shew better markes, or bring better motiues to induce men to embrace her doctrine, then the Turks and Paynims. To conclude, a religion, whose profes­sors can neither be esteemed true subiects, nor true Christi­ans, nor iustlie pretend either assurance, or hope of their sal­uation.

I doe therefore exhort all true Christians, as they desire either that the true faith of Christ Iesus may be publikely [Page 330]receiued, or that doctrines contrary to piety, Christian cha­rity, policy, reason and common humanity may be suppres­sed, to beware of the leuain of Popery, & to concurre with those, which both teach and set forward the true Catholike faith according to the doctrine of the Apostles and Pro­phets, and which seeke to resiste all corruptions, false do­ctrines, sects and heresies, and to roote vp the seeds of all trecherie and rebellion.

On the other side I beseech all Papists, to cast away all pre­iudice and passion, and diligently to consider of the pre­misses: that as they professe themselues true subiects, & wel affected to Catholike, & the ancient religion of the church of Christ; so they may abhorre their former treasons and re­bellious, detest the masse-priests and powder-men their consorts, reiect all heresies, errors, and false doctrines mas­ked with glorious titles of vniuersality and antiquity, and set foorth by the Pope and his complices, teaching a late particular faith, and finally endeuour to be gathered toge­ther into that society, whereof Christ is the head, and with­out which there is no saluation.

The God of all truth confirme and establish all true Chri­stians in truth, and discouer all trecheries and errors, that such as now are disloially minded, and wander astray, may acknowledge their former disloialties and errors, and em­brace the true Catholike faith, and that such as stand may be confirmed in the truth, that so both they and we iointly may liue loyally vnder our Princes, and truely serue one true and euerliuing God, and glorifie his holy name through Christ our Lord, to whom together with the Father and the holy Ghost, three persons and one God, we render all praise and ho­nour now and for euer.

A briefe note of the contents of euery Chapter of the for­mer discourse.

  • Chap. 1. VVHat is ment by Popery or popish religion in this whole treatise.
  • Chap. 2. Of the grounds and foundations of popish religion.
  • Chap. 3. Of the wicked doctrine of Papists concerning the law of God, and the performance thereof.
  • Chap. 4. Of the damnable doctrine of Papists concerning faith and iustification.
  • Chap. 5. What Papists doe meane speaking of the Gospel.
  • Chap. 6. Of the impious doctrine of Papists concerning Christ our Sauiour.
  • Chap. 7. The strange contradictory and false opinions of Pa­pists concerning the Sacraments.
  • Chap. 8. That Popery is a mixture of old and new heresies.
  • Chap. 9. A catalogue of diuers notorious impieties and blas­phemies conteined not onely in popish bookes, but also in the corps of popish religion.
  • Chap. 10. That Popery is a sinke of heathenish idolatry.
  • Chap. 11. That popish religion neuer came from Hierusa­lem.
  • Chap. 12. That Popish religion was neuer taught either by the old Prophets, or by the apostles of Christ Iesus.
  • Chap. 13. That Popery was either condemned or not know [...]s by kings professing Christian religion in old time.
  • Chap. 14. That the ancient Britanes and English were not first conuerted to popish religion.
  • Chap. 15. That popish religion is most falsly termed catholike religion; and papists, Catholikes.
  • [Page]Chap. 16. That popish religion is not the ancient religion of the primitiue church.
  • Chap. 17. That Popery is repugnant to ancient Councels.
  • Chap. 18. That popery is not the faith of the ancient fathers of the church.
  • Chap. 19. That popish religion was neuer testified by the blood of Christian martyrs.
  • Chap. 20. That popery is a meere humane denise, and not in any sort to be deduced or proued out of holy scriptures.
  • Chap. 21. That popish religion in diuers points is directly con­trarie to holy scriptures.
  • Chap. 22. That the founders and desenders of popery doe most wickedly abuse holy scriptures.
  • Chap. 23. That the Pope and the principall proctors of his cause are great forgers and falsifiers of fathers, profane writers, and of publike records.
  • Chap. 24. That Popery standeth much vpon heathenish obser­uances and customes.
  • Chap. 25. That popery borroweth also diuers fashions from the Iewes.
  • Chap. 26. That popish religion is full of contradictions and con­trary opinions.
  • Chap. 27. That popery is a most absurd and foolish religion.
  • Chap. 28. That popery keepeth Christians in blindenesse, and ignorance of God, and godlinesse.
  • Chap. 29. That popish religion giueth the reines to licentious­nesse of life, & leadeth Christians the broad way to destruction.
  • Chap. 30. That popish religion bringeth foorth such bitter fruites, that the professors thereof haue no reason to boast of their workes.
  • Chap. 31. That in popery a base accompt is made of princes and all lay-men.
  • Chap. 32. That popery is a doctrine of diuels.
  • Chap. 33. That Papists can haue no assurance of the truth of their religion.
  • Chap. 34. That popery is repugnant to the lawes of nations.
  • [Page]Chap. 35. That popery dissolueth the bonds of kinred all [...] and ciuilitie.
  • Chap. 36. That popish religion either disannulleth, or greatly preiudiceth the authority of kings and princes.
  • Chap. 37. That Kings professing popish religion are either no kings, or but halfe kings.
  • Chap. 38. That kings liue not in any security of their lines, where popery is professed by their subiects.
  • Chap. 39. That Popish religion laieth grieuous burthens on mens consciences.
  • Chap. 40. That popish religion is very grieuous in regard of the popes and the Masse-priests manfolde taxes and exactions.
  • Chap. 41. That the popish church hath no true bishops, nor priests.
  • Chap. 42. That popery cannot be mainteined without forgerie and falshood.
  • Chap. 43. That popery cannot be wel vpholden without calum­mations and lies.
  • Chap. 44. That the cause of popery is not mainteined without fire and sword.
  • Chap. 45. That the practises, and treaties of popes, and their complices with Christians are not to be trusted.
  • Chap. 46. That the chiefe founders, and mainteiners of popery haue beene commonly noted for wicked, and pro­fane men.
  • Chap. 47. That popery in many points is more absurde and a­bominable, then the doctrine of Mahomet.
  • Chap. 48. That christians are lesse oppressed vnder the Turke, then vnder the Pope.
  • Chap. 49. That the ambition, couetousnesse, contention & pra­ctise of popes is the principall cause of the decay of the Christian empire, and a great occasion of the good successe of the Turkes.
  • Chap. 50. That the moderns church of Rome is much degene­rated from the faith, and manners of the ancient Romaines.
  • [Page]Chap. 51. That the Romish church, that now is, was inuisible in old time.
  • Chap. 52. That the markes of the church, and motiues to the moderne Romish faith alledged by Papists, may as well be alle dged by Turkes and infidels.
  • Chap. 53. That true Papists cannot be true, nor loiall subiects.
  • Chap. 54. That such Papists, as positiuely holde all the hereti­call and false doctrines of the mederne church of Rome, cannot possibly be saued.
  • Chap. 55. A briefe recapitulation of the principall points of the former discourse, and art exhortation both to Pa­pists and true Christians.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.