CHAP. I. That the Church of Rome that now is, and that embraceth the doctrine of the Pope, and conuenticle of Trent, is not the true Church of Christ Iesus.

THe Church of God being 1. Tim. 3. the house of God, and Ibidem. the pillar and ground of trueth, and Galat. 4. the mother of all faithfull people, as the Apostle teacheth vs; it is no maruell, if all congregations, that professe Christian religion, do also chal­lenge to themselues the name, and title of the Church. Inst. lib. 4. c. vlt. Singuli qui (que) haereti­corum coetus, saith Lactantius, se potissimum Christianos & suam esse catholicam ecclesiam putant. euen the couenticles of hereticks doe imagine themselues to be true Christians, and entitle their Congregations by the name of the Catholike [Page 2] church. and that this is true, the papists affoord vs most eui­dent proofe. for albeit in many points they know not the voice of Christ Iesus, but follow a stranger, that without all colour challengeth to himselfe to be Christs vicar; yet very confident­ly and proudly they call themselues Christes true catholicke church, and challenge to themselues all those prerogatiues, that are due to his most holy spouse. neither do they only chal­lenge to themselues the title and name of the Church, but also exclude all others from the same: and as Leo said, speaking to certeine monkes of Palestine, ecclesiae nomine aduersus ecclesiam armaminï: so we may well say of these blinde ze­lators of popery, that in the name of the Church, they fight a­gainst the true Church of Christ Iesus.

That the papists adhering to the pope of Rome, and imbra­cing the doctrine of the conuenticle of Trent, are not the true church of Christ Iesus, it may be prooued by diuers inuincible reasons. argument 1 for first the church of Christ is built onely vpon Christ Iesus, as a principall rocke, and a foundation most sure and im­moouable. No man, saith the 1. Cor. 3. Apostle, can lay any other foun­dation beside that, which already is laied, which is Christ Iesus. for he is that Isai. 28. corner stone, that is placed in the foundation of Sion. he is that Matth. 16. rocke vpon which the church is built. Super hanc petram, quam confessus es, saith S. Serm. 13. de verb. Dom. Augustine, super hanc petram, quam cognouisti, dicens, Tues Christus filius Dei, aedificabo ecclesiam meam, id est, super meipsum filium Dei viui aedificabo ecclesiam meam. he saith the church is built vpon Christ Iesus, whom Peter confessed. neither doe the fathers meane otherwise, where they affirme the church to be built ei­ther vpon the confession, or faith of Peter, or els vpon Peter himselfe. for all these doe either indirectly vnderstand Christ, whom Peter confessed, or Peters faith concerning Christ. but the Romish church that now is, is built vpon the pope, and vp­on his Sée and doctrine. Est Petri sedes, saith In praefat. in lib. de pontif. Rom. Bellar. lapis probatus, angularis, pretiosus in fundamento fundatus. he Lib. 2. de pontif. Rom. saith also, that the Pope is the foundation of the building of the church, and goeth about to prooue it by certeine words of Hierome, although that good Father neuer thought of any such matter. Sanders his rocke of the church. Sanders doth endeuour to proue, that the Popes of Rome are the vnmouable rocke of the church. Turrian like­wise [Page 3] because Christ said, aedificabo ecclesiam meam, &, non aedi­fico ecclesiam meam: concludeth, that the popes of future times, and not onely Saint Peter were vnderstood by that rocke, vpon which the church is built. seeing then the church of Rome is built vpon a foundation diuers from the foundati­on of Christ his church, and relieth vpon the pope as much, or more, then Christ Iesus; it cannot be the true church. for if the papists say, that Christ is the chiefe foundation, and the Pope is the next, they crosse the scriptures, that make Christ the sole foundation, and onely attribute the name of foundati­on to the apostles and prophets, in that they built all vpon Christ Iesus, and taught that, which immediatly they receiued from God. but the Pope receiueth nothing immediatly from God, nor doth he now preach Christ, as did saint Peter.

argument 2 Further, the true church of Christ is built vpon a rocke most solide and vnmouable, against which the gates of hell can neuer preuaile. but the church of Rome is built vpon the popes and their see, against which the gates of hell both haue already, and may further preuaile: as appeareth by the Ch. Si papa. dist. 40. where it is supposed, that the Pope may draw with him innumerable soules into hel. and In Matth. 16. Lyra confes­seth, that diuers popes haue proued apostataes from the faith. and that finally is proued by diuers particular examples, as of Marcellinus, that sacrificed to idoles, of Liberius, that fell into Arrianisme, of Honorius condemned for a monothelite, and di­uers other popes, that fell into diuers heresies, and forsooke the true faith. neither doe I thinke the papistes will denie, but that some of their popes for diuers impieties and wicked­nesses are damned, and cast downe to the nethermost hell. How then can that be the true church of Christ which is built vpon a foundation, against which the gates of hell haue pre­uailed?

argument 3 Arg. 3. The true church of Christ is neuer without her head. for Christ Iesus, who is the head of the church was yesterday and to day, and the same for euermore. he is the head of the church, and shall alwaies so continue, and of him his church hath continuall dependance. but the church of Rome is often without her head the pope, and hath no such dependance on him, but that she may well subsist without him, as the continu­all [Page 4] vacation of the papacy doth shew, and Lib. de auferri­bilitat [...] papa. Gerson doth con­fesse. the church of Rome therefore cannot be the church of Christ, vnlesse we will grant, that the church of God may be without a head, or that the church of Rome neuer wanteth a head.

argument 4 Arg. 4. The church of God also hath but one faith. for as there is but one Lord, Ephes. 4. so there is but one faith, and one baptisme. but the faith of the church of Rome is not that one faith, which was professed in the apostles times, and in the primitiue church, as appeareth by the doctrine of faith published in the wicked conuenticles of Constance and Trent, and by ihat pro­fession which Pius the 4. decreed to be exacted of all that are promoted in schooles. for neither did the first christians admit all the traditions, which the church of Rome now calleth apo­stolicall, nor the 7. sacraments and vsuall rites practised by the church of Rome in the administration of them, nor the sacrifice of the masse, or transubstantiation, or the rest of the doctrine therein contained. if any papist thinke otherwise, let him shew me, either any such like faith, or proue me any such doc­trine to haue bene in the ancient church of Rome. or else we must needs beleeue, that this doctrine was first published by the conuenticle of Trent, and by Pius the 4. by name, but a wicked man for doctrine and life, and by other popes confirmed.

argument 5 Arg. 5. The grounds also and foundations of the catholike chri­stian faith are diuers from the grounds & foundations of the faith of the church of Rome. the Ephes. 2. apostle saith, that the hous­hold of God and citizens of saints are built vpon the foundati­ons of the apostles and prophets, Iesus Christ being the chiefe corner stone. neither doeth he admit any other foundation. Saint Apocal. 21. Iohn sheweth, that the wall of the city of God hath twelue foundations, and in them the names of the twelue apo­stles. and this, because vpon that doctrine, which they deliue­red, the faith of the church is built. for as Lib. 3. aduers. haeres. c. 1. Ireneus signifieth, the canonicall scriptures which she apostles left vnto vs, are the foundation of our faith. neither may we thinke, that Peter was more the foundation of the church then Paule, or the rest of the apostles. at dicis, super Petrum fundatur ecclesia, saith Lib. aduers. J [...]ui [...]. Hierome licèt id ipsum in alio loco super omnes apostolos, & [Page 5] cuncti claues regni coelorum accipiant, & ex aequo super eos ec­clesia solidetur. Theophylact also without giuing any prero­gatiue to one, saith, In Ephes. 2. the church is built vpon the apostles and prophets. neither doe the auncient fathers either allow, or mention any foundation beside Christ Iesus, and the apostles and prophets, who in all their writings doe preach Christ Ie­sus. But the faith of the Romish synagogue is now built vpon a diuers foundation. for first they acknowledge vnwritten traditions, to be a foundation equall to the written word of God. Sess. 4. concil. Trid. traditiones ipsas tum ad fidem, tum ad mores pertinen­tes, tanquam vel oretenus à Christo, vel à spiritu sancto dicta­tas, & continua successione in ecclesia catholica conseruatas pari pietatis affectu ac reuerentia (scilicet ac scripturas sacras) sus­cipit ac veneratur. the conuenticle of Trent maketh traditions as well concerning faith, as maners, to be equall to the writ­ten word of God. whereof it foloweth, that we must as well beléeue the fashions and ceremonies of the Romish church, as the written word of God. Demonstrate conabimur saith Lib 4. de verb. dei. c. 4. Bel­larmine, scripturas sine traditionibus nec fuisse simpliciter ne­cessarias, nec sufficientes. he denieth also the scriptures to be a perfect canon, or rule of our faith without traditions. next they receiue the popes decretals, and vpon their determinations doe they build their faith: as C. inter. dist. 19. &c. sancta. dist. 15. appeareth by their decretals, though counterfeit. and Jn praefat. in relect. princip. doctr. Stapleton sticketh not to affirme so much in expresse words. Alij nunc à Christo missi saith he, eo­rumue doctrina, praedicatio, determinatio fundamenti apud me locum habebunt. and ibidem. againe, Christianae religionis fun­damentum habemus ab ipsis literis euangelicis & apostolicis a­liud. We haue saith he, another foundation of Christian reli­gion, diuers from the writings of the apostles and prophets. can then the Romish congregation be the church of Christ, that euen in the maine foundation of religion is departed from the church of Christ?

argument 6 Arg. 6. The principles likewise of y^e doctrine of the Romish church are diuers frō the grounds & principles of Christs true church. for we haue shewed in our last argument, that the true church hath no canon or rule of faith, or certeine principle of faith, be­side the canonicall scriptures. but the church of Rome admit­teth the books of Iudith, Tobia, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdome, of the [Page 6] Machabees by the ancient church accounted apocryphal, as In epist. ad Paulin. in prolog. in prouerb, Hierome, In Synops. Athanasius, and diuers of the ancient fathers [...] witnesse. It alloweth also the old latin translation of the bible, though different from the originall bookes. the same also ad­mitteth for principles of faith, the sentences of popes, the doctrine of the Romish church that now is, the traditions of the Romish church, the consent of fathers, and diuers other grounds, as Stapleton disputeth in his bookes, De doctrina­libus principijs.

argument 7 Arg. 7. Neuer certes did the church of Christ speake euill of scrip­tures. Lib. 3 aduersus haeres. c. 2. Irenaeus saith, It is the property of heretikes, when they are conuinced by scriptures, to fal into dislike of them, and to accuse them. as for the children of God, they cannot either calumniate, or lightly estéeme their heauenly fathers testamēt, or refuse to heare his voice. but the scriptures conteine a de­claration of the eternall testament of our heauenly father; and therefore they are rightly called his testament. in the scrip­tures also God speaketh vnto vs. and therefore, if we be Christs sheepe, we cānot but hearken to his voice. My sheepe, saith our Iohn 10. Sauiour, heare my voice. but the Romish church is still carping at scriptures, as if they were neither sufficient, nor perspicuous. Lib. 4. de verl. die c. 4. Bellarmine saith, they are neither necessa­rie, nor sufficient without traditions. Praefat in re­ [...]act. princip. doctr. Stapleton denieth them to be a sufficient foundation, or rule of our faith. the authors of the annotations vpon the Rhemish testament doe call them most blasphemously, a killing letter, and signifie that the rea­ding of them is pernicious. Censur. colo [...]. others slander them, as if they were a nose of waxe, or a matter and subiect of contention.

argument 8 The church of God neuer called the bishop of Rome ei­ther a god on the earth, or Christes vicar generall, or vniuersall bishop. but the church of Rome admitteth all this. the cano­nists exalt him like a god. Epist. ad Gre­gorium 13. ante princip. doct. Stapleton calleth him supremum numen in terris. generally they call him vniuersall bishop, and condemne all that hold contrary.

argument 9 The church of God doth kéepe the doctrine of the apostles and prophets, Gal. 1. without addition, alteration, or corruption, and the apostle pronounceth him accursed, Aduers. haeres. c. 34. that teacheth any other Gospel, than that which he taught. Vincentius Lirinensis saith, that this is the propertie of catholicks, to kéepe the faith and [Page 7] doctrine of the fathers committed to them in trust, and to con­demne prophane nouelties. Catholicorū, saith he, hoc ferè pro­prium, deposita sanctorum patrum & commissa seruare, dam­nare prophanas vocum nouitates, & sicut dixit, & iterum dixit apostolus, si quis annuntiauerit, praeterquam quod acceptum est, anathematizare. but the papists kéepe not entire the origi­nall writings of the olde and new testament, nor allow them as authenticall, neither will they yéeld the canonicall scrip­tures to be a perfect and sufficient rule of faith, nor doe they al­low the law of God to be a perfect law, nor doe they kéepe Christes institution in the Sacrament of the Lords supper, di­stributing the kinds of bread and wine to the communicants, but haue vnto this rule added vnwritten traditions, and the determinations of popes concerning matters of faith. they haue also encreased the numbers of Sacraments, and added many precepts and rules not receiued in the Apostolicke church.

argument 10 The true Church can not endure hereticks and false apo­stles, that teach doctrine contrary to the faith of Christ, and do­ctrine of Christes apostles. Christ Iesus speaking of his shéepe, saith, They will not follow a stranger, but flie from him: for that they know not the voice of strangers. The apostles gaue vnto Christians a speciall charge concerning this point. If there come any vnto you, saith S. Epist. 2. Iohn, and bring not this do­ctrine, receiue him not to house, neither salute him. Tantum a­postoli, & horum discipuli, saith Lib. 3. aduers. haeres. c. 3. Irenaeus, habuerunt timorem, vt ne (que) verbotenus communicarent, alicui eorum qui adultera­uerant veritatem. Let vs separate our selues, saith Cyprian, as farre from them, as they separate themselues from the church. The true church certes can not embrace erroneous doctrine, neither can any heretiks be accounted Christians. Si haeretici sint, saith De praescrip. aduers. haeret. Tertullian, Christianiesse non possunt. But the Papists communicate with hereticks, as Liberius, Felix, Vi­gilius, Honorius, Iohn the 22. and 23. whom in my treatise De pontifice Rom. I declared to be heretiks. they do also embrace the heresie of Angelicks, in worshipping angels; of the Colly­ridians, in worshipping the blessed Virgin; of Marcion, Va­lentinus, and others, in denying Christes true bodie in the Sa­crament to be solide and palpaple; of the Pelagians, in magni­fying [Page 8] their merits and the force of frée will; of the Carpocrati­ans, in burning incense and worshipping the images of Iesus and Paul; and diuers others, as we shall héereafter particu­larly declare.

argument 11 The true Church of Christ admitteth not the apocryphal legends of S. George, Cyricus and Iulitta. for these are con­demned by the censure of Gelasius, who testifieth, that the olde Church of Rome receiued not any such legends. but the latter Church of Rome, and papists of our time doe admit these le­gends, and out them they gather their traditions, which they make equall to the word of God.

argument 12 The Church of God is the mistresse and teacher of trueth, and admitteth no falshood, nor vntrueth the apostle doeth call her the pillar and ground of trueth. Est fons veritatis, saith Instit. diuin. lib. 4. c. vlt. Lactantius, speaking of the church, hoc est, domicilium fidei. that is, she is the fountaine of trueth, she is the house, where true faith dwelleth. but the church of Rome, that now is, is not on­ly a receptacle of leud opinions, but also the mother and mi­stresse of lies and vanities. and so Petrarch for aboue two hun­dred yéeres doubted not to call her. Madre d'errori, e, tempio d'haeresia, saith he. which authoritie albeit they regard not, yet the same which he auoucheth, is prooued first, in that the church of Rome auoucheth lying traditions: as for example, the tradition concerning Ember fasts, and fasts vpon Saints vigiles, concerning the ceremonies of the masse, concerning the words, & aeterni, & mysterium fidei, thrust into the words of consecration of the challice, and such like. secondly, the same approoueth lying and forged decretals, as for example, C. Con­stantinus. dist. 96. and c. ego Ludouicus. dist. 63. and c. quis nesciat. dist. 11. & infinit more of that nature. thirdly, the same giueth credit to Caesar Baronius his most lying and fabulous narrations, and the popes haue commended them by solemne decretals: although we doubt not, but to make the vanitie of them appeare partly in this discourse, but farre more at large hereafter. finally, the same admitteth most lying legends, and now and then permitteth them to be read publikely in the church. as for example, the legends of Catherine, Clement, Gregory called also Thaumaturgus, Peter Martyr a domini­can, S. Catharine of Siena, S. Christopher, and diuers others. [Page 9] in the legend of S. Catherine, In breuiaer. Ro. in fest [...] Catharinae. they write, that she was a mai­den of Alexandria, and so well learned, that at the age of eigh­teene yeeres, she passed the most learned, and in dispute ouer­came fiftie Philosophers, and that also she conuerted Faustina the empresse, and Porphyrius a captaine of the emperors, to the faith. they say also, that she broke the tormenting wheele with her praiers, & that after her death her body was buried in mount Sinah by angels. in the feast of S. Clement in the Romish bre­uiary, we read that Clement Peters successor was by Traian sent into the wildernesse of Let Parsons tell vs, where this is. Cersona, and that there he saw a lambe make a well to sally out of the top of the mountaine, and that he being cast into the sea with a millstone about his necke, the sea fled three miles from the shore, and that in the very same place a little chappell was found in the sea, where his body was bestowed. On the festiuall day of Gregory of Neocesaria the church of Rome In breuiar. Rom. appointeth his legend to be read, where it is said, that he caused the riuer of Lycus to keepe within the chanell, by planting his staffe on the banke, and that his staffe grew presently into a great tree. in the rituall books of Sarum, we read that Gregory the first deliuered Traians soule out of hell, which if it were true, why is it now crossed out of the new bookes: if false, how hapeneth it, that the church of Rome so long beléeued that tale? I'n breuiar. Rom. in fest. Petr. Mart. Peter Martyr one of Dominickes order, as they write, & I thinke beléeue, did keepe his virgini­ty both in body and minde, and in that sort, that he neuer felt himselfe defiled with any mortall sinne: they tell vs, also, that he did fast so long, that he could scarce open his mouth to eat. They tell vs further many wonders of Saint Nicolas, Valeri­an and Tiburtius, Lucia, Christopher and other saints. in the Historia Lou [...] ­bard. del volto santo italic. legend of Ieames of the colepit (for else I cannot tell how to English Iacobus de Voragne) we read, that a certaine picture of our sauiour, did lift vp his foot, and cast off his slipper to a certaine pilgrime, that deuoutly stood before it, and would haue offred somewhat, having nothing to offer. Of Saint Catherine of Siena they say, that she was betrothed to our sauiour Christ. all which points are very incredible, and not to be found in any authenticall writing. If then the church of Rome publish and teach these fables and lies; then is she no mistresse of trueth, but of lies. if Robert Parsons will say, they [Page 10] are no lies, I would pray him to declare vs the trueth out of authenticall histories.

argument 13 The faith of Gods true church cannot be built vpon any vncertainty, or vntrueth. for faith is an argument certaine, or an euidence of things not seene. est fides saith the Hebr. 11. apostle, sperandarum rerum substantia, argumentum non apparentium. and it is built on Christ Iesus, that is trueth, and on a rocke, that is unmouable. neither neede we long profes for this point. for the aduersaries themselues confesse this to be true. Nihil, saith Thomas Aquinas, cadere potest sub fide, nisi in­quantum stat sub veritate prima, sub qua nullum falsum stare potest. and afterward he saith, quod fidei non potest subesse aliquod falsum. if then the faith of the church of Rome be grounded on falshood; then is it no true faith. and if that churches faith be no faith; then is not that church the true church. but that the faith of the church of Rome is built vpon diuers false positions, it may easily be proued. for first the same beleeueth, that the traditions of the church of Rome are either descended from Christ or the apostles for the most part, and namely such as concerne the canon and ceremonies of the masse, fastes, praiexs for the dead, praiers to saints and such like secondly it beleeueth all the determinations of popes con­cerning faith and manners to be true and infallible, as for ex­ample, that it is necessary for euery christian to be subiect to the Pope, that he hath power to depose kings, to giue power to cutthrotes, to kill kings, to dispense with the vncle to marry his neece, with the brother to marry his brothers wife, and such like. thirdly, that church beléeueth what is contained in the breuiary and missale, as for example the stories, or rather le­gends of Saint Christopher, Saint George, Saint Catherine and such like. finally, the same must beléeue whatsoeuer the Pope shall determine to be, de fide. But among such traditions, determinations and legendes, there are diuers both false and ridiculous fables. neither can it be denied, but that the Pope, hath determined, and may also determine falsely and contrary to the faith. and this is shewed in my bookes de Pontifice Rom. at large. Lib. 4. de pontif. Rom. and cannot be denied, unlesse Robert Parsons can prooue vnto vs, that all the Popes decretales concerning matters of faith and maners, and all the traditions of that [Page 11] church, and all legendes are true: which to him will be a mat­ter of some difficulty.

argument 14 The church of Christ is bounded within the limits of the holy canonicall scriptures. habet vrbes legis, prophetarum & euangelii, saith Saint In Mich. lib. 1. c. 1. Hierome. and againe, non est egressa de finibus suis, id est de scripturis sanctis. he Ibidem. c. 7. saith also, that it is the property of heretickes, to flie to mens commandements and the leauen of the pharisees. S. Lib. 19. de ciuit. Dei. c. 18. Augustine also concureth with him and saith, that the city of God beleeueth the holy scriptures, that are called canonicall: but of other reports, he saith, she doubteth. but the church of Rome will not be boun­ded within the limites of holy scriptures, neither will she ac­knowledge the canonicall scriptures to be a perfect rule of faith. the same also from scriptures flieth to vnwritten tradi­tions, and is much soured with the leauen of the pharisées, and mixture of Popish and Iewish ceremonies deuised and established by men. finally the same doth rather, or at the least as soone, beleeue the determination of the Pope, as the letter of holy scriptures. for in the Pope, Stapleton placeth the chiefe authority of the church, and last resolution for matters of faith.

argument 15 The Church of Christ neuer burned the scriptures. no, al­beit there were errors in the Gréeke translation of Theodo­sion, and Symachus, and the seuentie interpreters, and in all the Latin translations, the vulgar and olde edition not excep­ted z yet did the true church neuer burne the scriptures. for that was practised by Dioclesian and other persecuters of the church, and by heathen men, rather than by any, that carried the name of Christians. but the church of Rome hath caused Gods holy word to be burnt vnder pretence of false translati­ons, which notwithstanding she was neuer able to prooue to be false. she doth therefore plainly declare her selfe to be the sy­nagogue of Satan, and not of Christ.

argument 16 The true Church did neuer prohibit the scriptures to be publikely read in such tongues, as the people of God were able to vnderstand: nor did she euer condemne them, and burne them for hereticks, that read them in vulgar tongues. for our sauior commanded his apostles to teach all nations. and no question, but it was lawfull to teach them as well by writing, [Page 12] as by word. In Psal. 86. S. Hierome saith, that scriptures do not only be­long to priests, but also to the people. Non scripserunt, saith he, speaking of the holy apostles, paucis, sed vniuerso populo. and our sauiour, where he commanded his auditours to search the scriptures, meant, that it should be lawfull for all to read them. finally, what is more vnreasonable, séeing the scriptures con­teine Gods holy lawes, and his eternall testament, than that the lawes of God should not be red in a knowen tongue, and that it should not be lawfull for children to vnderstand their heauenly fathers testament and last will? but the Romish con­gregation prohibiteth the scriptures to be publikely read in vulgar tongues, and Index libr. prohib. à Pio 9. prohibiteth all translations, but such as themselues set forth, which are most wicked & peruerse. The bloody inquisitors haue also burned diuers poore people for rea­ding scriptures in English, as appeareth by the Registers of Lincolne and London in king Henry the eighth his daies. Fi­nally Nauarrus a braue Romish doctor teacheth, that it is mortall sinne for a lay man to dispute of religion. Laicus dis­putans de fide, saith In primum praecept. c. 11. Nauarrus, peccat mortaliter.

argument 17 Our sauior Christ Iohn 4. teacheth vs, that all true worshippers, do worship God in spirit and trueth. Venit hora & nunc est, saith our sauior, quando veri adoratores adorabant patrem in spiritu & veritate. And God by his prophet Isay 29. & Matth. 15. Isay doth condemne his people, that honored him with their lips, their hearts being farre from him. The apostle also Coloss. 2. would not haue Christians condemned, in respect of meat, drinke, and holy daies; and reprooueth those that make decrées concerning tou­ching and tasting, and such like ceremonies. he doth also vt­terly 1. Cor. 14. condemne praiers in a strange language, and not vn­derstood of those that vse them. but the worship of God which the papists vse, and most commend, doth wholly consist in ex­ternall ceremonies, as knocking, lifting vp of the Sacrament, censing, lights, and such like. they also rather honor God with their lips, then their hearts not vnderstanding what they say, & thinking, that to gaze on the masse, is to serue God. finally, they haue many decrées concerning meats, drinks, saints daies, and also concerning touching and tasting, and such like. is it not then apparent, that they are no true worshippers?

argument 18 The Church of Exod. 20. Christ doth worship but one God, accor­ding [Page 13] to this commandement, Thou shalt haue no other gods but me. and according to the words of Matth. 4. Christ, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serue. but the papists worship the images of God, as God himselfe, and giue as much honor to the image, as to the originall. Cum Christus, saith P. 3. q. 25. art. 3. Thomas Aquinas, adoretur adoratione la­triae, consequens est quod eius imago sit adoratione latriae ado­randa. Séeing as Christ is honored with diuine worship, saith he, it followeth, that his image is also to be worshipped with diuine worship. and friers in their sermons speaking to the crucifix, are wont to say to it, Thou hast redeemed vs, thou hast reconciled vs to thy father: which Bellar. de cult. imag. lib. 2. c. 23. Bellarmine himselfe can not deny. he confesseth also, that images may be worshipped with that honor, that is due to the originall. Admitti potest, imagines posse col [...] improprie, vel per accidens, eodem genere cultus, quo exemplum ipsum colitur. they also worship the Sa­crament with diuine worship, and fall downe before it. but neither are images, gods; nor is the Sacrament, God. Fi­nally, they confesse, that the worship of seruice, or doulia, is due to saints. and this they wil not deny. how then can they shew, that they worship and serue one true God?

argument 19 The catholike church only, saith Instit. 4. c. vlt. Lactantius, doth reteine the true worship of God. neither can any society be termed Gods church, which reteineth not Gods true worship. but the papists doe not reteine Gods true worship. for first they wor­ship God according to the doctrines and commandements of men, which our Sauiour Matth. 15. Christ condemneth. secondly, they giue diuine honor to creatures, as we shewed in our last argu­ment. thirdly, their worship consisteth principally in the sacri­fice of the masse: which is nothing els, but a masse of many su­perstitions, impieties and blasphemies: as I haue shewed particularly, and largely in my treatise of the masse against Bellarmine.

argument 20 The true church of Christ beléeueth, that Iesus Christ is per­fect God, and perfect man; and that Christ Iesus is ascended vp into heauen, and sitteth at the right hand of his father. for these two points are articles of our faith: the first being in termes conteined in the créed of Athanasius, the second being expressed in the apostles créed. but the papists attributing to [Page 14] Christ in the sacrament such a body, as is neither visible, nor palpable, and can neither sée nor féele, nor helpe himselfe nor others, being oftentimes deuoured by mise and other brute beasts, cannot shew, how these qualities can be in a perfect man. neither can they shew, that a perfect man is both in hea­uen and in earth, and in many places at once: or that the flesh of Christ can be properly in heauen and earth, and not onely beléeued, but also apprehended with mens hands and téeth. Cōtr. Eutyth. lib. 4. c. 4. Vigilius saith, that the flesh that is in heauen, is not in earth. Fulgentius writing to Thrasimundus, saith, that the bodie of Christ hath the properties of a true body. De resur. carn. Tertullian teach­eth vs, that the body of Christ is in the pallace of heauen. nei­ther may we suspect, that he supposed, that Christs body might at the same time be in earth. Saint Lib. 10. in c. 24. Luc. Ambrose saith, that we touch not Christ with corporall handling, but by faith: and that we are not to seeke him on the earth, nor after the flesh, if we will finde him. finally, the scriptures and fathers do teach vs, that Christ is so ascended into heauen, that we doe not en­ioy him héere on the earth according to his bodily presence: as I haue declared at large in my treatise against Bellarmine con­cerning the reall supposed presence of his body in the sacra­ment.

argument 21 The true church beléeueth, that we are iustified by faith in Christ Iesus, and not by the works of the law. arbitramur iusti­ficari hominem saith the Rom. 3. apostle, per fidem sine operibus legis. & Rom. 4. si qui ex lege haeredes sunt, exinanita est fides. & this is the faith likewise of the fathers. Dial. 1. contr. Pelag. tunc ergo iusti sumus, saith Hierome, quando nos peccatores fatemur, & iustitia nostra non ex proprio merito, sed ex dei consistit misericordia. and that we are not iustified by charitie, or by our works, it may be prooued by the testimony of saint Epist. 29. ad Hieronymum. Augustine. plenissima cha­ritas saith he, quae iam non possit augeri, quamdiu hîc homo viuit, est in nemine. quamdiu autem augeri potest, profectò illud quod minus est, quàm debet ex vitio est, ex quo vitio non est qui faciat bonum, & non peccet. neither may we suppose where the fathers doe speake of iustice of workes, that they meane any other iustice, but such as declareth vs iustified, and which, without remission of sinnes, cannot stand before God. but the papists both beléeue and teach contrary, as appéereth [Page 15] by the Sess. 6. actes of the Trent councell, and friuolous disputes of Lib. 4. de iu­stific. c. 10. & seq. Bellarmine who endeuoureth to shew, that man is able to fulfill the law, and that our works doe iustifie vs. whereup­on it followeth, that contrary to the apostles intention, we are iustified by the law, if he say truely.

argument 22 The true church also beleeueth, that we are not to boast, or glory of our works: and that the reward of sinne is death, and that eternall life 's the gift of God. Si Abraham ex operi­bus iustificatus est, saith the apostle Rom. 3. habet gloriam, sed non apud deum. and Rom. 6. stipendium peccati mors, gra­tia autem dei vita aeterna in Christo Iesu domino nostro. like­wise the scriptures shew, that when we haue done all we can, we are to acknowledge our selues to be vnprofitable ser­uants: and that our sufferings are not woorthy of the glory, that is to be reuealed. and this the church of Christ also belée­ueth, and hath from time to time beléeued. tua peccata sunt, saith Augustine in Psal. 70. merita dei sunt. supplicium tibi de­betur, & cum praemium venerit, sua dona coronabit, non me­rita tua. and Hilary in Psal. 51. non illa ipsa iustitiae opera suf­ficenrent ad perfectae beatitudinis meritum, nisi misericordia dei etiam in hac iustitiae voluntate humanarum demutationum, & motuum non reputet vitia. but the papists hold, that we may trust in our works, as appeareth by Bellarmines dispute, lib. 5. de iustific. c. 7. and say, that all sinnes doe not deserue death, and that eternall life is due for our works.

argument 23 The true church doth acknowledge no head of the vni­uersall church, but Christ alone, which is also the Sauiour of his body. Christ saith the Ephes. 2. apostle, is the head of the church, & he is sauior of his body. neither is the title of head of the vni­uersall church due to Peter. Peter the apostle saith Lib. 4. epist. 38, ad Joan. Constantinop. Gregory, is the first member of the holy catholike church, and Paul, An­drew, and Iohn, what are they but heads of diuers parishes? and yet all are members of the church vnder one head. Saint De agon. Christ. & in Psal. 9. Au­gustine saith, that Christ Iesus, that is the mediator betwixt God and man is head of the church. but this title of media­tour onely belongeth to our sauiour. Yet the Romish church doth acknowledge the pope to be her head: and In gloss. in c. vnam. de ma­ior. & obed. Bertrand blas­phemously saith, that Christ had not beene discreet, if he had not left a vicar generall behind him. and this doth Praefat. in lib. de pontif. Rom. & lib. 2. de pontif. Rom. c. 31. Bellarmine [Page 16] very well allow, and prooue it to be due to the pope. is that congregation then the true church, that hath either two heads, or a head beside Christ Iesus?

argument 24 The true church is not built vpon the pope. for the church was before there was either pope of Rome, or chiefe priest among the Iewes. but the church of Rome doth acknow­ledge the pope to be her rocke and her foundation, as appea­reth by Bellarmines preface before his treatise de pontifice Rom. and doth take the pope to be her foundation. Lib. 2. de pon­tif. Rom. c. 31. Bellar­mine among other the popes titles doth reckon this for one, that he is fundamentum aedificii ecclesiae, that is, the founda­tion of the building of the church.

argument 25 The true church is Christs faithfull spouse. Oseae 2. God speaking to his church saith, sponsabo te mihi in fide. the church also being Christes spouse harkeneth to him alone, and of him is most dearely beloued. en dilectus meus, saith the Cantic. 2. church, loquitur mihi, surge, propera amica mea, columba mea, for­mosa mea, & veni. Cyprian saith that the church cannot be drawne to like of an adulterer: adulterari non potest, saith De vnit. ec­clesiae. he, Christi sponsa, incorrupta est & pudica. but the Turrecrem. lib. 2. c. 28. & Aquin. in 4. sent. dist. 38. church of Rome doth acknowledge the pope of Rome to be her spouse; and Lib. 2. de pon­tif. Rom. c. 31. Bellarmine doth mainteine, that the pope is iustly enti­tuled, the spouse of the church. and that this is not without the allowance of the pope it may appeare by the popes owne C. intercorpo­ralia. de trans­lat. episc. &c. quoniam. de immunit. ec­clesiae. wordes, where he challengeth this title of spouse to be due vnto him. and yet I hope he will not say of the church, spon­sabo te mihi in fide: nor, propera amica mea, columba mea: nor doth the true church say of the pope, en dilectus meus. what then resteth, but that the church of Rome should be the whoore of Babylon, Apocalyp. 1.7. out of whose cup the nati­ons of the earth haue drunken so many abominations, and that the pope should be the louer and spouse of this adulterous and vnchaste congregation.

argument 26 The true church of Christ is not necessarily tied to the obe­dience of the church of Rome, nor neuer was subiect to his de­cretaline lawes. quae sursum est Hierusalem, saith the Galat. 4. apo­stle, libera est, quae est mater nostra. so likewise are her children. for it is a rule of law, if the mother be frée so likewise are her children. but the church of Rome is necessarily tied to the obe­dience [Page 17] of the pope. C. Vnam san­ctam extr. de maiorit. & o­bed. Boniface the 8. determineth, that it is a point necessary vnto saluation, to be subiect to the pope. and Lib. de eccles. milit. c. 2. Bellarmine doth exclude all out of the church of Rome, that liue not vnder the subiection of the pope. finally, it is the com­mon opinion of all papists, that such as acknowledge not the popes authority, are Ibidem. c. 5. schismatikes. is it not then manifest, that those that liue vnder the slauery of Antichrist are not the true church?

argument 27 The church of Christ hath but one iudge and lawgiuer, that is able to saue and destroy soules. vnus est legislator & index, saith saint Iacob. 4. Iames, qui potest perdere & liberare. but the church of Rome doth acknowledge the pope for a su­preme iudge and lawgiuer, and hold that his lawes are of power to binde the conscience, as Bellarmine teacheth his dis­ciples, lib. 4. de pontif. Rom. c. 16. and that is the common o­pinion of all casuistes, and the ground-worke of those, that worke on mens consciences. can this then be the true church, that liueth in such bondage?

argument 28 The true church neuer commanded christians to make publike confession of their sinnes to the virgin Mary, to the archangell Michaell, to saint Iohn Baptist, or to the holy apo­ples Peter and Paul, and to all the saints of heauen. the con­fessions of saint Augustine are extant and to be séene. so like­wise are there diuers confessions to be found both in the wri­tings of the fathers, and publike liturgies, and yet can we not finde any of this nature. nay in the forme of the masse, prescribed by Ordo Rom. cap. de forma celebrat. missae. an ancient order of the Romish church, we do not finde that forme of confession, that is now vsed. neither can Robert Parsons or Bellarmine, or any of that faction shew, that any christian was wont to say, confiteor deo omnipo­tenti, bea [...]ae Mariae semper virgini, beato Michaeli archange­lo, beato Ioanni Baptistae, sanctis apostolis Petro & Paulo, & omnibus sanctis. do they not therefore, that vse this forme in al their masses, shew, that they are not the true church, that ioine angels and saints with God, and séeme to confesse, that they know our sinnes, and that they are our iudges, and haue power to pardon our offences?

argument 29 Christs true church reteineth no sacraments, but such as Christ first instituted, and are declared in the apostles wri­tings. [Page 18] and that may be prooued by Iustines 2. apology direc­ted to Antoninus, by Dionysius supposed to be the Ariopagite, and all ancient formes of liturgies. for we doe not reade in any of them of more sacraments than two. but the popish congregation hath made euangelicall sacraments of matri­mony, order, and penance: of which, the first two were insti­tuted in the olde testament, and the third is an act alwaies necessarie for obteining of remission of sinnes, but neuer ac­counted a sacrament, as wanting a sacramentall signe, and also [...]ormall institution. they haue also made sacraments of confirmation, and extreme vnction, and giuen them both signes, & forms, which notwithstanding were neuer knowen in ancient time. are they therefore not likely to prooue a new church, that haue instituted diuers new sacraments?

argument 30 The ancient and true church of Christ neuer beléeued, that matrimony and order conteined grace in that sort, which the papists teach. neither did they beléeue to obteine iustification through confirmation and extreme vnction. but the popes church beléeueth, that these sacraments doe conferre grace ex opere operato, and that héerein they differ from the sacra­ments of the old law, for that the new sacraments doe worke iustification, and not the old. the first is apparent by Bellar­mines discourse de sacrament. lib. 2. c. 3. & sequent. the second by his dispute lib. 2. de sacrament. c. 12. & sequent. neither will any papist deny this. let them then shew, how men may be iustified by greasing and crossing in extreme vn­ction, and confirmation: or else they will appeare to be stran­gers to Christes church.

argument 31 The ancient catholike church did Can. apost. 10. & concil. antioch. c. 2. excommunicate such, as cōming to church departed before they receiued the communi­on. qui non perseuerauerint in oratione vs (que) dum missa peragi­tur say the canons, necsanctam communionem percipiunt, ve­lut inquietudines ecclesiae mouentes conuenit cōmunione pri­uari. the Romanistes themselues also C. peracta dist. 2. de consecrat. doe confesse that this was the ancient practise of the church. peracta consecratione, saith Anacletus, omnes communicent, qui noluerint ecclesiasticis carere liminibus. sic enim & apostoli statuerunt, & sancta Romana tenet ecclesia. & the same is also confirmed by the testimony of Iustine Mar­tyr [Page 19] apolog. 2. of Dionysius de eccles. hierarch. and other an­cient fathers. but the church of Rome now doth take them for good cacolickes, that will come to masse, and looke on. She doth not certes excommunicate any for not receiuing the com­munion. doth it not then appeare, that the Romish church is not the church of Christ?

argument 32 The church of Christ did neither vse, nor thinke it lawfull, to reserue the eucharist in pixes ouer euery altar, nor to cary the same about with procession, nor to light candles before the pixe, nor to bury together with dead bodies either the sacra­ment of Christes body, or the chalice. our sauiour Christ Matth. 26. & Luc. 22. & 1. Cor. 11. said, accipite, comedite, & bibite: that is, take, eate, drinke, and so forth. and the apostles and first christians did receiue, and not kéepe the sacrament in pixes. but the church of Rome doth quite contrary.

argument 33 The true church neuer prohibited those, that receiued the sacrament of Christes body, to receiue the cuppe also. neither did good catholickes abstaine from the cuppe hauing rerceiued the sacrament of Christes body. Serm. 4. de quadrages. Leo saith they were Mani­cheyes, that receiuing the sacraments tooke the body of Christ, but in no wise would drinke the blood of our redemtion. and this act he affirmeth to be sacrilegious. Gelasius also saith, that it is plaine sacrilege to diuide one and the same mystery, and re­ceiuing a portion of the sacred body, to absteine from the cup of the sacred blood. but the church of Rome doth expresly for­bid all communicants, beside the priest, to receiue the cuppe; and taketh this to be good religion. The papists also are well content to be depriued of the cup of the new testament, and thinke not the sacrament so mangled, to be imperfect.

argument 34 The true catholike church neuer taught, nor thought so basely of the most holy body of our Lord and Sauiour Christ Iesus, as that a mouse, a hogge, or dogge, or other creature eating the consecrated host, did also eat the Lords body, presse it with téeth, and swallow it downe into the belly. nor did the same imagine, that the Lords body might be throwen in the mire, and troden vnder féet, and throwne into places vncleane, and too homely to be named. but the synagogue of Rome beléeueth, that brute beastes may eat Christes bodie. If a dogge or hogge, saith P. 4 q 45. Alexander Hales, should eat a [Page 20] consecrated hoste, I see no cause, but the Lords body should go therewithall into that dogges, or hogges belly. some haue said, as it is in the third part of Thomas Aquinas his summe of di­uinity, that, as soone as the sacrament is taken of a mouse or a dogge, straightway the body and blood of Christ cease to be there, &c. but that is derogatorie to the trueth of this sacrament. it is also the common opinion of all papisticall doctors, that the body and blood of Christ so long continue in the sacrament, as the formes of bread and wine continue vncorrupt, and that they goe into all places together. vnlesse therefore Robert Par­sons or some other doe helpe héere, and shew, that the true church of Christ did beléeue and teach, as before is declared; both he, and his consorts must néeds confesse, that the Romish church is not the true church.

argument 35 The ancient catholike church had but one sacrifice, one al­tar, one priest, after the order of Melchisedech. the priest after the order of Melchisedech was Christ Iesus. he was also that sacrifice. the altar was his crosse. tu es sacerdos in aeternum saith God by his Psal. 109. & Hebr. 5. prophet, secundum ordinem Melchisedech. he, because he remaineth for euer, hath an eternall priesthood, as the apostle saith Hebr. 7. but the papists erect altars of stone, whereupon, they say, they offer their sacrifices. they be­léeue also, that their priests offer vp sacrifices, and that they are according to the order of Melchisedech, as if they had nei­ther father, nor mother, nor certeine genealogy, and were ho­ly and impolluted. doe they not then declare, that they haue erected a new congregation that is diuers from the church of Christ? neither is it materiall, that the fathers doe call the Lords supper or eucharist, a sacrifice. for they doe not so call it for other cause, but for that it is a memoriall of Christs sacri­fice on the crosse. Christ, saith Dedemon­strat. Euange­lic. lib. 1. c. 10. Eusebius, offred a most excel­lent sacrifice for vs all, and gaue vs a memoriall (or sacrament) thereof in stead of a sacrifice. Chrysostome writing vpon the epistle to the Hebrewes, teacheth vs, that our sacrifice is but a samplar, or memoriall of Christs sacrifice. and this Peter Lom­bard frankly confesseth. that which is offered and consecrated by the priest is called a sacrifice and oblation, saith Sentent. 4. dist. 12. he, because it is a memoriall, and representation of the true sacrifice, and holy oblation made on the altar of the crosse.

argument 36 The true church of Christ neuer erected more altars, then one in one church, nor did the same distribute the sacrament in diuers angles in one and the same church. aliud altare consti­tu [...] saith Epist. 25. pleb. vniuersae. Cyprian, aut sacerdotium nouum fieri, praeter vnum al­tare, & vnum sacerdotium non potest. likewise saith Epist. ad Philadelph. Ignatius, quod vnus sit panis pro omnibus confractus, & vnus calix toti­us ecclesiae. but the papistes haue alters in euery corner of their churches, and there diuers priests sing or say diuers masses, and offer sacrifices. there also they consecrate, and di­uide the sacrament, making a diuision, no lesse in their congre­gations, then in their altars, chalices, and sacrifices.

argument 37 The true church did neuer agree for trentales of masses, nor for aniuersary memorialles, nor sell the sacrament of Christes body. but the Romish priests take mony for tren­tales of masses, and without hire they will not make aniuer­sary commemorations. they sticke not also to sell Christs bo­dy, or at least their masses for mony. deteriores sunt Iuda, saith Onus ecclesiae c. 23. one speaking of Romish priests, alledging the authori­ty of saint Brigit, qui pro solis denariis me vendidit: illi au­tem pro omni mercimonio.

argument 38 Our sauiour Christ, and his apostles taught the church, that the sacrament of his body and blood was to be receiued, and eaten, and drunken. of which we collect, that it was a­uaileable onely for the quicke, that could receiue, eat, and drinke, and not for the dead, that could doe none of these things. neither did Christs church beléeue, that the Lords sup­per was satisfactory for paines in purgatory, or good against lightning and thunder, or such calamities. but the Romish church doth hold that their eucharistical sacrifice is propitiato­ry for the dead, as well as the quicke, & that the same is expia­tory, and doth worke diuers other woondrous effects. hoc sa­crificium saith De valore missae parad. 12. Guernerus, est expiatiuum debitae poenae tam hic, quam in futuro exoluendae. ibidem pa­rad. 9. he sheweth also, that the same worketh miraculous effects against thunder, danger of enemies, and other calamities, and that he, that frequenteth the masse, shall be directed in all things, which new doctrine, vnlesse Robert Parsons can prooue that it hath béene taught in the ancient church of Christ, will greatly endanger the state of the Romish church.

argument 39 In the true church of Christ, no priest euer tooke to himselfe so great presumption, as to become a mediator to God for Christ Iesus. for he is a mediator betwixt God and man: and méere blasphemy it is for a mortall man, to challenge to him­selfe to be a mediator betwixt God the father, and his sonne. but in the Romish church, the priest becommeth a mediator and intercessor for Christ. for speaking of the body and blood of our Sauior, he saith: In canone missae. supra quae, propitio acsereno vultu respicere digneris, & accepta habere, sicut accepta habere dig­natus es munera pueri tui iusti Abel, & sacrificium patriarchae nostri Abrahae. Vpon which saith he, vouchsafe to looke with a fauourable and pleasant countenance, and to accept them, as thou vouchsafest to accept the gifts of Abel, and the sacrifice of our patriarch Abraham. and afterward: iube haec perferri per manus sancti angeli tui in sublime altare tuum. Command these things, saith the priest speaking of the bodie and blood of Christ, to be brought by the hands of the holy an­gell vnto thy high altar. these things are blasphemous, and cannot be allowed of Christ his church. neither can Parsons or Bellarmine answere, that these words are found in the booke of sacraments attributed to S. Ambrose lib. 4. c. 6. for there is great difference betwixt the words of the canon of the masse, & the words of that author. and the meaning of him is cleane contrary. for neuer shall it be prooued, that the author of that treatise beléeued, that the body and blood of Christ was vnder the formes of bread and wine in the sacrament, or that he meant the body and blood of Christ, where he compareth the sacrament to the sacrifices of Abel and Abraham.

argument 40 The true church of Christ neuer added to the words of Christ in the consecration of the cup saying, noui & aeterni te­stamenti, mysterium fidei. neither are these words found in the old formularies of the liturgies of the church of Rome, as I haue shewed in my treatise of the masse against Bellarmine. doth not then this new tricke of the latter Romish church de­parting from the former, shew a manifest difference betwixt them?

argument 41 The true church did neuer offer the sacrament pro redemp­tione animarum suarum, neither did the same vse the comme­moration for the dead, as it is in the Romish missal, saying, [Page 23] memento domine famulorum, famularúm (que), qui nos praecesse­runt cum signo fidei & dormiunt in somno pacis. nay, this forme is not to be found in the olde formulary, which the Ro­mans vsed about fiue or six hundred yeeres agone. but now all In canone missae. Romanists do thus say and pray. if then Rob. Parsons could shew this forme, or any such prayers or words in ancient au­thors, he might doe a great pleasure to the church of Rome, that otherwise is like to proue the synagogue of Antichrist.

argument 42 The true church of Christ did neuer consecrate incense, nor say, In ordinar. missae. per intercessionē beati Michaelis archangeli stantis a dex­tris altaris incensi & omnium electorum suorum, incensum istud dignetur dominus benedicere, & in odorem suauitatis accipere. if Robert Parsons can prooue the contrary, let him do it, other­wise the Romish church will fall out, not to be Christes true church.

argument 43 The true church neuer had distinct masses, whereof some were ordinary, others proper for the times, others proper for saints, others for particular mens deuotions: as for example, for the election of the pope, for taking away schismaticall con­tentions, for time of warre, for time of sicknesse, and such other occasions. but the Missale Rom. Romish church hath masses for all these causes and occasions.

argument 44 The true church did neuer consecrate holy water, and say, exorcizo te creatura salis &c. and exorcizo te creatura aquae &c. vt fias aqua exorcizata ad effugandam omnem potestatem inimici, & ipsum inimicum eradicare & explantare valeas cum angelis suis apostaticis. it is not the true church therefore that doth practise these exorcismes.

argument 45 The Christian church doth not reteine the ceremonies of the Iewes, nor eat the Paschall lambe. for as the 1. Cor. 5. apostle saith, Pascha nostrum immolatus est Christus. but the In fine missa­lis Rom. Romanists according to the rules of their missal doe consecrate, and eat a Paschal lambe, and pray thus: Deus, qui per famulum tuum Moysem in liberatione populi tui de Aegypto agnum occidi iussisti in similitudinem Domini nostri Iesu Christi, & vtros (que) postes domorum de sanguine huius agni perungi praecepisti, ita benedicere, & sanctificare digneris hanc creaturam carnis, quam nos famuli tui ad laudem tuam sumere desideramus.

argument 46 The true church of God neuer formed any image of God [Page 24] the Father, or God the Holy ghost, or of Gods diuine essence. neither did the same euer set vp images in churches to be wor­shipped with lights, incense, kissing, crowching, prayers or o­ther such like ceremonies. the second commandement directly forbiddeth the making of grauen images to be worshipped, and districtly commandeth vs, that we should not bow downe vnto them. and that this commandement was direct against the worwip of images, the first Christians did well vnder­stand. Aduers. gen­tes. Arnobius saith, that they had no altars, nor temples, nor images, worshiped in open shew. ne simulachra quidem veneramur, saith Contra Cel­sum. lib. 7. Origen, quippe qui Dei, vt inuisibilis, ita & incorporei, formam nullam effigiamus. Lib. 2. diuin. instit. c. 19. Lactantius doubteth not to affirme, that there is no religion, where there is an image, and when images and pictures began to créepe into the chur­ches as an outward ornament, the councell of Eliberis, to pre­uent all inconueniences, forbad pictures in churches. Placuit, saith the Concil. Elib. c. 36. councell, picturas in ecclesia esse non debere, ne quod colitur aut adoratur in parietibus depingatur. such was then the religion of Spaine. Arnobius declareth, that Christians were not woont to worship the crosse. Cruces, saith Aduers. gen­tes. lib. 8. he, nec colimus, nec optamus. nay, Lib. 9. epist. 9. Gregory the first himselfe, albeit he would not haue images broken downe, yet would he not haue them adored or worshipped. and Ionas Aurelianensis, albeit a defender of images, yet writeth thus of them. Creatu­ram adorari, eí (que) aliquid diuinae seruitutis impendi, proh, nefas ducimus, huius (que) sceleris patratorem detestandum & anathe­matizandum libera voce proclamumus, saith De cultu i­maginum lib. 4. Ionas. but pa­pists fall downe before images, and giue diuine worship to the crosse and crucifixe. neither do they onely make the images of the Father and Holy ghost, but worship them. finally, they burne incense, knéele and pray to stocks and stones.

argument 47 The true church did neuer pray, or administer the holy sa­craments of the Lords supper and Baptisme in a strange tongue not vnderstood of the common sort. Si orem lingua, saith the 1. Cor. 14. apostle, spiritus meus orat, mens autem mea fine fru­ctu est. he saith, it is fruitlesse to pray in a tongue not vnder­stood. and reason teacheth vs, that this is true. for if God re­spect not the mouing of our lips, vnlesse our heart accord with our tongue, how can our heart accord, when we vnderstand [Page 25] not what our tongue vttereth? finally, the practise of the church teacheth vs, that a knowen tongue is to be vsed in pub­like praiers, and in the administration of sacraments, as the answers of the people to the priest in all ancient liturgies, and the testimony of Iustine Martyr apolog. 2. of Dionyfius eccle­siast. hierarch. c. 3. of Origen. lib. 8. contra Celsum. of Hie­rome in epitaph. Paulae ad Eustochium. and in his 17. epistle to Marcella. of Ambrose de sacramentis, and Cyrill catech. 5. and others doth declare. but the Romish church will haue no other tongue vsed in the common liturgy of the westerne church, and publike administration of the sacraments, but the latin, of which the vulgar people scarce vnderstand one word.

argument 48 The true church of Christ contenteth herselfe with the reli­gion first taught by Christ & his apostles. for vpon the foūdati­on of their doctrine is y^e church built. and as Lib. 4. contra Marci [...]n. Tertullian saith, id verius, quod prius; id prius, quod ab apostolis. contrariwise, Aduersha­res. c. 26. Vincentius Litinensis saith, that is a tricke of heretikes, not to content themselues with the ancient rule of faith, but to seeke nouelties from day to day, and to desire to adde, to change, to take away. but the church of Rome first denieth the canonicall scriptures to be a perfect rule of faith. secondly the same is de­parted from the doctrine of the apostles. thirdly the same is bound to beléeue all determinations and decretales of popes concerning matters of faith. finally, that church hath added and changed the ancient faith.

argument 49 True christians neuer kissed the popes toe, nor admitted his outragious dispensations, or gréeuous lawes, nor were tied to beléeue, that the popes iudgement in matters of faith was vnfallible. but the Romish church thinketh it a great fa­uour to kisse his pantofle, and séeketh for dispensations at his hands; and beareth all his burdensome lawes, albeit not with out great grudging, as may appeare by Peter de Alliaco his treatise de reformatione ecclesiae, by Vllerstones petitions proposed in the councell of Constance, and diuers complaints both of English, French and Dutch. finally, if they doe not yéeld his iudgement to be infallible, then must they confesse, that the church of Rome is built rather on sand, than on a rocke.

argument 50 The church of Christ neuer beléeued, that the bishop of Rome could depose princes, & take their crownes from them, or that they could dispense with subiects for their othes of al­legeance to their liege princes. nay the apostles teach obedi­ence to princes: and Peter did rather exhort to obedience, then rebellion. the canons, that goe vnder the names of the Can. 83. apo­stles doe seuerely punish such, as doe speake reprochfully of princes and magistrates. and certes most vnlike it was, that euer king or prince would haue embraced christian religion, if the same had giuen power to bishops to depose them from their regall throne, and to subiects to rebell against their liege soueraignes. but papists doe beléeue and Bellar. lib. 5. de pontif. Rom. c. 6. 7. & 8. teach, that the pope hath power to depose kings, and to translate kingdomes from one to another. they also do beléeue, that he hath power to di­spense with the othes of subiects, & to command them to rebel. Howsoeuer the rest beléeue, pope In Bulla contra Elizabetham. Pius the fift most wickedly commanded her Maiesties subiects to take armes against her, vpon paine of excommunication, and the like insolency did In declarat eiusdem bullae. Sixtus quintus vse against her, being the Lords annoin­ted, and he being the greased and marked slaue of satan. both he, and Pius quintus doe wickedly raile against her, and the like course did that flagitious pope In bulla contr. Henric. 8. Paule the third take a­gainst her Maiesties noble father. and this is now the popes, and their agents most common practise to raise sedition a­gainst christian princes, and when they cannot otherwise doe hurt, like helhounds to barke against them, and to publish infamous libels tending to their dishonour and disgrace.

argument 51 The true church of Christ is also catholike, and compriseth all the faithfull of all times, and is not limited within any one countrey or nation. for our Sauiour Christ commanded his apostles to teach all nations. and in our créed we beléeue the catholike church. now this catholike church, as saint In psal. 56. Au­gustine saith, is spred throughout all the world, and conteineth not onely those, that are present, but those also, that are past, and are yet to come. but the Romish church is not catholike, neither doeth it conteine the Greekes or Africanes, or men of Asia, that for many ages past haue shaken off the yoke of anti­christ of Rome. further, it doeth not reach to the people of God before Christ. finally Lib. de eccle­sia milit. c. 2. Bellarmine doeth define those one­ly [Page 27] to be of the church, which liue vnder the obedience of the pope. this church therefore differeth much from the catholike church.

argument 52 The true church consisteth not of fierce lyons, nor of wolues nor tygers, nor such like wilde, and fierce beastes, but of sheepe and lambes, which learne of Christ, and are méeke, humble and gentle. these did Christ commit to Peter, and all godly pastors his successors, to be fed. and these are the members of his church, and not those cruell ones, that are more like to ly­ons, then shéepe. they shall not hurt nor kill, saith God by his holy Isai. 11. prophet, in all my holy mountaine. nay the force of Christes religion is such, that it maketh sauage and fierce peo­ple to become méeke and gentle. the wolfe saith the ibidem. prophet, shall dwell with the lambe, and the pard shall lie with the kidde. quis coegit barbaros, gentesque alias in suis sedibus, saith Lib. de incar­nat. verb. A­thanasius, immanitatem deponere, pacifica meditari, nisi christi fides & crucis signaculum? Optatus in his second booke against Parmenian, speaking of catholickes to heretickes, which of vs saith he, hath persecuted any man? can you shew or proue, that any of you hath bene persecuted by vs? But the Romish church doth consist of lyons, tygers, wolues, and inquisitors, popes, and friers more fierce and cruell then lyons, tygers, and wolues. their Extr. de hae­reticis per tot. lawes are most cruell, their executions not­withstanding passe both law, and reason. In the time of Charles the emperor the fift of that name, it is recorded, Meteran de Belgit. tumult. that aboue fifty thousand persons were condemned by sentences of inquisitors and iudges, and executed to death in the low coun­tries for the profession of their faith. In France, as the stories of that country declare, thréescore thousand christians without all order of law, and contrary to solemne othes giuen them by the king for their security, were most shamefully and treche­rously murdered and massacred for the profession of their reli­on, at the kings sisters mariage. Circiter sexaginta homi­num millia saith Hist. Nat. com. lib. 23. p. 508. Natalis Comes speaking of one onely massa­cre, committed anno 1572. variis in locis per illud tempus trucidata fuisse dicta sunt in Gallia. and so extraordinary was the fury of the papistes, that they spared neither age, sex, nor quality. vel puberes, vel impuberes, saith he, trucidati sunt, ne­que vllius sexus, vel aetatis, vel dignitatis habita est ratio. nei­ther [Page 28] may we thinke, that they haue shewed lesse cruelty a­gainst christians in Spaine, Italy, or Germany. as for the realme of England it hath sufficient experience of the aduersa­ries extreme rage and cruelty by the short and bloody raigne of Queene Mary.

And can any christian man notwithstanding endure, to nourish vp yong wolues, and tygers within our bosomes? The Apocal. 17. Romish harlot is drunke with the blood of the saintes, and hath her garments made red with the slaughter of inno­centes. that therefore which Optatus lib. 2. contr. Parmen. saith of the Donatistes, may with good reason be applied to papistes. Iacerati sunt viri, tractatae sunt matronae, in fantes ne­cati, abacti partus: ecce vestra ecclesia, episcopis ducibus, cruen­tis morsibus pasta est. for by the Romanistes many innocent christians haue bene tormented and murdered, women haue bene abused, infantes haue bene cut in péeces, women haue bene forced to loose their children: and they haue fedde them­selues with cruelty, and the popes of Rome and their agentes haue bene ringleaders in these cruell executions. they are therefore professed enimies, rather then members of Christes church.

argument 53 The catholicke church neuer shewed more fauour to Iewes and infidels, then to Christians, that misliked the pompe, ty­ranny, and corrupt doctrine & maners of the popes or bishops of Rome. for with her children the church dealeth like a kinde mother most mildely. she correcteth them, if they offend, gen­ly, and instructteth them carefully. contrariwise she auoideth those, that will not heare her admonitions, and conuerseth not with them. Christian emperors Hac valitura. C. de Iudaeis & Caell [...]olis. excluded the Iewes from all gouernment, and authority in the common wealth. ibidem. they did also restraine their insolencies with diuers sharpe lawes. the like Cod. de paga­nis, sacrif. & templ. course also they tooke with pagans and infidels, shutting vp their impious temples, and forbidding their sacri­fices and idolatries. but the Romish sinagogue doth procéede by a contrary course. for she massacreth and murthreth chri­stians resembling that vnnatural whore, that before Salomon would haue the childe in controuersy cutte in peeces. but the Iewes and wicked atheistes she nourisheth, so they meddle not with the popes scuruinesse. the popes by their inquisitors [Page 29] and executioners torment christians, and receiue tribute of Iewes, that dwell quietly in Rome. Onuphr. in Alexandr 6. Alexander the sixt re­ceiued Turks and Maranes into Rome, when the Spaniardes could not endure them in Spaine. and all popes shew more fauour to Turks, than to such Christians, as come within the reach of the Spanish, or popish inquisition.

argument 54 The true church neuer sought either by forgery and falsifi­cation of mens writings, or by lying and slandering to ad­uance the cause of religion. for trueth is sufficient and strong enough of it selfe, and néedeth not to be supported with falshood and lies. Among ancient Christians, false witnesses and slan­derers were so fare from being estéemed in the church, that they were quite excluded out of the church, as appeareth by the acts of the councell of Agatha, c. 27. and councell of Eliberis in Spaine, c. 73. & 74. but the church of Rome perceiuing, that she cannot preuaile by plaine trueth and honest dealing, goeth now about by suppressing of trueth, and forging of counterfeit canons and false writings, and by all maner of vntrueths and slanders to abuse the ignorant and simple multitude. the scrip­tures, as much as she can, she suppresseth in vnknowen lan­guages, and corrupteth by making the olde Latin translation authenticall. she deuiseth and spreadeth abroad false traditi­ons, and setteth out falshood vnder the names of false canons, and constitutions, vnder the name of the apostles, false canons of councels, counterfeit treatises set out vnder the name of Origen, Athanasius, Ambrose, Nazianzene, Hierome, Chry­sostome, Augustine, Epiphanius, and other fathers, forged de­cretale epistles vnder the names of Clement, Anacletus, Eua­ristus, and other ancient bishops of Rome, that were neuer ac­quainted either with such matters, or such a stile. Of late time, most audaciously the Popes agents haue taken vnto them power to put out, and to put in, and to change what they list in mens writings; of which forgery, their expurgatorie indexes do plainly conuince them. Bellarmine, he with all his witte wresteth scriptures and fathers, to serue his cause. Caesar Baronius out of Simeon Metaphrastes, Iacobus de Vo­ragine, Surius, and such like fabulous legends, hath sent vs from Rome whole cartlodes of lies. To help him, Alanus Co­pus, or rather, Harpsfield, Alfonsus Ciacone, and diuers po­pish [Page 30] companions, haue set out diuers notorious and ridiculous fables. finally, to disgrace the trueth by slanderous accusati­ons of such, as haue shewed themselues forward in defence of it, the popish faction hath hired Sanders, Robert Parsons, Cres­wel, Cope, or rather Harpesfield, Genebrard, Surius, Cochleus, Stapleton, Allen, Ribaldineira, Bolsecus, Laingius, and other such like sycophants, to raile aswell against princes, as inferi­our ministers. can this company then be the true church, that delighteth in lying, slandering, railing, cogging and plaine forging?

argument 55 That cannot be the true church, that offereth sacrifice to o­ther, then the true God, that made heauen and earth. qui sa­crificat dijs eradicabitur, praeterquam domino soli, saith Exod. 22. God to Moyses. S. De ciuit. Dei. lib. 10. c. 4. Augustine saith, that God only is to be serued with sacrifices of praises, and thankesgiuing, and to haue the worship of Latria, done to him. Iohn, Apocalyp. 22. fell downe, vt adoraret ante pedes angeli: that is, that he might worship before the feet of the angel. but the angel forbad him, and said, vide ne feceris. see thou do it not. and afterward, Deum ado­ra. The papists also confesse, that the worship of sacrifices is due to God alone. Sacrificium, saith Lib. 1. de missa. c. 2. Bellar. est externa oblatio facta soli Deo. he addeth superfluously the word externa. for if we may not offer externall sacrifices to creatures, much lesse may we offer our internal deuotions and sacrifices vnto them. But the Romish church doth offer the sacrifices of incense, of praiers and thanksgiuing, not only to God, but also to angels, to the virgin Mary, and to other saints. In their Letanies they call vpon the virgin Mary, vpon the angels, vpon saints, they confesse their sinnes to them, and yéeld them thanks for benefits receiued. neither do they offer incense only to saints, but to their images either planted on the altar, or néere vnto it. finally, they confesse, that they say masses in the honour of the virgin Mary, of angels, and saints, and giue latriam or so­uereigne worship, not to God onely, but also to the images of God the Father, God the Sonne, and God the Holy ghost; to the images also of the holy Trinitie, and of the crosse. Of their Agnus Dei they Caerem. lib. 1. c. 7. say, Peccatum frangit, vt Christi sanguis, & angit. and when they consecrate a crosse, they pray, that as the world was deliuered from the guilt of sinne by the crosse of [Page 31] Christ, so those that offer to the new made crosse, by the merit of the same, may be acquited from all sinne.

argument 56 The true church neuer vsed the mediation of others, then of our Lord, and sauiour Christ Iesus. the 1. Tim. 2. apostle teacheth vs that there is but one mediator betwixt God and man, the man Christ Iesus. but the Romish church hath gotten to it selfe a packe of mediators, and doubteth not to entitle the blessed vir­gin the mediatrix betwixt God and man. Hist. p. 3. Tit. 23. c. 3. Antoninus wri­teth, that on a certaine time Christ sitting at the right hand of his father, rose vp in fury, purposing to destroy all sinners from the earth, but that he was intreated by his mother to stay vntill such time, as she had sent forth Dominicke and Francis to preach in the world. neither can that trite and ab­surd distinction of some sophisters, excuse the papistes, that they accknowledge one onely mediatour of redemtion, and vse to pray to saintes, as mediatours of intercession. for first the scriptures and fathers allow no mediators, but such as are mediators of redemption, and not onely of intercession, and therefore that title of mediator the scriptures giue onely to our Sauiour, as appeareth by the words of the apostle 1. Tim. 2. and Hebr. 9. & 12. where our sauiour is called the mediator of the new testamnet. and Saint Lib. 2. contra parmen. c. 8. Augustine where he dissal­lowed the title of mediator in Parmenian doth not deny, that the pastor may intercede and pray for his flocke, but that he may be called a mediator. and his Ibidem. reason is, quia vnus, verus­que mediator est: which excludeth all men, whether aliue, or dead from this title of mediator. secondly the papistes in their blasphemous canon doe make priestes mediators not onely of intercession, but also of redemtion. where they say, qui tibi of­ferunt hoc sacrificium landis pro se, suisque omnibus, pro re­demptione animarum suarum. thirdly they so pray to angels, and saintes, as if we could not come to Christ, but by them but our sauior doth immediatly call men to himselfe, and teacheth vs to pray to the father in his name. and Saint In Rom. 1. Ambrose saith, that to obtaine Gods fauour we need no spokesman, but a deuout minde. Chrysostome likewise, homi­nes, saith De poenit. homil. 4. he, vtuntur atriensibus: in deo nihil tale est; sine mediatore exorabilis est. and in another place De profectu enang. nihil tibi pa­tronis opus est apud deum. neque enim tam facilè deus audit, si [Page 32] alij pro nobis orent, qùam si ipsi pro nobis oremus, etsi pleni si­mus omnibus malis. fourthly they so pray to angels and saintes, as they giue men to understand, that they are present in all places. for to Saint Francis, Saint Dominicke and o­ther saintes they pray in Italy, Spaine, France and other coun­tries. they also signifie, that they vnderstand their heartes, and deuotions. but this is proper to God onely, to be in all places, and to search mens heartes; and the same belongeth to no creature, vnlesse we will ascribe diuinity vnto them. fiftly they in their litanies to saintes, and angels, haue such formes of praiers, as in the ancient church of Christ was no time v­sed. in the masse they pray to God, that by the merites and praiers of saintes in all thinges they may be protected by Gods helpe. at other times they pray to saintes, not onely to pray for them; but to defend them, and helpe them. finally they call vpon such persons, as we haue iust cause to doubt, whether they be saintes: as for example, traitors executed for their of­fences, and friers and monkes odious for their superstitions. in the first ranke commeth Thomas Becket, and Campion and his fellowes. in the second Francis, dominicke, Clare, Rocke, Catharine of Siena, and such like. vnlesse therefore Robert Parsons and his consortes can proue these formes of intercessi­on to haue bene vsed in the church of Christ, it is a great haz­ard, but he will proue himselfe and his fellowes not to be of the church.

argument 57 In the true church of Christ we neuer read nor heard, that christians vsed to scourge themselues before crucifixes, and o­ther images publikely, or in their chambers of meditations priuatly: or that they cried out before their images and cru­cifixes. but we read, that the priestes of Baal cut themselues, so that the blood followed, and that they cried mainly vpon Baal. we read also, that the priestes of Cybele in honor of their god­desse were wont to cut themselues. they say also, that in the Indiaes there are certaine priestes, that lash themselues before their idoles. are not then the papistes that scourge themselues before their images, and in their chambers of meditations liker to Baals priestes and ethnikes, then to the children of God?

argument 58 In the church of Christ sinners doe penance in their owne [Page 33] persons. in the Romish church they thinke it sufficient to scourge themselues, and to doe other offices of penance by de­puties.

argument 59 In the true church of Christ the bishops of Rome gaue forth no indulgences, nor iubelies, nor did take on them to dispence Christs and the saints merits by publike charters, nor gaue pardons of hundreds of daies, or yéeres. is it not then the false church, that taketh this power vnto her?

argument 60 The true church is a societie of faithfull people vnder law­full pastors. for as the Ephes. 4. apostle saith, our Sauiour Christ hath giuen pastors and teachers for the worke of the mynistery, & for the aedification of his body, vntill we all meet together in the vnitie of faith, and acknowledging of the sonne of God, vnto a perfect man. Lib. 4. epist. 9 Cyprian saith, that the church is a people vnited to their bishop, and a flocke adhering to their pastor. est ecclesia, saith he, plebs episcopo adunata, & pastori suo grex adhaerens. so likewise saith In dial. ad­uers. Lucife­rianos. Hierome, quod ecclesia non est, quae non habet sacerdotes. and this we are taught by rea­son, that there ordinarily can be no church, where there is no ministery to gather a church, nor a family of Gods children, where there are no pastoral fathers to beget sons to God. But the Romish church hath long wanted true bishops & priests, and of late time haue not any, that deserue to be entituled ei­ther bishops or priests. where, least any fond cauiller should mistake me, as a certeine A detection of vntrueths and falsificati­ons. disciple of antichrist hath done of late, I doe giue them to vnderstand that my meaning is not to deny them to be the church, that haue ministers or bishops faulty for life, or defectiue in the execution of their office, but onely those, that haue bishops and priests without lawfull or­dination, and that doe not at all execute the office and functi­on of a pastor or bishop. and because the synagogue of Rome hath onely such priests and bishops, as want lawfull ordina­tion, and vtterly cease to execute pastorall functions, I saie that the same cannot be the true church of Christ.

I say then that Romish priests haue no lawfull ordination, because they are ordeined first by heretikes, by excommunicate and simoniacall persons, which the canons doe prohibit to lay hands on any, and disallow such as are ordeined by them. that the popes of Rome, and bishops ordeined by them are si­monicall [Page 34] persons, it appeareth by the practises of the conclaue in election of popes, by the compacts made betwixt the pope, and such as he ordeineth, by the testimony of the conscience of papal creatures, and publike writings. Lib. de schism. Theodorick a Niem testifieth against Boniface the 9. and others, and saith, that Boniface sold the same benefice to diuers, and when he lay a dying bought and sold, and said he should doe well, if he had money. Vllerstone in his petitions crieth out of the simony of his time. that was a cause also of the complaint of the Ger­maines in their grieuances. venalia nobis saith Mantuan

that they are heretikes, it shall be prooued by the seuerall here­sies, old and new which the church of Rome holdeth.

Secondly they are not ordeined lawfully, because they are not ordeined to teach and administer the sacraments, but to offer sacrifices for the quicke and dead, as appeareth by their Machab. in lib. de missis episcop. pro or­dinib. formularies of ordring priests. Lib. de sacra. ord. c. 9. Bellarmine likewise con­fesseth, that this is the due forme of ordring priests. respondeo saith he, sacerdotes ordinari, cum illis dicitur, accipe potesta­tem sacrificium offerendi. this ordination I prooue to be vn­lawfull, first because it conteineth no commission for the prin­cipall point of apostolicall or priestly function, and next because it giueth them an office of sacrificing for quicke and dead, which is more then belongeth to their charge, or was execu­ted by the apostles or ancient bishops of the church.

Thirdly they are ordeined by bishops, that haue themselues no due ordination being sent abroad by antichrist, rather to suppresse the trueth, then to teach the trueth. now euery man well vnderstandeth, that no man can giue orders, but such as haue receiued orders.

Finally they are most of them vncapable of ministeriall function, and can neither teach, nor administer the sacraments duly, and if they were able, yet doe they not teach Gods peo­ple, but rather by their masses and confessions draw them to superstition and disloialty.

That the Romish church hath no true bishops, it is to be pro­ued both by the same and other reasons, first no heretikes haue power to ordeine others. but the pope is an heretike, ergo, the [Page 35] first the aduersaries will not deny. the second we shall prooue by diuers arguments in his proper place. secondly we haue declared, and the world knoweth that the popes of Rome are simoniacall persons: of which it also followeth, that they haue no power to ordeine pastors. thirdly, Antichrist hath no pow­er to ordeine pastors in Christes church. but that the pope is Antichrist, and the head of Antichrists kingdome, I haue de­clared in my fift booke De pontifice Rom. fourthly, he that is no bishop, can not ordeine bishops. but I haue declared, that the pope is no bishop. and it is euident, for that 1. Tim. 3. episcopatus is opus. but the pope doth not the office of a bishop, either in teaching or administring the sacraments. further, bishops, as Cyprian diuersly declareth, are the successours of the apo­stles. but the Pope succéedeth Caesar in the gouernment of Rome, rather than Peter and Paul, in gouerning the church. and other Romish bishops, they rather kill Christes shéepe, and massacre his lambs, than feed them. finally, Romish bi­shops, albeit they are after a sort sent to teach and administer sacraments, yet most of them are vncapable of that charge, and all leaue the office of teaching, to a packe of loud mouthed monks and babling friers, thinking that too base an office for their great and high estate.

But had Romish priests and bishops any mission or ordi­nation, yet is the same very defectiue, and diuers from the graue forme practised in the ancient church. for neither is such regard had of the capacity and ability of the persons chosen to this function, but that often times boies and infamous per­sons are called to this charge; neither are the solemnities pre­scribed in the canons obserued, nor doe either the priests or bi­shops teach true doctrine, and sincerely administer the sacra­ments, nor doe they finally attend that office, and execute that worke, whereto they are called. If therfore the Romish priests and bishops haue no due ordination or calling; then are not the papists the true church. if their ordination be imperfect and faultie, then such is the popish church, as their popish or­dination of ministers is, that is faulty, defectiue, and imper­fect.

argument 61 The true church of Christ can not adhere to Antichrist. our sauior Christ speaking of his shéepe, Iohn 10. saith, they will not fol­low [Page 36] a stranger, but will flie from him. neither doth Antichrist seduce any, bur such as perish, as the apostle teacheth vs, 2. Thess. 2. but the Romish church adhereth to the pope, which is declared manifestly to be Antichrist, both by his doctrine, & by his maners, & by the forme & circumstances of his reigne, and diuers arguments: which because I would not draw out this discourse into length, I would desire the learned to reade in my fift booke De pontifice Rom. and our aduersaries to an­swere, if they holde contrary. Robert Parsons should also doe well to answere such arguments, as I vsed in my answere to his Wardword, to proue the pope to be Antichrist.

argument 62 As the true church of Christ was figured by the holy city of Ierusalem, so the malignant church of Antichrist is figured and represented partly by Babylon, Apocalyps. 18. and partly by the purple whore, Apocalyp. 17. that rideth on a beast with seuen heads, and had a cup of gold in her hand ful of all abomi­nations, and spirituall & carnall filthinesse. If then the state of Rome, and the Romish church, be represented by this purple harlot, and by Babylon that wicked city; then doth it necessa­rily fellow, that the church of Rome now is not the citie and church of God, but rather the malignant church & synagogue of Satan adhering to Antichrist, and opposite to Christ and his church. but that the state of new Rome and of the Romish sect, as it adhereth to the pope, and is the fountaine and metropoli­tane citie, from whence all idolatry, heresie, and superstition stoweth, is meant by the purple whore, Apocalyp. 17. and by Babylon, Apocalyp. 18. diuers arguments may teach vs. first, the order of S. Iohns reuelation doth shew it. for after that in the 12. chapter, and in the beginning of the thirtéenth he had described the state of olde Rome vnder the Romane emperors, and foreprophecied the ruine and decay of that empire, and the rising of another state out of the ruines of it; there is no likehood, that he should returne backe againe, to describe the flourishing state of that empire in the seuentéenth chapter, or that the holy ghost would relate things confusedly or disorder­ly. secondly, he representeth vnto vs the decay of old Rome, & the arising of Antichrist out of the ruines of it in the end of the thirtéenth chapter. and therefore, whatsoeuer followeth after that chapter, the same with good reason may be drawen to [Page 37] Rome after it came to be vnder the pope, whose state is wholly built vpon the fall of the empire, and can by [...] meanes be ap­plied vnto Rome, as it was vnder the Romane emperors. Thirdly after the destruction of the purple whore and of Baby­lon, the apostle prophesieth of the end of the world, and of the last iudgement, as if the one were to follow immediately, or at the least not long after the other. but we sée the Romane empire long since destroied, and nothing remaining, but a vaine name or title of it: and yet the end of the world and last iudgement is not come. the ruine of old Rome therefore by the destruction of the whore, and of Babylon, is not prefigu­red, but rather the destruction of antichrists seat and king­dome. Fourthly the beast, which saint Iohn saw, and vpon which the purple whoore did sit, was not then, as she should be, as he saith. non adhuc erat Apocal. 17. saith he, & ex abysso ascensura erat. but the Romane empire did most flourish in saint Iohns time. and therefore that beast must néeds signifie another state and empire, which in Rome was to be erected after the Romane empires decay. Fiftly those ten kings, which are signified by ten hornes Apocalyps. 17. did not arise during the time of the old empire of Rome, but vpon the decay of the empire, and ri­sing of antichrist. for we doe not reade, that kings did giue their power to the Romane empire, nor had that strong em­pire any néed of their power. but we reade, that diuers kings haue giuen their power to the papacie, and made themselues slaues, to make the popes great lords. this therefore must néeds be a figure of the papacy, and not of the old Romane empire. Sixthly we doe read, that the kings of the earth com­mitted fornication with the purple whore: and may well vn­derstand, that the purple whore was a figure of one, from whom corruption of doctrine, and idolatrous worship should be deriued. for that is spirituall fornication. but from the Ro­mane emperore we cannot vnderstand, that any kings recei­ued any forme of religion, or corrupt doctrine, or idolatrous worship. this therefore must néeds touch the pope, and his sée, from whence manifolde superstitions & idolatries are deriued into all places, and not the imperiall state, which regarded but little the state of religion. Seuenthly the kings of the earth did rather reioice, then lament at the destruction of the Ro­mane [Page 38] empire. for vpon the ruines thereof they built their own kingdomes, and states. but diuers kings, that are linked with the Pope haue lamented his losses. the king of Spaine wept, when he heard of the euill successe of English rebels, which the pope Vita de Pio 5. Pius the fift stirred vp, hoping by them againe yet once more to recouer footing in England. Eightly the purple whore Apocalypse 17. is called the mother of fornications, or idolatry, which is termed in scripture spirituall fornication. this prophecy therefore doeth rather touch the popish idolatry & corruption in religion, than the ciuill gouernment. Ninthly after the empire of Rome began to decay, the state of christian religion began to flourish in Rome. and therefore that which is said of Rome, that it shall after the reuelation of the whore become the habitation of diuels, and vncleane spirits, cannot be spoken of old Rome, after whose decay religion began to flourish, but of new Rome, vnder the popes, which is now become a receptacle of all abominations and filthinesse. 10. This Rome that is described Apocalyps. 17. shall perse­cute the saints néere to the end of the world, as may be gathe­red out of saint Iohns reuelation. this therefore belongeth to the pope, and his bloody inquisitors, and not to the old Rome whose persecutions are long since ceased. 11. The descripti­on of the purple whore, and of Babylon doeth best fit the state of Rome vnder the subiection of the pope. the great whore is said to sit vpon many waters, and to inuegle the kings of the earth with her spirituall fornications, she was clad with pur­ple and sclarlet, and set out with gold and precious stones. she had in her hand a golden cup full of abhominations, and in her forhead was written this word, mysterium, and great Ba­bylon, the mother of fornications and abominations of the earth. finally it is said she was drunke with the bloud of mar­tyrs. Babylon also is called an habitation of diuels, and a re­ceptacle of foule spirits, and vncleane birds: and saint Iohn saith, the nations of the earth did drinke of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and that kings did commit forni­cation with her, and marchants grew rich with trading with her. so likewise the pope doeth rule many nations, and hath wonne the kings of the earth, to like his corrupt and idola­trous doctrine. he and his religion also is decked with all pre­cious [Page 39] furniture, and nothing séemeth more gallant in externall shew. like a woman the pope preuailed by fraud, periury, and pretence of great mysteries, and from him all abominations and corruptions procéeded. it is he and no other, that for this foure or fiue hundred yeres hath persecuted the saints of God, and to him the kings of the earth yéeld their forces, and are ready to execute his sentences and excommunications. beside that, neuer was more vncleannesse, nor filthinesse practised by any, than by the Romish Sodomiticall and lecherous monks and priests: nor was there euer in any place more buying and selling of all things, than in the Romish church. lastly, Arethas and Ambrosius Ansbertus writing vpon the Apocalypse, say, that new Rome may be vnderstood by Babylon, and Petrarch doubteth not in plaine termes to call Rome vnder the popes, false and wicked Babylon. Gia Roma, saith he, hor' Babylonia fals'eria. his opinion is likewise confirmed by the bishop of Salzburg Auentin. lib. 7. Michael Cesenas, Petrus Blesensis and others. and so guilty are the Romanists in their owne consci­ence, that either they can not endure the interpretation of the Reuelation of S. Iohn, or els they giue out such vaine constru­ctions of it, as neither satisfie themselues nor others.

argument 63 The true church of Christ did neuer worship S. Peter, nor the ancient bishops of Rome; nor did S. Peter suffer himselfe to be worshipped, or carried on mens shoulders, or to haue his pantofle kissed. but the Romish church doth worship the pope and call him a god on the earth, and Christes vicar, and the foundation, and spouse, and head of the church. the bishop of Modrusa in the councell of Lateran cried out to Leo the tenth, te beatissime Leo saluatorem expectauimus. others beare him on their shoulders, others crie out to the pope to haue mercy on them, others leade his palfrey, others kisse his féet.

argument 64 The true church did alwaies reuerently thinke of the holy mysteries of Christian religion, and accordingly did she vse them. it is a common saying, that holy things are respectiuely and reuerently to be vsed. But the Romish church neither thinketh, nor beléeueth reuerently, nor vseth the mysteries of Christian religion so respectiuely, as the holinesse, and grauity of such things require. one pope cast the eucharist into the fire. Hildebrandus, saith In vita Gra­gor. 7. Beno, sacramentum corporis Domini [Page 40] responsa diuina contra imperatorem quaerens iniecit igni, Pius Quintus cast one Agnus Dei into the water of Tybre, In vita de Pio 5. and ano­ther into the fire. Cresciuto il Teuere, saith Hierome Catena, Pio vi gittò vn' agnus Dei, & il fuoco appreso in vna casa piena di fieno, vi si gitto vn altero. All papists for the most part af­firme, that if a dogge, or hogge, or mouse eat a consecrate host, he eateth the body of Christ really and properly. the conspira­tors, that were suborned by Sixtus Quartus, to kill Laurence and Iulian de Medici, were commanded to do it in the church, and at the instant of the eleuation of the sacrament. Dato signo saith Lib. Geo­graph. 5. Volateran, cum eucharistia tolleretur. When the pope rideth abroad, he sendeth his corpus Domini before with the baggage, and with the basest seruants of his house, as Mouluc in a treatise directed to the Quéene mother of France decla­reth. finally, albeit the papists teach, that the crosse is to be worshipped with latria, or diuine worship; yet doe the popes make crosses on their slippers, to shew what base reckoning they make of their religion.

argument 65 The church of Christ is a society of beléeuing and faithfull people, and a communion of saints. this is an article of our faith. that is proued by the definition, and nature of the church. but the Romish church requireth in her followers no more to make them her true members, but that they professe the Ro­mish faith outwardly, and communicate with the church in sa­craments, and be subiect to the pope. vt aliquis aliquo modo dici possit pars verae ecclesiae, de qua scripturae loquuntur, non putamus requiri vllam internam virtutem, saith De eccles. mi­lit. c. 2. Bellarmine. so by his account the church may consist of hereticks, and most wicked persons, so they make an externall profession of Chri­stianitie, and holde with the pope. but such can not be parts or members of Christes church, without true faith and charity.

argument 66 Matth. 18. Whosoeuer heareth not the church, is to be accounted as a heathen man or publican. but he that heareth not the church of Rome, that excommunicateth Christian princes, and stir­reth vp subiects to rebellion, and debaseth holy scriptures, and setteth vp vncerteine and false traditions, and mainteineth false doctrine, idolatry and heresie, is neither to be accounted a publican, nor a heathen man, but a true Christian, and follow­er of Christ Iesus. the papists will denie perhaps the church of [Page 31] Rome to be guilty of this crime. but the wicked excommuni­cations of Paul the third, denounced against Henry the 8. K. of England, of Pius 5. & Sixtus Quintus, against her Maiesty, and of other popes against other princes, and the stirres that haue ensued of them doe prooue them to be authors of rebelli­on. the rest we haue already touched, and shall more at large proue hereafter.

argument 67 Lib. de notis ecclesiae. Bellarmine confesseth, and all papists agree with him, first that the true church of Christ is the catholicke church and maintaineth catholicke doctrine. 2. that the same is most an­cient. sine dubio saith he, vera ecclesia antiquior est qùam falsa. 3. that the same shall alwaies continue. ecclesia dicitur ca­tholica non solum, quia semper fuit, sed etiam quia semper erit, saith Bellarmine. 4. that it shall be enlarged to the endes of the earth. ecclesia catholica saith he, non solum debet amplecti omnia tempora, sed etiam omnia loca, omnes nationes, omnia hominum genera. 5. that it hath a succession of bishops cer­taine and continuall. 6. that it consenteth with the apostolicke church in the doctrine of faith. sexta nota saith Bellar. est con­spiratio in doctrina cum ecclesia antiqua. 7. that it be vnited to Christ Iesus, and haue the partes vnited among them­selues. septima nota saith he, est vnio mēbrorum inter se, & cum capite. 8. they confesse also that the doctrine of the church is holy. 9. that it is effectuall. 10. that the authors of the doct­trine of the church are holy. ecclesia enim saith Bellar. habet doctores sanctos. 11. that the same is adorned with miracles & prophecie. 12. that the aduersaries of the church confesse the doctrine thereof to be true. and finally that such as haue fauo­red the church haue prosperous successe, and such as disfauour it, euill successe and vnhappie endes. but the Romish church is neither called catholicke of all, nor is it catholicke in respect of place, or doctrine. nor is the same ancient, the doctrine of popery being not established, but since the councell of Lateran, vnder Innocent the third the first father of transubstantiation, & enacted for the most part by the conuenticles of Constance, Florence & Trent. nor hath the Romish church any assurance, that it shall alwaies continue, seing the same dependeth on the Pope, and his determinations, in neither of which is there a­ny certainty. for the pope may be taken away as saith De auserri­bilit. papae. Ger­son, [Page 42] and his decrées doe oftentimes alter. Epist. 2. ad Bohemos. Nicholas of Cusia saith, that the scriptures are to be fitted to the time, and that they are diuersly to be vnderstood, and that God doth alter his iudgement according to the iudgement of the church. we sée also, that the popes are still publishing decretales of faith, and that one destroieth that, which another buildeth, and contra­riwise. 4. it were plaine impudency to affirme, that the doc­trine of the church of Rome concerning frée will and works, sacraments, and the popes authority, and such like points was alwaies taught, and receiued of all nations, and in all places. and that shall appeare by diuers perticulars, where wée declare, that the papists are no catholickes. 5. that church hath no certaine, nor continuall succession of bishops. for neither doe the aduersaries, know, who succeded Peter, nor what bishops from time to time succeded one another, nor haue the popes bene true bishops a long time wanting due election, and ordination, and relinquishing vtterly the office of bishops, to rule the temporall state of Rome. nor can they de­ny, but that the succession of that sée hath bene often interrup­ted by long vacations, distraction by schisme, intrusion of Dame Ioane into the popedome. 6 we shall easily proue, that the doctrine of that church agréeth not with the apostles doctrine. for I doe not thinke, that Bellar. can shew the decre­tales to consent with Paules epistles, or to haue bene written with the same spirit. 7. the papists haue not onely ouer­throwne Christs propheticall office, in teaching new doctrine, but also his regall and priestly function, appointing a new go­uernment neuer established by him, and erecting a new priest­hood and sacrifice contrary to Christes doctrine. furthermore that church, not onely hath bene oftentimes distracted by schisme, but also is much distracted by contrary opinions of schoolemen, monks, and friers in euery point of doctrine, as, to goe no further appeareth both by Dionysus Carthusianus vpon the master of sentences, & Iosephus Angles his Flores docto­rum, and Bellarmines disputations, wherein he alledgeth in e­uery point diuers opinions. 8. their decretaline doctrine is neither sound nor holy, standing more on temporall iurisdicti­on, then pointes of faith, and establishing the blasphemies of the masse, the idolatrous worship of saints departed, and of [Page 43] images, and the tyranny of the pope. 9. the same doctrine is without effect being vpholden with lies, fables, fraud, fire and sword, and not being otherwise able to stand. 10. Gregory the 9. was a most wicked ambitious man. of Boniface the 8. it is said, that he sought rather to rule by force, then religion. Clement the 5. was a notorious adulterer, as Villani & Vrsperg. stories write, Iohn the 22. was an hereticke, & an ambitious man. yet were these the principall authors of Romish doctrine. for as for fri­ers and monkes, they might prate their pleasure: but the chiefe authority to allow or disallow was in the pope. 11. the reportes of Romish miracles and prophecies are nothing, but lies and fables, and stand onely vpon the report of their le­gendes. 12. Bellarmine shall neuer prooue, that any of vs haue confessed the doctrine of popery to be true. finally it appeareth, that the popes of Rome, and their agents, in most of their at­tempts haue had no good successe. Charles the fift and his sonne Philip, the greatest protectors of the popish cause died discon­tent, to say no more. Henry the third, the principall agent in the massacre of France, was killed by a frier. The duke of Guise and other massacrers came to violent ends. contrari­wise it hath pleased God to maintaine true Christians against all the forces and ambuscadaes of their enimies, by small meanes. if then Bellarmine say true, the Romish church will prooue no true church.

argument 68 The church of Rome is also conuinced, not to be the true church by the confession of Relect. doct. princip. contron. 1. q. 5. Stapleton. for if the true church began at Hierusalem, and is vniuersally dispersed ouer the whole earth, and hath continued in all ages, and hath a true, and certeine succession continued from the apostles, and disa­greeth not about matters of faith, nor dissenteth from the head of the church, and hath planted christian religion, and preser­ued the same throughout the world, and hath kept the aposto­like forme of gouernment, and preuailed against all heresies and temptations, keeping the rule of faith sound and intiere, and al­so sheweth the true way of saluation, and keepeth the scriptures sound & pure from corruption, and finally holdeth the decrees of general councels, as blundring Princip. doc­trinal. relectis. Stapleton not onely confes­seth, but after his rude and most odious, and tedious fashion with multitude of words goeth about to prooue; then is not [Page 44] the church of Rome, that now is, the true church of Christ Ie­sus. for to say, that the church of Rome began at Hierusalem, is as absurd as to say that Rome is Hierusalem, or to affirme that Rome now is like to old Rome. Robert Parsous should do vs a speciall fauour, to shew vnto vs, that the glory and ful­nesse of power, that the pope challengeth, with his glorious cardinals, masse priests, mitred prelats, idle monks, lying friers, and all the popes doctrine concerning the law, faith, sa­craments, ceremonies, and other matters, came from Hieru­salem. he may do well also to prooue that the latter scholastical & decretaline doctrine, which the church of Rome mainteineth was vniuersally receiued throughout the world, nay y^t it was receiued in any part of the world during the apostles times, or the times of the ancient fathers of the church. as for the rocke of succession of popes, vpon which our aduersaries build so large conclusions, Lib. de pontif. Rom. & de notis ecclesiae. we haue shewed it, to be nothing but a banke of sand. for neuer shall the popes agents be able to shew the same to haue beene certeine, or continued without inter­ruptiō. it is also apparent, that popish doctrine is not onely di­uers from Christs doctrine, but also contrarie to the same. and that there are infinit contradictions, and contrarieties in the opinions of the chiefe patrons of popery, albeit all dissent from Christ the head of the church. the church of Rome hath also béene torne in pieces by diuers schismes. further we shall héereafter shew, that the later popes haue not planted, but ra­ther rooted out Christian religion out of diuers places, and in the rest haue corrupted it with diuers nouelties and here­sies. finally the church of Rome hath not onely abrogated an­cient canons, and changed the ancient forme of church go­uernment, but also corrupted the rule of faith by adding of vnwritten traditions, determinations of popes, and their fancies to the canonicall scriptures. the gates of hell therefore preuailing against the church and popes of Rome, it is easily to be inferred, that the same is not the true church.

argument 69 Héere we will also adde the testimony of Bristow, a man, as the aduersaries imagine, well séene in motiues, and markes of the church. He Bristowes motiues. commendeth that for the true church, that is catholike, and apostolike, and which abhorreth all nouelties, heresies, and idolatries, and whose doctrine is confirmed by [Page 45] scriptures, most certeine traditions, councels, fathers, and prac­tise of the ancient church, and which teacheth the narrow way, and maketh subiects obedient, and is sure to continue. but nei­ther is the church of Rome catholike, nor apostolike, which embraceth vncerteine traditions, and apocryphall scriptures, with equall affection to canonicall scriptures, and which re­ceiueth all the popes decretales concerning matters of faith, albeit they conteine doctrine neither apostolicall nor general. secondly it will be an easie matter to shew, that the Romish church abhorreth neither heresie, nor idolatrie, nor noueltie. thirdly in diuerse discourses against Bellarmine I haue shew­ed, that popish doctrine hath neither ground of scriptures, councels nor fathers. thereby also it may appeare, that popish traditions are most vaine, vncerteine, and superstitious. fourthly, the way which that church teacheth, is broad and ea­sie. for what is more easie than to heare masses, and to eat fish, and to confesse sinnes, and to obserue diuers externall ce­remonies? and yet by these small things, papists hope to be saued. fiftly, we finde, that all the rebellions of England, Ire­land and France haue wholly procéeded from the church of Rome, and the doctrine of the seditious Iebusites, and Cana­nites and masse priests. neither will euer rebellion be rooted out, vnlesse the tyrannicall vsurpation of popes be repressed, and their parasites taught to submit themselues to their liege princes. sixthly, what certeinty in iudgement can the papists haue, that depend vpon the resolutions of blinde, vnlearned and wicked popes? finally, we sée Antichrist to be reuealed, and the city of Babylon to fall to confusion. who then doth not expect and beléeue the vtter ruine and desolation of Antichrists state? Further, Bristow telleth vs, that euery church that is ri­sen after the first planting of religion, and gone out of the catho­like church, and from apostolike doctrine, and is not the com­munion of saints, nor euer visible, and which is not the teacher of all diuine trueth, and the vndoubted mother of Christes chil­dren, is not the true church. But the church of Rome, as it is now visible in the pope and cardinals, in the officers of the popes chamber, in popish prelates, sacrificing priests, monks, friers and nunnes, and their officers and adherents, whose faith is built on popish decretals, and mincing scholasticall di­stinctions, [Page 46] as fine wouen, as any spider webbe, rose out of the earth long after the apostles times, and first planting of religi­on, and that the Romish church crept out by little and little out of the catholike and apostolike church: for apostolicall doctrine embracing apostaticall and light fancies and traditions, and for the maintenance of mens bellies and the popes authoritie, is departed from Christ, and hath made war vpon the saints. in the same also, whores are openly mainteined, & cutthrotes by rewards incited to kill and poison princes, and a way to all periuries and vices by the popes indulgences opened. how then can any call this a communion of saints? finally, he that expecteth trueth at the popes hands, shal be gulled with fables; and he that calleth Rome a mother, can be content for gaine, to call the whore of Babylon, and mother of errours, his mo­ther.

argument 70 The church of Christ neuer allowed the decretals of popes, or the extrauagants, or rules of Chancery concerning the popes authoritie and procéeding. but in these lawes the church of Rome hath diuers rules of the Romish faith, and thereby gouerneth her procéedings.

argument 71 In the church of Christ clerks were not exempt from the subiection of princes. The apostle saith, Let euery soule be sub­iect to higher powers. But in the church of Rome, all clerks are quited and exempted from the princes power, as Bellar­mine in his booke of that argument, by the popes canons, and all his wit, endeuoureth to proue.

argument 72 The true church neuer baptized belles, nor held monkes coules to be equall to baptisme. but the popish church, as the Grauam. 51. Germanes in their grieuances declare, baptizeth belles, and compareth the entrance into monkish profession, with bap­tisme.

argument 73 Finally, neuer was Christes church or any part of Christes church within any kingdome gouerned by an archpriest and certeine seditious Iebusites, masse priests, and such like vermine. Howsoeuer then they deny it in others, yet can they not deny, but that the papists of England are not members of Christes church, but rather of the sy­nagogue of Satan.

CHAP. II. That the doctrines and traditions of the Romish church, which the church of England refuseth, are mere nouelties, and late deuised fancies.

IF when the papists doe recommend vnto vs their old religion, they meant nothing els, but the religion of Christ Iesus, which the apostles first taught, and which the apostolicall and most ancient Christians receiued and deliue­red to posterity; we should not much contend with thim. for that is the religion, which we professe, not va­rying in any thing from the apostles créed, and other créeds ei­ther set out by Athanasius, or the most ancient generall coun­cels of the church, nor denying any thing that is expressed, or proued out of the holy canonicall scriptures.

But when they talke of old religion, they meane the religion of the church of Rome, which was either established by later popes, or taken vp by lewd custome and vncerteine tradition. the which though it séeme to some ancient; yet in very truth is new, and no way to be compared to the religion, that was first deliuered by Christ, and his apostles: neither doth it de­serue the name of old religion. for as Ignatius said Epist. ad Phi­ladelph. sometime, antiquitas mea Christus est, so we may say, that Christ is the top of our ancestry: & that the apostles doctrine is both anci­ent & most true. id verius quod prius saith Lib. 4. contra Marcion. Tertullian, id prius quod ab initio, id ab initio quod ab apostolis. if thē the papists, as they bragge, could prooue their religion to be deriued from the apostles; then would we indéed confesse, it were ancient. if they cannot, then we must say to them as Epist. 65. ad Pammach. & Ocean. Hierome said to one in his time: cur profers in medium, saith he, quod Pe­trus & Paulus edere noluerunt? why doe they produce articles of faith vnknowen to the apostles? nay why doe they teach vs points of religion, which in times of the ancient fathers of the church were vnheard of? will they haue that accounted old, which the fathers of the church, which were long after the apostles neuer knew, nor the ancient church euer re­ceiued? [Page 48] they would so. Contra. haeres. c. 35. but Vincentius Lirinensis doeth call him a true catholike, that doeth onely beléeue and hold, what­soeuer the ancient catholike church did vniuersally beléeue. quicquid saith he, vniuersaliter antiquitus ecclesiam catholi­cam tenuisse cognouerit, id solum sibi tenendum, credendum­que decernit. if then the papists will hold all the religion, which now they professe, their religion will neuer prooue an­cient, nor catholike. not ancient, for that diuers doctrines and traditions which they hold, are new, and vnheard of in the ancient catholike church.

argument 1 First they teach vs, that the holy canonicall scriptures are no perfect canon of our faith. for this doctrine is gathered out of the decrée of the councell of Trent, that with equall affecti­on embraceth vnwritten traditions, and canonicall scrip­tures. Lib. 4. de ver­bo Dei c. 12. Bellarmine saith, that scriptures are a part of the ca­non, or rule of faith, and not a whole rule. dico secundò saith he, scripturam, etsi non sit facta praecipuè, vt sit regula fi­dei, esse tamen regulam fidei non totalem, sed partialem. De doctrin. princip. li. 7. c. 1. Sta­pleton beside scriptures frameth a new rule, which he calleth the order of tradition. but this doctrine is new, and contrary both to scriptures and fathers. The 2. Tim. 3. apostle he teacheth vs, that the scriptures are able to make the man of God perfect, and furnished for euery good worke. he teacheth vs also, that they are able, to make vs wise to saluation. likewise the fathers testifie, that the scriptures are a perfect canon. sufficiunt san­ctae, ac diuinitus inspitatae scripturae saith Lib. contr. idola. Athanasius, ad ve­ritatis indicationem. Basil in serm. de fid. confess. saith, it is an argument of infidelity and pride, either to reiect scriptures, or to bring in matter not conteined in scriptures: he meaneth in questions of faith. cum habeamus omnium exactissimam truti­nam, gnomonem & regulam, diuinarum legum assertionem, saith, In 2. ad Co­rinth. homil. 13. Chrysostome, oro vos omnes, vt relinquatis quid huic, vel illi videatur, & de his à scripturis haec omnia inquirite. Ter­tullian writing against Hermogenes saith, that he adoreth the fulnesse of scriptures. And saint Lib. 2. de doctr. Chri­stian. c. 9. Augustine teacheth, that all things concerning faith and maners, are found in scriptures clearely propounded. to conclude this point, most derogatory it were to Gods diuine wisedome, if any man should sup­pose the scripture to be an imperfect canon, or halfe a rule, or [Page 49] maimed doctrine, as the papistes lately haue begun to teach.

argument 2 They haue made the bookes of Tobia, Iudith, Wisedome, Ecclesiasticus, Machabeies, and such fragments of bookes, as are in the old Latin interpreter, and not in Hebrew, equall to the bookes of Moyses and other prophets, and to the writings also of the apostles. this is the determination of the councell of Trent, and the common doctrine now of the Iebusites and papists: but new, and no way approoued by the ancient church. for these bookes were neuer allowed by any pro­phets, or by the church of God before Christs time. nor did the ancient fathers allow them. Gregory in his morals lib. 19. c. 16. directly affirmeth the bookes of Machabeis not to be canonicall. sicut ergo Iudith & Tobiae, & Machabaeorum li­bros legit quidem ecclesia saith In Prouerb. Solomon. Hierome, sed eos inter cano­nicas scripturas non recipit. he saith In praefat. in lib. paralip. also where controuersie is concerning Apocryphall writings, we must haue recourse to the Hebrews. neither doth Augustine so make them canoni­call, as he reputeth them equall to other scriptures, as appea­reth by his words lib. 18. de ciuit. dei. c. 36. & conrra Gau­dent. lib. 2. c. 23. nay Sixtus Senensis, albeit he make all these bookes canonicall; yet doeth he not giue to all equall authori­tie. let vs therefore sée any ancient writer, that alloweth the decrée of the councell of Trent, if the papists will not haue all men sée, that they haue innouated the very canon of the Chri­stian faith.

argument 3 They haue also made the old Latin translation authenti­call contrary not onely to reason, séeing it differeth not onely from the originall bookes, but also is contrary to it selfe, as may appeare by the editions of Sixtus Quintus and Clement the 8. but also to antiquity, which, as appeareth by the testi­mony of Hierome and Augustine alwaies preferred the origi­nall bookes in matter of difference before translations.

argument 4 Concerning the interpretation of scriptures the conuenticle of Trent Sess. 4. determineth that no man shall interpret them against that sense and meaning which the holy mother church holdeth, to whome it belongeth to iudge of the true meaning and inter­pretation of scriptures. end by the church they vnderstand the the pope and church of Rome. but this act is altogether new. for we do not finde, that euer the easterne, or African churches [Page 50] were forbidden to interpret scriptures, as well as the church of Rome: or that the fathers of the church were tied to ex­pound scriptures after the opinions of the bishop of Rome. nay we finde, that no interpretations are more absurd then theirs, or more contrary to the meaning of the holy ghost. as for example may appeare in these two points. In the law of Moyses we are expresly forbidden to make grauen images to worship them. but the church of Rome interpreteth these words so galantly, that men may both make grauen images, and worship them. our sauior Christ saith, bibitē ex hoc om­nes; but the Romanistes turne it contrary, and will haue no communicantes to drinke of the Lords cuppe, but the priest onely.

argument 5 In time past Dist. 15. c. sancta Ro­mana. Christians were forbidden to read the le­gends of Quiricus & Iulitta, and George, the 8. books of Cle­ment, the acts of Tecla and Paul, the booke of the assumption of the virgine Mary and such like. The acts also of Siluestre bis­hop of Rome, and writings concerning the inuention of the holy crosse, and of the head of Saint Iohn Baptist, were doubted of. but now these legends for the most part are the grounds of Romish traditions, which the church of Rome placeth in e­quall ranke with holy canonicall scriptures. is it not then ap­parent, that the very grounds of Romish traditions are laid vpon fables, and of late inuention?

argument 6 The foundation of the ancient apostolicke faith was laid vpon the scriptures, as is euident, for that the city and church of God is built vpon the prophets and apostles, Christ Iesus being the corner stone. Lib. 3. aduers. haeres. c. 1. Ieremy saith, that the apostles first preached the gospell, and afterward by the will of God deliuer­ed the same in scriptures, that they might be a foundation, and piller of our faith. but now Bellar. teachech vs, that the pope is the foundation of the church. and Stapleton doubteth not to De doctr. princip. in praefat. say, that the pope is the chiefe subiect of ecclesiasticall autho­rity. and Cancanoni­cis. dist. 19. Gratian like a shamelesse fellow vnder the name of Saint Augustine doubteth not to recken the popes decretale e­pistles among the canonicall scriptures.

argument 7 Stapleton laieth 7. principles or grounds of Christian doc­trine, Lib. 1. doct [...]. princip. c. 1. whereof the first concerneth the church of Rome. the se­cond concerneth the pope. the third the meanes that the pope [Page 51] vseth in iudgement. the fourth, the popes infallible iudgement. the fift, his power in taxing the canon. the sixt, his certaine in­terpretation of scriptures. the seuenth his power in deliuer­ing doctrine not written. Which principles are not onely new, but the most rascall deuises, that euer procéeded out of the mouth of a diuine, or man of learning. for among all these principles neither the scriptures, nor ancient rules of faith are numbred. nay in plaine termes he doubteth not to affirme, that Christian religion is built vpon the popes authority. in hac docentis hominis authoritate, saith In praefat. ante relect. princip. do­ctrinal. he, in qua deum loquen­tem audimus, religionis nostrae cognoscendae fundamentū ne­cessario poni credimus. but if this be the foundation of popish religion: then before Stapletons time that religion had no foundation. for no man euer heard of either such principles, or such a foundation so laid.

argument 8 We finde, that the religion of papists concerning the masse and transubstantiation, and diuers other points of faith is founded vpon the decretales of popes. but these decretales were not collected into forme, nor established for law before Gregory the 9. Boniface the 8. Clement the 5. and Iohn the 22. by whose authority, as appeareth by the seuerall prefaces of Gregory the 9. Boniface the 8. and Iohn bishop of Rome, that published the Clementines. secondly it appeareth, for that in all these bookes there is but very few constitutions of ancient bishops of Rome. thirdly, for that by the lawes of the Code and canons of councels it appeareth, that the church for aboue a thousand yeares was gouerned by the lawes of Emperors, and generall councels. fourthly, for that Aeneas Syluius confes­seth, that before the councell of Nice the church of Rome was not respected. and finally, for that he, that maketh the collecti­on of the Popes lawes, and Bulles, that were authenticall, In Bullari [...]. beginneth with Gregory the 7. that was a thousand yeares after Christ: which he would not haue done, if he could haue found any lawes more ancient, than his. Indéed I confesse, that now and then our aduersaries produce the decretales of Clement, Anacletus, Euaristus and others. but the matters conteined in those epistles, and the stile doth so much differ from those times, that euery modest and learned papist is asha­med to say these epistles were those, whose names they cary.

argument 9 The power and authoritie likewise of popes in receiuing appeales, granting rescripts aswell of fauor, or iustice, dispen­sing in cases reserued, electing and translating of prelates, and all other matters, dependeth vpon the decretals of late popes. and this appeareth not only by the decretals of Gregory the 9. Boniface the 8. Clement the 5. and Iohn the 22. but also by the rapsody of decrées, which Surius collecteth in his first tome of councels. for albeit he alledgeth the names of Anacletus, Ze­pherinus, Calixtus, Fabianus and others; yet they speake onely great words, and vse generall termes. for the particulars of the popes authoritie he can not alledge them, albeit such coun­terfeit and rifferaffe stuffe would aduantage him nothing, if they were truly alledged.

argument 10 The foundation of the ancient church is strong, being built vpon the doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles, our Sauiour Christ being the chiefe corner stone. but the church of Romes foundation, being laied on the pope and his decretales, is weake, and not durable. Videtur nostra ecclesia, saith Lib. 5. de prouident. Dei. Salui­anus, ex vna scriptura foelicius-instituta. aliae habent illam aut debilem, aut conuulneratam. habent veterem magistrorum tra­ditionem corruptam, & per hoc traditionem potius, quàm scrip­turam habent. the foundation therefore of papisticall religion, is both new and weake, being grounded vpon men both sub­iect to errors, and other grosse sinnes.

argument 11 Scriptures in the apostles times and long after, were neuer forbidden to be translated into tongues, that could not be vn­derstood of the vulgar sort. but now the papists suffer them not to be so translated, Index libr. prohib. reg. 4. that euery man may vse them. Cum expe­rimento manifestum sit, Ibidem. say they, si sacra biblia vulgari lingua passim sine discrimine permittantur, plus inde ob hominum te­meritatem detrimenti, quam vtilitatis oriri. they punish also both the bookesellers, and the readers, that haue vulgar bibles without licence, albeit translated by themselues.

argument 12 In ancient time, the gouernors of the church exhorted Chri­stians to reade the scriptures. our Sauior Ioan. 5. Christ speaking to the people, exhorted them to search the scriptures. and the Be­raeans were Act. 17. commended for searching the scriptures. S. Paul writing to the Colossians, Coloss. 3. wished, that the word of God might dwell in them plentifully, in all wisdome. the fathers al­so [Page 53] teach, that the reading of Scriptures belonged also to lay men. S. Hierome writing vpon the third chapter to the Co­lossians, Hic ostenditur, saith he, verbum Christi non sufficien­ter, sed abundanter etiam laicos habere debere, & docere se in­uicem, & monere. and Chrysostome, homil. 9. in epist. ad Co­loss. Attend, saith he, as many of you as are secular persons, and gouerne wife and children, how the apostle doth command you also to reade the scriptures aboue all, and that not lightly and carelesly, but with great diligence. In Isai. ho­mil. 2. Origen finally wish­eth, that all Christians performed that, which is written of sear­ching the scriptures. but the papists haue a contrary spirit. speaking of the vulgar bibles translated by their owne side, they say thus, Qui abs (que) tali facultate ea legere, Index libr. prohib. reg. 4. seu habere prae­sumpserit. they punish also the booksellers, Ibidem. that haue such books without licence.

argument 13 In the times of the ancient fathers, we do not reade, that any holy bishop condemned bibles translated into vulgar tongues, or burnt them; albeit some errors were conteined in the translations. neither did they repute lay men to be here­tikes and burne them, because they read the scriptures in their mother tongue. but now the papists burne the holy scriptures vpon pretence of errors, which notwithstanding they are not able to proue to be errors. they haue also burned Christians for reading scriptures, as appeareth by the register of Bishop Longland, in king Henry the 8. his daies. Index libr. prohib. reg. 4. and now they pu­nish both such as reade bibles, and such as sell them.

argument 14 The ancient fathers of the church beléeued the church to be catholike. but our papists now beléeue no church, but the Ro­mane church, and without the Romane church, they will not grant, that any is saued; iumbling catholike and Romane to­gether, as appeareth by the confession of the Iebusites of Bur­deaux, by Canisius Catechisme translated into Spanish by Hierome Campos, Bristowes 12. motiue in the margent, the cardinall of Cusa epist. 5. ad Bohemos. Cochlaeus hist. Hussit. lib. 11.

argument 15 The papists also, to fit their new fantasies, haue coined a new definition of the church. De eccles. mi­lit. c. 2. Bellarmine defineth the church to be a company of men conioined in one profession of faith, and communion of sacraments, vnder the gouernment of lawful [Page 54] pastors, and especially of the bishop of Rome. which definition is neither to be shewed in any authenticall writer, nor prooued by any good argument. for neither is it sufficient to professe the faith outwardly, and to communicate in sacraments, and to liue in subiection vnder lawfull pastors, to make a man a true member of the catholike church; nor can it be shewed, that all christians haue euer liued in subiection of Romish bi­shops. not that, for that most wicked persons, and atheists, and heretikes, may make an externall profession of their faith, and receiue the sacraments as did Iudas, and liue in outward subiection to their pastors; which notwithstanding the anci­ent fathers doe not acknowledge to be true members of the church. not this, for the Easterne and Africane churches in time past were neuer gouerned by the popes decretales. If Robert Parsons thinke otherwise, let him produce thrée or foure decretales of popes whereto these churches yéelded obe­dience.

argument 16 The ancient fathers beléeued, that the catholike church is a communion of saints, and a multitude of true beléeuers. the first is proued by an article of our creed: and so proued, that it may appeare, that the fathers accounted no licentious liuers true members of the church. Non ideo putandi sunt mali, saith S. Lib. 2. contr. lit. petil. c. vlt. Augustine, esse in Christi corpore, quod est ecclesia, quia sacramentorum eius corporaliter participes sunt. the second is proued, for that faith is the life of Christans. Ecclesia est domus Dei saith In Psal. 51. Hilary, & omnes euangelicae fidei sectatores. like­wise Lib. 1. de sa­crament. Ambrose saith, that the first thing that is required in a Christian, is faith. and both these points I haue at large proo­ued against Lib. de ec­cles. part. uat. & sedec. 6. & 7. Bellarmine. but the papists, if any credit be to be giuen to Lib. de eccles. mi [...]it. c. 2. Bellarmine, do hold, that a man may be a part and true member of the true church, albeit he haue neither faith, nor charitie, nor any inward vertue. so that by his confession, the Romish church may consist of infidels, atheists, sodomites, and abominable persons.

argument 17 The ancient church was wont to reuerence the apostles ca­nons. but the late Romish church doth not much regard them, as is apparent by the the 5.9. and 31. canons, which are not now obserued. Ex 84. apostolicis canonibus, saith Lib. 5. de sa­cror. hom. con­tinent. c. 105. Michael Medina, quos Clemens Romanus pontifex, & eorundem a­postolorum [Page 55] discipulus in vnum coegit, vix sex aut octo Latina ecclesia nunc obseruat. likewise Martin Perez, de tradit. part. 3. c. de autorit. can. apost. saith, that many things are conteined in the apostles canons, which through the corruptions of times are not fully obserued.

argument 18 The ancient church neuer vsed to confesse their sinnes to angels, saints, and to the virgine Mary; neither were Christi­ans inioined in time past to say, Confiteor Deo omnipotenti, beatae Mariae semper virgini, beato Michaeli archangelo, beato Ioanni Baptistae, sanctis apostolis Petro & Paulo, omnibús (que) sanctis, as the papists say in euery masse, nay in ancient In missa Ja­cobi, Marci, Basilij, Chry­sostomi. mis­sals this forme is not found.

argument 19 Neither did the priests clerke in ancient time giue absoluti­on to the priest, as it is in the missale of Rome. nor say, Mise­reatur tui omnipotens Deus, & dimissis omnibus peccatis tuis perducat te ad vitam aeternam. for that is nothing els, but to giue the keies to boies, and preferre the scholar before the master.

argument 20 The confession of faith also set out by Bulla Pij 4. super forma profess. fidei. Pius the fourth, wherein all that take degrées in schooles, or take charge of soules, professe, that they beleeue, and admit ecclesiasticall tra­ditions, and constitutions, and the scriptures according to the Romish sense, the seuen sacraments, and the doctrine of the councell of Trent concerning originall sinne, iustice of works, the sacrifice of the masse, transubstantiation, and other points there established; is new, and no where to be prooued out of the ancient fathers of the church.

argument 21 In the rehersall of the tenne commandements the ancient fathers neuer vsed to leaue out that commandement, that con­cerneth the making of grauen images like to God, and the worshipping of them. But the Romish church knowing it selfe guilty of the breach of this commandement, in their litle catechismes put before the office of the blessed virgine, and di­uers other Catechism. de Hieronymode campos. bookes doe leaue the same quite out.

argument 22 In ancient time Christians beléeued, that all was sinne, that was contrary to the commandements of God. for so they collected of the words of the law, that pronounced all accursed, Deut. 27. & Galat. 3. that did not abide in all things, 1. Iohn 5. that are written in the booke of the law, to doe them. and Saint Iohn saith expresly, that all [Page 56] vnrighteousnesse is sinne. and if it were not so, then were the law of God a most imperfect, and vncertaine rule. but the Consur. colon. f. 46. papists of late time affirme, that all that is repugnant to the law is not sinne: and that concupiscence is not sinne in the re­generate; and finally that it is no sinne, not to loue God with­all our hart, and all our soule.

argument 23 Ancient Christians beléeued, that concupiscence euen in the regenerate is sinne. for that is prohibited by the law of God, that saith thou shalt not couet. the apostle also doth call concu­piscence in himselfe, being now regenerate, sinne. and neces­sarily it must be so, séeing we are by the Deut. 6. law of God bound to loue God withall our hart, all our soule, all our strength. Saint Hierome, In Amos 1. saith, that it is sinne to thinke things that are euill, and Saint Lib. 2. contr. Faust. Manich. c. 27. Augustine teacheth vs, that whatsoeuer is desired, or coueted against the law, is sinne. but the late con­uenticle of Trent decréeth that concupiscence in the regenerate is no sinne.

argument 24 The apostle Iames teacheth, that we doe all of vs sinne, and that in diuers things. and Saint Iohn saith, that he that saith, he hath no sinne, deceiueth himselfe, and that there is no trueth in him. the scriptures also teach vs, that euen iust men offend and fall: neither may we thinke, that these sinnes are trifling, and veniall, and without breach of charity, but sometimes heauy and against the law of God. but the papists teach con­trary, and Censur. Co­lon. holde, that the regenerate doe not sinne.

argument 25 The ancient church of Christ taught that the law was a minister of death, and a schoolemaster to Christ. but the Censur. Co­lon. f. 22. pa­pists of late teach, that we are iustified by the works of the law, and that charity is the formall cause of our iustification.

argument 26 The apostles and ancient fathers taught, that we are not able to fulfill the law perfectly in this life. no flesh saith the Galat. 2. apostle is iustified by the workes of the law. Saint Aduers. Pe­lag. lib. 1. Hie­rome, saith, we are then iust, when we confesse our sinnes. Saint De spirit. & litera. Augustine likewise teacheth vs, that we shall then performe the law of God withall our soule, and withall our hart, when we shal see God face to face. but the papists of late do teach, that we are able to performe the whole law of God per­fectly, and not that only, but also that we are able to do works of supererogation, and more then is commanded in the law.

argument 27 In olde time Christians neuer could beléeue, that iustice consisted in the obseruance of holydaies, and abstinence from flesh, and such like ceremonies, but that is a principall point of popery now, to beléeue that men are no lesse iustified by ob­seruance of the popes commandements, then of the law of God, and to Gods law the papists adioine the precepts of the Romish church.

argument 28 Papists also accoumpt it mortall sinne, to beléeue, or doe a­gainst the popes lawes, as appeareth by the enchiridion of Nauarrus throughout but he that should goe about to proue that doctrine to be receiued by the ancient fathers, should be much puzzeled.

argument 29 Ancient catholicks beléeued, that originall sinne passed o­uer all, and Rom. 5. that through the offence of one all men were sub­iect to condemnation. but the papists Decret. Sixti 4. & sess. 5. con­cil. Trid. exempt the virgine Mary from this sinne, and commonly teach that Hieremy, and Saint Iohn Baptist were sanctified from this sinne in their mothers wombe, and by consequent not borne in originall sinne.

argument 30 Saint Lib. 1. de Orig. animae c. 9. Augustine saith, there is no middle place betwixt the kingdome of heauen and damnation. Lib. de fide. c. 3. Fulgentius like­wise doth plainly affirme, that children dying without bap­tisme, shall susteine endlesse punishments. Lib. 8. c. 16. Gregory in his Morals also saith, they shall endure perpetuall torments of hel. but the papists make places in the midde-way betwixt the place of ioy, and place of paine, and will not grant that such children shall endure sensible paines.

argument 31 Bellar. de purgat. lib. 1. Papists hold, that Christians are able to satisfie, for the temporall penalty of all sinnes: but contrarie to the ancient faith of Christians, who depended wholy vpon Christes satis­faction, and beléeued that the blood of Christ clensed them from all sinnes, and that his sacrifice onely was propitiatorie for the sinnes of the whole world.

argument 32 Thomas Aquinas and other papists say, that veniall sinnes are done away with holy water, but contrary to antiquity.

argument 33 The ancient fathers did not beléeue, that any rule was more absolute then the Gospell, or that perfection consisted in the rules of Benet of Nursia, Francis, Dominike, Ignatius Loyo­la and such like fellowes, rather than in the doctrine of the [Page 58] Gospell. but the papists say, that the life of monkes and fri­ers is a state of perfection, and that their rules doe teach per­fection; which praise they will not allow to the Gospel.

argument 34 The ancient Christians beléeued the doctrine of Christ Ie­sus, who taught vs, Iohn 3. that hee that beleeueth in him should not perish: and of the Rom. 5. apostle, that saith, that being iustified by faith we haue peace with God. but the late papists speake basely of faith, making it a bare assent, and teaching, that the diuels and wicked men haue true faith: which is not onely new, but also strange. for if they haue faith, then are they iustified. fur­ther they should beléeue remission of sinnes and eternall life: which I doe not thinke, that our aduersaries will grant.

argument 35 We doe not reade before Gregory the 7. his time, that any pope tooke on him to dispence with subiects othes of allgeance, or taught, that it was lawfull so to do. for his Lib. 2. regest. & Ioseph. ve­stan. deoscul. pedum pontif. determination it seemeth to be, quod papa à fidelitate subiectos possit absol­uere. but since that the popes haue taught this doctrine, and Pius the fift that lousie companion not onely discharged her Maiesties subiects from their obedience, but Bulla Pij 5. contra Elizab. threatned ex­communication against such, as would still obey her.

argument 36 The apostles and ancient bishops of Rome did neuer cano­nize saints▪ but now popes doe not onely canonize saints very impudently, but also hire their proctors as impudently to de­fend it. Op. Catechist. de 3. praecept. c. 11. Canisius teacheth, that vnder the commandement of sanctifying the Sabaoth is conteined the obseruation of holi­daies, and feastes of Saints. and no doubt but he meaneth all the feasts of saints, whom the pope hath canonized.

argument 37 The precepts of the Romish church, as they are called, are but new deuises. for first if we séeke all antiquity, we shall not finde where the church of Christ hath commanded vs to kéepe this popes day, or that popes day, this saints day, or that saints day, and that it is sinne to worke vpon holy daies dedicated to saint Dominike, saint Francis, or other such like good fellowes daies. secondly, Christs church neuer enioined Christians to heare popish masses, and such like idolatrous seruice. for how could the ancient church enioine men to heare that, which of late onely was coined? nay contrariwise the Can. apost. 9. & 10. ancient church forbad Christians to depart from the church, before they had receiued the communion: which quite ouer­throweth [Page 59] priuate masses. thirdly it is not to be prooued, that the ancient church commanded Christians to fast lent by ab­steining from flesh and white meats after the Romish fashi­on, or, to absteine from meat the imber daies, or vigiles of saints. for saint Epist. 86. ad Casulanum. Augustine directly affirmeth, that the apo­stles neuer made law concerning fasting. and when Christi­ans obserued lent, they were not forced either to absteine from flesh, or to fast euery sunday in lent, nor were permitted to drinke wine, and eat all swéet meates and dainties on their fasting daies. fourthly we find not, that in the ancient church, men were commanded to come to auricular confession once euery yéere at the least. for that was first decréed by Innocent the third, as appeareth by the chapter, omnis vtriusque. de poenit. & remiss. finally the ancient church did not forbid Chri­stians to solemnize marriages, as of late time the Romish church hath done in regard of holinesse of times, and for that maried men cannot so well serue God, as those that for­sweare them. such humane doctrines therefore our Sauiour Christ condemneth, and such voluntary worships the holy a­postle misliketh. neither can such additions of humane pre­cepts binding mens conscience stande either with the liberty of Christians, or perfection of gods law.

argument 38 The doctrine of purgatory for satisfaction to be made for temporall punishments due for mortall sinnes, which the pa­pists doe holde, was not knowne in ancient time. Augu­stine maketh a question, whether any purgatory is after this life, and Gregory the dialogist séemeth to grant, that small sinnes are purged after this life. but that men doe satisfie for temporall punishments in purgatory, neither of them doeth once affirme. neither was any such thing knowen or taught before the conuenticles of Florence and Trent, the first foun­ders of this deuice in the church.

argument 39 The solemnity of the yeare of Iubiley amongst Christians was first ordeined by Boniface the 8. and afterward altered by Clement the 5. and last of all brought to 25. yeares by Paule the second, but not borrowed from Christians, but ei­ther from the heathen, that euery hundred yéeres had solemne plaies called Iudos seculares, to which these plaies and page­ants of Romish indulgences may well be resembled, or from [Page 60] the Iewes, that euery fifty yeares celebrated a Iubiley, and now agréeing neither with Iewes, Gentiles, nor ancient Chri­stians. the popes also, when they please grant extraordinarie Iubileies, and as great pardons, as are granted the very yeare of Iubiley.

argument 41 That the popes indulgences depend vpon late lawes, and authority without proofe out of scriptures, or fathers, it appea­reth by the defences made by the principall patrons of indul­gences. those also, that are not altogether past shame confesse so much. Art. 18. ad­uers. assert. Luther. Fisher sometime bishop of Rochester saith, that be­fore purgatory was feared, no man sought for indulgences. he confesseth also, that in the beginning of the church there was no vse of them. quamdiu saith he, nulla fuerat de purgatorio cura, nemo quaesiuit indulgentias. and againe, in initio nascen­tis ecclesiae nullus fuerat earum vsus. as for indulgences for not onely hundreds but also thousands of yeares, neither Bellar­mine nor Parsons can alledge either good proofe, or ancient pre­cedent.

argument 42 The taxe of the popes chancery for the dispatch of pardons for murders, parricides, rapes, adulteries, incestes, sodomitry, yea apostacy and Iewish and Turkish blasphemies, I doe not thinke, that the most shamelesse Iebusite in the whole order will auow to be ancient.

argument 43 Scholasticall diuinitie, which is nothing else, but a mix­ture of fathers authorities, philosophicall subtilties, and popes decretals, began but from Peter Lombard, some eleuen hun­dred and odde yéeres after Christ. how then can the Romish faith, that relieth wholly vpon this diuinity be accounted an­cient?

argument 44 Lib. 1. de verb. dei. c. 3. Bellarmine saith, that the new testament is nothing els, but the loue of God shed into our hearts by the holy Ghost. which argueth, that the Gospell and new Testament of papists, is a new Gospell differing much from that of Christ Iesus. for Christs Testament was established in his blood, and is a coue­nant concerning remission of sinnes most especially. but chari­ty is wrought by the holy Ghost in those, that are alreadie reconciled by the blood of the new Testament. Chrysostome, Theodoret, and others, writing vpon the second epistle to the Corinthians, chap. 3. say, that the spirit quickning is the grace [Page 61] of God, that remitteth our sinnes. and that charity is not the new testament, it is most euident, for that then Christ had died in vaine, and then we might haue had the new testament esta­blished by the law, that requireth charity, and not by the te­stament in Christ his blood, which is a declaration of Christ his satisfaction and remission of sinnes.

argument 45 The same Lib. 2. de pon­tif. Rom. c. 12. man teacheth vs, that it is a matter of faith to be­leeue, that the pope hath succeeded Peter in the gouernment of the vniuersall church. but this is new, and neuer heard of in the ancient church of Christ. is it not then a new Christian faith, which these new vpstart Iebusites defend?

argument 46 That there are iust seuen sacraments, and neither more nor lesse, albeit the same was talked of in the instruction of the Ar­menians in the conuenticle of Florence, yet it séemeth to bée first established by the conspirators of Sess. 7. Trent. for neither can Bellarmine, nor any of that faction shew any authenticall law of greater antiquitie for the ioint, and iust number of sacra­ments, then the authoritie of the instruction of the Armenians, deliuered in the name of the councell of Florence, and the con­uenticle of Trent. is it not then a new religion, that hath so new sacraments?

argument 47 The papists also teach vs, that the sacraments conteine grace, and doe iustifie those, that are partakers of them. but since the world began it was neuer heard of, till of late idle monkes and friers began to resolue it, that Christians were iu­stified by orders, confirmation, matrimony and extreme vnction. let Bellarmine or any papist, if he can, prooue, that men are iustified by these sacraments. if he cannot, then can it not be denied, but as the papists deuise new meanes of iustifi­cation, so they deuise vs a new religion.

argument 48 That the formes of confirmation and extreme vnction are new, it appeareth by the decrées of the Trent councell and in­struction of the Armenians fathered on the councell of Florence. if any deny this, he must shew, where these words, signo te sig­no crucis, & confirmo te chrismate salutis: were receiued by a­ny authority before; and where the words and greasings of diuers parts of the body vsed in extreame vnction were esta­blished by the church. Wherein to auoid cauilles, I would haue Robert Parsons, and his seditious brood of rebelles to [Page 62] marke, that I deny not, but that idle schoolemen might prate of such matters before. but I say, the same was not before those times confirmed by law, nor generally receiued. would he please to try his strength in demonstrating the contrary, he should soone be forced to confesse, that I say true.

argument 49 That spirituall gossips may not intermary, and that such mariages being once contracted should be of no force, is also a new doctrine flowing from the stinking sinke of popery.

argument 50 It is also new doctrine, that man and wife by consent may depart asunder, and enter into monasticall religion, and that mariages contracted may be dissolued by putting on a monkes or friers coule, and lastly, that children may abandon their parents, and follow Iebusites, and other monkes and firiers, where vnder pretence of religion they commit all abo­mination, and serue for bardassaes, and Ganimedes to this new race of sodomites. that this doctrine is new, it appeareth by Bellarmines weake dispute of monkes, and in my treatise against the stinking orders of friers and monkes: which be­cause Cardinall Bellarmine is not now at laisure to answere, I would pray Robert Parsons, because he taketh on him to be learned, or some other of his scholars, to vndertake to refute.

argument 51 The apostles and ancient fathers did neither vse candle, salt nor spittle, nor that maner of blowing, nor greasing, that the papists now vse in baptisme. and that a man may see without a candle, and shall be proued godwilling hereafter, when I come to gripe my aduersary, that taketh exception to this point.

argument 52 The ancient church of Christ was neuer wont to coniure salt & water, nor to say In missal. Rom. c. benedict. diuersae. exorizo te creatura salis, &c. vt efficia­ris sal exorcizatum in salutem credentium, & sis omnibus su­mentibus te sanitas animae & corporis. neither did Christians in times past pray, that holy water might serue to cast out di­uels, to driue away diseases, and to clense mens houses from vn­cleane spirits, could Robert Parsons be at leisure, and leaue dreaming of Cardinals hats, he might doe a great pleasure to shew vs this coniuration of salt and holy water out of some holy mens writings.

argument 53 It is also a mere nouelty, if not foolery, that the priest sprin­cles the altar, and the whole assistance with water, and Ibidem. saith [Page 63] asperges me domine hyssopo, & mundabor. for the water sprin­kle is not made of hyssop, nor is the priest so honest a man as Dauid, nor can drops of water clense his faults.

argument 54 It is also in Christian religion a nouelty to consecrate the flesh of paschal lambes, and cannot be proued to haue bene long practised in the Romish church. but now since the priests of Baal are proued shéepe stealers, they to satisfie the owners losses consecrate the flesh of lambs.

argument 55 The In ordinar. missae. blessing also of incense by the intercession of Michael the archangel, as the papists vse it in their masse, sauoreth not onely of superstition, but also of nouelty.

argument 56 The swinging also of the chalice, and host about the priests head, and crossing of all sides of both, as it is in the missall of Sarum, and partly in the Romish missal, is both superstitious and new.

argument 57 The ancient fathers neuer taught, that either the body and blood of Christ were really vnder the accidents of bread and wine, or that the accidents of bread and wine did subsist without a subiect. for that was first decréed in the councell of Constance, though idelly talked of before.

argument 58 Neither did they euer imagine that a dogge, or a hogge, or a mouse swallowing a consecrate host, did also swallow Christ Iesus God and man, and his very body, as some of the schoole­men teach. for that were not onely to cast precious stones be­fore hogges, but to blaspheme the most holy name of Iesus: and to bring Christian religion into contempt,

argument 59 They neuer beléeued, that Christs true body was inuisible, and impalpable. for well they remembred Christes words to his disciples; Videte & palpate. but how can this be truely said, if as the papists teach, he were in the sacrament inuisible and impalble?

argument 60 In the fathers writings we neuer read, where this word species doth signifie lightnesse, roundnesse, smoothnesse, hard­nesse, swéetnesse, relish and all other accidents of the sacramen­tall signes, as the papists beléeue and teach.

argument 61 The doctrine of Transubstantiation was first established by C. firmiter. de sum. trenit. & fide cath. Innocent the third and his consorts, about the yéere of our Lord 1212. this mystery therefore of transubstantiation is not so ancient.

argument 62 The ancient fathers did neuer beléeue, that euery masse­priest did worke thrée seuerall miracles, as oft as he did conse­crate, as the authors of the Tridentine catechisme do teach.

argument 63 Nor did they beléeue, that the same humane body was in heauen, in earth, and euery altar, all at one time, as our pa­pists, that are more corporall than spirituall, teach.

argument 64 In the ancient church, those that receiued the sacrament of the Lords body, receiued also the cup. neither is the prohibiti­on of the cup more ancient than the wicked councell of Con­stance.

argument 65 Then also the priest neuer receiued alone, nor did Christi­ans looke on, while the priest ate and dranke all. for this was contrary to Christes institution, and the nature of the sacra­ment, that was instituted for a 1. Cor. 10. signe of our mutuall coniunc­tion one with another. and the contrary custome is refuted by all ancient liturgies. but now the priest eateth and drinketh all alone by himselfe: and the rest depart fasting, or at the least without the sacrament of the cup.

argument 66 In ancient time, the Lords supper was accounted no sacri­fice for quicke and dead, but a holy sacrament, wherein a me­moriall of Christes sacrifice on the crosse is celebrated, as S. Augustine teacheth, and I haue shewed at large in my treatise De missa against Bellarmine. but now, as if Christ had not said, take, eat, drinke, they offer it for those, that can neither take, nor eat, nor drinke.

argument 67 The ancient church had no seuerall masses for warre, for peace, for bridegromes, for mariners, for hogges, for the plague, and for all times and occasions, as now the Missal. Rom. Paris. & Sa­rum. Roma­nists haue.

argument 68 There were no masses in the primitiue church made in ho­nor of saints, of angels, of the virgine Mary. nay in the old for­mulary of the church of Rome some seuen hundred or eight hundred yéeres agone, there are no masses of this new cut.

argument 69 The parts of the masse were framed piecemeale, long after the age of the learned fathers of the church, as I haue prooued in my fift booke De missa, against Bellarmine, which I recom­mend to Robert Parsons for a cordiall, or a scarlet stomacher, to warme himselfe withall, requesting him to shape vs an an­swere.

argument 70 The sacrament of the Lords supper in olde time was neuer administred in a tongue not vnderstood. for that is the late pleasure of the trenchant fathers of Trent.

argument 71 The ancient fathers neuer praied to our Lady after the new Romish fashion, nor said, Sancta Maria ora pro nobis, & nunc & in hora mortis. nor thought it lawfull to say,

argument 72 Neither did Christians in olde time chant such Letanies, as now are vsuall in the Romish missals and breuiaries, say­ing, Sancte Michael, sancte Gabriel, sancte Raphael; nor sancta Maria Magdalena, sancta Agnes, sancta Agatha; nor omnes sancti & sanctae intercedite pro nobis.

argument 73 In ancient Vid. ordinem Rom. missals, the praier, memento, for the dead, is not in the canon. the ancient fathers did neuer vse such a form.

argument 74 In ancient time it would haue bene thought very strange, to pray in a tongue not vnderstood: especially when the apo­stle 1. Cor. 14. teacheth vs, that it profiteth nothing.

argument 75 The psalter of our lady, and her peculier offices, are not to be iustified by ancient precedents.

argument 76 If any had bene taken praying to a stocke or stone, he would haue bene condemned for an idolater. but now papists com­monly pray to images of wood and stone, and to the crosse they say, auge pijs iustitiam, reisque dona veniam: which although it may be thought sottish and sencelesse, yet will they not haue it counted idolatrous.

argument 77 Christ forbadde vs to vse battologies, or often repetitions in our praiers. but the papists neither regarding his doctrine, nor the practise of the ancient church, in their psalter of Iesu re­peat the name of Iesu infinit times. they reherse also infinit Aue Mariaes and Pater Nosters.

argument 78 In the Missale of Salsbury, the priest saith to the sacrament Aue. he boweth also to it, contrary to the ancient churches practise.

argument 79 The Rosaries and beades of our lady containing 63. Aue Mariaes and 7. Pater Nosters, which are now much reckoned of in Spaine and Italy, as appeareth by the manuall of Gerony­mo Campos are but new tricks of late popes, and superstitious priests to catch mony.

argument 80 In time past Christians were wont to entombe holy mar­tyrs, and to call vpon God at their tombes, and monuments. But of late time the blinde papists haue digged the saints out of their graues, and thinke it religion to call vpon them, and to kisse rotten bones, and ragges, yea sometimes which be­long not to the saints, to whome they are attributed.

argument 81 The papists also worship wicked men, as George of Cap­padocia an Arrian hereticke, Thomas Becket an impure fellow, and a traitor to his country, La fulmi­nante. Ieames Clement the murderer of his liege soueraine, Campian and Sherwin, and such as died in England for notorious treasons.

argument 82 Neither are they ashamed to call the sacrament their lord and god, as appeareth by the words of Alane in his treatise de sacrific. euchar c. 41. and Bristow in his 26. motiue: which they cannot iustifie by testimony of antiquity.

argument 83 They also worship the sacrament with diuine honour, as if God, and the sacrament were one person. the priest after consecration doth adore it, as it is in the rubrike of the Missal. Rom. missal, and boweth his knee vnto it. they hang the sacrament vpon the altar with light before it, and cary it about with lightes, and bells, and great solemnity. all which Robert Parsons will not proue to be practised by the ancient church of Christ. nay when he goeth about it, he shall finde that the principall au­thors of this idolatry were Honorius the 3. Vrbane the 4. and Clement the fift men of late time and leud stampe.

argument 84 To the crosse they say, ô crux aue spes vnica: and, venite adoremus, as is proued by the Romish portesse sabbat. in hebd, 4. quadrages. and booke of ceremonies and pontificall, in die parasc. neither are they ashamed to confesse, that latria, or diuine worship is due to the crosse; albeit all antiquity ab­horred such grosse idolatry.

argument 85 They worship the images of god the father, of god the sonne, and god the holy ghost, and the whole trinity with latria, or di­uine worship, as may be gathered by their practise, by the de­crée of the conuenticle of Trent, the 25. session, by the testimo­ny of Suares in 3. part. Thom. tom. 1. disp. 54. sect. 4. and of vellosillus in aduertent. in. 5. tom. Hieronym. ad 10. quae sit. which the ancient fathers neuer did. nay the idola­trous second councell of Nice, allowed not this supreme wor­ship [Page 67] of Latria to be due to any images.

argument 86 Gregory the first in a certaine epistle to Serenus, declareth, that albeit images are not to be broken downe and vtterly a­bolished out of churches; yet they are not to be worshipped. Epiphanius vtterly condemneth the hauing of them in church­es. and to that effect the councell of Eliberis in Spaine made a solemne Can. 36 act. Placuit say the fathers of that councell, picturas in ecclesia esse non debere, ne quod colitur, aut adoratur in pa­rietibus depingatur. but now the papists not onely place them in churches, but also adore them and worship them.

argument 87 Antiquity neuer burnt incense to images, nor kissed them, nor bowed downe to them, nor said their praiers before them. for that is repugnant to the second commandement, and is de­rogatory to Gods honor. but the papists now doe all this, and thinke it piously doone also.

argument 87 In ancient time Christians serued God in spirit and trueth according to the saying of our sauiour Iohn 4. but the religion of papists consisteth in eating of redde herrings and salt fish, in abstinence from flesh and white meats, in knocking, knée­ling, greasing shauing, washing, ducking, crouching, crossing and such like outward ceremonies.

argument 88 The ancient fathers did neuer take the bishop of Rome to be head, or foundation of the church. for well they remembred, that our Sauiour Christ is the head of the church, and Saui­our of his body: and 1. Cor. 3. that no man can lay other foundation, then that which is laid, which is Christ Iesus. and that the church is built vpon the apostles and prophets, Christ Iesus being the corner stone: but vpon apostles and prophets be­cause they preach vnto vs Christ Iesus. but the papists now teach, that the pope is both the foundation and the head of the church. for that doth Bellarmine teach in his preface before his bookes de Pontifice Rom. and in the second booke chap. 31. of that treatise. neither doe I thinke that any papists will de­nie it.

argument 89 Neither did they call the pope in ancient time the spouse of the church. for that doeth onely belong to Christ. adiunxi vos vni viro saith the apostle, 2. Corinth. 10. ad exhibendam virgi­nem castam Christo. but the papists C. vbi pericu­lum. de elect. in sexto. doe not sticke to call the pope the spouse of the church. and Bellarmine of his liberalitie [Page 68] doeth giue the pope that title, lib. 2. de Pontif. Rom. c. 31. and the pope like a good fellow taketh the same to himselfe. c. quo­niam de immunitat. in 6. nos iustitiam nostram, saith he, & ec­clesiae sponsae nostrae nolentes negligere.

argument 90 The ancient fathers neuer called the pope, vniuersall bishop. for Lib. 4. ep. 32. Gregory the first doeth much mislike that title, and cal­leth it sacrilegious, and profane. and a certeine councell of A­frica cited by Gratiam, dist. 99. c. primaesedis. importeth, that the bishop of Rome should not be called vniuersall. but now euery lousie frier made pope will be called vniuersall bishop, and the papists dare not deny him this title.

argument 91 Ancient Christians neuer called the pope god, nor supre­mum numen in terris. but the canonistes doe not sticke to call him, and honor him as God, as appeareth by the chapter sa­tis. dist. 96. and by Augustine Steuchus in lib. de donat. Con­stantini. and Stapleton in his epistle dedicatory before his booke intituled doctrinalia principia, calleth him supremum numen in terris, that is the soueraigne god of the world.

argument 92 In ancient time the church was gouerned by the lawes of councels, and Christian emperors, as appeareth by the acts of councels, and lawes of Iustinians Code. it appeareth also, that in the time of Charles the great, and his sonnes, the church was gouerned for externall matters by lawes of princes. but now the popes exclude both emperors, kings and princes, and take on them the sole gouernment of the vniuersall church.

argument 93 In the councell of Constance it was holden, that the coun­cell was aboue the pope. the same also appeareth, for that di­uers popes haue answered, and some haue béene deposed by councels. but now the papists holde contrary, and say, that the pope is aboue the councell. neither doe they allow any councels, to be authenticall, but such as are called and confir­med by the pope.

argument 94 The apostles & their successors were subiect to emperors & princes, and paid tribute vnto them. the apostle S. Paul taught all bishops and priests to be subiect to higher powers. but now they hold, that the pope is aboue all princes and kings what­soeuer. Papa est dominus dominantium saith In c. ecclesia. vt lite pendente. Baldus, & ius regis regum habet in suos subditos. and De pontific. Rom. lib. 5. Bellarmine holdeth, [Page 89] that the pope hath power to depose kings, and to take their crownes from them.

argument 95 The apostles and their successors in ancient time exhorted subiects to obedience. now the popes of late haue exhorted subiects to rebellion, as appeareth by their execrable bulles a­gainst Henry the 8. king of England, and his daughter Eliza­beth now reigning. against Henry the 3. of France, and a­gainst diuers emperors.

argument 96 In ancient time bishops spoke reuerently of kings and princes, and in the C. 83. canons of the apostles the censure of de­position is inflicted vpon such of the clergy, as vtter words of reproch against princes. but now the popes raile against prin­ces, as is euident by their wicked bulles, and when railing will not serue, by assassins, and murdrers hired and aposted they séeke to cut their throates. as appeareth by the fact of Iames Clement, that murdred Henry the 3. Chastell that as­saulted Henry the 4. of France, and diuers assassins hired to kill our noble Quéene.

argument 97 Before Gregory the firsts time, the popes made no bishops either in England or France, or Germany, or Afrike, or Asia, but al nations and prouinces were frée from his vsurpations. neither did any bishops sweare fealty to the pope. but now all this is quite changed. and the pope claimeth a generall power to ordeine bishops ouer the world, and maketh them C. ego N. de iurtiurando. sweare fealty vnto him, as to their souereigne.

argument 98 In S. Cyprians and Augustines time, the bishops of Afrike would suffer no appeales to be made to Rome. now Bellar. disputeth, that it is a point of the popes right to heare appeales out of all the world.

argument 99 Now also the papists make the pope supreme iudge in all causes, and controuersies of faith. but the ancient church n [...] ­uer imagined, that such matters could be decided without a councell.

argument 100 The pope now C. vnam. extr. de maior. & obed. challengeth both swords. but our Sauior Christ taught, that his kingdome was not of this world: and the apostle Paul said, that the weapons of his warfare were not carnall. The ancient bishops of Rome certes neuer vsed swords, nor souldiers, but sincerely taught the Gospel.

argument 101 Vntill Boniface the ninth his time, the city of Rome was [Page 70] either vnder the emperors, or vnder her owne magistrates, as Lib. 2. de schism. Theodoric à Niem testifieth. is it not then strange, that the emperor will suffer his imperiall state, and empire to be hol­den from him, which is so lately vsurped, and by fraud inter­cepted by the pope?

argument 102 It is not long since the pope began to weare a triple crown, and to be borne on mens shoulders, and to tread on princes necks, and to make others to kisse his pantofle. Let Robert Parsons shew, that this was done before Gregory the seuenth, and Celestine the third.

argument 103 Neither is it many hundred yéeres, since the pope challen­ged annates, and tooke money of archbishops for their palles.

argument 104 The popes prouisions, reseruations, translations, and other extraordinary dispensations were vnheard of in the ancient church.

argument 105 Finally, whether we respect the foundations of popish reli­gion, or the doctrine of the Law and Gospel, or the doctrine and ceremonies concerning sacraments, praiers, and the wor­ship of God, or the gouernment and lawes of the popes cham­ber, chancery and consistory; we may boldly say, that so much as we reiect in this church, is nothing els, but a packe of no­uelties.

CHAP. III. That the papists are no true catholikes, nor holde the catholike faith, if they beleeue the popes decretals, and his schoole diuinitie.

IF false teachers, as they secretly broch erroni­ous doctrine, so would openly manifest their malicious and wicked natures; we should not néed so watchfully to looke to their procéedings, nor so earnestly to exhort all Christians to be­ware of their deceits and entisements, but sée­ing like wolues in shéeps clothing they come abroad with the names of catholiks, and catholike religion, and abuse simple people; I thinke it very necessary to take this maske from [Page 51] their false visages, and to shew, that they are woluish papists, and not Christes shéepe, or true catholiks. the which, that we may with all plainnesse and sincerity performe; we will first declare what is meant by the catholike church, which we pro­fesse in our Creed; and next, what is the catholike faith, which euery Christian is to embrace, and with all constancy to main­teine.

The catholike church therefore, is the vniuersall societie of Gods saints. and it comprehendeth all the faithfull from the beginning, vnto the end of the world. This catholike church, saith S. In Psal. 56. Augustine, is spred thorowout the world, and contei­neth not only those, that now liue, but those also, that are past, and are yet to come.

The catholike faith is the faith of Christ Iesus, which the a­postles first taught, and which all true Christians both haue holden, and do holde, and shall holde to the worlds end. In this catholike church, saith De haeres. c. 3. Vincentius Lirinensis, we are to hold that, which alwaies hath beene beleeued of all Christians. for that is truely and properly catholike. he De haeres. c. 34. teacheth vs also, that the property of catholiks is, to keepe the doctrine committed to them, and left with them by the ancient fathers, and to auoid profane nouelties. finally, he determineth, that those onely are truely and rightly called catholikes, which onely beleeue and holde that, which the catholike church in olde time did vniuer­sally holde. Saint De vera re­lig. c. 5. Augustine doth take catholikes to be no­thing els, but Christians and true beleeuers, which mainteine the sincere faith, and follow that which is right. Apud eos solos, saith he, quaerenda est religio, qui Christiani, catholici, vel or­thodoxi nominantur. he doth also oppose catholikes against heretikes. Epist. 81. ad monach. palaest. & epist. 95. Leo saith also, that there is one true, only, perfect, and inuiolable faith, whereto nothing can be added, and from which nothing can be taken.

If then the papists be hereticks, and no true beléeuers, then are they no catholikes. if they holde a faith grounded vpon pri­uate opinions of men, and not alwaies nor vniuersally holden, then doe they not holde the catholike faith. but that they holde diuers heresies and false opinions, shall be shewed in the chap­ter following. that they hold many new points altogether vn­knowen in ancient time, and when the Gospel began first to [Page 72] be preached, we haue alreadie proued and demonstrated in the last discourse.

That papists hold points of doctrine not catholike. It resteth then now, that I héere declare, that the papists mainteine diuers points of doctrine neuer generally holden of all Christians, nor vniuersally taught in the church of Christ. and that may appeare first by the doctrine of the church of Rome concerning the foundations of Christian religion. next, by the doctrine of that church, that cōcerneth both the law and the Gospell. thirdly, by the faith of the Romish church, concer­ning the sacraments. fourthly, by their faith concerning prai­er and the whole seruice of God. fiftly, by their doctrine con­cerning repentance, ordination of ministers, marriage, almes and fasting. and finally, by their doctrine concerning the church, and the gouernment of it.

argument 1 Concerning the foundations of religion, they teach first, that scriptures are an Bellar. lib. 4. de ver [...]. Dei. c. 12. vnperfect rule of faith, as hath béene decla­red in the chapter going before. and Bish. of Eu­reux. some of them haue not feared to write books, of the insufficiency of scriptures. but the 2. Tim. 3. apostle saith, they are able to make the man of God perfect and wise to saluation. and true catholikes alwaies held the ca­nonicall scriptures to be a perfect rule both for faith and ma­ners. Saint Lib. 2. de doct. Chr. c. 9. Augustine saith, that all things necessarily be­longing to faith or maners, are conteined in plaine places of scriptures.

argument 2 The papists will not allow the scriptures to conteine all that word of God, which we are now to follow, for albeit they do not in expresse termes say so much, yet it is necessarily inferred of their doctrine, where they Bellar. de verb. Dei. teach, that we haue one word of God written, and another vnwritten. and Sess. 4. con­cil. Trid. determine, that we are with equall affection to embrace vnwritten traditi­ons, and the holy scriptures. but the catholike church neuer taught, that after the writings of the prophets and apostles once perfected and published, we had a word of God vnwrit­ten, which is to be placed in equall ranke with the holy scrip­tures. Aduers. gent. Athanasius saith, that the holy and diuine scriptures are sufficient to instruct vs in all trueth. S. In Mich. 1. Hierome calleth the scriptures, the limits or bounds of the catholike church. Non est egressa de finibus suis, saith he, id est, de scripturis sanctis. What, saith Regul. 80. Basil, is the propertie of a faithfull man? forsooth [Page 93] to beleeue with certine fulnesse of minde, whatsoeuer is contei­ned in scriptures, and neither to reiect any part thereof, nor to adde any new thing vnto them. Saint Lib. de para­dis. c. 13. Ambrose saith, we may no more adde to Gods commandements, than take from them. and S. In Ioan. tra­ctat. Augustine, electa sunt quae scriberentur, quae sa­luti credentium sufficere videbantur. that is, those things are chosen out, and thought fit to be written, which séemed to be sufficient for the saluation of the faithful. and albeit the fathers mention traditions, which were sometime vnwritten; yet if they were necessary, they signifie that now they are written. Si aut in euangelio praecipitur, saith In epist. ad Pompeium. Cyprian, aut in apostolo­rum epistolis, aut actibus continetur, obseruetur diuina haec, & sancta traditio. he signifieth, that no tradition is to be admitted, vnlesse it be conteined in scriptures.

argument 3 The papists also teach, that the pope and his Sée is the foundation of the church. est Petri sedes saith In praefat. ante lib. de pontif. Rom. Bellarmine, la­pis probatus, angularis, preciosus, in fundamento fundatus. these words also he applieth to the pope, whom he calleth Christes vicar. in another Lib. 2. depont. Rom. c. 31. place he calleth the Pope, the foun­dation of the church. and Sanders in his Rocke of the church, disputeth that the pope is that rocke. is not then the Romish church a weake building, that in euery vacation is without foundation, and relieth wholly vpon one man? true Catho­likes certes, neuer applied the words of Isay ch. 8 & 28. to the pope, nor thought him to be an approoued stone, or corner stone, or a precious stone laid in the foundation of the church. the 1. Cor. 3. apostle teacheth vs, that no man can lay any other foun­dation, then that which is laid, that is Christ Iesus. and in ano­ther place he Ephes. 2. saith, that the church and citizens of saints are built vpon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Iesus Christ being the chiefe corner stone. with him also consenteth all the company of true catholikes.

argument 4 Stapleton in plaine tearmes denieth the scriptures to be the foundation of his religion. aliud hodie saith he, In praefat. an­te relect. prin­cip. doctrin. Christianae religionis fundamentum habemus. and afterward, ab ipsis li­teris euangelicis & apostolicis aliud. the same In analysi an­te relect. prin­cip. doctrin. man intreating of the sure grounds and principles of Christian religion, doeth leaue the scriptures quite out of the reckoning. but Athanasius in Synopsi, doth call the canonicall Scriptures the anchor, and [Page 94] stay of our faith. Lib. 3. aduers. haeres. c. 1. Irenaeus saith, that the apostles first preached, and afterward deliuered the Gospell in Scriptures, that they might be a foundation and pillar of our faith. the church saith Homil. 6. in Matth. Chrysostome, is Hierusalem, whose foundations are placed vpon the mountaines of the scriptures. and with them doe con­sent all true catholikes, condemning the error of the papists falsely called catholikes.

argument 5 The papists call the scriptures a killing letter, as appeareth by the Remish annotations vpon the 3. chap. of the 2. epistle to the Corinthians. as if God had deliuered his will in wri­ting, to the entent to kill them, that read them. they Annot. Rhe­mens. in Ioan. c. 5. slander them also as if they were darke, and hard to be vnderstood. finally, they disgrace them Ibidem in c. 4. Matth. saying, that the diuell and here­tikes alledge scriptures. others call them a nose of waxe, Inken diuinitie, and matter of strife and contention, and condemne the reading of scriptures, as pernicious and hurtfull. but true catholikes had alwaies a reuerent regard of holy scriptures, as the grounds of faith, and directions of holy life. Lib. 3. aduers. hares. c 2. Irenaeus saith, that it is the property of heretikes, when they are con­uinced by scriptures, to fall into dislike of them, and to accuse them. the papists therefore in this point are rather heretikes, then catholikes.

argument 6 The papists among canonicall scriptures reckon the decre­tales of popes. inter canonicas scripturas decretales epistòlae connumerantur, saith the rubrike dist. 19. c. in canonicis. and this Gratian goeth about to prooue by a place of saint Augu­stine, which he there falsifieth. this also séemeth by Gregory the 13. to be approoued in his edition of the canon law. nei­ther doe I thinke, that any papist will deny, that the popes decretales in matters of faith are to be receiued of all men. but ancient catholikes neuer had the decretals in this estimation, nor thought them to be canonicall scriptures, or grounds of faith, or infallible, as the papists call them. nay Thomas A­quinas, albeit no catholike 2. 2. q. 1. art. 1. confesseth, that the ground of Christian faith, is the first trueth, or God himselfe. and not onely Cyprian tooke exceptions against Cornelius, Ireney a­gainst Victor, the councell of Carthage against Sozimus, but also diuers catholikes against the decretales of diuers popes.

argument 7 The conuenticle of Sess. 4. Trent vnto the canon of scriptures of the olde testament, hath added not onely the books of Tobias, Iudith, Wisdome, Ecclesiasticus and of the Machabeies, but al­so such additions, as are found in the olde latine translation, albeit they be not found in the originall text. and these they place in equall ranke, and degrée with the books of the pro­phets, and apostles: which is contrary to the faith of the ca­tholicke church, as appeareth by the testimony of Hierome in his preface to the prouerbs of Salomon, in his epistle to Pau­linus, and in his generall prologue before the bible, which he calleth prologum galeatum, of Athanasius in synopsi, of Epi­phanius in his booke of waightes and measures, of Melito, of the councell of Laodicea, can 59. of the canons of the apostles. can. 84. and diuers others. neither is it materiall, that Au­gustine lib. 2. de doctr. christ. c. 8. and a certaine councell of Carthage doe reckon the books of Tobias, Iudith, Wisedome, Ecclesiasticus, and the Machabeies among the canonicall scrip­tures. for by canonicall scriptures they vnderstand such books, as by order of the church were read publickely, and commonly ioined together in one booke, and were rather for some part a canon and rule of maners, then of faith. for that may be ga­thered out of the words of Saint Augustine, and the councell, that speake rather of the books, as they were read, then as they were authenticall. Ruffine speaking of these books saith, legi voluerunt in ecclesiis; non tamen proferri ad authoritatem fi­dei ex his confirmandam. Augustine also lib. de ciuit. dei. 18. c. 36. speaking properly of canonicall scriptures excludeth the books of the Machabeies, though some churches receiue them for canonicall. Athanasius in Synopsi accounteth the 3. and 4. of Esdras as canonicall as these books. and Sixtus senensis doth not accounpt them equall to the rest of canonicall scrip­tures. finally no one catholicke writer can be produced, that alloweth the fragments and additions, that in the olde latine interpreter are added to the originall text, to be canonicall scripture. are the papists then catholicks that haue no catho­licke grounds of their faith?

argument 8 Papists allow no interpretations of scriptures against that sense, which the church of Rome holdeth, contra eum sensum, Concil. Trid. sess. 4. quem tenuit, & tenet sancta mater ecclesia. but true catholicks [Page 96] neuer allowed such senses and interpretations, as the church of Rome doth make. as for example the church of Rome be­léeueth, that Christ, when he said to Peter, pasce oues meas: gaue power to the pope to depose princes. Againe, where God saith to Hieremy, chap. 1. ecce constitui te hodie super gentes & regna: Boniface the 8. concludeth, that the pope hath power to iudge all earthly princes. and these words, ecce duo gladij hic: he C. vnam san­ctam. de maior. & obed. expoundeth so, as if the pope had two swords giuen to him. the words, deus fecit duo magna luminaria, the pope interpreteth so, as if the pope were meant by thy sonne and the emperor by the moone, and as if the pope did so farre excell the emperor, as the sonne is greater then the moone. bi­bite ex hoc omnes, they expound thus, drinke not all of this. and these words, scrutamini scripturas, they interpret, as if lay men might not search the scriptures without license of the in­quisitors. infinit such like interpretations the church of Rome hath deuised: but all contrary to the expositions of the fathers and the catholicke church.

argument 9 The conuenticle of Trent doth adiudge the old vulgar latin translation of the bible to be authenticall, and preferreth it before the originall text. but catholicks haue alwaies prefer­red the originall text before the latin translation. Saint In Epist. ad Suniam & Fretel. & ad Damasum. Hie­rome saith, that in the olde testament in matters of doubt con­cerning the translation, we must haue recourse to the Hebrew, as to the fountaine; and in the new to the Greeke. ad exempla­ria Hebrea & Graeca à latinis recurratur, saith Lib. 2. de doctr. Chr. c. 10. Augustine. Hi­lary also writing vpon the 118. psalme confesseth, that the latin translation cannot satisfie the reader.

argument 10 The Romanists C. ad abolen­dam. de haeret. adiudge all to be hereticks, which teach and hold otherwise of the sacraments, then the church of Rome determineth, and holdeth. and commonly they con­demne all, that receiue not the popes determinations concer­ning faith. but catholiks make the doctrine of Christ to be the squire of our faith. Our Matth. 28. Sauiour Christ gaue his apostles in charge, to teach what he had commanded them. the apostle likewise pronounceth him accursed, that should teach other­wise, than the Galatians had receiueth. So it appereth, that not those that taught other doctrine, than the bishops of Rome, but such as taught contrary to the apostles doctrine, yea albeit [Page 97] they were bishops of Rome, were condemned and accursed.

argument 11 The Romanists doe aswell build their faith vpon Conc [...]l. Trid. sess. 4. vnwrit­ten traditions, as the written word of God. so the papists must aswell receiue the traditions of the legends as the holie scriptures, & aswell must they beléeue the wounds of S. Fran­cis, as Christ his passion; and the miracles of S. Dominike, and other braue Romish saints, as the miracles of Christ and his apostles. for these as they holde, are traditions: and the wounds of S. Francis are confirmed by diuers decretales of popes. To this effect writeth C. sancta. dist. 15. Gelasius, and saith, Gesta san­ctorum martyrum recipimus. but true catholikes haue more certeine grounds of their faith, and would be much ashamed to beléeue such fables. nay, some of the papists haue much mis­liked these fabulous legends, as may appeare by the testimony of Dante an Italian poet, Cant. 29. and Laurence Valla in his treatise contra Donationem Constantini.

argument 12 The papists allow the legends of S. George, S. Christopher, S. Catherine, Abgarus, of the inuention of the crosse, of S. Iohn Baptists head, and diuers such like, as conteining olde traditi­ons. but true catholikes will not allow any such fables to be read in the church. nay, Gratian himselfe vnder the name of C. Sancta. dist. 15. Gelasius, doth condemne the legend of George, of Cyricus and Iulitta, Abgarus, of the inuention of the crosse, and such like.

argument 13 Alij nunc à Christo, saith In praefat. in relect. princip. doctrin. Stapleton, eorúmue doctrina, praedicatio, determinatio fundamenti apud me locum habe­bunt. that is, others beside Christ, together with their doctrine, preaching and determination, shall be accounted of me, as a foundation. The rest also beléeuing, that the popes can not erre in their determinations concerning faith, must néeds rest vpon them, as the foundation of their faith. but true catholiks build their saith onely vpon Christ, and his doctrine deliuered by the apostles and prophets.

argument 14 The church of God, and all true catholikes kéepe the doc­trine of the apostles, and holy fathers without addition and al­teration, and auoid all prophane nouelties. The Galat. 1. apostle pro­nounceth him accursed, that teacheth any other Gospel, than that which he had taught. Catholicorum hoc ferè proprium, saith Aduers. ha­res. c. 34. Vincentius, deposita sanctorum patrum & commissa ser­uare, damnare prophanas nouitates, & sicut dixit, & iterum dixit [Page 98] apostolus, si quis annunciauerit praeterquam quod acceptum est, anathematizare. If then the church of Rome and papists haue altered the apostolike and ancient fathers faith, and haue added diuers points of new doctrine vnto it, as I haue verified in the chapter going before; he doth greatly wrong the catholike faith, which calleth them catholikes.

argument 15 True catholikes beléeue in God onely. Faith, saith the Rom. 10. a­postle, is by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. De diuin. non. inib. c. 7. Dio­nyse saith, that faith hath for his obiect, the most pure, and euer being trueth. and euery catholike rehearsing his beliefe, saith, he beleeueth in God the Father, God the Sonne, and God the Holy Ghost. but the papists after a sort beléeue in the virgine Mary, in angels, and saints, and pray and confesse their sinnes vnto them. for if they beléeue not in them, how doe they call vpon them, séeing the Rom. 10. apostle saith, how shall they call on him, on whom they haue not beleeued? and why doe they confesse their sinnes vnto them, if they beléeue not, that they do vnder­stand the secrets of their hearts, and know that their confession is sincere and true? if they doe not beléeue in saints, yet I hope they will not denie, that they beléeue the determinations of the pope, and of the Romish church. In o [...]usc. con­tra errores Gracorum. Thomas Aquinas saith, it is a matter of faith to beleeue the determination of the pope. ad fidem pertinct, saith he, inhaerere determinationi pontificis fummi in his, quae sunt fidei, imò & in his, quae spectāt ad bonos mores. with him also concurreth Summa Sil­uest. in verb. fides. Siluester Prierius. He saith also further, that we are to beleeue whatsoeuer is taught by the church of Rome. Ad fidem pertinent omnia, saith he, quae sunt in doctrina ecclesiae.

argument 16 True catholiks beléeue, that Christ Iesus, as he was true God, so was he also true man, and had a body like to ours in height, bredth, and thickenesse, and that he filled the place, where his body was, as do our bodies. We must beleeue, saith S. De essentia diuinitatis. Augustine, that the Sonne of God according to his Deitie is inuisible, incorporeall, and incircumscriptible, but according to his humane nature, that he is visible, corporeall and locall. Contr. Euty­chem lib. 4. c. 4. Vigilius saith, that Christ is conteined in a place according to his humane nature, and that this is the catholike faith. Illud corpus, saith Dialog. 2. Theodoret, habet priorem formam, & figuram & circumscriptionem, & vt semel dicam, corporis substantiam. [Page 99] so likewise saith Ad Thrasy­mund. lib. 2. c. 5. Fulgentius, Si verum est corpus Christi, loco potest vti (que) contineri. If then the papists doe assigne to Christ such a body, as is neither visible, nor palpable, nor circum­scriptible in the sacrament, nor hath the dimensions of height, bredth, and depth, such as a mans body by nature hath; nor is continued to it selfe, as all bodies are, but wanteth all the pro­perties of a true bodie; then are the papists neither catholikes nor Christians. for how can they be either, that erre in things so materiall?

argument 17 Euery catholike Christian beléeueth, that our sauior Christs true body is ascended into heauen, and that he there remai­neth, and shall remaine, vntill his comming againe. he Iohn 16. told his disciples before his passion, that he must leaue the world, and goe to the father. he saith also in another Iohn 12. place, that they should not alwaies haue him with them. In the first of the Acts we reade, that his body was taken vp into heauen. the a­postle Peter also Act. 3. declareth, that the heauens must con­teine him, vntill the time, that all things be restored. and this the ancient fathers, which the aduersaries will not denie to haue béene good catholikes doe cléerely expresse. according to his diuine nature saith Tractat. 33. in Matth. Origen, he is not absent from vs, but he is absent according to the dispensation of his body, which he tooke. Saint Lib. 10. in Luc. 24. Ambrose saith, that we are not to seeke Christ either on the earth, or in the earth, or after the flesh, if we meane to finde him. Saint Tractat. 50. in Ioan. Augustine saith, he hath caried his body into heauē, although he hath not withdrawne his maiesty from the world. Homil. 21. in euangel. Gregory the first also doeth plainely affirme, that Christ is not heere on earth according to the presence of his flesh. the flesh of Christ saith Lib. 4. contr. Eutych. Vigilius writing against Eu­tyches, when it was on earth, surely was not in heauen, and now because it is in heauen, certeinly it is not on earth. neither did euer any catholike father teach otherwise. are the papists then catholikes, trow you, that contrary to the catholike fa­thers, and catholike faith, teach, that Christes true bodie is both in heauen, and in earth, and vpon euery altar at one time? and doe you call them catholikes, that affime that Christs true body properly may not onely be touched, and re­ceiued into mens mouthes, but also deuoured of dogges, and mise, and other beasts, that eate consecrated hostes?

argument 18 All true catholikes firmely beléeue, that their sinnes are forgiuen them for Christes sake, and that they shall obteine eternall life according to these two articles of the Créed, I beleeue the remission of sinnes, and life euerlasting. for as the apostle saith, Heb. 6. God hath promised and sworne, that we should haue firme comfort. and saint 1 Iohn 5. Iohn saith: these things I write vnto you, that beleeue, in the name of God, that you may know, that you haue eternall life. and whosoeuer belée­ueth not this, as Ibidem. he testified, maketh God a liar. The apostle Rom. 5. Paule saith, that he that is iustified by faith, hath peace with God. but what peace can we haue, vnlesse we beléeue that our sinnes are forgiuen, and that assuredly we shall obteine eternall life? the sacraments also, that are deliuered to euerie Christian are seales of remission of sinnes, and of the promise of eternall life. for by Baptisme we put on Christ, that is, we are made members of his body, and partakers of his merits. and in the Lords supper, our Sauiour teacheth vs, that the cup is the new Testament in his blood, and that Christs body was broken for euery one, that is a woorthy receiuer. this doctrine is also confirmed by the examples of Abraham and the apostle Paule. of Abraham we Rom. 4. reade, that he doubted not of the promise of God: and that the same was imputed to him for righteousnesse. the apostle Rom. 8. saith, that he was perswa­ded, that nothing should separate him from the loue of God. and this assurance of remission of sinnes and eternall life the catholike fathers teach vs. Si iustus es, & fide viuis, saith Serm. 4. de mortalit. Cy­prian, si verè in Christum credis; cur non cum Christo futurus, & de domini pollicitatione securus, amplecteris? Ibidem. againe he saith, that we are not to wauer, or doubt, for that God hath promised vs immortality. Saint Serm. 2 [...]. de verb. dom. Augustine writing vpon these words, thy sinnes are forgiuen thee: saith, it is faith, and not pride, to acknowledge what we haue receiued. Serm. 2. de anno [...]. Bernard saith, that we haue no promise, but by Gods fauour, and that the spirit of God worketh this in vs, that we beleeue remission of sinnes. and this doe all true catholikes beléeue. how then can the papists be catholikes, that will haue men onely to hope for remission of sinnes, and eternall life, and that not without doubting? or what are we to hope of the Sess. 6. doctors of Trent, that prouounce them accursed, that shall say, that a man must [Page 101] certeinly beleeue, that his sinnes are forgiuen him? finally how shall we beléeue, that those are true beléeuers, that teach Chri­stians not to beleeue remission of sinnes, or eternall life, but to doubt of both.

argument 19 All true catholikes beléeue, that the faithfull presently vpon their departure out of this life, are happy, and enter into ioies, that neuer shall haue end, as the wicked and vnbeléeuers are presently to enter into euerlasting fire, and begin to suffer end­lesse paines. these shall goe into euerlasting paine, and the righ­teous shall presently possesse the kingdome of heauen prepared for them, as may appeare by the sentence of our sauior Matth. 25. the Rom. 8. apostle doth also plainly testifie, that there is no con­demnation to those, that are in Christ Iesus. the spirit of God doth likewise Apocal. 14. pronounce them blessed, that die in the Lord. and the reason is added, for that they rest from their labours. and this likewise is the faith of the catholicke fathers. Ecclesiast. hi­erarch. c. 7. Dio­nyse saith, that the godly when they come to the end of their liues, shall rest in Abrahams bosome: and signifieth, that there shall be no griefe nor sadnesse nor sighing. Quaest. 75. Iustine Martyr holdeth, that the soules of good men shall presently be caried into paradise. both Lib. 1. aduers. haeres. c. 2. Irenaeus and Serm. de mor­talit. Cyprian likewise make onely two sorts of soules departed, whereof the first are in blisse, the second in paines and endlesse misery. and that is al­so confirmed by the confession of our aduersaries in the ca­non of the masse, where they pray for those, that sleepe in a sleepe of peace. but the papists teach, that all that haue not satisfied here for temporall punishments must be plonged in the vnspeakable paines of purgatory, and so after a time passe to heauen.

argument 20 All catholicks beléeue, that Christ hath reconciled vs to his father, and that he hath satisfied for our sinnes fully and per­fectly. the Isay. 53. prophet saith, that we are healed by his stripes. ipse volneratus est saith he, propter iniquitates nostras, attritus est propter scelera nostra, disciplina pacis nostrae super eum. we may therefore well accounpt them no catholicks, that Bellar. lib. 1. de purgat. teach, that Christians are to satisfie for the temporall punnishment of their owne sinnes either here or in purgatory: the which is no where deliuered by the fathers of the church.

argument 21 True catholicks neuer made the image of God the father [Page 102] or the holy ghost. nor did euer the godly fathers how downe to grauen images or worship them. the Exod. 20. commandement of God is direct against such images. thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen image, &c. thou shalt not bow downe vnto it, nor worship it. Lib. 2. insti­tut. c. 19. Lactantius saith, that there is no religion, where grauen images are. religio nulla est, vbîcunque simulachrum est. The papists therefore, that make the images of God, and worship them, are no catholicks, nor haue any good religion. neither can it auaile them, that they say, they worship not the matter of the image. for so did the gentils answere in ex­cuse of their idolatry, as testifieth Institut. lib. 2. c. 2. Lactantius.

argument 22 True catholicks beléeue, that by the law we know sinne, and that 1. Iohn 5. all vnrighteousnesse is sinne, and thirdly that Deut. 27. & Galat. 3. he is accursed, that abideth not in all things, that are written in the booke of the law to doe them. if then the papists teach, that all is not sinne, that is repugnant to Gods law, as the Iebusits doe in the censure of Coleine fol. 26. and as others doe, that it is not sinne in this world, not to loue God withall our heart, and all our soule, which is commanded by the law of God; then are they no catholicks.

argument 23 Catholicks holde, that we haue but one lawgiuer and iudge, that is able to destroy and to saue. vnus est legislator, & index saith Saint Iacob. 4. Iames, qui potest perdere & liberare. that the transgression of the popes lawes, is sufficient to condemn vs, and the obseruance of them to iustifie vs, as papists holde, was neuer generally taught or holden.

argument 24 Catholicks holde, that Gods law is perfect, and that no­thing is sinne, but that, which is repugnant to the law of God. but papists beléeue, that it is sinne, not onely to neglect the precepts of the church, as they are called, but also the lawes and decretales of popes, as appeareth by the enchiridion of Nauarrus, and other books of cases of conscience.

argument 25 The law of God Exod. 20. saith directly, Thou shalt not couet. and catholikes doe expound this law so, that it bindeth the regene­rat, aswel as y^e vnregenerat; as appeareth by the words of the apostle, Rom. 7. I should not haue knowen sinne, saith he, but by the law. for I knew not concupiscence, but because the law said, Thou shalt not couet. and this sinne he confesseth to be mortall, Who, saith he, shall deliuer me from the body of this [Page 103] death? S. Lib. 2. contr. Faustum Ma­nich. c. 27. Augustine also teacheth, that whatsoeuer is desired or coueted against the law, is sinne. and very absurd it is, to surmise that baptisme should sanctifie concupiscence, and of sinne in the vnregenerate to make no sinne. The conuenticle of Trent therefore, that Sess. 5. determineth, that concupiscence in the regenerate is not sinne, and all adherents vnto it, are no ca­tholikes.

argument 26 The scriptures teach vs, that euen the iust man falleth se­uen times a day, and as the apostle saint Iames saith, that we offend all in many things. our Sauiour Christ taught his apo­stles to pray for remission of sinnes, and to confesse, when they had done all they could, that they were notwithstanding vnprofitable seruants. so likewise teach catholike fathers. Saint Lib. 1. aduers. Pelag. Hierome saith, that then we are iust, when we confesse our sinnes. and saint De spirit. & lit. Augustine signifieth, that in the frailtie of this life we can not perfectly performe Gods law. we shall then saith he, performe the law of God, with all our soule, and all our heart, and loue our neighbour as our selfe, when we shal see God face to face. the papists therefore that teach, first that the regenerate are able to performe the law of God perfectly, and secondly, that they are also able to performe more then is commanded, and to doe works of supererogation, are no ca­tholikes: nor shall they euer be able to prooue, that this doc­trine of theirs was generally holden by the fathers, and by all Christians, or by any man of note.

argument 27 The apostle teacheth vs, that the law is the minister of death, and Lib. 3. aduers. haeres. c. 20. Irenaeus affirmeth, that the law being spirituall doth one­ly manifest sinne, and not kill it. the papists therefore that hold, that all our life and saluation doeth consist in the law, as ap­peareth by the censure of Coleyn, are no catholikes.

argument 28 The councell of Sess. 6. c. 10. Trent condemneth those that say, they are iustified formally by Christes iustice: and their meaning is, that we are formally iustified by charity, and by the works of the law. but the catholike church teacheth vs farre otherwise. no flesh faith the Galat. 2. apostle, is iustified by the works of the law. he denieth also, that Rom. 4. Abraham was iustified by the works of the law. and saint Lib. 1. aduers. Pelag. Hierome saith, that our iustice doeth not con­sist in our merits, but in the mercy of God. this also is prooued by an inuincible reason, for that none are iustified by the law, [Page 104] but such as performe the law, and are not to be accused of sinne by the law. but if our aduersaries will say, that all that shall be saued are such, they will bring the number of them, into a small compasse. for as De inter pellat. Dauid. Ambrose saith, Dauid doeth acknow­ledge his sinne, and Paule doeth acknowledge himselfe guiltie. who is then innocent?

argument 29 The apostle Rom. 5. teacheth vs, that through the offence of one all men were subiect to condemnation. and that is the doctrine of all catholikes. but the Bellar. lib. 4. de amissi. grat. c. 15. papists exempt the holy virgine Mary from originall sinne, as appeareth by the determination of Sixtus 4. and conuenticles of Trent doctrine, sess. 5. some of them also hold, that the prophet Heremy, and saint Iohn Bap­tist were sanctified from this sinne, and so borne without origi­nall sinne, at the least.

argument 30 Catholikes hold, that original sinne is a great sinne, as infec­ting all by ordinary course descending from Adam, & excluding them out of the kingdome of heauen, and which could not be purged, but by Christes passion. but the papists hold, that it is the least of all sinnes, as hauing the least force of our frée­will, and that it deserueth not sensible paines in hell. which in effect is as much, as if they should deny, that all men sin­ned originally in Adam, or néeded to be saued from sensible paines by Christ.

argument 31 The Th. Aquin. & dd. in 2. sent. dist. 33. & Bel­lar. de amis. grat. lib. 6. c. 4. papists also teach, that children departing without baptisme, and with originall sinne onely, shall not be punished with hell fire, nor with sensible paines. as if at the last iudge­ment all that stand on the left hand, as it is written in the 25. chap. of saint Matth. shall not by the sentence of the iudge, be adiudged to euerlasting fire or as if that sinne, that brought condemnation vpon all, should not be punished with sensible paines: or as if there might be a place in hell without sensible paines; or finally, as if there were a middle state betwixt, heauen and hell fire. Saint Lib. 1. de orig. animae c. 9. Augustine certes saith, there is no middle place betweene the kingdome of heauen, and the place of the damned. Lib. de fide. c. 3. Fulgentius likewise doeth plainely af­firme, that children dying without baptisme shall susteine end­lesse punishments. and Lib. 8. moral. c. 16. Gregory the first holdeth, that such shall endure the perpetuall torments of hell.

argument 32 Martin ab Aspilcueta in his Enchiridion, writing vpon the [Page 105] first precept of the law, chap. 11. saith, that it is mortall sinne for a lay man to dispute of matters of faith. but catholikes doe not acknowledge any such matter to be mortall sinne.

argument 33 The papists teach, that men haue grace conferred on them by their owne acts, ex opere operato, and that they are iustified ex opere operato by the sacraments of the new law; whereup­on it followeth, that by the signe of the crosse in confirmation, by orders, matrimony, and extreme vnction men receiue cha­ritie (for that is the grace they speake of) and are iustified ex­opere operato. for this doeth Bellarmine dispute, lib. 2. de effectu sacrament. cap. 3. and 14. and other chapters follow­ing. which doctrine if they doe prooue; then ex opere operato, let him take the grace of the popedome. if he doe not prooue, he must néedes confesse, that the doctrine of papists is not catho­like.

argument 34 The Iebusites in the censure of Colein teach, that the rege­nerat after baptisme haue no sinne, and it followeth necessarily of their doctrine of iustification by the works of the law. for by them a man can not be both vniust and iust at one time. but the cathotike faith is otherwise. S. Iohn saith, that they de­ceiue themselues, that say they haue no sinne. and other scrip­tures signify, Prouerb. 20. that no man can say, his hart is cleane. neither is this to be vnderstood of veniall sinnes, which the papists say, may be done away without repentance. for S. Lib. 2. aduers. Pelagian. Hierome saith, that the most iust man, in some things standeth in need of Gods mercy. and it is apparent, for that euery man transgres­sing the law of God, which is the case of all men, maketh him­selfe subiect to the curse of the law, and to the wrath of God.

argument 35 Papists teach, that some sinnes are done away with holy wa­ter, and without repentance; and deserue not death. but no ca­tholike euer taught, or thought so. for the apostle teacheth vs, that by Christes blood we are purged, and that wée are made partakers of remission of sinnes by faith. In the sixt to the Rom. he declareth, that the wages of sinne is death. and Galat. 3. that such as transgresse Gods law, are accursed by the sentence of the law.

argument 36 They Censur. Colon. f. 204. teach also, that this is the proper doctrine of the Go­spel, if thou wilt enter into life, keepe the commandements. but catholikes know, that those that so teach, confound law and [Page 106] gospel, and ouerthrow the doctrine of the apostles. for he Rom. 1. tea­cheth, that the gospel is the power of God to saluation to euery one that beleeueth. their doctrine doth take from vs all hope of saluation. for how can we hope to be saued by the gospel, if that promise life to none, but such as perfectly fulfil Gods com­mandements?

argument 37 They doe also much derogate from the gospell of Christ Ie­sus, where they teach, that the rules of Benet of Nursia, Fran­cis, Dominike, Ignatius Loyola, and diuers other founders of monkish and frierlike orders, doe shew vs the way to perfecti­on; and holde not, that the gospel of Christ Iesus is sufficient of it selfe to do it. true catholikes certes neuer mainteined any such fantasies, nor allowed any such order. which may also ap­peare by this, that all these orders of monkes and friers haue their approbation and allowance from the popes of Rome.

argument 38 Of saith they speake, thinke, and write very basely. for they holde first, that faith is onely a bare assent, and requireth neither firme hope, nor holinesse of life, to make it truely Christian. secondly, that not onely wicked men, but also the diuels of hell may haue true faith. thirdly, that faith is not only grounded vp­on holy canonicall scriptures, but also vpon traditions and de­terminations of the pope. which if they firmly holde and vary not, then must they confesse, that we are no lesse to giue credit to lousie legends, and lying and erronious decretals of popes, than to the eternall word of God. But true catholikes haue alwaies beléeued otherwise. The apostle Rom. 1. saith, that the iust shall liue by faith. and the church beléeueth, that Iohn 3. whosoeuer beleeueth in Christ, shall not perish, but haue euerlasting life. and Rom. 5. that being iustified by faith, wee haue peace with God. further, the apostle Rom. 10. teacheth, that faith commeth by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. but there is great difference betwixt the word of God, and traditions of men; betwixt the infallible trueth of Gods word, and the deceiuable doctrine of popes decretals.

argument 39 They teach, that charity is the forme of faith. but catholiks haue alwaies taken this doctrine to be erronious. for how can one vertue be the forme of another? againe, séeing matter and forme be parts in natural bodies, is it not absurd to apply these words to qualities, that rather resemble forme than matter: [Page 107] thirdly, if iustifying faith were alwaies formed with charitie, then could not faith worke of it selfe. for it is the forme, from whence actions procéed, and not matter. but the apostle Rom. 1. saith, that the iust liue by faith. and Ephes. 2. that wee are saued by grace through faith. hereupon Lib. 2. epist. 3. Cyprian saith, that whosoeuer doth beleeue in God, and liue by faith, he is found to be iust.

argument 40 They Bellar. lib. 1. de fid. c. 13. attribute our first iustice to faith, and other prepara­tions, as for example, feare, hope, loue, repentance, a purpose of new life, and such like: but the principall forme and beauty of our iustice, they place in charitie, and works of the law. and that they call our second iustice. but true catholikes doe other­wise thinke and speake of iustice. The 1. Cor. 1. apostle saith, that our Sauiour Christ is made iustification vnto vs, and Rom. 3. & Gal. 2. & 3. that we are not iustified by the workes of the law. the prophet also doeth shew, that our righteousnesse is like a defiled cloth of an vn­cleane woman. neither can this distinction of first and second iustice, or that wicked doctrine, that followeth of it, be found in all the fathers.

argument 41 In the sacraments also most fouly they haue digressed from the catholicke saith Apolog. ad Antonin. Iustin Martyr where he hath occasion to describe the sacraments, and rites of the first church, doth onely mention two sacraments. this number also may be prooued by the testimony of Ireney, Dionysius, Tertullian lib. 1. & 4. contr. Marcionem, Ambroses books of sacraments, Cyrilles catechisticall instructions, and all the fathers, that in no place mention 7. sacraments, nor compare any rite or sacrament to baptisme and the Lords supper. Pauca pro multis saith Lib. 3. de doctr. Christ. c. 9. Augustine, eademque factu facillima, & intellectu augustis­sima, & conseruatione castissima ipse dominus, & apostolica tradidit disciplina, sicut est baptismi sacramentum, & celebratio corporis & sanguinis domini. and this may be proued also by the weake dispute of Bellarmine, for his 7. sacraments, who is not able to bring either good argument, or testimony for his opinion.

argument 42 The councell of Sess. 6. c. 1. Trent doth anathematize all that hold, that the 7. sacraments of the Romish church were not all in­stituted by Christ Iesus, or that there are either more or lesse, then iust 7 which doctrine, if Robert Parsons can proue to be catholicke, let him take a cardinals hat, which he hath so [Page 108] long desired, for his labour. his friends doe much doubt of his good successe in this matter. for they finde, that matrimony was instituted in paradise, and that repentance hath alwaies béene in the church. priesthood was either established by the law of Moyses, or else then by lawes and rites adorned. confirmation, and extreme vnction were neither instituted by Christ, nor déemed necessary or ordinany rites by the church: as the silence of fathers, that speake of the sacraments of the church may teach vs.

argument 43 In the sacrament of baptisme the papists vse exorcismes, blowings, salt, spitle, hallowed water, anointings, light, and diuers ceremonies, neither vsed by the apostles, nor practised by the ancient church. now in the C. Benedict. fontis. missales they pray, that the font may be sanctified, and made fruitfull with the oile of saluation, to those that shall be regenerate by it to life. then the priest powreth in oile and chrisme in forme of the crosse. they also sprincle all the assistants with holy water out of the font, and none of all these ceremonies, they Sess. 7. c. 13. concil. Trid. say, may be omitted without sinne. if then Robert Parsons cannot proue these ce­remonies to haue bene either ancient, or generally vsed; he cannot deny, but the papists are no catholicks.

argument 44 They denounce them acursed, that shall not hold baptisme to be necessary to saluation: which curse and doctrine cannot be sound in ancient catholicke fathers. nay we read in ancient writers, that not the want, but the contempt of baptisme con­demneth. and the Bellar. lib. 1. de baptis. c. 6. papists to mollifie this hard sentence, haue found diuers meanes to supply baptisme.

argument 45 They dissolue mariage contracted by entring into mon­kish religion, although both the parties consent not. and after mariage consummated, they holde, that maried couples may depart asunder, and that it shall not be lawfull for them after­ward, as man and wife, to company together. which doctrine is neither catholicke, nor true. for Matth. 19. what man can seperate them, whom God hath ioined together? againe what reason haue maried couples kéeping asunder for exercise of deuotion, not to come together againe, séeing the apostle commandeth such to returne and cohabite together, least Satan should tempt them? Iterum 1. Cor. 7. saith he, reuertimini in idipsum, ne ten­tet vos Satanas.

argument 46 They seperate also mariages for spirituall kinred, and force priests, monks and friers to forsweare mariage. yet can they not shew, that catholicke religion forbiddeth spirituall gossips to entermary, nor that monkish vowes and abiurations of mariages haue bene allowed in the ancient church, and by ca­tholicke doctors. nay where God Leuit. 18. appointeth limits and degrées, within which it is not lawfull to marry, there is no signification, that spirituall gossips are forbidden to entermar­ry. and the apostle signifieth, that mariage is honorable among all sorts of men, and the bed of maried folks vndefiled. happie were popish priests and votaries, if they were able to say, that their beds, and bodies were vndefiled.

argument 47 They beléeue, that penance standeth vpon contrition, con­fession, and satisfaction, and that these thrée are the parts of it. and yet themselues say, that absolution is the forme of pe­nance, and that confession is not alwaies necessary. the catho­licke church certes did neuer thinke either auricular confession, or publicke satisfaction inioined by priests to be required ne­cessarily in repentance.

argument 48 They Sess. 14. con­cil. Trid. pronounce him anathema, that beléeueth not, that penance is properly a sacrament of the new law; or that deni­eth auricular confession in the priests eares, to haue béene in­stituted by Christ in the new testament. and yet are they not able to shew, that any catholike father saith, that our Saui­our Christ in the new testament did institute the act of repen­tance; nor can they denie, that the people of God vnder the law vsed to repent themselues of their sinnes; nor can they shew any place, where Christians were commanded to con­fesse their sinnes to the priest, and were otherwise excluded from all hope of pardon. nay they cannot shew, that any was tied to confession in the Romish church before Innocents de­cretale beginning, omnis vtriusque sexus. de poenit. & remiss. and in the Gréeke church there was neuer any such course established. as for the power, which monkes and friers claim in hearing of confessions, that dependeth wholly vpon the popes grant, beneuolence, and authority.

argument 49 They Concil. Trid. sess. 13. c. 1. teach, that our Sauiour Christes body, that was borne of the virgine Mary, and crucified on the crosse, is pro­perly and substantially present vnder the accidents of bread, [Page 110] and likewise that his blood is conteined really and properly vnder the accidents of wine, as may be séene in the acts of the conuenticle of Trent. but true catholikes beléeue, that his bo­dy is M [...]. vlt. & act. 1. taken vp into heauen, and that concerning his bodily presence he hath left the earth, and that his blood is in the veines of his body, and not properly shedde foorth in the cha­lice further they know, that when we are commanded to eat Christes flesh, and to drinke his blood, we are to vn­derstand, it and to doe it spiritually, and not carnally, as doe the Canibales; and that Christ, when he said, this is my bo­dy, and this is my blood, gaue a sacrament of his bodie and blood, and not that body, that sat at the table, nor the blood, that was in the veines of his body. Lib. 4. contr. Marcion. Tertullian saith, that Christ made the bread, which was deliuered to his disciples his body, by saying this is my body, that is, the figure of my body. and likewise saint Contra Adi­mantum c. 12. Augustine affirmeth, that Christ doubted not to say, this is my body, when he gaue a signe of his bodie. and that this is the catholike faith concerning this sacrament, I haue at large declared in a treatise of the reall presence, of late published against Bellarmine: which Robert Parsons may doe well to take notice of.

argument 50 They anathematise all those, that shall affirme, that the substance of bread and wine remaineth in the sacrament af­ter consecration, Concil. Trid. sess. 13. and that shall dare to deny transubstantia­tion. which curse lighteth not on vs onely, but vpon the a­postle saint Paule, who after the words of consecration spea­king of the sacrament, saieth, let a man examine himselfe, and so eat of this bread, and drinke of this cup. it falleth also vpon all true catholikes, that according to our Sauiours wordes, shall call the cup being consecrate, genimen vitis. Aduers. Iudaeos. Tertullian saith, that Christ called bread his body. Saint Hierome in a certeine epistle to Hedibia saith, that the bread, which the Lord brake, and gaue to his disciples, is the Lords body. this is also saint Augustines iudgement. c. qui manducant. de conse­ctat. dist. 2. and Theodorets in his first dialogue, and diuers others, that affirme, that the pronoune, Hoc, in these words hoc est corpus meum, doth demonstrate the bread, finally vn­lesse the papists grant, that the bread remaineth in the sacra­ment after consecration, they must néedes grant, that Christ [Page 111] hath a body impalpable, inuisible, and that may be in all al­tars at once, and yet filleth no place, and such a body, as ne­uer man had before, nor euer shall haue héereafter.

argument 51 Sess. 13. con­cil. Trid. c. 5. They anathematise those, that shall affirme, that the prin­cipal fruite of the eucharist is remission of sinnes. which falleth vpon all catholikes, that shall beléeue these words of Matth. 26. Christ: this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for remission of sinnes.

argument 52 They do also bitterly curse all such, as shall say, that Christs body in the sacrament is not to be worshipped, Concil. Trid. sess. 13. c. 6. with diuine ho­nour, or that shall condemne the feast of corpus Christi, or the popish fashion in carying about the sacrament. and yet neuer true catholike did so worship, or cary about the sacrament, as papists doe. our Sauiour said, take eat; and not, fall downe, and worship, or cary about this sacrament, or put it in a pixe. the disciples they did also, as our Sauiour Christ comman­ded. and the ancient church, as appeareth by all the ancient liturgies, did communicate, and not worship the sacrament, as their Lord and God, according to the stile of the Roma­nists.

argument 53 Ibid. c. 8. They doe anathematize all them, that hold, that Christ is receiued in the sacrament spiritually, and not otherwise. which toucheth saint Augustine and all catholikes. he Tract. 25. in Ioan. saith, vt quid paras dentem? the rest say, that Christs flesh is meat of the soule, and not of the body; cibus mentis, & non ventris.

argument 54 They do also Sess. 22. anathematise such, as deny the body & blood of Christ to be really and properly offered vp in the masse, for an externall and propitiatory sacrifice for quicke and dead, and say, that the eucharist is a memoriall of Christes sacrifice on the crosse. but the apostle Heb. 7. & 10. teacheth vs, that Christ his sacrifice was to be offered vp but once, and that he left no successours behinde him to offer this sacrifice. De demonstr. euangel. lib. 1. Eusebius also saith, that our sacrifice is the memoriall of Christ his sacrifice. and this also Chrysostome vpon the epistle to the Hebrewes cléerely demonstrateth.

argument 55 They do offer sacrifice for the dead, and in honor of the vir­gine Mary and of saints. likewise do they offer Christs body, as they say, for faire weather, for peace, and what they please. but this shall not Robert Parsons be euer able to shew, to haue [Page 112] béene practised by catholikes. nay, of such deuices there is not any signe, or suspicion in ancient liturgies; but of the contrary rather.

argument 56 Ancient catholikes resorting to church, Can. apost. 9. & 10. departed not be­fore they receiued the communion. but now the priest eateth and drinketh all, and sendeth away Gods people emptie.

argument 57 Christ instituted the sacrament of the Lords supper in both kinds, and so Christians receiued it in ancient time, as the do­ctors assembled at Constance confesse; and yet they decrée, that beside the priest that doth minister, all the rest shall content themselues with one kinde.

argument 58 Catholikes do not beléeue, that priests administring the sa­crament worke woonders. but the papists beléeue that they worke diuers miracles, making one body to be in many pla­ces, and accidents to subsist without subiect, and an humane body to be in a place without filling the place of a body.

argument 59 The Hebr. 5. & 7. apostle telleth vs, that Christ onely is a priest accor­ding to the order of Melchisedech: and this all catholikes be­léeue. but papists beléeue, that euery greasie and polshorne priest is a priest after the order of Melchisedech; yea, although, as they suppose, he offereth neither bread nor wine, as did Melchisedech.

argument 60 Christ taught vs, to pray to the father in his name, and so did all true catholikes in ancient time, but now papists pray to Christ in the name of our Lady, and of saints, as if we were not to approch to our Mediatour without the mediation of o­thers. to the virgine Mary they pray thus, In breuiar. Aue maris stella, Dei mater alma, at (que) semper virgo, foelix coeli porta, solue vin­cla reis, profer lumen caecis. in the Romish breuiary they call her, dulcem amicam Dei. in the missal of Sarum: per te mater, say they, aboleri filiorum flagitamus crimina, nós (que) omnes in­troduci in sempiterna paradisi gaudia. as if the holy virgine had power to remit sinnes, and were the gate, by which we en­ter into heauen.

argument 61 Catholikes neuer vsed to bow themselues before stocks or stones, or to pray before them. are they then catholiks, which like to the Hierem. 2. idolatrous Iewes, say to a stocke, thou art my fa­ther, and to a stone, thou hast begotten me? which set light be­fore those that can not sée, and crie before those that can not [Page 113] heare, and say In offic. beat. Mariae. to a woodden crosse, increase in the godly, righ­teousnesse, and pardon sinners: and also, crux Christi protege me, crux Christi defende me ab omni malo? and which before the printed face, which they call Volto santo, pray thus, Salue sancta facies impresta panniculo, nos ab omni macula purga vi­tiorum, at (que) nos consortio iunge beatorum?

argument 62 Catholikes beléeue, that their sacrifices of praise are accep­ted through Christ. but papists beléeue, that Christes bodie is accepted through the mediation of the priest, and of saints. the priest in the canon beséecheth God, to looke fauourably vpon the body and blood of Christ. Supra quae, saith he, propitio ac sereno vultu respicere digneris. and in the missal of Sarum on Batildis day, they pray, that God would accept their sacrifice, viz. of Christes body and blood, through the merits of S. Batil­dis. vt haec munera tibi, Domine, accepta sint, say they, sanctae Batildis obtineant merita, quae seipsam tibi hostiam viuam, san­ctam, & bene placentem exhibuit.

argument 63 Catholikes beléeue, that the apostles, and their successours receiued the keyes of the kingdome of heauen, and power to binde and loose onely vpon earth. but the papists beléeue, that the pope hath receiued the keyes of the kingdome of hell, and purgatory. Damascen and other authors of Romish legends tell vs, that Gregory the first deliuered Traians soule out of hel; and euery pety pope thinketh he is abused, if any tell him, that he can not let out of purgatory as many as he pleaseth. Com­monly all papists pray for the dead, that they may haue a place of rest giuen them, and that their sinnes may be pardoned them; as if sinnes might be forgiuen after this life.

argument 64 Catholikes neither worshipped saints departed, nor their images, nor the crosse of Christ. Hierome in an epistle to Ri­patius denieth, that any creature is to be worshipped, or ado­red. Lib. 22. deci­uit. Dei. c. 10. Augustine sheweth, that Christians did not worship martyrs, nor erect temples in honor of them, and saith that they gaue thanks and praise vnto God onely at their monu­ments. ecclesia catholica mater Christianorum verissima saith De morib. ec­cles. lib. 1. c. 30. he, solum ipsum deum, cuius adeptio vita est beatissima puris­simè, atque castisimè colendum praedicat, nullam nobis adoran­dam creaturam inducens, cui seruire iubeamur. whereby plainly he excludeth the worship of Doulia. De obitu Theodosij. Ambrose decla­reth, [Page 114] that Helene finding the crosse, worshipped not the crosse, but Christ. but the papists worship not onely the saints, but dumbe images. they say masses in honor of S. Francis, and S. Dominicke, and diuers other saints. they knéele to ima­ges, and burne incense vnto them. finally they giue Latriam, that is due by their owne confession to God only, to the crosse, to the crucifix, and to the images of the Trinity.

argument 65 True catholicks neuer made the images of God the father, or the holy trinity, nor did thinke it lawfull to worship them with diuine. worship but the papists both make such images, and allow such worship to be giuen to them.

argument 66 True catholicks neuer had any psalter in honor of our bles­sed Lady, nor vsed to say a hundred and 50. Auemariaes, and after euery fifty Auemariaes one Creed, and after euery tenne Auemaries, one Pater Noster. nay our sauiour expressly forbad his desciples to vse battologies, and odious repetitions in their praiers. But papists put great religion in our Ladies psalter, and in their rosaries, and often repetitions of the name of Iesu, and of their Auemariaes.

argument 67 True catholicks neuer coniured salt, nor holy water, nor oile, nor chrisme, nor superstitiously sanctified candles, crosses and images, in such sort as the papists vse to doe. neither did they grease stone alters, or describe the Gréeke alphabet on the pauement of churches to be consecrated, or abuse the scrip­tures as the papists doe in that act, as may appeare by the for­mulary commonly vsed in such cases. that ancient catholicks neuer vsed any such ceremonies, it may appeare by the wri­tings of the fathers, and also in old rituall books. for in them such formes of consecrations, exorcizations, and such abuses are not to be found.

argument 68 True Iohn 4. catholicks worship God in spirit and trueth. but the papists place most of Gods worship in externall ceremo­nies, and vse in their worship a tong not vnderstood. so that their praiers cannot procéed from the spirit, nor be true nor ca­tholicke.

argument 69 True catholicks neuer worshipped angels. Coloss. 2. the apostle Paule doth expressly condemne the worship of them, as Chry­sostome, Theodoret, Oecumenius writing vpon the 2. and 3. chap. of the epistle to the Colossians do testifie. the councell of [Page 115] Laodicea doth also prohibit the worship of Angels, and Saint De hares. c. 39. Augustine numbreth the worshippers of Angels among he­reticks. Neither may we thinke, that they were therefore condemned, because they atrtibuted the creation of the world to angels, but because they worshipped angels, and as Chry­sostome homil. 7. in coloss. 2. affirmeth thought we were to come to God by the mediation of angels. and yet papists Horae ad v­sum sacrum. pray to angels, that they would protect them, and driue di­uils from them, and open their sight. they say also masses in their honor, set vp lights to them, make confession of their sinns to them: and all this contrary to the practise of the anci­ent catholicke church.

argument 70 Our Matth. 15. sauiour Christ teacheth, that those worship God in uaine, which worship him according to the doctrines and com­mandements of men. and therefore all true catholicks haue had principall respect herein to the commandements and lawes of God. but the Romish church doth wholy depend vp­pon the decretales of popes, and vaine fancies of men. their missals, breuiaries, offices and whole seruice procéedeth from no other fountaine.

argument 71 The Psal. 32. prophet declareth, that they are blessed whose iniqui­ties are forgiuen, and whose sinns are couered. and the apo­stle saith, that being instified by faith we haue peace with god. and this is the hope of all catholicks, that Christ hath reconci­led vs to his father, and washed away our sinnes, and paid a ransome for them on the crosse. but this comfort papists doe take from vs, that teach and holde, that after our sinnes forgiuen, we are to satisfie for temporall paines due for our sinnes either here, or in purgatory; and that such are there to sustaine great torments, in which paines and place none but mad men can place felicity.

argument 72 Catholicks beléeue, that through faith we are made parta­kers of Christs satisfaction. the papists beléeue, that the pope can apply them by his bulles, both in purgatory, and in this life, according to his lawes.

argument 73 Catholicks beléeue, that no man can satisfie for his owne sinnes, much lesse for the sinnes of others. Bellar. lib. 1. de indulgent. papists beléeue, that a mans sufferings may be so great, as they may serue for his own and other mens sinnes, and are laid vp in a treasury, [Page 116] whereof the pope hath the dispensation.

argument 74 Catholicks neuer beleeued, that there are 7. orders, and e­uery one of these a sacrament; and yet all but one sacrament. for that is as much as if a man should deny one, and one to make two. yet papists beléeue this, Sess. 23. con­cil. Trid. and accurse them that shall say contrary.

argument 75 Catholikes doe not beléeue, that Christ ordeined seuen or­ders in the church, or that exorcistes, doore-kéepers and sub­deacons were instituted by him, or that they are a holy sacra­ment. the papists notwithstanding doe hold contrary, or at the least, the contrary may be gathered out of their doc­trine.

argument 76 Catholikes doe not deny, but that second mariages are as well to be blessed, as first mariages. why then doe papists ob­serue and teach the contrary, if they will be accounted catho­likes?

argument 77 Catholikes doe not beléeue that by almes, and fasting they are either iustified, or able to satisfie for their sinnes. but papistes, as appeareth by Bellarmines disputes, holde con­trarie.

argument 78 Catholikes did neuer tie themselues to beléeue, whatsoeuer the church of Rome or the pope determined. for not onely the Asian churches dissented from Victor, and the African chur­ches from Sozimus, but long since all haue left the popes, that would not be oppressed by them. Saint Lib. de sacra­ment. Ambrose sheweth, that he was not bound to follow the church of Romes directi­on in all ceremonies. but papists are tied to Peters chaire, as they séeme to confesse, & by Pius 4. his constitution, are bound to beleeue all things conteined in the Creed, which the church of Rome vseth. seruilly also they submit themselues for the most part, to the decrées of the counsell of Trent.

argument 79 Catholikes doe not condemne all for heretikes, that either teach, or thinke otherwise of the sacrament of the altar, or of confession of sinnes, or other Romish sacraments, then the church of Rome. for concerning the Lords supper, I haue Lib. de missa papist. cont. Bellar. shewed, that al antiquity is against the Romanistes. and the rest shall be prooued as occasion serueth. but papists condemne all, that dissent from the church of Rome in the points aboue mentioned.

argument 80 Catholiks beléeue the catholike church. but the papists only beléeue the catholike Romane church, that is, so much of the Catholike church, as agréeth with the Romanists. for so the Iebusites of Bordeaux in their confession doe signifie. and the same is prooued by Bristowes 12. motiue, the 5. epistle of car­dinall Cusanus to the Bohemians, and Sanders in his fift booke of his visible monarchy. Lib. 2 de ec­cles. milit. Bellarmine also admitteth none to be of the church, but such as are subiect to the pope. and that is Boniface the eight, his determination, c. vnam sanctam. extr. de maior. & obedientia.

argument 81 Catholikes are the shéepe of Christ, and therefore kill none, especially none of Christs shéepe. but papists like woolues mur­der all, that like not of the popes gouernment and doctrine.

argument 82 Catholikes are a society of saints and true beléeuers, as S. Augustine sheweth, lib. de ver. relig. c. 6. & 7. but to be a true member of the popish church neither faith, nor holinesse, nor inward vertue is required, as saith Bellarmine lib. de eccles. milit. c. 2. but onely an outward profession and obedience.

argument 83 Catholikes neuer beléeued, that the pope of Rome was by Christ made his vicar generall, or the spouse, or the monarke, or head of the church. De pontif. Rom. lib. 2. c. 31. Bellarmine, albeit he searcheth all cor­ners, yet cannot finde, that any catholike writer had any such conceit. is it not then apparent, that the pope is a plaine intru­der into ecclesiasticall gouernment, and that the papists hol­ding with him haue forsaken the catholike doctrine of the church?

argument 84 In ancient time the bishops of Rome were subiect to coun­cels, and at their entrance into their bishopricks professed and acknowledged their canons, as appeareth by the chapters, sancta Romana ecclesia, and, sicut sancti. dist. 15. but now pa­pists will haue them to be aboue councels.

argument 85 In times past the bishops of Rome were subiect to empe­rors, as appeareth by the lawes of Iustinian, and diuers other emperors before him, which are to be séene in the code vnder the titles, de summa trinit. & fid. cath. de episc. audient. & au­thent. de ordinat. episcop. but now contrary to the old forme of gouernment of the church papists exclude the emperour, and giue all authority to the pope. Sic omne: dist. 19. Agatho determines, that all the decrees of the apostolike see are to be receiued, as if they [Page 118] had beene established by the voice of Peter.

argument 86 Saint Cyprian teacheth, that the apostles had all equall power. and that is prooued, for that they had like calling, and Luk. 9. & Matth. 28. & Iohn 20. like commission, and for that the church was equally foun­ded vpon them all. but papists beleeue, that Peter was head, and monarke of the church, Summa de ecclesia. and that the rest of the apostles were to him, as the cardinals are to the pope. for so Turrecre­mata a cardinall séemeth to holde.

argument 87 Among catholiks Christian emperors were alwaies wont to assemble generall councels, as appeareth by the first foure generall councels of Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus the 1. Chalcedon and diuers others. and that the cardinall of Cusa, and Anastasius the popes principall agent in his library con­fesse. ex superioribus habetur saith De Concord. Cath. li. 3. c. 13. Cusanus, imperatores san­ctos congregationes synodales vniuersalium conciliorum sem­per fecisse. ita ego perlustrans, gesta omnium vniuersalium con­ciliorum vsque ad octauum inclusiuè Basilij tempore celebra­tum, verum esse reperi. Ibid. Anastasius also affirmeth, vniuersa­les synodos de omni terra imperatores colligere solitos fuisse. but to the papists this catholike forme of assembling councels, is much displeasing.

argument 88 Our Sauiour Christ committed the gouernment of the church to his apostles, and Ephes. 4. ascending vp on hie, gaue some a­postles, some prophets, some euangelists, some pastors and teachers, and these he thought to be sufficient for the gouern­ment and building vp of the church, and gathering together the saints, and worke of the ministery, and he is no catho­like that thinketh contrary. the hierarchy therefore of the church of Rome, where we sée a triple crowned pope, a mul­titude of carnall cardinals, a heard of fat abbots and generals of orders of friers, and whole swarmes of monkes and friers, is not catholike. these friers a certeine popish Onus eccles. c. 22. bishop doeth compare to locustes issuing out of the bottomlesse pit of hell, for that they corrupt religion, as the other deuoured euery gréene thing. illi mendicantes peruersi saith he, designantur per locustas de puteo abyssi exeuntes, quia ipsi sunt scurriles leues, volatiles, rodentes sacras literas virides, paganicae philosophiae sequaces, quasi equi currentes, sic illi in vanam disputationem.

argument 89 True catholikes neuer thought, that the pope had two swords, knowing, that Peters successors had keyes, and not swords deliuered vnto them, and well vnderstanding, that their commission was to teach and administer sacraments, and not to cut Christian mens throats. but C. vnam de maior. & e­bed. Boniface the 8. vpon pretence of these words, ecce duo gladij hîc, imagineth, that the pope is to vse both the temporall, and spirituall sword, and the Iebusites stoutly defend his authoritie, and with their two handed swords, and gentle receits of their sophisticated drugs, kill more honest men, than honest men can easily con­uert from superstition and impietie to Christ Iesus.

argument 90 Among Gregory the seuenths Ioseph Vestan. de oscul. ped. pontif. dictates, the 12. is, that the pope hath power to depose the emperour. the 8. that he may lawfully vse the ensignes of the emperour. the 27. that he hath power to absolue subiects from their allegiance. but S. Peter, that was a farre better catholike, than this Gregory called o­therwise Hildebrand, or rather Helfirebrand, teacheth contra­ry doctrine, and 1. Petr. 2. willeth Christians to honor the king. so like­wise S. Paul exhorteth all sorts of men to be subiect to the high­er powers. finally, the law of God bindeth so fast, Rom. 13. that no de­uice of man can vntwist the bond of an oth taken to his prince, as true catholikes euer beléeued.

argument 91 Concil. Ni­cen. c. 5. Catholikes in time past did not permit one bishop to ab­solue him, that was excommunicate by another. but the pope of Rome absolueth now all at his pleasure, by whomsoeuer they be excommunicated.

argument 92 The councell of Can. 22. Mileuis in Afrike, excommunicated all priests, that appealed to Rome. Ad transmarina qui putauerit appellandum, say the fathers of that councel, a nullo intra Afri­cam in communionem suscipiatur. but the pope and his adhe­rents adiudge him worthy to be excommunicate, that shall de­nie, that it is lawfull to appeale to Rome. let it then be iudged, whether therein they deale as catholikes.

argument 93 Gregory the first doubted not to censure him as the forerun­ner of Antichrist, that should call himselfe vniuersall bishop. and this title he accounteth prophane and sacrilegious. yet doth not the pope refuse this title, neither doth Lib. 2. de pon­tif. Rom. c. 31. Bellarmine mislike it.

argument 94 In the catholike church no man might be ordeined without [Page 120] a charge, as appeareth by the acts of the councell of Chalce­don. but now the popes without charge ordeine infinite monks and friers, which are the moths that fret and consume Christian religion.

argument 95 Catholikes neuer. vsed to kisse the popes pantofle, nor to fall downe before him, and to crie, Miserere nostri. are then the papists catholikes, trow you, or flanes, and base fellowes, that kisse the slipper of Antichrist, and fall downe before him, crying out, Miserere, to a most miserable mortall man?

argument 96 Ancient catholikes were not acquainted with the popes prouisions, reseruations, expectatiue fauors, indulgencies, iubi­leyes, and such like tricks and hooks to ouerthrow order, and enrich the pope; neither would they haue liked any such Ba­bylonish traffike, if they had knowen it. shamelesse therefore are they, which take to themselues the titles of catholikes, and yet either commit, or allow these abuses.

argument 97 Ancient catholikes neuer knew the rates of the popes chan­cery for writs of iustice, of benefices, of pardons; nor did they beléeue, that the pope could pardon incests, murders, sacrilege, Sodomy, blasphemy, and such horrible crimes. those therefore that allow this sinfull traffike of popes, and their courts, they are neither good catholikes, nor ciuill honest men.

argument 98 No catholike euer adhered to Antichrist, or embraced his damnable doctrine. but we haue Lib. 5. de pontif. Rom. shewed, that the pope is Antichrist, and that popery is nothing els, but Antichristia­nisme, and that by such arguments, as for any thing yet an­swered, séeme inuincible. if then papists adhere to the pope, they must leaue the name of catholikes, which without all rea­son they haue vsurped, and taken to themselues.

argument 99 Finally, no catholike euer embraced any heresie, or false do­ctrine. for as S. De vera re­lig. c. 6. & 7. Augustine teacheth vs, catholikes are true Christians, and embrace the right faith. but the papists haue embraced, and yet holde many both olde and new heresies, and thereof popery séemeth to consist: the which to be very true, it shall appeare by the particulars discoursed in the chap­ter following.

CHAP. IIII. That papists doe mainteine many both olde and new heresies, and erroneous points of doctrine contrary to the catholike faith.

LIttle reason haue the papists to charge others with heresie, if they would narrowly looke into their owne opinions, and heresies which are so many, and so vgly. we may therefore well say vnto them, Pull out the beames out of your owne eies, you hypocrites, and then you shall more clearly see the motes that are in other mens eies. so grosse are your errors, and so foule, that beames in mens eies séeme not more deformed.

argument 1 For first as the Rom. 2. & 3. Iewes, and especially the scribes and Pha­rises rested in the law, and gloried in their works, Luc. 18. and as the apostle declareth Rom. 2. and Galat. 3. sought to be instified by their works, and by the law; so the papists rest, and relie much vpon the law, not doubting but by obseruance thereof to enter into life; and thereto they apply these words, hoc fac, & viues. they glory also in their works, and if they said true, that by the works of the law they were iustified, they had rea­son so to doe. for to him that worketh, the reward is imputed, not according to grace, but according to debt, as the Rom. 4. apostle saith. finally they séeke to be iustified formally by their works, and by the law, which they say is fulfilled by charity. for that is the end of Bellarmines dispute of iustice of works, and habitu­all iustice. and so much doe they rely vpon their owne iustice, that they Concil. Trid. sess. 6. can. 10. & 11. exclude the iustice of Christ out of our iustification.

argument 2 Secondly the sect of the pharises was condemned, for that they made void the law of God by there owne traditions. re­probastis mandatum dei per seniorum vestrorum traditionem, saith our Marc. 7. sauiour speaking to the pharises. they were like­wise reproued for their diligence in making proselytes, and drawing nouices, to like of their sect. circuitis mare & aridam saith our Matth. 23. sauiour, vt faciatis vnum proselytum, & cum factus fuerit, facitis illum filium gehennae duplo plus, qùam vos estis. [Page 122] the pharises also stood much vpon externall ceremonies, but se­tretly they deuoured widowes houses. Furthermore they are noted, for that they loued preheminence in meetings, and de­stred to be called Rabbi, affecting a strange kinde of singularity. Dicebantur pharisaei, saith Haeres. 16. ante Christum. Epiphanius, eo quod separati es­sent ab alijs propter spontaneam superfluam religionem apud ipsos receptam. Ibidem. finally they are taxed for their vowes of con­tinency, for their sléeping on thorns and boords, for their super­stitious fashions in praying, and for their allowing of fatum or destiny. In all which points the papists séeme much to re­semble this pharisaicall sect. for first by their traditions they frustrate the law of God. God, he forbiddeth vs to make gra­uen images, to worship them. but they say the making of ima­ges, and the worshipping of them is a tradition descended from the apostles; and is very profitable. Saint Paul he teacheth vs obedience to princes: but papists say, this holdeth no longer, then during the popes pleasure, or at the least vntill such times, as he shall excomunicate them. for then they say, it is lawfull to cutte their throtes. and so de facto they doe it, if they can, as appeareth by many precedents.

Our sauiour Christ in the institution of the Lords supper, commanded his desciples to take and eat, and deliuering the cuppe said, drinke ye all of this, yet by their traditions the pa­pists haue frustrated Christ his institution. for in lieu of ta­king and eating, they content themselues with gaping and fasting, and in the end they put vp the sacrament into a boxe, & worship it. and where Christ said, drinke yet all of this; their tradition is, drinke not all of this, nor looke for the cuppe. se­condly the Iebusites friers and priests trauell land and sea to reconcile men to the pope, and to make of good subiects obsti­nate recusants, and proselyts to the sinagogue of Rome. and when they haue inuegled simple people, they make them as vnnaturall and disloyall traitors as themselues. thirdly no sect euer stood more vpon externall ceremonies, then the pa­pists, whose whole religion standeth in ceremonies. fourthly the Iebusits haue deuoured many widowes houses, and haue empouerished many orphanes, intercepting by singular fraud that, which was due vnto them. as Arnold in his pleading, and the secular priests in their discourses doe particularly [Page 123] charge them. fiftly the priests and friers looke for great prehe­minence, and desire to be saluted by the name of fathers, beget­ting children to the pope and bastards to their hostes, as the Iesuits catechisme saith. sixtly these friers pretend, that they are in the state of perfection, and condemne other christians, as carnall and secular. They doe also weare hairecloth som­times, and lash themselues with whips, and in the maner of their superfluous religion they are very singular. finally both they and the Th. Aqu. 1. p q. 116. art. 2 3. & 4. schoolemen doe in some sort allow fatum, and subiect all second causes vnto it. and is not this trow you, pharisaisme?

argument 3 The scribes were reputed sectaries and hereticks, for that they brought in a superfluous, and sophisticall exposition of the law. Haeres. 15. an­te Christum. Ephphanius doeth call it supersophisticam exposi­tionem. they were likewise condemned, for their often wash­ings and purifyings, and for that they accounted themselues more holy then others. why then should not the popish schoole­men and the frapling friers be likewise accounted scribes, sec­taries and hereticks, séeing neuer any deuised more vaine and sophisticall expositions vpon the word of God, nor more con­trary to the meaning of the holy ghost then they? Further doe not the See the ru­bicks of the masse. priests often wash themselues at masse? and doe not all papists continuallie wash themselues and others with ho­ly water, thinking thereby to cleanse themselues from veniall sinnes, and to Missale Ro. in fine. driue the diuell from them? doe they not al­so purifie and hallow altars, churches, vestements, and other vtensiles of their prophane priesthood? finally who can account themselues more holy, then those, that will needs be intitled holy fathers, and professe themselues to liue in a holy and per­fect state of life?

argument 4 The Epiphan. in haeres. 17. ante Christum. Hemerobaptistes for their continuall washings, and for that they imagined, that they were thereby clensed from their sinnes, are numbred among Iewish heretikes, let it therefore be imagined, whether the papists doe not resemble them both in their washings and opinions, when they sprin­kle themselues continually with holy water, and imagine, that thereby they are clensed from veniall sinnes. yet as Ibidem. Epi­phanius saith, neither can drops, nor riuers, nor the whole ocean wash away sinnes.

argument 5 The Epiphan. haeres. 13. ante Christum. Dositheans were a sect of heretikes among the Iewes, and so reputed for their affect at virginity, and abstinence from the vse of mariage, although they were maried. they were al­so noted for their voluntary fastings, and for that diuersly, and voluntarily they afflicted their bodies. what then are wée to thinke of papists, that allow these voluntary whippings, and lashings of their bodies? and what may be thought of the Ie­busites chambers of meditations? papists also allow extraor­dinary fastings, and thinke thereby to satisfie for sinne, and to merit heauen. some of them also account it great holinesse for maried couples to liue a sunder, and to creepe into monaste­ries, and such dennes of superstition and idolatry. for which cause they deserue to créepe, if not to runne into the catalogue of heretikes. for the apostle doeth condemne those, which vp­on a superstitious conceit Colos. 2. spared not their bodies.

argument 6 Among the heretikes, that first shewed themselues vpon the first plantation of Christian religion, Simon Magus and his followers are commonly reputed the ringleaders. of him we reade, Act. 8. that he thought it no sinne, to buie the gifts of the holy Ghost. and thereupon those, that buie and sell orders, be­nefices, churches, and masses, and barter for spiritual things, and account such chaffaire sailable, are accounted Simonians, and this simonie, as Petitiones R. Vllerston. Vllerston, who wrote about the time of of the councell of Constance, affirmeth, is haeresis practica. but if men imagine it to be lawfull, it is truly an heresie according to rules of speculation. the papists in both these points are guiltie. for nothing can be more infamous, then the church of Rome, for buying and selling of palles, miters, churches, and such like chaffaire.

Benedict the 9. sold his popedome for a great summe of mony. and al the world knoweth, that without simoniacall compacts no man can enter into that seat. they sell mens sinnes, and for money they offer to sell heauen. the priests sell masses, as deare as they can, albeit such marchandise be now decried and of lit­tle woorth. for which cause Brigit inueigheth bitterly against them, and saith they are woorse then Iudas. deteriores sunt [Page 125] Iuda, saith Brigit. 132. onus ecclesae. 23. Christ in Brigits reuelations, qui pro solis dena­riis me vendidit, illi autem pro omni mercimonio. so it séemeth, that these are the merchants, of which mention is made Apo­calyps. 18. which sell mens soules. beside that, the canonists di­spute, that it is lawfull for the pope to buy and sell benefices, palles, and mitres. and Bellarmine with all his skill main­teineth the sale of Iubileies, and other indulgences. of Simon Magus also De haeres. c. 1. Augustine affirmeth, quod docebat detestan­dam turpitudinem indifferenter vtendi foeminis: & quod ima­gines, & suam, & Helenes praebebat discipulis suis adorandas. that is, he taught it was no sinne, to vse women without ma­king difference betwixt wife, concubine, and whoore (for that is the signification of the word indifferenter) and gaue his owne image & the image of his leman Selena, to be worship­ped of his disciples. finally, he carried a concubine about with him called Selena. let it therefore be iudged with indifferency, whether the papists haue not some touch of these hereticall tricks, who in Rome and all great cities almost mainteine common bordels, and They put adultery and fornication in the ranke of lesser crimes. c. at siclerici. de iudicijs. account lechery a small sinne, & whose priests commonly kéepe concubines, and finally which wor­ship the images of diuers lecherous priests, and their whoores canonised by the pope for saints. as Dunstane and Alfgina, Bernac and his leman, and many others. and albeit we are not able to say much for the honesty of Francis and Clare, yet it is apparent, that the papists worship their images. so it ap­peareth that the first foundation of the worship of images was laied, either by Simon Magus, or by Carpocrates and Mar­cellina and other heretikes of Simon Magus also it may be, they borrow their exorcisations. for they are rather magicall, than Christian like, as appeareth by them as they are set downe in Hierome Menghus, a disciple as it séemeth of Si­mon Magus.

argument 7 The Basilidians were reputed heretikes, for that they wor­shipped images, and vsed enchantments, and superstitious ad­iurations. for that is prooued by the testimony of Lib. 1. aduers. haeres. c. 23. Irenaeus. how then can the papists wipe away the blot of heresie, that not onely priuately worship images, but also fill euery corner of their churches full of them, and like the statues of Mercury set them vp in high waies? they doe also coniure and enchant [Page 126] water, saying, exorcizo te creatura aquae: and salt, saying, ex­orcizo te creatura salis; as if the creatures were possessed, or corrupted by diuels. likewise they coniure and enchant can­dles, hearbes, and make exorcistes and coniurers a holie or­der, and that order a sacrament of the church.

argument 8 Iren [...]y lib. 1. c. 24. Carpocrates vsed to worship images; and Marcellina one of his followers adored the images of Iesu and Paule, and burnt incense vnto them. Colebat saith De bares. c. 7. Augustine, imagines Iesu & Pauli, & Homeri & Pythagorae, adorando, incensum­que ponendo if then this were heresie in them, why should it not be heresie in papists to worship the image of Iesu with diuine worship and to burne incense not onely before the ima­ges of Iesu and Paule, but also before other petie saints, and percase no saints? if the image of Christ Iesu and Paule might not be adored, how come the images of Christopher and saint Catherine, that neuer were in the world, of George that was an heretike, and Thomas Becket and Campian, that were traitors, to be adored and honored with light and incense?

argument 9 The Carpocratians and Basilidians did conceale and hide the mysteries of their religion, least holy things should be cast to dogges, as may appeare partly by the testimony of Ire­naeus aduersus haeres lib. 1. c. 23. and Epiphanius intreating of the 24. and 27. heresie. and what doe the papists? doe not they reherse the words of the canon so, that no man can heare? and doe they not keepe the mysteries of their religion secret, when they Nauarri enthirid & Alagona. teach, that it is mortall sinne for lay men to dis­pute of matters of faith, and reade scriptures and the publike liturgy in tongues not vnderstood of the hearers? finally, haue not diuers of them alledged, that the reason why scriptures are not translated into vulgar tongues, nor in that tongue read publikly is, because holy things are not to be cast to dogs?

argument 10 The Marcosians did baptise in an vnknowen language, and anoint those, whom they baptised with chrisme or opobal­samum, that is testified by Epiphanius haeres. 34. this by Irenae­us aduers. haeres lib. 1. c. 18. they did also anoint their dead, and giue them extreme vnction. Marcus their founder went about to make his followers beleeue, that he did transubstantiate wine into blood in the sacrament. In that which he calleth the eucharist, saith Haeres. 34. Epiphanius, they say that the rednesse (viz. of [Page 127] the wine) is changed straightwaies into blood. The followers of Marcus accounted themselues perfect but, as Lib. 1. aduers. haeres. c. 15. Irenaeus saith, perfectus nemo, nisi qui maxima mendacia apud eos fructifi­cauerit. Finally, they alledge a multitude of apocryphall wri­tings, forged by themselues, as Ireney testifieth of them, lib. 1. aduers. haeres. c. 18. all which points of heresie, the papists séeme to haue translated into their religion. for first, they bap­tize in a language not vnderstood of the multitude. next, they vse greasing and anointing in baptisme and confirmation. thirdly, they grease their disciples, when they lie on dying. fourthly, they beléeue, that wine in the Lords cup by certeine words of consecration is transubstantiate into blood. fitly, their orders of religion doe account themselues to be in state of per­fection. but the most perfect of them, which are emploied by the pope in defence of the popish faction and religion, do fructi­fie plenteously in telling of greatest lies, as we shall in his place exemplifie by Bellarmine a cardinall, and Robert Parsons in hope and desire a cardinall, and a most famous forger of lies. his putatiue father, father Coobucke, they say, could not with more art forge a horseshoo, than he can forge a lie. Fi­nally, for proofe of their traditions and doctrine, they haue for­ged diuers decretale epistles, and counterfeit canons, and haue written diuers lying legends. Parsons to trouble the state, vn­der the name of Dolman hath forged a booke of forged titles to the crowne, and Baronius for a cardinals hat hath béene hired with apocryphall trash raked out of euery blinde corner, and oft times most impudently forged, to corrupt the history of the church.

argument 11 The Nazarites were condemned for hereticks, first, for that they mingled Iewish ceremonies with Christian religion, and next, for that they boasted much of their reuelations and mi­racles, as is testified by Augustine de haeres. c. 9. and partly, by Epiphanius in haeres. 29. The like sentence therefore is to be pronounced against the papists, which Missal. Rom. consecrate euery yéere a Paschal lambe after a Iewish fashion, and obserue a cer­teine forme of Iubiley, and haue translated the priests apparel, and diuers ceremonies from the Iewes, as appeareth by Du­rand, and those that write of their ceremonies. Innocentius the third by a solemne decretale determineth, that what is con­teined [Page 128] in Deuteronomy, is now to be obserued in the new te­stament. cum Deuteronomium, saith C. per vene­rabilem. qui filij sint legitimi. he, secunda lex interpre­tetur, ex vi vocabuli comprobatur, vt quod ibi decernitur, in no­uo testamento debeat obseruari. but Deuteronomy conteineth an epitome of Moyses his law. finally, they bragge much of their reuelations, and miracles, and Bellar. de no­tis eccles. make them a marke of the church.

argument 12 The Heracleonites did anoint their followers departing out of this life, and gaue them a kinde of extreme vnction. Fe­runtur, saith S. De haeresib. c. 16. & Epiph. haeres. 36. Augustine, suos morientes nouo modo, quasi redimere, id est per oleum, balsamum, & aquam, & inuocatio­nes, quas Hebraicis verbis dicunt super capita eorum. and these their anointings and praiers, they thought to be groun­ded vpon the place out of the fift of S. Iames commonly alled­ged to this purpose, all which notwithstanding, they are num­bred among hereticks. it séemeth therefore, that the papists haue borowed their extreme vnction, their dirges and masses for the dead from hereticks. and I am the rather confirmed in this opinion, for that the praier for the dead, that is now in the canon, is not found in the olde ordinall of the church of Rome. neither did ancient Christians anoint those parts and senses, that the papists do. finally, they did anoint the sicke while the gifts of healing continued in the church, and to the intent, that the parties grieued might recouer their health: which circum­stances do now faile in our aduersaries cause.

argument 13 The followers of Helzai, and hereticks called Osseni, as Haeres. 19. an­te Christ. Epiphanius reporteth, did vse to swere by salt and bread, and other creatures. they worshipped also the spittle and reliques of two of their saints. Ibidem. thirdly, Helzai taught his disciples to pray in a tongue not vnderstood by them. nemo quaerat inter­pretationem, saith he, sed solùm haec dicat. then he added a praier in a strange tongue. Do we then thinke, that it is ca­tholike religion in papists, to sweare by bread and salt, and by creatures? and are they good Christians, that worship the re­liques of saints, and reserue their ashes and reliques in their altars, & pray in a tongue not vnderstood of them which pray, and say, it is not materiall although a man vnderstand not the interpretation of the words?

argument 14 Damascen. de haeresib. Marcion gaue women power to baptize, and albeit he [Page 129] had corrupted and abused a maiden, yet was he not ashamed to extoll virginitie. à Marcione, saith Epiphanius, Haeres. 42. virginitas praedicatur. Irenaeus lib. 1. aduers. haeres. c. 30. saith, that he and Saturninus began to teach abstinence from liuing crea­tures. he did also Epiphan. hae­res. 42. teach, that by Christes descending into hell diuers mens soules were thence deliuered, and separated ma­riages vnder pretence of religion, of which heresies, Tertull. ad­uers. Marcion. the pa­pists sauour very strongly. for first they authorize women to C. adijcimus. 16. q. 1. &c. mulier. de con­secrat. dist. 4. baptize, as did the Marcionistes. secondly they extoll virginitie and fasting highly, and make both a meanes of great merit, and yet obserue neither virginitie nor fasting. for their priests kéepe commonly harlots, if no woorse. the nunnes albeit mured vp, yet prooue oftentimes very frutefull. thirdly they imagine, that flesh is not so holy meat as fish, and beléeue that he that filleth himselfe with fish and other dainties doeth fast, where he that eateth a bit of flesh fasteth not. fourthly they separate mariages vpon pretence of monkish re­ligion, and hold that parties so separated may not againe co­habite together without sinne; and that contrary to the apo­stles commandement, 1. Cor. 7. lastly, they teach, that the pa­triarks before Christs time were deliuered by Christs descen­sion into hell out of that place, which they call limbum pa­trum, or receptacle of the fathers soules.

argument 15 The Messalians beléeued, that baptisme was onely auaile­able to cut away former sinnes so likewise the papists beléeue, that baptisme doeth onely purge and respect sinnes past, and that sinnes committed after baptisme are to be done away by penance. against them both Theodoret De diuin. de­cret. c. de bap­tism. teacheth, that bap­tisme is the earnest of future graces, and the communication of Christ his passion. againe he saith, non vt dicunt amentes Messaliani, baptismus nouaculam imitatur, quae praecesserunt peccata auferens. hoc enim ex superabundanti largitur. like­wise the Messalians did mumble ouer their praiers with their lips, hauing their heart otherwhere, and beléeued they were heard for their much babling. which custome blinde papists doe so well like, that they rehearse infinit auemariaes, pater nostres, and creedes, liking that babling religion, which mumbleth vp her praiers on a string of beades:

[Page 130] and pattreth praiers, like an ape clattring with his chappes. the pope also giueth great indulgences to those, that say the ladies Rosary, and pray vpon their beads, albeit the poore soules vnderstande nothing of that they praie or rather pratle.

argument 16 The Caians were reputed heretikes for worshipping an­gels, and praying to them. vnusquisque eorum, saith Heres. 38. Epi­phanius, vniuscuiusque angeli nomen inuocat. for the same cause also the Epiphan. de angelicis. & Augustin. de haeres. c. 39. & Isid. lib. 8. orig. Angelickes were condemned both by the wri­tings of fathers, and acts of councels. non oportet Christianos say the C. 35. fathers assembled in the councell of Laodicea, dere­licta ecclesia abire, & ad angelos idololatriae abominandae congregationes facere. what then are we to thinke of papists, that pray to angels, and say masses in honour of them, and serue them deuoutly as their protectors? to auoid this blemish Carranza and others in the canon of Laodicea before recited, for angelos, write angulos, and so hope to hide their filthinesse in corners. But Theodoret doth plainly conuince them both of heresie, and falshood also. Synodus saith he, In epist. ad Coloss. c. 3. quae conuenit laodiceae lege prohibuit, ne precarentur angelos. that this worship of angels is superstitious, Chrysostome commenting vpon the epistle to the Colossians declareth, and especially in his ninth homily vpon that epistle.

argument 17 The Seuerians were noted as heretikes for their miracles either vainly forged, or by the diuels helpe effected. their pro­phetesse Augustin. de hares. c. 24. Philumena through a narrow mouthed glasse, would put in a prety bigge lofe, and draw it out againe with­out breaking the glasse. the Mirabiliaries were likewise con­demned, for that by miracles and prophecies they sought to confirme their opinions. and what doe the papists? doe not they likewise confirme all their superstition, false religion and idolatry with counterfect miracles? doe they not tell vs tales of Laurent. Vall. contra donat. Constanim. images speaking, of men headlesse walking, of dead men reuiuing? they will not deny it. nay Bellarmine maketh these miracles a marke of his church. but if they prooue false, their church must néeds prooue a false church by a very good conse­quent.

argument 18 The Tatians and other heretikes absteined from mariage, as a state of life impure and imperfect. The Romish priestes [Page 131] therefore, together with monks, friers and nunnes haue ab­iured mariage, as not compatible with their pretended mon­kish perfection. C. proposuisti. dist. 82. Syricius, or at least Gratian, or some other falsary vnder his name, calleth mariage fleshly pollutions. In Capgranes legends, the Romish saints no otherwise talke of mariage, then as if it were vncleannesse, sinne, and abomi­nation. diuers of our aduersaries haue written, that it is lesse sinne for priests to commit fornication, than to marry.

argument 19 The papists also agrée with the Manicheyes in diuers points sauoring of heresie. for as the Mancheyes condemned mariage in their priests, which for their excellency they called electos, so likewise doe the papists in their monks and greater orders of their clergie. secondly as the Manicheyes abstained from the cuppe in the Lords supper, and receiued one kinde onely, as appeareth by the testimony of Leo Serm. 4. de qua­drages. and of the chap. relatum, and c. comperimus. dist. 2. de consecrat. so likewise doe the papists diuiding, if Gelasius say true, one and the selfe same sacrament most sacrilegiously. thirdly both Manicheyes and papists destroy Christes huma­nity, the Manicheyes giuing him no true flesh, nor solide body, and the papists giuing him a body neither visible, nor palpa­ble, nor indued with the right dimensions and true properties of a body. both of them also say the body of Christ may be in many places at once. lastly the Manicheyes in their fasts, al­beit they abstained from flesh, yet vsed diuers other exquisite and dainty meates. and this is also the rigorous fast of most papists, which the rest will not deny to be a good fast after the popes law, and a good feast as Christians say.

argument 20 Montanus did first Apollonius apud Euseb. lib. 5. c. 17. establish lawes of fasting, as is recor­ded in the history of Eusebius, and appeareth also by the prac­tise of the church, that had no law concerning that matter in his time. the same also may be proued by the testimony of Augustine, who denieth, that any law concerning fasting was made by Christ or his apostles. quibus diebus Epist. 86. ad Casulan. saith he, non oporteat ieiunare, & quibus oporteat, praecepto domini, vel a­postolorum non inuenio definitum. Montanus also began first to Epiphan. in haeres. 48. dispute, that the scriptures were not perfect, and that they were to he supplied by his new paracletus, that as he said was to teach all things necessary. his Augustin. de haeres. c. 26. followers had the prophe­cies [Page 132] of Prisca, and Maximilla in great reuerence. both he and his disciples did beléeue Limbum Patrum, to be in hell Lib. de anima. in fi [...]t. Ter­tullian hauing learned of Montanus, taught, that small sinnes after this life were to be purged, and that his paracletus did of­ten recommend that doctrine. further by the testimony of vnwritten traditions, and his paracletus, he Lib. de coron. milit. proueth, that the suffering daies of martyrs were to be kept holy, and that sacrifi­ces should be offered for soules departed. the doctrine there­fore of the church of Rome concerning set fasts, the imperfecti­on of scriptures, vnwritten traditions, legendary prophecies of Brigit, and other Romish saints, and concerning Limbus Patrum in hell, and remission of sinnes after this life, and the oblations for soules departed, séemeth rather to procéed from Montanus, then from Christ or his apostles. finally the Mon­tanistes did not more'vant of their Prisca & Maximilla, then the papists of their Brigit, Hildegardis and Mechtildis. nor did Montanus offer for the soules departed otherwise, then the pa­pists.

argument 21 As the Pepuzians did honor their towne Pepuza, and call it Hierusalem, or the metropolis of their religion; so doe the pa­pists honor Rome. and both papists and Pepuzians suffer we­men to minister the sacrament or baptisme. should not then the papists haue great wrong, if they were not made equall in ranke with Pepuzians? herein they also surpasse them. for we doe not read, that any woman among the Pepuzians was made pope of Pepuza. but Martin Polonus, Marianus Scotus, Chronicon Chronicorum, Platina, and diuers authors of great credit report, that a woman was made pope of Rome, and her picture is to be séene in the dome of Siena among other popes, if it be not latele defaced. finally the Iebusites contending to shew the contrary, shew nothing but their owne impudency, and the hardnesse of their faces.

argument 22 The Catharistes boast much of their merits, purity and per­fection. Mundiores se ceteris praedicant, saith Lib. 8. orig. [...]. de haeres. Isidore. they doe also deny absolution in somes cases to the repentant, and rebaptize those that are already baptized. and is not this also the case of papists? they cannot well deny it. for they say that all monks and friers are in state of perfection, and deny that any iust man doth commit a mortall sinne. they deny also to [Page 133] hereticks relapsed as they call them all fauour, and absolue none in cases reserued to the pope. finally the histories of France and Flanders doe shew, that the popish priests haue there rebaptized many. and in England albeit they doe not rebaptize, yet they change the names and vse a number of greasie ceremonies frequented in the Romish church to supply our baptisme as they say.

argument 23 The Iacobites and Armenians were condemned for here­ticks, for that they made the images of God the father, and God the holy ghost. Imagines saith Lib hist. 18. c. 52. Nicephorus patris & spi­ritus sancti effigiant, quod est perquam absurdum. yet this ab­surdity is a high point of popish religion.

argument 24 The worshippers of the crosse, which were termed Chazin­zarij and Staurolatrae, were for that point estéemed hereticks. Nicephorus he woondreth at them, as strange fellowes. Cru­cem, saith he, adorare & colere dicuntur. Lib. hist. 18. c. 54. Is not then this a plaine conuiction of the papists, which worship the crosse, and say, aue sancta crux: and desire to be protected by it, and giue to it latriam, which I suppose the Staurolatrians were not so simple and stupid, as to giue to their crosses.

argument 25 The Collyridian heretikes were condemned for worship­ping the virgin Mary, and that worthily. for as Haeres. 78. Epiphanius saith, she was a virgin, and honorable, but not to be adored. and againe, non dominabitur nobis antiquus error, vt relinquamus viuentem, & adoremus ea, quae ab ipso facta sunt. all which not­withstanding the papists adore her, and worship her, and say many a masse in her honor, and pray vnto her; which I doubt whether the Collyridians did so grosly or no. Bonauenture to make her equall with God, as Dauid made Psalmes in the praise of God, so applied, or rather distorted Psalmes to the virgin Mary, turning God into the blessed virgine.

argument 26 The worshippers of images of saints by a certeine Hist. miscel. Paul. Diat. lib. 21. coun­cell of Constantinople, whose actes are recorded, and inserted in the sixt action of the second Nicene councell, were noten as idolaters, and condemned by the fathers as heretikes, or woorse. the synod of Francford did cōdemne the second Nicene councell, that allowed the worship of images. non nos ima­gines in basilicis positas, In lib. Carol. Magni contr. Synod, in par­tib. Graeciae pro imaginibus ad­orandis. say they, idola nuncupamus, sed ne idola nuncupentur, adorare & colere eas recusamus. which is [Page 134] nothing, but the iudgement of Gregory the first also, that would not haue images worshipped. Epiphanius haeres. 79. saith, that by worshipping of images, the minde is turned from one only God, to commit fornication with images. all which notwithstanding, the papists kisse them, bow to them, worship them, light candles, and burne incense vnto them, or at the least before them.

argument 27 The barefooted brethren were condemned for their hereti­call singularity in going barefoot. Est alia haeresis, saith Saint De hares. c. 68. Augustine, nudis pedibus semper ambulantium. yet this is accounted by the papists a part of their frierlike perfection, who haue orders of men and women that go barefoot, and be­léeue it is meritorious to goe barefoot in pilgrimages and pro­cessions.

argument 28 The apostolikes, notwithstanding their arrogant presump­tion in taking on them the name and profession of the apostles followers, were condemned as heretiks, for that they receiued none into their order, that had wiues, or possessed any thing in priuate. Apostolici, qui se isto nomine arrogantissimè vocaue­runt, saith Saint De hares. 40. Augustine, eo quod non receperunt in suam communionem vtentes coniugibus, & res proprias possidentes, quales habet ecclesia catholica, & monachos & clericos pluri­mos. where note, I pray you, how that Augustine saith, that monks and clergy men had wiues and goods in property: and how néere the papists come to this heresie condemning all monks and friers, that possesse any goods in property, and both monks and priests, that match themselues in mariage, though very honorable in the iudgement of the apostle.

argument 29 The Heraclites, as saith Isidore, were heretikes, that recei­ued only monks, and refused married folks to be of their com­pany. Monachos tantùm recipiunt, saith Orig. lib. 8. c. de hares. he, coniugia respu­unt. further, they beleeue not, that children dying yoong shall possesse the kingdome of heauen. and doe not monks and fri­ers, and other sects among the papists beléeue the like? do they not also exclude all infants dying before baptisme out of the kingdome of heauen, albeit the parents did by all meanes en­deuour to haue them baptized? and doe they not place such in limbo puerorum, which is either in hell, or els the papists know not where it is?

argument 30 The Priscillianistes disioine married folks for religion sake. Coniuges, saith S. Haeres. 70. Augustine, speaking of Priscillian, quibus hoc malum potuerit persuadere, disiungens: & viros à nolenti­bus foeminis, & foeminas à nolentibus viris. likewise, for hiding their wickednesse and filthinesse, they made no account to for­sweare themselues. Ibidem. propter occultandas contaminatioens & turpitudines suas habent in suis dogmatibus & haec verba: iura periura, secretum prodere noli. they doe also refuse to eat flesh, as vncleane meat, as S. Augustine testifieth. And what do pa­pists? doe not they likewise separate married folks, that vow monasticall religion? and do they not holde, that man or wife before marriage consummate, may enter into a monasterie, albeit the other party be most vnwilling? Of othes also they make no account. If thou be put to an oth, say the In annot. in act. 23. Rhemists, to accuse catholikes for seruing God (so they please to speake of papists worshipping idoles, and hearing the idolatrous masse) or to vtter any man to Gods enemies (thus they call her Maie­stie and the Iudges) thou ought first to refuse such vnlawfull othes. but if thou haue not constancy and courage so to doe: yet know thou, that such othes binde not in conscience and law of God: but may and must be broken vnder paine of damnati­on. where note, that they aduise men to forsweare themselues vnder paine of damnation: and that they call catholikes and Gods seruants such as are combined with the Pope and Spaniard, and come with an intention to murder their dread Souereigne, & to raise rebellion, or at least embrace the idola­trous religion of the pope. this is also the resolution of the two traitors, Allen and Parsons, in their wicked resolutions of ca­ses of conscience for the English nation, through which they haue brought diuers yong men to the destruction both of bodie and soule. Finally, if papists did not account flesh vncleane, why do the Carthusians forsweare flesh? and why doe papists account it more holy to eat fish, than flesh on fasting daies?

argument 31 The Helcesaits make Christ in heauen to differ from Christ on earth. Christum, saith Haeret. fab. lib. 2. c. de Helcesaeis. Theodoret speaking of them, non vnum dicunt, sed hunc quidem infernè, illum verò supernè: & eum olim in multis habitasse. so likewise the papists beléeue and teach, that Christ in heauen is visible and palpable, and hath the fulnesse, thicknesse and iust proportion of a body. but [Page 136] their Christ on the altar they beléeue to be neither visible nor palpable, neither that he filleth a place, or is conteined in one place. nay, they say he is substantially in euery one, that recei­ueth the sacrament, and not that onely, but also in euery pixe, and consecrated host.

argument 32 The Eutychianists deny, that Christ after the vnion of the two natures, had a true body, but as De ieiun. 7. mens. ser. 6. Leo signifieth, a bodie without shape, dimensions, or circumscription. they said also, that Christ was whole both in heauen, and earth: against whom Vigilius disputing, Lib 4. contr. Eutych. c. 4. saith, that the flesh of Christ when it was in in earth, was not in heauen, and now being in heauen, is not in earth. and their chiefe ground was, that Christes humane na­ture was abolished, euen as the mysticall signes are changed into another nature after the consecration of the sacrament. for this is plainly apparent in Theodorets second Dialogue. Who then vnderstandeth not, that the papists by their transubstan­tiation do bring in Eutychianisme, holding that Christes body in the sacrament is without all shape, and dimensions, that may be perceiued, and that his body is both in heauen and earth at one time, & also in as many altars and places, as the sacrament is? who doth not likewise perceiue that Christes humanitie is abolished, if the substance of bread and wine be abolished in the sacrament, especially if the vnion of the two natures in Christes person be fitly resembled by the fathers to the sacrament? This, certes, is a matter very euident, that both Theodoret dialog. 1. and Gelasius writing against Euty­ches, doth confute his heresie by this reason, for that the sub­stance of the bread remaineth in the sacrament. which being de­nied by papists, is it not very plaine, that they reduce and bring backe into the world the old decaied heresie of Eutyches?

argument 33 The papists also in many points conspire with the enemies of the grace of God the Pelagians. Augustin. de haeres. c. 88. Pelagius saith, that with­out grace a man may doe all Gods commandements. Voluit credi, saith Augustine, etiam si difficilius, tamen posse homines sine gratia diuina facere iussa. and De grat. & lib. arb. lib. 5. c. 5. &c. 9. Bellar. saith, Solis naturae viribus posse aliquem ad breuissimum tempus omnia seruare. scilicit, diuina mandata. he shifteth off the matter, with saying, quoad substantiam operis. but that, no question, but the Pela­gians would also admit. Pelagius said also, that grace is infused [Page 137] according to merit. The papists also teach, that men doing quantum in se est: God is present with his grace. and this they call meritum congrui, or preparations to iustification. they do not deny also, but after a man hath grace, he may me­rit a greater measure of grace. thirdly, both Pelagians and papists agrée in the definition of sinne. Propriè vocatur pecca­tum, saith Vid. August. contra Iulian. & de grat. Pelagius, quod libera voluntate, & à sciente com­mittitur. so also say the papists, as appeareth by the censure of Coleine. Againe, the Pelagians teach, that a iust man in this life may be without sinne. Hoc Pelagiani audent dicere, saith, S. De bono per­seuerant. lib. 2. c. 5. Augustine, hominem iustum in hac vita omnino nullum habere peccatum. and in his booke of heresies. c. 88. he shew­eth it is Pelagianisme to holde, that the life of iust men in this life hath no sinne. Lib. 4. de iustif. c. 11. Bellar. also holdeth, that a man is able to per­forme the law perfectly. of which it followeth, that a man may be without all sinne. for how can a man fulfill the law, but he must be without all sinne? All papists generally hold, that all iust men are without mortall sinnes.

The Pelagians doe Augustin. contra Iulian. lib. 6. c. 6. teach, that concupiscence by baptisme is sanctified, and being before euill, doth afterward begin not to be euill: which doctrine S. Augustine calleth very absurd. yet from this doctrine can not the papists cleare themselues, when they teach that concupiscence after baptisme, and in the rege­nerat, is no sinne.

The Pelagians would not grant, that the Gentiles sinned in all their actions, nor that their actions were sinne, as done with­out faith, as S. Contra Iuli­an. lib. 4. c. 3. Augustine sheweth. no more will the papists grant it, as appeareth by Bellarmines disputes lib. 5. de grat. & lib. arb. c. 5. & 9. nay, they sticke not to hold, that they may do all good works according to the substance of the worke.

The Contr. dua [...] epist. Pelag. c. 19. Pelagians were woont to say, in omni bono opere ho­minem semper adiuuari à gratia; and Ibid. lib. 4. c. 6. againe, gratiam adiuua­re bonum cuius (que) propositum. and Bellar. likewise lib. 2. de grat. & lib. arb. c. 5. disputeth, that God according to time and place giueth grace sufficient to all men.

The August. lib. 1. de grat. c. 28. Pelagians say, nos forte & firmum habere ad non peccandum liberum arbitrium. and S. Lib. 2. de bap­tismo. Augustine teacheth vs, that this doctrine is Pelagianisme▪ yet doe the papists hold, that sinne is subiect to our will, as the censurers of Coleyn doe [Page 138] speake. Bellarmine also lib. 5. de grat. & lib. arb. in diuers pla­ces alloweth this power to frée will, to be able to doe good, and to absteine from sinne.

The Pelagians deny orignall sinne, as saint Augustine lib. de haeres. c. 88. teacheth. and most papists now hold, that the virgine Mary was conceiued without originall sinne, as ap­pereth by the testimony of Bellarmine, lib. 4. de amissione grat. c. 15. now to deny originall sinne to be in any, is Pelagianisme, as Bellarmine lib. de notis ecclesiae c. 9. disputeth.

Saint Augustinne Contra. epist. Pelag. lib. 4. c. 6. & 8. de grat. lib, 1. c. 14. teacheth vs, that it is Pelagianisme to hold, that God is ready with his grace, if he see a mans soule ready and prepared to receiue it: and, that a naturall man may desire his owne conuersion. and yet the papists will not denie these propositions, nor seeme to dislike them.

S. In Hierem. 13. Hierome saith, that the Pelagians did interpret these sentences: our iustice is like a cloth of a menstruous woman. and, no man is good, no not one: in this sort, as if the holie Ghost, had ment, that man in comparison of God is not iust, or good. which is also the sleight and cunning interpretation of papists.

Both Pelagians and Papists vse the same reasons to prooue the strength of fréewill: as first, that we are commanded to choose, and next, that God would not command vs things im­possible. magnum aliquid se scire putant Pelagiani. saith saint Degrat. & lib. arb. c. 16. Augustine, quando dicunt non iuberet deus quod sciret ab homine non posse fieri. so likewise the papists say, if we had not fréewill; that then God would not command vs to doe things. but he confuteth both their reasons in the words fol­lowing. quis hoc nesciat? saith he. sed ideo iubet aliqua quae non possumus, vt nouerimus, quid ab illo petere debeamus. he saith not, that we haue frée will, to doe good works, because God commandeth vs to doe them; but rather sheweth that God commandeth vs to doe things, which we are not able of our selues to doe, that we may learne what to craue and begge at Gods hands. we may therefore well conclude, that the pa­pists are farre declined towards Pelagianisme. and that long before vs, did Lib. 1. de grat. aduers. Pelag. Thomas Brandwardine, perceiue & declare, and therefore doubteth not to call the popish schoolemen Pelagians. totus mundus saith he, post pelagium in errorem abiit. exurge [Page 139] deus & iudica causam tuam. this man wrote about 300. yeares agone. but now our aduersaries are growne woorse and woorse.

argument 34 The Donatists, as saint De haeres. c. 69. Augustine writeth, beléeued, that the church was onely conteined in Afrike, and consisted in the obedience or part of Donatus; quod ecclesia Christi saith hée, in Africa, & Donati parte remanserit. they did also rebaptize catholike Christians. if this then be heresie, the papists may not escape scot frée, that beleeue the catholike Romane church onely, and take none for Christians but such, Geronym [...] Campos, cate­techism. & Brist. motiut 12. as take the popes part, and liue vnder his obedience. they doe also presume sometimes to rebaptize, such as haue béene baptized in our churches.

argument 35 The Circumcellions shought it a matter meritorious to kil those, that were contrary to their sect, immania facinora perpe­trando, as S. De haeres. c. 69. Augustine saith. nay that holy man himselfe did hardly escape their ambuscadoes laid for him. like to them also doe papists teach, that it is lawfull and meritorious to kill princes excommunicate by the pope. both pope Pius the fift, and Sixtus the fift, vpon paine of excommunication, comman­ded her Maiesties subiects to take armes against her. Sixtus quintus that shamelesse frier, did La fulmi­nante. highly commend Iames Cle­ment the Dominican frier, that murdred his liege prince Hen­rie the third king of France. Iohn Ghineard a Iebusite did mainteine this doctrine of murdring princes, and was there­fore by arrest of the parliament of Paris condemned & execu­ted. by these desperate Assassines and hired murderers the pa­pists killed the prince of Orenge and Iames the regent of Scot­land, and poisoned diuers others. Alphonsus Diazius did most wickedly murder his owne brother, and yet was protec­ted by the pope. finally by diuers meanes they haue sought to murder the Queenes Maiestie, king Henry the 4. of France, Graue Maurice, and all that stand in their way: farre passing not onely the hereticall circumcellions, but also the Turkish assassins.

argument 36 The Audaeans or Anthropomorphites did imagine God to haue an humane shape, & parts like a mortall man. Cogitati­one carnali, saith De haeres. c. 50. Augustine, Deum fingebant in similitu dinem hominis corruptibilis. The papists likewise cannot imagine, [Page 140] but that God is like man, when they expresse God the father in likenesse of an olde man, or at the least imagine such images to be like God. they doe also make the image of the incom­prehensible trinity. let the people be taught say the men of S [...]ss. 25. Trent, that the Godhead is not therefore figured, as if it could be seene with corporeall eies, or expressed wirh colours or figures. it appeareth therefore they meant it should be re­presented, though it could not be well expressed by figures.

argument 37 Origen beléeued, that sinnes might be purged and done a­way after this life. and therefore Augustine de haeres. c. 43. imagined, that euen the damned after some long time might be saued. he delighted also to draw scriptures to serue allegoricall sences. if then it be heresie to say, that great sinnes are to be remitted after this life, why is it not heresie to holde, that small sinnes may be then remitted: seeing we haue but one meanes to obtaine remission of sinnes? againe why should allegoricall interpre­tations be more allowable in papists, then in Origen? finally why should not other damned soules be as well saued as Trai­ans soule and the soule of Falconilla an idolatresse, at the inter­cession of Gregory, as Damascen and the papists beléeue?

argument 38 Eunomius taught, that so a man were of his religion, it skilled not greatly what sinnes he committed. asseuerabat saith De haeres. [...]. 54. Augustine, quod nihil cuiquam obesset quorumlibet perpetratio, ac perseuerantia peccatorum, si huius, quae ab ipso docebatur, fidei particeps esset. vnto which heresie the pa­pists come very nere. for the pope to all his followers promi­seth heauen, if they beléeue as he doth, and will come to confession. his canonists teach that the pope, albeit he draw innu­merable soules to hell, and continue in all wickednesse, yet he is Christes true vicar, and the head of the church. Lib. de eccles. milit. c. 2. Bellarmi­ne requireth no inward vertue in the true members of the church, which he defineth, so they professe outwardly and communicate with the pope. let the world then iudge, what church the papists build, when they admitte Piers Lacy, Tiro­ne, the white knight, and such wicked rebels to be true parts and members of their society.

argument 39 The 1. Tim. 4. apostle condemned them as hereticks, that forbad men to marry, and to abstaine from certaine meates. where­upon saith In 1. Tim. 4. Theodoret: rectè posuit, prohibentium contra­here [Page 141] matrimonium. neque eum Caelibatum, aut continentiam vituperat, sed eos accusat, qui lege lata ea sequi compellunt. if then the papists by sharpe lawes forbid priests and monks to marry, and to eat certaine meates, are they not within the compasse of these false teachers?

argument 40 The hereticks called Anomi, were condemned as heretiks, for that they either contemned, or corrupted the law of God. is it not then some blemish to papists, that they make the law of God to be vnperfect, and Sess. 4. concil. Trid. make their owne traditions e­quall to Gods law? and is it not heresie, to make a new law­giuer, as the papists doe, c. translato. de constitutionibus: and to cut off the second commandement concerning the making of grauen images? finally doe they imagine that it is no error to Concil. Trid. sess. 5. say, that concupisence is no sinne, which is direct contrary to the apostles doctrine Rom. 7. and to the law of God?

argument 41 Ireneus and Tertullian doth range them among hereticks, which flie from scriptures, and when they are conuinced by them, fall to accuse them, affirming that the apostles did not commit all things necessary to saluation to writing. cum ex scripturis arguuntur, saith Aduers. ha­res. lib. 3. c. 2. Ireney, in accusationem conuer­tuntur scripturarum, quasi non rectè habeant, neque sint ex au­thoritate, & quia varie sunt dictae, & quia non possit ex his in­ueniri veritas ab his, qui nesciant traditionem. norrenim per li­teras traditam illam, sed per vinam vocem, ob quam causam & Paulum dixisse, sapientiam loquimur inter perfectos. Tertulli­an saith, it is a tricke of heretikes either to falsifie, or by false in­terpretations to peruert scriptures. alius manu scripturas, saith De praescript. aduers. haeres. he, alius sensu expositiones interuertit. he saith againe, that hereticks cannot stand, if they be brought to try their cause by scriptures. aufer haereticis saith De resurr. caernis. he, quae cumque ethnici sapi­unt, vt de scripturis solis quaestiones suas sistant, & stare non pos­sunt. in these points therefore these two fathers haue strick­en the papists, albeit generally they speake of hereticks. for first Bellar. de verb. Dei non scripto. they deny, that the scriptures containe doctrine suffici­ent to saluation, or that we can learne all trueth necessary out of them without their traditions. secondly they speake euill of scriptures, as before hath bene shewed. thirdly they say that scriptures receiue authority from the church. fourthly they accuse them of vncertenty. Turrian aduers. Sadeelem lib. 1. [Page 142] doth call them Delphicum gladium: and others call them a nose of waxe. fiftly they allow no sence, but such as the syna­gogue of Rome authorizeth. sixtly either Sixtus Quintus or Clement the 8. hath corrupted the scriptures. for both pre­tending to set our the olde latine translation the one is in di­uers places contrary to the other. finally they will not haue the scriptures to decide controuersies about matters of faith.

argument 42 Lib. 8. Orig. c de haeres. Isidore doth declare them to be heretikes, that doe other­wise vnde [...]stand the scriptures, then the meaning of the holie Ghost requireth. quicunque saith he, aliter scripturam sacram intelligit, quam sensus spiritus sancti flagitat, a quo conscripta est, licèt de ecclesia non recesserit, tamen haereticus potest ap­pellari. if then we list to reade the popes decretales, or the writings of the popish faction; we need not doubt, but they are tresgrand heretikes, hauing so notoriously peruerted the Scriptures, and turned them to sences neuer intended by the holy Ghost. as for example, these words of the Isai 1. prophet, à planta pedis vsque ad verticem non est in eo sanitas, which he spoke of the people of Israel being then most sinfull, Clement the sixt in the chap. vnigenitus extr. de poenit. & remiss. doeth turne to our Sauiour Christ, as if our Sauiour had béene vn­sound from the foot to the head: or that the prophet had ment, that our Sauiour had shed all his blood, that the pope might make sale of the frute of it at his pleasure.

God by his prophet Hierem. 1. saith, I haue appointed thee ouer na­tions and kingdomes. ergo saith C. vnam sanctam. ext. de maior. & obed. Boniface the 8. if earthly princes goe out of the way, they must be iudged by the pope. Againe, out of these words of the apostle: the spirituall man iudgeth all things: he Ibidem. Ibid. collecteth, that the pope hath no supe­rior iudge. thirdly because Christ saith to Peter, put vp thy sword into the sheath, he concludeth, that both Peter, and his successors ought to haue a temporall sword. fourthly of these words, ecce duo gladij hic: Ibid. he inferreth, that the pope is to command and exercise both the swords. The Isai. 8 & 28. prophets and Rom. 9. & 1. Pet. 2. apostles by the corner stone placed in the foundation of the church doe vnderstand Christ Iesus. but Bellarmine in his pre­face prefixed before his bookes de potifice Rom. draweth these words to the pope, and forceth them to serue to make him to be a corner stone, and a foundation also of the church. he will [Page 143] also haue these words, super hanc Petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam: to be ment of the pope. these words of our Sauiour, drinke yee all of this: the papists expound in such sort, as if Christ had said, drinke not all of this. the words of our Sa­uiour to Peter, when he said, pasce oues meas: they appro­priate to the pope, that féedeth not, as if none were to féed, but the pope.

The apostle saith, mariage is honorable among all men: yet will they not allow, that mariage is honourable among nunnes, and monks, and friers, and masse priests, and the rest of the Romish clergy. where our Sauiour Christ saith, scru­tamini scripturas; they say contrary, search not the scriptu­res. the apostle saith, they are profitable: they Index libror. prohibit. regul. 4 say, they are pernicious. our sauiour saith, that those doe in vaine worship him, that teach doctrines of men: these doe teach humane tra­ditions, and yet doubt not, but that God is well pleased with them. The spirit of God commandeth, that praiers be made for princes: and willeth euery Christian man, to submit him­selfe to the magistrate, and to higher powers. but the papists doe so expound these words, as if it were lawfull for the pope to curse Gods annointed, to excommunicate kings and empe­rors, to massacre them, if they can, & to raise rebellion against them. It were infinite to reherse all the false interpretations of Scriptures, deuised by papists. beside that, in this place it is not necessarie, séeing by these few which we haue alledged already, it may in part appeare, that neuer any heretikes al­ledged Scriptures more peruersly, nor more direct contrarie to the meaning of the holy Ghost, then they.

argument 43 As the Damascene. de haeres. Herodians gaue the name and honour of Christ to Herode; so the papists doe giue the names and honour of Christ to the pope, allowing these words of Bernard to Euge­nius, vnctione Christus es. they cal him the foundation & rocke of the church, the head and spouse of the church, the monarke of the church, and Christes vicar generall. In epist. dedic. ante princip. doctrin. Stapleton doth call him supremum numen in terris. some teach, that he and Christ haue but one consistory betwéene them. Lib. Caerem. others saie, that all power is giuen to the pope in heauen and earth: which words our Sauiour Matth. 28. speaketh of himselfe. if then the Herodians deserue for honouring Herod with Christs ti­tles, [Page 144] to be reputed heretikes, who can cleare the papists from the note of heresie, that farre more impudently and wickedly giue Christs honour to the pope?

argument 44 De haeres. c. beicetae. Damascene numbreth those monkes and nunnes among heretikes, that méeting together, vsed to skip and dance also together, as they thought, to the praise of God. yet doe not the popish sort leaue their piping and dancing processions, nor doe priests, monkes, and nunnes cease to celebrate their co­medicall dancing masses skipping and hopping about the al­ter like apes, that are taught to skippe, and to leape for their masters best aduantage.

argument 45 Gnosimachi were certaine heretiks, that held an opiniō, that vulgar Christians were not to study the scriptures. omni Chris­tianorum congnitioni ac scientiae ita aduersantur, Ibidem c. gnosimachi. saith Dama­scene, vt vanum, & minus necessarium laborem esse dicant eo­rum, qui in diuinis scripturis aliquam exquírunt scientiam. ne­que enim deum aliud à Christiano postulare, quam bonas, prae­clarasque actiones. Itaque aliquem simplici, rudique animo institutum suum persequi melius est, vt aiunt, quam multam cu­ram in cognoscendis decretis & sententijs ponere. and like to these hereticks are the papists, for they holde it to be mortall sinne for lay men to dispute vpon matters of faith, as Nauarrns in his enchiridion declareth. they suppose also, that the coli­ars faith is sufficient, albeit he knoweth nothing, but being demanded a reason of his faith answereth, that he beleeueth as the church beleeueth. De legit. iudi­cibus lib. 1. Hosius writing against Brentius doth greatly commend ignorance, and doth greatly allow this saying, thy faith hath saued thee, and not the exercise of scrip­tures. Lib. 3. de au­thorit. scripturae. he saith also, that nothing is more pernitious, then with scriptures to enter into a combat with Satan. generally they allow an implicit faith in the rude sort, and dehort them from knowledge of scriptures: which is the flat heresie of the Gnosimachians.

argument 46 The Damascene de haeres. 6. Ethnophronians were by the church condemned for obseruing diuers heathenish customes, & holidaies. which not­withstanding, pope Boniface the 8. instituted the Iubiley euery hundred yeares in imitation of certaine plaies, or games cal­led Ludi seculares. the papists also haue their expiations and lustrations with holy water, like to the gentles, they kéepe [Page 145] their carneual, as the Romans kept their lupercalia, running disguised vp and downe the stréets. they canonize saints, as the heathen did canonize their benefactors for gods. and like as they burned incense to their idols, so papists burne incense to their idols. neither doe they regard, that such as offered in­cense to dumbe idols in the primitiue church, were condemned as idolaters, as appeareth by diuers censures of Cyprian, and others contra thurificantes: that is against those that burned incense before idols. they doe likewise offer sacrifices, or infe­rias, for the soules of the departed, as did the Gentiles. finally they vse lots, and coniurations, and lash themselues before their images, and haue diuers other tricks of gentilisme,

argument 47 As the Montanists, so likewise doe papists mislike second mariages denying to blesse them, and not accounting those mariages so holy a sacrament, as the first. nay they séeme to goe yet farther, & to enioine pennance for 2. mariages 31. q. 1. de his qui. & con­cil. Neocaesar. they de­crée, presbyterū conuiuio secundarum nuptiarum interesse non debere, maximè, cum praecipiatur secundis nuptijs poenitentiam tribuere. quis ergo erit presbiter qui propter conuiuium illis consentiat nuptijs? it appeareth therefore, that they would not haue priests to allow second mariages, or to blesse them, or to be present at them.

argument 48 De haeres. c. Christiano-categori. Damascene also accounteth them hereticks, that worship­ped the images of our sauiour, of the blessed virgine, and the saints, as the gentiles did their gods: which is iust the case of papists. for both of them bow vnto them, pray before them, burne incense to them, offer sacrifice in honor of them: and yet both of them deny, that they worship stocks or stones, and say that they worship only the things represented by them, as Lib. 2. diuin. instit. c. 2. Lac­tantius testifieth of the Gentiles, and is very often repeated by papists.

argument 49 The papists doe likewise in diuers conditions and quali­ties, resemble the olde hereticks, and false teachers, of which the apostles, and ancient fathers make mention. the Rom. 16. apostle when he had warned the Romans to beware of those, that cau­sed diuisions and scandals, he addeth also, against that doctrine, which they had receiued. In the first epistle to Timothy chap. 6. he sheweth, that hereticks had a fashion, to teach other doc­trine, and not to rest in the wholsome words of our Lord Iesus [Page 146] Christ. The apostle 2. Pet. 2. Peter saith, that there shall rise vp false teachers, which shall priuily bring in heresies, and damnable sects. De praescript. aduers. haeret. Tertullian doth oppose hereticks to the apostles, and their doctrine to apostolicall doctrine. vnde extranei, & inimici apostolis haeretici, saith he, nisi ex diuersitate doctrinae, quam v­nusquisque de suo arbitrio aduersus apostolos, aut protulit aut recepit? If then the schoolemen and doctors of the popish syna­gogue haue caused a great diuision from the apostolicke and ancient church, and haue taught doctrine diuers from that of Iesus Christ; and if they rest not in the holsome words of Christ Iesus, but make humane traditions equall to the word of God; if they haue troubled, and corrupted the déepest, and highest mysteries of Christian religion by their late inuentions, and haue digressed from the doctrine of the apostles, and refuse to be tried by the writings of the prophets and apostles; then are they cléerely prooued to be false teachers and heretikes. that they are departed from the doctrine of the apostles, and haue brought in diuers heresies, and sects, and new doctrines, which by no meanes are to be reputed catholike, it may be pro­ued by this whole discourse. It is made euident also by the grounds of popish religion, by the popes decretales, by the schoole diuinitie, by the lying and fabulous legends of the Ro­mish church, by the doctrine of the conuenticle of Trent, by the manifold corruptions of the masse, by the idolatrous worship, not onely of saints, but also of stocks, stones, rotten bones, and ragges, by their rebellion against princes, and by the tyranny of the pope, and finally, by the Iebusites new doctrine concer­ning these points. nay, if they teach doctrine contrary to scrip­tures, and to the apostles; by their owne confession they will be proued heretikes. Haeresis, saith Lib. 2. part. 1. Occham, est dogma fal­sum fidei contrarium orthodoxae. Apud Matt. Paris in Hen­ric. 3. Robert Grosthed saith, that heresie is an opinion chosen of humane vnderstanding contrary to scripture, and either openly taught, or defended. Apud Dio­nys. Carthus. in 3. sent. dist. 31. Durand signifieth, that heresie is onely an opinion contrary to canonicall scripture. Opinio ista, saith he, non est haeretica, quia non est contra canonicam scripturam. finally, the councell of Aen. Sylu. de gist. concil. Ba­sil. lib. 1. Basil doth determine him to be an heretike, thatdoth reiect the ca­tholike faith deduced out of canonicall scriptures, and proued by fathers.

argument 56 They holde also, that our sauiour Christ did passe out of his mothers wombe, as the raies of the sunne do pierce thorow the substance of the glasse. quomodo solis radij concretam vitri sub­stantiam penetrant. for these are the words of the Romane Part. 1. in exposit. 3. art. fid. ca­techisme. but this sheweth, that they giue no true flesh to our Sauior, and that they ouerthrow the article of Christes nati­uitie, and a principall mystery of Christian religion.

argument 51 Peter Lib. 1. sent. dist. 14. Lombard teacheth, that there is a two fold procee­ding of the holy Ghost, the one temporal, the other eternal. but this point his own scholers do mislike, as erronious. non debet concedi, saith Occham, writing vpon this place, quod spiritus sancti sit duplex processio, ne duae spiritus sancti processiones videantur (vt sunt duae filij generationes) vna aeterna ex patre, altera temporalis ex filio. they also dislike his doctrine, sentent. lib. 1. dist. 18. §. 4. where he doth teach, that the Holy Ghost is as properly said, to be a gift, as to proceed. his words are, aequè donum esse, ac procedere.

argument 52 Lib. 3. p. 290. Andradius saith, that philosophers by naturall knowledge, and by the works of the creation, did after a sort know Christ crucified, which I hope Robert Parsons will not denie to be er­roneous.

argument 53 The conuenticle of Sess. 6. c. 9. Trent teacheth vs, alwaies in this life to doubt of Gods fauour towards vs, and of our owne saluation. which is nothing els, but a plaine demonstratiō, that the same teacheth not true faith, but rather a superstitious distrust, and oppugneth these two articles of our Créed, I beleeue remission of sinnes, and aeternall life.

argument 54 Finally, all those points of doctrine, which before I haue de­clared to be neither ancient, nor catholike, and which do plain­ly declare, that the papists are not the true church, are also ap­parently erroneous. which in part hath béene proued, and shall further be declared at all times, if either Robert Parsons, or any man of note among the papists, leauing off his vaine bangling about quo­tations, dare vndertake particularly to answer my challenge, or will aduenture hand to hand to encounter me.

CHAP. V. That all papists, if they mainteine the doctrine of the pope and Romish church, are plaine idolaters.

HOw odious and hainous a sinne idolatrie is, the scriptures doe in many places declare. Al­mighty God hauing published his law against idolatrie, addeth a very seuere threatning a­gainst those, that should transgresse it. I am the Lord thy God, saith Exod. 20. he, strong and jelous, and visit the sinnes of the fathers vpon the children vnto the third and fourth generation of those that hate mee. and when the children of Israel departed from their God, to worship a mol­ten image: Suffer me, saith Exod. 32. he to Moyses, that my wrath may waxe hot against them, and that I may consume them. Idolatry in scriptures is called spirituall fornication. but nothing can more displease a man, than that his spouse shall forsake him, and breaking the couenant of marriage, run after strangers. In this case therefore, Deuter. 13. God forbiddeth a brother to spare his brother, or a father his sonne, or a husband his wife, if any of them arise and say, come and let vs serue other gods. Sit pri­mum manus tua super eum, saith Moyses. neither are idolaters onely punished in this life, but also in the life to come. With­out, saith Apocal. 22. Iohn, shall be dogges, coniurers, vncleane persons, murderers, and such as serue idoles. and in the 21. chapter of the Reuelation he saith, that idolaters shall haue their part in the lake, that burneth with fire and brimstone. If then popish re­ligion do plainly mainteine most grosse idolatry, as not onely by their practise is prooued, but also by diuers godly mens wri­tings verified; not onely the magistrates are diligently and seriously to represse the priests of Baal, and the mainteiners of idolatry, but also all Christians are carefully to take héed of their damnable doctrine. if not, let them assure themselues, that they shall neither auoid Gods iudgements in this life, nor the lake of fire and brimstone prepared for idolaters in the life to come. And lest any papist should complaine, that I doe greatly wrong the Romanists, and their religion, charging [Page 149] them with idolatry; I do now, God willing, purpose to make my charge good in this chapter. What papists are not, I decla­red in the thrée first chapters, and, I hope, I haue made it plaine, that they are neither true Christians, nor catholikes. it followed, that I should shew what they are. and that in part is performed. for I haue declared them to be heretikes. it re­steth therefore now for a fuller description of their nature, that I declare them to be idolaters. in the last part we shall, God willing, examine the loialtie of Rob. Parsons and all the popes agents and adherents.

That the papists therefore are idolaters, it shall be prooued by arguments first drawen out of scriptures. secondly, out of fathers. thirdly, out of the confession of some learned papists, and lastly, out of their owne common doctrine and practise.

argument 1 That papists are idolaters arg. 1. The first law of the decalogue doeth expresly forbid the hauing of other Gods. non habebis deos alienos saith God, coram me. that is, thou shalt haue no strange Gods before me, or els thou shalt haue no other Gods, but me. out of these words I frame this argument. whosoeuer doeth worship or serue any other God, beside the Lord God, that created hea­uen and earth, is an idolater. but the papists doe worship, and serue other Gods beside the God of heauen and earth. ergo. the proposition is prooued first by the intention of the law, that séemeth principally to be made against idolatry; and not onely against worship of idols subiect to our sences, but also against idoles, which men frame to themselues in their owne imagi­nations and fancies. secondly by the textes of Scriptures, that account them idolaters, not onely that worship idoles of colour, or mettall, or other matter, but also that honor with religious honor such things, as themselues fancie to haue di­uine power. so couetousnesse is called worshipping of idoles, Eph. 5. and those are idolaters, that serue Matth. 6. Mammon, or call a wedge of gold their god, or that put trust or confidence in any creature, visible, or inuisible, or that serue or worship any thing for God, but onely the euerliuing and true God. finally whatsoeuer a man doeth out of his owne fancy set vp for God, that may by good construction well be termed an idole, or a false God.

The assumption is prooued by diuers particulars. for first it [Page 150] is plaine, that the papists make the sacrament of the Lordes body and blood their Lord and God, both in that they call it so, and in that they Rubric. can. Missae. fall downe and worship it. secondly they call vpon angels, saints, and specially vpon the virgine Marie. thirdly they put their trust in them fourthly they make vowes vnto them. fiftly they confesse their sinnes vnto them. finally they bow downe their bodies before them, and publikely worship them, as is prooued by their common practise. the Rubrickes also of their missals, and breuiaries, and ladies offices, together with their blasphemous praiers made to angels, saints, and other creatures doe shew the same to bée most true. but the scriptures doe Hierem. 17. testifie first, that we are to put our trust in God onely: secondly, that we are to call on him Psal. 50. Ioel. 2. Rom. 10. faithfully: thirdly, that we are to make our Isai. 19. vowes to him onely: fourthly, that we are religiously to serue him onely: and finally, that we are to confesse our sinnes to God onely, Matth. 4. and to giue religious worship to none, but to him a­lone. And this the practise of the ancient church most euident­ly confirmeth, which neuer allowed, receiued, nor vsed to yéeld any such profane worship to angels, saints, or other crea­tures, as the papists giue vnto them; as in the first chapter of this discourse hath at large béene prooued. superstitiosi sunt, qui multos ac falsos deos colunt, saith Lib. 4. instit. c. 28. Lactantius, nos religi­osi, qui vni & vero deo supplicamus. those are superstitious, which worship many and false gods, we are religious which call vpon one true God. the papists percase will answer, that they worship not either false gods, or many gods. but séeing they giue the worship of God to many; and call vpon creatures and make vowes vnto them, and build churches, and altars, in their honour, and doe ascribe to them that, which is pro­per to God; they cannot by any meanes auoid the charge of plurality of gods. for euen the Macrob. Sa­ [...]tnal. Gentiles can answer, that they draw all to one God. yet because they attributed di­uine power to creatures and inferiour persons, therefore no man will deny, but that they worshipped many gods. there­fore Libr. 3. de cultu sanct. c. 9. Bellarmine saith plainly, quod votum non conuenit san­ctis, nisi quatenus sunt dij per participationem. that is, that vowes are not to be made to saints, but as they are gods by participation. may it not then be truely said, that papists wor­ship [Page 151] strange gods? yes certes. and if they deny it, they are strange felowes.

argument 2 Argu. 2. Almighty God doth also forbid his people to make any grauen image, or likenesse of anything, either in heauen aboue or in the earth below, or in the water vnder the earth, Exod. 20. to the in­tent to bow downe to it, and to worship it. non facies tibi sculp­tile, neque omnem similitudinem, quae est in coelo desuper, & quae in terra deorsum, nec eorum, quae sunt in aquis sub terra; non adorabis ea, neque coles. if then it be not lawfull to make sculptile, or a grauen image, to the end to worship it; and if those, that doe worship such grauen images be idolaters, no question is to be made, but that papists are grosse idolaters. for they make the images of God in heauen, of men that som­time liued on the earth, and of some that percase now may be in hell. they make also grauen and molten images of angels and other creatures, and fall downe and worship them. to the crosse they pray, and Breuiar. Rom. [...] say, auge pijs iustitiam, reisque dona veniam. that is, increase righteousnesse in the godly, and grant pardon to sinners. the schoolemen holde, that what worship is due to the originall, is due also to the picture, or image. so saith Alexander Hales part. 3. q. 30. art. vlt. Thomas Aquinas 3. p. q. 25. art. 3. and Caietan in his commentaries vpon him. so then by these mens doctrines the Crucifixe is to be worshipped with like worship, as we doe worship Christ Iesus: and the image of God is to be worshipped with the worship due to God himselfe. and this is so plaine idolatry, that Lib. 2. de ima­ginib. c. 22. Bellarmine is constrained to deny, that Latria or diuine worship is due to i­mages properly. so albeit he would excuse himselfe, yet in effect he maketh himselfe to be an idolater improperly, & all the anci­ent schoolemen, and synagogue of Rome for this 2. or 3. hun­dred yeares properly. for Hierome condemneth them for ido­laters, that worshipped the statues, or images of Emperors, albeit the same may séeme a ciuill ceremony. iudices & princi­pes seculi saith In cap. 3 Daniel he, qui imperatorum statuas adorant & imagi­nes, hoc se facere intelligāt, quod tres pueri facere nolentes pla­cuerunt deo. how then can they escape his censure, that fall downe before the statues and images of saints, and there pray before them, and offer incense to them?

argument 3 Argu. 3. We are also forbidden expresly to make any similitude, or [Page 152] likenesse of God. and a reason is Deut. 4. added. for that God spea­king to his people out of the fire in Mount Horeb, yet they saw no likenesse of any thing. and this God did, least his people being deceiued should make an image of male or female, or o­ther thing, and so adore and worship it. if then it be against the commandement of God, to represent him in any shape, and to adore any creature whether male or female, spirituall or corporall; then are papists grosse idolaters, that make images of God, and worship both male and female saints, as appea­reth both by the canon of the masse, and also by their doctrine and practise. nay they doe not onely bow their bodies to them, but also set vp lightes, and offer vp spirituall sacrifices of prai­ers vnto them.

argument 4 In Argu. 4. most plaine termes also Leuit. 26. God prohibiteth the mak­ing of idols, or grauen images, and the erecting of monuments, or titles, or stones for signals to be worshipped. non facietis vo­bis idolum & sculptile, saith the Lord, nec titulos erigetis, nec insignem lapidem ponetis in terra vestra, vt adoretis eum. nei­ther was there any thing intended in this law, then that the people of Israel should be restrained from idolatry. is it not then plaine, that such as make idols, and grauen images, and erect crosses, and stocks and stones to be worshipped, are ido­laters? it cannot well be denied. but percase our aduersaries will say. they neither erect, nor make any idols. as if euery i­mage worshipped with religious worship were not an idole, as it is said in the booke of Charles the great set forth against the second councell of Nice, and the worship of images.

Beside that, to preuent this simple shift of idolaters, that distinguish images, yea though worshipped with diuine wor­ship, from idols, the scripture saith, non facietis vobis idolum & sculptile, taking all grauen images worshipped with religi­ous worship for idols. but our aduersaries doe procéed fur­ther. for as the gentils did fall downe before their idols, and pray before them, and burne incense to them; so doe they to their images. they doe also relie much in their idole of the al­tar, and put no small trust in the crosse, and their images. to the crosse they [...]rcu [...]ar. Rom. ô crux aue spes vnica. that is, ô crosse all haile, our onely hope. are not then these wooden felowes, that thus say to a wooden crosse? in the Romish breuiary, they pray [Page 153] to our lady, as to their anchor hold, and say; Sumens illud aue Gabrielis ore, funda nos in pace. that is, receiuing, an aue, from Gabriels mouth establish and found vs in peace. which how­soeuer they obtaine, they found our opinion most firmely, that say, they are idolaters.

argument 5 Argu. 5. In the 81. psalme God by his prophet forbiddeth his peo­ple to worship new gods, or strange gods▪ non erit in te, saith he, Deus recens, neque adorabis deum alienum. and no questi­on, but that such, as doe either inuent new gods, or strange gods, are idolaters. let vs then see, whether the papists doe not worship both new gods and strange gods, and such as the apo­stles and prophets neuer knew. first they will not deny, that the eucharist is their lord and god. for that I haue shewed be­fore. next they confesse, that the images of the trinity are to be worshipped with the worship that is dew to God. further they doe daily canonize new saints. and make new masses and praiers in their honor. but these are new gods neuer knowen in ancient time, and gods by participation, as Bellar­mine calleth them, and very strange gods. nay euery day they conscerate new hosts, and make new images, and new crosses and new saints. finally the newest saints and gods with them haue best credit. doe they not then worship new gods? and doe they not frame vs a new religion.

argument 6 Argu. 6. The Israelits Exod. 32. were cōdemned for their idolatry, although they pretended to worship the true God in a golden calfe. and this is apparent by the words of Aaron, and the text following. to morrow said Aaron, is a solemne feast of the Lord. and when that day came, it is said, that the people of­fered burnt sacrifices, and peace offrings. which if they had bene offered to the calfe, what reason had Aaron to talke of the feast day of the Lord? or why should the people say, that those were the gods, that brought Israel out of Aegypt, but that they imagined, that they did worship y^e inuisible God, that brought them out of Aegypt in that visible calfe? The mother also of Micha Iudges 17. affirmeth, that she had sanctified certaine siluer (whereof a molten image was made) to the lord, to make a grauen image of it. It is apparent also, that 3. Reg. 12. Ierobo­am did consecrate his two idols, which he erected in Bethel & Dan to the Lord, yet were all those that worshipped either [Page 154] the calfe, or Michas or Ieroboams idols, grosse idolaters. nei­ther was it any excuse for them, that they did not worship the matter, or any thing corporeal; or that, as they thought, they did worship the true god in these images. if then the papists worship either God, or saints in images; it is first contrary to Gods commandement, and next it is plaine idolatry, albeit they pretend, that they neither worship siluer, nor golde, nor the images themselues materially, or grosly. but much more is it so to be estéemed, if any of them, as the fashion is, worship and kisse stocks and stones, and offer light, and other commo­dities vnto the very statues and images them selues.

argument 7 Argu. 7. It is also a property of idolaters, to reioice in the works of their owne hands, as may be proued by the words of Ste­phen act. 7. laetabantur, saith he, in operibus manuum suarum. further it is their wont, to worship those very images, which themselues made. Act. 7. figuras quas fecistis saith the scripture, ado­rare eas. and this is also apparent by the practise of the papists. for they celebrate solemne feasts on the day of the dedication of their images, and vant much of the miracles of the lady of Walsingham, of Monserrat, of Loreto. Horatius Tursellinus a Iebusite, and a panegyricall declamer hath in a vanting vaine set out the story of the acts, miracles, offrings, and festiuities of the lady of Loreto. they likewise were wont to talke much of Thomas of Canterbury, and yet talke of the images of Saint Sebastian, and Saint Rocke, and of the Cocle shells of Saint Michael, which in liew of the substance of religion, they giue to their followers. finally they fall downe, and adore the ima­ges, which themselues haue made; and which the heathen scarce did, they creepe to them on their knées, touch them with their fingers, set vp light before them, pray to them, and say, sancte Christophore, sancte Hermingilde, sancti coronati qua­tuor, audite nos, intercedite pro nobis. They doe offer also, which the priests like best of all, rich presents to them, as is e­uident by the rich shrine of Thomas Becket in time past, and now by the great treasure of the idole of Loreto, set out by Histor. Lauret. Tursellinus.

argument 8 Scriptures doe account them idolaters, that serue the hoast of heauen, as is testified by the prophet Amos, chap. 5. and saint Stephen, Act. 7. where it is said, that God gaue ouer his [Page 155] people to serue the hoast of heauen: seruite militiae coeli. are not then those simple papists giuen ouer to a strange dulnesse, and as it were to a reprobate sence, that worship angels, and archangels, he saints, and she saints, In missal. Rom. & breuiar. & Hortulo animae. and all the hoast and court of heauen? and is it not strange to heare them pray in their litanies, Sancta virgo vriginum, sancte Michael, sancte Gabriel, sancte Raphael, omnes angeli & archangeli, omnes sancti beatorum spirituum ordines orate pro nobis: omnes sancti, & sanctae dei intercedite pro nobis.

argument 9 Argu. 9. Amos doth account them idolaters, that erected taberna­cles to their gods, and caried about with them, the images or pourtraits of their false gods. portastis tabernaculum Moloch vestro, Amos 5. saith he, imaginem idolorum vestrorum, sidus dei ve­stri, quae fecistis vobis. you haue caried about the tabernacle erected to Moloch, the image of your idole gods, the starre of your god, which you made to your selues. what then may we thinke of papists, if we scanne their false worship of God ac­cording to this rule? doe not they also place their corpus do­mini, which they call their lord and god in a pixe or taberna­cle? doe they not carie him also about in procession, and with him for company other idoles of wood and mettall? doe they not also worship the holy virgin Marie, and salute her, and call her a starre, and say, aue Maris stella: haile thou starre of the sea, alluding, percase, to Venus, whom poets faine to haue her beginning of the sea? and doe not the Spaniards call on her at sea, as if God had made her a commander there?

argument 10 The prophets words of the heathen mens idoles, do most excellently fit the popish images. the Simulachra. images of the Gentiles saith Psal. 114. he, are siluer and gold, the worke of mens hands. they haue mouthes and speake not, they haue eies and see not, they haue eares and heare not, they haue noses and smell not, hands they haue, and handle not, feet haue they, and walke not, nei­ther doeth any voice passe through their throat. apply then this to the great image of great saint Christopher, as you enter our ladies church at Paris. for albeit the same be great and large; yet he neither séeth, nor féeleth, nor smelleth, nor spea­keth, nor walketh. onely the priests are sory, that he is not of siluer and gold, that they might cut him in pieces and make money of him. our lady of Loret also, albeit women be more [Page 156] talkatiue then men, speaketh not a word. diuers images also they haue of siluer and gold, and other mettals; but all with­out sence and motion, vnlesse by engins the false masse priests be able to make them mooue. the Chap. 15. author of the booke of Wis­dome sheweth, that the sight of such images and pictures well shadowed out in colours doeth delight sencelesse and brutish folke; which doe also loue the shape of dead images without soule, but that the godly are not abused with such idolatrous inuentions and pictures, or labour without frute. non in erro­rem induxit nos saith he in the person of godly men, hominum malae artis exogitati, nec vmbra picturae, labor sine fructu, ef­figies sculpta per varios colores, cuius aspectus insensato dat concupiscentiam, & diligit mortuae imaginis effigiem sine ani­ma. are not then the papists more blockish, then the old idola­ters, that take such delight in their painted tables, and in their images without soule, yea oftentimes without good or decent shape? and are not our masse priests madde, that runne to the pope, and for loue of his idolatrous religion, are content to breake their necks in England, practising for his seruice?

argument 11 Argu. 11. The offrings of the Gentiles, are immolated and offred to diuels, and not to God, as the 1. Cor. 10. apostle teacheth vs, quae im­molant Gentes saith he, daemoniis immolant, & non deo. it can­not therefore serue the papists turne, that they say, they wor­ship God, in his image, improperly. secundum rei veritatem saith De imagin. lib. 2. c. 22. Bellarmine, non potest dici adorari latria imaginem, nisi per accidens vel improprie; per se autem, & propriè, nullo modo. this, I say, albeit contrary to all the best schoolemens doctrine, can not excuse the papists from idolatry. for albeit the Gentiles did not per se, and properly immolate sacrifices to idoles and diuels; yet because they sacrificed before idoles, and in other sort, than God had commanded, the apostle calleth this the diuels sacrifice. I would therefore exhort all simple pa­pists to beware, how they come at the idolatrous masse. for albeit their priests tell them, that they offer vp the bodie and blood of the sonne of God; yet in trueth they offer the diuels sa­crifice, and say masse in honor of their idoles, and before ima­ges; and can no better excuse themselues, than heathen idola­ters, that might aswell as they, say, they worshipped not their images with latria per se, and properly, but in a certeine sort, & [Page 157] improperly. the apostle doth plainly declare, that both heathen men, & they sacrificing in this sort, offer to diuels, & not to god.

argument 12 Arg. 12. God signifieth them to be idolaters, that built high pla­ces, which he neuer commanded them, nor thought of any such matter. Quae non praecepi, nec cogitaui in corde meo, saith Hierem. 7. he. and this because they thought, that God was to be serued ac­cording to their owne inuentions, and humors. he doth also directly charge them with idolatrie, that made vowes to the Queene of heauen, that sacrificed vnto her, and serued her, say­ing, faciamus vota nostra quae vouimus, vt sacrificemus reginae coeli. And do not papists build their altars in high places, & ascend vnto them by steps? doe they not also worship God in images, and formes which God neuer commaunded, nor thought vpon? doe they not further, call the holy virgine regi­nam coeli, and poli reginam, that is the Queene of heauen? doe they not finally, say masses in honor of her, and offer consecra­ted hosts for her swéet seruice euery Saturday?

argument 13 Arg. 13. The papists also giue the honor due to God vnto grauen images, teaching, that the same worship is due vnto the image, and to the originall; and that, as Thomas and the olde schoole­wen holde, absolutely and without distinction, and as Bellar­mine beléeueth, improperly, and as he termeth it, by an acci­dent. but this is contrary to scriptures, and can not be déemed lesse, than plaine idolatry. I am the Lord, saith Isai. 42. God by his prophet, and my glory I will not giue to another, nor my praise to grauen images. Ego Dominus, saith he, gloriam meam alteri non dabo, & laudem meam sculptilibus. gladly I would there­fore haue Rob. Parsons to shew, how grauen images may be worshipped with diuine honor, & yet without repugnance to scripture, or derogation to Gods honor, or touch of idolatrie.

argument 14 Arg. 14. Like to the Babylonians the papists deale with their ima­ges. the images also of papists are not much vnlike to the idoles of the Babylonians. the Babylonians carried their gol­den, siluer, wooden and stone gods on their shoulders. Videbi­tis, saith Baruch. 6. Baruch, in Babylonia deos aureos, & argenteos, & la­pideos, & ligneos in humeris portari. The papists likewise, they haue images, which they worship as God, some of golde, some of siluer, some parcell gilt, some of wood, some of stone, and in processions they carry them about triumphantly on mens [Page 158] shoulders. Inaurata, & inargentata falsa sunt, & non possunt lo­qui, saith Baruch of the idoles of the Babylonians. so likewise, there is no trueth in the gilt images of the papists; neither can they speake, or mooue, whatsoeuer you doe to them. The Ba­bylonians put golden crownes on the heads of their images, and the priests stole from them their golde and siluer, and bestowed it on themselues, and sometime on baggages and whores. Co­ronas aureas habent, saith Baruch, super capita sua dij illorum, vnde subtrahunt ab eis aurum & argentum, & erogant illud in semetipsos. dant autem ex ipso prostitutis, & meretrices ornant. and do not popish priests likewise set coronets on the heads of their images, and steale away the offerings which blinde and superstitious people giue to images, and bestow part on them­selues, and part on their whores and baggages? The Baby­lonians clad their idoles with purple; and yet could not the idoles keepe their faces cleane from dust. Opertis illis veste purpurea extergunt faciem ipsorū propter puluerem, saith Ba­ruch. and what doth experience teach vs? doe we not sée, how the masse priests set out their images with purple and scarlet, and wipe their faces with foxe tailes to keepe them from the dust? and yet the simple ideot papists see not, that these impo­stors and charlatains pay them for all their deuotions with the flap of a foxe taile. neither the idoles of the Babylonians, nor the images of papists can kéepe themselues from rust, cor­ruption and théeues. who then can otherwise thinke, but that the papists are idolaters as the Babylonians were, and that they haue learned this abomination from the whore of Baby­lon, that hath a cup in her hand full of spirituall fornications, and abominations?

argument 15 Arg. 15. As the idolatrous Hierem. 2. Iewes said to a stocke, thou art my fa­ther, and to a stone, thou hast begotten me: so the idolatrous papists before stocks and stones say Pater noster, and the bab­ling friers in their chaires say to a crucifixe of wood or mettall standing by them, thou hast redeemed vs, thou hast reconciled vs to thy father. concionatores saith Lib. 2. de i­maginib. c. 23. Bellar. alloquuntur ima­ginem crucifixi, eique dicunt, tu nos redemisti, tu nos patri re­conciliasti: men more blockish and sencelesse, then stocks and stones. and yet Christians suffer themselues still to be abused by them, and are not ashamed of it, when they are tolde of it, [Page 159] as the Iewes were being reproued by the prophet.

argument 17 Arg. 17. As the Hierem. 2. Iewes according to the number of their cities, had the number of their gods; so the deceiued papists according to the number of nations, and cities haue their saints, and idols. some call on Saint Ieames, others on Saint Patricke, others on Saint Denys, and euery towne, nay euery parish hath their seuerall patrons. priuate persons also serue diuers saints ac­cording to their seuerall humors. and therefore we may say to the blinde papists, secundum numerum ciuitatum vestrarum, & dij vestri, ô miseri & Caeci idololatrae. nay we may say thus further, according to your families, and diuers occasions, you haue diuers saints and diuers gods, vpon whom you call for healp and remedy. to Saint Antony they flie for their piggs, to Saint Loy or Lewes for their horses, to Saint Sebastian in time of sicknesse and plague, to saint Apollonia for their téeth. they flie also to other saints and implore their help, as gods for other seuerall matters, and vpon seuerall occasions.

argument 18 Arg. 18. The apostle forbiddeth the humble seruice, and seduce­ment of religious worship of angels. nemo vos seducat volens, saith Coloss. 2. he, in humilitate & religione angelorum. neither were these noted for other respect as idolaters and hereticks, but be­cause vnder pretence of a certaine counterfect humility, and basenesse, they vsed the mediation of angels, as may be pro­ued by the commentaries of Theodoret, and Chrysostomes homilies vpon the 2. and 3. chap. of Saint Paules epistle to the Colossians. if then the papists will néeds worship angels, and vse their mediation, they must not maruell, if they be noted as idolaters. which is also proued more plainly by the record of Iohn apocalypse 22. who when he fell downe before the féete of the angell, and would haue adored and worshipped him, receiued his checke, see thou do it not, I am thy fellow ser­uant. postquam audissem & vidissem saith he, cecidi vt adorarem ante pedes angeli, qui mihi haec ostendebat, & dixit mihi: vide ne feceris. conseruus enim tuus sum, & fratrum tuorum prophe­tarum &c. if then papists shame not to adore angels, and to implore their help; these words of Saint Iohn shall alwaies conuince them to be idolaters.

argument 19 Arg. 19. Saint Iohn doth expresly forbid the worship of statues and images, where Iohn 5. he saith, custodite vos à simulachris, that [Page 160] is, keepe your selues from images, or idols. for in effect both words signifie one thing; albeit the abuse of images, hath gi­uen the title of idols onely to images abused. if then papists doe recalcitrate, and repugne against the prohibition of the apostle, that directeth his spéech agianst idolatry; their consci­ence must néeds accuse them, that they are guilty of idolatry, which he forbiddeth, as often as they worship them.

argument 20 Arg. 20. To serue creatures, and to call vpon them publickely, and with an opinion of their diuine power to honor them, is plaine idolatry, as appeareth by the words of the confession of the people of Israell who returning from their idolatry, Iudges 10. said, de­reliquimus dominum deum nostrum, & seruiuimus Baalim. that is, we haue forsaken the Lord and serued Baalim. and by Gods answere to them: coluistis deos alienos. &c. ite, & inuo­cate deos, quos elegistis. that is, you haue worshipped strange gods, goe therefore and call vpon the gods, which you haue chosen. but the papists confesse, that they worship angels, and saints with Dulia or seruice, and it was wont to be a common doctrine among papists, that the image and originall were to be worshipped with one kinde of worship. they doe also set vp strange gods, and call vpon the angels and saints in their publicke litanies, and in diuers collects. who then cannot col­lect out of these litanies, and collects, that papists are plaine idolaters? if they will not beléeue our collection; yet I hope they will not deny our sauiour Christes doctrine, that teacheth, that God alone is to be adored, and serued. dominum deum tuum adorabis saith Matth. 4. he, & illi soli seruies.

argument 21 Arg. 21. It is also plaine idolatry, to offer incense vnto creatures, to erect altars vnto them, and with a publicke forme of liturgy to worship them, as appeareth in part by the example of 2 Paralip. 30. Hezechias and his people, that ouerthrew the altars, where­in incense was burnt vnto strange gods. destruxerunt altaria saith the text, quae erant in Hierusalem, atque vniuersa, in qui­bus idolis adolebatur incensum subuertentes proiecerunt in torrentem cedron. would not then such masse priests, as burne incense to their idols, and cense their idolatrous altars, be repressed, and their altars ouerthrowne, and their strange fire be throwen out of the church?

argument 22 Arg. 22. The apostle act. 17. doth plainely declare, that God nei­ther [Page 161] dwelleth in temples made with hands, nor is worshipped with mens hands. non habitat in templis manufactis, nec ma­nibus humanis colitur. those therefore, that worship God in images, and images with their owne deuises, as the papists doe, doe decline to gentilisme, and idolatry.

argument 23 Arg. 23. Finally the scriptures doe signifie, that it is idolatry to ex­presse God by any similitude, or figure, and to worship the same. for that is expresly forbidden in the commandement a­gainst idolatry, and the holy scriptures to recall Gods people from this idolatrous humor, doth diuersly declare, that he can­not be expressed or figured by any likenesse. cui similem feci­stis deum? saith the Isai. 40. prophet, aut quam imaginem ponetis ei? numquid sculptile conflauit faber, aut aurifex auro figurauit il­lud, & laminis argenteis argentarius? he doth plainely expresse, that no image can be made like to God, and that neither the grauer, nor smith can resemble him with their grauen images. and againe, non debemus existimate saith Act. 17. Saint Paule, auro aut argento, aut lapidi sculpturae artis & cogitationis hominis diuinum numen esse simile. we ought not to imagine, that God is like to gold, or siluer, or stone grauen by art or deuise of man. those therefore that by grauing and painting resemble God the father to an old man, or the holy ghost to a doue, and make shapes of the holy Trinity repugne manifestly against scrip­ture, and worshipping those images shew themselues to be grosse idolaters. neither is it any excuse, that they say, they doe not goe about to expresse the diuine nature. for if they doe not that, then doe they expresse nothing but a fancy, and wor­ship a fancy, and so proue themselues to worship idols, that is as Bellarmine confesseth false images or resemblances. idolum saith he, est falsa similiiudo, id est representat id, Lib. 2. de ima­ginib. c. 5. quod reuera non est. but God is not like to these resemblances. therefore they must néeds be false, and they that worship them true ido­laters by the confession of Bellarmine.

argument 24 Arg. 24. The fathers also minister vs good arguments, not onely to reproue the papists false worship, but also to proue them ido­laters. Quis tam amens erit, saith Praeparat. euangel. lib. 3. Eusebius, vt dei formam & imaginem statua viro simili referri perhibeat? that is, who will be so mad as to auow, that God may be expressed and re­sembled by an image like to a man? Athanasius in orat. contra [Page 162] Sabellij gregales, calleth them fools and mad men, that made God like to things, that haue bodies. quam imaginem ponetis ei, saith Hierome in Isaiae c. 40. qui spiritus est, & in omnibus est? what image will you erect for him, which is a spirit, and is in all things?

Stromat. lib. 1. & 5. Clement of Alexandria saith, that Moyses taught vs, that neither in the shape of man, nor any other thing God is to be re­presented. and Origen likewise in his 7. booke against Celsus, denieth that Christians are to make any resemblance, or like­nesse of God.

Tale simulachrum saith saint De file & symbolo. Augustine, speaking of God made in shape like a man, deo nefas est Christiano in templo collocare. It is a wicked thing saith he, to make the image of God and to place it in the church.

In deuter. q 1. Theodoret teacheth vs, that the law of Moyses forbiddeth vs so much as once to attempt to frame an image, or similitude of God: Ne tentemus vnquam saith he, diuinam imaginem effingere.

Damascene lib. 4. de fide c 17. saith, it is a point of great folly and impietie, by figures and similitudes to represent God.

The Audeans were condemned, for that they taught, that God had a shape like to man. Haeres. 70. Epiphanius disputing against them: quomodopossibile est saith he, visibile simile esse inui­sibili, quomodo corporale incorporali? Lib. hist. 18. c. 53. Nicephorus recko­neth those among heretickes, that made the images of God the Father and God the holy Ghost. imagines patris & spiri­tus sancti effigiant, saith he, quod perquam absurdum est.

Finally it appeareth by the testimony of Agrippa in a cer­teine epistle to Caligula, of which In legat. ad Caium. Philo maketh mention, that it was accounted a thing impious amongst the Iewes either in picture, or grauen or embossed worke to represent God, that is inuisible. inuisibilem deum pingere aut fingere, saith he, ne­fas duxerunt maiores nostri.

If then the papists make the images of God the father, and the holy Ghost, and of the holy Trinitie, and worship them with diuine worship, according to the schoole doctrine; then doe they by the iudgement of the fathers not onely transgresse Gods law, and offend most foolishly and wickedly, but also [Page 163] commit most grosse idolatrie. but it cannot be denied, either that they make such pictures, and images, or that they wor­ship them. that they make them, the common practise of the Romish church, and the front of Sixtus quintus his bible, and diuers popish monuments doe teach vs, that they doe worship them, the decrée of the Sess. 25. councell of Trent concerning images, the common schoole doctrine, and practise of papists doth teach vs. Suares in 3. p. Thomae Aquin. tom. 1. disput. 54. sect. 4. & 5. doeth affirme it: and Bellarmine in his disputes doeth not deny it. how then are they able to excuse themselues from pal­pable and grosse idolatry? Lib. 2. de cult [...] imag. c. 8. Bellarmine where he disputeth, that it is lawfull to make the images of God, and namely, the image of the holy Ghost, saith, that the images of God may be made or painted, if not to expresse the perfect likenesse of God, yet to expresse histories, and to expresse the nature of God by a certeine analogie, and by metaphoricall and mysticall signifi­cations. afterwards he saith, Ibid. c. 25. that images are to be worshipped with the same worship, that is due to the original imperfectly, & analogically. but the first is sufficent to shew, and that most perfectly, that he speaketh impudently against the law of God, and all the fathers, that vtterly denied all vse of pic­tures of God, either in stories, or in mysticall significations. the second declareth him and his consorts to be idolaters, and that perfectly, albeit be surmise it to be imperfectly and analo­gically.

argument 25 Saint Ambrose teacheth vs, that to worship the crosse or crucifix is plaine idolatry, and paganisme. Inuenit Helena crucem domini saith De qbitu Theodosi [...]. he, regem adorauit, non lignum vtique, quia hic Gentilis est error, sed adorauit illum, qui pependit in cruce. he saith, that Helene finding the crosse, did adore her king (that is Christ Iesus) and not the wood, because this is the error of the heathen (idolaters) he addeth also, that she worshipped him, that hung on the crosse.

In epist. ad Ioan. Hieroso­lym. apud Hie­ron. Epiphanius also sheweth, that the image of Christ is not to be worshipped, nor hung vp in churches, for that he tore a vaile, wherein such an image was figured, and that contrary to scriptures, as he saith. inueni velum pendens in foribus e­iusdem ecclesiae tinctum atque depictum, & habens imagi­nem, quasi Christi, saith Epiphanius. and afterward, cum hoc [Page 164] vidissem in ecclesia Christi contra authoritatem scripturarum hominis pendere imaginem, scidi illud. the papists therefore by the iudgement of Epiphanius place Christ his image in the church, contrary to scriptures, and like to the heathen idola­ters worship the crosse, giuing to it latria, as to Christ Iesus himselfe.

argument 26 The worship also of angels, which the papists practise, is idolatrous. for they pray vnto them In litanijc. saying, sancte Micha­el, sancte Gabriel, sancte, Raphael, omnes angeli & archan­geli, orate pro nobis. they In itinerario ad finem Bre­uiarij. pray likewise to vnknowen an­gels. they confesse their sinnes to them saying, confite or bea­to Michaeli archangelo. they set them out in imagery, and bow to them, and burne incense to them, and kisse them. finally they erect churches and altars, and say masses in honour of angels. all which to be idolatrous, not onely the scriptures, but also the fathers teach vs. non oportet Christianos say the fathers of the Can. 35. councell of Laodicea, derelicta ecclesia abi­re, & adangelos idolatriae abominandae congregationes facere. Christians say they, ought not to leaue the church of God, and to assemble themselues idolatrously, to worship angels they do also excommunicate such, as worship angels, as idolaters. In summa concil. Laod. c. 35. [...] Carranza to wipe away this blot from the papists, turneth angelos, into angulos. but Chrysostome and Theodoret in their commentaries and homilies vpon the epistle to the Col­loss. c. 2. & 3. doe plainly shew, that the councell condemned the worship of angels, which they also condemne. synodus quae conuenit Laodiceae, saith Theodoret in epist. ad Coloss. c. 3. lege prohibuit, ne precarentur angelos.

Nos non dico martyrum reliquias saith In epist. ad Riparium. Hierome, sed ne solem quidem & Iunam, non angelos non archangelos, non cherubim, non seraphim, & omne nomen, quod nominatur, & in praesenti seculo & in futuro colimus & adoramus, ne ser­uiamus creaturae potius quam creatori, qui est benedictus in se­cula. he saith, Haeres. 79. that Christians do not worship, or adore angels; and signifieth, that such worship is idolatrous, as sauoring of seruice of creatures, honoramus eos charitate saith saint Augu­stine lib. de ver. relig. c. 55. speaking of angels, non seruitute: nec eis templa construimus. angelos adorari non vult, that is, God will not haue vs, saith ^l Epiphanius, to adore angels. and [Page 165] againe, angeli non capiunt talem glorificationem. Augustine doeth therefore condemne the Angelikes, as heretikes, for that they worshipped angels. Angelici saith he de haeres. c. 39. in an­gelorum cultu inclinati.

argument 27 The papists worship the sacrament of the altar. in the ru­brike of the Romish misial, after the words of consecration, the priest is enioined, to worship the sacrament. hostiam conse­cratam genu flexo adorat. likewise, calicem genu flexo adorat. the people also knocke their brests, and adore it. neither doe the papists deny, but that the sacrament is to be adored latriae cultu, that is, with such worship as is due to God. but the sa­crament is a creature. therefore they are plaine idolaters, that worship it. and this is prooued by the testimony of Epi­phanius. stultum est saith Haeres. 69. Epiphanius, creaturam deificare. reprobat autem primum praeceptum, quod dicit, dominum deum tuum adorabis, & ipsi soli cultum praestabis. he saith it is a foolish thing to worship a creature as God. and therefore proo­ueth, that Christ is God and no creature, because he is wor­shipped, and for that the church doeth not worship a creature. vnlesse therefore Christ be hypostatically and personally vni­ted to the sacrament; those that worship the sacrament, are idolaters. as for those that worship vnconsecrated hostes, the papists themselues deny not to be idolaters.

argument 28 They are also idolaters, that worship the images and pic­tures of the virgine Mary, of angels, and saints departed this life. the councell of Eliberis to auoid this idolatry Can. 36. decréed, picturas in ecclesijs esse non debere, ne quod colitur, aut ado­ratur in parietibus depingatur. that is, that pictures should not be in the church, least any thing, that is worshipped, or ado­red, should be painted on walles.

Non est dubium saith Lib. 2. instit. diuin. c. 18. Lactantius, quin religio nulla sit, vbicunque simulachrum est. nam si religio ex diuinis rebus est, diuini autem nihil est, nisi in caelestibus rebus: carent ergo re­ligione simulachra, quia nihil potest esse coeleste in ea re, quae fit ex terra. he teacheth vs, that there is no religion, where ima­ges are worshipped, as being earth, and not sauoring of any heauenly, or diuine quality, or substance.

Inueni velum pendens in foribus eiusdem ecclesiae tinctum, at (que) depictum, saith Ad Ioan. Hie­rosolym. apud Hieronymous. Epiphanius, & habens imaginem quasi [Page 166] Christi, vel sancti. non enim satis memini, cuius imago fuerit. cum ergo hoc vidissem in ecclesia Christi contra authoritatem scripturarum hominis pendere imaginem, scidi illud. and after­ward, Precor, vt iubeas presbyteros eiusdem loci suscipere ve­lum à latore, quod à nobis missum est, & deinceps praecipere, in ecclesia Christi istiusmodi vela, quae contra religionem nostram veniunt, non appendi. he doth plainly shew, that to place pic­tures & images in churches, is contrary to scriptures & religi­on. neither doth he only condemne heathen idoles, but images in churches also. Vnto this place our aduersaries answer, that these words were not written by Epiphanius, but soisted in by some other. but in his booke against heresies he sheweth him­selfe to be of the same opinion, and doth strongly confirme that, which is héere said. Writing against the Collyridians, haeres. 79. he sheweth, that the inuention of images, and their worship came of the diuell. Vnde non est, saith he, simulacrificum hoc studium, & diabolicus conatus? praetextu enim iustitiae semper subiens hominum mentem diabolus mortalem naturam in ho­minum oculis deificans, statuas humanas imagines prae se feren­tes per artium varietatem expressit. & mortui quidem sunt, qui adorantur, ipsorum verò imagines, quae nunquam vixerunt ado­randas introducunt adulterante mente ab vno & solo Deo, velut commune scortum ad multam multiplicis coitus absurditatem irritatum, & quod temperantiam legitimi coniugij vnius viri detriuit. he doth cléerely shew, that the diabolicall inuention of images hath adulterated the seruice of God, and brought in ab­surd spirituall fornications. S. De haeres. in cap. 6. Augustine sheweth, that one Marcellina was noted as an heretike and a follower of Carpo­crates, because she worshipped the images of Iesu and Paul. Colebat, saith he, imagines Iesu, & Pauli, & Homeri, & Pytha­gorae, adorando & incensum ponendo. and yet in burning of incense, and adoring the images of Iesu and Paul our aduersa­ries the papists nothing dissent from her. He doth also con­demne those, that worship sepulchres, and pictures, as those which doe that, which belongeth not to the religion of Christi­ans. Noui, saith De morib. eccles. c. 34. he, multos esse sepulchrorum, & picturarum adoratores.

Likewise S. Hierome in Danielis c. 3. doth condemne the worship of images. Siue statuam, vt Symachus, siue imaginem [Page 167] auream vt alij transtulerunt, voluerimus legere, cultores Dei cam adorare non debent.

Gregory also the first, albeit he would not haue images bro­ken downe, yet did he teach, that they ought not to be worship­ped, as may be gathered by his words, lib. 7. epist. 109. and lib. 9. epist. 9.

Finally, the worship of images is condemned, as idolatrous by a certeine councell of Constantinople, whose acts are inser­ted in the reports of things passed in the second councell of Nice; in the councell of Francfort vnder Charles the great, & a certeine councel of Paris about the yere of our Lord 824. in the time of Lewes Charles the great his sonne. Non nos imagines in Basilicis positas, saith the In lib. Caroli Magni c [...]ntr. imagin. councell of Francfort, idola nun­cupamus, sed ne idola nuncupentur, adorare & colere eas recu­samus. the councell signifieth, that images being worshipped in churches are idoles. neither doth any thing more confirme the Christian faith touching the false worship of images, and sta­tues, than Bellarmine his wretched and wicked answeres to these obiections in his treatise concerning the worship of ima­ges. as shall shortly God willing appeare by our answere, and hath sufficiently beene declared by M. D. Rainolds already in his learned booke De Romanae ecclesiae idolatria against Bellar­mine.

argument 29 Arg. 29. The papists also shew themselues idolaters in calling vpon saints departed, in deuising masses in their honor, in setting vp light before their dead bones, and praying before their ima­ges, as the holy fathers teach vs, that haue shewed themselues alwaies ready and forward to suppresse such abuses.

S. In epistol. ad Ripar. Hierome saith, that the reliques of martyrs are not to be adored. his words I haue before related. answering in de­fence of such women, as light candles at noone day, Contra Vigi­lant. he confes­seth plainly, that they had zeale, but not according to know­ledge. Zelum habent, saith he, sed non secundum scientiam.

Sed ne (que) Helias adorandus est, saith Haeres. 79. Epiphanius, etiamsi in viuis sit, ne (que) Ioannes adorandus, quamuis per preces suas pro­prias dormitionem suam admirandam effecerit, imò potius ex Deo gratiam acceperit. sed ne (que) Tecla, ne (que) quisquam sanctus adoratur. non enim dominabitur nobis antiquus error, vt relin­quamus viuentem, & adoremus ea, quae ab ipso facta sunt. hée [Page 168] saith, that neither Helias, nor Iohn, nor Tecla, nor any saint is to be adored, forasmuch as this sauoreth of the olde idolatry of the Gentiles, and in so doing we should abandon the liuing God, and adore creatures made by him. and againe, Sit in honore Maria, saith he, pater, & filius, & spiritus sanctus adoretur. Ma­riam nemo adoret, non dico mulierum, sed ne (que) virûm. that is, let the virgine Mary be had in reuerence, but the Father, the Sonne, and Holy Ghost is only to be adored. but as for the vir­gine Mary, let neither man, nor woman adore her. Likewise S. Augustine sheweth, that the worship of Christian religion consisted not in the seruice or worship of dead men, or their re­liques. Non sit nobis religio, saith De vera re­ligione. c. 55. he, cultus hominum mor­tuorum, quia si piè vixerunt non sic habentur, vt tales quaerant honores, sed illum à nobis coli volunt, quo illuminante laetantur meriti sui nos esse consortes. honorandi sunt ergo propter imi­tationem, non autem adorandi propter religionem. He saieth, that saints are to be reuerenced in regard, they are examples to be followed, and not to be adored for religion sake. In his booke also De moribus ecclesiae cathol. c. 34. he reprooueth those, that worship the tombes of men departed. Bellarm. lib. 2. De cultu imaginum. lib. 11. alledgeth the 36. chapter of this booke, where there are not so many in the whole▪ in his 44. epistle ad Ma­ximum, he sheweth, that in his time dead men were not yet wor­shipped. Scias à Christianis catholicis, saith he, quorum in ve­stro oppido etiam ecclesia constituta est, nullum coli mortuo­rum, nihil deni (que) vt numen adorari, quod sit factum, & condi­tum à Deo. he signifieth, that religious worship is not due to any creature.

argument 30 Arg. 30. Neither doe the fathers onely testifie against the idolatry of papists, but diuers also of themselues doe confesse to the shame of the rest, that diuers points of popish doctrine sauour of idolatry, The second Nicene councell doth not allow any image to be made of the Godhead, nor that Christians should giue the worship of Latria to images. Christiani adorationem in spiritu & veritate saith that Act. 6. councell, imaginibus non exhi­buerunt, nec etiam diuinae crucis effigiei, nec etiam vnquam inuisibilis & incomprehensibilis naturae imaginem appararunt.

Diuers are of opinion, that not the image is to be worship­ped, but that which is represented by the image, as Durand. [Page 169] lib. 3. sent. dist. 9. q. 2. and Alphonsus à Castro in verb. ima­go. and that is also signified by these two verses Sabellici lib. 8. Aenead. 8.

The meaning of these verses is, that not the image it selfe, but that which is represented by it, is to be worshipped: which argueth the Romanists, that worship images, as well as things represented by images to be idolaters.

Durandus writing vpon the 3. booke of Lombardes senten­ces condemneth the images made in resemblance of God. with him consenteth also Abulensis in chap. 4. Deuteronomij, Martin Perez de tradit. part. 3. c. de imaginibus.

Lib. 4. hist. belli Gallici. Diuers doctors of Sorbona, as Salignac, Boutelier, Claude Espence, Picherel, together with Monluc bishop of valence doe wish the images of the Trinity taken out of all places. with them also doth Hessels agrée in explicat. 1. praecept. c. 65. and Ambrose Catharine in his commentary on the 10. commande­ments, and diuers others. Bellarmine himselfe finally, asha­med percase of their ouerlashing, that taught, that the image was to be worshipped with the same honor, that is due to the thing represented, will not yeld, that images are to be worship­ped with Latria properly. non est dicendum saith he, imagi­nes vllas adorari debere Latria, sed è contrario non debere sic adorari. and he proueth his assertion by diuers reasons lib. 2. de imaginibus. c. 22. of which it followeth, that Thomas Aquinas, and all his followers, and infinit papists, that teach contrary and doe worship images with Latria, are idolaters, and that by the confession of a Cardinall idolater.

They are also conuinced to be idolaters by diuers reasons drawen from the nature of idolatry, from the excellencie of Gods diuine nature, and termes of his law. and argument 31 Arg. 31. first for that they giue to creatures the worship, that is due vnto God. neither will the papists deny this argument to follow. but they percase will deny, that they giue diuine worship to crea­tures. Let vs therefore see whether they giue diuine honor to creatures, and examine also what their doctrine is in that point. first then it is apparent, that they call vpon the crosse and say, auge pijs iustitiam. and to the virgine Mary, funda [Page 170] nos in pace, solue vincla reis. but to increase iustice in vs, and to pacify our consciences, terrified with the horror of our sinnes, and to forgiue sinnes, belongeth to God onely. Bonauenture in his blasphemous psalter applieth that to the virgine Mary, which the spirit of God meaneth of God onely. Secondly the friers in their sermons say to the crucifixe, tu nos redemisti, tu nos patri tuo reconciliasti: that is, thou hast redeemed vs, thou hast reconciled vs to thy father. and this Bellarmine Lib. 2. de ima­ginibus. c. 23. confesseth. but this is the office of Christ Iesus. thirdly they make vowes to saints, and angels, and confesse their sinnes to them, and put their trust in them. but vowes are to be made to none, but to God only: and he it is, and none else that knoweth the inward of our hart. on him also we are to call in all our distresses, and to trust in him. fourthly they honour the sacrament, as their lord and god. finally they burne in­cense and offer their praiers to saints. they say masses also and build churches in honor of creatures. Their doctrine is also consonant to this their practise. for first they teach, that the same honor, that is due to the originall is to be giuen also to images, and by good consequent, that we are to worship the images of God the Father, the Sonne and the Holy Ghost, yea and wooden crosses also with Latria and like worship, as we giue to God himselfe. and this is proued by the testimo­ny of Alexander Ales 3. p. q. 3. art. vlt. by Thomas Aquinas 3. part. q. 25. art 3. Caietan writing vpon that question and ar­ticle, Bonauenture, Marsilius, Almayn, and others writing vp­on the third booke of sentences dist. 9. and this Bellarmine him­selfe lib. 2. de imaginibus c. 20. confesseth to be so. they doe al­so in their rubricks of the masse teach their priests to adore the consecrate host & chalice, and to burne incense before their images. but it cannot be denied, but that images are crea­tures. for they are made by the hands of smiths, carpenters and other workemen the sacrament also is a creature. for they say in their missal, qui haec omnia semper bona creas, spea­king of the sacrament. Neither doe I thinke, that Robert Parsons will deny, that a crosse is a creature, séeing his puta­tiue father the blacke smith was able to make crosses, as ma­ny as he would. are they not then idolaters, which worship creatures with diuine worships.

argument 32 Arg. 32. Secondly those are idolaters, that worship grauen ima­ges contrarie to Gods commandement. and that appeareth by the saying of better catholikes then the papists. let them be confounded, that worship grauen images, said Ruffin. hist. lib. 1. c. 35. Christians in times past. but papists worship grauen images, and it cannot be denied, that they doe it contrary to Gods commandement, bowing downe to them, and giuing latriam to diuers ima­ges, as before is shewed, and putting confidence in angels and saints, and seruing them with religious honor: matters plainly idolatrous and impious.

argument 33 Argu. 33. Thirdly whosoeuer worshippeth false images is a wor­shipper of idoles. for as Homil. 8. in Exod. Origen saith, idolum est quod reprae­sentat speciem, quam oculus nō vidit, sed ipse sibi animus fingit, that is, that representeth things, which the eie hath not seene, but which our owne imagination hath deuised. Quaest. 38. in Exod. Theodoret likewise saith, that an idole representeth nothing, that subsi­steth. and Bellarmine confesseth, quod idolum est falsa simili­tudo, id est, quod repraesentat id, quod reuera non est. that is, Lib. 2. de ima­ginib. c. 5. that an idole is a false resemblance, and that, which represen­teth a thing, that indeed is not. how truely, we will not héere dispute but if it be true; then must the papists necessarily con­fesse themselues to be idolaters. for they worship the image of the Trinity, which, séeing the Godhead cannot be represented, must needs be a false resemblance. they worship also the image of the crosse, in different formes, so that all of them cannot re­semble the true crosse. they worship angels in bodily shapes with wings, such as no papists euer saw with their eie. they worship saint Catharine, and saint Christopher in the forme of a giant. but they are not able to prooue, that euer there was such a man, or such a woman. finally the shapes of their saints are one vnlike to another, some being of one colour, some of another, some being of one proportion, some of another. and Christ Iesus they worship in the forme somtime of a man, som­time of a childe, sometime of a lambe: which figure is nothing like to Christ.

argument 34 Arg. 34. It is also idolatry, to worship a mans owne conceits and fancies, and not to yéeld to trueth, albeit neuer so manifest­ly shewed. sculptile & conflatile reor saith In Abacus. 2. Hierome, dog­mata esse peruersa, quae ab his, quibus facta sunt adorantur. [Page 172] but neuer did any sect more stifly defend their errors, then pa­pists. for they holde the popes sentence to be infallible. neither will they abandone any of his errors, though neuer so plainly demonstrated.

argument 35 Arg. 35. Neither can they excuse themselues, that C. satis dist. 96. call the pope their god, and worship him, with more strange worship, then that which Peter refused Act. 10. the canonists woonder at his excellency, In proaem. Clement. saying, papa stupor mundi, non deus, non homo, sed vtrunque. that is, the pope is the wonderment of the world, not god, not man, but both. for so saith Mosconius in his booke de maiestate ecclesiae lib. 1. part. 1. c. 1. in the councell of Late­ran one called Leo the tenth his sauiour. But Hierome in his Commentaries vpon the third of Daniel estéemeth them to be idolaters, that giue such worship to earthly princes.

argument 36 Arg. 36. Furthermore God is a spirit; and therefore he will bée worshipped, not in externall images, but in spirit. he is a iea­lous God: and therefore admitteth no copartners in his wor­ship. he is so one God, that he will admit no other creature to haue any part of his worship giuen to him, according to the law of God: thou shalt haue no other gods but me. and al this is signified to teach vs, how much God detesteth idolatrie. but the papists worship God, as they say, in his image. they giue diuine worship to stockes, stones, and to the sacrament. they make vowes to saints, and angels, and call vpon them. they put their trust as much in saints, as euer the Gentiles did in Hercules, Aesculapius, Apollo, and other idoles. they haue transformed the Psalmes vttered in praise of God, to the praise of our lady. how then can they excuse themselues from idolatry?

argument 37 Arg. 37. Finally, the law of God condemneth all images, and si­militudes of things both in heauen aboue, and in the earth beneath, and in the waters vnder the earth, that are worship­ped. the same also Rom. 1. reprooueth those, that change the glory of the incorruptible God, into the likenesse of an image of a cor­ruptible man: and that offer incense, or spirituall sacrifices vnto any but God. and all this tendeth to the abolishing of idolatry. but the papists worship the likenesses, and images of God, and change his glory into the shape of a corruptible man. they offer also to creatures their praiers, and vowes. [Page 173] manifest therefore it is, that in diuers points they are guiltie of grosse idolatry.

Neither can they by any meanes excuse themselues. if they say they doe not worship the image Per se & pro­priè. for it selfe, and properly with that worship, that is due to the originall, as Lib. 2. de ima­ginib. c. 24. Bellarmine teacheth; the heathen could alledge so much for themselues. for they did not worship the image, as they worshipped their gods themselues, nor did they sacrifice to the wood and stone, but to the things represented.

If they alledge, that they doe not worship images, as gods, as Ibid. c. 5. & de eccles. triumph. lib. 2. c. 24. Bellarmine and Gregory de Valentia doe oftentimes, thinking by that meanes to shift off the blot of idolatrie from themselues, and the church of Rome; yet will not that serue. for the very heathen could say, that they tooke not their idoles for gods. non ipsa inquiunt, timemus, saith Instit. diuin. lib. 2. c. 2. Lactantius, spea­king of the excuse of idolaters, sed eos, ad quorum imaginem ficta, & quorum nominibus consecrata sunt. that is, we doe not feare or worship images, say the heathen idolaters, but those after whose likenesse they were made, and to whose names they were consecrated. likewise saint Augustine in Psal. 113. shew­eth, that the heathen were woont to say, that they did not wor­ship that, which was visible, but onely the inuisible diuinitie, that was represented and manifested in the image. non hoc vi­sibile colo, sed numen, quod illic inuisibiliter habitat. and a­gaine, they said, nec simulachrum, nec daemonium colo, sed per effigiem corporalem eius rei signum intueor, quam colere debeo. doe you not then plainly see, that the idolaters spoke like the papists? for they say also, we worship not images with latria properly, nor doe we worship diuels, but by bo­dily shapes we are brought to sée, and remember the things, which we ought to worship.

If they deny that they worship creatures, and change the trueth of God into a lie, saint Augustine will tell them, In Psal. 113. conc. 2. that while they call their images by the names of the things repre­sented (as for example, when they say to the crucifixe, thou hast redeemed me, and call the images or pictures our lady, or S. Peter, or Paule) they change the trueth of God into a lie. effi­gies à fabro factas, saith saint Augustine, appellando nomini­bus earum rerum, quas fabricauit deus, transmutant verita­tem [Page 174] dei in mendacium.

If Lib. 2. de ima­ginib. c. 10. Bellarmine alledge, that images are not only profitable, as reporting matter of story, but also effectuall to enflame vs to the loue of God, and imitation of holy men, and diuers o­ther vses; he must be told, that Augustine teacheth vs farre otherwise. ducit & affectu quodam infirmo rapit infirma cor­da mortalium formae similitudo saith In Psal. 113. conc. 2. Augustine, & mem­brorum imitata compago: he saith againe, that the outward forme of things doth bring foorth, sordidissimum erroris af­fectum, a most filthy affection to error. he saith also, that images doe effectually peruert vnhappy soules. plus valent simula­chra saith he, ad curuandam infaelicem animam, quod os ha­bent, &c.

If they say, that their images are no idoles, because they are representations of true things, and not false representations, as doeth Bellarmine, lib. 2. de imaginib. c. 5. saying, quod ido­lum est falsa similitudo; it may be answered, that the Gen­tiles might answer so likewise: and yet say nothing to pur­pose. for the image of Romulus, of the sonne, of Hercules, and Aesculapius were true representations; and yet idoles, for that they were worshipped by idolaters. why then should we not iudge the like of the images, of Peter, and of our ladie?

If they say, that idolaters are condemned, because they put their trust in their idoles and images, as the conuenticle of Trent Sess. 25. saith, and hopeth thereby to put away the infamie of idolatry from the Romish church, it may be replied, that the Gentiles did neuer trust more in their god Iupiter, and Iuno, and Fortuna, or in their idoles, then the papists doe in our lady, in saint Denis, saint Iames, and in the images of our lady of Loreto, of the crosse, and such like.

If they say, that the image of Christ is to be worshipped with the honour due to Christ improperly, as Bellarmine teacheth, lib. 2. de imaginib. c. 23. It may be replied, that the Gentiles were neuer so stupid, as to say, that properly as much honor is due to the image, as to the originall. Finally, if you méet with any of Bellarmines opinion, lib. de imaginibus, c. 6. that thought Xenaias to be the first, that found fault with the worship of ima­ges; you may boldely reproue him by the testimony of Lactan­tius, [Page 175] Hierome, Epiphanius, Augustine and other fathers before cited.

Vnlesse therefore Robert Parsons and his consorts can well answere our arguments, and fortifie their owne simple excu­ses, shifts and distinctions; it will appeare both by testimony of scriptures and fathers, and also by diuers good arguments, that the papists are idolaters. nay it will appeare they can no better answere for themselues, then the heathen idolaters in ancient time. is it not then maruell, that such grosse idola­try should créepe in among Christians? it is so certes. but much more is it to be maruelled that so grosse an abuse being detected, should either be defended, or tolerated.

CHAP. VI. That such papists, as within the compasse of her maiesties reigne, haue bene executed to death, haue died for treason, and other capitall crimes, and not for religion. and there­fore are to be detested as malefactors, and not honored as martyrs.

HItherto we haue discoursed of matters of reli­gion. and I hope so, as it may appeare to eue­ry man, not altogether either irreligious, or possessed with preiudice, that the papists are neither true catholicks, nor good Christians. I haue therein also discouered not only the va­nity of Parsons his pleading in his Ward-word, that taketh that as granted, which is the principall question, but also the simplicity of this wooden Oulyglasses dealing, that not daring to answere our arguments, doth notwithstanding still in his exceptions vsurpe the name of Catholicks & Catholicke religi­on, as due to himselfe and his consorts, being nothing lesse, then either catholicke, or Christian. now therefore, to fill vp this discourse, it followeth, that we consider a litle the ou [...]ward ciuill cariage of this faction, and what we are to thinke either of those, that heretofore haue broken their necks in the Popes seruice, or else yet continue well affected toward his cause. and generally, what all true subiects are to looke for either at their hands, or the hands of their partakers, and adherents, and [Page 176] this, for that Robert Parsons in the first chapter, or incounter of his Ward-word doubteth not most impudently to affirme, that many honorable and worshipfull gentlemen haue indured con­tinuall, and intolerable affliction for perseuering in their fa­thers faith, and that aboue a hundred priests haue bene tortu­red, hanged, and quartered for the same cause. the same man also in the conclusion of his encounters doth insinuat, that albe­it they were charged with treason, yet they died as martyrs. Allen likewise that perfidious traitor to his prince and coun­try in his Ad p [...]rsequu­tores Anglos. treatise against the execution of iustice, doone vpon diuers priests and friers, and their adherents, taken in noto­rious treasons, doth exclaime against the state, and charge our gouernors with persecution, iniustice, tyranny and extreme cruelty. as for his clients, he beareth vs in hand, that they were cleare of treason, and without all iust cause died for matter of religion and conscience onely, and not for treason or practi­ses against the state: and concludeth, that therefore they are to be esteemed as holy martyrs, and not as leud traitors. the de­tector also in his disiointed exceptions is talking of crosses and persecutions, where he and most of his consorts liue at ease, and in all security in good houses, and haue laisure to write, and opportunity to print such pamphlets and idle toies, as that, which he hath of late published.

argument 1 First then I say, that albeit late lawes gaue occasion to de­tect the Popes agents, that of late haue bene executed to death in England; yet they deserued death as offending in cases of treason both so adiudged by the ancient lawes of this land, and also for the most part by the lawes of all nations. for first it is treason to stirre vp forrain enemies against the prince, or state. the statute of 25. Edward the 3. c. 2. doth so account it, condemning all of treason, that shall goe about to leuy warre a­gainst the kings and queenes of this land. Likewise it was ad­iudged by the Romane lawes. Maiestatis crimine tenetur, saith Vlpian ad legem Iuliam maiest. l. 1. cujus opera, consilio, dolo malo consilium initum fuerit &c. quo quis contra remp. arma ferat. The same course is now taken in Spaine with such as attempt to leuie warre against the king, either within or without the realme, as is apparent by the booke called El fuero real. Tit. de la guarda del rey. those also that counsell, or abet [Page 177] such as attempt any such matter, are by that law condemned as traitors. Neither is the practise of France diuers from o­ther nations in this point. Finally, no Romane may so much as once attempt to raise warre against the pope, albeit he hold nothing, but by vsurpation, but the popes sergeants and offi­cers seize vpon him, as a traitor. neither will any pretence or allegation of conscience serue to excuse his treason, or to exempt him from punishment. But such agents of the pope as haue beene executed hitherto in England for his cause, either haue themselues béene persuaders of the pope, and Spanish king, and others, to make warre vpon her Maiesty, and their coun­trey, or els haue ioined with Englefield, Allen, Parsons, Holt, Owen, Morgan and other principall moouers and stirrers for an inuasion, and were directed by them, and sent into England and other places for that purpose. and this may be proued first by the Bull of Pius Quintus procured at the instance of diuers English fugitiues, and by them sent abroad into England, and sent into the king of Spaines countrey, as a motiue for him to inuade England, and as it were a trumpet, that sounded fire and sword against vs. secondly, all the practises and exercises of the seditious seminaries in the Low-countreys, Spaine, and Rome, haue tended to the stirring vp of forren nations against vs, as is confessed by diuers priests, and testified by scholars, and may be prooued by some notes of their exercises, which we haue to shew. Thirdly, Sixtus Quintus, anno 1588. in his sen­tence declaratory, or rather declamatory, against the Quéene, doeth say, that at the earnest solicitation of certeine principall English men, which he calleth catholikes, he had proceeded a­gainst her Maiesty, and had enioyned the Spanish king to exe­cute his Bull of excommunication and deposition against her, and to come with great forces against England. fourthly, Allen in his traitorous letters to the nobility and people of England and Ireland, doeth confesse, that the pope and Spaniard were solicited by himselfe and diuers other English men, to inuade this land. and this is also knowen by the negotiation of Engle­field, Parsons, and other English, both with the Spanish king, and also with other princes to this purpose. fiftly, Parsons to draw on the king of Spaine to enterprise this warre, told him, that his name being Philip Norway, he could not chuse but [Page 178] haue good successe. his reason was, for that our countrey had a prophecie, that betwixt Bostons Bay, and the pile of Foudray should be seene the blacke nauy of Norway. which, as he per­swaded the king, should returne victorious. The same man also in a letter to a certeine noble man of Scotland declareth, that he had béene with most princes in Europe, to moue inua­sions and warres against vs. sixtly, the emperor that now is, vpon their informations hath professed himselfe our enemie; and set out diuers prolamations against our nation, by means whereof our merchants in his dominions haue susteined great losses. seuenthly, Allen and diuers fugitiue English, were bu­sie anno Domini 1586. and 1587. with the duke of Guise, and other Frenchmen, to induce them to concurre with the Pope and Spaniards in the warre against England. The English papists at that time in a certeine treatise called, Vn aduertisse­ment des catholiques Anglois aux catholiques Francois; doe endeuor to stirre them vp against vs, charging them with this slacknesse, and imputing their euill successe thereunto.

They confesse also, that themselues are scorned of all nations for suffering an hereticall Queene (as these hereticall traitors call her) to reigne. An eight argument to prooue this point, may be drawen from the infamous libels, set out against our nation, partly by Parsons, and Creswell, and partly by Wor­thington, Gifford, & other fugitiues, tending to no other end, than to stirre the whole world to take armes vp against vs. finally, the practise of D. Story with the duke of Alua, the orati­on of Allen made to Gregory the 13. Sanders his negotiation with the same pope, Parsons his running vp and downe these twentie yeeres and vpward, from nation to nation, the agen­cies of Holt and other Iesuites and priests with the duke of Parma, the plots taken about Crighton a Iesuite concerning the inuasion of England, and the clamours of English fugitiues from time to time in the eares of all Christian princes, and now lately the attempt of D. Juan d' Aquila in Ireland, onely set forward by English and Irish priests and fugitiues against her Maiesty, doe all plainly declare, that these fugitiues from time to time haue bene the firebrands, to set their owne natiue [Page 179] countrey on a flame, if any would haue hearkened to their pro­mises. and this point, albeit the same touch not all that haue béene executed, or are yet aliue in England of the popes facti­on, principally; yet it toucheth either all, or most of them, as being a betters, counsellers, scholars, slaues, or companions of these principall stirrers, all of them comming from Allen and Parsons, and other principall agents in this businesse. and so cléere it is that English fugitiues were the principall motiues of the inuasion anno 1588. and of D. Juan d' Aquila his at­tempt, that the Spaniards impute most of their euill successe to their lies, and false informations of our weaknesse; and it is said, that diuers of them begin to be hatefull to most Spani­ards for this cause.

argument 2 Secondly, it is treason to stirre vp sedition or rebellion a­gainst the prince or state, or to concurre with those, that goe a­bout to mooue rebellion, or stir vp sedition. The words of the Romane lawes are cleere. Maiestatis crimine, L. 1. ff. ad l. Iulian maie­statis. saith Vlpian, tenetur is, cuius consilio doloue malo, factum est, vt armati ho­mines cum telis, lapidibusue in vrbe sint, conueniántue, aduer­sus remp. locá (que) occupantur vel templa, quóue coetus, conuen­túsue fiant, hominés (que); ad seditionem connocentur. He is guilty of treason, saith Vlpian, by whose counsell, or cunning procure­ment, armed men with weapons come together against the state, and sease places of aduantage, or that causeth metings and and assemblies to raise vp sedition. By this law those are also condemned, qui milites solicitauerint, concitaueríntue, quo seditio tumultúsue aduersus rempub. fiat. that is, which shall solicite, or cause souldiers to mutine or reuolt, or stirre a­gainst the state; as for example the traitour Allen did with Sir W. Stanley and the souldiers of Deuenter. Likewise, by the statute of the 25. Edward the 3. c. 2. those are adiuged traitors, that shall take armes against their prince or countrey, either within the realme or without. in which case also are all rebels and seditions persons, that shall rebell against their go­uernors, or that shall be aiding or consenting thereunto. And in the Spanish lawes del fuero real, tit. de la guarda del rey, it is enacted, that none be so hardy by word, deed, or aduice, to oppose himselfe against the king, or his state, or to make an in­surrection or practise of rebellion against him, or his kingdom, [Page 180] either within the realme or without. Que ninguno no sea osado por fecho, ni per dicho, ni por conseio de yr contra el rey, ni contra su sennorio, ni hazer alleuamiento, ni bollicio contra el, ni contra seu reyno en su tierra, ni fuera su tierra. This is also law both in France, Germany, and all countreys. neither will the pope suffer any of his dominions, notwithstanding that hée holdeth them by vsurpation, and without lawfull title, to con­sult against him, or mutinously to stirre vp such, as liue vnder him to rebellion, but he presently chastiseth them as traitours. Innocent the seuenth who succéeded Boniface the ninth, that not yet three hundred yéeres agone first vsurped the temporall gouernment of Rome, as In lib. de schism. Theodoricke a Niem and other Paulus Lan­gius in Chronic. Citizensi. stories testifie, caused diuers citizens most cruelly to be mur­dered, albeit they did but againe redemand the authority, that was committed to the popes in trust. Platina he maketh men­tion of this murder writing of Innocent the seuenth, though concealing the true cause, he saieth, they were executed for se­dition. Vndecim ciues, saith Platina, reip. suae labenti in neg­ligentia pontificis consulturi, statim necantur, è fenestrísque deijciuntur, quod diceret eo modo tolli seditiones. If then a pretence of sedition be cause sufficient for the Pope to pro­céed against his subiects, with what face can he, or his adhe­rents blame her Maiestie, if shee doe chastice her mutinous, seditions and rebellious subiects? shall it not be lawfull for her, and for this state to doe that which all princes and states doe practise, and take to be most lawfull? Theodorick. Niem lib. 2. de schismae. 36. Vrbane the sixth vpon pretence of a conspiracy against himselfe, put diuers of his cardinals to death, and proceeded with all rigour against such, as were but a little suspected of practising against him. neither did his aduersarie Clement vse a milder course a­gainst such, as were taken practising against his faction. Iouio in vita de Leon. 10. Leo the tenth spared not Cardinall Petrucci, but put him to death most cruelly for vttering some words tending to the al­teration of the state of Siena, although that city was no part of his dominions, but onely recommended vnto him. finally Clement the fift by the aide of the French king abolished the whole order of the Templars. and of late the whole order of the Humiliati was suppressed and dissolued, and diuers of them executed to death for a practise against the state of the [Page 181] Romish church. and shall the Romish church and her agents be suffered without punnishment to practise against this state? or can any reasonable or indifferent man iustly finde fault with the execution of such persons, as haue bene taken practi­sing? the very aduersaries, I thinke, albeit very bold, yet will not be so impudent to affirme it. for hetherto their pleading hath bene, that the massepriests and other Romanists are cleare from such practises. Let vs sée therefore, whether they speake truly, or no. and albeit we should greatly wrong the state, if we should dispute this point, as a matter doubtfull; yet let vs, I say briefely touch it for satisfaction of the ignorant, especially such as are strangers, and vnacquainted with the triall of such priests, friers and other the popes agents, as haue bene executed in England, as offending in cases of treason.

I say then, that no one priest, Iesuit, or other papist in En­gland hath beene executed for treason, but he hath bene found guilty of practising against her Maiestie and the state, or at the least aiding, and assisting, and intertaining of such practisers, and seditious persons: and that diuers of them haue either stood armed against the state in open rebellion, or else ioined with the rebells, and assisted them to their vttermost power, and meanes. and this appeareth first by faculties granted to Thomas Harding about the yeere 1567. for the reconcilia­tion of the people to the pope, and for the disturning of them from their obedience to the Prince. for whatsoeuer the pre­tence was, the end was sedition and rebellion, he being ap­pointed for nothing else, but to be a forerunner of that fil­thy friers Impius Quintus his excommunication against the Queene. secondly it is proued by the rebellion in the north anno 1569. which was stirred vp by one Nicholas Morton, and other seditious priests. thirdly by the rebellion and trea­son of the duke of Norfolke stirred vp by the pope as appea­reth by the report of Hierome Catena, in the life of Pius Quin­tus. fourthly by the erection of two seminaries of treason, the one erected at Doway anno 1569. and another at Rome anno 1579. or thereabout which were receptacles of such scattered and lost priests, as had bene in rebellion, and open schooles to teach treason to malcontent papists. fiftly by the rebellion of the earle of Desmond in Ireland raised by the solicitation of [Page 182] Sanders the popes legat, and set forward by diuers seditious priests, and friers, and other malcontents. sixthly by the fa­culties of Parsons and Campian and their companions, which came to make a way for the execution of the Popes bull. seuenthly by the iudgement of Sanders and Bristow, who com­mend these rebels, and put them into the catalogue of mar­tyrs. Sanders in his 7. booke of his visible monarchy saith, that the purpose of the earles of Westmerland and Northum­berland and their followers in the northren rebellion was to bee praised, albeit they had no succcesse. nobilium illorum laudanda erant consilia. he doth also call the rebellion pium institutum, & fidei confessionem, that is, a godly and deuout resolution, and a plaine confession of the Romish faith. nei­ther doeth hée esteeme of them, that were executed for that rebellion otherwise, then of holy martyrs. Bristow likewise in his fiftéenth motiue, putteth the earle of Northumber­land, the two Nortons, and two massing priestes called Woodhouse and Plomptree, and others, that were execu­ted, as principall actors in that rebellion, in the catalogue of martyrs. for now the pope doeth account rebellion for his cause good religion, and celebrateth the memory of traitors for martyrs. an eight argument is ministred vnto vs by the most scandalous and traitorous libell set out by Allen, and printed not without the helpe of Parsons, they say, and other English traitors; wherein they by all the meanes, they can deuise, doe exhort her Maiesties subiects in England and Ireland to take armes against her, to seaze vpon her person, and to deliuer her into the hands of her enemies. they endeuour also to per­swade them to forsake their allegeance, and to ioine with for­reine enemies. The 9. argument may be drawne from the practise of Charles Paget with the earle of Northumberland, anno domini 1583. that by all meanes solicited him to reuolt, and to ioine with the French against the State. The 10. is ministred vnto vs by the treacherous plot of Parsons and Hes­ket, to draw in Ferdinand the late earle of Darby, into action. The 11. is grounded vpon the insurrection of Tyrone, and the rest of that rascall rout stirred vp by Monford a priest yet lur­king in England, and diuers other seditious agents of the pope. The last is that dangerous attempt of the late earle of [Page 183] Essexe, which maketh my heart to bléed in respect of some pri­uate causes, as oft as I remember it, and moueth many to woonder, that he should be made an instrument by these fire­brands of sedition, to set vp that religion, which I thinke he neuer loued. and my arguments are prooued good, for that no one of those, that haue béene executed for the popes cause, can be named, but either he was an agent in some of these practi­ses, or allowed them, or were priuy vnto them. nay, I doe be­léeue, that if the question were asked of any Iesuit, or Iesuited priest, or any of their adherents, he would not disallow the popes act, or the acts of his agents in stirring vp rebellion in England, and Ireland, especially for matter of religion. what others would doe I know not. but hitherto we finde, that they speake honorably of Card. Allen, as of their foster father. yet was he the most notorious and seditious traitor, that euer this land bred, Robert Parsons onely excepted. that Parsons and Campian knew of a rebellion, or change intended, it is apparent by their petition to the pope, wherein they doe onely prouide for their consorts, rebus sic stantibus, that is, so long as the state of things did continue in termes, as then it stood. a certeine Quod lib. 9. art. 10. secular priest affirmeth, that no papist, (which he falsly calleth catholike) ought to send his children into seminaries abroad. and his reason is good. for that their heads be filled with trecheries, and aequiuocations, dissimula­tion, hypocrisie, and all falshood. sufficient witnesses and con­fessions of diuers, that haue forsaken those nestes of treason, declare, that the youthes there are mainteined for no other end, then to mooue sedition in England; and we may well thinke, that neither the pope, nor Spaniard would be at the cost they are for their maintenance, vnlesse they hoped by their agencie to be recompenced againe ten fold. whatsoeuer their intent was; certeine it is, that in the seminaries nothing is more commonly talked of, then how to set vp a partie against the state, how to trouble her Maiestie, or some such like mat­ter. and albeit the gouernours doe not acquaint the schollars with particulars; yet when any mischiefe is intended against vs, then the schollars are willed to say Pater noster, or aue Maria, for furthering of some good intention, as they call it, of the Rector of the colledge, finally whatsoeuer the priests say, [Page 184] or sweare concerning practises of rebellion; yet vnlesse they will forsweare the pope, they must néeds be rebels, and stirre vp rebellion, as oft as he listeth. for the Pius the fift his Bull. pope doth excom­municate al those, that will not rise vp in armes against her Ma­iestie. and who knoweth not, that they will rather venture to breake their necks, then loose their soules, that they suppose to depend on the popes curses. this argument therfore followeth necessarily. if a true papist, then is he a false hearted subiect. for otherwise the pope by his bull hath excommunicated him, as well as all other subiects: and the same shall vndoubtedly be in force ere it belong, if these good fellowes be not tied shor­ter, or if the calues of such bulles be not surely kept vp.

argument 3 Thirdly it is treason to attempt against the life and person of the prince, and euer hath béene so accounted by lawes of all nations. among the Romanes it was so hainous, that the of­fender being dead, yet the offence was enquired of, and puni­shed by confiscation of his goods. meminisse oportebit, saith Cod. ad legem. Iuliā maiesta­tis. l. meminisse. Paulus the lawier, si quid contra imperatoris maiestatem commissum dicatur, etiam post rei mortem id crimen instau­rari solere. by the ancient lawes of England it hath alwaies béene adiudged high treason, to compasse, or imagine the death of the kings or Queenes of this realme, as appeareth by the old statute of the 25. of Edward the third, c. 2. it is likewise so iudged by the lawes of Spaine, reported in a booke called Fuero real. tit. de la guarda del rey. in France it is déemed the highest and chiefest point of high treason, to attempt against the life of the prince. Bodin in his second booke de la republi­que c. 5. reporteth, how a certeine gentleman in his confes­sion to a priest declaring, that once he had an intention to kill the king, albeit he neuer did attempt to doe it, and was then most sorie, that euer he did thinke vpon such a matter, was notwithstanding executed to death for his very imagina­tion. Peter Barriere was likewise executed at Melun, for that being perswaded by one Varade a Iesuite and others, that it was an act meritorious to kill the king that now reigneth, he did conceiue in his minde a resolution to doe it. neither did a­ny papist thinke, that he had any wrong in it. Ghineard like­wise a Iesuite was hanged in Paris for declaring by writing that it was lawfull to kill kings excommunicate by the pope, and [Page 185] for oppugning their title. for the same cause also, and for that they sauored of this trecherous doctrine, and were not vnac­quainted with the assassinate of Chastell, that ment to haue murdred k. Henry the fourth, that now reigneth in France, all the Iesuits were expulsed by an arrest of parliament out of France, albeit the same is not so throughly executed, as were to be wished. Vrbane the 6. with exquisite torments killed all, that were any way to be suspected for conspiring a­gainst him. Iohn the 22. caused the bishop of Cahors to be skinned aliue, and to be slaine with great torments vpon su­spicion of a conspiracy made against him. omnibus cruciati­bus, saith In Iohn 23. Platina, coegit vitam cum morte commutare, quod in Pontificem coniurasset. In Alexan­dro 6. Alexander the sixth vsed to put men to death most cruelly for euery word spoken a­gainst him, as Onuphrius testifieth. and this is the resolution of all lawiers. they commit treason saith Socinus the yoonger, lib. 3. consil. 105. which make a practise against the person of their lord and prince. and with him agréeth Alciat consil. 456. they are also guilty of the same crime, which doe consult or practise against the state of the prince or common-wealth, as saith Baldus consil. 58. & seq. lib. 1. and Alexander consil. 13. lib. 6. and Iason consil. 86. lib. 3.

Let vs then sée whether those Iesuits and priests, that ei­ther haue béene executed for treason; or else are yet aliue, and to be executed, if they repent not, and flie to the Quéenes mer­cy, be not guilty of this point of treason also and whether their adherents and supporters may not iustly be touched for supporting them. first it is apparent, that Pius the fift in his execrable bull against her Maiestie, doeth excommunicate all such, as will not take armes for the execution of his sentence, and the actuall deposing of the Quéene. but neither can any such thing be executed without violence offered to her person, nor may we imagine, that the masse priests and their consorts were sent for any other purpose into England, then for the ex­ecution of the bull. Lib. de schism. Theodorike a Niem speaking of a like sentence of a pope denounced against a king of his time doeth signifie, that such sentences are not executed without many calamities, and great troubles▪ secondly the earles of Westmer­land and Northumberland and their adherents the rebels [Page 186] anno 1569. did not entend other matter, than the destruction of her Maiesties person. as many therefore as either were actors in that rebellion, or els approoued the same, as did Sanders in his booke of his pretended visible monarchy, and all Iesuits and Iesuited papists doe very boldely, are guilty in this point of treason. Bristow in his Motiues doth no other­wise account of those, that were executed for this rebellion, then of holy martyrs. neither can any priest or papist not­withstanding all their pretenses mislike that rebellion, vnlesse in opinion they contradict Bellarmine and other Romish doc­tors, and absolutely condemne the popes sentence, that hath so oftentimes bene published: which I doubt whether any will doe or no. In Ireland certes we doe not finde any priest, that is not consorted with the rebells, and that publickely doth not defend their cause. how is it then possible, that either they should draw their swords against her Maiestie, or allow them that do it, and not be guilty of attempting against her person? Thirdly Holt the Iesuit, Worthington, and other priests per­swaded first a certeine Irish man called Patricke Collen, & af­terward one Yorke & Williams to murder her Maiestie. and this the secular priests in Holt & his consorts in a certeine trea­tise intitled important considerations, Pag. 33. doe confesse to be true. they do also Ibidem. cōfesse, that Edmund Squire was drawen by the perswasion of Walpoole a Iesuite to a like vilanous attempt against her Maiesties owne person. Parsons in his Ward­word likewise confesseth, that he was acquainted with the re­solution of a certaine gentelman, as he calleth him, that came ouer to kill the Queene. neither néed we to make any questi­on, but that diuers priests, and Iesuits, and others either One Bifley a priest con­fessed, that it was lawfull to kill the Queene, be­ing excom­municate by the pope, and denied not, that he him­selfe would doe the act, if he could. his confessi­on is extant to be seene. al­lowed or were acquainted with the most execrable treasons of Parry, Sauage, Lopez, Squire, Babington, and such like vnna­turall monsters, that attempted and intended most cruelly to murder, empoison, and destroy their liege Souereigne. the rest they are scholars and agents of the pope, and his wicked con­sistory, and of Parsons and other Iesuits and traitorous priests, and combined with them, and therefore guiltie as farre, as the others in this point of treason.

Allen in his wicked letters, to the nobilitie and people of England and Ireland, declareth, that there were diuers English [Page 197] priests in the Spanish army, ready to serue euery mans spirituall necessitie by confession, counsell, and all consolation in Christ Iesus, and the same is confessed also in diuers treatises set out by secular priests. but how could they be in the army of pub­like enemies, and not attempt against her Maiesties person, if occasion serued? or how can any allow or like of such fellowes or such attempts, that wish not the destruction of her Maiesty? fourthly, cardinall Allen in his most slandrous libel directed to the nobility and people of England and Ireland, doth by all his best retoricke endeuour to perswade all papists, to take armes against her Maiesty, to lay hands on her, and to deliuer her into the hands of her enemies. but what priest or papist in Eng­land did not much depend on him while he liued? nay, most of them were his scholars, and the rest conuersed with him, and receiued diuers letters and instructions from him. fiftly, it is confessed, that diuers priests now in England were either in the Spanish army, or in their ships, or appointed to follow the army anno 1588. and that diuers others were put aboord the Adelantadoes ships, that came for Falmouth anno 1597. and 1598. If then they came with forren enemies, and were in their troupes, it is no question, but they meant to attempt a­gainst her Maiesties person. it is also apparent, that all their receiters and abetters, and such also, as allow their act, and this opinion, are likewise guiltie of this point of treason. Fi­nally, in a certeine house, where Dauid Engleby a traitourous priest was taken, these They are to be seene in the memorials of the councell of Yorke. resolutions were also found, that it is lawfull for papists to take armes against the Queene. and fur­ther, that they might doe with her person, whatsoeuer pleased them. they also resolue in flat termes, that it is lawfull to kill the Queene. but say the priests, as matters now stand, it is best not so much, as once to speake of that matter. so then all, that are not blinde, may sée the malice of this generation. and no question, but their followers in their superstitious opinions would not be farre behinde them in their leud and trecherous actions, if occasion were offered. neither can they otherwise do, when the pope, vpon whom they build their faith, doth Bulla Pij 5. aduersus Eli­zabetham. ex­communicate all, that will not fight against the Queene.

argument 4 Fourthly, it is treason, in danger of forren inuasion, or el [...] in the midst of the battell, to forsake the prince, or not to defend [Page 188] or mainteine his right. Li [...]ij lib. 1. decad. 1. Metius Suffetius standing aloofe, when Romulus encountred the enemy, was seased vpon as a traitor, and drawen in pieces with horses. By the lawes of fees, hée that forsaketh his lord in the battell, Lib 2. de feu­dis. de caufis be­nefic. amit­tendi. as a traitor, is depriued of his lands. qui dominum suum, saith the law, cum quo ad prae­lium iuerit, in acie periclitantem dimiserit, beneficio se indig­num indicauit. Likewise, it is adiudged treason, not to declare any harme intended against our lord. By the common lawes of England also, and lawes of nations, it hath béene alwaies ac­counted treason, not only to oppugne the right of the king, but also being required, not to acknowledge it. Suppose then all priests and papists were not actors either in op [...]n rebellions, or in attempts made by forren enemies; yet all of them deny­ing the Quéenes authority, being excommunicat by the pope, and that refuse to acknowledge her lawfull title, or to take her part against the pope, who is now become an enemy, and an inuader consorted with the Spaniard, are notorious traitors. But this is the case of the best of those, that haue died for the popes cause. Campian and his consorts being demanded, whe­ther they tooke the Queene to be lawfull Queene, notwithstan­ding the popes sentence of excommunication: and likewise, whether Sanders and Bristow, that mainteined the popes au­thoritie, and the Queenes deposition to be lawfull, was sound or not, refused to answere directly, and neither would they ac­knowledge her Maiesty to be their lawfull Queene, nor pro­mise to take her part if occasion serued, nor would they con­demne the popes fact, nor disallow the traitorous doctrine of Sanders and Bristow. and I do beléeue, if our recusants in Eng­land were put to the question, they would either accord with the priests, or make very doubtfull answeres. for, the Queenes authority in ecclesiasticall causes, they vtterly condemne, and from the pope, that is our enemy, and hath displaied his ban­ner i [...] open field against her Maiesty, they will not be drawen. Sherwin, and some others did so answere, as euery man might iudge, that they meane to the vttermost of their power, to de­fend the popes cause, and to oppugne her Maiesties authority. In Ireland we finde, that papists are the men, that vphold the rebellion, and that serue her Maiesty very coldly, though some­time enterteined in her seruice. Were it then nothing els but [Page 189] this, that the masse priests and their adherents refuse to ac­knowledge her Maiesties title, and to serue her against forren enemies; yet is that sufficient, to shew them to be traitors, & most vnwoorthy to possesse land and office, that will not serue her Maiestie, by whose fauour and clemency, they enioy their lands and offices, against the Spaniard, or other forren ene­my, that séeketh to depriue both vs, and them percase of lands, liuing and life. It may be, that some papists will not beléeue this to be true of the masse priests, and their adherents. but if they list to read and sée, what the secular priests confesse in their treatise of important considerations, they will change their opinions.

argument 5 Howsoeuer they iudge of this point, yet they will not deny, that it is treason to adhere to forren enemies. In the statute of 25. of Edward the third, chap. 2. those that adhere to the kings enemies, are adiudged traitors. By the El fuero real. tit. de la guar­da del rey. lawes of Spaine likewise it is made treason, to ioine with the enemie, and to yeeld him succour, or helpe by any meanes. and the like we may gather out of the Roman lawes ad legem Iuliam maiesta­tis. l. 1. Finally, reason may teach vs, that they can not be our friends, that adhere to our enemies, and ioine with them. but the masse priests, and all, that haue dealt hitherto in the popes, and Spaniards cause, haue adhered to forren foes, and to the publike and professed enemies of her Maiesty and this state. for first it is apparent, that the Pope and Spaniard are pub­like enemies of the prince & state. Hostes ij sunt, saith ff. de verbo­rum signific. l. hostes. Pom­ponius, qui nobis, aut quibus nos publicè bellum decreuimus. that is, they are publike enemies, either which make warres on vs, or vpon whom we make warres. The Gréeks, of the word [...], that signifieth warre, doe call enemies [...]. which sheweth them to be enemies properly, that make warres vp­on vs. But the Pope and Spaniard, from the yéere 1569. haue not ceased to make warres against the English nation. Pope Pius the fift hauing a determination to recouer his au­thority in England, and that rather by the sword, than as Pe­ter did gaine men, by the word, stirred vp Philip king of Spaine to ioine with him against our nation. both of them sent money to aide the Northren rebels, anno 1569. and were determined to haue sent an army into England, vnder the conduct of the [Page 190] duke of Alua, had not the practise of the rebels béene discouered, and had not the rebellion béene suppressed before the succors came to them. Manolessa. The Pope also afterward set vp the duke of Norfolke, and sent him mony, and encouraged him with great promises to execute his sentence. and both these points are prooued, not onely by the testimony of the letters of Pius Quin­tus, as they are recorded by him, that set out the report of his life, but also by the testimony of the secular priests in their trea­tise called important considerations. About the yeere 1578. Stukelcy was by the Pope furnished with money and souldi­ers to make some enterprise in Ireland, and had done some­what, if Gods iudgements had not turned him into Barbarie, where he made his end correspondent to his life. That string being broken, Sanders was sent, as agent for the Pope to raise a rebellion in Ireland. and not long after, the Pope sent cer­teine forces into the same countrey, that openly Let Parsons shew that euer S. Peter did the like. displaied his banners against her Maiestie, and the English nation. Anno 1588. both the Spaniards and Popes fléet came with fire and sword against England. The duke of Parma likewise prouided great land forces against vs in the Low-countreys. An. 1597. & 1598. the Adelantado of Spaine set foorth twise or thrise from Corona, with an intention to descend in the port of Fal­mouth, and to take that countrey. And lately Don Juan d'A­quila was sent with diuers regiments for the conquest of Ire­land. Likewise we for our defence haue since made some at­tempts against the Spaniard in Spaine, in the Indiaes, and in the Low-countreys. And most of these matters are publikely knowen, and can not be denied by the aduersarses themselues. The secular priests confesse most of these things in their trea­tise of important considerations. It can not therefore be deni­ed, but that both the Pope, and the Spaniard are publike ene­mies of her Maiestie and the state. The like may be said of Henry the 2. the French king, during the warres in Scotland, in the beginning of her Maiesties reigne, and of the duke of Guise, the duke of Alua, the prince of Parma, and others, that at seuerall times haue done hostile acts against her Maiesty, and the English nation.

Likewise it is a thing very manifest, that all our masse-priests, and their partakers and consorts haue adhered to the [Page 191] king of Spaine, to the pope, and to other forren enemies. Vpon the first comming of the Quéene to the crowne, diuers fled to the French king, who pretending a right to the crowne of England for his daughter in law the Quéene of Scots, pro­claimed her in Paris Queene of England, and Ireland, not without the consent of some traitorous English, as it séemeth. Mortua Maria, saith De schi [...]. li. 3. Sanders, Henricus Galliarum rex &c. nurum suam Scotorum reginam Henrici octaui proneptim pa­risijs pro concione Angliae & Hiberniae reginam declarandam curauit. he sent also forces into Scotland to second his claime. which no man may surmise he would haue done, but that he was promised a party in England. that the seminaries of Doway and Rome, adhere to the pope and Spaniard, it can­not be denied. for of them they haue their maintenance, and when the priests of the seminaries are déepely rooted in the grounds of vnnaturall disloialty and treason abroad, they come with commission and meanes from them two, home in­to England. thirdly, Sanders was sent by the pope as his le­gat into Ireland, and both he and his consorts, that were sent vpon that businesse, were furnished with meanes from the pope, and did wholly depend vpon him, and on the king of Spaine. fourthly it appeareth, that the priests held the pope for the chiefe lord, and did not so much as vouchsafe to call Elizabeth the Queene of England their Quéene. petatur à summo domino nostro, say Parsons and Campian in their fa­culties, explicatio bullae declaratoriae contra Elizabetham, & ei adhaerentes. let vs beseech say they, our most high lord the pope, to make an exposition of the bull against Elizaberh, and all that adhere vnto her. so it appeareth, that they declare themselues opposite to the Quéene, and all her true subiects, and that they adhere to the pope. it may out of that facultie al­so be gathered, that all papists adhere to the pope, for that these two prouide for them onely, and exclude all the Quéenes subiects. for the papists, whom those two traitors call catho­likes, desire, that the popes bull may binde the Queene and her subiects alwaies, but not the papists, while matters stand in termes as now they doe, but then onely when the bull may be put in execution. so it appeareth by the facultie granted to Par­sons and Campian, that papists are a faction adhering to the [Page 192] pope, & resoluing to execute his bull assoone, as they shalbe able. fiftly it cannot be denied, but that such priests as came with the Spanish forces by sea or land, either ann. 1588. or ann. 1597. or at any other time, or that came with the popes or spanish for­ces into Ireland, doe adhere to forrein enemies. but of this sort there are diuers, as may be prooued by the secular priests confessions, in seuerall treatises, and by the libell of cardinall Allen, that Italienated traitor, and alienated fugitiue, that signifieth so much. Parsons also is charged to haue thrust di­uers English priests aboord the Adelantadoes ships, being more then halfe forced to come against their country. neither doe the rest of the priests and their adherents cease to conuerse with these secret traitors, and to interteine them, and to hide them. sixtly Deschism. l. 3. Sanders doeth testifie, that the schollars of the seminary at Doway are protected and maintained by king Phi­lip. the same king also caused other seminaries of English schollars to be erected in Spaine: which no man doubteth, but they adhere to the Spanish king. so likewise the Romish se­minaries and their schollars adhere to the pope. for they take an oth and sweare to the pope, and those of Spaine to the Spa­niard, as is testified by Nauarrus consil. lib. 3. de regular. con­sil. 1. and Ribadineira de schism. part. 3. c. 21. seuenthly those that sweare to mainteine the Infantaes title to the crowne of England set downe by Robart Parsons a notorious traitor to the crowne of England, must néeds adhere to the Spaniard. but that is the case of all the English priests, that are now vnder the Iesuits gouernment, as appeareth by the testimonie of di­uers treatises set out by the secular priests against the Ie­suites, and by Charles Pagets booke against Parsons. the mat­ter also is very euident and notorious to all that know the or­ders of the English seminaries of traitors fostered in Spaine. 8. the Iesuits and their schollars are linked to the pope and spaniard; to the pope swearing to goe, whether he will send them; to the Spaniard for his liberality toward them, and for that he is ready alwaies to execute their trecherous deui­ses. 9. diuers fugitiue English are the Spaniards, and popes pentioners and sworne seruants. 10. the archpriest and his adherents, as they are enemies of the state, and therefore hide their heads: so are they dependents on the pope and Spani­ard, [Page 123] and professe themselues their clients. finally you shall hardly finde either masse-priest, or sound papist, that will re­nounce the pope, and take an oth to serue the Quéene either against the pope or Spaniard. and if any do so, they performe their seruice very slackly. which if any doe endeuour to excuse, because they take the pope to be Peters successor, and the Spa­niard to séeke nothing but to establish popish religion in Eng­land; they shew themselues to be ignorant both of religion, and matters of state. for Peters successors (of which number the pope is none) haue a commission onely to féed Christes shéepe, and not to cut their throtes. Important considerati­ons. p. 25. and the Spanish generall anno 1588. said openly, that if he once came into England both catholikes and heretikes should be one to him; so he might make way for his master. and his reason was, for that his sword could not discerne betweene them. wherefore as the pope and Spaniard are professed enemies to her Maiestie and this state, so all that adhere vnto them, or fauour them, and de­pend vpon them, are traitors to their prince and coun­trey.

argument 6 It is also treason to send letters to enemies or rebells, or to helpe them with aduise, counsell, or intelligence. Maiesta­tis crimine tenetur saith L. 1. ff. ad l. Iuliam maic­statis. Vlpian, qui hostibus populi Rom. nuntium literásue miserit, signúmue dederit, feceritúe dolo ma­lo, quo hostes populi Rom. consilio inuentur aduersus remp. the same is also adiudged treason both by Spanish, French, and the Popes lawes, as English traitors, if they should be taken writing, or aduising the enemies to the Pope, or Spa­niard, or french king, should well know. but the archpriest and his adherents both send letters, and giue aduise to the Pope and Spaniard, the best they can. they doe also write to Irish and English rebels. neither is there any almost of the Iesuited faction, but he writeth to Parsons a notorious traitor; and Allen, while he liued, was made acquainted by these fel­lowes, of whatsoeuer passed in England either publickely or priuatly.

argument 7 Neither can any subiect cleare himselfe of treason, that shall receiue letters or directions from forrain enemies, as both lawes ciuill and martiall doe teach vs. in what case then is the archpriest Blackewell and his assistants, and whole faction, [Page 194] that continually receiue letters, directions, briefs and other instructions from forrain enemies? and if these fellowes be so farre engaged in treason; then are they not cleare, that shall hide them, and conceale them, and maintaine them.

argument 8 By the common lawes of England it is treason, not onely to take the crowne from the king or Quéene, but also to séeke to dispossesse the right heire, of his right, or to translate the crowne to such, as haue no right. it is also a great wrong offe­red to the lawes and state, to endeuour by supposed titles to defeat the intent of the law, and to ouerthrow the fundamen­tall lawes of states. is it not then to be wondred, that no grea­ter poursuit is made after Robert Parsons, and the priests, that come out of the seminaries of Rome and Spaine, who either by oth, or promise stand ingaged to promote, I know not, whe­ther I should call it, a title or a dreame of Parsons concerning a title by him cast vpon the Infanta of Spaine to the crowne of England? The Prooued by the treatises of secular priests. same man also not long since offered the crowne to the duke of Parma, and others. neither wanteth he a number to consort with him; especially of those, that fauour the spaniard.

argument 9 Neither is it lesse then treason, to forsake a mans country, and contrary to the princes lawes, and commaundement to runne to forrein enemies. Paulus the lawyer doth ac­count of such no otherwise, then as of enemies. Qui malo consilio saith L. post limini­um. §. transfu­gae. ff. de Captiu. & postli [...]. he, & proditoris animo patriam dereliquit, hosti­um numero habendus est. neither do I suppose, that either the Pope, or Spaniard, or any prince in the world doth otherwise account of their rinegued fugitiues, thē of traitors: which may in part also appeare by the seuerity of the punnishment by law inflicted vpon such persons. transfugae ad hostes, saith the L. si quis. §. transfugae. ff. de paenis. law, aut viui exurantur, aut furca suspendantur. by this law it appea­reth, that our rinegued english Iesuits, and priests haue great fauour, that hitherto haue escaped the penalty of the law, that adiudgeth men in their cases woorthy of such grieuous pun­nishment. and certes, séeing our aduersaries thinke it lawfull to burne men for transgressing the vaine traditions of men, as for example for reading of an english testament, for eating flesh in lent and such like; they cannot say, but such as seeke the destruction of their country, and runne to forrain enemies [Page 195] deserue with all seuerity to be punnished. that our masse-priests haue forsaken their countrey to flie to the enemies, it cannot be denied. nay in the cases of conscience resolued by Allen and Parsons cap. 1. cas. 1. & cap. 3. they are taught by prety equiuocations, to deny their country.

argument 10 The Roman lawes adiudge him a traitor. which fraudu­lently enforceth a man to to take an oth, to doe an act against the state. L. cuiusque ff. ad l. Iuliam maiest. cuius dolo malo saith Sceuola, iureiurando quis ad­actus est, quo aduersus remp. faciat. likewise L. quisquis. c. ad legem Iuli­am maiestatis. Arcadius and Honorius pronounce him a traitor, qui scelestam cum militibus vel priuatis, vel barbaris inierit factionem, aut factionis eius sa­cramentum susceperit, vel dederit. that is, which shall enter into a wicked faction with soldiers, with priuate men, or barba­rous nations or shall either giue or take an othe to maintaine that faction. the Romans did therefore call conspirators, Con­iuratos, because those, that entended treason against the state, did binde themselues one to another by an oth not onely to kéepe matters secret, but also to prosecute the intended treason with effect. If then the Iebusits, and seminary men take an oth to their superior of blinde obedience, as they call it; to the Pope, that they shall goe whether he will send them; to the Spaniard to serue him faithfully, to Robert Parsons to maintaine the title of the Infanta of Spaine; how can they ex­cuse themselues from treason in this point? if they deny, that they take such othe, not onely their owne conscience, but also the testimony of Nauarrus consil. lib. 3. de regularib. cons. 1. and Ribadineira lib. 3. de schism. c. 21. and the confession of diuers seculer priests, in diuers treatises published against the Iesuits, and their faction, will plainly conuince them.

argument 11 Likewise as in warre enemies are discerned from friends by the word, and some priuy note; so traitors in ciuill dissenti­on are knowen from true subiects by this, that those haue their words, and notes of faction, whereby one of them know­eth another. and as in warres those are taken for enemies, that cary the enemies signal; so in ciuill gouernment those are vndoubtedly traitors and enemies, that are marked with the priuy signes of traitors, and enemies. the papists there­fore, that carie about with them their agnus dei, their graines, their consecrated beades, and such other trash, and are shorne [Page 196] and greased for the popes shéepe, and Spanish seruants, are vndoubtedly by all reason to be taken for traitors. And if a­ny reply, that it is a ridiculous and strange law, that men should be reputed traitors for bringing in, or hauing the popes bulles, and an agnus dei, and blessed graines, medalles, and such toies; it may be answered, that not to haue these things simply is treason, but to haue them as markes of faction, and signes to discerne the heard of anthichrist from others. and that doe the papists well know. Allen also and Parsons in their hellish resolutions of cases of conscience, affirme, that such medalles, and graines binde men in deuotion to the popes see, which they call apostolike. haec grana & metalla benedicta say Resolut. c. 1. cas. 2. they, multum conferre possunt, ad afficiendos populos erga apostolicam sedem. againe to be shorne a priest, and grea­sed after the popish maner in it selfe is not so much treason, as superstition and false religion. but when it is knowen, that such greased goates are signed for the popes and Spaniards agents in England, to set forward the Spanish inuasion, or the Popes cause; he is very simple, that doeth not vn­derstand him to be a traitor, whose pole is shorne by the pope and his faction; and who carieth with him the marks of the Spanish faction.

argument 12 It is treason also to conspire the death and destruction of principall men about the prince, that are his principall agents in the gouernment of the state. and this is not only according to the lawes of England, but also according to the Romane lawes. L. quisquis, Cod. ad l. Iuliam maiestatis. Arcadius and Honorius pronounce them guiltie of treason, which shal by faction attempt to murder their principal counsellors or officers, and the reason is, for that they in do­ing iustice are but the princes lieutenants, and doe nothing but his commandement. in this point therefore the Iesuites and priests are no lesse guilty then in the rest. the pope he ex­communicateth not onely the Quéene, but all that doe adhere vnto her, and doe her seruice. being therefore to execute the popes bull, as calues begotten by the bull of Bashan the pope, the priests and Iesuites must néeds séeke first the destruction of these principall men, & then of the rest. furthermore we are giuen to vnderstand, that one principall point of Parsons and other Iesuites consultations is, how to procure certeine prin­cipall [Page 197] men to be either made away or disgraced. in the meane while being not able to doe worse, Parsons and Creswell vnder the title of Andreas Philopater, and others haue set out most vilanous libels against her Maiesties principall counsellers, officers, and agents.

argument 13 It is also treason to betray her Maiesties armie, or any part of her forces into her enemies hands, or for a captaine or soldier to yéeld vp any towne deliuered vnto him to kéepe. héerein therefore Stanley and Yorke and their followers shew­ed themselues to be notable traitors to deliuer vp Deuenter, and their soldiers into the Quéenes enemies hands. Allen al­so, and all his schollars and followers, that allowed that fact, shewed themselues to be traitors, in applauding to their dis­loialty and wickednesse.

argument 14 The latter Romane Extr. feud. c. qui sunt re­baelles. emperors doe declare them to be re­bels, and disloiall traitors, which either openly, or conuertly doe the works of rebels, or practise against the prosperity of the state. in this case therefore are they, that either oppugne, or deny the princes right, and title; or else aduance the right of forrain potentates, to dispose of the crowne: or els which prac­tise against the person of their soueraigne lord, as saith Socinus the yonger, lib. 3. consil. 105. and Alciat consil. 456. or that shall conspire against the state of the prince, or common welth, as may be proued by the testimony of Baldus consil. 58. & se­quent. and Alexander consil. 13. lib. 6. and Iason consil. 86. lib. 3. or that shall make peace, or contract friendship with the princes enemies, as saith Decius consil. 604. & 605. or final­ly that shall doe any act preiudiciall to the prince or state. es­pecially if they be subiects, and bound by their naturall allege­ance to the prince and state. all which points doe nearely touch Robert Parsons, Creswel, Walpoole, and other rectors and scholars of the english seminaries a broad, the archpriest Blackewell, his adherents and al massepriests, and pensioners of the Pope and Spaniard both abroad and at home, all that intertaine intelligence with traitors, and any way releiue them, and finally all factious malcontents, that are offended with the present state, or present gouernors, and practise or en­deuour to worke innouation in the gouernment. and as for Parsons, Creswel, Garnet, and other Iebusits, and cananites [Page 198] that are archplotters of treasons against the prince and state, there is no question to be made, but they are traitors. the In the epi­stle before the treatise of im­portant con­siderations. se­cular priests charge Parsons, Creswel, Garnet and Blackwell to be wicked members, and shew, that they haue sought to bring in forrain enemies into England, to the ouerthrow not onely of many noble families, but also of the whole state. The au­thor of the Quodlibets, quodlib. 8. art. 10. confesseth, that the English seminaries beyond the seas are greatly degenerated from their primitiue foundation, and that now the heads of the scholars are filled with treacheries, aequiuocations, dissimulati­on, hypocrisie and all kinde of falshood. and that now priests in their missions are bound to take an oth for the setting foorth the Spanish Infantaes title. but if he had said nothing thereof, yet we vnderstand, that the seminaries beyond the sea are nothing els, but dennes, wherein yoong traitors are fostered vp for the restoring of the popes tyranny, and the furthering of the Spa­nish inuasion. therein also for many yéeres no other consulta­tions haue béene more rife, than how to bring her Maiestie to destruction, or to raise a rebellion, or to worke some hurt to the state, or to some principall gouernors thereof. As for the arch­priest and his faction, wherein I comprehend the prouinciall Garnet and other viperous Iesuites, it is méere simplicitie, not to vnderstand, that they are still working against the prince and state, and haue wholly deuoted themselues bodie and soule to serue the Pope and Spaniard. To the pope they complaine, and from him they receiue not only authoritie and direction, but commissions also and faculties, & grants to sell li­cences for eating white meat, dispensations in diuers cases, and to traffike for beads, graines, and other such like merchan­dise of Babylon. O simple papists, that suffer your selues to be abused with these montebanks, charlatanes, impostors, and cousening merchants! O vnwise people, that prefer these toies and this most vaine trash, and other tricks of popish su­perstition, before true religion, before your allegiance to your prince, and your loue to your countrey, and, as if you were be­witched, run your selues headlong into danger for loue of those vaine toies to ioine with enemies, that hate your countrey, and care not a straw for you, if they may obteine their owne wicked purposes. All those likewise, that enterteine intelli­gence [Page 199] with Parsons and such like traitors, or with rebels, or ioine in any practise to further forren enemies, or to hurt the state, which are many abroad and at home, both priests and others, can not cleere themselues of treason. Finally, whosoe­uer is a true papist, and according to Bellarmines Lib. de eccle­sia militant. c. 2. definition liueth in subiection to the pope, must needs be a false traitor to her Maiestie, and this countrey, as the case now standeth. for if euery papist be bound to obey the popes sentence, and to hold them excommunicate, and deposed, whom the pope shall ex­communicate, and depose; as most papists teach, and none dare deny, that beléeueth the popes power and authoritie: then if the Pope haue excommunicated and deposed her Ma­iestie, they are bound to hold her excommunicate, and deposed, and to concurre with him and his wicked agents, as oft as he will command and charge them to make ready for the execu­tion of his sentence. Againe, if, as Allen a notorious traitor in the iustification of Stanley teacheth, euery papist in all warres, which may happen for religion, is bound in conscience to em­ploy his pe [...]son and forces by the popes direction, viz. how far, when, and where, either at home, or abroad he shalbe directed: then is euery papist bound to be a rebell, and traitor as oft as the pope pleaseth and commandeth. and this sequele the secu­lar priests also confesse in their Pag. 24. treatise of important conside­rations, to be good, and acknowledge, that this is Allens doc­trine. contrariwise, if so be a man do not regard the popes sen­tence, excommunication, and direction; then he is no papist, neither may he euer looke for the popes blessing.

argument 15 Finally, it is treason, not onely to practise against the prince and state, but also to abet, to mainteine, to aide, to relieue, or conceale such practisers and traitors. By the common lawes of England, all that are accessaries in cases of treason, are pu­nished as principals. likewise, the Romane lawes punished not only the principall actors in treason, and rebellion, but also their abetters, counsellers, and aiders, as lawyers teach in their commentaries in l. proximum. l. cuius (que). and l. maiesta­tis. ad l. Iuliam maiestatis. the same also may be gathered out of the text of the law. Finally, this is vsuall in all crimes, as both the L. 16. qui e­pem ff. de furto. & ibid. dd. ciuill, and 11. q 3. c. qui consentit. & extr. de homi­cidio. c. ficut dignum. canon lawes doe teach vs. but few pa­pists of any note can be found in England, but they haue either [Page 200] consulted with traitorous priests and Iesuites, or relieued them, or receited them, or had intelligence with them. let them therefore thanke God for the fauor, which this state bestoweth on them without all desert of theirs, and beware hereafter, that they send no reliefe to seminaries abroad, nor receit such trai­tors at home, nor haue any dealing with such, as are knowen to depend vpon forren enemies. The state hath had excéeding patience in their behalfe hitherto. but euen most patient per­sons by continuall prouocations may be vrged to change their course. Cicero de le­gibus lib. 3. Salus populi suprema lex est. the safetie of the state is a matter aboue all others to be regarded. L. lex. ff. de legibus. the law also with­out punishment of offenders is dead. Lex, saith Papinian, est delictorum quae sponte, vel ignorantia contrahuntur, coercitio. Ibidem. l. le­gis virtus. Modestinus teacheth vs, that the life, and efficacy of the law consisteth in commanding, forbidding, permitting, and puni­shing. take away execution and punishment; and you not only ouerthrow the law, but the state also.

Now if any offence deserue punishment; then sure, traitors may not thinke to escape, that séeke to dissolue both lawes, and state. Treason, saith Rerum Graec. lib. 2. Xenophon, is so much more dangerous, by how much it is more difficult, to take heed of traitors, than of enemies. with our enemies we may be reconciled. but trai­tors are neuer to be trusted. the offence being so great, many extraordinary courses are taken in the repressing of treasons. In hoc atrocissimo delicto, saith a certeine Clarus sen­tentiar. lib. 5. §. laesae maiest. lawyer, lex non­nulla specialia introduxit. and commonly such persons are most hatefull. I haue learned, saith In prometheo. Aeschylus, to hate traitors, neither is any villany more hatefull than treason. Traitors are common enemies to all men, that loue the state, or their liege Souereigne. Omnium communis est hostis, saith Lib. 1. accu­sat. in Verrem. Tully, qui hostis est suorum. Who then would not hate them, that wic­kedly consort themselues with the Pope and Spaniard a­gainst the state?

The prince hath principall reason to represse this faction. for she carieth not the sword for nothing. and if she should neg­lect the danger in regard of her owne particular, yet will shée not neglect their safetie, whose estate dependeth so much vpon the saftie of her person. further, she hath little cause giuen her to extend her clemency to this viperous generation and their [Page 201] adherents, that shew extreme malice in séeking the destruction of her kingdome by bringing in forren enemies. they haue al­so slandered her Maiesties noble father, herselfe, her friends, her seruants and the whole state, as appeareth by Sanders his booke of schisme, by Andreas Philopater, Didimus Veridicus, and diuers other infamous libels set out by Parsons, and other wicked Iesuites. Finally, no prince can endure such to haue the benefit of subiects, that will neither acknowledge his soue­reignty, nor submit themselues to lawes.

The ecclesiasticall state may not endure either Baals priests to set vp idolatry, or false teachers to broch false doctrine, and priuily to bring in superstition and heresie.

Her Maiesties councell assuredly will not winke at any practise or complot against their prince and country; but with all seuerity will procéede against the authors of them, and all their factious partakers.

The chiefe officers and nobility of the relme haue no reason to beare with them, which by alteration of state, séeke to de­priue them of their honors, and to dispose of their lands and goods at their pleasure. neither is it the part of a generous and noble english minde, to suffer themselues to be disgraced and ouerruled, if not tirannized by Parsons his councell of re­formation, by Italians and Spaniards, and the very scumme of all villany.

The reuerend iudges will neuer suffer such to escape vnpu­nished, as séeke the subuersion of iustice. neither may lawiers endure those, that goe about to ouerthrow their countrey lawes, and to bring in strange lawes, and to rule all by force and violence, as may appeare by Parsons trecherous plots, and his most infamous councell of reformation.

All true subiects, I suppose, will rather die, then suffer the tyranny of strangers. and therefore I néed not animate either her Maiestie, or the ecclesiasticall state, or her councell, or her chiefe agents, or her nobility or iudges, or the lawiers, or the rest of her subiects, to encounter and to resist the plots of these Iebusits and traiterous massepriests, that séeke for the esta­blishment of their massing ceremonies, and most wicked reli­gion, to bring in strangers, to cut their owne countrymens throtes, to abuse their wiues, and daughters, and finally to de­stroy [Page 202] this flourishing kingdome, and their owne most deare country. the safety of the common welth as all politicks know, and Arist. polit. lib. 3. c. 3. teach, is the common worke of all true citizens, and well minded subiects: and I doubt not, but as all men de­test such, as oppugne the state, so they will all ioine together and haue a vigilant eie to looke to their execrable plots enten­ded against the state.

Finally, reason and experience may teach the papists, that howsoeuer some of them hope to win by shuffling of matters of state; yet that most of them shall rather loose then winne. they may also see, that many haue lost their liues and liuings, that haue bene practisers in rebellion and treason. and for­rain aides doe commonly first oppresse those, that vse them: and finally forsake them. examples hereof they may sée in the rebellion of the north and of Ireland, if they be not blinde: and consider them they may, if they will be led with reason.

Wherefore I doubt not, but as all men may sée the treasons of priests, and Iesuits, and their adherents to be made mani­fest; so they shall shortly sée the execution of lawes against them. that such as haue bene executed for practising in the popes cause, are no martyrs, as papists giue out, it may easily be proued. for euen the aduersaries themselues will confesse, that traitors against the prince and state are no martyrs. vn­lesse therefore Parsons can cleare his consorts of those points of treason, which I haue declared and obiected, and shew, that they adhered not to forrain enemies, nor had intelligence with traitors, that sought the destructoon of the prince and state, nor offended in any other points of treason, before rehearsed; he must néeds confesse himselfe, and his consorts to be rather in state of treason, then martyrdome.

2 Secondly martyrs died in time past for the testimony of Christ Iesus. but such papists as haue bene executed in En­gland of late yeares, haue died for the maintenance of anti­christs tyranny, and packing with forren enemies, and matter of treason against the prince and state, and for other offences deseruing death. and this is manifestly proued by the endite­ments framed against them, by the depositions of witnesses, confessions of the parties, and the whole forme of their triall iudgement and execution. neither is it materiall, that some [Page 203] were accused for bringing in, or hauing of medalles, or graines, others for being made priests by the popes faction, others for reconciling men to the pope; which are points, as the papists say, of their popish religion. for albeit medalles and graines are not simply of themselues notes of treason; yet seeing the pope doeth vse them, as marks of his faction; it were simpli­city not to vnderstand, that such as vse them are of his adhe­rents. Againe, to be a priest simply in it selfe is no treason. but if priests, that are ordred by the popes faction take an oth of obedience to him, that is our enimie, and are bound to set foorth his cause for the regaining of England to his obedience; then to be made priest by the popes agents, is argument suf­ficient to prooue a man to be a traitor. likewise it is no treason simply to be addicted to the superstitions of the Romish church, no more then it is to be Sarracen or Turke; yet to bée reconciled to the Pope, and to receiue absolution from his a­gents, is treason, he being a professed enemie of the state, and vsing this reconciliation and colour of religion for a meanes to ouerthrow her Maiestie, and this kingdome, and to réesta­blish yet once againe his tiranny in England. finally to obey good bishops cannot be euill interpreted but to submit a mans selfe to the pope, that pretendeth to haue right to depose prin­ces, and to translate kingdomes from one to another at plea­sure (a matter repugnant to scriptures, to the practise of the apostles, and primitiue church, and as Sigebertus Gemblacen­sis testifieth speaking of Gregory the seuenth his time, a nota­rious and plaine condemned heresie) cannot but preiudice the right of a prince in enmity with the pope, & prooue flat treason.

3 Thirdly the true martyrs of Christ suffered for defence of the trueth wronfully; and therefore deserued the honour and title of martyrs, and very high commendation. that is thankes­woorthy saith saint 1. Pet. 2. Peter, if a man for conscience toward God endure griefe, suffring wrongfully. such were the martyrs of times past, who suffred death, because they would not deny the Lord Christ Iesus, nor sacrifice to idoles. but the popes martyrs suffer for practising with forren enemies, and die for the Popes pleasure, and desire nothing more then to set vp idolatry. for conscience they cannot say, they suffer, vnlesse the make treason against their prince and countrey a matter [Page 204] of conscience, and rule their conscience by the Popes will, and make no conscience of idolatry or blasphemie. neither can they say, they are punished wrongfully, being punished for their treasons, rebellions and packings against the state with forren enemies. whosoeuer therefore shall entitle and call these fellowes martyrs, he shall greatly wrong religion, and the state of martyrs, and much resemble the Donatistes, and other old heretikes. Saint Epist. 68. Augustine saith of the Dona­tists, viuebant vt latrones, honorabantur, vt martyres. Alex­ander also an heretike, of whom Lib. 5. eccles. Iust. c. 17. Eusebius maketh mention, liued as a thiefe, and died for his deserts, and yet by those of his sect was honored as a martyr. such martyrs also are those of the popish sect. for whatsoeuer reckoning their consorts make of them, they were punished iustly for their offences, and died for treason, rebellion, practising and packing with forren e­nemies.

4 Fourthly true martyrs are charitable, and die in charitie. for without charitie, furious and Iesuiticall zeale to promote the Popes cause auaileth nothing. if I giue my body to be bur­ned saith the 1. Cor. 13. apostle, and haue not loue, it profiteth me no­thing. now what charity, thinke you, had they, that were em­ploied by publike enemies to the hurt and destruction of their liege Lady, and most deare countrey? Charity saith the Ibid. apo­stle, is patient, gentle, humble. but these by force of armes sought to returne into their countrey, and like fierce lions en­deuor by conquest to subdue men to their opinions. anno 1588 their common talke was of sharing of lands and liuings. In Wisbich also all the stirres among the papists grew about su­periority, the Iesuits seeking to rule, the rest refusing to be ru­led by them. Parsons they say hath an old prophecy how Eng­land must be ruled by certeine men in long blacke gownes, and square caps, that is by Iesuites. and long he hath béene dreaming of a cardinals hat. yet none falleth to his share. in all the English colledges and seminaries the Iesuits by great stirres haue sought the gouernment. A discouery of Campian and his con­sorts. Cottam an English Iesuite being condemned to die, praid God, that he would send downe fire from heauen to consume all the people, that stood round about him to gaze on him. and this is the gentle­nesse and charitie of Iesuiticall martyrs. when Sixtus quintus [Page 205] told the Iesuites, that he wondred, that none of their order were canonized for saints; some of them answered, that they sought honors in the church triumphant, and not in the church militant. such triumphant martyrs are these of the popes and Iesuits calender.

5 Fiftly, true martyrs are men of a peaceable disposition, and no way desirous of tumults and troubles. Lib. 3. contr. parmen. si supra memoratos saith Optatus, videri martyres vultis, probate illos amasse pa­cem, in qua prima sunt fundamenta martyrij; aut dilexisse deo placitam vnitatem; aut habuisse cum fratribus vnitatem, sine qua nullum vel nomine potest, vel re esse martyrium. his words in effect amount to this, that none can be martyrs, vnlesse they they be studious of peace, and vnity. if then the papists neither agrée with vs, nor with themselues, and are giuen much to contention, and continually haue stirred vp warres, and hur­liburlies, in diuers countries, and haue like firebrands set most parts of Christendome on a flame, as appeareth by their actions in England, Scotland, France, Germany, Flanders, Suethland, and other places; why should such men dying ra­ther be accounted martyrs, then the contentious Donatists?

6 Sixtly the true martyrs of Christ Iesus died in time past for the true faith of Christ deliuered vnto vs in the apostles wri­tings. but the popish mastifs died for the popes excommunica­tions, & for defence of his most vniust and tirannicall vsurpati­ons, according to such doctrine, as they had receiued out of the popes decretales, & their masters dictates. who then doth not maruell, that any should be so bold, as to call such obstinat fel­lowes, that died out of the church, & for no point of faith were so much as once called in question, martyrs? cum deo manere non possunt saith Cyprian, qui esse in ecclesia dei vnanimes no­luerūt. ardeant licet flammis, & ignibus traditi, & obiecti bestiis animas suas ponant, nō erit illa fidei corona, sed poena perfidiae: occidi talis potest, coronari non potest. if then these good fel­lowes haue forsaken the church, and linked themselues with enemies and traitors, die they may for their treasons, but crowned they shall not be as martyrs. neither is it death, but y^e cause, that maketh christians dying to be estéemed martyrs.

7 Seuently, no true martyr euer séemed more desirous of the applause and praise of men, then of the glory of God, & good of [Page 206] Christes people. fi ita martyrium fecerimus saith In epist. ad Galat. lib. 3. c. 5. Hierome, vt nostras velimus ab hominibus reliquias venerari, si opinionem vulgi sectantes intrepidi sanguinem fuderimus, & substantiam nostram vs (que) ad mendicitatem propriam dederimus; huic operi non tam praemium, quàm paena debetur, & perfidiae magis tor­menta sunt, quàm corona victoriae. his meaning is, that they cannot be martyrs that séeke the applause of the multitude, & for vain-glory die obstinate in their opinions. if then the popes agents in England sought nothing more, then their owne glo­ry & praise, and the applause of the pope, and cardinals, and the simple people adhering vnto them, it were but a simple imagi­nation, to suppose them to be martyrs. Christian martyrs cer­tes sought not their owne glory, nor the applause of men. nor did they solicite the inuasion of their countrey, and domesticall tumults, that they might reigne like yoong lords.

8 Eightly, it was not the fashion of martyrs, in ancient time, to renounce their kings and soueraigne princes, & to refuse to acknowledge their authority. for wel they knew, that the apo­stle had taught them obedience, & not rebellion, nor contuma­cious resisting against the princes power. omnis anima saith Rom. 13. he, potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit. neither did the holie martyrs of Christs church set out most slanderous libels a­gainst men in authority, or allow any such course. finally we doe not read, that euer any godly martyr, did beare armes a­gainst lawfull princes, or go about to depose them, or murder them vpon bishops, or other mens commandement whatsoe­uer. Hieremy he had more authority then hath the pope. con­stitui te hodie super gentes, saith Hierem. 1. God vnto him, that is, I haue appointed thee ouer nations, and he had power to pull vp & to destroy. yet we read not, that he commanded any prince to be deposed or murdred. but Campian and his consorts, whom the papists notwithstanding celebrate & repute martyrs, did dis­claime her Maiesties authority, and adhered to the popes de­claration, as appeareth by their answers yet to be séene. all priests also, that come from Rome in their cases of conscience, which they will not deny, are taught to deny her Maiestie to bee their lawfull Queene. Robert Parsons Campians fel­low hath since his execution prooued a notorious libeller. both the pretended martyrs themselues haue set out slan­derous [Page 207] libels against their prince, and the state, and haue well liked of the slandrous and lying writings of Sanders, Harps­field, Ribadineira, Rishton, Parsons, Bristow, Creswell, & others. When the army of the Pope & Spaniard was ready to come for England anno 1588. then was Parsons, they say, very busie in printing pope Sixtus his scandalous declaration against her Maiestie, and Allens railing and scurrilous letters to the no­bility and people of England and Ireland. A In an an­swere to a li­bell set out by Parsons. friend of his also doth charge him, that his finger was both in the making, and dispersing that infamous libell. and yet the pretended popish martyrs would neither mislike the authors, nor these wicked libels, nor any thing els, that might worke disgrace either to her maiesty or the state. Finally, the earle of Northumberland, and the two Nortons, and diuers priests, whom Bristow in his Motiues, and Sanders in his books De visibili Monarchia, and diuers others do celebrate for martyrs, are in the Crowne of­fice and publike records registred for men of a far diuers qua­litie. Among these certes the earle of Northumberland and the Nortons were principall actors in the rebellion anno 1569. and diuers of the rest were spotted with other treasons. But per­case, it is a matter not vnusuall for the pope to put those in the Calender of martyrs, whom publike executioners register in their books for rebels and traitors. in which ranke, it may be, that Iames Clement, that murdered king Henry the third of France, and Ghineard the Iesuite, that allowed that murder, and was therefore executed, and Chastell, that assaulted Henry the fourth of France now reigning, shall sometime or other be entred, and be reputed as good saints, as the best.

9 No martyrs of Christ Iesus did euer suppose it a thing law­full, to breake their others of allegeame to their princes vpon a­ny excommunication, or other warrant of popes or bishops. In Chronic. & Auentin. annal. 7. Sigebertus Gemblacensis saith, it is a pernitious heresie to be­leeue, that the pope can discharge subiects from the bond of an oth, and from their allegeance. but the popes martyrs, or rather vnnaturall, and churlish mas [...]ifs, did not only take themselues to be discharged from their allegeance, and ioyned with forren enemies, but also perswaded as many as they could, to take armes against their prince and countrey.

10 In ancient records of ecclesiasticall stories we do not reade, [Page 208] that any martyr of Christ Iesus did euer denie his name, qua­litie, kindred, and prince, all together; nor that they vsed equi­uocations, and dissembled their faith; nor finally, that they went apparelled like spadassins, and ruffians. but these pre­tended popish martyrs doe not only all this, but also are resol­ued by Allen and Parsons, that it is lawfull so to do. The Resolut. quo­rundam casuum nationis Ang­licanae. c. 1. case being put, vtrum sacerdos possit habitum mutare, comam nu­trire, nomen, & patriam, & parentes negare; they answer thus: potest. nec videtur in ea re dubium. potest enim quis veritatem tacere, vel dissimulare. The same good fellowes determine also, quod dissimulatio est licita. that is, that dissimulation is law­full. and afterwards they say, it is pious to vse dissimulation, for that it is lawfull to lay ambuscadoes for enemies. so it appea­reth they take all their countreymen, that fauor the state, for enemies, and would take them in ambuscadoes, if they could. and this, if we looke not to it, they haue fully purposed, and re­solued, as may appeare by their resolued cases. Concerning the Queene, they say, shee is not lawfull. the more they to blame, that holde them for lawfull subiects. Regina haeretica, say Ibidem. they, non est legitimè regina. and againe, non gerit se vt reginam, sed exercet tyrannidem. Finally, the disciples of these traitors are taught to renounce their countrey, and to giue no respect to their parents, if they be not of the Romish religion.

11 It was not the fashion of Christian martyrs in times past to vse machiauelian tricks; nor to equiuocate in places of iudg­ment; nor to forswere themselues, being examined, and inter­rogated by their superiors. but the schoolemasters of our po­pish priests, and the popes calues, and designed popish mastifs doe enforme them, that they may doe both without any scru­ple of conscience. sciant say Ibidem. c. 3. cas. 3. they, se vti posse aequiuocationi­bus, & iurare sine peccato. Now by aequiuocations, they meane promises and othes made, not according to common and literall meaning, nor according to the vnderstanding of the iudge, but according to a certaine hidden meaning of the party. and by swearing they vnderstand false forswearing, ac­cording to our common vnderstanding. they Ibidem. teach also, that a priest is no more to regard an oth to the Queenes officers, then if he should sweare to pirates and robbers. are not these gallant fellowes then, trow you that suppose the Queenes [Page 209] iustices to be like pirates and robbers, and that pirates and robbers may as well spoile men by the high way, as they deale with priests according to her Maiesties lawes?

12 Finally no hereticks, nor miscreants can iustly be reputed martyrs, albeit they die for their false conceites, and opinions. the Donatists died desperatly; & so likewise did the hereticks called Euphemitae, which for the multitude of their supposed martyrs, would needs be called Epiphan. haeres. 80. Martyriani. yet did the church of god no otherwise account of them, then as of leud hereticks, and not as of martyrs, as appeareth by the testimony of Euse­bius, Epiphanius, Augustine, and other fathers. We read also in histories, that Turks, Tartares, & Mores oftentimes die most resolutely or rather desperatly for the blasphemous opinions of Mahomet, & that the Matth. Pa­ris. Assassins, that were a sect of desperate cutthrotes like to the Iebusits, that desperately would aduen­ture to dispatch whomsoeuer their generall commanded them to murder, suffered death most willingly and constantly. and this they accounted a speciall point of their bloody religion. yet it were mere madnesse to repute such fellowes martyrs. why then should the papists that haue broken their necks and died for the popes cause, & whom we haue clearely proued, to be hereticks, be accounted martyrs? nay why should rebels, traitors, and Assassins, such as Parrye, who by the Cardinall of Comoes letters, & the popes promises, was enduced to lay vio­lent hands on her Maiestie, & such like wicked men be named martyrs? if because they are put in the popes calender, it may be easily replied, that as at Rome they are put in the popes ca­lender, so at Newgate, & such places, they are put in the hang­mans calender. further it is Christs trueth, and not the popes faction, that maketh martyrs.

Those therefore, that died in the popes quarrell, are traitors, and not martyrs. and that will be the case also of all their consorts, if they passe that way, which I would haue not one­ly all Iesuits and massepriests to consider, but also all those, that like their humors, and opinions. neither is it materiall, that grace hath bene offered to some, that haue bene executed for treason, if they would haue renounced the pope, & his tre­cherous doctrine and faction. for that sheweth not, that the parties, to whom this grace was offered, were no traitors, [Page 210] but rather her Maiesties great clemency, that was willing to pardon all, of whom any hope might be conceiued, that they would become good subiects. so likewise if a man should offer pardon to an Assassin, it doth not proue that such as murder men vpon a leud conceit of wrong religion died as martyrs.

If then the papists be not the true church; I trust all true Christians will avoid them. if their doctrine be neither anci­ent, nor catholicke, I hope true catholicks will no longer suffer themselues to be abused by them. if they be hereticks; they will, I trust, for very shame forbeare to impute heresies to true Christians. if massepriests be idolaters; I hope religi­ous Christians will take order with them, as godly kings did with Baals priests. finally if massepriests and the popes a­gents haue so farre engaged themselues in treason; I hope all true subiects will learne to detest popery, not onely in regard, that it is a false religion, but also, because it is a packe of leud opinions borne out with all fraud, vileny and treason. which because it floweth from the forge of Antichristes authority and inuention; let vs beséech God, to reueale dayly more and more the man of sinne, that such as now are abused by him, may forsake him, and serue God in spirit and trueth ac­cording to his holy word. And thus much may serue for the declaration and iustification of my challenge. it resteth now, that I answere my aduer­saries exceptions and cauils.