estimation in that their Latine vulgata edition vvhich their tridentine councell hath most straitlie charged all chistendome to observe as all papistes now a daies repute the same a stable bulwarke for their purgatorie the wordes are these sancta ergo salubris est cogitatio pro defunctis exorare vt à peccatis solvantur it is therefore a good and godlie consideration to pray for the dead that they may bee cleansed from their sinnes these wordes are so plaine and so easie as not onelie the vvhole church but my lord Bishop yea and euerie scholer that but meanlie knoweth the latine tongue must needes vnderstand the same And consequentlie must needes knovv purgatorie by them if hee can vse anie discourse at all as my lord of Rochester could doe right well vpon these observations then I inferre first that the church of Rome not knowing purgatorie for manie yeares after she had received the scriptures in which purgatorie was so plainlie and effectuallie conteined as they now graunt did not repute the bookes of Machabees for canonicall scriptures and consequentlie did not beleeue purgatorie mentioned therein For this indeed is most true of the old and good church of Rome as Roffensis hath proved against his vvill I inferre secondlie that the church of God never had or can haue other scriptures or other faith then the apostles had and beleeved in their time For the latter church neuer had nor ever shall haue authoritie to coine anie new scriptures or nevv faith The church of Rome therefore taught most wicked doctrine in my L. Bishops time vvhich he well perceiued and acknowledged in his ovvne conscience or els was in that point infatuated become a verie foole according to this saying of the Gospel Confiteor tibi pater domine coeli terrae quia abscondisti haec à sapientibus prudentibus revelasti ea parvulis I giue thee thankes O Father Lord of heaven and earth because thou hast hid these things from the wise and men of vnderstanding and reuealed them vnto babes The 8. Preamble ALbeit the papistes doe reproue others bitterlie when they reiect some authotities though vpon important and grounded reasons yet themselves with all libertie reiect contemne authorities at their pleasures They reiect the fourth booke of Esaias as Bellarminus confesseth They reiect the last clause of the Lords praier as Arius Montanus witnesseth They reiect the 65. canon of the Apostles as graunteth Bellarminus in these wordes Respondeo canonem istum supposititium videri solum n. quinquaginta canones apostolorum ecclesia recipit I answere that this canon is a counterfaite for the church of Rome receiveth onelie 50. canons of the apostles Marke gentle reader that this canon reproveth the practise of the Church of Rome and so the church si dijs placet will not receiue it They reiect the sixt generall councell because forsooth it prescribeth limits to the bishop of Rome and denieth his vsurped iurisdiction That they reiect this solemne and vniuersall councel Bellarminus auoucheth stoutlie but pope Adrian reputed a most graue vvriter by the learned papists received and reverenced the said councell for these are his vvords cited in their ovvne canon lavve Sextam synodum sanctā cum om nibus canonibus suis recipio I receiue the sixt holie synode vvith all the canons thereof Loe the Pope himselfe and their ovvne canon lavv confirme this councel to be of good autoritie Reade the next chapter in the said canon lavy for there is large matter vttered for the approbation of the same They reiect that part of the councell of Constance vvhich Pope Martin vvould not allovv And vvhy vvould not hee allovv that part as vvell as he approued the other parts because for sooth it denieth the Popes authoritie to be aboue the councel but because I vvill not rip vp popish licentious libertie to the bottome I vvill rest vvith recitall of that onelie libertie vvhich Bellarminus vseth in defense of popish masse these are his vvordes Porro epistolae duae quae circumferuntur de hac re Damasi ad Hieronymum Hieronymi ad Damasum supposititiae sunt Furthermore the tvvo epistles vvhich are carried about of Damasus to Hierome and of Hierome to Damasus are counterfaite But the absurdest Epistles Canons and vvritinges that euer vvere or can be are verie authentical vvith them and most currant so they make for our holie father the pope his vsurped iurisdiction For proofe of this point I vvil content my selfe vvith tvvo examples for brevitie sake For by them and the disproofe thereof the reader may haue a sufficient coniecture of the rest The former example is taken out of S. Clements epistle to S. Iames. in this and the other epistles follovving put forth in the name of S. Clement is commended vnto vs auricular confession the sacrifice of the masse the subiection of kinges to bishops the primacie of S. Peter and such like for vvhich respectes the said epistles are currant and authenticall amongst the papistes but magna est veritas praevalet great is the truth and it preuaileth for the verie vvordes of the epistle betray and bevvray the same and make it manifest vnto all the world that it is a counterfait These therefore are the vvordes Clemens Iacobo domino episcopo episcoporum regenti Hebraeorum sanctam ecclesiam Hirosolymis sed omnes ecclesias quae vbique Dei providētia fundatae sunt cum patribus diaconibus caeteris omnibus patribus pax tibi sit semper Clement to lord Iames the bishop of bishops that governeth the holy church of the Hebrevves at Hierusalem as also that governeth all churches founded by Gods providēce throughout the vvorld vvith the fathers and deacons and all other fathers peace be to thee alvvaie Novv gentle reader thou hast heard the vvords and so beholdest no doubt the vanitie thereof for if S. Iames vvere not only bishop of Hierusalem but the bishop of bishops and the governor of all Churches in the christian vvorld as this epistle affirmeth then doubtles vvas S. Iames the pope and supreme head of the church not S. Peter and yet doth the selfe same epistle avouch that S. Peter vvas the head of the church and that S. Peter lying sicke in his bed called S. Clement vnto him and told him that his houre of death vvas at hand and that therefore he appointed the said Clement to be his successour and to sit in his chaire at Rome But S. Iames succeeded Christ himselfe at Hierusalem vvho vvas indeede the head of holie Church and therefore S. Iames should rather be Pope then S. Clement if there vvere indeed anie such pope at all the latter example is taken out of that vvorke vvhich is fathered vpon S. Augustine of true and false repentance vvhich booke because it seemeth to approove confession of sinnes to priests is good and authenticall vvith papistes but as God vvould haue it the selfe
sheepe So then that text of Scripture which with the Papists is the foundation of popish primacie to wit Feede my sheepe maketh no more for Peters superioritie then it doth for the supremacie of other Apostles For as you have heard out of S. Augustine it was as well spoken to all as to Peter Yea the grosse imagination of papists concerning the building of the Church vpon Peter is lively and evidently confuted of S. Augustine in an other place where he thus writeth Tu es inquit Petrus super hanc Petram quam confessus es super hanc Petram quam cognovisti dicens tu es Christus filius dei vivi aedificabo Ecclesiam meam id est super meipsum filium dei vivi aedificabo Ecclesiam meam super me aedificabo te non me super te Thou art Peter saith Christ and vpon this rocke which thou hast confessed vpon this rocke which thou hast acknowledged saying Thou art Christ the Sonne of the living God will I build my Church that is vpon my selfe the Sonne of the living God will I build my Church I will builde thee vpon my selfe but not my selfe vpon thee Marke well these wordes gentle Reader with the other last rehearsed out of Saint Augustine and doubtlesse if plaine and manifest exposition of the Scripture will content thy minde thou canst not but nowe have thy desire The great generall Councell of Constantinople maketh the Church of Constantinople equall in Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction with the Church of Rome These be the words Renovantes quae à s. patribus 150. qui in hac regia vrbe convenerunt à 630. qui Chalcedone convenerunt constituta sunt decernimus vt thronus Constantinop aequalia privilegia cum antiquae Romae throno obtineat in Ecclesiasticis negotijs vt illa emine at secundus post illam existens We renewing the Canons which were set downe by the 150. holy fathers assembled in this royal citie by the 630. fathers gathered together in Chalcedon doe define that the See of Constantinople have equall priviledges with the See of old Rome and that it excell as Rome in Ecclesiasticall affaires beeing the second after Rome And long before all this that famous Councell of Nice distributing circuits and assigning determinate iurisdictions to the Patriarchall seates appointed to the Church of Rome prefixed limits as to the rest These be the wordes Mos antiquus perduret in Egypto vel Lybia Pentapoli vt Alexandrinus Episcopus horum omnium habeat potestatem quoniam quidem Episcopo Rom. parilis mos est Let the olde custome continue in Egypt or Lybia and Pentapolis that the Bishop of Alexandria may have power over them all because like custome hath the Bishop of Rome Which Canon is reported in the Councell of Carthage and there vttered in plaine tearmes Antiquiores obtineant qui apud Egyptum sunt Lybiam Pentapolin ita vt Alexandrinus Episcopus horum omnium exhibeat solicitudinem quia vrbis Romae Episcopo similis mos est similiter autem est circa Antiochiā in caeteris provincijs privilegia propria reserventur metrapolitanis Ecclesiis Let the auncient obteine which are at Egypt and Lybia and Pentapolis so that the Bishop of Alexandria may have the charge of them all because also the Bishop of Rome hath the like custome In like manner also let the proper priviledges be reserved to metropolitain Churches about Antioch and other Provinces By which wordes we see evidently that this auncient and famous Councell maketh no other account of the Church of Rome then it doeth of other Patriarchall seates Which Ruffinus himselfe though reputed a great Papist hath confessed bountifully in these wordes Vt apud Alexandriam vel in vrbe Roma vetusta consuetudo servetur vt vel ille Aegypti vel hic subvrbicarum Ecclesià rum sollicitudinem gerat That the old custome may continue and that the Bishop of Alexandria may have the charge of Egypt as the Bishop of Rome hath charge of the Churches nigh to Rome Loe in Ruffinus his dayes the Bishop of Rome had his iurisdiction limited which extended onely to certaine speciall Churches of Italie For which cause Saint Hierome a deare friend and great favourer of the Church of Rome confessed for all that the Bishop of Rome to be of no greater merite excellencie or auctoritie then other Bishops are as also that the custome of Rome could not over-rule other Churches These are S. Hieromes owne and expresse wordes Si auctoritas quaeritur orbis maior est vrbe vbicunque fuerit Episcopus sive Romae sive Eugubij sive Constantinopoli sive Rhegij sive Alexandriae sive Tanis eiusdem meriti eiusdem est sacerdotij potentia divitiarum paupertatis humilitas vel sublimiorem vel inferiorem Epi scopum facit caeterùm omnes Apostolorum successores sunt Sed dicis quomodo Romae adtestimonium diaconi presbyter ordinatur quid mihi profers vnius vrbis consuetudinem If we looke for authoritie the world is greater then one citie Where so ever a bishop shall be whether at Rome or at Eugubium or at Constantinople or at Rhegium or at Alexandria or at Tanis he is of the same merite and of the same priesthoode The magnificence of riches the basenes of povertie doth make him higher or lower but all are the successours of the Apostles But thou wilt say how is a priest made at Rome by the testimonie of a Deacon why doest thou alleadge vnto me the custome of one onely citie Thus S. Hierome agreeth with Ruffinus Ruffinus with the Councell of Nice and the Councell of Nice with other Councels fathers Scriptures And all ioyntly conclude the equalitie of other Bishops and Churches with the Bishop and Church of Rome The second Conclusion ALL the Apostles received their vniversall power immediately from Christ and not from Peter at all and consequently their iurisdictions were no lesse ordinarie then Peters was This to be so though this day much impugned by the Papists prooveth a great popish Doctour Franciscus a Victoria in these words Omnem potestatem quam Apostoli habuerunt receperunt immediatè à Christo. All power which the Apostles had they received it immediately from Christ. And in an other place the said Victoria hath these words Lex iniusta Episcopi non obligat ergo nec Papae Antecedens est notū concessum ab omnibus consequentia videtur not a quia nō habet maiorem auctoritatem Papa adinferendum iniuriam quam Episcopus circa ea enim quae sunt sui officij in proprios subditos non minus potest quà m Papa The vniust law of the Bishop doth not binde a man ergo neither doth the vniust lawe of the Pope binde a man The antecedent is knowne and graunted of all and the consequence seemeth manifest because the Pope hath no more auctoritie to doe an iniurie then hath the Bishop For in those things
which perteine to his office and to his proper subiects he can doe as much as the Pope Loe this great learned Papist who for his learning is reverenced of all Papists in the world ascribeth no lesse auctoritie to every Bishop in his diocesse then to the Pope himselfe Againe he affirmeth that no bishops authoritie is dependent vpon the Pope but is immediately from Christ so that papistrie is still confuted and confounded by it selfe and that by the best doctours of greatest authoritie even in the Church of Rome Iosephus Angles though otherwise he flatter the Pope and advance his auctoritie yet hath Gods Spirit enforced him to testifie the same truth These are his wordes Si comparemus B. Petri aliorum Apostolorum potestatem ad gubernationem omnium credentium tantam alij Apostoli habuerunt potestatem quantam B. Petrus habuit it a quod poterant quemlibet Christianum totius orbis sicut modo Rom. Pont. excommunicare in qualibet Ecclesia Episcopos sacerdotes creare ratio est quia omnis potestas B. Petro promissa tradita fuit caeteris Apostolis collata hoc sine personarum loci vel fori discrimine If we compare the power of S. Peter and of the other Apostles to the government of all the faithfull other Apostles have even as much power as S. Peter had so that they could then excommunicate every Christian in the whole world as the Bishop of Rome doth now and also make Bishops and Priests in every Church The reason is because all power promised and given to S. Peter was also given to the rest of the Apostles and that without difference of persons place or consistorie This is the sentence of fiyer Ioseph who vnwittingly and vnwillingly such is the force of veritie doeth wonderfully advance the trueth even while he seeketh to oppugne the same 1 For first he graunteth that every Apostle had as much auctoritie as S. Peter 2 Secondly that every Apostle had then as much auctoritie as the Pope chalengeth now 3 Thirdly that every Apostle had auctoritie from Christ to create Priests and Bishops every where 4 Fourthly that all this their authoritie was given them without difference of person place or consistorie O mercifull God blessed be thy holy Name for ever such is the maiestie of thy holy Gospell that the enemies thereof iustly infatuated for their sinnes doe vnwares even then illustrate thy trueth when they thinke the most to obscure the same This I did not see O God when I was abandoned from thee this I nowe behold O God when thou of thy mercy hast called me to thee Graunt O sweete Father that all seduced Papistes may behold the same with me to the glorie of thy holy Name the honour of thy Church and the eternall solace of their owne soules For more then the Popes owne deare doctours doe teach vs we desire not at the Popes hands The generall Councels of Constance and Basil decreed this matter in these manifest tearmes Ipsa synodus in spiritu Sancto legitimè congregata generale concilium faciens Ecclesiam militantem representans potestatem immediatè à Christo habet The Synode lawfully assembled in the holy Ghost making a generall Councell and representing the Church militant hath power immediately from Christ. Thus saith the Councell and doubtlesse where power commeth immediately from Christ it can not be derived from the Pope Thirdly S. Paul had speciall auctoritie over the Gentiles and largely as much as Peter if not more and consequently since all Christians now were Gentiles then the Pope if he will needes have superioritie over his brethren Bishops must reduce his succession from S. Paul For thus saith S. Paul of himselfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Gospell of the vncircumcision was committed to me even as the Gospell of circumcision to Peter The third Conclusion KInges have power coactive over Popes but Popes have no coactive power over Kings albeit Popes of late dayes have not onely excommunicated Princes but deposed them also For proofe of this conclusion many texts of holy Scripture are consonant King Salomon deposed Abiathar and placed Sadock in his roome For so the booke of Kings saith Abiathar quoque sacerdoti dixit rex vade in Anathoth ad agrum tuum quidem vir mortis es sed hodie te non interficiam quia portasti arcam domini dei coram David patre meo sustinuisti laborem in omnibus in quibus laboravit pater meus eiecit ergo Salomon Abiathar vt non esset sacerdos domini paulò post Sadoc sacerdotem posuit pro Abiathar Then the King said to Abiathar the priest goe to Anathoth vnto thine owne farme for thou art worthie to die but I will not this day kill thee because thou barest the Arke of the Lord God before David my father and because thou hast suffered in all where my father hath beene afflicted Salomon therefore cast out Abiathar from beeing priest vnto the Lord and set Sadock the priest in the roome of Abiathar King Iosaphat appointed both Ecclesiasticall and secular Magistrates commanding them strictly to looke vnto their charge These be the words of holy writ In Hierusalem quoque constituit Io saphat Levitas sacerdotes principes familiarum ex Israel vt iudicium causam domini iudicarent habitatoribus eius Praecepitque eis dicens sic agetis in timore domini fidelitèr corde perfecto King Iosaphat appointed in Hierusalem Levites and Priests and Princes of the families of Israel that they should iudge the iudgement and cause of the Lord to the inhabitants thereof And he commanded them saying Thus shall ye doe in the feare of the Lord faithfully and with a perfect heart And it followeth in these wordes Omnem cau sam quae venerit ad vos fratrum vestrorum qui habitant in vrbibus suis inter cognationem cognationem vbicunque quaestio est de lege de mandato de caeremonijs de iustificationibus ostendite eis vt non peccent in Dominum Every cause which shall come vnto you of your brethren which dwell in their cities betweene kindred and kindred where soever question is of the law of commandement of ceremonies of iustifications tell them that they sinne not against the Lord. It followeth thus Amarias autē sacerdos Pontifex vester in his quae ad deum pertinent praesidebit porro Zabadias filius Ismaelqui est dux in domo Iuda super ea operaerit quae adregis officium pertinent Amarias the Priest and your Bishop shall beare rule in those thinges which perteine to God and Zabadias sonne of Ismael captaine in the house of Iuda shall be over those workes which belong to the office of the King These are the expresse words of holy Scripture which I have alleadged at large because if they be once applied effectually they can not but proove my opinion fully 1 First therefore as the Queenes
man to whome he was not subiect Most impudent therefore and intollerable is the Popes insolencie when he exalteth himselfe above Kings and Emperours threatning them that he can depose them from their scepters and regalties and dispossesse them of their Empires and dominions Which for all that Cardinall Allen is not ashamed to avovch with lying lippes in the Popes behalfe in that his disloyall pamphlet which he published without name in defense of the Seminaries But such flatterie of feyned titles a Pope of famous memorie shall confute Gregorie surnamed the great himselfe beeing Pope of Rome at what time as he was appointed by Mauricius the Emperour to publish a certaine law sent him from the Emperour did not refuse to accomplish the said Emperours assignment but acknowledged him by duetie bound to execute his commandement therein albeit he thought the law in some part disagreeable to Gods will This to be so the Popes owne words shall witnesse which be these Ego quidem iussioni subiectus eandem legem per diversas terrarum partes transmitti feci quia lex ipsa omnipotenti Deo minime concordat ecce per suggestionis meae paginam sereni ssimis dominis nunciavi vtrobique ergo quae debui exolvi qui Imperatori obedientiam praebui pro deo quod sensiminime tacui I subiect to your commandement have caused the same law to be sent through diverse parts of the lande and because the lawe doth not agree with Gods will behold I have intimated so much vnto your Maiestie by my epistle I have therefore discharged my duetie in both respects as who have yielded my obedience vnto the Emperour neither concealed what I thought in Gods behalfe These are the Popes words besides many others in the same epistle to the like effect Which being vttered by the chiefest Pope are most effectuall to proove the subiection of Popes vnto Kings 1 For first Pope Gregorie acknowledgeth the Emperour to be his lord 2 Secondly he confesseth him selfe to be the Emperours subiect 3 Thirdly he graunteth that he oweth loyall obedience to the Emperour for which duetie he durst not but publish the Emperours law though in some part it were very rigorous and that least he should have bin guiltie of distoyaltie towards his Prince Now that Romish pontificalitie and pompe of Poperie came vp first by beggerly Canonists who to advance them selves flattered the Pope and gave him more then princely titles the Popes owne deare Doctour who carieth therefore credite on his backe telleth vs who after he hath rehearsed many lordly titles and more then royall power ascribed to the Pope hath these expresse words Sed glossatores iuris hoc dominium dederunt Papae cum ipsi essent pauperes rebus doctrina But the glossers of the Popes law gave this dominion and these royall titles vnto the Pope when them selves were blind bayards and beggerly fellowes Thus saith the Popes Doctour and thus we see that povertie and ignorance were the beginning of Pope dome For by reason of povertie they flattered and sought to please and by reason of their ignorance they avouched many things which they did not vnderstand The fourth Conclusion THE Pope had no auctoritie to give dominion of the Indians to the King of Spaine albeit many defend the spanish invasion by vertue of that donation The latter part hereof Victoria sheweth in these wordes Secundus titulus qui praetenditur quidem vehementer asseritur ad instam possessionem illarum provinciarum est exparte summi Pontificis dicunt enim quod summus Pontifex est Monarcha etiam temporalis in toto orbe per consequens quod potuit constituere Hispaniarum reges principes illorum barbarorum it a factum est The second title which is pretended and earnestly affirmed for the iust possession of those provinces consisteth in the Popes graunt For say they the Pope is a temporall Monarch even of the whole worlde and consequently that he could appoint the Kings of Spaine Princes over those Barbarians and so it came to passe The former part of the conclusion Aquinas prooveth in these wordes Ad Ecclesiam autem non pertinet punire infidelitatem in illis qui nunquam fidem susceperunt secundum illud Apostoli 1. Cor. 5. quid mihi de his qui foris sunt iudicare But it belongeth not to the Church to punnish infidelitie in them who never received the saith according to that saying of the Apostle What have I to doe to iudge of those that be not in the Church Dominicus Soto is of the same opinion whose words are these Ad hoc autem respondetur in primis Pontificem neque concessisse imò vero neque vt cum omni reverentia obedientia de sanctissimo Christi vicario loquar concedere potuisse eorum suorumve honorum dominium quasi dominium in eos ipse haberet But to this I answer be it spoken with all reverence and obedience to the most holy Vicar of Christ that neither the Pope did graunt yea neither could he graunt vnto the King of Spaine dominion over those Indians or their goods as though himselfe had dominion over them It followeth in the same Soto Lex fidei dominium rerum ab infidelibus non aufert quod sibi natur a concessit The law of faith doth not take away dominion of possessions from infidels which nature hath graunted them Victoria accordeth to Aquinas and Soto in these words Ex quo patet quodnec iste titulus est idoneus contrabarbaros vel quia Papa dederit provincias illas tanquam dominus absolute vel quia non recognoscent dominium Papae Whereby it is plaine that neither this title is sufficient against the barbarians either because the Pope gave those Provinces as beeing absolute lord thereof or for that they doe not recognize the Popes authoritie Iosephus Angles likewise saith Hinc neque poterit alicui regi Christiano potestatem dare vt sibi Indorum regna v surpet non enim est orbis temporalis dominus For this cause he can not give any Christian king auctoritie to vsurpe the kingdomes of the Indians to himselfe for he is not the temporall lord of the world By which testimonies it is cleare that the Pope could not give to the Spanish King any iust title over the Indians because he could not give that which himselfe had not Yet â—hust Emperours hold his bridle and Kings be his footestoole if they will The Corollarie FIrst therefore since all the Apostles were equall with Peter in power authoritie and iurisdiction secondly since all the Apostles received their power immediately from Christ thirdly since all the Apostles had ordinarie calling and iurisdiction as well as Peter had fourthly since Kings have power coactive over Popes and not Popes over Kings fiftly since the Popes pretended power is controlled by his owne popish doctours I conclude that it is a sufficient motive for me to
the spirit of man that is in him These are S Augustines owne words so plaine and effectuall against popish vnchristian foolish and execrable confession as nothing more needeth to be said therein The fifth Conclusion ALbeit Popish auricular confession be so magnified with Papistes that every one is commanded vnder paine of damnation to beleeve the same as instituted by Christ himselfe yet was it not an article of popish faith for the space of one thousand and five hundred yeeres after Christ. This conclusion because it is very important I shal desire thee gentle Reader to ponder deepely with me my discourse Iosephus Angles Valentinus a popish fryer and bishop of Bosana in the second tome of that worke which he dedicated to the Pope himselfe Sixtus Quintus hath these expresse words Ante concilium Later erat haereticum negare necessitatem confessionis negantes tamen non erant haeretici ratio est quia nondum erat ab ecclesia declaratum Before the councell of Lateran it was hereticall to denie the necessitie of confession but yet they were not heretikes that denied it The reason is because the Church of Rome had not yet declared it to be an article of faith Loe these words conteine effectually the exact proofe of this conclusion if they be well marked 1 We must therefore observe first that who soever beleeveth not stedfastly every decree of the Church of Rome in matters of faith is holden of that Church for an heretike 2 We must observe secondly that the councell of Lateran whereof this fryer speaketh was holden in time of Pope Iulius the second and Pope Leo the tenth that is 1500. yeeres after Christ. 3 VVe must observe thirdly that vntill fifteene hundred yeeres after Christ were expyred they that beleeved not popish auricular confession to be ordeined by Christ were no heretikes For so as you see this fryer teacheth and the Pope him selfe graunteth 4 VVe must observe fourthly that the Church of Rome hath no authoritie to coyne any new article of faith 5 VVe must observe fiftly that the Church of Rome hath no new revelations in matters of faith but the very same which it had in the Apostles time both which latter observations their owne deare Canus telleth vs in these words Omnia siquidem fidei dogmata ab Apostolis accepit ecclesia vel scripto vel verbo quoniam ij ministri fuere sermonis nee vllas in fide novas revelationes ecclesia habet For the Church received all doctrines of faith from the Apostles eyther by word or writing Because the Apostles were the ministers of the word neither hath the Church any new revelations in faith Now out of these observations which are evident it followeth necessarily that confession this day ought not to be an article of faith no not in the Church of Rome 1 For first during the time of fifteene hundred yeeres after Christ it was no article of faith in the Church of Rome 2 Secondly the Church of Rome can not make that an article of faith now which was no article of faith in the Apostles time 3 Thirdly the Church of Rome hath no new revelations in matters of Christian faith For so as you have heard hath their owne Melchior Canus avouched Neither will it helpe to say that auricular confession was an article of faith in the Apostles time but not then revealed to the Church For as Canus hath told vs plainly the Church receiveth no newe revelations of faith This doctrine is confirmed by their famous Cardinall Caietan who avoucheth two speciall grounds against popish auricular confession For first although Christ by his opinion instituted confession yet did he make it voluntarie and left it in mans election whether he would confesse or not confesse Againe he telleth vs that the manner of popish confession to wit to confesse secretly in the priests eare was not ordeined by our Saviour Christ. Out of which assertion I inferre a double conclusion against the Papistes The one that confession is not necessarie to salvation For that which is voluntarie as to be a Monke a Nunne a Priest a Iesuite is not necessarie to salvation as every papist graunteth but is as a counsell worke of supererogation The other that popish lawe vrging men to auricular confession is flat against Christs institution And thus I weene I have prooved this conclusion The sixt Conclusion IF Popish confession were ordeined by Christ as the papists falsely and grossely imagine yet would it followe by a necessarie consecution that every Pope should be in daunger of his salvation This conclusion may seeme somewhat strange but I proove the fame By popish doctrine every man and every woman of lawfull yeeres are bound vnder paine of damnation to the said confession and consequently the Pope beeing either man or at least woman as is thought of pope Iohn is strictly bound vnto the same Now syr how our Pope his holinesse shall come to confession and have absolution of his sinnes hoc opus hic labor est And that the reader may fully vnderstand the difficultie herein it is to be noted that no priest can absolve any person from his sinnes over whome he hath not superioritie and iurisdiction but his holines hath both the swords his power is above Kings and Emperiours and over him no mortall creature no not an Angel of heaven hath any iurisdiction at all as holdeth popish faith The Pope then being subiect to none must yet be absolved of some which some must haue iurisdiction over him standeth doubtles in great perplexitie and in no small danger of his saluation Let us therefore find some poore shift to helpe his holines if it may be What if we say that the Pope hath no mortal sinne so is not bound to popish absolution But alas all Popes are not Saints as is prooved and so some must perforce have absolution Let us say that he may absolue himselfe as well as he may graunt pardons to him selfe But alas that implyeth contradiction because so he remaining one and the same man should be both superiour and inferiour to himselfe superiour as he did absolve and inferiour as absolved Let vs say that he voluntarily submitteth himselfe and so receiueth absolution But alas so shall his holines still be inferiour to the silly priest because as S. Paul discourseth to the Hebrewes he that blesseth is greater then he that is blessed Let us say that the Pope giueth to the priest power ouer him for that time onely But alas that would be a rare and strange metamorphosis with an impossibilitie annexed therevnto For first by this meanes the simple priest should be Pope in time of absolution as having then greatest power upon earth Secondly after absolution he that was pope should cease to be pope and he that was not pope should without election or consecration be pope again Which is a thing impossible euen by popish proceeding Let vs say that some other
pope hath given this auctoritie to the priest But alas that can not possibly be graunted For this is a constant axiome with the papists par in parem non habet potestatem When two are of equall auctoritie the one can not make a law for or against the other Well since none of these waies can content his holines let vs heare what his owne deare vassals can say in his defense Iosephus Angles vnfoldeth this great difficultie at large when he thus writeth Canus affert tres opiniones prima est S. Thomae D. Bonaventurae quibus adhasit Turrecremata Secunda opinio est Paludani asserentis habere authoritatem absolvendi non à Papa sed à Christo. Tertia est Caietani dicentis iurisdictionem quam habet sacerdos absolvendi Papam nec esse à Christo neque à Papa neque ab ecclesia sed solum ex electione per hoc scilicet quod papa se subiicit illi illumque eligit Est quarta opinio qua tenetur quod quemadmodum in receptione ordinis datur vnicuique simplici sacerdoti potest as iurisdictionis respectu venialis mortalis quae poenitens alias confessus est etiam respectu cuiuscuÌ„que peccatoris in articulo mortis ita datur tunc iurisdictio eidem sacerdoti absolvendi papam Master Canus bringeth three opinions the first is of S. Thomas and S. Bonaventure to whome agreeth Turrecremata The second is the opinion of Paludanus who avoucheth that the Priest receiveth his authoritie not from the Pope but from Christ him selfe The third opinion is Caietans who affirmeth that the Priest hath authority to absolve the Pope neither from Christ nor from the Pope nor from the Church but onely by election to wit in that the Pope submitteth him selfe to the Priest and chooseth him And there is yet a fourth opinion which holdeth that as in receiving of priesthoode power of iurisdiction is given to every simple priest in respect of veniall sinnes and of those mortalls which the penitent nath otherwise confessed and also in respect of every sinner in the point of death so is iurisdiction then given to the said Priest that he may absolve the Pope Thus saith our reverend bishop and worthie fryer Ioseph Out of whose words I note 1 First that since our Lord is the God of peace and not of dissention as recordeth his holy Apostle in many places it must needes follow that this popish doctrine is not of God which is so devided against it selfe and therefore said Caietain truely though vnwittingly and to another ende when he denied the priest to have his authoritie from Christ or from his Church 2 I note secondly that their doctrine is meere opinative as which is onely grounded vpon mans invention 3 I note thirdly that as the priestes iurisdiction is vncerten so is the Popes absolution also as which is consectarie therevnto and consequently that the Pope standeth in daunger of his salvation And so if I be not deceived the obscuritie of this conclusion is made evident The Corollarie FIRST therefore since auricular popish confession is not commaunded by Christ secondly since it was not practised by the Apostles thirdly since it was instituted onely by the positive lawe of man fourthly since the Greeke Church never admitted that lawe fifthly since it is contrarie not onely to the fathers but to popish doctours also sixtly since it bringeth the Pope him selfe to the hazard of his salvation I conclude that it is a sufficient motive for me to renounce the Romish religion as false erroneous and pernicious doctrine Thus much of the tenth and last Motive Peroratio I HAVE in this discourse gentle Reader briefly confuted ten special articles of popish faith and religion 1 First I haue shewed the insufficiencie blasphemie and absurdities of popish pardons 2 Secondly that the Pope both may erre and hath erred defacto not only as a priuate person in priuate opinion but euen as Pope and publike person in iudicial definitions 3 Thirdly that generall councels in these latter daies are nothing els but a meere mockerie sophistical subtiltie to deceiue Gods people withal 4 Fourthly that the Popes dispensations are wicked licentious and intollerable 5 Fiftly that Kings are above Popes that their power is independent that they are subiect to none but to God alone 6 Sixtly that popish dissention is of matters most important and incredible to such as are not wel acquainted with their bookes 7 Seaventhly that the writings of the auncient fathers are to be received with great reuerence yet so as we acknowledge them to be men to haue their errours and to binde vs to their authorities no further then they accord with the holy Scriptures 8 Eightly that all things necessarie for our salvation are conteined in the holy Scriptures and that popish traditions are so vncerten as the best learned papists can not agree therein 9 Ninthly that after this life there is neither merite nor demerite nor satisfaction to be made and that the booke of Machabees can not establish popish purgatorie 10 Tenthly that the specificall enumeration and confession of all our sinnes is not onely not commaunded by the Scriptures but repugnant to the same and impossible to be accomplished by the power of man All which points I have prooued not onely by Scriptures authorities and reasons but euen by the expresse testimonies of best learned papists A thing heretofore never performed by any to my knowledge and yet so forceable against the papists if I be not deceived as nothing can be more My desire was to content all to offend none to confirme the weake to instruct the ignorant to reclaime the seduced and to confound all arrogant disloyall subiects If â—ffect succeede correspondent to my option God be thanked for it who is the chiefe worker of every good act to whome with the Sonne and the holy Ghost three persons and one God be all honour power glorie and dominion nowe and ever AMEN 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sapient 8. 1. Dionys. Arâ—â— pag. de divinis nominibus c. 4 2. Thess. 2. v. 4 5 6 7 8 9. 1 Greg. 9. lib. 1. decret tit 33. cap. 6. Glossa ibid. Gregor ubi supra Glossat lib. 1. decretat tit 7. cap. 3. Gerson de potestat eccles consider 12. part 3. Gerson ubi supra Bellarminus de Rom. Pont. lib. 5. cap. 8 1 2 3 Secundò principalitèr Bernar. ad Gaufridum epist. 125. 3 Robertus Bellarminus lib. 5. de Rom. Pontif. cap. 7. Bellarm. cod cap. Bellarm. cap. codem Bellarm. ubi supra 1 2 3 Prou. c. 8. 15. Rom. c. 13. v. 1. 4 Sylvest de papa para 2. 5 Bellar. derom pontif lib. 5. cap. 7. Luc. 12. 2. Mat. 16. 13. Mat. 23. 3. Mat. 15. 3. Mat. 15. 9. 1. Ioh. 4. 3. Roffensis cont assertion Luther art 18. prope initium Deut. cap. 2. vers 4. 2. Machab. cap. 12. vers 26. Matt. cap. 11. vers 25. Bellar. lib.
Pope verie sharplie both of pride and ignorance read the third chapter and last conclusion The 6. Preamble ALl the Apostles had not onely the same povver and auctoritie but iurisdiction also as vvholly largely effectually and in all respectes as Peter had Read the sixt chapter and first conclusion The 7. Preamble POpish purgatorie vvas invented by Popes and Popish parasites neither vvas it ever admitted liked or beleeved of the greeke church vntil this day Read the 7. chapter and 2. conclusion and here I vvill alleage the verie vvordes of our Roffensis sometime bishop of Rochester a man so renovvmed not in England onely but through out the vvorld amongst papists as his vvords may carie credit sufficient vvith them thus he vvriteth I vvil not alter or change one vvord Sed graecis adhunc vsque diē non est creditū purgatoriū esse legat qui velit Graecorum veterum commentarios nullum quantum opinor aut quam rarissimum de purgatorio sermonem inveniet sedneque latini simul omnes ac sensim huius rei veritatem conceperunt paulo post nō absque maxima sancti spiritus dispensatione factum est quod post tot annorum curricula purgatorij fides indulgentiarum vsus ab Orthodoxis generatim sit receptus quumdiis nulla fuer at de purgatorio cura nemo quaesivit indulgentias nam ex illo pendet omnis indulgentiarum existimatio si tollas purgatorium quorsum indulgentijs opus erit his enim si nullum fuerit purgatorium nihil indigebimus contemplantes igitur aliquandiu purgatorium incognitum fuisse deinde quibusdam pedetentim partim ex revelationibus partim ex scripturis fuisse creditum atque ita tandem generatim eius fidem ab orthodoxa ecclesia fuisse receptissimam facillime rationem aliquam indulgentiarum intelligimus quum itaque purgatorium tam sero cognitum ac receptum ecclesiae fuerit vniversae quis iam de indulgentijs mirari potest quod in principio nascentis ecclesiae nullus fuerat earum vsus caeperunt igitur indulgentiae postquam ad purgatorij cruciatus aliquandiu trepidatum er at The Greekes to this day do not beleeue that there is a purgatorie read vvho vvil the commentaries of the auncient Grecians and he shal find either verie seldome mention of purgatorie or none at all for neither did the Latine Church conceive the veritie of this matter at one time but by leisure neither vvas it done vvithout the great dispensation of the holy ghost that after so manie yeares Catholikes both beleeved purgatorie and received the vse of pardons generallie so long as there vvas no care of purgatorie no mā sought for pardons for of it dependeth all the estimation that vve have of pardons if thou take avvay purgatorie to vvhat end shall vve neede pardons for if their be no purgatorie vve shall neede no pardons considering therfore hovv long purgatorie vvas vnknown then that it vvas beleeved of some by litle and litle partly by revelations and partly by the Scriptures and so at the last beleeved generally of the vvhole church vve do easilie vnderstand the cause of perdons since therefore purgatorie vvas so lately knovven and received of the vniversal church vvho can novv admire pardons that there vvas no vse of them in the primitiue Church pardons therefore began after the people stood in some feare of purgatory these are the vvords of this popish bishop vvhich vvordes if they be vvel marked vvith all the circumstances are able vvithout more adoe to persvvade anie man to detest the Romish religion for vvhich cause I have alleaged them at large 1 First therefore vvee learne here that the greeke church never beleeved purgatorie to this day 2 Secondly that the Latine church and church of Rome did not beleeve the said purgatorie for manie hundreds of yeares after S. Peters death vvhose successor the pope boasteth himself to be 3 Thirdlie that this purgatorie vvas not beleeved of all the latine church at one and the same time but by litle and litle vvhere note by the vvay that poperie crept into the church by litle and litle not all at one time vvhich is a point that galleth the papistes more then a litle I vveene 4 Fourthly that purgatorie vvas beleeved in the latter daies by speciall revelation of the holie ghost 5 Fiftlie that pardons came not vp till purgatorie vvas found out for in purgatorie resteth the life of pardons as vvhich there being no purgatorie are not worth a straw 6 Sixtly that purgatorie vvas a long time vnknovven 7 Seventhly that purgatorie could not be found in the scriptures of a long time 8 Eightlie that it vvas not vvholie found out by the scriptures but partlie by revelations 9 Ninthly that pardons vvere not heard of or knovven to the primitive church 10 Tenthly that then pardons began when men began to feare the paines of purgatorie Behold novv gentle reader vvhat a vvorthie fisher vvas my popish Lord of Rochester hee hath caught vvith his net at one draughtten goodly fishes that is to say ten vvorthy observations for Christian aedification Further then this out of the seventh and eight observations I gather three special documents by a necessarie and irrefragable consecution First that the second booke of the Machabees is not Canonical or penned by the holie ghost For if that booke vvere of canonicall authoritie vvhich the papistes purgatorie could not but haue bene knovven so soon as that booke vvas knovvn vvhich yet Roffensis denieth The reason is evidēt because purgatorie is verie effectuallie plainlie conteined therin Secondlie that the Church of Rome for of that church speaketh the Bishop reputeth the vvorkes of God vnperfect albeit Moyses avoucheth the contrarie Dei inquit perfecta sunt opera The vvorkes of God saith he are perfect I prooue this because as the Bishop saith the scriptures made purgatorie knovven to the church but vnperfectlie yet the truth is that if God make purgatorie knovven by the scriptures then purgatorie is made knovven perfectlie by them or else Gods vvorks that is the holie scriptures must be vnperfect but I vvil rather beleeue Moyses the holie prophet of God then my lord our fisher though the popes canonized martir Thirdlie this Bishop for this his doctrine must either come againe to retract his opinion or else wil he nil he condemne the pope and church of Rome This I wil proove by a most plaine and evident demonstration For the better vnderstanding vvherof I shal desire the gentle reader to observe three thinges vvith me First that the church of Rome preacheth novv and did in this Bishops time that the bookes of Machabees are canonicall scripture and penned by the holie ghost Secondlie that the church of Rome neither beleeued nor knevv purgatorie for manie years together after the receite of holie scripture and these bookes of Machabees Thirdlie that purgatorie is effectuallie and plainely conteined in the second booke of Machabees by popish
same booke confuteth it selfe so plainlie as none vvith reason can esteeme it worth a straw For in that verie booke the author thereof who soeuer he were alleageth S. Austens opinion and confuteth the same These are the wordes quod quam vis licet de eius salute Augustinus potuit dubitare credo quidemilli qui dixit quacunque hora peccator ingemuerit conversus fuerit vita viuet because although S. Augustine doubted of his saluation yet do I beleeue him that said at what houre soeuer a sinner shall repent and be converted hee shall live These are the wordes of this vvriter which doubtlesse cannot be S. Augustines because S. Austen would never speake of him selfe as of a strange third person and purposelie confute himselfe as this author confuteth Augustine Besides this S. Augustine in his bookes of confession doth vtterlie condemne confession of sinnes vnto Priestes as I haue prooved in the chapter of auricular confession but alas the Papistes as they haue but one onelie place of the Machabees for their forged pugatorie so haue they but onelie this place of S. Augustine for their popish confession And therefore no marveile if they invent poore miserable shifts to have them both reputed authentical if it would be The 9. Preamble THe cheefest and principall thing that seduceth and maketh so manie wilfull papistes is this gentle reader for certaintie when so ever anie one of what degree calling or condition soever shall become a papist and yeeld himselfe to the slanedome of popish religion that person must bye and bye prosesse ipso facto to beleeue and imbrace all the popes decrees of faith and maners as the verie selfe decrees of the holie ghost and also to obey his ordinances and censures as the lawes of God and not of man their reason whereof is because as they say the holie Ghost doth so direct couduct and guide the Popes tongue and pen that he can neither define commaund or write anie thing in iudiciall and difinitiue maner but it must perforce proceed from the holie ghost out of which falslie supposed ground two most pernicious euils follow of necessitie The one that whensoeuer anie difficultie doubt or controversie ariseth about anie matter of religion then by and by the Papistes consider first of all what the pope holdeth whether it be in the decrees decretals the sixt booke Clementines extravagants and that done they will coine one distinction or other by which they vvill racke the meaning of the question difficultie reason father or scripture propounded to agree with that which the pope holdeth For they wil neuer examine the popes decrees by the scriptures fathers or coūcels but the fathers or councels scriptures by the Popes faith constitutions practise for if anie can once say the Church that is the pope holdeth so then is the controversie at an end he shall be demed an heretike that proceedeth one iot further for their canon law hath made it sacriledge to dispute of the popes power Read the first chapter the other that none may or dare reade either the scriptures trāslated into their vulgar tongue or any expositours vpon the latine Bible or anie booke of controversies or anie writer whosoeuer in anie matter of religion popish writers onelie excepted vnlesse they first haue a licence from the pope which license is neuer graunted but to special persons vpon speciall considerations And out of this sharpe vnchristian and diabolical prohibition issueth the third euill to wit that not one papist among ten thousand knoweth anie thing perteining to religion save onely a few special pointes of popish doctrine For they are taught that to beleeve as the fable of the Colier teacheth them is sufficient the devil as cardinall Hosius reporteth disputed with a poore colier asking him how he beleeved I beleeue said the colier as the church beleeueth then the deuill demaunding how the Church beleeued the colier answered in this maner I beleeue as the church beleeueth and the church beleeueth as I beleeue there he rested and would not remoue one iote At the same stay are all papistes this day who beleeue as the church of Rome beleeueth though they cannot tell how it beleeueth but onelie in a generall and grosse maner and so they often times beleeue they know not what Marrie our English papistes for feare of the statute dare not stand vpon this beleefe though it be their staie indeed but flee to another bulwarke as they deeme it to wit it is against my conscience when yet in verie deede they can no more tell what conscience is then they know what the romish church beleeveth The 10. Preamble THe religion this day established by godlie lawes in this realme of England is the aunciēt christian catholike and apostolike doctrine which was taught by Christ and his apostles practised in the primitive church euer continued in the heartes of the faithfull vntill this houre and shal no doubt to the worlds end And though the common people for the greater part call it the new religion yet is that a meere childish vanitie and the popish doctrine the new religion in verie deed For the old Romish religion is this day holden and observed in this Realme which thing is proued at large throughout my second booke for example the profession of the romish Capuchenes is not a new profession in religion but the old franciscan profession newlie reformed and therefore doe they terme themselues the reformed franciscanes which yet the other corrupt and dissolute franciscans will not acknowlege and euen so in our case the religion now established in England is not a religion opposite to the first old Romish religion but the old Romish religion newlie reformed and purged from the corruptions and abuses crept into the same From which auncient and pure religion the pope and his adherents are departed like as the franciscans are also gone from their old popish franciscan profession The 11. Preamble THe ignorant papistes that is all papistes or verie few excepted doe greatlie loth and abhorre the christian catholike religion now established in this land by godlie lawes in a godlie maner And this they doe vppon a ground falslie so supposed by reason of their ignorance therein their falslie conceiued ground is that our religion contemneth good workes and iustifieth the most wicked liuers vpon earth which if it were as they imagine then were it indeede a great motiue to dislike of our religion But gentle reader it is a most notorious slaunder doubtlesse as I shal evidentlie proue vnto thee Hieronymus Zanchius writeth thus Primi affectus regenerationis ac spiritus sunt amor iustitiae legisque divinae odium peccati The first affects or fruites of regeneration and of the spirit are loue of iustice and of the law divine and hatred of sinne and a litle after he saith thus Fily Dei diligunt faciunt iustitiam filii autem diaboli amant
keepe the law Secondly I see all that aske bring dispensations whom I marvell if they all haue lawfull causes that they may be dispensed withall in the impediments of matrimonie and of irregularitie and for the pluralitie of spirituall livings And in another place the said Victoria hath these words Et paultim adhanc intemperantiam dispensationum deventum est hunc talem statum vbi necmala nostra nec remedia pati possumus ideo necesse est aliam rationem excogitare adconservandas leges Da mihi Clementes Linos Sylvestros omniapermittam arbitrio eorum Sed vt nihil gravius dicatur in recentiores pontifices certe multis partibus sunt priscis illis inferiores By Title and litle wee are brought to these in ordinate dispensations and to this so miserable state where we are neitherable to endure our owne griefes nor remedies a sligned for the same And therefore must vve perforce inuent some other way for conferuation of the lawes Giue mee Clements Lines Silvesters and I will commit all things vnto their charge But to speake nothing grievously against these latter popes they are doubtlesse inferiour to popes of old time by many degrees I could all eage many other testimonies But this Victoria being of great credit among the papistes is a most sufficient witnesse in their owne proceedinges The Corollarie First therefore since the Pope dispenseth vsually with professed monkes against his owne canons and religion 2 Secōdly since the pope dissolueth by his dispensations such matrimonies as are indissoluble by Christes institution 3 Thirdly since the pope pronounceth that to be true matrimonie by vertue of his dispensation which both by the law deuine and law of nature is no matrimonie at all 4 Fourthly since the pope doth not onely dissolve Christes law but also turneth his owne lavv vpside downe by his vngratious and intollerable dispensations I conclude that it is a sufficient motiue for me to renounce the Romish religion as false erroneous and pernitious doctrine Thus much of the fourth Motyve THE SIXTE CHAPTER Of the Popes authoritie and Iurisdiction THe papistes boaste that the pope is Christes vicar generall that hee hath fulnesse of povver that all ecclesiasticall iurisdiction is dependent vppon him that hee canne excommunicate kings depose kinges and give their kingdomes vnto others concerning vvhich pointes I vvil proceed by way of conclusions The first Conclusion THe ecclesiasticall povver of all the Apostles vvas generall ouer all the vvorld equall with Peters and the selfe same that Peters vvas Christ himselfe proueth this conclusion when he saith Data est mihi omnis potest as in coelo in terra euntes ergo docete omnes gentes All povver is giuen mee in heauen and in earth goe therefore and teach all nations In an other place hee saith thus Hoc facite in meam commemorationem Doe this in the remembrance of mee And againe thus Quorum remiseritis peccata remittuntur eis VVhose sinnes yee shall forgive are forgiuen them And in another place thus Amen dico vobis quaecunque alligaueritis super terram erunt ligata in coelo quaecunque solueritis super terram erunt soluta et in coelo Verily I say vnto you vvhat things soeuer ye shall bind vpon earth shall be bound also in heaven and vvhatsoeuer things ye shall loose vpon earth shalbe loosed also in heauen All vvhich sayings Christ spoke and vttered of and to his apostles all as vvell as to Peter making them al apostles as wel as Peter And as they vvere all apostles as vvel as Peter so had they all equall povver not onely of order but of iurisdiction also which their Victoria recordeth in these vvords Adofficium Apostolatus spectat potestas ordinis iurisdictionis To the office of Apostleship perteineth both the power of order and of iurisdiction And S. Cyprian decideth this matter in most plaine and evident words when he saith thus Loquitur Dominus ad Petrum Ego dico tibi quiatu es Petrus c. paulo post Hoc erant utique caeteri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus pari consortio praediti honoris potestatis sedexordum ab vnitate profici scitur ut Ecclesia vna monstretur Our Lord speaketh vnto Peter I say vnto thee that thou art Peter and vpon this rocke will I build my Church c. and a little after The same were the rest of the Apostles doubtles that Peter was endued with equall fellowship both of honour and of power but the beginning proceedeth from vnitre that the Church may be shewed to be one Covarruvias their famous Canonist albeit he would very gladly defend the Popes pretended power and have onely Peters power ordinarie and independent yet can he not denie our Saviour Christ to have given equall power to all the Apostles These be his very words Etenim iuxta catholicorum virorum auctoritates communem omnium traditionem apostoli parem ab ipso Domino Iesu cum Petro potestatem orainis iurisdictionis acceperunt it a quidem vt quilibet apostolorum aequalem cum Petro habuerit potestatem ab ipso deo in totum orbem in omnes actus quae Petrus agere poterat For according to the auctorities of Catholike writers and the common tradition of all the Apostles received from our Lord Iesus Christ himselfe equall power with Peter both of power and iurisdiction in so much doutlesse as every Apostle had equall power with Peter from God himselfe and that both over all the worlde and to all actions that Peter could doe Out of which testimonies I note first that all the Apostles had equall auctoritie with Peter I note secondly that all the Apostles had power over all the world even as Peter had I note thirdly that what acte so ever Peter could doe every other Apostle could doe the same I note fourthly that the iurisdiction of every Apostle did extende as farre as Peters I note fiftly that Christs speaches to Peter in the singular number did not argue superioritie of iurisdiction but did onely signifie the vnitie of his Church I note sixtly that all this is confirmed by the opinion of Catholike writers by tradition of all generally For all these sixe points are expressely conteined if they be well marked in the auctorities alreadie alledged The same are confirmed by the testimonie of S. Augustine in sundrie places of his workes Claves inquit Augustinus non vnus homo Petrus sed vnitas accepit Ecclesiae Not one onely man Peter received the keyes but the vnitie of the Church In an other place the same S. Augustine writeth in this manner Ecclesiae catholicae personam sustinet Petrus cum ei dicitur ad omnes dicitur amas me pasce oves meas Peter representeth the person of the Catholike Church and when it is said to him it is said to all Lovest thou me feede my
the lawe eternall is that it is sinue to transgresse the rule And this is the common opinion as I haue proved out of Iosephus Angles Neither will it helpe the papistes to say as the Thomistes doe that veniall sins are praeter non contra legem besides the law but not against the law 1 First because saint Augustine defineth sinne generallie to be a gainst the law of God writing in this manner Peccatum est dictum vel factum vel concupitum contra legem aeternam dei Sinne is a saying or doing or coveting against Gods eternall lawe Secondly because as Iosephus Angles their owne doctor saith everie venial sinne is against right reason and to doe against right reason is to doe against the law of nature which commaundeth not to depart from the rule of right reason 3 Thirdly because we must give an accompt of euerie idle word in the general day of iudgement as Christ himselfe telleth vs for no-other end doubtlesse must this accompt be made but onely because everie idle word is against the law of God This the papistes can never denie and yet must they likewise confesse that idle wordes bee those sinnes which they tearme venialles and consequently that veniall sinnes be against the lawe of God Secondly that no mortall sinne can be forgiven in purgatorie is confessed of all papistes without contradiction Thus writeth Bellarminus Manet vltima sententia vera catholica purgatorium pro ijs tantum esse qui cum venialib culpis moriuntur rur sum pro illis qui decedunt cum reatupaenae culpis iam remissis The true and catholike opinion remaineth that purgatorie is only for those that die with veniall sinnes and againe for those that die with the guilt of sinne after their sinnes bee forgiven And with Bellarminus doe all other papistes agree that such as die in mortall sinne goe incontinently to hel Thirdly that sundrie having venial sinnes abide the paines of purgatorie appeareth by Bellarminus his wordes before alleaged and by Dominicus So to in these wordes Qui dixerit verbum contra spiritum sanctum nō remittetur ei in hoc seculo neque in futuro Vbi Gregorius lib. 4. di alogorum adnotavit aliqua leuia peccata remitti in futuro seculo per ignem purgationis He that shall blaspheme the holie Ghost shall neither be forgiven in this vvorld neither in the vvosld to come In vvhich place Gregorius pope of Rome noted certaine light sinnes to be forgiven in the world to come by the fire of purgation And their Aquinas saith thus Secundum enim quod peccata venialia sunt maioris vel minoris adhaerentiae vel gravitatis citius vel tardius per ignem purgantur For veniall sinnes are purged by fire sooner or latter according to their greater or lesser adherence or gravitie And for a full accomplishment of this conclusion Iosephus Angles vttereth the great perplexitie of papistes concerning this their purgative imagination These are his vvords Quo igitur modo remittuntur venialia in purgatorio varij sunt modi dicendi Scotus dicit in instanti mortis idest in primo non esse hominis propter merita quae homo habuit in vita Dur andus dicit remitti quoad culpam in purgatorio propter displicentiam quam habent illic animae venialium cum sint in charitate Soto asserit remitti quoad culpā in purgatorio propter actum chariiatis continuam patientiam quam dum cruciantur habent Hovv then are veniall sinnes forgiven in purgatorie diverse hold diversly Scotus saith they are forgiven in the instant of death that is vvhen man first beginneth not to be by reason of his merits in his life time Durand saith the fault is remitted in purgatorie for the displicence of venials vvhich the soules haue in that place and that because they be in charity Soto saith the sinne is remitted in purgatorie for the act of charitie and continuall patience vvhich they have in ther torments VVhom vvill not this discordant theologie vtterly dissvvade from papistrie The sixt Conclusion THe booke of Machabees which is the sole and onely foundation of popish purgatorie is of no force at all to establish the same This conclusion shalbe evidently prooved when I shall effectually disproove the authoritie of the said booke of Machabees wherewith many have a long time beene most miserably seduced Marke therefore my discourse herein To prove that the 2. book of Machabees out of which prayer and sacrifice for the dead and consequently purgatory is gathered is not Canonicall that is not penned by the assistance of the holy ghost I say first that it is not in the canon of the Hebrewes neither did the Iewes or Hebrewes at any time repute it as a part of holy divine scripture This S. Hierome witnesseth in these wordes Sicut ergo Iudith Tobiae Machabaeorum libros legit quidem Ecclesia sedinter Canonicas scripturas non recipit sic haec duo volumina legit ad aedificationem plebis non ad authoritatem Ecclesiasticorum dogmatum confirmandam As therefore the Church readeth the bookes of Iudith of Toby and of the Machabees but receiveth them not amongst the Canonicall scriptures so doth it read also these 2. volumes for edification of the people but not to confirme any Ecclesiasticall doctrine S. Cyprian hath the very same wordes in effect in Symb. expositione S. Augustine doth testifie the same when he thus writeth Hanc scripturam quae appellatur Machabaeorum non habent Iudaei sicut legem prophetas Psalmos quibus dominus testimonium perhibet tanquam testibus suis dicens oportebat impleri omnia quae scripta sunt in lege Prophetis in Psalmis de me Sedrecepta est ab Ecclesia non inutiliter si sobriè legatur vel audiatur maximè propter illos Machabaeos qui pro Dei lege sicut veri martyres à per secutoribus tam indigna atque horrenda perpessi sunt This scripture which is of the Machabees the Iewes repute not as they do the law the Prophets Psalmes to which the Lord gave testimonie as to his witnesses saying It behoved all things to be fulfilled which are written in the law in the Prophets and Psalmes of me but it is received of the Church not without profite if it bee read or heard soberly especially for those Machabees who for the lawe of God as true martyrs suffred of their persecutors so unworthy horrible torments And their owne deare fryer Bryton telleth vs that neither is it knowne who was the author of these bookes neither did the east Church ever receive them I say secondly that this second booke out of which purgatorie is collected was never in Hebrew and consequently never authenticall among the Iewes I say thirdly that many things found affirmed in the bookes of Machabees proove the same to be of no credit at
dominica evangelica auctoritate descendens an de Apostolorum mandat is atque epistolis veniens ea enim facienda esse quae scriptae sunt Deus testatur proponit ad Iesum Nave dicens non recedet liber legis huius ex ore tuo sed meditaberis in eo die ac nocte vt observes facere omnia quae scripta sunt item Dominus apostolos suos mittens mandat baptizari gentes doceri vt observent omnia quae cunque ille praecepit Si ergo aut in evangelio praecipitur aut Apostolorum epistolis aut actibus continetur vt a quacunque haeresi venientes non baptizentur sedtantum manus illis imponantur in paenitentiam observetur etiam haec sancta traditio Let nothing be renewed saith Pope Stephanus but let that bee done which was received by tradition from whence came this tradition whether doth it descend from the auctoritie of our Lord of his gospel or commeth it from the epistles or actes of the Apostles For God testifyeth that those thinges must be done which are written and propoundeth them vnto Nave saying Let not the book of this law depart out of thy mouth but meditate in it day night that thou maiest observe to doe all thinges that are written Our lord also sending forth his Apostles chargeth them to baptize the gentiles and to teach them to doe all thinges vvhich he commaunded them If therfore it be commanded in the gospel or in the epistles of the apostles or actes that such as came from anie herisie should not bee baptised but onelie receive imposition of handes for penance then let this holie tradition be observed Thus wee see that this auncient father canonized by the pope for an holie and blessed martir will indeede admit traditions as the wiser sort of protestantes do admit with him but yet no other traditions then are found constant to the scriptures By which scriptures saint Cyprian examineth the veritie of al traditions admitting those that be consonant and reiecting such as be dissonant from the same At vvhat time the Arrians vvould not admit the vvord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it vvas not found in the scriptures the fathers of the councel did not then alledge traditions for proofe thereof neither did they say that manie thinges must bee believed which are not vvritten But they answered simplie that though that word were not expteslie written yet was it virtuallie and effectuallie conteined in the scriptures which thing is evident by the testimonie of Athanasius who writeth in this manner Sed tamen cogno scat qui squis est studiosior is animi has voces tametsi in scripturis non reperiantur habere tamen eas eam sententiam quam scripturae volunt Although the wordes bee not founde in the scripture yet haue they that meaning and sense which the scripture approveth and intendeth as everie one that studieth the scripture seriouslie may easily vnderstand Origen giveth counsel to trie all doctrines by the scriptures even as pure gold is tried by the touchstone Thus doth hee write Debemus ergo ad testimonium omnium verborum quae proferimus in doctrina proferre sensum scripturae quasi confirmantem quem exponimus sensum sicut enim omne aurum quodquod fuerit extra templum non est sanctificatum sicomnis sensus qui fuerit extra divinam scripturam quamvis admirabilis videatur quibusdam non est sanctus qui non continetur a sensu scripturae quae solūet e sensum solū sanctificare quem habet in se sicut templum proprium aurum Non ergo debemus ad confirmandam doctrinam nostram nostram nostras proprios intellectus iur are quasi testimonia assumere quae vnusqui sque nostrum intelligit secundum veritatem aestimat esse ni ostenderit eos sanctos esse ex eo qui in scripturis continetur divinis quasi in templis quibusdam Dei Stulti ergo caeci omnes qui non cognoscunt quin templum idest lectio scripturarum magnum venerabilem facit sensum sicut aurum sacratum VVee must therefore alledge the sense of scripture for the testimonie of everie word vvee vtter in doctrine as which confirmeth the sense of our exposition For as all gold which is without the temple is not sanctifyed so euerie sense which is vvithout the holie scripture albeit it seeme to some wonderfull is vnholie because it is not conteined in the sense of scripture which onely sanctifyeth that sense which it hath in it selfe as the temple sanctifyeth the gold wee must not therefore for the confirmation of our doctrine sweare to the sense which everie one of vs vnderstandeth and conceiveth to be true vnlesse wee can shew it to be divine because it is conteined in the divine scriptures as in the temple of God Foolish therefore and blind are all those who know not that the temple to wit the reading of scriptures maketh the sense great and venerable as hallowed gold In another place the said Origen hath these words Querimus verba quae dicta sunt iuxta personae dignitatem exponere quapropter necesse est nobis scriptur as sanct as in testimonium vocare Sensus quippe nostri enarrationes sine ijs testibus non habent fidem VVee seeke to expound the wordes rehearsed according to the dignitie of the person wherefore wee must of necessitie call the holie scriptures to witnes For our iudgements and expositions without those witnesses are of no credite at all Thus wee see Origen his iudgement and that nothing can be of credite which is not grounded vpon the scriptures But what is Origen onelie of this opinion no verilie for all auncient grave and learned fathers are of the selfe same mind Saint Augustine writing against Petilianus hath these wordes Proinde sive de Christo sive de eius ecclesia sive de quacunque alia re quae pertinet ad fidem vitamque nostram nos aut angelus de coelo vobis annunciaverit preterquā quod in scriptur is legalibus evangelicis accepistis anathemasit VVherefore whether wee speake of Christ or of his church or of what other matter soever which apperteineth to faith or manners whether we or an angell from heaven shall announce otherwise thē yee have received in the scriptures of the law and the gospel accursed be that man The same saint Augustine in another place hath these wordes Nemo mihi dicat O quid dixit Donatus aut quid dixit Parmenianus aut Pontius aut quilibet illorum quia nec catholicis episcopis consentiendum est sicubi forte falluntur vt contra canonicas Dei scriptur as aliquid sentiant Let no man say to mee Oh what said Donatus or what said Parmenianus or Pontius or anie of them because we must not consent to catholike bishops if they chaunce to erre in anie thing and speake against the canonicall scriptures Sainte Chrisostome agreeth vniformelie
condemned with the sound of trupets in the presence of the king of France Fourthly that the K. gave more credit to the devines of Paris then to the iudgement of the court of Rome Fiftly that neither the K. nor the learned papists did at that time grant such authority to the Pope as now the pope chalengeth whreupon it foloweth consequētly that the pope taught false doctrine in a weighty matter of faith which thing not only Gerson affirmeth as you have heard but Pope Adrian himselfe testifieth the same as recordeth the zealous papist Alphonsus in these wordes Sexta haeresis docet nullam animam ante diem iudciij esse beatam quū ut ait nulla anima ante illum diem videt Deum Huius haeresis auctores sunt Armeni eandem etiam tuentur Graeci post istos surrexit Iohannes 22. huius nominis pontifex Sed ne verbis meis aliquis in hac parte deroget verba Adriani papae referam qui in suo 4. sententiarum in calce cuiusdē questionis de Sacramento confirmationis it a ait Novissimè fertur de Ioanne 22. quòd publicè docuit declaravit ab omnibus teneri mandavit quod animae purgatae ante finale iudicium non habēt stolam quae est clara facialis visio Dei universitatē Parisien sem ad hoc induxisse dicitur quod nemo in ea poter at gradū in Theolog. adipisci nisiprimitus hunc errorē iurasset se defen surū perpetuòei adhae surū haec Adrianus The fixt heresie teacheth no soule to be in blisse before the day of iudgement because as it saith no soule before that day seeth God The Armenians are the authors of this heresie and the Greeks hold the same After these rose up pope Iohn the 22. of that name But least any man distrust my wordes in this point I will recite the words of pope Adrian who in his 4. book of sentences in the end of a certaine question of the sacrament of confirmation sayeth this Last of all it is reported of Pope Iohn the 22. that he publikely taught declared and commanded all men to hold that the soules of the lust before the day of iudgement have not the stole which is the cleare and facely vision of God And he is reported to have induced the Vniversity of Paris to this that no man could take degree in the same but he that first did sweare to defend this error and to adheare unto it forever Thus saith Adrian who was him selfe pope of Rome and thus reporteth Alphonsus a popish Friar And it will not helpe to say as Bellarminus doeth in defence of popish faith to wit that pope Iohn erred as a private man but not as pope for that distinction doeth not only want a good foundation whereupon it should be built but also it flatly destroyeth the plaine text the reason hereof is evident to every child First because Adrian saith docuit he taught Secondly because he saith publicè publikly Thirdly because he saith mandavit he commanded al to hold it Fourthly because none could be made graduate which held not this opinion Fiftly because every graduate did sweare to defend it and to hold it forever So then the pope may erre in publike decree of faith aswel as an other man And that even by the consent of Adrian who was pope him selfe yea who for learning and knowledge was one of the rarest popes that ever was at Rome Canus telleth us that Gerson Almain Thomas VValdensis do all hold that the pope may erre as is said Pope Celestine erred not only as a private man but even as pope and publike person in his publike decree of matrimonie This to be so witnesseth the said Alphonsus in these very words Coelestinum papam errasse circa matrimonium fidelium quorum alter labitur in haeresim res est omnibus manifesta neque hic Coelestini error talis fuit qui soli negligentiae imputari debuit ita ut illum errasse dicamus velut privatam personā non ut papam qui in qualibet reseria definienda consulere debet viros doctos quoniam huiusmodi Coelestini definitio habebatur in antiquis decretalibus in cap. laudabilem titulo de convers infidelium quam ego ipse vidi legi That pope Celestine erred about matrimonie of the faithful whereof th'one is fallen into heresie is a thing so manifest as all men know the same neither was this error of Celestine such as it ought to be imputed to negligence so as we may think him to have erred as a private man and not as pope who ought in the decree of every serious matter to aske counsell of learned men for that definition of Celestine was in the old decretals in the chap. laudabilem and in the title de conversione infidelium which I my selfe have seene read By this assertion of Alphonsus it is cleare that pope Celestine erred in the decree of faith For first he saith that Celestine erred not as a private man but as a pope as a publike person Secondly he called it the decree of a serious matter Thirdly he termed it a definition enrolled in the popes decretals he therfore erred as a publike person in the publike definition decree of faith Pope Nicholas their taught baptisme giuen onely in the name of Christ to bee of force and good vvhich is not only an errour but a flat heresie neither vvil it helpe the papists to say as Bellar minus doth that the pope did not define any thing but onely vttered his ovvne opinion as a priuate doctor For if they vvil denie the popes publique resolutions set dovvne in their ovvne cannon law to be decrees and definitions they may with as good reason call white blacke and blacke vvhite good euill and euill good and say the pope cannot erre indeed in their sense But let vs examine the popes vvords vvho writeth thus as is to be seene in their ovvne lavv A quodam Iudaeo nescitis vtrum christiano an pagano multos in patria vestra baptizatos asseritis quid de ijs sit agendum consulitis hi profecto si in nomine S. trinitatis veltantum in Christi nomine sicut in actibus apostolorum legimus baptizati sunt vnum quippe idemque est vt sanctus exponit Ambrosius constat eos non esse denuo baptizandos You say many in your countrey were baptized of a Ievv but yee knovv not vvhether that Ievv bee a christian or a pagan yee aske counsell of me vvhat is to be done in that case doubtles they must not be rebaptized if they vvere baptized either in the name of the holie trinitie or onely in the name of Christ as vve read in the actes of the Apostles for it is all one as saith S. Ambrose Bellarminus confesseth this sentence of Nicholas to be false indeede but he denieth it to be
hereticall because the church that is the pope hath not so defined it VVhich ansvvere of Bellarminus doth not defend that prerogatiue in decrees of faith vvhich the pope chalengeth vnto himselfe 1 For first this vvas a publique decree because the Bulgarians asked the popes iudgement as appeareth by the vvord consulitis ye require my counsel 2 Secondle he erred herein as Bellarminus is enforced to graunt and consequently in his publique decree 3 Thirdly this his decree vvas contrarie to the Gospell as pope Pelagius defineth in the said canon lavv therefore is Bellarminus his destinction friuolous vvhen he graunteth the popes definition to be false but not hereticall as if forsooth an opinon repugaant to christs gospel can not be heretical vnlesse the popes holines so appoint it 4 Fourthle it is enough that the pope hath erred in his decree of faith whether they graunt it to be hereticall or no. 5 Fiftly pope Pelagius pope Zacharie and a provinciall counsell of England holden in time of papistrie have decreed his sentence to be hereticall Pope Pelagius hath these wordes Multi sunt qui in nomine solummodo christiani vna etiam mersione se asserūt baptizare euangelicū vero praeceptū ipso deo et domino saluatore nostro Iesu Christo tradente nos admonet in nomine trinitatis trina etiam mersione sanctum baptisma vnicuique tribuere There be many that say they baptise onely in the name of Christ with one mersion also but the commaundment of the gospel delivered by God himselfe and our saviour Iesus Christ doth advertise vs to baptise euety one in the name of the trinitie vvith three mersions Pope Zacharie hath these words In synodo Anglorū decretū et iudicium firmissime praeceptū et diligenter demōstatū esse digno scitur vt quicunque sine invocatione trinitatis mer sus fuisset sacramentū regenerationis nō haberet quod omnino verū est quia silotus in fōte baptismatis quis fuerit sine inuocatione trinitatis per fectus christianus nō est nisi in nomine patris et filij et spiritus sācti fuerit baptizatus hoc quoque obseruari in praedicta synodo sacerdotes voluerūt vt qui velvnā de trinitate personā in baptismo nō nominaret illud baptisma esse verū nō posset quod pro certo verum est quia qui vnāex sancta trinitate confessus non fuerit perfectus christianus esse non potest It is wel knowen that it was decreed in a councel of England and that iudgement was giuen most constantly and exactly proued that who soeuer was baptized without the inuocation of the trinitie hee could not haue the sacrament of regeneration which is altogether true because if that any shalbe washed in the fountain of baptisme without the innocation of the trinitie he is no perfect christian vnlesse he be baptized in the name of the father of the son of the holy ghost This also the priestes in that synod would haue obserued that who so should omit but one person of trinitie in baptisme that baptism could not be true which thing is true for certainty because he that shall not confesse one person of the trinitie can not be a perfect christian by vvhich testimonies being not onely of popes but of english papists also assembled in councel we haue to note 2. things the one that the resolutiō of pope Nicholas was a publique decree no priuat opiniō the other that his decree was false erroneous cōtrary to the gospel of Christ Iesus Iosephus Angles a learned popish Frier in a booke dedicated to the pope sheweth this vvhole matter distinctly in these words Si baptismus modo in nomine Christitātum vel sanctissimae trinitatis implicite conferatur non erit sacramentum definita est a Gelasio papa in canone sirevera in canone si multi vbi dicuntur agere contra praeceptum evangelicū sic baptizantes baptismum esse reiterandum If baptisme this day be giuē in the name of Christ only or in the name of the holy trinitie but not expresly it shall not be the sacrament of baptisme this is defined by pope Gelasius in the canō sirevera in the canon si multi where they are said to doe against the precept of Christs ghospel that baptise in that maner that their baptism must be iterated and done againe in fine it is wonderful and almost incredible what grosse shamefull vnchristian cōstitutions many popes haue made aswel in decrees of faith as of maners But I surceasing from recitall of huge numbers wil content my selfe with onely 3. to wit Stephanus the 6. Iohn the 9. Sergius the 3. For first pope Stephanus made frustrate and of none effect the orders receiued of pope Formosus his predecessor but shortly after pope Iohn disanulled made frustrate the acts of pope Stephanus approued the acts of pope Formosus yet after all this pope Sergius vndid againe the acts of pope Formosus of pope Iohn approved the actes of pope Stephanus the sixt These shamefull and erroneous constitutions factes of these three popes are so true as not onely Baptista Platina a graue popish historiographer but Carranza also yea Bellarminus himself do al confesse the same wherin we haue first to consider that amongst the papists order is an holie sacrament impresseth in the receiuer an indelible character by vertue wherof once a bishop must euer he a bishop by popish doctrine how soeuer iurisdiction be taken away and consequently since For nosus was once a bishop to wit episcopus Portuensis as saith Platina and by vertue thereof had their indelible character and power to giue orders it was a most manifest errour in faith and most wicked fact in maners to decree as pope Stephanus and pope Sergius did that orders giuen by pope Formosus were not true orders but none at all and thereupon to commaund with the notorious scandall of all the world that all such as were made priestes by him should take orders againe as if they had beene of the meere laicall order The 6. Conclusion NOt onely the pope as pope may erre in his publique decrees when he alone defineth matters of faith or maners but also when hee so defineth vvith a prouinciall romish councell This conclusion is certaine and vndoubtedly true euen by the testimonies of best learned papistes And because Bellarminus dorh not denie this to be so I will alleage his words which be these Secunda opinio est pontificem etiam vt pontificem posse esse hereticum docere haeresim si absque generali concilio definiat de facto aliquando accidisse hanc opinionem sequitur tuetur Nilus in suo libro aduer sus primatum papae eandem sequuti sunt aliquot Parisienses vt Gerson Almain in libris de potestate ecclesiae nec non Alphonsus de Castro libro