as it doeth and may appeare to the indifferent Reader in his learned Epistle to Vincentius the third because for the better successe and more free passage of the late Romish Religion the laicall people are commanded by Popish Canon-law vnder paine of Excommunication not to reason at all in matters of Faith and Religion and the learned semblably not to examine or discusse how farre the Popes power doeth extend whatsoeuer or howsoeuer he command them to beleeue For the Popes law hath made it Sacriledge to dispute of his power or to call it into question so writeth their owne deare Doctor and popish Fryer Franciscus à Victoria the first man that brought the Popish School-doctrine into Spaine yea the Popes owne decrees are consonant to the same these are the expresse wordes Similiter de iudicio summi pontificis alicui disputare non licet In like maner no man may dispute of the iudgment of the Pope or high-priest The fourth because neyther any of the layty nor yet of the Cleargy can vnder paine of Excommunication read eyther the olde or the new Testament translated into the vulgar tongue or any other booke of Controuersie or Diuinity set forth by any not professed Vassall vnto the Pope vnlesse such person or persons be especially licenced of the pope so to doe Aphorisme second The multitude of the vulgar and rude people become Papists vpon this false and sandy foundation supposed of them to be a receiued Theologicall Maxime viz that the late start vp Romish Doctrine is the auncient Catholike faith and the olde Roman religion And therefore when soeucr they speake of any Papist meaning to expresse his sect and profession they tell vs he is one of the old Relion but they are grossely deceiued herein they may haue zeale I grant with the Apostle but not acording to knowledge For the doctrine this day taught and defended by the Pope his Iesuites and Iesuited Papists is indeed the new Religion and farre different from the true catholick and olde Roman religion Would to God all simply seduced Papists would deepely ponder this point and seriously meditate vpon the same I doe with all my heart reuerently receiue and admit the old Roman religion preached by Saint Paule and S. Peter in their daies at Rome but withall I vtterly abhorre and detest that Doctrine which the late Popes and Byshops of Rome deliuer for the same In regard hereof I neuer in any one of my Bookes oppugne simply and absolutely the Roman faith and religion but the late Romish faith and doctrine Where I wish the Reader to obserue and marke attentiuely this word Late for it doth significantly declare a cleere difference betweene that doctrine which is novv taught in the church of Rome and that which S. Paule and S. Peter deliuered to the Romans in their life time Which because the common vulgar sort of people cannot distinguish such is their ignorance they are perforce carried away with the sway of the time Marke the next Aphorisme Aphorisme third We know and the Papists knowe that theyr reformed Franciscans now commonly called Capuchenes can tel right well that their other dissolute Franciscans haue swarued from their auncient order albeit they can neither tel wheÌ„ where nor by whom that dissolution first began yet they proue it à posteriori by their auncient rules euidently And euen so do we proue by the holy scriptures the true touch stone of truth that the Papistes haue swarued from Apostolicall doctrine albeit we could not as yet we can assigne the time place and persons when where and by whom such Antechristian alteration first began Let the Reader marke this point well that that Sect of Papistes which is called Franciscans doe boast of their succession continuance and by reason of their antiquity will needes be the true Franciscans but the Capuchens which are nothing but reformed Franciscans tell them that they are the true Franciscans who haue â—ely put away and abolished all superstition and dissolution which by little and litle crept into their order Euen so say we that we are the olde and true Catholickes or Romans who keepe stil that saith and doctrine which saint Paule preached to the Romans and haue only put away and abolished that superstition Idolatry and erroneous doctrine which by little and little crept into the Church They will needes be the true and olde Catholicks as is said of the dissolute Franciscans but we tell them as their Capuchens tel their disordered Franciscans that they are the deformed bastard Catholicks vnworthy of the name of Catholicks And that we are the reformed and legitimate Catholicks who keep still and hold fast all Apostolicall doctrin and haue onely abolished out of the church of God al Superstition Idolatry and errors contrary to the scriptures and the Gospell which the Apostles preached and left in vvriting to all posterities Obserue diligently the next Aphorisme Aphorisme fourth First Popish primacie began in the yeare 607. Secondly Priestes mariage was neuer prohibited till the yeare 385. Thirdly Popes pardons were neuer heard of till the yeare 1300. Fourthly popish Purgatorie tooke no root in the Romish Church till the yeare 250. Fiftly inuocation of Saintes adoration of Reliques was not known till the yeare 370. Sixtly Popish pilgrimage began in the yeare 420. Seuenthly the merite of Workes de condigno was disputeable about the yeare 1081. Eightly the communion vnder both kindes was neuer thought vnlawfull till the yeare 1414. Ninthly the Popes Bulles were not authenticall till the yeare 772. Tenthly Auricular confession was not established till the yeare 1215. Eleuenthly Generall Councels were euer summoned by the Emperours That all these heads of Popish doctrine crept into the Church by little and little in the yeares aboue named I haue proued at large ten yeares agoe in my Booke of the Suruey of Popery as also partly in my Booke of Motiues to which bookes I referre the Reader for better satisfaction therein This creeping of late Romish religion into the Church by little little Victoria a Popish fryer famous school-Doctor witnesseth in these wordes Paulatim ad hanc c. By little and little we are brought to these inordinate dispensations and to this miserable state where we are neyther able to endure our owne griefes nor remedies assigned for the same and therefore must wee perforce inuent some other way for conseruation of the Lawes Giue me Clements Lines Siluester and I will commit all thinges to theyr charge But to speake nothing grieuously against these latter Popes they are doubtlesse inferiours to Popes of old time by many degrees Thus writeth this learned Popish Fryer who if he durst haue spoken plainly would haue told vs mirabilia But it sufficeth that Popes were worse and worse and that errors by little and little crept into the Church Aphorisme fift The vsuall practise of Papists in their Commentaries Bookes and Glosses haue beene such and so intollerable in
reply is this First that to deny Iosue to be king is a vaine cauill and argueth lacke of matter in our Iesuites answere for Iosue had the thing though not the name he was the Ciuil independent Magistrate and had the chiefe and supereminent power ouer the Isralites his Subiects as Moses whom he succeeded had and the other Kings Dauid Salomon Iosaphat Ezekias and Iosias In regard whereof he was and may bee truely reckoned with and among the other kings But when good reasons cannot bee had such Beggerly cauils must supply the want Secondly that it is a most notorious slander against the holy Scripture and consequently á notable blasphemy against God himselfe to say and desperately to avouch in a printed Booke that no High-priest was deposed by any of the said Kinges These are the expresse wordes of holie writ Eiecit ergo Salomon Abiathar vt non esset sacerdos domini Therefore Salomon cast out or deposed Abiathar the high Priest that he should not be the Priest of the Lord. Again holy writ hath these expresse wordes Et Sadoc sacerdote posuit pro Abiathar and the King put Sadoc the Priest in the roome of Abiathar Loe the holy scripture telleth vs two things most plainly and expressely and that is done euen in that Latin Vulgaâ—a editio to which the Pope hath tyed all his Iesuites and Iesuited Popelings The one that King Salomon deposed Abiathar the High-priest The other that hee placed Sadoc the priest in Abiathars roome Thirdly that it is most absurdly auouched of our Iesuit that Salomon onely confined Abiathar to his house for a time Concerning this deposition and casting out of Abiathar from his place and putting Sadoc the priest in his roome our Iesuite is at his wits end what to say and why I pray you For this end doubtles because hence it is proued euidently and by a necessary consecution that Kings both haue and may depose priests euen the hie priests and greatest priests of all But it can neuer be proued out of the holy scriptures that any Priest deposed any King no not the meanest king in all the world The Iesuite contradicteth himselfe mightily For first hee saith that none of the Kings deposed any priest Secondly that Salomon deposed Abiathar Thirdly that Abiathar was not deposed but onely for a time confined to his owne house What horsâ—e would not breake his necke to heare this sweet melodie The scripture telleth vs that king Salomon deposed Abiathar and for confirmation heereof the same scripture addeth that Sadoc the priest was set in his roome Fourthly to say as the Iesuite doeth that Salomon deposed Abiathar not as King but as prophet is to speake at randon and to make of scripture a nose of wax for no one Text from the first of Genesis to the last of the Apocalipse doth iustifie this fond and sottish answer of the masked Iesuite albeit I know this to bee true that he wanted not the aduise and counsell of his best learned Brethren Whosoeuer desireth further in sight into this subiect and of the soueraignty of kings ouer priests and Byshops which are their subiects if he peruse my Golden ballance of tryall I hope in God it will satisfie his desire CHAP. 4. ¶ Containing a confutation of the sixt Chapter of the masked Iesuite THe Iesuite in his sixt Chapter and first article is wholly occupied in impertinent matters and foolish demaunds not once touching directly ought that I haue written but let vs heare him once againe and so proceed to another Chapter S. R. Because the question is not vpon what cause Kings and Emperors humbled themselues to the Popes but whether they did or no And because they haue so done as Bell confesseth Catholicks infer the Pope to be their superior Vnlesse perhaps Bell thinke blinde zeale to disanul euery fact or guift and so say the Iewes persecuted not the Church because they did it vpon blind zeale nor our Catholique ancestors gaue any liuings to Churches because they did it vpon blind zeale as Bell must thinke for maintainance of Papistry T. B. O shamelesse and impudent Iesuite Is the question only what was done Where is thy wit Where is thy faith Where is thy Religion Doth not your Angellicall Doctor Aquinas teach you that all morall Acts haue their specification of the end and finall cause Doth not Scotus Ockamus Gabriel Iosephus Durandus and all the rest approue the same Doctrine How sayest thou then O blind Iesuit that the question is not vpon what cause kinges humbled themselues to the Popes but whether they did or no ô Tempora ô Mores Doth not alms otherwise a commendable act degenerate into sinne when it is giuen for vaine glory And this onely because the ende and cause for which it is giuen is nought and vnlawfull Dooeth not Christs Apostle tell thee that whatsoeuer is not of fayth is sinne That whatsoeuer is done ought to bee done to to the glory of God Alas alas euery childe that hath but learned the rudiments of Christianity can roundly tel our Iesuite that we must not so much respect what is done as what ought of right to be done We may not reason as our Iesuite Parsons doth for he is the man the thing was don therefore lawfully done Kings yeelded supreame authority to the Pope therefore they did it lawfuly By that kind of Logicke or rather Legierdemain all theftes all robberies all Rebellions all mischiefes vnder heauen may bee iustifyed and defended You Iesuites and your Iesuited pope-lings do take part with the Pope against your annointed Soueraigne and so by this new no Diuinity the pope is our King and Superiour For thus you reason beecause Kings haue so done the Pope is their Superiour For the question is not vpon whose grounde they did so but whether they did so or no. For by your Theology if the thing be done it is lawfully done but what Bell perhaps thinkes that blinde zeale dissanulleth euery fact and so neither the Iewes persecuted the Church nor our papistes gaue any liuing to the Church because they did it as Bell must thinke vpon blind zeale O monster of al Monsters ô Child of perdition ô sonne of the Deuill Bell saith not that blind zeale disanulleth any act Bell saith not that papists gaue no liuings to the Church Bell saith not that the Iewes did not persecute the Church No no it is the deuill in our Iesuite that mooues him thus falsly to slaunder Bell. It is one thing to say the papists gaue liuinges to the Church vpon a blinde zeale another thing to say they gaue nothing at all The former I say the latter I denie therefore when you papists labour to proue the popes soueraignty ouer Kings because some Kings haue acknowledged it vpon a blind zeale I answer that your proofe is of no force not for that such thinges haue not bin done but because they were not done as they should ought to
I say our Iesuite remaine aliue and be not killed I will subscribe to this his doctrine And yet is it cleere that in this case his body bloud shold be put apart where they were not before But our Iesuite seemeth to ayme at a farther mark What is that at the creating of Christs body and bloud Is it so indeed Is it possible so to thinke It is very so For these are his words as you heare else God should kill a man if hee created a Soule and body apart Well now I remember an old said saw which doubtles is as foolish as it is old that the priest in the popish masse can create his God God so blesse me and all good Christians that we neuer harken to such Theology CHAP. 4. Containing the confutation of the lesuites fourth Chapter of the second Article IN this fourth Chapter our Iesuite rehearseth sundry absurdities which are found in the Popish Masse But the more hee busieth himselfe to discharge their Masse thereof the more the same absurdities do increase Let vs take a tast of one for all Bell saith he inferreth that either Christs Sacrifice was vnperfect in his last Supper or else that it was needles in his bitter passion on the crosse To which he answereth that neyther of both dooth follow For saith he Christs Sacrifice at his Supper was a most perfect vnbloudy Sacrifice and yet his Sacrifice on the Crosse was needfull as the peculiar price which GOD exacted at his handes for the redemption of the World Loe he granteth freely that Christs Sacrifice at his Supper was most perfect and yet the heathen Philosopher can tell him that Perfecto nihil addi potest To that which is perfect nothing can bee added This notwithstanding he affirmeth these three things First that the Sacrifice on the Crosse was needfull Secondly that it was the peculier price which GOD exacted Thirdly that it was for the redemption of the world Which three points being as truely marked and remembred as they are truely granted all but such as are Sensus communis inopes men without all both sense reason will plainely perceiue and constantly hold that Christs Sacrifice at his last Supper was either imperfect vvhich our Iesuite denieth or else no real sacrifice at al which I defend All the rest of the chapter is full of the like vanity for consideration whereof it is enough to peruse The Downefall of Popery CHAP. 5. Containing the Iesuites confutation touching Berengarius VVHere in The downefall of Popery I related truely the cruell dealing of the Pope and his Popish councell with Berengarius our Iesuite would gladly excuse the Pope and his Sinod but it will not be S. R. Bell exclaimeth mightily because Berengarius was compelled to beleeue that Christ in the Eucharist is sensibly touched broken with the hands of Priests torne with the teeth of the faithfull T. B. Bell doth so Idque merito He hath iust cause so to do R. S. Neuerthelesse Christes body is said to be toucht broken and chewed in the Eucharist because the signe of bread in which it really is is so vsed As GOD is said to haue beene crucified because the humanity in which hee was was so handled and Christ touched when his garment was touched T. B. Heere is all that confessed which I intended for to prooue viz That the bread of the Eucharist is called Christs body because it is the signe and Sacrament of his body And therefore that Berengarius was most cruelly and villanously dealt withall when he was enforced eyther to bee burnt with fire and Fagot or else to sweare that he beleeued in his hart that Christs body was truely touched and broken with the hands of Priests and truely torne with the teeth of the faithfull When for all that many learned Papists Bellarmine Melchior Canus and others with this our Iesuite who would and dooth say the best he can for the Popes defence do freely graunt and plainely confesse that Christes body can neither bee broken with hands nor yet torne or chewed with teeth Loe Berengarius was compelled to beleeue as an article of his faith that Christes body was truely in veritate broken with the hands of Priests and torne with teeth and yet the truth is farre otherwise as both Bellarmine Canus and our Iesuite do confesse Fie on such religion hang vp such Popish Faith accursed be such doctrine S. R. The holy Fathers Saint Cyprian Saint Chrysostome and others do teach vs plainlie that Christs body is broken with hands and chewed with teeth yea Christ himselfe saith This is my body which is broken VVill Bell now condemne Christ and these holy Fathers of wickednesse villany blasphemy and horrible impiety Nay will he condemne both English many forraine Protestants whose doctrine saith he is that Christs body is broken torne and consumed with mouth and teeth Behold good Reader For Papists to say Christs body is touched broken and torne is villany and horrible impiety but for Protestants to say the same and adde consuming too is good doctrine T. B. I prooued out of Cardinall Bellarmine that famous Iesuiticall Fryer that Christs body cannot bee broken and torne saue only in a figure or Sacrament And that by his doctrine it may be sayd to bee broken and torne when the signe thereof is broken and torne Out of whose doctrine I inferred this golden Colorrary viz that if it be true to say Christs body is broken and torne because the signe of his body is broken torne then truely may we say and truely do we say that Christes body is in the Eucharist because the signe of his body is there because the Sacrament of his bodye is there because the representation of his body is there And much more truely might Christ himselfe say This is my body when he gaue the signe and Sacrament of his body I then added that it is the constant doctrine of the church of England which also many other reformed Churches approoue therein that Christs body is receiued broken torne and consumed with mouth teeth figuratiuely significantly mystycally sacramentally And consequently if the Papistes would be iudged by this doctrine which by the pen of the Iesuite Bellarmine they heere deliuer the controuersie would soone bee at an end Now I referre my self to the indifferent Reader whosoeuer he be whether the Iesuite S. R. bee an honest man or no. For first hee beareth the Reader in hand that I condemne Christ and the holy Fathers Secondly that I condemne both the English Churche and many forraine Christians Thirdly he chargeth mee to hold the same Doctrine which I vtterly condemne in Popery Fourthly he iustifieth the condemnation of Berengarius whose doctrine for all that both Bellarmine and Melchior Canus do iustify and himselfe vnawares in this chapter If I should deale with the Papists in this manner all the world would exclaime against me If any indifferent Reader shall
in his drunkennesse is worthy of double punishment First for his drunkennesse then for the sinne that followeth vppon the same For though the sinne consequent be not voluntary in the act and deed done yet is it voluntary in the cause S. R. Bell noteth the Romish Religion of mutability confessing that the olde Romaine Religion was Catholique sound pure with which he will not contend But seeing you haue granted the old Roman Religion to be pure and Catholique and slander the late I bring an action of slaunder against you and charge you to bring good witnesse when wherein and by whom the late Romaine Religion corrupted the purity of the old T. B. This is the point indeede that seduceth the silly ignorant sort throughout the ChristiaÌ„ world For the Pope his flattering Parasites beare them in hand that the late start vp Romish doctrin is the old Roman religion which S. Peter and Saint Paule preached to the Romanies in their life time But my life and saluation I gage for the triall it is not so No no It is a New Religion crept by little and little into the Church of Rome To which doctrine if the vulgar people would once hearken all partiality and sinister affection set apart they would vndoubtedly vtterly forsake the Pope and detest from their hearts all Popish faction Here our Fryer Iesuite threatneth me to bring an action of the case against mee for that as hee saith I slander their Religion He would haue me to tell him and his Pope when wherein and by whom the late Romish Religion corrupted the purity of the old I answer first that I desire to know our Iesuites name because we may perhaps agree without suite in Law Secondly that I haue in a printed Booke published many yeares ago to the view and iudgment of all the Christian world shewed in plaine and expresse tearmes at what times in what points by what persons the old Roman Religion taught by Saint Paule as holy Writ telleth vs and by Saint Peter as Histories Ecclesiasticall doe relate was successiuely corrupted errours embraced superstition nourirished ignorance countenanced and false Doctrine decreed for the truth This Booke is intituled the Suruey of Popery published about tenne yeares agoe in the yeare of our Lord God 1596. I haue challenged all Iesuites and Iesuited Papists ioyntly and seuerally to answere it and all my other Bookes They haue oftentimes in many of theyr slaundrous Libels made mention both of the Suruey and of my other Bookes and promised aunswers to the same but while the Grasse growes the Horse dyes This is the first answer that euer I receiued to this day Which how silly it is let others iudge For their late forerunner did but snatch here and there and aunswered directly nothing at all Our Iesuite heere insinuateth something which hee cannot well tell how to shuffle vp I also alleadged out of Iosephus Angles a famous Popish Schoole-Doctor and Byshop that the Popish Doctrine daily altereth in their Schooles S. Thomas sayth he and his followers hold That a Venâ—all sin is not so much against the Law as besides the Law But Durand and many others impugne this opinion and auouch Veniall sinnes to bee against the Commaundements And this opinion sayth hee seemeth now adaies to be more common in the schooles Here I wished the Reader to note by the way out of the word Modo Now adayes the mutability of the Romish Religion S. R. Angles insinuateth Schoole opinions to be mutable Bell applyeth it to the Romaine Religion as if it consisted of Schoole opinions which may be held Pro contra with vnity of Faith T. B. If Schoole opinions be mutable then Popish Religion is mutable of necessity For how dare the Schoole-Doctours teach publiquely contrary to the Popes minde VVas not your famous Doctour Michael at Louain threatned to frame his opinion to the Popes liking or else yee wâ—â—e what would haue followed Did not the Pope send Toledo the Iesuite to conferre with him and tell him what the Pope thought and therefore he must and so forth You know it was so Be not grieued I pray you to heare Beatus Rhenanus one of your deare friends speake a truth of your Schooles and Schoole-Doctouâ—s These are his wordes Thomas Aquinas Scotus c. Thomas Aquinas and Scotus men too much delighted with subtilties haue brought confession this day to such a pâ—sse that Ioannes Geilerius a Graue and reuerend Diuiâ—e and a Preacher a long time at Argentoraium sayd many a time to his friendes that it was impossible for a man to make his confessioÌ„ according to their Traditions Thus writeth Rhenanus Out of whose words I note First that the vain curious destinctions of the Schole-doctors haue brought much mischeefe into the Church of GOD. Which thing if a Papist had not spoken it would seeme incredible to the world Secondly that it is impossible for a Papist to make his confession acording to the Popish law and consequently that all Papists by Popish doctrine must perish euerlastingly Marke well my words Gentle Reader the Papists teach vs to hold for an article of our beleefe that we are bound to make our confessions as the Popish law prescribeth that is as Aquinas and Scotus haue set downe the same And for all that Gielerius a Papist himselfe a great diuine complained often to his frends that no man could possibly performe the same Now then since on the one side Popish confession must be made vnder pain of damnation and since on the other side none possibly can make the same as it is required it followeth of necessity by Popish Doctrine that all Papistes must be damned eternally O miserabie Popery coufounded by thy selfe O late start-vp Religion patched like a Beggers cloke Thine own Doctors O Popery such force hath the truth haue bewrayed thy treachery to the world Thirdly that many likewise among the Papists do externally obey the Popish Law who for all that in their hearts detest the late hatched Romish Religion This is euident by the secret complaint of the learned man Gielerius who tolde that to his trusty frends which he durst not tell the pope S. R. Their canonized Martyr Byshop Fisher sayth he and their Popish Byshop Gerson wrote that Veniall sinnes were such onely by the mercy of God Heere Bell for one truth vttereth two vntruths True it is that Byshop Fisher Gerson were in that errour but that was both before it was condemned in the church as it was since by Pius the v. Gregorius 13. Neyther did they account involuntary motions of Concupiscence for Veniall sinnes as Bell doth but such as Catholickes account Veniall But vntrue it is that eyther Byshop Fisher is cannonized or Gerson was a Byshop T. B. Heere our Iesuite graunteth freely that both the famous learned Byshop Fisher and that excellent Doctour Gerson of high esteem in the Counsell of Constance helde
The Jesuites Antepast CONTEINING A Reply against a pretensed aun swere to the DOWNE-FALL OF POPERIE lately published by a masked Iesuite Robert Parsons by name though he hide himselfe couertly vnder the letters of S. R. which may fitly be interpreted A SAWCY REBELL Esay 38 verse 1. Put thine house in order for thou shalt die and not liue AT LONDON Printed by William Iaggard dwelling in Barbican 1608. To the Right Honorable my very good Lord Thomas Earle of Dorset Lord high Treasurer of England and one of his Maiesties most Honourable priuy Counsell â‚ IT is a constant and vndoubted truth approoued by all Canonicall Scriptures ancient Councels holy Fathers Ecclesiasticall Histories and Right reason it selfe that as there is but one onely GOD so but one Faith and one Religion Hence commeth it Right Honorable that the Pope and his Iesuites with other his Popish Vassals employ their whole wits learning study care industry and diligence to instill into the cares and harts of the multitude and common people that the Religion which this day they professe is the old Roman Religion which Saint Peter and S. Paule first planted in the Church of Rome And for this end they indeauâ—ur with might and maine yea euen with fire and Fagot to perswade or rather to enforce all Christians to call it the Old Religion and to professe and beleeue it to bee the Catholique and Apostolique Faith whereas the truth is farre otherwise as God willing shortly will appeare Which if the Vulgar sort did once vnderstand they would no doubt stand at defiance with the Pope and from their hearts detest his late start-vppe Romish Doctrine There is a Sect of Fryers at Rome called the Franciscanes who haue by little and little swarued from their first institution and become so licentious and dissolute that another sort of Fryers commonly called the Capucheues haue accused them to haue departed from their Ancient and Primitiue order and therefore do the Capucheues tearme themselues the reformed and true Franciscanes indeede This is this day our case in the Church of Noble England and in many other Churches within the Christian World The Capucheues hold fast keep still and constanty defend all the Ancient Orders of the first Franciscanes they onely reiect and abandon that which by litle and little crept into their Order viz superstition abuses and neglect of Discipline Euen so is it this day with our Church of England she holdeth-fast keepeth still and constantly defendeth all and euery iote of the old Romane Religion reuerencing it as Catholique and Apopostolique Doctrine she onely reiecteth and abandoneth Heresies Errours superstition and intollerable abuses by little and little brought into the Church For neither did most Noble Queene Elizabeth in her time neyther doth our most gratious Soueraigne King IAMES who this day most happily raigneth ouer vs set vp or bring into the Church any new Religion but onely reformeth the Church by the example of King Iosaphat King Ezechias King Iosias and other godly Kinges in their dayes and reduceth it to the Primitiue order and purity of the old Romaine Religion This to be so none can in conscience deny that will with a single and vpright eye this day behold the godly setled Canons of this Church of England For the late Bishops of Rome haue in many points of great importance swarued and departed from the Doctrine of their Ancestors whereof no doubt many Papists euen at about Rome it selfe would this day if they durst for fear of fire and Fagot accuse the Pope himself What shall I say of Hieronymus Sauonarola that famous Preacher and Dominican Fryer Was not be burnt with Fire and Fagot because he preached openly in the famous Citty of Florence against the licencious liues of the Pope and his Clergy and against superstition and abuses crept into the Church I wote it was so it cannot be denyed What Did not Iohannes Geilerius a famous Popish Preacher at Argentorate oftentimes complain to his trusty friends not daring to acquaint otheres therewith that the Thomists and Scotists had brought auricular confession to such a miserable point as none possibly could performe the same He did so their owne good friend Beatus Rhenanus doth contest the same with me What Did not Franciscus à Victoria that â—amous Popish Schoole-doctor complaine grieuously in his time of Popish intollerable dispensations Did he not publish to the view of the world that the Church was brought to such a miserable state as none were able to endure the same Did hee not cry out against the late Bishops of Rome and desire Clements Lines Siluesters His own Book is extant in print the world knoweth it to be so What shall I say of the Popes errors in Faith and Doctrine Was not Pope Liberius an Arrian Heretike Was not Pope Anastasius a Silestorian Hereretique Was not Pope Celestine condemned for erronious doctrin did not Pope Iohn the 22. of that name teach publikely a most notorious heresie Did he not commaund the vniuersity of Paris that none should be admitted to any degree in Theologie but such as would sweare to defend that heresie perpetually Did not the King of France with the aduise consent of the whole vniuersity for that end cause his daÌ„nable opinion to be coÌ„demned with the sound of Trumpets Adrianus who was B of Rome himselfe Alphonsus à Castro Melchior Canus and Viguerius all foure being very learned and famous Papists are constant witnesses of this truth Doth not Nicholaus de Lyra a famous and learned Popish Writer boldly and constantly affirme in his learned Commentaries that many Popes haue swarued from the Faith and become flâ—t Apostaâ—aes in their Romish seates He doth so it cannot bee gaine-said What shall I say of the Popes liues conuersation Was not Pope Iohn the eight of that name belying her sexe and clad in Mans attire with great admiration of her sharpe wit and singuler learning chosen to bee the Bishop or Pope of Rome Did she not shortly after by the familiar helpe of her beloued Companion bring forth the homely and shamefull fruites of her Popedome Is this true Is it possible Then farewell Popish Succession the chiefe Bulwarke of Romish Faith and Religion For seeing no Woman is or can be made capable of holy orders that succession which is deryued froÌ„ our holy Mistris Iohn Pope cannot possibly be of force Yet is this story confirmed to be true by the vniforme assent of many Papistes of great esteeme euen in the Church of Rome viz of Sigebertus Gemblacensis Marianus Scotus Matheus Palmerius Martinus Polonus Philippus Bergoniensis Baptista Platina Bartholomeus Carranza and others Was not Pope Iohn the twelft made Pope by violent meanes Did not his Father Albericus being a man of great power and might enforce the Nobles to take an oth that after the death of Pope Agapitus they would promote his Son
haue affirmed the pope to be Lord temporall ouer the world let him challenge them not like a wise man strike his next fellowes the English papists who maintaine no such opinion T. B. I proued first out of the Popes owne decrees that pope Nicholas affirmed Christ to haue committed to S. Peter consequently to himselfe the right both of earthly and heauenly Empire Secondly out of the popes glosse that the Popes hath both the Spirituall and Temporall sworde and by right thereof did translate the Empire Thirdly out of the popes decretals that pope Boniface challenged the Royall right and Authority of both swords and made a flat decree for the confirmation thereof Fourthly out of Appendix fuldensis that the same pope Boniface the 8. affirmed himselfe both Spirituall and Temporall Lord of the whole world and thereupon he required of Phillip king of France that he would acknowledge his Kingdome from him which thing the King scorned to do All this notwithstanding our Iesuite S. R. aunswereth roundly that I must challenge them and not strike their fellowes Marry sir this is a short answere indeede but as much to the matter as if you should say your heart doth pant and bleede But let vs be content with this answere seeing the silly Iesuiticall Fryer was not able to afford vs any better S. R. English Papists attribute to the pope no other authority ouer Kings then spirituall but do with tongue heart and with the popes good liking confesse that our Soueraigne Lord King Iames hath no superiour on earth in Temporall matters T. B. What a Masked lying and Trayterous Iesuite is this We haue heard already that the Pope deposed both King Henry the 8. and most Noble Queene Elizabeth and yet heere the lyâ—ng impudent Iesuite telleth vs boldly without blushing for his face is of brasse that King Iames hath no superiour on earth It is true indeede but not in his sence For I pray you Traiterous Iesuites are not earthly Kingdomes and Dominions Temporall matters It cannot bee denied Had not King Henry the 8. and Queene Elizabeth of famous memory the same superiority in their Kingdomes and temporall affayrs which our gratious soueraigne King Iames hath His Maiesty will not denie it But so it is that your Pope deposing them as you haue told vs was their superiour as you holde and teach For doubtlesse no inferiour can depose his superiour and consequently your Pope by your profession is superiour to our King This is but your Hypocritical Cozenage your cogging and lying your Diabolicall Equiuocation If your power were correspondent to your wil his Maiesty might speedily loose his Crowne and dignity GOD saue our Noble King and confound your Antichristian Pope S. R. Because Bellarmine teacheth that the Pope may excommunicate and depose Princes for heresie Bell sayth hee may depose them at his pleasure As if matters of Heresie were the Popes pleasure T. B. Here we haue freely granted once againe that the pope by Popish doctrine may depose Princes for heresie only this is denied that he deposeth them at his pleasure To which I thus reply First that euery heresie is voluntary and consequently seeing many popes haue been heretiks as Pope Adrian himselfe Alphonsus de Castro Melchior Canus Vignerius Nicolaus de Lyra and many others freely grant it followeth of necessity that heresie is the Popes pleasure Secondly that when I say the pope taketh vpon him to depose Princes at his pleasure I meane nothing else but that the pope will depose Princes whensoeuer they refuse to embrace and beleeue his late start vp Romish religion that is to say that doctrine which is added to the olde Roman religion at his pleasure For all that which the Church of England this day reiecteth of the Romish religion is added to the old Romish religion at the Popes pleasure This subiect is proued at large in my Motiues and Suruey But our Iesuite vrgeth further that Bell disproueth himselfe in these wordes Secular Priests saith Bell write plainly and resolutely that the pope hath no power to depriue Kings of their royall sceptars and regalities nor to giue away their kingdomes to another in which opinion likewise the French Papists concurre and iumpe with them Item the Seculars although they acknowledge the popes power supereminent in Spiritualibus yet doe they disclaime from it in Temporalibus when he taketh vpon him to depose Kinges from their Empires and to translate their kingdomes And least we should thinke these few priests who write so were no Papists Bell himselfe testifieth that they are the Popes deare vassals and professe the same Religion with other Papistes By these words our masked Iesuit as we see wold gladly impose vpon me that I haue slandered them and their Pope First because the secular priests deny the Popes power in deposing Kings Secondly because I graunt those seculars to be papists but this slander is easily returned to the Iesuite himselfe For first our Iesuites holde that the Pope may depose Kinges from their Dominions and regalities Againe the secular priests are of a contrary opinion Neyther for all that doth it follow that they are not papistes For it is very vsuall and common to Papists to dissent one from another in matters of Religion This is prooued in my Motiues Our masked Iesuit spendeth the whole chapters following viz the second third and fourth not in answering me and my proofes but in meere impertinent matters of the opinion of Knox and his fellow-ministers in Scotland and such like stuffe wherefore omitting his impertinent verosity in the saide three Chapters I come vnto the fift next following the same CHAP. 3. ¶ Conteining a confutation of S. R. his answere to the proofes of my assumption S. R. POpe Gregory saith Bell writing to the Emperor Mauritius calleth him soueraign Lord and professeth himselfe subiect to his command and to owe him obedience Wherupon Bell inferreth that for 600. years after Christ popes liued in dutifull obedience vnder Emperors T. B. I proued out of Pope Gregories wordes these three speciall points viz that Pope Gregory freely and willingly acknowledged the Emperour to be his soueraigne Lorde That he confesseth himselfe to be the Emperours subiect That he yeelded loyall obedience to the Emperor and for that respect thought himselfe bound in conscience to publish the Emperours law although in some part it seemed to disagree with Gods Law and that forsooth least hee should be found guilty of disloyalty toward his prince S. R. As for the place which Bell citeth he speaketh not there of the subiection duety or obedience of a subiect to his prince but of a seruant to his maister as he had bene to Mauritius whiles they were both pruiate men which himselfe plainely professeth in the beginning of his Letter in these wordes In this suggestion I speake not as Byshop nor as subiect by reason of the common-wealth but by priuate right of my owne because you
for a constant position and sound Doctrine that euery sin is mortall of it owne nature our Doctrine therefore is the same which great learned Papists do defend And I must needs heere put the Reader in minde of the newnesse of late Romish religion viz that Venial Sinnes were neuer known to the Church vntil the late dayes of Pius the fift and Gregory the 13. that is to say about forty yeares ago O Popery thou art but a childe thou must neuer from this day be called the old Religion for heere our Iesuite confesseth thine Nonage and proclaimeth thee to bee the Nevv religion I must likewise insinuate to the Reader another point of great importaÌ„ce viz that the popes act is reputed the decree of the Church and that no part of Romish religion is a matter of faith vntill it please the Pope so to apoint it Now for Fisher and Gerson the one is a cannonized Popish Saint the other a Popish Byshop But these are not matters to stand vpon though they help our Iesuite to passe ouer the time and to dazle the eyes of the Reader S. R. He concludeth this Article with this goodly reason One stealeth iust so many Egges as are necessary to make a Mortall sinne another stealeth one lesse But there can be no reason why God may iustly condemne the one to hell and not the other Therefore they both sinne Mortally alike To this I aunswere by demaunding a reason why the Iudge may condemne him to death that stealeth thirteene pence halfe peny and not him that stealeth one peny lesse If he answer because the law condemneth one and not the other I aske againe what reason was there that the Law was made against the one and noâ— against the other And if Bell can find a reason in this he wil find one in his owne Question The reason of both is because such a quantity is a notable iniury to our neighbour and consequently it is against charity and so breaketh the Law and a lesse quantity is not T. B. The destinction betweene Mortall and Veniall Sinnes lately inuented by the Pope doth so trouble our Iesuite after his consultation with his best learned friendes that hee can shape mee no aunswere touching a few Egges Gladly he would seeme to say something yet after hee hath wearied himselfe with strugling against the truth he is where he first began Not knowing how to answere he demaundeth two Questions and that done hee telleth me I must answere my selfe This notwithstanding after better aduisement and consideration had of the matter he pretends to shew a reason of both his owne questions But howsoeuer that be which is indeed a meere mockery he leaueth my argument vntouched Let vs suppose for explication sake that Egges worth thirteene pence halfe peny makes a Mortal sinne and that God may iustly condemne him that stole them as also a Mortall Iudge amoÌ„g Mortall men Let vs likewise suppose for example sake that neyther the Ciuill Iudge nor God himselfe can iustly condemne him that hath stollen but so many Egges as are woorth twelue pence halfe penny Nowe this is my Question Nay this is mine assertion that there can no good reason be yeelded why God may iustly condemne the one to Hell and not the other To answere as the Iesuite doeth after hee hath deepely pondered the matter that one is a notable iniury to our neighbor not so the other is too teo childish and friuolous For if thirteene pence halfe peny be a notable iniurie so is also twelue pence One penny doubtlesse cannot make Mortall and Veniall difference neyther is it to the purpose to say as our Iesuite doth viz. that the ciuil Iudge cannot condemne the theefe that stealeth one peny lesse The reason is euident because the ciuil Iudge is vnder the law and subiect to it but God Omnipotent is aboue his Law and may dispense with it at his good pleasure So did Christ aunswere the Pharisees on the behalfe of his disciple The sabboath sayth Christ was made for man and not man for the sabboth Therefore is the sonne of Man Lorde of the sabboth also The Iesuites reason thus reiected as friuolous and nothing to the purpose let vs examine the matter to the bottome for it is a point of great consequence First then this is an vndoubted truth that the supreme ciuill Magistrate may as lawfully appoint death for stealing of twelue pence as for 13. pence halfe peny for the penalty of death is wholly arbitrary to the iudge He must frame his laws as serue best for the peaceable gouernment of his people Whereupon it commeth that in diuers countryes diuers punishments are designed for the same faults and all agreeable to Gods law This is likewise an vndoubted truth in Popery viz that some Sinnes are Veniall of their owne nature other some mortall Against this false ground of Popery doe I now contend We haue seene already that a theefe may as wel be condemned to dye for twelue pence as for more euen so then God à fortiori may as iustly condemne one for a Popish Veniall sinne as for a Mortall for euery sinne deserueth death of it owne nature bee it more be it lesse Yea if any sinne should of it owne nature be Veniall theÌ„ should Originall sinne in an infant be Veniall most of all because the Infant neyther can auoyd it neyther hath any will to do it I therefore conclude that it is against all sence and reason to say that God may iustly condeme a man for stealing so many Egges as in Popery make a Mortall Siâ—nâ— let them name what number they will and that he cannot likewise condemne him that stealeth but one Egge lesse And it is absurd to say or thinke that the least sinne that can be named doth not breake off amity and friendship with God if wee respect the sin in it owne Nature I proue it because the least sinne that can be named doth auert and turne the doer from the face of God Ergo from the amity and fauour of God I proue the Antecedent for the consequence is good and cannot bee denyed No sinne whatsoeuer more or lesse can be referred vnto God who detesteth all sinne Ergo euery sinne bee it neuer so small turneth vs away from the fauour of God Truely therefore wrote Byshop Fisher and Maister Gerson that euery sin is mortall of it owne nature And so is that proued which I defend The seuenth Article of Vnwritten Traditions THe Iesuite vseth many impertinent digressions and needlesse Taâ—tologies in this Article I standing to bee breefe will onely aunswere to such allegations as shall seeme necessary for the contentation of the Reader referring him for the rest to the Downfal where he may find all necessary pointes virtually confuted though not in expresse termes S. R. All such points of Christian fayth as are necessary to be actually beleeued of euery one that hath vse of reason though hee
knowne vnto them Ergo they know the scripture to bee Gods worde because Christ not the church sheweth it vnto them Thirdly because the spiritual man as the Apostle writeth iudgeth al things and himselfe is iudged of no man Ergo he can iudge the holy Bible to be Gods worde For doubtles he that can Iudge euery thing can especially Iudge that thing which is most necessary for him And consequently Hee can Iudge truth from falshood Gods word from the word of euery creature This reason is confirmed by the constant Testimony of many famous papists Dionisius Carthusianus hath these words Spiritualis autem homâ— in quo est spiritus dei iudicat id est benâ— discernit omnia adsalutem pertinentia de singulis talibus verum iudicum proferendo inter bonum malum veruÌ„ falsum veraciter distinguendo The spirituall man which hath the spirit of God indgeth and truely discerneth all thinges which pertaine to saluation prououncing true iudgement of euery such thing and truely distinguishing betweene good and euill truth and falshood Nicolaus de Lyra affoordeth the same exposition to this Text of scripture The famous popish writer Aquinas is of the same mind These are his words Apostolls hic dicit quod spiritualis iudâ—â—at omnia quia sâ—lt homo habeus intellectum illustratii affectum ordinatum per spiritum sanctum de singulis quae pertinent ad salutem rectum indicium habet The Apostle heere saith that the spirituall man Iudgeth all thinges because forsooth a man hauing his vnderstanding enlightned and his affection ordered by the Holy-ghost hath a right Iudgement of all things which pertaine to saluation Iohannes Hosmeisterus hath these words Spiritualis fide sua eo penetrat vt omnia quae sunt spiritus Dei dijudicare possit nec iudicio suâ— fallatur vt bonum dicat malum vel stultum 〈◊〉 est sapientissimuÌ„ The spiritual man doth penetrate so far by his faith that he is able to iudg al things that are of the spirit of God neyther can he be deceiued in his Iudgment that he eyther call Good euill or that foolish which is most wise Out of the words of these great popish Doctours who are euer the best witnesses against the papists I obserue these instructions for the Reader First that euery regenerate person and child of God for all such are Spiritual is able to Iudge of euery thing that concernes his saluation and consequently which is falshood which is Gods word which is not because that especially pertaines to his saluation Secondly that euery childe of God is able by his faith to wade so farre that he can iudge of all needfull trueth and whatsoeuer is conuenient for his soules health neuer be deceiued in his Iudgement Fourthly because S. Iohn tels vs that the vnction which the faithfull haue receiued doth teach them all thinges Ergo to discerne Gods word from mans word Melchior Canus a learned Schooleman and a famous Byshop teacheth vs the selfe-same Doctrine in plainer termes These are his expresse words Praestanti quod in se est Deus fidem ad salutem necessariam non negat Sequitur non n. vnctio queÌ„cunque simpliciter docet de omnibus sed quemque de his quae sunt cipropria necessaria Sequitur concedimus liberaliter doctrinaÌ„ cuique in sua vita statu necessariam illi fore prospectaÌ„ cognitam qui fecerit voluntatem Dei. Sicut n. gustus bene affectus differentias saporum facilè descernit sic animi optima affectio facit vt homo doctrinam dei ad salutem necessariaÌ„ discernat ab errore contrario qui ex deo non est To the man that doth what in him lyeth God neuer denyeth faith necessary to saluation For the vnction doth not simply teach euery one euery thing but it teacheth euery one so much as is proper and necessary for him And we graunt freely that doctrine necessary for euery mans life and state is sufficiently knowne to him that doth the will of God For like as the well affected tast doth easily discerne the differences of sauors or tasts so doth the good affection of the mind bring to passe that a man may discerne the Doctrine of God necessary to saluation from contrary error which is not of God Thus writeth the grauest Papist for learning in the vniuersall world and consequently it is and must bee of great force against the Papistes whatsoeuer hath passed from his pen. And I protest vnto the Gentle Reader that nothing hath more estraunged me from Popery and set me at defiance with it then the cleere prospicuous Doctrine of the best Learned and most renowned Papistes for whosoeuer will seriously pervse the Bookes which I haue published to the view of the world shall therein finde by the Testimony of the best approued Papists euery point of setled Doctrine in the Church of England Out of the words of this learned Popish Byshop that when S. Iohn sayth The vnction teacheth vs all things Hee meaneth not the difficult Questions in Religion but all such points as are necessary for euery mans saluation Secondly that no man wanteth this knowledge and iudgment of Doctrine but he that is willingly ignorant and will not apply himselfe to liue Christianly Thirdly that euery priuate man is able to discern true Doctrine from Falshood and Error so farre forth as is requisite for his saluation as well as a sound and good tast is able to discern differences of tasts Ergo euery faithful Christian is able to discern Gods word from mans word because it is a thing necessary for his owne soules health The case is so cleare as it can by no reason be denyed Fiftly because the formall obiect of our faith is Veritas prima or God himselfe as Dionisius Areopagita telleth vs. Yea Aquinas the Popish Angellicall Doctor teacheth the selfe-same Doctrine Non. n. fides inquit diuina alicui assemitur nisi quia est à deo reuelatum For Diuine faith saith Aquinas will not yeeld assent to any thing vnlesse it be reuealed of God The truth of which doctrine S. Austen confirmeth in these Golden wordes Iam hic videte c. Nowe bretheren behold heere a great sacrament The sound of our wordes pierceth your eares but the Maister that teacheth you is within Thinke not that man learneth any thing of maÌ„ We Preachers may admonish you by sound of words but if he be not within that teacheth in vaine is our sounde The outward teachings are some helpes and admonitions but hee sitteth in his chaire in heauen that teacheth the hart The maister is within that teacheth It is Christ that teacheth It is his inspiration that instructeth Where his inspiration and vnction is not there the outward noyse of words is in vaine Thus writeth this holy auncient and Learned father with many moe words to the like effect By whose doctrine togither with that of