Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
authority_n	believe_v	scripture_n	tradition_n	2,838	5	9.5550	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A13155	An abridgement or suruey of poperie conteining a compendious declaration of the grounds, doctrines, beginnings, proceedings, impieties, falsities, contradictions, absurdities, fooleries, and other manifold abuses of that religion, which the Pope and his complices doe now mainteine, and vvherewith they haue corrupted and deformed the true Christian faith, opposed vnto Matthew Kellisons Suruey of the new religion, as he calleth it, and all his malicious inuectiues and lies, by Matthevv Sutcliffe.	Sutcliffe, Matthew, 1550?-1629.	1606 (1606)	STC 23448; ESTC S117929	224,206	342

massacres and cruell executions done by the Papistes of late yeeres vpon the Saints of God haue proceeded from no other fountaine then from the malice of the diuel for he was a murderer from the beginning and Apocalyps 12. we read that the great red dragon that is the diuel persecuted the woman which was a figure of the church of God and caused her to flie into the wildernesse from the same fountaine also doe issue all the forgeries lies and calumniations of Papists whereby they haue gone about to suppresse the truth for the diuell is the father of lies and from their father the diuel the lying friers and Masse-priests haue learned their lying deuises who then is of God must needs hate this religion that is partly inuented and partly mainteined by the diuell CHAP. XXXIII That Papists can haue no assurance of the truth of their religion OF the trueth of our Christian faith we are assured for the articles thereof were deliuered by Christ taught by the Apostles and Prophets conteined in Scriptures and confessed by the catholicke church of all times but it is not so with Popery for neither did Christ deliuer it nor the Apostles and Prophets teach it nor is the same conteined in Scriptures or confessed by the catholike church of all times but dependeth partly vpon traditions not written and partly vpon the Popes determinations and partly vpon the opinions of schoole-men and canonistes and the monkes and friers now what assurance I pray you can any Papist haue of these doctrines First no man yet could euer tell what these traditions are which the Priests of Trent would make equall to Scriptures Bellarmine lib. 4. de verb. dei talketh at randon but he dare not come to particulars nor directly expresse them Secondly they dare not define where these traditions are to be found if they say in the decretales then all future traditions are cut off and former traditions founded on the Popes opinions if they say in the legends their traditions will prooue lies and fooleries for such are the legends if they tell vs of the pure fountaines of traditions of Caesar Baronius as Pope Sixtus the fift doth they will be laughed at that were not auised of their groundes before the time of this babling and confused Cardinal Thirdly they cannot shew why some traditions should be obserued and others not but if traditions were to be receined with equall affection to holy Scriptures then might none be abolished As for the determinations of Popes they can alledge no reason why they should be true if they bring the wordes of Christ to Peter they concerne them nothing that are so vnlike to Peter if they bring Christs promises to his church they concerne them much lesse for they are rather enemies then members of the church but were they members yet what man is priuiledged so that he cannot erre but those which for writing of holy Scriptures were led into all truth by the holy Ghost which is the spirit of truth Finally there is such contention betwixt the schoolemen and canonists and such diuersity of opinions among the seuerall Doctors of both the sides that it is bard to say whether any of them teacheth truly and most certaine that many of them teach falsely nay scarce any point of doctrine is deliuered by schoolemen wherein they dissent not one from another Now if they say their faith is founded not only vpon the Popes determinations and Apostolike traditions but also vpon holy scriptures yet holding as they doe this shall not any whit releeue them For first they cannot assure themselues that the Latine vulgar translation of the Bible is more true then the originall text in Hebrew and Greeke for all the fathers with one consent preferre the original fountaines before all versions Secondly they must needes stand in doubt which is the old Latine vulgar translation for if they allow that which was set out by Clement the 8. then cannot they allow of that which was set out by Sixtus Quintus the one so much differing from the other nor if they approue this can they follow that Thirdly they doe not beleeue the scriptures because God speaketh in them nor the traditions because they are Gods worde as they hold but because the church doth tell vs which are canonicall scriptures and consigneth them vnto vs and doth further deliuer vnto vs these traditions not written for this is Stapletons opinion in his bookes de doctrinalibus princip and authorit ecclesiast defens and is confessed of most Papists but if the authoritie of scriptures and traditions in respect of vs doth so depend vpon the church that no man can be assured of either without the authority of the Church then doth the faith of Papists rest vpon the Pope who as they say is chiefe gouernor of the church the which will bring the Papists to great vncertainty for who is so mad as to beleeue that a blind Pope can well iudge of colours or so senselesse as not to beleeue Gods word without the Popes warrant Fourthly they receiue not the articles of the faith because they are contained in scriptures but because they are deliuered vnto vs by the Pope Thomas Aquinas 2.2.9.1 art 10. saith that the ordring of matters of faith and the publication of the articles of the Creed belongeth to the pope that Athanasius his Creed was receiued because it was allowed by the Pope and this by others is deliuered in more grosse termes Stapleton in his doctrinall principles saith that the last resolution of matters of faith is in the Popes desinitiue sentence and Bellarmine lib. 3. de verb. dei c. 4. goeth about to shew that the Pope is the supreme iudge to whom the interpretation of scriptures and last resolution of all controuersies of religion is to bee referred But the papists can neither assure thomselues that he that sitteth at Rome is true Pope and S. Peters true successor nor that his determinations are certeine or true That the Pope is S. Peters true successor it will be hard to proue considering that he preacheth not as S. Peter did nor S. Peter weare a triple crowne and command temporall Princes as he doth it is very hard also to know whether he bee true Pope or no after the common vnderstanding of Papists for vnlesse he bee baptized and truly ordred and chosen he is no true Pope but it is hard to know whether he were baptized which dependeth vpon the Priests intention which is vncerteine and hidden it is also more hard to vnderstand whether he were truly ordred or not for if he were not baptized then is he not capable of Priest-hood as Innocentius saith c. ventens de presbytero non baptizato and if he that ordred him had no intention to doe it then receiued he no orders lastly it is a matter most difficult to know whether the Pope was rightly chosen or else by Simony or violence or other meanes intruded so it is alwaies most

pretence doe reiect the old translation or vse any interpretation contrary to the Romish Churches meaning they condemne Stapleton in his booke intituled Principia doctrinalia doth deliuer vnto vs seuen grounds or principles of his religion the first is the Church the second the Pope the third the means vsed by the Pope in iudgement the fourth the Popes infallibility in iudgement the fifth his power in taxing the canon of Scriptures the sixth his certaine interpretation of Scriptures the seuenth his power in deliuering doctrine not written these I say are his grounds and principles absurdly deuised confusedly disposed and ridiculously propounded as God willing shall be shewed otherwhere now it is sufficient to declare that whatsoeuer he bableth elsewhere of scriptures councels fathers yet heere they are all suppressed in this diuision or at the least concealed vnder the name of the Church or Pope which in his preface to Gregory the 13. hee calleth supremum numen in terris that is the supreme God of the world and who to him is all in all likewise in his preface to his relection of doctrinall principles hee seemeth directly to exclude the scriptures Christianae religionis fundamentum habemus saith he ab ipsis literis apostolicis euangelicis uliud that is we haue another foundation of Christian religion diuers from the writings of the Apostles Prophets if he exclude not scriptures yet he admitteth them no otherwise than according to the interpretation of the Pope and his complices nay without the Popes declaration he doth tediouslie discourse that Christians are not to receiue the canon of scriptures The decretale epistles of the Pope no doubt they admit for the foundation of their faith for in the rubricke of their decrees c. in canonicis dist 19. they doe determine that the Popes decretales are to bee numbred among canonicall scriptures inter canonicas scripturas say they decretales epistolae connumerantur likewise Gelasius c. sancta Romana dist 15. defineth that the Popes decretale epistles are to bee receiued with veneration In the same decretale Gelasius authoriseth the Romane martyrologe or legends of martyrs neither can Kellison or his kettle companions deny this to be one of the grounds of his rammish I would say Romish religion seeing these martyrologes and legendes conteine diuers traditions which the conuenticle of Trent will haue all Papistes to receiue with equall affection to scriptures Canus lib. 1. loc theolog c. 1. assigneth tenne places out of which he saith diuines are to draw arguments the first is the authority of scriptures the second the authority of traditions not written the third is the authority of the catholike church the fourth the authority of councels the fifth the authority of the church of Rome where wee are to note that more honestly than his companions hee maketh the church of Rome to differ from the Catholike church the sixth is the authority of ancient fathers the seuenth the authority of Romish schoole doctors the eighth naturall reason the ninth the authority of Philosophers the tenth the authority of writers of stories so wee see how hee buildeth his faith vpon men as well as vpon God and matcheth traditions not written with the most diuine writings of the Prophets and Apostles and conioyneth the authority of councels and fathers nay of schoolemen and Philosophers with the testimony of holy scriptures framing to vs rather an humane then a diuine foundation of Christian faith Martin Perez a plaine dealing Papist knowing that all those points of doctrine which are in controuersie betwixt his fellowes and vs are grounded rather vpon tradition then scripture doth entitle his whole discourse of these matters de traditionibus that is a discourse of traditions Finally Bellarmine lib. 2. de Pontif. Rom. cap. 31. doth call the Pope the foundation of the building of the church Fundamentum aedisicij ecclesiae and in his preface before his bookes de pontisice Rom. he saith that the seat of Peter or the Popes chaire is the approued stone the corner and pretious stone placed in the soundation of which the Prophet I say speaketh c. 8. and 28. and with him concurreth Sanders in his booke of the Rocke of the church Stapleton also declareth the matter most plainely in praefat in relect princip doctr where he saith that the foundation of the knowledge of Christian religion is necessarily placed in the authority of the Pope teaching vs in whom he saith he heareth God speaking to vs. his wordes are in hac docentis hominis authoritate he speaketh of the Pope in qua deum loquentem audimus religionis nostrae cognoscenda fundamentum necessariò pom credimus and this others must necessarily also hold for they hold him to be the supreme interpreter of scriptures and an infallible Iudge of all controuersies of religion and a law-giuer to our consciences binding all mens consciences by his lawes which is the common opinion as Bellarmine lib. 4. de Pontifice Rom. c. 16. saith of all casuistes a pitifull case therefore it is wherein the Papistes stand whose consciences are chained with so many bondes This then being found in the suruey of the grounds of Popish religion let vs also consider what conclusions may be hence inferred that we may as well suruey the conclusions as the premisses First it followeth that these grounds being blasphemous both in regard of the spirit of God which is the enditer and author of holy scriptures and also in regard of Christ Iesus the foundation of the church and finisher of our saith the doctrine and religion of Popery cannot be cleere of blasphemie for to match Popish decretales with holy scriptures and the Popes determination with Gods law is derogatory to Gods holy spirit and a plaine disparagement to Gods holy law likewise it is blasphemous to accuse the holy scriptures of insufficiencie and imperfection and to attribute more certaintie and perspicuitie to the decretales of the Pope then to the lawes of God it is also blasphemous either to remoue Christ out of the foundation of the church or at the least to ioyne the Pope with him in the foundation and that as a more necessary foundation for the knowledge of Christian religion as Stapleton saith the same also is directly contrary to the words of the Apostle 1. Cor. 3. Ephes 2. and of S. Iames. c. 4. in the first of which places we finde that no other foundation can be layd of the church but Christ Iesus in the 2. we reade that the Church is founded vpon the Apostles and Prophets Iesus Christ being the cheefe corner stone in the 3. we vnderstand that there is only one Law-giuer and Iudge which is able to saue and destroy it is finally very impious and blasphemous to assirme that the Pope is a more certaine and superiour Iudge then God himselfe speaking to vs in scriptures or then the Apostles and Prophets that were ledde into all truth by the spirit of God of other blasphemies of Popery

vs iustice wisedome sanctification and redemption and that Abraham beleeuing it was imputed to him for righteousnesse the Prophet Isaias cap. 53. sheweth that by his stripes wee are healed 9 They say that wee are iustified by the law and by the works there of but the Apostle Gal. 3. saith it is manifest that no man is iustified by the law before God and Rom. 4. he sheweth that Abraham was not iustified by the workes of the law doth it not then manifestly appeare that these false Apostles of Antichrist teach doctrine contrary to the Apostle and are not the children of Abraham or partakers of his faith 10 Thomas Aquinas 2.2 q. 4. art 3. teacheth that Christians are not bound to confesse their faith at all times and this his followers diligently practise that by their wicked teachers are taught to aequiuocate and dissemble their faith and profession but true Christians are alwaies boldly to professe their faith and to yeeld a reason of the same for this is the doctrine of the Apostle S. Peter whom wee are rather to credit than these false Apostles 11 For a lay man to dispute of matters of faith they count it mortall sinne especially knowing that the Pope hath forbid the same vnder paine of excommunication as Nauarrus teacheth enchirid c. 11. but this sheweth that Papists do rather seeke to suppresse the faith then to teach matters of faith the same also appeareth for that they commend ignorance and Thomas Aquinas 2.2 q. 2. art 6. saith that all are not bound to haue explicit faith Linwood in his glosse vpon the constitution beginning ignorantia de summa Trinit holdeth that it is sufficient for lay men and simple people to beleeue the articles of the Creede implicitely or to beleeue as the Catholicke Church beleeueth and this is the faith that Hosius commended in the colliar but it sheweth that our aduersaries seeke to intertaine the people in ignorance of matters of faith while the masse-priests sport and intertaine themselues with all delights and liuing idly reape the fruits of poore mens labours 12 Thomas Aquinas p. 3. q. 7. art 3. denieth that Christ hath faith which is as much as if hee should make Christ the authour of our faith a Pagan and an Infidell further the same ouerthroweth the Popish definition of faith for either Christ did not firmely beleeue Gods word or else he had faith now to say that is plaine blasphemy neither is that defence materiall that Christ knew all things by reason of the hypostaticall vnion of two natures in one person for that did not ouerthrow his humane nature nor hinder him for hauing faith without all imperfection Finally they teach that the Pope onely is to order and to publish the Creed for that is the doctrine of Thomas Aquinas 2. 2. q. 1. art 10. and the rest no question beleeue it but it is sufficient to ouerthrow not onely the Nicene and Constantinopolitan confession but also the Apostles Creede and faith of Christ for whatsoeuer face our aduersaries doe set on matters they shal neuer shew that these anciēt Creeds did either depend vpon the authority of the Pope or were by him ordered published or confirmed nay many Popes we read of which for any thing we can vnderstand did not beleeue the Apostles Creed vpon this weake foundation of infidel Popes the miserable Papists do build their wind-shaken faith wee doe not therefore maruell if they relie more vpon workes then this faith and if they trust rather to be iustified by good works than the Popes erroneous faith but if they would consider what true faith is and how the same applieth Christ vnto vs and vniteth vs vnto him then would they abandon the errors of Popery of which wee haue giuen a tast in this article of iustification by faith in Christ CHAP. V. What Papists doe meane by the Gospell THe preaching of the Gospell to Christians is the gladsome declaration of Gods fauour offred to vs through Christ Iesus and therefore the Angell Luc. 2. speaking of the Sauiour of the world declared that he brought them tidings of great ioy that should be to all people but the Papists by their new and strange doctrine do so confound the law and the gospell as if they sought to depriue Christians of this ioy and meant to alter the title of Christs most ioifull Gospell for first as if Christ had not beene a Sauiour or a Redeemer but a lawgiuer that was to propound a new law wherewith Christians were to bee newly charged they call the Gospell the new law but neither is the law of Moses contained in the two tables abolished nor was it Christs intention to surcharge his people with new lawes and new bonds but to free them from the curse of the law and to redeeme them as for the orders concerning sacraments we may not repute them to be properly lawes but meanes and directions for the right applying of Gods graces vnto Christians further the new law that God speaketh of was written in mens harts as wee read Hierem. 31. and Heb. 8. but the lawes of the new Testament which the Papists speake of are partly written in scriptures and partly in decretales the Papists therefore making Christ a new lawgiuer doe ouerthrow his couenant of grace Secondly this new Law or Testament as they say is the loue of God shed into our hartes for so doth Bellarmine teach lib. 1. de verb. dei c. 3. but grant this and then the new testament doth not include remission of sinnes for loue is one thing and remission of sinnes another but that the new testament doth include remission of sinnes first our Sauior doth signifie where he calleth the cup of thankesgiuing the cup of the new testament for remission of sinnes and Chrysostome in 2. Cor. 3. and Theodoret Oecumenius and Theophylact vpon the same place directly affirme Thirdly Thomas Aquinas 1.2 q. 107. art 4. saith that the preceptes of the new law or of the Gospel as touching the inward workes of vertue are more grieuous then the precepts of the law of Moyses quantum ad opera virtutum saith he in actibus interioribus c. praeceptanouae legis sunt grauiora this is directly contrary to the words of our Sauiour Math 11. my yoke saith he is easie and my burden light furthermore the same maketh the Gospell not to be a doctrine of Christian liberty and redemption but of bondage and greeuance Fourthly the censurers of Collein fol. 204. say that this is the proper doctrine of the Gospell if thou wilt enter into life keep the commandements and with them in effect doth Bellarmine lib. 1. de verb. dei c. 3. consent where he saith that the new testament is nothing but Charity shed into our harts by the holy Ghost but this confoundeth the law and the Gospell for no man can deny but that Charity is required by the law further the same is contrary to the doctrine of the Apostles the law saith

si huius quae ab ipso docebatur fidei particeps esset so likewise the Popes grant indulgences to all those that fight for their sect whatsoeuer outrages and villanies they haue committed neither do Priests refuse absolution to any of their sect if they be ruled by them Bellarmine lib. 2. de eccles c. 2. requireth neither faith nor vertue in a Christian if he professe outwardly the Romish faith 43. The Apostle 1. Tim. 4. doth condemn them as heretiks that forbad men to mary entoined them abstinence from certaine meats recte posuit prohibentium nubere saith Theodoret in 1. Tim. 4. neque enim caelibatum aut continentiam vituperat sed eos accusat qui lege lata ea sequi compellunt but Papists by lawes forbid the mariage of Priests and of such as haue vowed single life and haue made diuers lawes against eating flesh burning all that teach otherwise 44. The heretikes called Anomi were condemned for corrupting the law of God but I haue shewed that the Papists by their irregular doctrines and traditions haue not only corrupted it but also disanulled it for the most part 45. Irenaeus aduers haeres c. 2. rangeth them among heretikes that accuse scriptures as if they were not right or not of authority or diuersly to be vnderstood or not sufficient without tradition quasi non rectè habeant neque sint ex authoritate quia variè sunt dictae quia non possit ex his inueniri veritas ab his qui nesciant traditionem all which qualities are incident to the Papists for they complaine of their flexibility and insufficiency and without the churches determination make them to vs of no authoritie Tertullian lib. de praescrip aduers haeret saith some heretikes by their hand others by expositions peruert scriptures alius saith he mancel scripturas alius sensu expositiones interuertit the Papists excell in both for by their additions and false versions they haue falsified scriptures and their commentaries in cases controuersed are nothing but peruersions and false expositions of scriptures Turrian writing against that worthy seruant of God Master Sadeel doth call the scriptures delphicum gladium or an instrument seruing to diuers purposes others call them a nose of waxe or a shipmans hose some esteeme them a matter of strife 46. Isidore lib. 8. orig c. de haeres doth declare them to be heretikes that doe otherwise vnderstand the scriptures then the meaning of the holy ghost requireth quicunque aliter scripturam sacram intelligit saith he quàm sensus spiritus san●●i flagitat licet de Ecclesia non recesserit tamen haereticus potest appellari but this is a common fault of Papists throughout all their bookes of controuersies and commentaries 47. As the Herodians did giue the title and honour of Christ to Herode and were therefore reputed heretickes by Damascene lib. de haeres so the Papists do giue Christs titles and honour to the Pope calling him the head and foundation and spouse of the Church yea the king of kings and Christ why then should they not be called papall heretickes aswell as the other Herodian heretickes 48. Damascene accounteth them heretickes that were enemies to the knowledge of Christians and misliked their study of scriptures Gnosimachi saith he omni Christianorum cognitioni ac scientiae ita aduersantur vt vanum minus necessarium laborem esse dicant corum qui in diumis scripturis aliquam exquirunt scientiam the Papists likewise condemn lay-men that read study scriptures especially in vulgar tongs and commend ignorance they doe also speake high commendations of a colliars faith and thinke it sufficient without more adoe that they beleeue as the Church doth 49. The Ethnophromans are likewise put in the role of heretickes for that they brought in diuers heathenish dustomes into the church as we may read in Damascene de haeresibus if then the Papists haue their right they are there also for their carnenal candle bearing holie water censing of images and infinite such trickes to bee calendred among heretickes 50. The dislike of second mariages expressed c. de his 31. q. 1. and for that they debarre such from Priesthood is borrowed from the Montanists 51. In the Roman Cathechisme part 1. in exposit 3. art fid they teach that our Sauiour passed out of his mothers wombe as the raies of the sunne do pearce through the substance of glasse quomodo solis radij concretam vitri substantiam penetrant but this heresie doth quite ouerthrow the article of the natiuity of our Sauiour 52. The conuenticle of a sect 6. Trent teacheth vs alwaies in this life to doubt of Gods fauour towards vs and of our own saluation but this heresie sheweth that the Papists teach infidelity rather then true faith 53. Finally if heresie be an opinion contrarie to faith as Ocham saith or to scriptures as Robert Grosthed affirmeth apud Matth. Paris in Henrico 3. or to conclusions deduced out of scriptures as the councell of Basil signifieth apud Aen. Sylu. de gest concil Basil lib. 1. then are all the opinions of Papists condemned by the church of England for heresies as being repugnant to canonicall scriptures and the faith deduced out of them And these heresies albeit anciently condemned are yet generally holden by the Papists but if I should rehearse the particular heresies of Popes and their chiefe doctors there would be no end of the rehearsall Gelasius the Pope in his epistle to the Bishops of Picenum saith that the substance of man is depratied by originall sinne which importeth rather the destruction of nature than the losse of grace according to his opinion The master of sentences lib. 2. dist 31. teacheth that the flesh only and not the soule is made vncleane by originall sinne Likewise lib. 1. dist 24. he saith that names of number put nothing in the Trinity which ouerthroweth the real distinction of the three persons in the Trinity Againe lib. 1. dist 17. he saith that the holy ghost is nothing but charity whereby we loue God his addendum saith he quòd ipse idem spiritus sanctus est amor siue charitas qua nos diligimus Deum proximum which ouerthroweth the subsistence of the holy ghost Iohn the 22. as we read in the letters of Michael Cesenas placed after the workes of Occham denied the personall distinction of the father the sonne and the holy ghost he denied also that the soules of the faithfull do see God before the day of iudgement The abbot Ioachim as we read in the chap. damnamus de sum trin sid cath saith that the father the sonne and the holy ghost are one non vnitate essentiae sed collectionis tantum not by vnity of essence but by vnity of collections as diuers citizens make one people which ouerthroweth the vnity of the diuine essence Albert vpon the first booke of sentences dist 9. and Thomas Aquinas in scripto confesse that speaking of the persons of the

for it Ambrose Catharine tractat de imaginibus saith God prohibited images simply but that this prohibition was positiue others deny both images to be forbidden and the second commandement to be positiue Occham Maior and Richardus are of opinion that a sacrament cannot be defined Scotus in 4. dist 1. q. 2. holdeth that it may be defined imperfectly Ledesma in tract de sacrament in genere q. 1. art 2. saith it may properlie bee defined Finally to shew the contradictions of Papists we need to seeke no further than to Bellarmine who in euery controuersie bringeth in different opinions of men of his side Gardiner a pillar of popery did oftentimes contradict himselfe and his fellowes sometimes hee swore against the Popes supremacy sometime like a forsworne creature hee stood for it somtime he consented to the dissolution of monasteries as sinkes of Sodomy and all tibaldrie and villany sometime be spoke for them his booke entituled Marcus Constantius is full of contradictions M. Foxe hath scored vp great multitudes The contradictions of Robert Parsons in his book of three Conuersions I haue noted in my answeare to that treatise The whole masse also of Poperie doth consist of contrary pieces as I haue shewed in the contradictions of the doctrine of the Masse of purgatory of indulgences of the Pope and diuers other principall points and haue proued the same in treatises of that argument For example they say the Masse is an vnbloudy sacrifice and yet teach that euerie Priest doth really offer and drinke Christs bloud Sometime they say the sacrifice is but one sacrifice yet in the canon they say sacrifices in the plurall number Sometime they say the Priest only offereth this sacrifice but in the canō they make the people to offer sacrifices In the canon they pray that Angels may carry Christs body vnto Gods high altar but all confesse that Christs body is in heauen before There also they make the Priest a mediatour for Christ. but where they speake soberly they make Christ a mediator both for the Priest and others In heauen they say Christ is visible and palpable on the altar they make him inuisible and impalpable They say the Masse is an externall sacrifice yet no man euer yet could see Christs body externally sacrificed In purgatorie they say soules suffer extreme paines but in the Masse they saie they sl●epe in peace They teach that Christians may performe the law of God perfectly but they will not grant that they may liue without sinne which is all one Talking of auricular confession they make it necessarie but in the chap. Petrus doluit and lachrymae dist 1. de poenit they denie it The Pope calleth himselfe seruant of seruants yet doth he take vpon him as lord of lords Order they say is one sacrament yet they teach also that there are seuen Orders and euerie one of them a sacrament which is as much as if they should make one seuen and seuen one The Pope they saie is head of the Church but that is as much as if they should teach that their Church in the vacatio nis headlesse If then the catholicke faith be one and those that professe the faith agree in one then cannot popery be the true Catholicke faith that containeth so many contradictions CHAP. XXVII That popery is a most foolish and absurd religion AS the lawes of God are full of wisedome and giue vs a true vnderstanding so when man of his owne braine vndertaketh to adde vnto his commandements the same in proofe falleth out to be nothing but vanity and foolery the same wee sind verified in the additions of the superfluous religion of Papists for although it haue a shew of wisedome as the voluntarie worship of Angels had of which the Apostle Coloss 2. speaketh yet compared with the wisedome of God reuealed in the Gospell it is meere foolery For first what is more foolish then to forsake the liuing springs of holy scripture out of which do sally waters of life and to follow after the puddle streams of Romish traditions of scriptures we are assured that they are the word of God but no man can affirme that of Romish traditions or the Popes decretales that either professeth piety or loueth truth is it not then strange that any Christians should bee so foolish as to match the word of man with Gods word and where we haue a certaine rule to seeke for a broken vncertaine and crooked rule Againe it is most absurd not to beleeue the scriptures without the Popes warrant but to say that Christians are not to beleeue in God nor in Christ Iesus nor to receiue the rest of the articles of our Creed vnlesse the church of Rome doe deliuer them vnto vs is not only a peece of great foolery but also a very high streine of madnesse and yet this is the doctrine of Popery for Stapleton saith that the church must needes consigne the scriptures vnto vs and the authoritie of the church both he and others giue to the Pope likewise in their catechisme the Papists signifie that faith is of things onely proposed to vs by the church so that if the church propose not the articles of faith we are not to beleeue them if these men teach truth further this sheweth the Romish church to consist of a packe of infidels for if the same beleeued not without the authority of the church then did she beleeue nothing of Christ seeing the Papists acknowledge no other Church but that of Rome and no church can teach it selfe Finally this is as much as if they should say that the law of the Prince is not to be receiued vnlesse it be proposed by the crier or other such like officer The Masse-priests of Trent sess 4. most absurdly prefer the old Latin vulgar translation of the Bible before the originall text which is as much as if they should preferre S. Hierome and other interpreters before the Prophets and Apostles and the streames before the fountaines Generally they forbid scriptures to bee read publickely in vulgar tongues but they permit most fabulous legends to bee read publickely The holy scriptures they will not permit to bee read in vulgar tongues of the multitude without licence but they are content that any of their followers should reade the Popes decretales or the miracles of their god of paste or the history of our Lady of Loreto and other such lying legends without licence To say that the Pope is the head of the vniuersall church is meere foolery for grant that and it will follow that the Church is sometime without head as in the time of vacation of the papacy and sometime a monster with two or three heads as when two or three Popes reigne at once and sometime a mad Church as hauing a mad and franticke head The church they say albeit catholicke yet is alwaies visible but this being granted it followeth that vniuersall things may be the obiect of sense and that the church of

deposing Princes nay to assirme that this great authority is prositable for Princes Ghineard a Iebusite was hanged in Paris anno 1594. for writing and mainteining diuers seditious positions concerning the Popes authority in disposing the crowne of France and translating the same from the family of Bourbon Parsons in his warne-word p. 2. f. 127. alloweth the deposing of Henry the 3. of France neither would he haue desired that the Bull of Pius the sift against Queene Elizabeth might be suspended against the Papists but that he imagined that she was iustly deposed the same man in his seditious booke of titles lib. 1. c. 1. endeuoreth to proue that the succession in kingdomes by necrenesse of blood is by positiue lawes of the common-welth and may vpon iust causes be altered by the same in his third chapter he pretendeth that not only vnworthy claimers may be put backe but also that kings in possession may be chastised and deposed his drist in the fourth chapter is to shew that the people sometimes may lawfully proceed against princes is it not then strange that the factious schollers of this seditious teacher are still harbored in the bowels of this state William Rainolde a rinegat English-man in a certeine treatise set out vnder the name of William Rosse and titled de iusta reip Christianae supra reges impios haereticos authoritate c. doth in expresse termes defend the wicked league of the French rebels against the King and giue the people power to depose their kings the same man in the 2. chapter of that booke assirmeth impudently that the right of all the Kings and kingdomes of Europe is laid vpon this foundation that common-welthes or the people may depose their kings I us omnium Europae regum regnorum saith he hoc fundamento nititur quod resp possint suos reges deponere In all Europe therefore it will be hard to find more arrant traitors then himselfe and his complices Bellarmine lib. 5. de pontif Rom. c. 6. saith it is not lawfull for Christians to tolerat a king that is an insidell or an heretike if he goe about to draw his subiects to his heresie or infidelity non licet Christianis tolerare regem infidelem aut haereticum si ille pertrahere conetur subdit os ad suam haeresim aut infidelitatem a hard sentence against his Maiesty if Papists had power to iudge him Emanuel Sain his booke called aphorismi confessariorum holdeth these aphorismes in verbo princeps viz. that a prince may be deposed by the common-welth for tyranny and also if he doe not his duty or where there is iust cause and that another may be chosen by the greatest part of the people in the word tyrannus he affirmeth that a tyrant may be deposed by the people although they be sworne to bee obedient vnto him if being admonished he will not amend now to the Popish faction all are tyrants that will not admit their Popish superstition though otherwise they bee neuer so mild and gentle and so it appeareth they accompt of our gratious king whom of late they haue sought trecherously to murder If then we admitte this common doctrine of Papists of the Popes authoritie in deposing Kings and giuing them Law we diminish the authority of Kings and make them subiects to the Pope which is a matter abominable to be either taught or beleeued we doe also indanger not only the state of all Kings but also of their kingdomes for how can any King stand against the violence of the Pope if he haue authority to depose Kings by this vsurped authority Gregory the 7. wrought Henry the Emperor and his subiects many troubles Paschall the 2. made the sonne to rise against the father and the subiects against their Princes and in the end caused the en peror to be taken prisoner and to resigne his Empire the same man also as he subdued the father so quarreled he with the sonne and caused his subiects to take armes against him Innocent the 2. by force of armes thought to vanquish Roger King of Sicilia and in a pitched field had preuailed against him if the sonne had not succoured his father Roger. Adrian the 4. and Alexander the 3. did so farre preuaile against Fridericke the first that he held the stirrop to the first and was troden vpon by the second Celestin the 3. proudly demeaned himselfe against Henry the 6. casting the crowne from his head with his foote as he kneeled before him as we reade in Rogor Houeden Innocent the 3. brought the Emperors Philip and Otho to destructiō by his furious persequution the same man caused King Iohn of England to surrender his crowne and was the cause of the losse of Normandy to the English Neither did he alone offer wrong to Iohn King of England for before his time king Henry the second had receiued a great scorne of the Pope in the cause of Thomas Becket Gregory the 9. and Innocent the 4. with great fury set vpon Friderike the 2. and emploied Christians that had made vowes to fight against the Saracens to the ruine of the Emperor Iohn the 22. Benet the 12. and Clement the 6. with implacable hatred prosequuted Lewes of Bauier and that for no other cause then for that he tooke on him as Emperor without the Popes allowance and for the same cause Harold encurred the Popes displeasure not submitting himselfe to receiue his crowne of the Popes faction Boniface the eight while he sought to subdue Philip of France and the houle of Colonna in Italy troubled both Spaine and Italy the Popes of late time haue caused all the stirres in Germany Italy France Flanders England and Scotland the leaguers of France were confirmed in their rebellion by the Pope and droue King Henry the third out of his pallace and killed him by a Dominican Frier as he beseeged Paris and long withstood the king now reigning Vpon the excommunication of Paul the third the papists of England rebelled against King Henry the eight in his bul of excommunication recorded by Sanders he commanded his subiects to resist him and to throw him out of his kingdome principibus viris ac ducibus Angliae saith he caeteraeque nobilitati praecipit vt vi armis se Henrico opponant illumque è regni sinibus eijcere nitantur by the Popes excommunications the rebellion was raised in the North of England by the Erles of Westmerland and Norththumberland and diuers tumults in Ireland against Queene Elizabeth nay albeit our King be not denounced excommunicat yet did the gun-pouder Papists seeke to blow him vp with the principall men of England neither had the Spaniards anno 1588. any better ground to inuade England then the Popes commandement and warrant Seeing then the Pope taketh vpon him a superiority ouer all Kings seeketh to depose all such as will not conforme themselues to his will it is much to be wondred that Christian princes that doe embrace his doctrine