man to whome he was not subiect Most impudent therefore and intollerable is the Popes insolencie when he exalteth himselfe above Kings and Emperours threatning them that he can depose them from their scepters and regalties and dispossesse them of their Empires and dominions Which for all that Cardinall Allen is not ashamed to avovch with lying lippes in the Popes behalfe in that his disloyall pamphlet which he published without name in defense of the Seminaries But such flatterie of feyned titles a Pope of famous memorie shall confute Gregorie surnamed the great himselfe beeing Pope of Rome at what time as he was appointed by Mauricius the Emperour to publish a certaine law sent him from the Emperour did not refuse to accomplish the said Emperours assignment but acknowledged him by duetie bound to execute his commandement therein albeit he thought the law in some part disagreeable to Gods will This to be so the Popes owne words shall witnesse which be these Ego quidem iussioni subiectus eandem legem per diversas terrarum partes transmitti feci quia lex ipsa omnipotenti Deo minime concordat ecce per suggestionis meae paginam sereni ssimis dominis nunciavi vtrobique ergo quae debui exolvi qui Imperatori obedientiam praebui pro deo quod sensiminime tacui I subiect to your commandement have caused the same law to be sent through diverse parts of the lande and because the lawe doth not agree with Gods will behold I have intimated so much vnto your Maiestie by my epistle I have therefore discharged my duetie in both respects as who have yielded my obedience vnto the Emperour neither concealed what I thought in Gods behalfe These are the Popes words besides many others in the same epistle to the like effect Which being vttered by the chiefest Pope are most effectuall to proove the subiection of Popes vnto Kings 1 For first Pope Gregorie acknowledgeth the Emperour to be his lord 2 Secondly he confesseth him selfe to be the Emperours subiect 3 Thirdly he graunteth that he oweth loyall obedience to the Emperour for which duetie he durst not but publish the Emperours law though in some part it were very rigorous and that least he should have bin guiltie of distoyaltie towards his Prince Now that Romish pontificalitie and pompe of Poperie came vp first by beggerly Canonists who to advance them selves flattered the Pope and gave him more then princely titles the Popes owne deare Doctour who carieth therefore credite on his backe telleth vs who after he hath rehearsed many lordly titles and more then royall power ascribed to the Pope hath these expresse words Sed glossatores iuris hoc dominium dederunt Papae cum ipsi essent pauperes rebus doctrina But the glossers of the Popes law gave this dominion and these royall titles vnto the Pope when them selves were blind bayards and beggerly fellowes Thus saith the Popes Doctour and thus we see that povertie and ignorance were the beginning of Pope dome For by reason of povertie they flattered and sought to please and by reason of their ignorance they avouched many things which they did not vnderstand The fourth Conclusion THE Pope had no auctoritie to give dominion of the Indians to the King of Spaine albeit many defend the spanish invasion by vertue of that donation The latter part hereof Victoria sheweth in these wordes Secundus titulus qui praetenditur quidem vehementer asseritur ad instam possessionem illarum provinciarum est exparte summi Pontificis dicunt enim quod summus Pontifex est Monarcha etiam temporalis in toto orbe per consequens quod potuit constituere Hispaniarum reges principes illorum barbarorum it a factum est The second title which is pretended and earnestly affirmed for the iust possession of those provinces consisteth in the Popes graunt For say they the Pope is a temporall Monarch even of the whole worlde and consequently that he could appoint the Kings of Spaine Princes over those Barbarians and so it came to passe The former part of the conclusion Aquinas prooveth in these wordes Ad Ecclesiam autem non pertinet punire infidelitatem in illis qui nunquam fidem susceperunt secundum illud Apostoli 1. Cor. 5. quid mihi de his qui foris sunt iudicare But it belongeth not to the Church to punnish infidelitie in them who never received the saith according to that saying of the Apostle What have I to doe to iudge of those that be not in the Church Dominicus Soto is of the same opinion whose words are these Ad hoc autem respondetur in primis Pontificem neque concessisse imò vero neque vt cum omni reverentia obedientia de sanctissimo Christi vicario loquar concedere potuisse eorum suorumve honorum dominium quasi dominium in eos ipse haberet But to this I answer be it spoken with all reverence and obedience to the most holy Vicar of Christ that neither the Pope did graunt yea neither could he graunt vnto the King of Spaine dominion over those Indians or their goods as though himselfe had dominion over them It followeth in the same Soto Lex fidei dominium rerum ab infidelibus non aufert quod sibi natur a concessit The law of faith doth not take away dominion of possessions from infidels which nature hath graunted them Victoria accordeth to Aquinas and Soto in these words Ex quo patet quodnec iste titulus est idoneus contrabarbaros vel quia Papa dederit provincias illas tanquam dominus absolute vel quia non recognoscent dominium Papae Whereby it is plaine that neither this title is sufficient against the barbarians either because the Pope gave those Provinces as beeing absolute lord thereof or for that they doe not recognize the Popes authoritie Iosephus Angles likewise saith Hinc neque poterit alicui regi Christiano potestatem dare vt sibi Indorum regna v surpet non enim est orbis temporalis dominus For this cause he can not give any Christian king auctoritie to vsurpe the kingdomes of the Indians to himselfe for he is not the temporall lord of the world By which testimonies it is cleare that the Pope could not give to the Spanish King any iust title over the Indians because he could not give that which himselfe had not Yet â—hust Emperours hold his bridle and Kings be his footestoole if they will The Corollarie FIrst therefore since all the Apostles were equall with Peter in power authoritie and iurisdiction secondly since all the Apostles received their power immediately from Christ thirdly since all the Apostles had ordinarie calling and iurisdiction as well as Peter had fourthly since Kings have power coactive over Popes and not Popes over Kings fiftly since the Popes pretended power is controlled by his owne popish doctours I conclude that it is a sufficient motive for me to
of the Church all the Churches of Asia together with others adioyning and very bitterly inveigheth against them by his letters Which fact of Victor Irenaeus and other Bishops sharpely reprooved in their letters to the said Victor Which thing Ruffinus plainely testifieth in these words Sed hoc non omnibus placebat Episcopis quin potius è contrario scribentes ei iubebant vt magis quae pacis sunt ageret concordiae atque vnanimitati studeret denique extant ipsorum literae quibus asperius obiurgant victorem velut invtiliter ecclesiae commodis consulentem Yet this his dealing pleased not all Bishops but contrariwise they wrote vnto him bidding him to practise rather that belonged to peace and to studie for concord and vnitie Finally their letters are also extant in the which they sharpely chide Victor as one that respected vnprofitably the good of the Church Thus saith Ruffinus In like manner though with more modestie dissented Anicetus an other bishop of Rome from S. Polycarpe bishop of Smyrna Of which variance thus writeth Eusebius Neque tamen Anicetus Polycarpo poterat persuadere vt suum observandi morem deponeret neque Polycarpus Aniceto persuasit vt consuetudinem Asiaticam vllo modo observaret Neither could Polycarpus perswade Anicetus to keepe the custome and tradition of Asia Now gentle Reader what neede more to be said for the vncertentie of traditions 1 For first these Bishops that thought thus diversly of traditions lived within one hundred yeeres of Christ at what time the Church was in good estate and stained with very few or no corruptions at all 2 Secondly the one side doubtles was seduced with false traditions 3 Thirdly S. Polycarpe and other holy bishops of that age made no more account of the bishop of Rome his opinion or authoritie then of an other mans 4 Fourthly they were so farre from acknowledging him to be the supreame head of the Church that they all reputed them selves his equals and controlled him as sharply for his doctrine as S. Paul reprooved S. Peter for his conversation 5 Fiftly if S. Polycarpe had cause in his time beeing the flourishing age of the Church to doubt of Romish traditions much more have we cause in these latter daies to stand in doubt thereof For now hath iniquitie the vpper hande nowe are corruptions more frequent no we doe errours in every place more abound Let vs therefore follow S. Augustines advise let vs admit nothing rashly let vs examine all doubtfull traditions and doctrines by the touchstone of veritie the holy Scriptures And least any man thinke S. Augustine to be of another minde these are his owne expresse wordes Non audiamus haec dico haec dicis sed audiamus haec dicit dominus sunt certe libri dominici quorum ant horitati vtrique consentimus vtrique credimus vtrique servimus ibi quaeramus ecclesiam ibi discutiamus causam nostram Let vs not heare I say this thou saiest that but let vs heare this saith the Lord for our Lord hath bookes whose authoritie we both admit we both beleeve we both obey let vs there seeke the Church let vs there decide our cause But what neede many words For either popish vnwritten traditions are repugnant to the Scriptures or consonant to the same If they be repugnant then is there great reason to reiect them if they be consonant that must be tried by comparing them to the Scriptures which is the conclusion I defend But the Papists perceiving them selves to be convinced by the Scriptures tell vs plainly that they must have their cause tried by other meanes For so writeth my L. of Rochester in these expresse tearmes Contendentibus itaque nobiscum haereiic is nos alio subsidio nostram oportet tueri causam quam Scripturae sacrae When therefore heretikes he meaneth all not Papists dispute with vs we must vse other helpe in defense of our cause then the Scripture Loe they dare not be tryed by the Scripture Which if a papist had not spoken who would haue beleeved it The Corollarie FIrst therefore since the written Word conteineth in it selfe every thing necessarie for our salvation secondly since no traditions are to be admitted but such as are consonant to the holy Scripture thirdly since Papists load vs with huge numbers of traditions without warrant of the written word fourthly since popish traditions were in old time most doubtfull and vncerten I conclude that it is a sufficient motive for me to renounce the Romish religion as false erroneous and pernicious doctrine Thus much of the ninth Motive CHAP. ix Of Popish auricular confession ALthough popish doctours doe wonderfully magnifie their auricular confession perswading the vulgar sort that they can not attaine salvation without the same yet is it in deede a meere invention of man the bitter torment of conscience and the readie way to desperation For manifest probation whereof I proceede in this manner The first Conclusion ALL Christians must confesse their sinnes to God with internall contrition of heart with full purpose to amend their lives and with stedfast hope of remission by the mercie of God through the merites of Christ his Sonne our sweete redeemer Of this kinde of confession the Scripture speaketh abundantly Delictum meum cognitum tibi feci iniustitiam meam non abscondi dixi confitebor adversum me iniustitiam meam domino tu remisisti impietatem peccati mei I have made my sinne knowne vnto thee and mine iniustice I have not hid I said I will confesse to the Lord my iniustice against my selfe and thou hast forgiven the impietie of my sinne Qui abscondit scelera sua non dirigetur quiautem confessus fuerit reliquerit ea misericordiam consequetur He that hideth his offenses shall not be directed but who shall confesse and forsake his sinnes shall attaine mercie Sidixerimus quoniā peccatum non habemus ipsi nos seducimus veritas in nobis non est si confiteamur peccata nostra fidelis est iustus vt remittat nobis peccata nostra If we say we haue no sinne we deceiue our selues and the truth is not in vs but if we confesse our sinnes c. That this confession must be ioyned with hope of remission S. Chrysostome teacheth in these words Quid proderunt lachrymae confessio sinulla adsit abolitionis fiducia What shal teares confession availe if there be no hope of forgivenes And that we must adde herevnto amendment of life S. Hilarie teacheth vs when he saith Quid aliud est confessio erroris quam confessio desinendi ab errore What other thing is the confession of errour then to confesse that we will forsake errour So then when we be wayle our sinnes confesse them and purpose to amend our former lives with stedfast hope of Gods mercie through attonement made in Christes bloode wee shall doubtlesse have remission of our sinnes Then though our
his written disputations abridged by Robert Persons his brother Iesuite defendeth and approoveth another opinion plaine opposite to all yet rehearsed and maketh in deede the Popes pardons not woorth a button which is the cause as I probably coniecture that the third and last part of his disputations is not permitted as yet to come abroade and either will never be published or wholly omitted or at least changed before it come abroad The Councell of Trent speaketh very slenderly and coldly of the Popes pardons The third Conclusion TO give pardons as the Pope doeth is a straunge and newe doctrine of a most damnable Religion which neither Christ nor his Apostles ever taught or practised This I will proove as I doe other things by the expresse testimonies of the Popes owne renowmed Doctors that so all the worlde may perceive and beholde Papistrie confuted and confounded by papistrie it selfe Sylvester reputed and as it were surnamed absolutus Theologus hath these verie wordes Indulgentia nobis per Scripturam minimè innotuit licet inducatur illud Apostoli si quid donavi vobis sednec per dicta antiquorum Doctorum sed modernorum The Popes pardons saith the Popes owne deare Doctor were never knowen to us by the Scriptures although some alleadge Saint Paul for that purpose neither were they knowen by the auncient Fathers but onely by late writers Antoninus in his first part hath the verie wordes alreadie cited and holdeth the selfe same opinion with fryer Sylvester Petrus Lombardus who with great diligence collected into one volume all worthie sentences of the auncient fathers and therefore was surnamed the Master of sentences maketh no mention of the Popes pardons at all as which he could not finde notwithstanding his painefull industrie imployed in that kinde of exercise For as Sylvester truly writeth the olde writers were not acquainted with any such thing The like may be said of S Cyprian S. Augustine S. Hierome Nazianzene and others of antiquitie for which cause Durand Caietain and sundrie other schoolemen affirme the popes manner of pardoning to be a newe thing in the Church of God Neither can Dominicus Soto deny the same indeede albeit he busieth him selfe more then a little in the Popes defence if it would be Yea the originall of popish pardoning is so very young as their famous martyr and bishop M. Fisher in his aunswere to M. Luthers articles was enforced to admit the newnesse and young age of the same and to yeeld this reason in defence thereof to wit that purgatorie was not so well knowne at that time to the Church as it is nowe which saying I weene is true indeede because purgatorie and pardous were not heard of in olde time and nowe onely knowen by vaine grosse and sensuall imaginations O worthie pardons O brave purgatorie O holy pope of Rome what stronge reasons what forcible arguments what grave authorities are alleadged in your behalfe Let us heare with attention the finall resolution hereof set down by Sylvester and Antoninus for their holy father the pope Quia inquiunt Ecclesia hoc facit servat credendum est ita esse Because the Church this doeth and thus observeth we must beleeve that it is so Loe a short and sweete conclusion as if they should say though we can proove the popes pardons neither by Scriptures nor by fathers nor by reasons yet must we beleeve them because the Church that is the pope saith so who can not erre which saying gentle Reader both hath bene and is the sole and onely foundation of all notorious Papistry The 4. Conclusion THE Popes manner of pardoning argueth aswell inordinate affection of filthie lucre as also want of charitie His want of charitie is prooved and convinced in that he can deliver as his religion teacheth all soules out of purgatorie with his word and neverthelesse suffereth them to abide most bitter torments so many yeeres in that affliction For the papistes holde that the paines of purgatorie are as great and painefull as be the torments of hell and that they differ accidentally in this only because the paines of purgatorie shall once have an ende but the paines of hell never Thus writeth Sylvester Prieras Sicut potest Papa liberare à poena peccatorum debita in hoc mundo omnes qui sunt in mundo si faciant quod mandat etiamsi essent millies plures quà m sunt it a liberare potest omnes qui sunt in purgatorio siquis pro eis faciat quod iubet As the Pope can deliver al in this world from paine due for sinne in this world if they doe that which he appointeth though they were thousands more then they be even so can he deliver all that are in purgatorie if any doe that for them which he commandeth and lest any man should thinke that impossible or a verie difficult matter which the Pope requireth to be done Sylvester in another place telleth us that it is a thing most easie These be his wordes Indulgentiae simplicitèr tantum valent quantum praedicantur modò exparte dantis sit autoritas ex parte recipientis charitas ex parte causae pietas Pardons are simply worth so much as they are preached so there be autoritie in the giver charity in the receiver piety in the cause or motive But so it is that the souls in purgatory be in charity by popish confession for else they could not be out of hel and that the pope hath authoritie as also that he graunteth his Pardons for good and godly causes I suppose no Papist will denie if they doe my argument is the stronger and my selfe shall easily agree there to Bartholomaeus Fumus confirmeth this point when he thus writeth Papa posset liberare omnes animas Purgatorij etiamsiplures essent si quis pro eis faceret quod iuberet peccaret tamen indiscretè concedendo The Pope could set at libertie all the soules of Purgatorie though never so many if any would doe that for them which he appointed marrie he should sinne by his undiscreete pardoning And the popish schole-doctor Viguerius proceedeth further and avowcheth it to be neither inconvenient nor against the justice of God these are his expresse wordes Nec est inconveniens quòd Papa Purgatorium posset evacuare non enim per hoc aliquid detraheretur Divinae iustitiae Neither is it inconvenient that the Pope can harrowe hell for that doeth nothing derogate from the iustice of God Nowe to say that he can this doe but yet doeth it not to keepe him selfe from sinne is altogether vaine and frivolous For first he should no more sinne in delivering all then he doeth in setting one onely at libertie as is alreadie prooved by Sylvester and Viguerius Againe plenarie Pardons are so common at the houre of death as none that either have friendes or money are or can be destitute thereof which yet is a poynt more undiscreete then the other by their owne
purgatorie and yet by vvay of suffrage no such thing can bee assured no more then vvhen an other devoute papist shall offer vp his prayers for them vvhich thing seemed so to trouble Bellarminus that in his written dictates hee knovveth not vvell vvhat to holde or vvrite concerning romish pardons Thirdly because the pope can not applie Christs satisfaction more effectuallie to them by his pardoning then the same is applied to them by the saying of masse as vvhich by popish religion is the selfe same sacrifice reallie that vvas offered vpon the crosse and yet doth no papist saye or thinke that our saying of masse can or vvil deliuer his friends soule from purgatory For othervvise there vvould not be so many masses said so many times for the selfe same persons as hath beene and is daily seen amongst the papists For to this end doe they celebrate and obserue yerely anniuersaries for soules departed 10. 20. 30. 40. 60. yeares before vvhich the pope cardinals and monkes had taught the people to frequent as most necessarie for their friends soules in purgatorie Fourthly because it cannot be proued that after God hath pardoned our sinnes and the eternall paine due for the same there still remaineth some temporal paine remissible by the popes pardons Fiftly because al the three thinges required of papistes in popish pardoning are most firm certaine and readie in the soules of purgatorie to vvit auctoritie in thhe giuer charitie in the receiuer and the cause of pietie For first the soules of purgatorie bee in charitie as all papistes confesse as vvho othervvise could neuer be saued 2 Secondly it is mere crueltie not to helpe the faithful in such vvofull case Thirdlie if they denie the popes auctoritie I vvill vvillinglie denie it vvith them though he accurse me as hee hath alreadie done for my paines For I nothing doubt but God of his great mercie vvill conuert his curse to my greater ioy and blisse And here because the Seminaries neuer ceasse to boast in corners amongest the simple that none in this realme dareth to dispute with them I offer publique dispute with what seminarie in England soeuer he be no one or other excepted who soeuer so it may stand vvith the honourable licence and good liking of higher povvers whose mindes I am of dutie bound to obay in that behalfe For I nothing doubt if my option may bee graunted but that it will tend to the glorie of God the service of my soveraigne the honour of my countrie the edification of the auditours and the comfort of myne owne soule The reason is for that I know verie sufficientlie the foundations groundes auctorities and reasons of both sides and vvithal behold as in a glasse of christall the euident confutation of all whatsoeuer can possibly bee said in defense of papistrie which if I had not first seene I had neuer departed from popish doctrine The 7. Conclusion IF the popes pardons be not of so great force and worth so much as they are said and preached to be then is the popes religion vaine and of no credite at all This proposition both is and must be graunted of all papistes if they will defend their now professed Romish religion Thomas Aquinas whose doctrine and bookes divers popes haue approoved for good and godly writeth thus Ecclesia praedicando indulgentias non mentitur ita tantum valent quantum praedicantur sicut enim dicit Augustinus si in sacra Scriptura deprehenditur aliquid falsitatis iam robur authoritatis sacrae Scripturae perit Et similiter si in praedicatione ecclesiae aliqua falsitas deprehenderetur non essent documenta Ecclesiae alicuius autboritatis adroborandam fidem The Church preaching pardons doth not lie and so they are worth no lesse then they are preached For as Augustine saith if in holy Scripture any falshood be found euen then the full authoritie of holy scripture perisheth utterly And in like manner if in the preaching of the Church any falshood should be found the doctrine of the Church shoulde not be of any force to establish our faith These are the wordes of their canonized saint and renowmed doctour Aquinas which shewe unto us so plainely as more plainely nothing can be told that if the Church of Rome erre in any one point as in giving pardons or such like then must we giue no credit to it in other pointes of religion Neither is this the opinion of Aquinas onely but their other great Thomist Dominicus Soto singeth the same song These be his wordes Alij dixerunt indulgentias nihil prorsus valere nisi quantum unusquisque devotione sua faciendo quodindulgentia praecipit moeretur Attamen isti seu blasphemi non sunt audiendi sanè qui authoritatem Ecclesiae infringunt si enim de hac re nos Ecclesia seduceret nulla ei esset in reliquis adhibenda fides Some said that pardons were no more woorth at all then every man doeth merite by his owne devotion But these fellowes are to be reiected as blasphemous because they infringe the authoritie of the Church for if the Church should in this point seduce us then were there no credite to be given unto it in other pointes These are the expresse wordes of the Popes owne and best Doctors Aquinas and Soto whose testimonies with that which is said in other conclusions disable altogether the authoritie and religion of the Church of Rome For if the Church of Rome deceive us in her pardons as is sufficiently prooved that she hath done then is she not to be credited in other things as both Aquinas and Soto tell us whose doctrine the pope yea sundry Popes of Rome have confirmed THE COROLLARIE FIRST therefore since the Popes pardons be foolish and repugnant to common sence Secondly since the veritie and efficacie of pardons be so uncerten as the best learned Papistes can not tell what to say or write thereof Thirdly since to give pardons as the Pope doeth is a strange and new thing as which neither Christ nor his Apostles ever taught or practised Fourthly since the Popes manner of pardoning ordinarie popish practise considered is most absurd Fiftly since the Popes pardons in Romish doctrine are reputed aequivalent with holy martyrdome Sixtly since the Popes pardons be not such nor so forcible as they are preached to be Seventhly since the foundation of Popish pardons is blasphemous and derogatorie to Christes passion Eightly since the Pope taketh upon him by his pardons to deliver soules from purgatorie which he can not perfourme Nynthly since Aquinas Soto and Sylvester his owne renowmed Doctors doe affirme that if the Pope preach falsely in his pardons all his other doctrine is false and naught I conclude that it is a sufficient motive for me to renounce the Romish religion as false erronious and pernicious doctrine Thus much of the first Motive THE THIRD CHAP ter Of the Popes maners Faith and Religion ALbeit concerning Sanctimonie of life and honest conversation
iurisdiction against their naturall dread Soueraignes For they sweare to defend the popes vsurped authoritie against all people none excepted which his vsurped authoritie as you haue partlie heard and shall heare more at large in the sixt Chapter following extendeth it selfe to the translation of kingdomes empyres and regalities The Corollarie FIrst therefore since generall counsels in these daies are nothing else but a meere subtiltie to deceiue Gods people withal 2 Secondely since the said councels decree all together against the holy Ghost 3 Thirdly since Popes take vpon them to approue or disproue councels at their pleasures 4 Fourthlie since by popish doctrine councels can iudge and depose popes 5 Fiftly since councels bee as a nose of waxe and as vncertaine as the vveathercocke 6 Sixtly since appeales may be made vnto councels from the Pope though the pope denie the same 7 Seauenthly since the popes doctrine can not be mainteined but by extorted othes I conclude that it is a sufficient motive for mee to renounce the mish religion as false erroneous and pernitious doctrine Thus much of the third Motyve THE FIFT CHAPTER Of the Popes Dispensations THe enormities in popish dispensations are such so great and so manie that if I should receite all time would sooner faile mee then matter wherof to speake I will therefore at this present content my selfe with some fevv reseruing the residue till more conuenient time The 1. Conclusion THE pope vsually dispenseth vvith professed Monkes that they may marrie lawfullie which dispensation is not onely against the lavve divine with them but flatlye against the Popes owne religion In this conclusion three thinges are to be proued 1 First that the pope doth dispense as is said 2 Secondly that his dispensation is against the law diuine 3 Thirdly that it is against his owne religion For the first part Navarrus writeth in this maner Papa potest dispensare cum monacho iam professo vt contrahat matrimonium imò de facto multi papae dispensarūt Consentit ipse Caietanus Antoninus Paludanus The pope may dispense vvith a Monke alreadie professed that hee may take a wife and marrie for many popes de facto haue dispensed so Caietanus Antoninus and Palludanus are of the same opinion For the second point Victoria writeth thus Multitenent quod Papa non potest dispensare in votis quia dispensatio proprie est relaxatio iuris vnde cum sit de ture divino dispensatio erit iuris divini relaxatio quod sane ad papam non spectat vtinam haec opinio non sit vera Many hold that the Pope can not properlie dispense in vowes because dispensation properly is the relaxation of the Lavv. wherevpon since a vow is of the law divine dispensation must bee remission of the lavv divine which thing doubtles belongeth not vnto the Pope and would to God this opinion were not true Loe this religious Frier is so zealouslie affected towards the popes credite that he vvisheth the opinion which overthrovveth his practise were not true And the Popes famous Canonist Covarruvias writeth to the same effect in these vvords Nec me latet D. Thomam previa maxima deliberatione asserere Rom. Pontificem non posse propria dispensatione continentiae solemne Monachorum votum tollere paulo post oportet tamen primam opinionem defendere ne quae passim fiant evertantur omnino Neither am I ignorant that Saint Thomas affirmeth after greate deliberation that the Bishoppe of Rome can not vvith his dispensation take away from Monkes their solemne vowe of chastitie This notwithstanding vvee muste defende the first opinion lest those things vvhich are practised euery where be utterly overthrowne thus saith the great Canonist and reverend popish bishop Covarruvias out of whose wordes sundrie things may be noted worthy the observation First that the papistes cannot agree about the Popes authority Secondly that great learned papistes among whome Thomas Aquinas is one whose doctrine sundry Popes haue confirmed doe denie the Popes authoritie in the premisses Thirdly that the contrary opinion must be defended for the honestie and safegard of the popes religion Fourthly that most miserable is the Popes doctrine which needeth such poore and beggerly shiftes for the maintenance thereof Fiftly that the papists haue no cause so to exclaime against priests mariage since the Pope dispenseth with his monkes to marry at their pleasures For the mariage of priestes is onely prohibited by the Popes law but the marriage of monkes by the law divine as the Popes owne deare doctours Victoria and Aquinas tell us Sixtly that Aquinas his doctrine which the Pope hath approoved confuteth the Popes religion For the third point Thomas Aquinas giveth this testimony out of the Popes owne law Abdicatio proprietatis sicut etiam custodia castitatis adeo annexa est regulae monachali ut contra eānec summus Pontifex possit indulgere The renouncing of propertie as also the keeping of chastitie is so annexed to the rule of monkes that the Pope him selfe cannot dispence against the same this saying of Thomas Aquinas is found verbatim in the popes canons Extra destatu monachorum cum ad monasterium The 2. Conclusion THe Pope often pronounceth matrimony dissolved by his dispensations which is firme and stable by Christes owne institution The first part is prooved by Martinus Navarrus in these words Dividitur matrimonium ante consummationem per dispensationem Papae iusta de causa factam Matrimonie is dissolved before consummation by the popes dispensation vpon iust cause graunted And a litle after he hath these wordes Quorum opinio adeo observatur quodetiam ter vel quater adpetitiones consilio meo antequam in urbem venissem oblatas Paulus 3. Pius 4. per suas dispensationes dissolverunt quaedam matrimonia omnino clandestina nondum consummata in remedium animarum alioquin probabiliter periturarum whose opinion he speaketh of the Canonistes who generally are of his owne opinion is so observed that thrise or foure times before my comming to Rome upon petitions made by my advise Pope Paulus the third and pope Pius the fourth with their dispensations dissolved certen secret matrimonies not yet consummate for the safegard of soules which by likelihood woulde otherwise haue perished And Covarruvias affirmeth Paulus the fourth and Iulius the third to haue dispensed in like maner these be his words Nec me latet Paulum quartum summum ecclesiae Pontificem Ann. 1558. hac vsum fuisse dispensatione quibusdam ex causis quas iustissimas esse idem summus ecclesiae praesul existimavit idem paulo ante Iulius 3. fecerat in eodem matrimonio cum ecclesiae vniversali praesideret Neither am I ignorant that Pope Paulus the 4. put this dispensation in practise for certaine causes which the same Pope thought to be most iust Iulius the third when he was Pope graunted in like cause the same dispensation The
most excellent Maiestie that nowe is appointeth Bishops and Priests so king Iosaphat appointed Priestes and Levites so king Salomon appointed Sadock 2 Secondly as her Maiestie deposeth Priests so king Salomon deposed Abiathar 3 Thirdly as her Maiestie commandeth her Bishops in Englande to preach the Gospell to administer the Sacraments to reforme abuses and to execute censures Ecclesiasticall according to the Scriptures so commanded king Iosaphat his Priests in Ierusalem to decide all controversies arising about the lawe about commandements about ceremonies about iustifications and to teach his people their duetie therein 4 Fourthly as king Iosaphat appointed Amarias ruler in spiritual causes and Zabadias governour in secular affaires distinguishing their offices and limiting their iurisdictions so doth her Maiestie referre Ecclesiasticall affayres to her cleargie men and matters of state to her secular lords neither confounding their functions nor disabling their persons 5 Fiftly as King Iosaphat did neither beare the Arke nor burne incense nor offer vp sacrifice nor initiate his priests so neither doth her Maiestie preach the Gospell administer the Sacraments consecrate her Bishops or personally execute any Churchly function And therefore are the Iesuite Bellarmine his words most absurd when he saith Et iam reipsa Calvinistis in Anglia mulier quaedam est summus pontifex And nowe in very deede a woman is Pope of the Calvinists in Englande Hee might more probably have saide that a woman was once Pope to Romish Iesuits his brethren For so much he may read this day painted vpon the Church walles in Syenna which in the late repairing of that famous Church the Bishop would not suffer to be defaced albeit the Iesuits made such request vnto him I will omit to speake of king David king Iosias king Ezechias and others who all practised like iurisdiction in Ecclesiasticall affaires one onely text of the Scripture shalbe sufficient with popish glosses vpon the same Thus therefore is it written by the holy Prophet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To thee to thee alone haue I sinned Where the gemination of to thee after the Hebrew manner and custome argueth the vehemencie of the subiection and gravitie of the trespasse that is David beeing king sinned onely to the king of all kings God him selfe Which Euthimius in his glosse vpon the same words confirmeth in this manner Tibi soli peccavi cum sim rex te solum commissorum à me scelerum iudicem habeam tibi soli peccasse videor hoc est tibi soli iudici subiicior caeterorum enim omniū ego dominus sum ob potentiam meam licere mihi videntur quaecunque libuerint To thee onely have I sinned because beeing a king and having thee onely iudge over my trespasses I seeme to haue sinned to thee only that is I am onely subiect to thee as to my iudge For I am lord over all others and in respect of my magnificence whatsoever doth please me seemeth to be lawfull for me Raynerius Snoygoudanus and divers others have set downe the like interpretation vpon this portion of Scripture The popish glosse vpon the same text hath these words Tibi soli quia rex omnibus superior tantum à deo puniendus est To thee onely because the king is above all men and can onely be punished of God Nicolaus Lyranus a man of no small account with the papists glosseth the said text in this manner Tibi solipeccavi scilicet tanquam iudici punire potenti peccaverat enim contra Vriam alios occasione huius interfectos tamen quia er at rex non habebat iudicem superiorem qui posset eum punire nisi Deum To thee onely have I sinned that is to say to thee onely as to the iudge and him that can punnish For he had no we sinned against Vrias and others whom he caused to be murdered by that occasion but because he was a King he had no superiour iudge that could punnish him save God alone What can be more plainly spoken for if none but God be superiour to the King if none but God can iudge the King if none but God cā punish the King all which the Popes owne doctours affirme then doubtles can not the Pope depose the King The King therefore by popish resolution is greater and above the Pope Yea which is wonderful Thomas Aquinas who is as it were the platforme and patterne or Idaea according to which the Popes of late yeares doe fashion and frame their lawes and whose doctrine is as the Gospell with the Papists doth confirme Lyra his exposition in these words Tibi soli peccavi dicit glossa quodrex non habèt hominem qui sua fact a diiudicet sed quantum ad vim directivam legis princeps subditur legi propria voluntate To thee onely have I sinned the glosse saith the King hath no man that can iudge his doings but yet touching the directive force of the lawe the Prince is subiect of his owne accord vnto the law Which Victoria vttereth wisely and learnedly in these words Leges latae à rep obligant omnes ergo etiam sifer antur à rege obligant ipsum regem confirmatur quia in aristocr atico principatu senatus consulta obligant ipsos senatores auctores illorum in populari regimine plebiscit a obligant ipsum populum ergo similiter leges regiae obligant ipsum regem licet sit voluntarium regi condere legem tamen non est in voluntate sua non obligari aut obligari sicut in pactis libere enim qui squis paciscitur pactis tamen tenetur Lawes which the common-weale maketh binde all therefore if the King make them they binde him also And it is confirmed because in the aristocraticall government the lawes of the senate binde the fenatours the auctors thereof and in popular regiment the decrees of the common people binde the people ergo in like manner the kings laws binde the king And although the king make lawes voluntarie yet is it not in his will to be bound or vnbound as in covenants for every one maketh covenants voluntarily and yet is every one bound by his covenants Ambrose who freeth Kings from all lawes made by man shall conclude this point Thus doth he write Qui tenentur legibus audent suum neg are peccatum de dignantur rogare indulgentiam quam petebat qui nullis tenebatur legibus humanis They that are bound to lawes dare denie their sinne and disdaine to aske forgivenesse which he desired that was bound to no law of man And againe he saith Rex vtique erat nullis ipse legibus tenebatur neque enim vllis adpoenam vocantur legibus tuti imperij potestate homini ergo non peccavit cui non tenebatur obnoxius He was in deede a king he was bound to no lawes for kings beeing free by the power of Empyre are not punnished by any lawes He therefore finned not to
1. de verbo dei cap. 4. Aries Montanus in cap. 6. Matt. Bellar. lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. cap. 27. Bellar. vbi sup Dist. 16. cap. 6. Bellar. lib. 2. de conciliis cap. 19. Bellar. lib. 2. de Missa cap. 16. Epist. 1. Clementis ad Jacobum fratrem dom 1. concil 3. Esd. cap. 4. vers 42. Aug. dever fals poenit cap. 17. Ezech. 33. See the 13. orticle of dissention cap. 8. and the words of Couarruvias in the 5. chap. 1. conclusion These Capuchenes are yet in Rome Zanch. de natur dei lib. 5. cap. 2. part 2. q. 6. Zanch vti supra Cap. dubium de haeret Nauarr cap. 11. parag 18. Barthol fumus de haeres parag 17. Iosephus Angles in 4. s. q. 7. de Eucharist 8. diffic Aquinas p. 3. q. 76. art 4. Cap. Quicunque de haeret lib. 6. Victor relect 4. de potest Papae concilij proposit 16. Pius 4. in bulla synod Trident Aug. epist. 48 ad Vincent Tom. 2. A point worthie to be wel considered as which greatly respecteth our case in England God grant that others may perceiue it as I hauedone Hier. in psa 99 Bellar. lib. 3. de Rom. pont cap. 3. Soto in 4. lib. Petr. Lombardi dist 19. quaest 3. arg 2 Angelus de indulgentia Sylvester de indulgent Sylvester de indulg Antoninus part 1. rit 10. cap. 3. Lombardus could not find the Popes pardons in the holy fathers Soto in 4. sent dist 21. quaest 1. art 3. Roffensis contra artic Luther Sylvester Antoninus ubi supra Sylvester ubi supr Par. 7. Sylvester ubi supr Par. 7. Barthol Fumus de Papa Par. 11. Viguerius de Sacrament ordinis in fine Sylvester de indulg Pat 4. Soto in 4. sent dist art 2. Here would I learne why the Queenes Mai estie may not employ Abbeyes to the maintenance of the whole Realm with suppression of abuses as well as the Pope may bestow the same upon irreligious and idle Cardinals Sylvester de indulgent Par. 4. Iosephus Angles in 4. sent quaest de indulg holdeth the selfe same opinion Tho. Aquinas in supplem quaest 25. art primo The Popes power as great as Christes 1. Iohan. 2. 2. Matth. 3. 17. 1. Iohan. 1. 7 8. Heb. 10. 14. Osee. 13. 4. Esa. 43. 25. Esa. 53. 5. Angser 141. de tempor Tom. 10. Angelus de indulgent Par. 9. Mayro in 4. sent dist 19. Durand in 4. sent dist 20. Rom. Cap. 8. vers 18. Marke well the word Passions Glossa interlin ibidem Lyranus in cap. 8. ad RoÌ„ Lyranus vbi supra Note well the confutatioÌ„ of Lyra his distinction 1 2 3 4 1 Iacobis v. 17 Aquinas p. 1. q. 114. ar 3. ad 3 Dionys. Carthus lib. 1. orthod fid ar 156. Areop dc diuin nominib apud Carthus Beda in c. 8. ad Rom. Durand in 3. sent dist 20. in 4. d. 15. Soto de nat grat lib. 3. c. 6. Arist. lib. 8 ethic cap 7 Esai c. 6â— v. 6. 2. Cor. 3. v. 5 1 Cor. 12. v. 4 Luk. cap 7. vers 10. Aquinas in 3. part q. 1. ar 2. 2 m. Loc here is a misterie for not sufficient is sufficient Sylvest de in-dulg par 33. Soto in 4 sent d. 21. q. 1. ar 2. prope finem Aug. lib. 9. confess ca. 13. Io. de Combis lib. 5. theol verit cap. 11. Mat. 16. v. 19. Richard de Mediavilla in 4. sent dist 3. q. 3. dist apud mag 20. extra de pe re A quin. in supplement 3. part q. 25. art 2. in corpore Soto in 4. sent dist 21. q. 2. art 1. Carranza in summa Conc. fol. 354. fol. 355. Lo the Popes owne deare Doctor can not denie errors to be in the Church of Rome Platina in vita Rom. primi pag. 147. Platina in vita Sergii 3. pag. 148. Platina in vita Christopheri primi Carranza in summa conciliorum fol. 354. Platina in vita Sylvestri 3. Platina in vita Damasi 2. Carranza ubi supra fol. 355. Platina in vita Ioan. 18. Carranza ubi supra fol. 369. Soto in 4. sent dist 22. q. 2. art 2. Sylvester in Papa Par. 4. 2. Quaest. 7. cap. Oves Dist. 40. cap. si Papa Ioseph Angl. in 4. sent part 2. quaest de excommunicat art 4. diffic 1. 8. Conc. Constant act 7. Canus de locis Theolog. lib. 6. cap. ult Viguerius de virtute fidei cap. 10. Par. 3. vers 13. As we read of Anastasius Lyranus in cap. 16. Matt. 10. Gerson in ser. de pasch tom 4. Of Pope Iohn 1 2 3 4 5 Alphonsus de Castro lib. 3. adversus haereses prope finem 1 2 3 4 5 Alphons lib. 1. cap. 4. advers haereses â—â— Pope Celestus 1 2 3 Of pope Nicolas de consecrat dist 4. cap. a quodaÌ„ Iudaeo De consecr dist 4 cap. multi De consecr dist 4. cap. in synodo Iosephus Angles de forma baptismi ar 4. coÌ„clus 3. Platina in vitis pontificum Argumentum ad hominem where is now their character indelibilis Bellarminus lib. 4. de Rom. poÌ„tifice cap. 2. Loe the doctrine of the best learned papistes is good and altogether against the popedom 5 6 Bellarm. lib. 4 de Rom. Pont. cap. 7 Bellerminus is confuted 1 2 3 4 Canus lib. 5 de auctor Conc cap. 5. To what ende are Councels when everie thing must be as the Pope saith at home Bellarm. lib. 1 de Conciliis cap. 19 Mark what the Popes vassal saith Conc. Triden de reformatione Sess. 8. p. 46. 9. Behold here the magnificeÌ„ce of popish Councels Conc. Triden Sess. 8. de reformatione Conc. Triden sess 8. Can. 1 de matimon Sess. 8. Can. 4 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 Victoria rele 7. de matrim pag. 280. Victor de potest Papae Concil relect 4. ad S. p. 133 Victor ubi suprà 4 Psal. 75 Eccl. 5 Angelus de mattimon imped 5 5 6 Conc. Triden de mat Sess. 8. can 6. Conc. Triden Sess. 8. in init The Councel that dissolveth which it confesseth to indissoluble Victor relect 4. de potest Papae Con. ad 5. Arg. pag. 132 Victor ubi suprà concil 2 pag. 133. Panorm in Concil Basil. num 18. apud Vict. pag. 139. Io. Gerson 1. parte tract 3. apud Vict. pag. 138. Iosephus in 4. sentent p. 2. q. de excom art 4. diffic 1. conclus 3. 25. q 1. cap. contra Vict. relict 4. de potest papae concl 20. p. 149. Bellar. de con lib. 2. 1. 14. Cont. Basilensess 33. 25. q. 1. cap. unt quidam Bellar. de conlib 1. cap. 18. Bellar. lib. 2. de concil cap. 11. Mat contradiction in the Iesuite Bellarm. de concil l. 1. c. 21. Idem Bellar. li 2. ca. 11. Canus li. 5. de auct concilii cap. 5. p. 164 Of thâ— popes gravitie and authoritie see at large in the 3. chapter Bellar. lib. 1. de concil cap. vltimo A point worthie the observation The inconstancie of Popish doctrine is the
cause of dissenting from them Victor relect 4. de potest Papae Concilii propos 17. pag. 157. Decret l b. 2. tit 24. cap. 4. Navarrus de iuditiis notab 3. p. 275 victor de potest papae relect 4. ad 3. argument Covarruvias to 1 c. 20. par 11 in med ipsius col prima Necessitie hath no law the popes mind must be obered The popes doings must be defended because otherwise poperie cannot stand 1 2 3 4 5 6 Extra de statu monachorum cum ad mon. Navarr in enchir cap. 22. par 21. Loe how readily the Pope displeaseth God for the pleasure of man Covarruvias tom 1. cap. 7. par 4. n. 13. col 1. Bellar. lib. i. c. 5. de matrim prope finem Victor in relect 4. de potest papae conc pag. 128. ad primum Covarruv to t. par 2. cap. 7. par 4. n. 14. in medio Mat. c. 19. v. 7. Luc. c. 16. v. 18. 1. Cor. 7. v. 10. vvhat an absurd ansvvere is this Canus lib. 8. de locis theol c 5. p. 246. Vide Victor de potest papae p. 128. Soto in 4. dist 27. p. 48. Heb. c. 7. v. 12. Victor de matrim sect 2. relect 7. p. 280 Victor relect 4 de potest papae prop. 1. pag. 126. Aquin. in lib. 3. sent dist 37. art 4. Antoninus de potest papae part 4. tit 22. cap. 3. par 1. I deeme he be in verie deed Levit. 18. 24. Aquinas in 4. sent dist 4. ar 2. Victor relict 4. de potest papae pag. 129. ad 2. Ioseph Angles in 4. S. p. 1. q. 13. ar 3. Allens vvords disloiall Victor de potest papae conc relect 4 p. 139. Vbi supra pag. 149. Loe for spiritual livings matrimonie and such like dispensations are never denied Victor vbi supag 151. Mat. cap. vlc vers 19. Luc. 22. v. 20. Iohn 20. v 23 Mat. 28. v. 18. Mat. 10. v. 1. Mark 3 v. 14. Luc. 6. v. 14. Victor de potest eccles relect 2. conc 3. p. 84. Cypr. de simppraelat p. 113. Covarruvias to 1. part 2. §. 9. pag. 242. col 4. prope finem 1 2 3 4 5 6 Aug. in serm Petr. Pauli apud Canū Aug. in lib. de agone Christ. cap. 30. tom 3. August de verb. dom serm 13. 10. 10. Concil Const. 6. can 36. Conc. Nicen. can 6. Conc. Carth. 6. can 6. Ruffin lib. 10. hist. Eccles. cap. 6. Hier. epist. ad Evagr. tom 3. fol 150. Victor de potest eccles relect 2 conclus 3. pag. 84. Victor de potest Papae concilii relect 4. pag. 157. Ioseph Ang. in 4. sent q. de clavib diffic 2. conclus prima pag. 6. Magna est veritas praevalet 3. Esdrae 4. 42. Const. Conc. Ses. 4. Basil. Conc. Sess. 2. 3. Gal. 2. 7. 3. Reg. 2. vers 27. 35. 2. Par. 19. 8 9. 2. Par. 19. 10. 2. Par. 19. 11. 1. Par. 23. 2. Par. 35. 2. Par. 31. Psal. 51. Euthimius in psal 50. Glossa ordin in psal 50. Lyranus in psal 50. Aquinas 12. quaest 96. ar 5. ad 3. Victor de potest civili relect 3. pag. 120. Ambr. l. de Apolog David cap. 4. Ibidem cap. 10. Gregor lib. 2. epist. exregist indict 11. epist. 62. cap. 100. Victor de potest Eccl. relect 1. sect 6. p. 39. Victor relect quinta de Indis pag. 188 Aquinas 22. quaest 12. ar 2. in corp Soto in 4. dist 5. ar 10. in med art Victor in relect 5. de Indis pag. 193. Iosep. Angles de sacram ord pag. 518. Eccles. 11. 3 4. Matt. 25. 46. Apoc. 14. 13. Cypr. in serm de mortalit circa medium Ambr. tom i. lib. de bono mortis cap. 2. Hier. in Psal. 105. Hier. tom 9. ad Gal. cap. 6. Aug. in Psal. 36. conc 1. Aug. in quaest evang q. 38. to 4. pag. 249. Aug. de fide ad Petrum cap. 3. circa medium Hebr. 1. 2 3. Coloss. 1. 16. Apoc 7. 24. 1. Ioh. 1. 8. 2. Cor. 5. 21. Esai c. 43. v. 25 Esai c. 23. v. 5 Gal. c. 3. v. 13. Aquinas in part 3 q. 15. ar 1. ad 5. Aug. in ps 129. to 8. pag. 1036. Aug. ser. 141. de tempore to 10 Deut. 32. v. 4. Aquinas 3. p. quaest 1. ar 2. ad 2. Aug. l. 5. hypognost vltra med sermo 14. de verb. apost l. 1. c. 28. de peccatorū merit remis Hier. in c. 9. Amos prope med capitis Roffēsis apud Domin Soto in 4. sent dist 21. q. 1. art 3 Luc. c. 23. v. 43. Eccles. c. 14. v. 17. Aquinas 22. q. 13. ar 4. ad 2. 1. p. q. 62. ar 9. corpor Dominic Soto in 4. dist 19 quaest 3. ar 1 ad arg 1. Gal. 6. v. 10. Eccle. c. 9. v 5 Hier. in 9. cap. eclesiastes Cypria contr Demetr in fine Aug. epist. 54 tom 2. in initio Infra cap. 9. per totum 2. Cor. 5. v. 7. 8. 1. Cor. c. 15. v. 17. 18. 1 Pet. 2. v. 22. Iohn c. 17. v. 9. 12. Mat. c. 24. v. 24 Chrysost. in liturg prope finem to 5. p. 1377. In oratione funebri pro Satyro to 3. in fine In oratione funeb pro Theod. to 3. p. 52. Ambr. de obitu Valent. p. 12. to 3. Ambt. vbi supra de sing Ambrosius vbi sup Let this be wel noted In missa requiem pro defunctis Soto in 4. dist 19. q. 2. ar 5. in fine Roffensis art 32. advers Luther pag. 328. Ioan. Gers. de vita spirituali lect 1. p. 3. in 1. corollar Bellar. de Rō Pontif. cap. 21. Legendus est Ioseph Ang. sup cap. 7. ar s Aug. l. 22. c. 27. contra faustū Ioseph Angl. in 4. sent part 3. p. 215. Mat. 12. v. 36. This reason convinceth doubtles Bellar. lib. 2. de purgat c. 1. in fine Soto in 4. s. dist 19. q. 3. Idē habeturd 25. can qualis A quini 12. q. 89 ar 2. ad 4. Ioseph Ang. in 4. senten de sacr poenit pag. 219. 1 Hier. in epist ad Chromatium Heliodorum de lib. Solomonis Cyprian in expos Symb. Aug. contra 2. Gaudentii epist. lib. 2. cap. 23. tom 7. Bryto in Prolog Mach. 2 3 1 2 2. Mac. 1. 19. 3 2. Mach. 1. 1. Mach. 9. 4 1. Mach. 6. 2. Mach. 1. 5 2. Mach. 15. 2. Mach. 14. 37. 6 7 Tit. cap. 1. 12. 1. Cor. 15. 33. Acts 17. 28. Arias Mont. in cap. 6. Mat. vers 13. 2. Mach. 12. 43. This Toledo was pope Gregories preacher adviser in al important Ecclesiasticall causes Bellar. lib. 1. de clericis ca. 19. Dist. 56. cap. cenomanēsē Dist. 56. cap. Osius Ioseph Ang. in 4. sent de sacrament poenit p. 219. Navarr ca. 21. n. 34. in ench Gerso de vita spirituali lect 1. circa mediū part 3. Navar. in enchir cap. 18. n. 61. cap. 25. n. 43. Durand in 4. sent dist 26. q. 3. Sylvest de papa num 10. Sylvest de papa num 14. Bellar.