in the nature of the thing but only by the mercie of God in that it pleased the maiestie of God to assigne eternall paine for the one and temporall for the other For both of them deserve eternall paine of their owne nature because they are against God And in another place the same Iosephus writeth in this manner Durandus tamen alij permulti hanc sententiam impugnant affirmantes peccata venialia esse contra mandata haec opinio videtur modò in scholis communior But Durand and many others impugne this opinion auouching veniall sinnes to be against the commaundement and this opinion now adaies seemeth to be more common in the scholes where note by the way out of the word modo now adaies the mutabilitie of tomish religion THE NINTH ARTICLE of Dissention THe councell of Trent Thomas Aquinas Bellarminus and manie other papistes affirme matrimonie to be properlie a sacrament of the new testament and to conferre grace But Durand denieth it either to give grace or to be properlie a sacrament So Alphonsus a Castro and Petrus a Soto denie it to bee properlie a sacrament of the new Iawe And Melchior Canus having sundrie others of his opinion as he saith holdeth matrimonie to be a sacrament yet not everie matrimonie to be so but only that matrimonie which is celebrated a ministro ecclesiastico sacris et solennibus verbis by the minister of the church in sacred and solemne words The like dissention is among Papistes about the matter and forme of the said sacrament For Iosephus Angles reciteth fiue severall opinions for and concerning this one point of popish doctrine And Melchior Canus beholdeth such varietie in this matter as he reputeth him a mad man that wil beleeve their sayings whose words for better credite sake are these Lege magistrum D. Tho. Scotum Bonav Richard Palud Durand caetero sque scholae theologos nisi statim eorum pendentes ac vacillantes animos deprehenderis tum vero me aut stultum aut temerarium iudicato Nam cum quaerunt an matrimonium conferat gratiam id quod maxime eo loco finiendum erat non definiunt tamen sed in his referunt quae in hominum opinione sunt posita In materia item forma huius sacramenti statuenda adeo sunt inconstantes varij adeo incerti ambigui vt ineptus futurus sit qui in tanta illorum varietate discrepantia rem aliquam certam constantem exploratam conetar efficere Read the master S. Thomas Bonaventure Richardus Paludanus Durandus and other schoole divines if by and by thou doest not perceiue their wavering and doubtfull mindes then iudge me either a foole or a rash fellow For when they enquire if matrimonie confer grace that which was especially to be defined that define they not at all but onely tell what others thinke therein and in determining the matter and forme of this sacrament they are so unconstant and various so uncerten and ambiguous that he may be deemed a foole who in such their variety and dissent will establish any constant doctrine Here gentle reader thou maiest behold the dissention of papistes even in their sacraments and matters mostimportant The tenth Article of dissention PAnormitanus Abulensis Gerson Almaine Cusanus with all the fathers of the counsell assembled at Constance affirme every generall councell to be aboue the Pope as I haue proved in the 4. chapter and third conclusion But all our Dominicanes Iesuites and seminaries doe with open mouthes avouch the contrarie as their writings and experience this day teacheth vs. The eleventh article of dissension THe Iesuites and seminaries tell us that the Church consisteth in those popes who sit by materiall succession in Peters chaire at Rome how badde soever their lives be and how erroneous soever be their private opinions but their owne great doctour Nich. Lyranus doth sharpely impugne that their sottish assertion telling them that many popes have forsaken the christian faith and become atheists therefore that the church doth not consist in the materiall succession of men but in the faith of Peter and doctrine which he preached Read his words in the third chapter and fourth conclusion The like dissention is amongst papists about the popes dispensation in matrimonio ratonon consummato as is alreadie prooved in the fifth chapter read and peruse the chapter The twelfth Article of dissention MAny papists as Aquinas Richardus Paludanus Marsilius pope Gregorie all his canonists do hold that a simple priest by vertue of the popes dispensation may lawfully and effectually minister their sacrament of confirmation VVhich opinion Covarruvias recordeth and iustifieth in these wordes Tertio probatur simplicem sacer dotem posse ex Rom. pontificis dispensatione sacramentum hoc confirmationis ministrare auctoritate D. Gregorij qui permittit vere concedit licentiam presbyteris ubi desunt Episcopi ministrandi sacramentum confirmationis quod si fieri iure non posset vir doctissimus sanctissimus minime permisisset It is prooved thirdly that a simple priest may vpon the popes grant administer this sacrament of confirmation by S. Gregories authoritie who permitteth and indeed giveth license unto priestes where bishops want to doe the same But his opinion and practise is stoutly impugned by other great papistes to wit Bonaventura Alphonsus Durandus Scotus Maior and pope Hadrian who all avouch that pope Gregorie was a man and therefore might erre and erred indeed egregiously what greater and more important dissention can be then this for confirmation is a sacrament with the papistes The thirteenth article of dissention ALbertus Magnus Thomas Aquinas Ioannes Maior Bonaventura Almain Richardus and other papistes affirme that every of their 7. orders is a sacrament VVhereupon I might inferre right consequently that the papistes have by iustnumber 13. sacraments in all But their Durand doeth reiect this common opinion as foolish and improbable Yea Victoria Iosephus Angles Caietanus and Petrus Lombardus their master of sentences are no small patrones of Durandus his opinion Iosephus Anglus writeth thus Non est erroneum affirmare cum Dur ando solam or dinationem sacerdotis esse sacramentum ordinis reliquas vero ordinationes sacramentalia esse quia Ecclesia hactenus non declaravit oppositum neque eius opinio scripturae sacrae sanctorum auctoritatibus contradicit It is not erroneous to affirme with Durande that onely priesthood is a sacrament and that the sixe other are meere sacramentals because the Church hitherto hath not declared the contrarie neither is this opinion contrary to holy scripture or to the doctrine of the fathers Victoria hath these wordes Sienim aliqui ordines non sunt iuris divini ut certo constat deminoribus non est dubitandum quin collatio illorum committi possit non Episcopo For if some orders be not de iure divino as it is certen of
the lesser orders there is no doubt but the collation thereof may be committed to him that is no bishop And in another place the said Victoria saith thus Opinio Durandi Caietani est probabilissima scilicet quod solum sacerdotium est sacramentum vel saltem quod quatuor minores non sunt sacramentum The opinion of Durand and Caietane is most probable to witte that onely priesthood is a sacrament or at the least that the foure lesser orders are not a sacrament And a little after he telleth us that pope Vrbanus and Innocentius are of the same opinion These be his wordes Innocentius vir doctissimus allegans Vrbanum papam dicit Vrbanus ait quod solum presbyteratus diaconatus sunt sacri ordines quodilli solum leguntur fuisse in primitiva Ecclesia Innocentius a very learned pope affirmeth with pope Vrbane that onely priesthood and deaconship are holy orders and that they only were in the primitiue Church The fourteenth article of dissention COvarruvias having alledged many writers touching the exemption of Clergie-men frō secular iudgements hath these wordes Quorum omnium ea est concors sententia quodhaec clericorum exemptio sit omnino iuris divini cut per humanam legem derogari non possit VVho all hold this opinion constantly that this exemption of Clerkes is wholly of the law divine from which mans lawe can not derogate Yet as saith the said Covarruvias in the same place the contrary opinion is defended of many other papistes to wit of Aquinas Medina Alciatus Innocentius and others so doubtfull is their popish doctrine The like dissention is about the conception of our Lady for the pope and his Iesuites hold that she was conceived without sinne and therefore doe they celebrate the day of her conception but Aquinas whose docttine sundry popes have confitmed defendeth constantly the contrary opinion And all Thomistes take part with him some few excepted The fifteenth article of dissention IT is a constant position with the papistes as which is lately defined bytheir councell of Trent that no man knoweth himselfe to be in the favour of God yet doth their religious bishop Amb. Catharinus oppose him selfe with tooth naile against the same as appeareth evidently to such as list to read them by the bitter invective treatises betwene Dominicus Soto him concerning morall good acts The Scotistes hold that we can keepe all the commandements quoad substantiam operis the Thomistes say wee can doe some but not all their great schooleman Gregorius holdes that we can doe none at all The sixteenth Article of dissention THat the Emperour Constantine was baptised at Rome by Sylvester then bishop there is constantly affirmed by Damasus Nicholaus Clemens Thomas Platina Marianus Sabellicus yea Nicephorus avoucheth it to be so certen as every one may thinke it and securely beleeue it yet is this opinion sharply impugned by many others with them deemed papistes Hieronymus Eusebius Socrates Theodoritus Zozomenus Cassiodorus and Pomponius The seventeenth article of dissension THe pope and his Iesuites tell vs that in the eucharist the substance of bread is transsubstantiated into the bodie of Christ so as accidents remaine there without their subiects but my L. Abbot their Rupertus saith that Christ is personally bread in hypostaticall vnion by force of consecration even as he is personally man by incarnation The eighteenth article of dissention THe pope and his Cardinals with the troupes of Iesuites tell vs that private Masse is lawfull and that the priest may devoure vp all himselfe but apostolicall canons appoint all to communicate or els to be driven out of the congregation and pope Calixtus affirmeth the very same The ninteenth article of dissention POpish dissention touching the production of a substance out of the accidents which papistes imagine to remaine without subiectes in the eucharist is incredible Innocentius holdeth one opinion Aquinas two the one repugnant to the other Richardus another Caietane another Scotus another The twentieth article of dissention THe Church of Rome teacheth it to be a matter of faith to beleeve Christes bodie to be in every part when one of their consecrated hostes is broken in many peeces but their schoole-doctour Iohannes Maior saith it is a probleme The 21. article of Dissention TOuching the quantitie of bread and wine how much may bee consecrated at one masse there are three opinions amongest the papistes Bonaventura holdeth one opinion Caietain another and the third is the common The 22. article of dissention COncerning the bread to be consecrated Albertus magnus holdeth that either wheat or barley bread will suffice Caietaine saith any bread what soever is vsed to be eaten in any countrie may be the bread of consecration 3 The thirde opinion holdeth that onely bread of wheat can suffice The 23. article of Dissention COnfirmation with the papistes is a sacrament and therefore can it not be omitted without sinne as Richardus Durandus and Sylvester affirme yet doe Aquinas and pope Adrian defend the contrarie The 24. article of Dissention IOannes Parisiensis affirmeth the substance of breade to be vnited to the bodie of Christ hipostatically Durande holdeth that the substance of bread is destroyed but the matter of bread abideth stil with Christs bodie Cardinal Caietain saith that nothing in the Gospel enforceth vs to vnderstand these words this is my bodie so grossely carnally as the papistes doe The councell of Trent avoucheth that the bread neither is annihilated neither abideth it stil in the sacrament quod qui potest capere capiat for if it neither abide in the sacrament neither is annihilated that is become nothing I would know what it is and where it abideth The 25. article of Dissention AQuinas and Caietanus affirme that the quantitie of a popish cōsecrate host may be corrupted naturallie Scotus saith that is impossible to everie naturall agent Iosephus Angles holdeth that a naturall agent may corrupt the whole quantitie by division of the partes thereof but neither by way of condensation neither by transemutation into another forme and that forsooth because the quantitie of popish sacrament is there without a subiect which subiect is the ordinarie obiect of everie naturall agent The 26. article of Dissention COncerning consecration of the chalice as the papists terme it Aquinas holdeth that all the wordes set downe in the romish missall are of the essence of the forme Alexander Alensis Bonaventura and Durandus affirme that more then the one halfe of the said words are meere extrinsecall and not of the essence thereof Scotus saith that the forme is not certainlie knowen vnto the Church of Rome and therefore none can be-secure but hee that pronounceth all the wordes Soto avoucheth that if the priest have intention to consecrate by the former words which Bonaventure Alensis Durand teach to be the forme then the saide priest consecrateth but committeth thereby
the spirit of man that is in him These are S Augustines owne words so plaine and effectuall against popish vnchristian foolish and execrable confession as nothing more needeth to be said therein The fifth Conclusion ALbeit Popish auricular confession be so magnified with Papistes that every one is commanded vnder paine of damnation to beleeve the same as instituted by Christ himselfe yet was it not an article of popish faith for the space of one thousand and five hundred yeeres after Christ. This conclusion because it is very important I shal desire thee gentle Reader to ponder deepely with me my discourse Iosephus Angles Valentinus a popish fryer and bishop of Bosana in the second tome of that worke which he dedicated to the Pope himselfe Sixtus Quintus hath these expresse words Ante concilium Later erat haereticum negare necessitatem confessionis negantes tamen non erant haeretici ratio est quia nondum erat ab ecclesia declaratum Before the councell of Lateran it was hereticall to denie the necessitie of confession but yet they were not heretikes that denied it The reason is because the Church of Rome had not yet declared it to be an article of faith Loe these words conteine effectually the exact proofe of this conclusion if they be well marked 1 We must therefore observe first that who soever beleeveth not stedfastly every decree of the Church of Rome in matters of faith is holden of that Church for an heretike 2 We must observe secondly that the councell of Lateran whereof this fryer speaketh was holden in time of Pope Iulius the second and Pope Leo the tenth that is 1500. yeeres after Christ. 3 VVe must observe thirdly that vntill fifteene hundred yeeres after Christ were expyred they that beleeved not popish auricular confession to be ordeined by Christ were no heretikes For so as you see this fryer teacheth and the Pope him selfe graunteth 4 VVe must observe fourthly that the Church of Rome hath no authoritie to coyne any new article of faith 5 VVe must observe fiftly that the Church of Rome hath no new revelations in matters of faith but the very same which it had in the Apostles time both which latter observations their owne deare Canus telleth vs in these words Omnia siquidem fidei dogmata ab Apostolis accepit ecclesia vel scripto vel verbo quoniam ij ministri fuere sermonis nee vllas in fide novas revelationes ecclesia habet For the Church received all doctrines of faith from the Apostles eyther by word or writing Because the Apostles were the ministers of the word neither hath the Church any new revelations in faith Now out of these observations which are evident it followeth necessarily that confession this day ought not to be an article of faith no not in the Church of Rome 1 For first during the time of fifteene hundred yeeres after Christ it was no article of faith in the Church of Rome 2 Secondly the Church of Rome can not make that an article of faith now which was no article of faith in the Apostles time 3 Thirdly the Church of Rome hath no new revelations in matters of Christian faith For so as you have heard hath their owne Melchior Canus avouched Neither will it helpe to say that auricular confession was an article of faith in the Apostles time but not then revealed to the Church For as Canus hath told vs plainly the Church receiveth no newe revelations of faith This doctrine is confirmed by their famous Cardinall Caietan who avoucheth two speciall grounds against popish auricular confession For first although Christ by his opinion instituted confession yet did he make it voluntarie and left it in mans election whether he would confesse or not confesse Againe he telleth vs that the manner of popish confession to wit to confesse secretly in the priests eare was not ordeined by our Saviour Christ. Out of which assertion I inferre a double conclusion against the Papistes The one that confession is not necessarie to salvation For that which is voluntarie as to be a Monke a Nunne a Priest a Iesuite is not necessarie to salvation as every papist graunteth but is as a counsell worke of supererogation The other that popish lawe vrging men to auricular confession is flat against Christs institution And thus I weene I have prooved this conclusion The sixt Conclusion IF Popish confession were ordeined by Christ as the papists falsely and grossely imagine yet would it followe by a necessarie consecution that every Pope should be in daunger of his salvation This conclusion may seeme somewhat strange but I proove the fame By popish doctrine every man and every woman of lawfull yeeres are bound vnder paine of damnation to the said confession and consequently the Pope beeing either man or at least woman as is thought of pope Iohn is strictly bound vnto the same Now syr how our Pope his holinesse shall come to confession and have absolution of his sinnes hoc opus hic labor est And that the reader may fully vnderstand the difficultie herein it is to be noted that no priest can absolve any person from his sinnes over whome he hath not superioritie and iurisdiction but his holines hath both the swords his power is above Kings and Emperiours and over him no mortall creature no not an Angel of heaven hath any iurisdiction at all as holdeth popish faith The Pope then being subiect to none must yet be absolved of some which some must haue iurisdiction over him standeth doubtles in great perplexitie and in no small danger of his saluation Let us therefore find some poore shift to helpe his holines if it may be What if we say that the Pope hath no mortal sinne so is not bound to popish absolution But alas all Popes are not Saints as is prooved and so some must perforce have absolution Let us say that he may absolue himselfe as well as he may graunt pardons to him selfe But alas that implyeth contradiction because so he remaining one and the same man should be both superiour and inferiour to himselfe superiour as he did absolve and inferiour as absolved Let vs say that he voluntarily submitteth himselfe and so receiueth absolution But alas so shall his holines still be inferiour to the silly priest because as S. Paul discourseth to the Hebrewes he that blesseth is greater then he that is blessed Let us say that the Pope giueth to the priest power ouer him for that time onely But alas that would be a rare and strange metamorphosis with an impossibilitie annexed therevnto For first by this meanes the simple priest should be Pope in time of absolution as having then greatest power upon earth Secondly after absolution he that was pope should cease to be pope and he that was not pope should without election or consecration be pope again Which is a thing impossible euen by popish proceeding Let vs say that some other
peccata committere Albeit the Pope as Pope can not erre that is to say can not set downe any errour as an article of our faith because the holy Ghost will not that permit neverthelesse as he is a private person so may he erre even in faith as he may doe other sinnes and for ful proofe of this point only Sylvester Prieras is sufficient who albeit he extol the Popes power above Kings and Emperours and Angels in heaven their authoritie yet doeth he confesse that our holy father the Pope in casu haeresis both may be iudged and deposed yea this point is very manifest in many texts of the popish Canon-law for in one place it is thus written Oves quae suo pastori commissae sunt eum nec reprehendere nisi à fide exorbitaverit nec ullatenus accusare possunt The sheepe that are committed to the Pope their Pastor neither can reproove him nor any way accuse him unlesse he shall swarve from the faith In another place it is said that though the Pope be never so wicked though he carry thousands with himselfe headlong to hell yet must no man iudge him unlesse he be an heretique Quia cunctos ipse iudicaturus à nemine est judicandus nisi deprehendatur à fide devius Because saith the Popes lawe he must iudge all and none iudge him unlesse he be found to have forsaken the faith Iosephus Angles in his booke which he dedicated to the Pope himselfe confirmeth this matter in these wordes Papa haereticus ut apostata ab universali Concilio deponi potest ratio est quia sicut nullus potest esse alicuius religionis praelatus qui non sit in illa religione professus it a neque potest esse Papa si fide ecclesiae careat The Pope being an heretike as also an apostate may be deposed by a generall Councel and the reason is because as none can be a prelate of any religion which is not professed in that religion so neither can he be Pope that holdeth not the faith of the Church The 4. Conclusion MAny Popes have de facto forsaken the Christian faith and become flat heretikes This proposition though it seeme strange to many shalbe prooved God willing effectually and that by the expresse testimonies of great popish doctors For it is so certen that Pope Honorius was an heretike as their eight solemne Councel holden at Constantinople can not deny the same Melchior Canus giveth this sentence of the said Honorius At Honorium quomodo ab errore vindicabit quem haereticum fuisse tradit Psellus in carmine de septem synodis Tharasius ad summos Sacerdotes Antiochiae Alexandriae Sanctae urbis ut septima Synodo act 3. scriptum est Theodosius cum Synodo sua Hierosolymitana in confessione fidei quae habetur eadem actione 3. Epiphanius respondens haereticis iu conspectu Concilij eiusdem act 6. Tota demùm ipsa septima synodus actione ultima in Epistola ad omnes sacerdotes clericos But howe will Pighius deliver pope Honorius from errour whome to have bene an heretike witnesseth Psellus in his verses of the seven synodes Tharasius to the patriarks of Antioch of Alexandria of the holy city as it is written in the 7. Synode Theodosius with his Synode at Hierusalem in the confession of their faith Epiphanius answering to the heretikes in the sight of the said Councell finally the seventh Synode wholly in the last action and in their Epistle to all priests Clergie men Viguerius holdeth for a constant position that pope Anastasius erred in an article of the faith his wordes be these Si dicamus quòd summus Pontifex errare potest in animo suo concipere aliquem articulum orthodoxae fidei contrarium etiam priuatim proferre ut legitur de Anastasio 2. dicendum quòd summus Pontifex ut privata persona errare potest non tamen ut est summus Pontifex If we say that the pope may erre and conceive in his minde some article contrarie to the Catholike faith and pronounce the same also privately answere must be made that the pope may erre as a private person but not as he is Pope Nicolaus Lyranus uttereth this matter so plainly as no mā can long stand in doubt therof these be his words Ex quo patet quòd Ecclesia non consistit in hominih ratione potestatis vel dignitatis ecclesiasticae vel secularis quia multi principes summi Pontifices alij inferiores inventi sunt apostatasse à fide propter quod Ecclesia consist it in illis personis in quibus est notitia vera confessio fidei veritatis VVhereby it is evident that the Church doeth not consist in men by reason of power or dignitie either ecclesiasticall or secular because many Princes and Popes and other of the inferiour sort are found to have swarved from their faith for which cause the Church consisteth in those persons in whome there is true knowledge and confession of the faith and veritie Loe the iudgement of their owne Doctor not they that sit in S. Peters chaire are the true and lawfull successours of S. Peter but they that confesse and preach S. Peters faith and doctrine VVe therefore impugne nothing in popish proceedings but the selfe same which popish Doctors reprooved before us and that in their publique writings published to the world The 5. Conclusion MANY Popes have erred in their publique doctrine of faith and manners Pope Iohn the 22. of that name as witnesseth Okam Erasmus Alphonsus Adrianus others taught the people that the soules of the iust doe not see God before the resurrection yea Gerson that great popish doctor who sometime was Chancellour of Paris affirmeth this matter in these expresse wordes Hoc fecit latroni qui verisimilitèr nondum complever at poenitentiam pro omnibus peccatis suis qui fuit illa hora propria beatificatus vidit Deum facie ad faciem sicut Sancti in Paradiso propter quod insuper apparet falsitas doctrinae Papae Ioannis 22. Quae damnata fuit cum sono buccinarum coram Rege Philippo per Theologos Parisienses credidit potius theologis Parisiensibus quà m curiae This he did to the thiefe which by likelihood had not yet accomplished penance for all his sinnes who was blessed in that very houre and sawe God face to face as doe the Saintes in Paradise by reason whereof further appeareth the falshood of the doctrine of pope Iohn which was condemned by the sound of trumpets before K. Philip by the devines of Paris the King beleeved rather the devines of Paris then the court In which words we have to note first that Gerson a voucheth the thiefe crucified with Christ to have seene God face to face in that houre so to be blessed Secondly that he reproveth the false doctrin of Pope Iohn Thirdly that his doctrine was
decree of the Councell but also that the Councell may upon a reasonable cause exempt anie man from his iurisdiction that the Councell may iudge and depose the Pope as also compell him to appeare and for his disobedience excommunicate his Holines The Popes owne deare Friar Iosephus Angles Valentinus avoucheth in these wordes Concilium ecclesiae potest Papam per excommunicationem compellere nt redditurus rationem haeresis aut apostasiae criminis cuius accusatur compareat in his duobus casibus illum excommunicare patet quia cumpossit in his duobus casibus papam deponere erit tunc illo superior exconsequenti antequam deponatur per excommunicationem illum ut in iudicio compare at compellere aliter enimsi non posset Concilium Papam compellere neque posset illum iudicare A generall Councell may by excommunication compell the Pope to appeare and to give an account of that heresie or apostacie whereof he is accused and in these two cases excommunicate him The thing is evident because when it can in these two cases depose the Pope it shall then be his superiour and consequentlie before he be deposed compell him by excommunication to appeare in iudgement For otherwise if the Councell could not compell the Pope neither could it iudge him I could alleadge moe like testimonies in this behalfe but it is needles because manie expresse textes in the Popes owne cannon lawe doe witnesse the same whereof this one of Pope Zozimus may suffice for manie Contra statuta sanctorum Patrum condere aliquid aut immutare nec huius quidem sedis potest authoritas To make any lawe or to chaunge any thing against the decrees of the holy fathers this our seat of Rome hath no authoritie Victoria saith thus Bene scio quod Pavormitanus Gerson Okam defendunt quod licet appellare a papa ad concilium I know right wel that Pavnormitaine Gerson and Okam doe holde that vvee may appeale from the pope vnto a generall councell Bellarminus graunteth that albeit Cameracensis Gerson Almaine Cusanus Pavnormitanus Florentinus Abulensis who all are great popish doctors doe differ in the maner yet doe they all acknowledge the povver of a generall councell to be greater then the authoritie of the pope These be his verie owne words Conveniunt tamen in eo omnes vt doceant esse hanc potestatem immediatè in ecclesia proinde mortuo papavel deposito vel nolente adesse concilio concilium non propterea esse corpus imperfectum sed perfectū habere potest atē papalē definiendi de fide sanciendi leges dandi indulgentias c. exquib deducunt concilium esse supra papam posse ipsum indicare punire idem esse querere an papasit maior concilio ac si quereretur an pars sit maior suototo But they all agree in this that they teach this power to be immediatly in the church and therefore when the Pope is dead or deposed or will not come to the councel as he neuer doth that then the councell is not an vnperfect bodie but perfect and hath papall power to define matters of faith to make lawes to giue pardons c. VVhereupon they gather that the councell is aboue the pope that it can iudge him and punish him and that it is all one to demaunde if the pope be greater then the councell as if it were asked if the part be bigger then the whole The councell of Basill defined it for an article of our faith to beleeue that the councell is aboue the pope These be the expresse words of the councell Veritas de potestate concilij generalis vniuersalem ecclesiam repraesentantis supropapam quemlibet alterum declarata per Constantiense hoc Basileense generalia concilia est veritas fidei catholicae The veritie of the power of a generall councell representing the vniuersall church aboue the pope and euerie other person declared by the generall councell of Constance and this of Basil is the verie truth of the catholike faith And the councell addeth another clause to wit that whosoeuer denieth this veritie obstinately is to be reputed for an heretike In fine Pope vrbanus saith thus Vbi apertè Dominus veleius apostoli eos sequentes sancti patres sententialiter aliquid definierunt ibi non novam legem Rom. Pontifex dare sed potius quod praedicatum est vsque ad animam sanguinem confirmare debet vvhere our Lord or his apostles haue spoken any thing plainlie and the holy fathers comming after them haue defined any thing iudicially There the bishop of Rome must not make any new lavv but rather confirme that vvhich is preached vvith the best bloud in his bodie The fourth Conclusion GEnerall and popish councels in these daies are as a nose of waxe and the decrees therof as vncertaine as the wind This conclusion is proved to be such by the expresse iudgement of great learned papistes Bellarminus writeth of councels in this maner Nos dicimus concessum episcoporum in concilijs legitimis esse verum iudicum concessum eorum decreta leges necessario sequendas vve say that the assembly of Bishops in lavvfull councels is the true assembly of iudges and that their decrees and lavves must bee followed of necessitie But in another place the same Bellarminus hath these vvords Dico igitur concilium illud non posse errare quod absolutè est generale ecclesiam vniversam perfectè representat eiusmodi autem concilium non est antequam adsit sententia summi pontificis I say therefore that that councell cannot erre which is absolutely generall and vvhich representeth the vniuersall church perfectly but such a councell is not before the pope giue his assent And hee saith againe in the selfe same chapter Idem enim est sive pontifex expresse concilium reprobet sive conciliū agat contra pontificis sententiam For it is all one whether the pope expressely disalow the councel or the councell doe against the popes mind Now in the first place Bellarminus telleth vs that bishops are true iudges in the councels and haue definitiue voices in the same and that their decrees must needes be followed But in the other two places he singeth another song and telleth vs that though the Pope commeth not in person to the councels but sendeth his legats in his place yet are the decrees of such councels of no force nor to any purpose vnlesse they bee according to the popes mind They are therefore as a nose of waze because when the bishops haue imploied their whole industrie when they haue vsed long consultation when they haue disputed the matter pro contra when they haue inuocated the holy ghost and haue with mature deliberation set downe cannons accursing such as will not obay the same the pope notvvithstanding saith all this is not worth a stravv as which is contrarie to his opinion that
cannot erre and so of none effect For the vncertaintie of the decrees of councels Bellarm. saith thus Non potest fieri vt aliquando adfinem controuersiarum deveniatur nisidetur locus maiori parti suffragiorum It cannot be that euer an end of controversies should be made vnlesse the greater part of voices bee of force and he saith in another place Est autem verum decretum concilij quod fit a maiori parte alioqui nullum esset legitimum concilij decretum cum semper aliqui dissentiant For it is the true decree of the councell vvhich hath the consent of the greater part othervvise there should bee no lavvfull decree made because euer some dissent But Melchior Canus telleth vs another tale and saith in this maner Non itaque quod in Romanis concessionibus fit plurium apud nos sententia praevalet paulo post nō enim numero haec indicantur sed pondere Pondus autem concilijs dat summi Pontificis gravitas auctoritas quae si adsit centum patres satis sunt sin desit nulli sunt satis sint quamlibet plurimi Not therfore as in humaine consents the voices of moe are of force vvith vs for these thinges are not iudged in number but in weight and the councels receiue their weight from the grauitie and authoritie of the pope vvhich if it be once present an hundreth fathers are enough but if it vvant none are enough be as manie as they vvill Novv sir Bellarminus telleth vs that moe voices in councelles must needes be of force But Canus saith it is not so for bee they manie be they few what part the pope liketh shall be true The decrees therefore of popish councels are as vncertaine as the vvind For after the fathers of the councels haue fasted long praied much consulted gravely deliberated maturely decreed soberlie commaunded strictlye and accursed severely neither others nor yet themselues canne tell what shall be of force therein for all must be as pleaseth the popes holinesse perhaps their decrees will not content his mind The fift Conclusion NO bishops can in these our daies haue voices in councels but such as first sweare obedience to the pope and promise to defend his canon law which thing though most absurd is for all that so cleare as Bellarminus cannot denie the same These be his words Istud iur amentum non tollit epi scoporum libertatem quae in concilijs necessaria est iur ant enim se fore obedientes summo pontifici quod intelligitur donec pontifex est dum iubet ea quae secundum deum sacros canones iubere potest seanon iur ant se non aicturos quod sentiunt in concilio vel se non deposituros eum si hereticum esse convincant This oth taketh not avvay the libertie of Bishops which in councels is necessarie For they sweare that they vvill bee obedient vnto the pope which is to be vnderstood so long as he is pope and while he commaundeth those thinges which he may commaund agreeable to God and to the holie cannons but they sweare not that they will not speake vvhat they thinke in the councell or that they will not depose him if they proove him to bee an heretique Thus saith Bellarminus vvhose onely testimonie is most sufficient in all popish affaires as vvho is the popes sworne and tenderlye beloued vassall Out of whose vvordes for more perspicuitie I note 1 First that all Cleargie men admited to giue voices in councelles are sworne vvholly to obey all the popes constitutions 2 I note secondly that the sayd persons are sworne to beleeue that the pope cannot erre in his iudiciall decrees of faith or maners that no councels are of force vvithout the popes confirmation thatall councels confirmed by him are approued by the holie ghost that he can excommunicate deposeall Emperours kings queenes and bishops in the christian vvorld that hee can deliuer by his pardons all soules out of purgatorie and a thousand like things For all such matters are conteined in his canons and consequentlie in their most lamentable oth 3 I note thirdly that they are svvorne to admit his decrees vvho as they beleeue may be an heretique 4 I note fourthly that they are svvorne to admit his iudgement in all matters of faith vvhom yet they may iudge and depose for heresie 5 I note fiftly that their fundamentall article in appointing the Pope iudge over all controversies is quite overthrowen and turned vpside downe in this Bellarminus his explication For when he saith while he commandeth c. he graunteth every Bishop freedome to examine and iudge when the Pope commaundeth things agreeable to God and the Canons VVhich libertie if they would constantly performe all true Christians and perfect Catholicks would agree with them For none that beleeve rightly in God will denie obedience to the Pope when he preacheth and teacheth any thing agreeable to God and holy Canons But true Christians finding his canons to be disholy and his decrees to be against God thinke as Bellarminus here teacheth them that they are not bound to obey him For as an other great learned papist Franciscus à Victoria saith profoundly the vniust laws of the Pope doe not binde in conscience These are his very words Ego pro certo habeo quod omnes leges iniustae etiam Papae non obligant in foro conscientiae I holde it for a constant and vndoubted truth saith the Popes learned Doctour that all uniust lawes even of the Pope doe not bind in the Court of conscience The Papistes then who charge us so strictly to obey the popes lawes and withall prohibite us to examine the same doe deny us that libertie which they take unto them selves and that the Reader may fully understand the abomination of the othe which all popish Bishops sweare unto the Pope I will here set downe the expresse wordes thereof as I finde them in their owne decretals Ego N. Episcopus ab hac hor a fidelis ero S. Petro sanctaeque Romanae Ecclesiae dominoque meo Papae N. eiusque successoribus Canonicè intrātibus Sequitur Papatum Romanae Ecclesiae regulas sanctorum patrum adiutor ero ad defendendum retinendum contra omnes homines sic me Deus adiuvet haec sancta Evangelia I Iohn Fisher Bishop will be faithfull from hencefoorth to S. Peter and to the holy Church of Rome and to my L. Boniface the pope and to his successours chosen Canonically and I will be an helper to defend against all the world the popedome or Papall superioritie and the rules of the holy fathers so God me helpe and the holy Gospell Loe ' here gentle reader open rebellion is required and by evangelicall othe coufirmed of suhiectes against their soveraignes for the bishops of euery countrey are fubiects to kings of the same countrey and yet doe they sweare to defend the popes tyrannie and vsurped
by equivocation denie them selves to bee Christians as their deare brother Iohn Mushe confesseth in his answere to my addition whose wordes Irehearsed at large in my counterblast against him and his adherents The sixt Article ALL the Romish Iesuites and other papistes now adaies avouch obstinately that matrimonie is a sacrament and conferreth grace ex opere operato but their owne Durandus and Gaufridus affirme boldly the contrary Durand hath these expresse wordes Praeter duo praedicta sunt alia duo circa matrimonium circa quae sine periculo haeresis licitū est contraria opinari quorum unum est theologicum videlicet vtrum in matrimonio confer atur gratia ex opere operato sicut in aliis sacramentis novaelegis Secundum est logicum videlicet vtrum matrimonium habeat plenam vnivocationem cum alijs sacramentis Besides these two there bee other two things to bee considered in matrimonie wherein we may without daunger of heresie thinke the contrary The one is theological to wit if in matrimony be conferred grace ex opere operato as in other sacraments of the new law The other is logicall to wit if matrimony be a sacrament properly and univocally so called And Durandus avoucheth Gaufridus with other Canonists to be of his opinion So then matrimony neither giueth grace nor yet is properly a sacrament THE SEAVENTH ARTICLE of their Dissention SYlvester Prieras hath these words Papa est imperatore maior dignitate plus quà m aurum plumho The pope doth more excell the Emperour in dignitie then gold excelleth leade Againe he saith thus Donavit Constantinus papae in vener ationem recognitionem Dominij administrationem temporalem imperij eandem immediatè Papa conceait imperatori in vsum stipendium officij pro gubernatione defensione pacifica ecclesiae The Emperour Constantine gave the pope temporall administration of the Empire in token of his reverence and homage and the pope gaue the Emperour the same againe as the stipend of his service for his peaceable protection of the church And a litle after he hath these wordes Vnde dico quod de plenitudine potestatis ex causa rationabili potest omnes leges civiles evertere alias condere nisi in quantum spectant ad ius naturale aut divinum nec imperator cum omnibus legibus populis Christianis possent contra eius voluntatem quicquam statuere VVhere vpon I saie that of the fulnes of power vpon reasonable cause the pope may dissolve all the ciuill lawes and make others neither can the emperor with all lawes and consent of Christendom determine anie one iote against his mind Archidiaconus and Augustinus de Ancona are of the selfe same opinion with Sylvester But other papists are ashamed now thus to hold and therfore write sharply against this opinion Bellarminus saith thus Christus vt homo dum in terris vixit non accepit nec voluit vllum temporale dominium summus autem Pontifex Christi vicarius est Christum nobis represent at qualis erat dum hîc inter homines vlveret Igitur summus Pontifex vt Christi vicarius at que adeo vt summus Pontifex est nullum habet temporale dominium Christ as man while he lived on earth neither had nor would haue any temporal dominion but the pope is Christes viear and representeth Christ to vs in such sort as he lived here among men therefore the pope as Christes vicar and consequently as pope hath no temporal dominion Victoria hath these words Potest as temporalis non dependet a summo pontifice sicut aliae potestates spirituales inferiores Et paulo post licèt assertores alterius partis communiter dicunt quòd papa instituit omnem potestatem temporalem tanquam delegatam subor dinatam sibi quod ipse constituit Constantinum imperatorem sedtotum hoc est fictitium sine quacunque probabilitate nec innititur vel ratione vel testimonijs vel scripturae vel saltem alicuius expatribus vel verè theologis sed glossatores iuris hoc dominium de derunt papae cum ipsiessent pauperes rebus doctrina Temporall power doth not depend vpon the pope as inferiour spiritual powers doe although others of the other part commonly say that the pope ordeined all temporall power as delegate and subordinate to himselfe and that he made Constantine emperoure But al this is a meere fable and voide of all probabilitie neither hath it any ground either of reason or of scripture or of ancient fathers or good deuine yet the glosses of the canons gaue the pope this preheminence because themselues were beggerlie followes and vnlearned Behold here the liuely originall of popedome euen by the testimonie of the best learned popish doctor The eight article of Dissention THe papistes this day do constantly hold and teach as a necessarie doctrine of faith that there be veniall sinnes which doe not dissolve the amitie betweene God and man because they are not say they contra but praeter legem dei which distinction Thomas Aquinas vttereth verie plainly in these words Peccatum veniale dicitur peccatum secundùm rationē imperfectam in ordine ad peccatū mortale sicut accidens dicitur ens in ordine ad substantiam secundum imperfectam rationem entis non enim est contra legem quia venialiter peccans nō facit quod lex prohibet nec praetermittit ia ad quod lex per praeceptum obligat sedfacit praeter legem quia non observat modum rationis quā lex intēdit A venial sin is termed sin after an vnperfect maner way to a mortal sin euen as accidens is called ens in order to substantia after an vnperfect reason of ens For it is not against the law because hee that sinneth venially doth not that which the lawe forbiddeth neither doth omit that to which the law by precept doth oblige but doth besides the law because it doth not observe the maner of reasō which the law intendeth But this opinion is sharply reproved and flatly confuted by many learned papistes For Michael Baius apud Bellar. Ioannes Gerson de vita spirituali lect 1. circa med Roffensis artic 32. cont Luther affirme that every sin is mortall of it owne nature therefore may iustly be punished eternally Durandus proueth by manie reasons that euerie sin is against the law of God Ioannes Gerson Almain hold the same For thus speaketh Ioseph Angl. of them Tertia opinio est Gerso Almaini asserentium venialia mortalia non differre ex natura rei sed tantum ex divina misericordia eo quod placuit divinae maiestati imputare ad paenam aeternam mortale veniale autem ad temporalē vtrumque tamen ex natura sua cum sit in Deum esse dignum poena aeterna The third opinion is Gersons and Almains affirming that veniall and mortall sinnes do not differ
sacriledge because forsooth saith Soto peradventure the other opinion is true And Iosephus exhorteth verie grauely to haue intention neither to consecrate precisely by the former wordes nor yet by the latter but to have the intention of the Church inmpe with the colier for in so doing saith he the sacrificer shall be in no daunger Now I beseech thee gentle Reader what horse would not breake his halter to heare this melodie The 27. article of dissention COncerning the formation of Eve wonderfull are the exclamations of Catharinus against Caietanus and of Antonius Fonseca against Catharinus as also of Paulus Burgensis against Lyranus of Matthias Thoring against Burgensis in many other thinges pervse their glosses vppon the old and new testament and all this will appeare The 28. article of Dissention IT is a great questiō amongst the papists what that is which a mouse eateth when she catcheth their reserved host Bonaventura their maister of sentences affirme that the mouse eateth not Christes bodie but our popes Cardinals and Iesuites defend the contrarie as a grounded article of their beleefe The 29. article of Dissention POpe Adrian Richardus and Panormitanus tell vs that a priest beeing contrite may say masse before he be confessed but by the decree of our councell of Trent this fact is a damnable sinne The 30. article of Dissention OVR pope Cardinalles and Iesuits tell vs that infidels are not bounden to their auricular confession But Richardus Gabriel and Angelus defend the contrarie The 31. article of dissention BEllarminus avoucheth that moe voices in councels must needes be of force but Canus affirmeth that the lesser part is the best if the pope hold with the same And yet in this point notwithstanding their good agreement resteth the foundation of their popish religion The 32. article of dissention THe councell of Lateran where were present 284. persons patriarkes metropolitanes bishops and abbots defined absolutelie that aungels were created at one and the selfe same time with the world and yet Basilius Nazianzenus Damascenus Hieronimus Augustinus and Aquinas denie the same to be a matter of faith Manie other like dissentions I could easilie alledge as of Cardinal Caietanes dissention about divorse and such like But because mine intent is to bee briefe these for this time may suffice For if I should touch all dissentions amongest the papistes the day would sooner faile mee then matter whereof to speake The Corollarie FIrst therefore since the papistes are at bloudie conflict concerning the popes civil regiment Secondly since they teach veniall sinnes not to dissolue amitie betweene God and man their greatest doctors impugning the same Thirdly since some of them constantlie affirme matrimonie to be a sacrament and other some deny the same with tooth and naile Fourthly since to hold the pope to be aboue the general councel is with some no article of faith nor error at all with other some an error in faith and flat heresie Fiftly since some papists maintaine romish doctrine by material succession other some bitterlie exclaime against the same Sixtlie since some do affirme that the pope may dispense for the ministrie of confirmation and other some that it is a heinous crime Seaventhlie since some hold that every of their orders is a sacramēt some zealouslie impugne the same Eightly since many papists defēd our Ladies cōceptiō without sin manie other avouch it to haue bin in sin Ninthly since it is a constant doctrine among the papistes that Constantine was baptized at Rome and that notwithstanding auncient fathers with vniforme consent repute the same a fable a lie since those manie other important dissentions bee amongst the papistes I conclude that it is a sufficient motive for mee to renounce the romish religion as false erroneous and pernicious doctrine Thus much of the seaventh motive THE NINTH CHAPTER Of credite due vnto vvriters THe papistes exclame against protestants because they reiect now and then the authoritie of man For whose better satisfaction in that behalfe if they will bee satisfyed with reason these conclusions following may suffice The first conclusion THe protestants speaking of the wiser and discreter sort do highlie reverence the holie fathers and ancient writers diligentlie reade their workes and gladly vse them as good helpes and ordinarie meanes vnder God for concerning the exact explication of holie writte Of this conclusion none can bee ignorant or stande in doubt therof that seriouslie peruse doctor Iewel the famous and worthie bishop of Saris burie against Doctor Harding Doctor VVhitgift the most reverend learned and vertuous arch bishop of Canterburie against M. Cartwright Doctor Cooper the reverend bishop of winchester against the Martinistes Doctor Reinolds Doctor Seravia Doctor Sutliue and others The second Conclusion THE Protestants although they speake and thinke reverentlie of the ancient fathers yet doe they neither repute their works of equal authoritie with the holie Scriptures neither to be free from all errours and imperfections wherein they nothing at all swerve from the modest estimation which the said holie fathers had euer of themselves For proofe of this conclusion S. Augustine writeth in this maner Ego solis eis scriptur arū libris qui iam canonici appellantur hunc timorem honorem didici deferre vt nullum eorum auctorem scribendo aliquiderrasse firmissime credam alios autem it a lego vt quantalibet sanctitate doctrinaque praepolleant non ideo verum putem quia ipsi it a censuerunt sed quia mihi velper illos auctores canonicos vel probabili ratione quod a veritate non abhorreat per suadere potuerunt I haue learned to give this feare and honour to those onely books of scripture which are called canonical that I firmly beleeue no author thereof to have erred in anie point but yet I read others so that how holie or learned soever they be I do not by by thinke it true because they say so but because they perswade me by those canonicall writers or by probable reason that that is true they say And in another place the same saint Augustine hath these wordes Ego huius epistolae authoritate non teneor quòd liter as Cypriani vt canonicas non habeo sed eas ex canonicis considero quod in eis divinarum scripturarum auctoritati congruit cum laude eius accipio quòd autem non congruit cum pace eius respuo I am not bound to the authoritie of this epistle because I take not Ciprian his writings for canonicall but consider them by the canonicall and what I finde in them agreeable to holy writ that with his praise do I receiue but what is dissonāt that with his favour I reiect And againe hee saith of him selfe in this maner Negare non possum nec debeo sicut in ipsis maioribus it a multa esse in tam multis opusculis meis quae possunt iusto iudicio et nulla
pope hath given this auctoritie to the priest But alas that can not possibly be graunted For this is a constant axiome with the papists par in parem non habet potestatem When two are of equall auctoritie the one can not make a law for or against the other Well since none of these waies can content his holines let vs heare what his owne deare vassals can say in his defense Iosephus Angles vnfoldeth this great difficultie at large when he thus writeth Canus affert tres opiniones prima est S. Thomae D. Bonaventurae quibus adhasit Turrecremata Secunda opinio est Paludani asserentis habere authoritatem absolvendi non à Papa sed à Christo. Tertia est Caietani dicentis iurisdictionem quam habet sacerdos absolvendi Papam nec esse à Christo neque à Papa neque ab ecclesia sed solum ex electione per hoc scilicet quod papa se subiicit illi illumque eligit Est quarta opinio qua tenetur quod quemadmodum in receptione ordinis datur vnicuique simplici sacerdoti potest as iurisdictionis respectu venialis mortalis quae poenitens alias confessus est etiam respectu cuiuscuÌ„que peccatoris in articulo mortis ita datur tunc iurisdictio eidem sacerdoti absolvendi papam Master Canus bringeth three opinions the first is of S. Thomas and S. Bonaventure to whome agreeth Turrecremata The second is the opinion of Paludanus who avoucheth that the Priest receiveth his authoritie not from the Pope but from Christ him selfe The third opinion is Caietans who affirmeth that the Priest hath authority to absolve the Pope neither from Christ nor from the Pope nor from the Church but onely by election to wit in that the Pope submitteth him selfe to the Priest and chooseth him And there is yet a fourth opinion which holdeth that as in receiving of priesthoode power of iurisdiction is given to every simple priest in respect of veniall sinnes and of those mortalls which the penitent nath otherwise confessed and also in respect of every sinner in the point of death so is iurisdiction then given to the said Priest that he may absolve the Pope Thus saith our reverend bishop and worthie fryer Ioseph Out of whose words I note 1 First that since our Lord is the God of peace and not of dissention as recordeth his holy Apostle in many places it must needes follow that this popish doctrine is not of God which is so devided against it selfe and therefore said Caietain truely though vnwittingly and to another ende when he denied the priest to have his authoritie from Christ or from his Church 2 I note secondly that their doctrine is meere opinative as which is onely grounded vpon mans invention 3 I note thirdly that as the priestes iurisdiction is vncerten so is the Popes absolution also as which is consectarie therevnto and consequently that the Pope standeth in daunger of his salvation And so if I be not deceived the obscuritie of this conclusion is made evident The Corollarie FIRST therefore since auricular popish confession is not commaunded by Christ secondly since it was not practised by the Apostles thirdly since it was instituted onely by the positive lawe of man fourthly since the Greeke Church never admitted that lawe fifthly since it is contrarie not onely to the fathers but to popish doctours also sixtly since it bringeth the Pope him selfe to the hazard of his salvation I conclude that it is a sufficient motive for me to renounce the Romish religion as false erroneous and pernicious doctrine Thus much of the tenth and last Motive Peroratio I HAVE in this discourse gentle Reader briefly confuted ten special articles of popish faith and religion 1 First I haue shewed the insufficiencie blasphemie and absurdities of popish pardons 2 Secondly that the Pope both may erre and hath erred defacto not only as a priuate person in priuate opinion but euen as Pope and publike person in iudicial definitions 3 Thirdly that generall councels in these latter daies are nothing els but a meere mockerie sophistical subtiltie to deceiue Gods people withal 4 Fourthly that the Popes dispensations are wicked licentious and intollerable 5 Fiftly that Kings are above Popes that their power is independent that they are subiect to none but to God alone 6 Sixtly that popish dissention is of matters most important and incredible to such as are not wel acquainted with their bookes 7 Seaventhly that the writings of the auncient fathers are to be received with great reuerence yet so as we acknowledge them to be men to haue their errours and to binde vs to their authorities no further then they accord with the holy Scriptures 8 Eightly that all things necessarie for our salvation are conteined in the holy Scriptures and that popish traditions are so vncerten as the best learned papists can not agree therein 9 Ninthly that after this life there is neither merite nor demerite nor satisfaction to be made and that the booke of Machabees can not establish popish purgatorie 10 Tenthly that the specificall enumeration and confession of all our sinnes is not onely not commaunded by the Scriptures but repugnant to the same and impossible to be accomplished by the power of man All which points I have prooued not onely by Scriptures authorities and reasons but euen by the expresse testimonies of best learned papists A thing heretofore never performed by any to my knowledge and yet so forceable against the papists if I be not deceived as nothing can be more My desire was to content all to offend none to confirme the weake to instruct the ignorant to reclaime the seduced and to confound all arrogant disloyall subiects If â—ffect succeede correspondent to my option God be thanked for it who is the chiefe worker of every good act to whome with the Sonne and the holy Ghost three persons and one God be all honour power glorie and dominion nowe and ever AMEN 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sapient 8. 1. Dionys. Arâ—â— pag. de divinis nominibus c. 4 2. Thess. 2. v. 4 5 6 7 8 9. 1 Greg. 9. lib. 1. decret tit 33. cap. 6. Glossa ibid. Gregor ubi supra Glossat lib. 1. decretat tit 7. cap. 3. Gerson de potestat eccles consider 12. part 3. Gerson ubi supra Bellarminus de Rom. Pont. lib. 5. cap. 8 1 2 3 Secundò principalitèr Bernar. ad Gaufridum epist. 125. 3 Robertus Bellarminus lib. 5. de Rom. Pontif. cap. 7. Bellarm. cod cap. Bellarm. cap. codem Bellarm. ubi supra 1 2 3 Prou. c. 8. 15. Rom. c. 13. v. 1. 4 Sylvest de papa para 2. 5 Bellar. derom pontif lib. 5. cap. 7. Luc. 12. 2. Mat. 16. 13. Mat. 23. 3. Mat. 15. 3. Mat. 15. 9. 1. Ioh. 4. 3. Roffensis cont assertion Luther art 18. prope initium Deut. cap. 2. vers 4. 2. Machab. cap. 12. vers 26. Matt. cap. 11. vers 25. Bellar. lib.