primo capit 2. contra haereses Adrianus sextus papa in questione de confirmatione qui omnes non in pontisice sed in ecclesia siue in concilio generali tantum constituunt infallibilitatem dicij de rebus fidei 2 The second opinion is that the pope euen as pope may bee an heretique and teach heresie if he define without a generall councell and that this hath in verie deede sometime chaunced so this opinion doth Nilus follovve and defend in his booke against the popes primacie The same opinion haue some of the vniuersitie of Paris followed as Gerson Alma in in their books of the churches povver and of their opinion are also Alphōsus and pope Adrian vvho all do not ascribe the infallibilitie of iudgement to the pope but to the church or to a generall councell onely in all matters of faith out of vvhich vvords I note 1 First that the pope as pope may erre when he alone decreeth anie matter of faith 2 I note secondlie that the pope as pope may erre vvhen he defineth anie matter of faith vvithout a generall councell and consequentlie that he may erre vvith a prouinciall councell 3 I note thirdly that popes as popes that is as publique persons haue erred alreadie and de facto vvhen they haue decreed vvithout a generall councell 4 I note fourthlie that all this is testifyed by foure great learned papistes vvhereof one vvas pope himselfe These testimonies are important doubtlesse verie sufficient to establish my conclusion But I vvill alleage yet another proofe so excellent so evident and so irrefragable as more cannot be vvished The proofe standeth thus Pope Stephanus vvith a councell of all the bishops and priestes of Italie defined flatlie against rebaptization vvhich decree of councell vvith the popes assent thereto Saint Cyprian contemned after it defending his former opinion constantlie yea he vvas so far from acknowledging that prerogatiue in popes vvhich they of latter daies chalenge vnto them selues that he vvould not take pope Stephanus for his superiour or to haue anie iurisdiction ouer him but termed him superbum imperitum caeeae ac prauae mentis proud ignorant blind and naughtie as is euident to such as reade his epistle to Pompeius Out of vvhich I note 1 First that Cyprian vvas an holie martir novv a saint in heauen 2 I note secondly that he vvas a verie ancient father and a great learned clarke 3 I note thirdly that he knevv vvhat the pope and his councell had decreed 4 I note fourthly that he iudged a romish coūcel to be of no greater force than a Councell African I note fiftlie that hee iudged the Councell of Italie to bee of no greater force for the Popes consent then was the Councell of Afrike for his owne consent I note sixtlie that provinciall Councels are of no greater authoritie for the Popes confirmation than for the confirmation of another bishop all which pointes are necessarilie deduced out of Saint Cyprians fact and writings And Bellarminus answere hereunto is frivolous and not worth the rehearsall The Pope defined not the controversie as a matter of faith saith Bellarminus because he did not excommunicate Saint Cyprian A sweet dish of a messe of mustarde The Pope utterlie disliking Saint Cyprian his opinion and deeming it repugnant to Christes Gospell and for that ende convocating all the Clergie men of Italie did define the controversie but not as a matter of faith saith Bellarminus The controversie was about rebaptization which was either flatlie with the Gospell or flatlie against the same If it were flatlie with the Gospell then erred the Pope and his Councell egregiouslie If it were flatlie against the Gospell and the Pope decreed it then decreed he against it as against a matter of faith or els opinions against the Gospell are not against faith The Corollarie First therefore since the Popes lives have bene most wicked most notorious and scandalous unto the world secondlie since Popes have aspired unto their Popedomes by naughtie and ungodlie meanes thirdlie since Popes may not onelie erre and hold false opinions but also become notorious heretiques and for their heresies be deprived of their Popedoms fourthlie since manie Popes have de facto forsaken the Christian faith and become flat heretiques fiftlie since manie Popes have erred in their publike doctrine of faith and manners sixtlie since not onelie the Pope as hee is Pope may erre in his publike decrees when hee alone defineth matters of faith and manners but also when hee so defineth with a provinciall Councell 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 second motive THE FOVRTH CHAPTER Of the authoritie of generall Councelles in these our dayes I Haue sometymes had the decrees of generall Councelles aswellatter as former in great admiration thinking them the determinations and resolutions of the holy Ghost but of late yeares I have changed my opinion upon sundrie waightie motives the chiefest whereof I will set downe by way of conclusions The first Conclusion THe decrees of generall Councels in these latter dayes are nothing els but a meere mockerie and sophisticall subtiltie to deceive Gods people withall For although there be before everie generall Councell solemne convocation sumptuous preparation and chargeable peregrenation and before the end long costlie and tedious abode yet neither doe or can the Fathers of the councels determine anie thing there which the Pope hath not before concluded sitting in his chaire at home This may seeme strange unto thee gentle Reader as sometimes ir did unto my selfe but I shall God willing unfold the obscuritie with such evident perspicuitie as never man henceforth can stand in doubt thereof This shall bee perfourmed if I prooue 4 things First if I proove that the decrees of Councels be of no force with papists unles the Popes Legates consent unto the same Secondlie if I proove that though the Popes Legates agree unto the decrees of Councels yet are the said decrees of no force if the legates shal consent unto anie one iot contrarie to the Popes appointment Thirdlie if I proove that the pope cannot delegate his authoritie unto the Legates whome he sen deth to the Councell Fourthlie if I proove that he wil not come to the Councels himselfe but determine everie thing at home in his chamber the proofe hereof shall be the flattestimonie of Melchior Canus a most profounde Schoolman in reasoning a most reverend Bishop in dignitie a most sound papist in opinion and sometime the chiefest and most excellent pofessour of Divinitie in Salmantica This Canus writeth in this manner Si Legatus contra instructionem agit non censetur ex potestate delegata agere atque adeo non est cur eo modo act a superioris auctoritate probata esse credantur Et paulò pòst Decreta igitur quae à Legato contra sedis
prohibition taketh away the libertie of the Gospell as which implyeth a negative precept not contained in the law of nature for as their famous popish doctour Franciscus à Victoria writeth Lex Evangelicalex libertatis d Christo Apostolis vocatur quod solo jure naturali post Evangelium Christiani teneantur ex omnibus quae in veteri lege erant The lawe of the Gospell is tearmed the lawe of libertie by Christ and his Apostles because after the Gospell Christians are bound onelie to the law of nature concerning all such things as were in the olde Law Thirdlie because this to do is to challenge greater authoritie than Christ hath and to be aboue Christ. The reason whereof is evident because an inferiour cannot chaunge the law of his superiour unlesse he haue from his superiour commission so to doe which Victoria well observed in these wordes Dispensatio in lege spectat solùm ad legislatorem vel superiorem vel adillum cui specialiter commiserint ipsi Dispensation in the Law pertaineth onelie to the lawmaker or to his superiour or to whome they speciallie graunt commission If answere be made that the Pope hath such commission then would I know whether he received it by word or writing in the meane season the saide Victoria telleth the Pope that he cannot dispence in the law divine These be his wordes Manet ergo conclusio tanquam certa firma quod in primo genere praeceptorum Concilij scilicet quae sunt iuris divini Papa non potest dispensare The conclusion therefore abideth firme and sure that in the first kind of preceptes of the Councell to wit which are of the lawe divine the Pope cannot dispence And of Victoria his opinion are Thomas Aquinus Anthoninus Sylvester Soto Covarruvias and all learned papistes Fourthlie because that which is of more force to wit a simple vow doth not dissolve matrimonie for if that which is of greater force cannot disanull matrimonie much lesse can that doe it which is of lesser force as both the rule of logick and experience teacheth Now that a simple vowe is of greater force than the Popes prohibition cannot be denied for it is de iure divino as all the Papistes confesse and as the Scripture recordeth And that a simple vow doeth not dissolve matrimonie Angelus prooveth at large out of the popish Cannon law Fiftlie because the Pope or Councell cannot change the essence or essentiall partes of matrimonie for so saith the Tridentine Councell And if it were otherwise the Pope might make more or fewer Sacraments at his pleasure whereuppon it followeth necessarilie that all matrimoniall contractes bee as perfectlie matrimonies this day as they were in Christs time notwithstanding the prohibition of the Pope or of his Councell For the essence and substantiall partes abiding unaltered and perfect the matrimonie must needes be perfect Sixtlie because the Priest is meere extrinsecall unto the contract and therfore cannot necessarilie concurre to the essentiall constitution thereof The Councell then in this decree was destitute of the holie Ghost The saide Councell affirmeth the solemne vowe of religion to dissolve matrimonie in these wordes Si quis dixerit matrimonium ratum non consummatum per solemnem religionis professionem alterius coniugum non dirimi anathemasit If any shall say that matrimonie firme not consummate is not dissolved by solemne profession of religion of the one partie accursed be that man This decree likewise is flat against the holie Ghost which to be so I prove by sundrie meanes The Councell it selfe shall first confute it selfe when it saith thus Matrimonij perpetuum indissolubilemque nexum primus humani generis parens divini spiritus instinctu pronuntiavit cum dixit hoc nunc os exossib meis caro de carne mea paulò post quod deus coniunxit homo non separet The first parent of mankind pronounced by the instinct of the holie Ghost the perpetuall and indissoluble bond of matrimonie when he said this is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh and a litle after what therfore God hath coupled together let no man put asunder These are the wordes of the Councell by which wee see evidentlie confessed even of the Councell that matrimonie was indissoluble by Gods appointment before the consummation as they tearme it or before copulation carnall which is all one Whereuppon I inferre first that matrimonie before consummation or carnall copulation is indissoluble by the holie Ghosts appointment I inferre secondlie that the Councel of Trent dissolveth matrimonie before consummation I inferre thirdlie directlie upon the first and second illation that the decrees of the Councel are flatlie against the holie Ghost I inferre fourthlie that that may trulie be verified of the Pope and his Councel of Trent which their owne Doctour Victoria soundeth out against them in these words Officium Apostolorum Paulus semper vocat ministerium certè si quis mandata Christi relaxaret non se haberet sicut Dei minister sed sicut aequalis aut potius superior Paule tearmeth the office of the Apostles alwaies ministerie and doublesse if anie should dissolve Christs commandements he should not behave himselfe as the minister of God but as his equall or rather as his Supeour The third Conclusion ALthough the Popes of latter yeares take upon them to like or dislike to proove or disproove the decrees of generall Councels at their pleasures yet is everie generall Councell above the Pope yet may everie generall Councell excommunicate iudge and depose the Pope yet may everie generall Councell sette downe lawes and decrees concerning faith and manners which no Pope hath authoritie once to alter or change All which shall be prooved Gods holie Spirite assisting me by the flat testimonies and opinions of the best learned Papistes Victoria writeth in this maner Si Concilium declarat aliquid esse de fide aut de iure divino Papa in hoc nihil potest aliter declarare aut immutare maximè sitale ius spectet adfidem vel admores Ecclesiae universalis If the Councell declare anie thing to be of faith or of the lawe divine in this point the Pope can nothing otherwise declare or change especiallie if such law appertaine either to faith or maners of the universal Church Of this opinion are manie other learned papistes and especiallie their Angelicall Doctor Thomas Aquinas that everie generall Councell is above the Pope great learned papistes affirme constantlie to wit Abulensis Panormitanus Ioannes Gerson Almainus Cardinalis Cameracensis and Cardinalis Florentinus Panormitanus argueth out of Pope Gregories wordes that as the Pope cannot chaunge anie thing in the contentes of the Gospell so neither can he chaunge anie thing in the decrees of Councels Yea Ioannes Gerson proceedeth further and saith that a generall councel cannot onlie limit the Popes power so as he can neither dispense nor abrogate the
and do not conclude necessarilie For our faith is grounded vpon revelation made to the apostles and prophets who wrote the canonical scripture but not vpon revelation of anie other writers if anie were made vnto them Thus saith Aquinas Out of whose words I gather First that the authoritie brought from man is ever insufficient 2 I gather secondly that that ground whereupon we must build as vpon an vndoubted truth is onelie and solelie the authoritie of the scriptures 3 I gather thirdlie that mans reason may never be vsed to establish any point of doctrine 4 I gather fourthlie that the fathers are to be read reverentlie and their authorities to be vsed as probable reasons but not as necessarie demonstrations 5 I gather fiftlie that feined romish revelations are not authentical And consequentlie that all revelations divulged vnder the name of Saint Bridget and others are either meereillusions or of small force and which can yeeld no sound argument in matters of faith Victoria in verie briefe wordes vttereth this point effectuallie Licet in hoc omnes conveniant non est tamen mihi certum Although saith he all agree in this yet doe not I make it certaine Navarre singeth the same song in manie places whereof I will recite onelie one Tum quod fundamentum principale ipsius est quod communis tenet oppositum quodip sum etiam ipse assero sed non obstat quia a communi recedendum quum pro contraria est textus velratio cui non potest satis bene responderi Because also his principal ground is that the common opinion is to the contrarie which thing I my selfe also graunt But that is not of force for we must renounce the common opinion when there is either text or reason which can not be sufficientlie answered In fine their owne glosse in their decrees reiecteth saint Augustine roundlie in these words Cum enim salva sua pace Augustinus non bene opponit istis it a dormit avit hic Augustinus VVhere saint Augustine by his favour doth not well obiect against this and so Augustine here was a sleepe Loe when the fathers speake not placentia everie beggerlie popish glosse reiecteth them at pleasure And yet must wee vnder paine of excommunication admit their authoritie when they seeme to make for poperie albeit they speake never so flatlie against the holie scriptures yea their late councell of Lateran chargeth all preachers vnder paine of excommunication that they expound the scriptures according to the old doctors received in the church of Rome The Corollarie 1 FIrst therefore since the ancient fathers may erre and have also erred de facto 2 Secondlie since Saint Augustine admitteth the opinion of fathers no further then they agree with the scriptures 3 Thirdlie since that which is holden of the greater part of the fathers is often false and disagreeable to the truth 4 Fourthly since the papistes them-selves preferre the opinion of one before many Fiftly since Caietanus Canus Navarrus and others doe al roundly reiect the common opinion when it disliketh them 6 Sixtly since their owne glosse maketh no accompt of S. Augustine when he speaketh not placentia I conclude that it is a sufficient motive for me to renounce the romish religion as false erroneous and pernicious doctriue Thus much of the eight Motive The X. CHAP. Of Traditions vvritten and vnwritien THe Papistes beare the world in hand that many things necessarie for mans salvation are not conteined in the written worde and consequently that none can be saved but such as beleeve their unwritten traditions VVherein that trueth may plainly shewe it selfe after mine accustomed manner I put downe conclusions The first conclusion THe written worde or holy scripture conteineth in it selfe everie thing necessary for our salvation For proofe of this conclusion S. Paul writeth unto Timothie in this manner Quia ab infantia sacras literas nosti quae te possunt instruere ad salutem per fidem in Christo Ie su Because thou hast knowne the Scriptures from thy infancie which are able to instruct thee to salvation through faith in Christ Iesus Now if the scriptures be able so to instruct one as hee may thereby attaine his salvation it can not doubtlesse be denied with reason that euerie thing necessarie for mans salvation is conteined therein For which cause the Apostle addeth these wordes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The whole scripture is given by the inspiration of God and is profitable to doctrine to redargution to correction to instruction which is in righteousnesse that the man of God may be perfect prepared to everie good worke In which wordes the holie vessell of God Saint Paul confirmeth that which he said before to wit that the holie scripture is able of it selfe to instruct vs fullie vnto salvation And the Apostle declareth this by an argument drawen from the sufficient enumeration of those partes which are required vnto our salvation and withall he commendeth the scripture of the sufficient cause end and vse thereof The cause is in that he saith the scripture is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say given by the inspiration of God The vse is foure fold whereof the two former pertaine to doctrine the two latter to life and manners 1 For first it is profitable to the doctrine of faith and holie obedience 2 Secondlie to the refutation of errors contradictions and false opinions 3 Thirdlie for the correction of abuses as wel publique as private 4 Fourthlie for instruction vnto righteousnes that is to leade a godlie and holie life The end is that the man of God to wit hee that is the true worshipper of God may be sounde perfect and most absolute furnished in ail kinde of goodnes which being so we must needes confesse if we will not obstinatelie denie the manifest truth that the scriptures containe all thinges necessarie for christian doctrine and for the full accomplishment of eternall life Neither will it helpe the papistes to answere as their wonted maner is that the greek vvord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth everie not all so as the Apostle should say not the whole scripture but everie scripture For first everie scripture is not so copious or fruitfull as it can afford vs all those goodlie affects which saint Paul here rehearseth Againe the selfe same greeke worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is vsed for the whole by saint Paules owne interpretation in another place of holie scripture where he hath these expresse words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And if I have all and the whole miraculous faith so that I can remove mountaines but have not love I am nothing In which place the papistes can not possiblie interprete the selfe same greeke word though they would never so gladlie but for all the whole because otherwise the sense would be most absurd as which would prove saint Paul to speake of everie kinde of faith and consequentlie of
or bishops of Rome seduced Gods people manie and sundrie waies but neuer more groslie infatuated or bewitched them then by their ridiculous mōstruous and execrable pardons as which are foolish vncertaine absurd new and the deadlie woundes of all popish doctrine For plaine and evident demonstration of this assertion I put downe these conclusions following The first Conclusion THe popes pardons are too too foolish as which are repugnant to common sense and reason My proofe standeth thus all relaxations beeing larger then any man liuing or dead doth or can need are too too foolish but the popes pardons are such ergo the popes pardons are to to foolish The consequence is good and the consequent directly and truelie inferred vpon the premisses as which is in prima figura and modo darij as the Logicians terme it the proposition is so euident as none can or will denie the same so the difficultie resteth onely in the assumption vvhich I proue three seuerall waies First by the huge and infinite numbers of pardons hanged vp in pardoning tables at the pillars of euerie church for the most part in Rome which not onelie my selfe haue seene and read but manie thousand besides me Secondlie by pardons conteining manie thousand yeares expressely set downe in olde English primars vvhereof the papistes seeme novv at length so ashamed that the like is not to be found in the nevv tridentine primars Thirdly by a litle pamphlet of the marueilous things of Rome which is commonlie to be sold euerie where one of vvhich I brought from thence my selfe and haue at this houre For in all these three pardons are graunted prodigallie I would say charitably for manie thousands of yeares yea in the litle romish pamphlet to omitte other churches are graunted euerie day to S Iohn Euangelistes church 6048. yeares of pardon Novv least any be so sottish as to imagine that a man can neede so manie yeares of pardon that I vvill disprooue sundrie vvaies First because it is against the holy scripture that any man should liue so long 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The daies of our yeares in thē 70. and if they be of strēgth 80. yeares vvhich vvords saint Hierome glosseth in this maner Vbi sunt mille anni in feptuaginta annis contracti sumus si autem multum octoginta Si autem plus vixerimus i am non est vita sed mors VVhere are the thousand yeares that they liued of old vve are novv brought to seaventie yeares and if vve endure long to eightie but if vve liue longer then is it not life but death 2 Secondlie because no man can abide so long in purgatorie And least some papist replie and say that one may be so long in purgatorie I vvill prove mine assertion by the best popish doctors Bellarminus in his defense of the pope thinketh that opinion verie probable vvhich holdeth that the vvorld shall not henceforth endure aboue 400. yeares at the most And of his opinion are great learned men Ireneus Iustinus Lactantius and others yea Saint Augustine and S. Hierome are not dissonant from that supposition the Thalmudistes likevvise had a prophesy of Elias as they say that the world should continue 6000. yeares to vvit 2000. before the lavv 2000. in the lavv and 2000. after the lavv that is from Christes incarnation vntill the second aduent or doomesday Dominicus Soto cōmenting vpon the maister of sentences holdeth as a stable and constant ground that no soule in purgatorie abideth the paines thereof aboue ten yeares and doubtles if the popes pardons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vvere of force So to his opinion could not be false the reason therof is evident because all that vvill may vpon small sute if not vvithout sute haue not only for themselves but for their friendes also so many thousands of pardons as they shall desire vvhich liberalitie in pardoning pope Gregorie bestovved on our disloyal captaine Stukeley vvhen he imploied him to invade his naturall countrey England but as the pardons vvere counterfaite and Stukeleys heart disloiall so vvas the Popes intention frustrate and Stukeley revvarded accordingly that is iustly slaine for his proud attempt vvhile my selfe vvas at Rome The 2. Conclusion THe vertue and efficacie of Popes pardons is so vncertaine and doubtfull and that euen amongest the greatest popish doctors as themselves can not tel vvhat in the vvorld to say or thinke therof This conclusion I proue thus Angelus de Clauasio a famous canonist and religious Frier reciteth 6. severall and dissonant opinions concerning the vertue of pardons and after hee hath confuted them all he setteth dovvne the seaventh for his ovvne and the best vvhich as hee sayth is true it is therefore no doubt substantiall as shortlie shall bee seene The first opinion saith our holie Frier holdeth that the Popes pardons onely remit that punishment which God appointeth to be imposed in another worlde for a supplie unto those who have done penance onely according to the Canons but doeth in no case remit that penance which is imposed and taxed by the Canons The second opinion holdeth that the Pardons onely forgive that penance which is taxed by the law and penitentiall Canons but not that paine which Gods justice appointeth to be imposed The third opinion holdeth that Pardons forgive paine due for sinne aswell before God as before his Church but this opinion addeth a clause so sharpe as our holy Father doeth not brooke it to wit that the Pope is bound to do penance for that person whome he pardoneth The fourth opinion holdeth that the paine of hell is partly remitted by the Popes pardons as which becommeth thereby more tollerable The fift opinion holdeth that that penance onely is pardoned which the partie omitted of negligence not of purpose or contempt The sixt opinion holdeth that the Popes pardons remit not onely penance imposed by the Priest but that also which is taxed of God marrie this opinion hath one limitation which forsooth is this that the Priest must be content therewith or else the Pope can not worke his will The seventh opinion holdeth that Popish pardons forgive and are woorth so much as the wordes of the Pardons do sound that is to say if the Pardons containe an hundred thousand yeeres then the partie obteining such pardons at the Popes handes must have remission of so many yeeres Thus gentle Reader standeth the doctrine of Popish pardons amongst the greatest Doctors of that faction He that listeth to peruse the place quoted by me out of Angelus shall finde every thing as I have set it downe The rehearsall of the varietie and uncertaintie of these opinions is a most sufficient confutation of the same Sylvester Prieras a great Thomist and sometime Master of the sacred pallace reciteth three severall opinions and disliking them all setteth downe the fourth for the trueth Antoninus sometime the Arch-bishop of Florence alledgeth three opinions and scarce knoweth which of them he should preferre Bellarminus in
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
keepe the law Secondly I see all that aske bring dispensations whom I marvell if they all haue lawfull causes that they may be dispensed withall in the impediments of matrimonie and of irregularitie and for the pluralitie of spirituall livings And in another place the said Victoria hath these words Et paultim adhanc intemperantiam dispensationum deventum est hunc talem statum vbi necmala nostra nec remedia pati possumus ideo necesse est aliam rationem excogitare adconservandas leges Da mihi Clementes Linos Sylvestros omniapermittam arbitrio eorum Sed vt nihil gravius dicatur in recentiores pontifices certe multis partibus sunt priscis illis inferiores By Title and litle wee are brought to these in ordinate dispensations and to this so miserable state where we are neitherable to endure our owne griefes nor remedies a sligned for the same And therefore must vve perforce inuent some other way for conferuation of the lawes Giue mee Clements Lines Silvesters and I will commit all things vnto their charge But to speake nothing grievously against these latter popes they are doubtlesse inferiour to popes of old time by many degrees I could all eage many other testimonies But this Victoria being of great credit among the papistes is a most sufficient witnesse in their owne proceedinges The Corollarie First therefore since the Pope dispenseth vsually with professed monkes against his owne canons and religion 2 Secōdly since the pope dissolueth by his dispensations such matrimonies as are indissoluble by Christes institution 3 Thirdly since the pope pronounceth that to be true matrimonie by vertue of his dispensation which both by the law deuine and law of nature is no matrimonie at all 4 Fourthly since the pope doth not onely dissolve Christes law but also turneth his owne lavv vpside downe by his vngratious and intollerable dispensations I conclude that it is a sufficient motiue for me to renounce the Romish religion as false erroneous and pernitious doctrine Thus much of the fourth Motyve THE SIXTE CHAPTER Of the Popes authoritie and Iurisdiction THe papistes boaste that the pope is Christes vicar generall that hee hath fulnesse of povver that all ecclesiasticall iurisdiction is dependent vppon him that hee canne excommunicate kings depose kinges and give their kingdomes vnto others concerning vvhich pointes I vvil proceed by way of conclusions The first Conclusion THe ecclesiasticall povver of all the Apostles vvas generall ouer all the vvorld equall with Peters and the selfe same that Peters vvas Christ himselfe proueth this conclusion when he saith Data est mihi omnis potest as in coelo in terra euntes ergo docete omnes gentes All povver is giuen mee in heauen and in earth goe therefore and teach all nations In an other place hee saith thus Hoc facite in meam commemorationem Doe this in the remembrance of mee And againe thus Quorum remiseritis peccata remittuntur eis VVhose sinnes yee shall forgive are forgiuen them And in another place thus Amen dico vobis quaecunque alligaueritis super terram erunt ligata in coelo quaecunque solueritis super terram erunt soluta et in coelo Verily I say vnto you vvhat things soeuer ye shall bind vpon earth shall be bound also in heaven and vvhatsoeuer things ye shall loose vpon earth shalbe loosed also in heauen All vvhich sayings Christ spoke and vttered of and to his apostles all as vvell as to Peter making them al apostles as wel as Peter And as they vvere all apostles as vvel as Peter so had they all equall povver not onely of order but of iurisdiction also which their Victoria recordeth in these vvords Adofficium Apostolatus spectat potestas ordinis iurisdictionis To the office of Apostleship perteineth both the power of order and of iurisdiction And S. Cyprian decideth this matter in most plaine and evident words when he saith thus Loquitur Dominus ad Petrum Ego dico tibi quiatu es Petrus c. paulo post Hoc erant utique caeteri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus pari consortio praediti honoris potestatis sedexordum ab vnitate profici scitur ut Ecclesia vna monstretur Our Lord speaketh vnto Peter I say vnto thee that thou art Peter and vpon this rocke will I build my Church c. and a little after The same were the rest of the Apostles doubtles that Peter was endued with equall fellowship both of honour and of power but the beginning proceedeth from vnitre that the Church may be shewed to be one Covarruvias their famous Canonist albeit he would very gladly defend the Popes pretended power and have onely Peters power ordinarie and independent yet can he not denie our Saviour Christ to have given equall power to all the Apostles These be his very words Etenim iuxta catholicorum virorum auctoritates communem omnium traditionem apostoli parem ab ipso Domino Iesu cum Petro potestatem orainis iurisdictionis acceperunt it a quidem vt quilibet apostolorum aequalem cum Petro habuerit potestatem ab ipso deo in totum orbem in omnes actus quae Petrus agere poterat For according to the auctorities of Catholike writers and the common tradition of all the Apostles received from our Lord Iesus Christ himselfe equall power with Peter both of power and iurisdiction in so much doutlesse as every Apostle had equall power with Peter from God himselfe and that both over all the worlde and to all actions that Peter could doe Out of which testimonies I note first that all the Apostles had equall auctoritie with Peter I note secondly that all the Apostles had power over all the world even as Peter had I note thirdly that what acte so ever Peter could doe every other Apostle could doe the same I note fourthly that the iurisdiction of every Apostle did extende as farre as Peters I note fiftly that Christs speaches to Peter in the singular number did not argue superioritie of iurisdiction but did onely signifie the vnitie of his Church I note sixtly that all this is confirmed by the opinion of Catholike writers by tradition of all generally For all these sixe points are expressely conteined if they be well marked in the auctorities alreadie alledged The same are confirmed by the testimonie of S. Augustine in sundrie places of his workes Claves inquit Augustinus non vnus homo Petrus sed vnitas accepit Ecclesiae Not one onely man Peter received the keyes but the vnitie of the Church In an other place the same S. Augustine writeth in this manner Ecclesiae catholicae personam sustinet Petrus cum ei dicitur ad omnes dicitur amas me pasce oves meas Peter representeth the person of the Catholike Church and when it is said to him it is said to all Lovest thou me feede my
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
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
temeritate culpari I neither can nor dare denie but as in our auncestors so in my workes also are manie thinges which may iustly and without all temeritie be reproved yea the same saint Augustine opposeth only saint Pauls testimonie against all the writers Saint Hierome could alledge about the great controversie where saint Peter was reproved of saint Paul By which testimonie it is very plaine that S. Augustine did reverence the old writers but yet did think them men and to have their errors therefore would be not admit for truth what soever they wrote but only that which he fouÌ„d to be consonaÌ„t to the holie scriptures And because my L. of Roch. is so highly renowmed in the church of Rome he shal make an end of this conclusion where he writeth in this maner Nec Augustini nec Hieronimi nec alterius cuinslibet auctoris doctrinae sic ecclesia subscripsit quin ipsi locis aliquot ab ijs lice at dissentire nam in nonnullis ipsilocis se plane monstrarunt homines esse atque nonnunquam aberrasse sequitur quo fit vt tametsi propter aliquas humanas hallucinationes de multis quae dicti patre in commentarijs suis reliquerunt dubitare liceat sanctitatem tamen eorum haud licet in dubium revocare The church of Rome hath not so subscribed to the doctrine either of Augustine or of Hierome or of anie other writer but that we may dissent from their opinions in some places For themselves haue in certaine places shewed plainlie that they were men and wanted not their errours VVherefore albeit by reason of humaine frailtie we may lawfullie doubt of manie thinges which the said fathers have left behind them in their bookes yet may we not now call their holinesse into question In which wordes our great popish bishop teacheth vs three documents 1 First that their church giveth everie one libertie to dissent from Augustine Hierome and other writers whosoever 2 Secondlie that the fathers have plainlie declared themselves to be men and to haue had their imperfections accordinglie 3 Thirdlie that manie errours are to be found in the commentaries of the fathers So then our bishop is of my opinion and so also should the rest be if they would be constant in their owne doctrine which is published to the view of the world The 3. Conclusion NOt that which the greater part of the fathers or moe voices agree vnto is alwaies the vndoubted truth but often times that which the lesser part and fewer persons doe affirme For the proofe hereof Melchior Canus writeth thus Scimus frequenter vsu venire vt maior pars vincat meliorem scimus non ea semper esse optima quae placent pluribus scimus in rebus quae ad doctrinam pertinent sapientum sensum esse praeferendum sapientes sunt paucissimi cum stultorum infinitus sit numerus VVee know it often chaunceth so that the greater part prevaileth against the better vve know that those thinges are not ever the best which please the most we know that in matters of doctrine the iudge ment of the wise ought to be followed for wise men bee few and fooles infinite Iosephus Angles Thomas Aquinas and Petrus Lombardus affirme it to be the opinion of the old fathers of Basilius of Ambrosius of Chrisostomus of Hieronimus of Eusebius of Damascenus of Gregorius and of others that the world was created in 6. naturall daies successivelie as Moises recordeth the same yet this notwithstanding saint Augustine holdeth opinion against them all and saith that the 6. daies mentioned by Moises were metaphoricall not natural Moises dividing those things which were made by parts for the better capacitie of the rude and ignorant people to whom he spake which opinion of one onelie Augustine was ever preferred in the church as testifyeth Melchior Canus in these wordes At communis hic sanctorum consensus nullum argumentum certum theologis subministrat quin vnius Aug. opinio caeteris omnibus adversa probabilis semper in ecclesia est habita But this common consent of the holie fathers doth not yeeld any found argument to devines for the opinion of one onelie Augustine repugnant to the rest was ever thought probable in the church All the old writers Augustinus Ambrosius Chrisostomus Remigius Eusebius Maximus Beda Anselmus Bernardus Erhardus Bernardinus Bona ventura Thomas Hugo and all the rest without exception affirme vniformelie citing expresse textes of scripture for their opinion that the blessed virgin Marie was conceived in originall sinne yet doth the late hatched nest of Iesuits and sundrie other papistes avouche this day the contrarie for the truth Therefore saith their owne archbishop and greate canonist Panormitanus that we ought at all times to give more credite to one onelie prelate whosoever alledging the scriptures then to the resolution of the pope himselfe or of his counceil not grounded vpon the said scriptures The 4. Conclusion THe papistes themselues doe often reiect the generall and common opinion and follow their owne private iudgements never remeÌ„bring or litle regarding that they condemne the like in others This writeth their owne Melchior Canus Vbi ego si Thomistae omnes cum Scotistis existant sicum antiquis iuniores vellent contra me pugnare tamen superior sim necesse est non enim vt nonnulli putant omnia sunt in Theologorum auctoritate wherin though all the Thomistes stand with the Scotistes though the old writers with the yong fight against me yet shall I of necessity have the vpper hand ouer theÌ„ For al things rest not as some do think in the authoritie of divines Their owne Cardinal Caietain notwithstanding his zealous affection towards poperie his owne popish estate did for all that freelie acknowledge the truth in this point in so much that he preferreth a sense newly perceived but grounded vpon the scriptures before the old received opinioÌ„ of how many fathers so ever whose words because they are worthie the hearing and reading I wil alledge at large Thus doth he write Super quinque libris Mosis iuxta sesum literalem novumque scripturae sensum quandoque illaturus sub sâ—matris ecclesiae aec apostolicae sedis censura rogo lectores omnes ne precipites detestentur aliquid sed librent omnia apud sacram scripturam apudfidei christianae veritatem apud Catholicae ecclesiae documenta ac mores siquando occurrerit novus sensus textui consonus nec a sacra scriptura nec ab ecclesiae doctrina dissomus quamvis a torrente doctorum sacrorum alienus aequos se prebeant censores meminerint ius suum vni cuique tribuere solis scripturae sacrae authoribus reservata est authoritas haec vt ideo credamus sic esse quodipsiita scripserunt nullus itaque detestetur novum sacrae scripturae sensum ex hoc quod dissonat a priscis doctoribus sed scrutetur per spicacius textum ac
contextum scripturae si quadrare invenerit laudet deum qui non alligavit expositionem scripturarum sacrarum priscorum doctorum sensibus sed scripturoe ipsi integrae sub catholicae ecclesiae censura alioquin spes nobis ac posteris tolleretur exponendi scripturam sacram nisitransferendo vt aiunt de libro in quinternum Being now readie to write vpon the pentateuch of Moses according to the literall sense and purposing to bring now and then a new sense of the scripture vnder the censure of our holy mother the church and apostolike seate I desire all that shal read my commentaries to contemne nothing rashly but to ponder every thing with the scripture and the veritie of the christian faith and the doctrine of the catholike church And if at any time a new sense occurre which is consonant to the text and not dissonant from holy writ or doctrine of the church although it swarve from the opinion of never so manie fathers yet let the readers iudge thereof indifferently and according to equitie Let them remember to give everie one his right for this priviledge is onely graunted to the writers of the holie scriptures that wee must therefore beleeve it to be so because they haue written so Let none therefore loath a newe sense of holie scripture because it dissenteth from the old doctors but let him exactlie consider the text and context of the scripture and if he find it to agree let him praise God who hath not tied the exposition of the holy scriptures to the opinions of the old doctors but to the integritie of the scripture it selfe vnder the censure of the catholike church For otherwise neither wee nor our posteritie should have anie hope to expound the scripture but onelie to translate out of one booke into another Thus we heare the verdict of our Caietaine our Thomist our frier our Cardinall of Rome by whose resolution it is evident that no sense though never so new no exposition though never so strange no opinion though different from never so many fathers ought to bee reiected if it be agreeable to the scriptures and consequently it followeth by the said resolution that everie truth is to be tried by the scriptures and none by the fathers For first our Cardinall telleth us that he purposeth now then to bring newe senses new Glosses nevv expositions of the Scriptures Secondly he saith that such new senses must not rashly bee contemned but duely examined by the scriptures and then admitted if they be found consonant to the same Thirdly he teacheth us this golden lesson that God hath not tyed the exposition of the scripture to the iudgement of any auncient father or fathers whosoever Fourthly he telleth us that the Apostles and such as only penned the holy scriptures had this speciall prerogative that they coulde not erre All which important pointes are so learnedly so gravely so christianly observed by this Cardinall as more cannot be wished yea in the selfe same preface hee professeth constantly that hee will neither expound the Greeke nor the Latine text but the fountaine and the originall to wit the Hebrew And his reason is because the Hebrew onely is authenticall Where note by the way that the Latine edition which the papists tearme vulgata and which is so magnified by the late councell of Trent as both the Greeke and the Hebrew must give place unto the same is of small or no authoritie in respect of the Hebrew by Cardinall Caietanus his resolution Note secondly that this Cardinal did dedicate these his commentaries in which all these memorable observations are conteined to our holy father Pope Clement him selfe who perused them and difallowed no part thereof and consequently that this doctrine of Caietane is confirmed by the pope For so mightily hath God alwayes wrought for the truth of his Gospell as evident testimonies are set downe euen by the adversaries and remaine this day with them vncancelled for confirmation of the same Neither is this the opinion of the popes Cardinall onely but of Aquinas also his angelicall and best approoved doctour His wordes I will likewise alledge at large because albeit they belong yet can they not be thought tedious to such as loue the trueth as which are most significant and effectuall for the controversie now in hand Thus therefore doeth he write Licet locus ab auctoritate quae fundatur super oratione humana sit infirmissimus locus tamen ab auctoritate quae fundatur super revelatione divina est efficacissimus Vtitur tamen sacra doctrina etiam ratione humana non quidem ad probandum fidem quia per hoc tolleretur meritum fidei sed ad manifest andum aliqua aliaquae traduntur in hac doctrina Cum igitur gratia non tollat naturam sed perficiat oportet quod naturalis ratio sub serviat fidei sicut naturalis inclinatio voluntatis obsequitur charitati vnde apostolus dicit 2. Cor. 10. in captivit atem redigentes omnem intellectū in obsequium Christi Et inde est quod authoritatibus philosophorum sacra doctrina vtitur vbi per rationem naturalem veritatem cogno scere potuerunt sicut Paulus act 17. inducit verbum Arati dicens sicut quidam poetarum vestrorum dixerunt genus Dei samus sed tamen sacra doctrina huiusmodi auctoritatibus vtitur quasi extraneis argumentis probabilibus auctoritatibus autem canonicae scripturae vtitur propriè ex necessitate argumentando auctorit atibus autem aliorum doctorum ecelesiae quasi arguendo ex proprijs sed probabiliter innititur enim fides nostra revelationi apostolis prophetis factae qui canonicos libros scripserunt non autem revelationi si qua fuit alijs doctoribus facta Although the place of authoritie which is grounded vpon mans reason be most weake and infirme yet the place which is grounded vpon divine authoritie is most sure and effectuall neverthelesse sacred doctrine vseth also mans reason not indeede to establish faith for so faith should lose it merite but for the manifestation of some other thinges which are deliuered in this doctrine Since therefore grace doth not destroy nature but doth pervert the same it is expedient that naturall reason be servant vnto faith even as naturall inclination of the will is servant vnto charitie whervpon the apostle willeth vs to bring our vnderstanding captive to the obedience of Christ. And from hence commeth it that sacred doctrine vseth also the authorities of philosophers when they could by naturall reason haue knowledge of the truth as Saint Paul alledged the saying of Aratus yet sacred doctrine vseth such authorities as arguments which are externall and onely probable But vseth the authorities of canonicall scripture as argumentes that are proper and which conclude of necessitie as for authorities of the doctors of the church it vseth them as proper arguments but which are onely probable
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
when they come to remembrance which yet al papists require as necessarie to salvation 5 Fiftly because it followeth herevpon that penitents are bound to confesse their sinnes very many times which the Popes law requireth but once in the yeere I proove it because if they stay any time from confession they may forget their sinnes through their owne default and so make frustrate their absolution 6 Sixtly because the priests are often so ignorant that they can not distinguish mortall and veniall sinnes which yet is necessarie in absolution 7 Seaventhly because the priest standeth often excommunicate and often dealeth with reserved cases and a thousand such like things chance in absolution Yea the archpapists this day perceiving this matter to be so intricate and dangerous partly by reason of the cases so reserved partly by reason of innumerable excommunications and partly by reason of ignorance in their priests have invented this poore shift for an helpe if it may be to wit that the Pope shall give to every seminarie priest full authoritie to absolve from all excommunications and reserved cases what soever so that now we have so many virtuall Popes in England as seminarie priests For every one of them hath plenitudinem potestatis and it is a world to consider how this power is vsed For because neither the penitent nor the priest can tell howe often the partie is excommunicate the priest for securitie pronounceth every time over every person these words I absolve thee from every bond of excommunication so farre foorth as I can and thou standest neede and this is done in latine All which frustrate the same and open to the penitent the gate of desperation That this manner of confession is neither commanded by Christ nor practised by his Apostles may be evidently prooved by their owne canon-law as their owne doctours testifie Thus writeth the great Thomist Sylvester Prieras Quarto vtrum ad confessionem teneamur divino iure vel humano dico quod canonistae videntur tenere quod sit de iurepositivo ad hoc est glossa de pen. dist v. in summa quae vult quod instituta sit à quadam vniversali traditione ecclesiae ideo infert quod confiterinon tenentur infideles nec similiter graeci ex quo non acceptaverunt huiusmodi constitutionem sicut nec votū castitatis It is demanded fourthly saith the great papist Sylvester whether we be bound to popish confession by the law of God or by the positive law of man and I say the canonists holde that we are but bound by the lawe of man And of this opinion is the glosse which is of this minde that confession was institute by a certaine vniversall tradition of the Church whereupon the said glosse inferreth that infidels are not bound to confession neither the Greekes in like manner since they did never approove such constitution no more then the vow of chastitie Yea the Popes own decrees admit no lesse for these are the words of his canōs Quibus authoritatibus vel quibus rationū firmamēt is vtraque sentētia satisfactionis confessionis nitatur in medium breviter exposuimus cui autem harum potius adhaerendum sit lectoris iudicio reservatur vtraque enim fautores habet sapientes religiofos viros Vpon what authorities of foundations of reasons either opinion is grounded I have briefly shewed Nowe to whether of them the reader should adhere I leave it to his owne discretion For either opinion hath wise and religious men for the patrons of the same Behold here gentle reader that not onely the Popes doctours but his owne canon-law and the commenters vpon the same doe all confesse that confession after popish manner is onely grounded vpon mans law Yea the glosse addeth that both wise and religious men doe so think though some others hold the contrarie Martinus Navarrus though he hold a contrarie opinion to the canonists confesseth plainly that their solemne glosse commonly received and approoved of all canonists holdeth confession to be commaunded by the Church The famous Canonist and honourable Archbishop Panormitanus was of the same opinion with the glosse as confesseth Covarruvias in these words Quam ex nostris plerique secuti sunt maximè Panormitanus ex ea asserentes confessionem sacramentalem quae sacerdotibus fit iure humano institutam esse Which glosse many of our canonists have followed especially Panormitan affirming out of that glosse that sacramentall confession which is made to priests was ordeined by the law of man This to be true S. Christome confirmeth in these words Non tibi dico vt te prodas in publicum neque apudalios te accuses sed obedire te volo Prophetae dicenti revela domino viā tuam antedeū ergo tua confitere peccata apud verum iudicem cum oratione delicta tua pronuncia non lingua sed conscientiae tuae memoria tunc demum spera te misericordiam posse consequi I doe not bid thee come forth in publike neither to accuse thy selfe before others but I would have thee to obey the Prophet when he saith reveale thy way to God Before God therefore confesse thy sinnes before the true iudge in prayer pronounce thine offences not with thy tongue but with the memorie of thy conscience and then hope to have mercie And in another place the same S. Chrysostome hath these words Peccata tua quotidie dicito vt deleas ea sed si confunderis alicui dicere dicito ea quotidie in animo tuo non dico vt confitearis ea conservo tuo vt tibi exprobet dicito deo qui curat ea Confesse thy sinnes daily that thou maist blot them out But if thou be ashamed to confesse them to an other confesse them daily in thine heart I doe not bid thee confesse them to thy fellow servant that he may vpbraide thee Confesse them to God who can cure the same Saint Augustine is very plaine in this point for these are his expresse words Quid mihi ergo est cum hominibus vt audiant confessiones meas quasi ipsi sanaturi fint omnes languores meos curiosum genus ad cogno scendam vitam alienam desidiosum ad corrigendam suam quid a me quaerunt audire qui sim qui nolunt à te audire qui sint vndesciunt cum à meipso de meipso audiunt an verum dicam quandoquidem nemo scit hominum quid agatur in homine nisi spiritus hominis qui in ipso est What have I therefore to doe with men that they must heare my confessiōs as though they shold heale al my diseases a curious kinde to know an others mans life and sluggish to correct their owne VVhy seeke they to heare of me what I am who will not heare of thee what them selves are And how know they when they heare me tell of my selfe that I say truely since no man knoweth what is done in man but
the spirit of man that is in him These are S Augustines owne words so plaine and effectuall against popish vnchristian foolish and execrable confession as nothing more needeth to be said therein The fifth Conclusion ALbeit Popish auricular confession be so magnified with Papistes that every one is commanded vnder paine of damnation to beleeve the same as instituted by Christ himselfe yet was it not an article of popish faith for the space of one thousand and five hundred yeeres after Christ. This conclusion because it is very important I shal desire thee gentle Reader to ponder deepely with me my discourse Iosephus Angles Valentinus a popish fryer and bishop of Bosana in the second tome of that worke which he dedicated to the Pope himselfe Sixtus Quintus hath these expresse words Ante concilium Later erat haereticum negare necessitatem confessionis negantes tamen non erant haeretici ratio est quia nondum erat ab ecclesia declaratum Before the councell of Lateran it was hereticall to denie the necessitie of confession but yet they were not heretikes that denied it The reason is because the Church of Rome had not yet declared it to be an article of faith Loe these words conteine effectually the exact proofe of this conclusion if they be well marked 1 We must therefore observe first that who soever beleeveth not stedfastly every decree of the Church of Rome in matters of faith is holden of that Church for an heretike 2 We must observe secondly that the councell of Lateran whereof this fryer speaketh was holden in time of Pope Iulius the second and Pope Leo the tenth that is 1500. yeeres after Christ. 3 VVe must observe thirdly that vntill fifteene hundred yeeres after Christ were expyred they that beleeved not popish auricular confession to be ordeined by Christ were no heretikes For so as you see this fryer teacheth and the Pope him selfe graunteth 4 VVe must observe fourthly that the Church of Rome hath no authoritie to coyne any new article of faith 5 VVe must observe fiftly that the Church of Rome hath no new revelations in matters of faith but the very same which it had in the Apostles time both which latter observations their owne deare Canus telleth vs in these words Omnia siquidem fidei dogmata ab Apostolis accepit ecclesia vel scripto vel verbo quoniam ij ministri fuere sermonis nee vllas in fide novas revelationes ecclesia habet For the Church received all doctrines of faith from the Apostles eyther by word or writing Because the Apostles were the ministers of the word neither hath the Church any new revelations in faith Now out of these observations which are evident it followeth necessarily that confession this day ought not to be an article of faith no not in the Church of Rome 1 For first during the time of fifteene hundred yeeres after Christ it was no article of faith in the Church of Rome 2 Secondly the Church of Rome can not make that an article of faith now which was no article of faith in the Apostles time 3 Thirdly the Church of Rome hath no new revelations in matters of Christian faith For so as you have heard hath their owne Melchior Canus avouched Neither will it helpe to say that auricular confession was an article of faith in the Apostles time but not then revealed to the Church For as Canus hath told vs plainly the Church receiveth no newe revelations of faith This doctrine is confirmed by their famous Cardinall Caietan who avoucheth two speciall grounds against popish auricular confession For first although Christ by his opinion instituted confession yet did he make it voluntarie and left it in mans election whether he would confesse or not confesse Againe he telleth vs that the manner of popish confession to wit to confesse secretly in the priests eare was not ordeined by our Saviour Christ. Out of which assertion I inferre a double conclusion against the Papistes The one that confession is not necessarie to salvation For that which is voluntarie as to be a Monke a Nunne a Priest a Iesuite is not necessarie to salvation as every papist graunteth but is as a counsell worke of supererogation The other that popish lawe vrging men to auricular confession is flat against Christs institution And thus I weene I have prooved this conclusion The sixt Conclusion IF Popish confession were ordeined by Christ as the papists falsely and grossely imagine yet would it followe by a necessarie consecution that every Pope should be in daunger of his salvation This conclusion may seeme somewhat strange but I proove the fame By popish doctrine every man and every woman of lawfull yeeres are bound vnder paine of damnation to the said confession and consequently the Pope beeing either man or at least woman as is thought of pope Iohn is strictly bound vnto the same Now syr how our Pope his holinesse shall come to confession and have absolution of his sinnes hoc opus hic labor est And that the reader may fully vnderstand the difficultie herein it is to be noted that no priest can absolve any person from his sinnes over whome he hath not superioritie and iurisdiction but his holines hath both the swords his power is above Kings and Emperiours and over him no mortall creature no not an Angel of heaven hath any iurisdiction at all as holdeth popish faith The Pope then being subiect to none must yet be absolved of some which some must haue iurisdiction over him standeth doubtles in great perplexitie and in no small danger of his saluation Let us therefore find some poore shift to helpe his holines if it may be What if we say that the Pope hath no mortal sinne so is not bound to popish absolution But alas all Popes are not Saints as is prooved and so some must perforce have absolution Let us say that he may absolue himselfe as well as he may graunt pardons to him selfe But alas that implyeth contradiction because so he remaining one and the same man should be both superiour and inferiour to himselfe superiour as he did absolve and inferiour as absolved Let vs say that he voluntarily submitteth himselfe and so receiueth absolution But alas so shall his holines still be inferiour to the silly priest because as S. Paul discourseth to the Hebrewes he that blesseth is greater then he that is blessed Let us say that the Pope giueth to the priest power ouer him for that time onely But alas that would be a rare and strange metamorphosis with an impossibilitie annexed therevnto For first by this meanes the simple priest should be Pope in time of absolution as having then greatest power upon earth Secondly after absolution he that was pope should cease to be pope and he that was not pope should without election or consecration be pope again Which is a thing impossible euen by popish proceeding Let vs say that some other
pope hath given this auctoritie to the priest But alas that can not possibly be graunted For this is a constant axiome with the papists par in parem non habet potestatem When two are of equall auctoritie the one can not make a law for or against the other Well since none of these waies can content his holines let vs heare what his owne deare vassals can say in his defense Iosephus Angles vnfoldeth this great difficultie at large when he thus writeth Canus affert tres opiniones prima est S. Thomae D. Bonaventurae quibus adhasit Turrecremata Secunda opinio est Paludani asserentis habere authoritatem absolvendi non à Papa sed à Christo. Tertia est Caietani dicentis iurisdictionem quam habet sacerdos absolvendi Papam nec esse à Christo neque à Papa neque ab ecclesia sed solum ex electione per hoc scilicet quod papa se subiicit illi illumque eligit Est quarta opinio qua tenetur quod quemadmodum in receptione ordinis datur vnicuique simplici sacerdoti potest as iurisdictionis respectu venialis mortalis quae poenitens alias confessus est etiam respectu cuiuscuÌ„que peccatoris in articulo mortis ita datur tunc iurisdictio eidem sacerdoti absolvendi papam Master Canus bringeth three opinions the first is of S. Thomas and S. Bonaventure to whome agreeth Turrecremata The second is the opinion of Paludanus who avoucheth that the Priest receiveth his authoritie not from the Pope but from Christ him selfe The third opinion is Caietans who affirmeth that the Priest hath authority to absolve the Pope neither from Christ nor from the Pope nor from the Church but onely by election to wit in that the Pope submitteth him selfe to the Priest and chooseth him And there is yet a fourth opinion which holdeth that as in receiving of priesthoode power of iurisdiction is given to every simple priest in respect of veniall sinnes and of those mortalls which the penitent nath otherwise confessed and also in respect of every sinner in the point of death so is iurisdiction then given to the said Priest that he may absolve the Pope Thus saith our reverend bishop and worthie fryer Ioseph Out of whose words I note 1 First that since our Lord is the God of peace and not of dissention as recordeth his holy Apostle in many places it must needes follow that this popish doctrine is not of God which is so devided against it selfe and therefore said Caietain truely though vnwittingly and to another ende when he denied the priest to have his authoritie from Christ or from his Church 2 I note secondly that their doctrine is meere opinative as which is onely grounded vpon mans invention 3 I note thirdly that as the priestes iurisdiction is vncerten so is the Popes absolution also as which is consectarie therevnto and consequently that the Pope standeth in daunger of his salvation And so if I be not deceived the obscuritie of this conclusion is made evident The Corollarie FIRST therefore since auricular popish confession is not commaunded by Christ secondly since it was not practised by the Apostles thirdly since it was instituted onely by the positive lawe of man fourthly since the Greeke Church never admitted that lawe fifthly since it is contrarie not onely to the fathers but to popish doctours also sixtly since it bringeth the Pope him selfe to the hazard of his salvation I conclude that it is a sufficient motive for me to renounce the Romish religion as false erroneous and pernicious doctrine Thus much of the tenth and last Motive Peroratio I HAVE in this discourse gentle Reader briefly confuted ten special articles of popish faith and religion 1 First I haue shewed the insufficiencie blasphemie and absurdities of popish pardons 2 Secondly that the Pope both may erre and hath erred defacto not only as a priuate person in priuate opinion but euen as Pope and publike person in iudicial definitions 3 Thirdly that generall councels in these latter daies are nothing els but a meere mockerie sophistical subtiltie to deceiue Gods people withal 4 Fourthly that the Popes dispensations are wicked licentious and intollerable 5 Fiftly that Kings are above Popes that their power is independent that they are subiect to none but to God alone 6 Sixtly that popish dissention is of matters most important and incredible to such as are not wel acquainted with their bookes 7 Seaventhly that the writings of the auncient fathers are to be received with great reuerence yet so as we acknowledge them to be men to haue their errours and to binde vs to their authorities no further then they accord with the holy Scriptures 8 Eightly that all things necessarie for our salvation are conteined in the holy Scriptures and that popish traditions are so vncerten as the best learned papists can not agree therein 9 Ninthly that after this life there is neither merite nor demerite nor satisfaction to be made and that the booke of Machabees can not establish popish purgatorie 10 Tenthly that the specificall enumeration and confession of all our sinnes is not onely not commaunded by the Scriptures but repugnant to the same and impossible to be accomplished by the power of man All which points I have prooued not onely by Scriptures authorities and reasons but euen by the expresse testimonies of best learned papists A thing heretofore never performed by any to my knowledge and yet so forceable against the papists if I be not deceived as nothing can be more My desire was to content all to offend none to confirme the weake to instruct the ignorant to reclaime the seduced and to confound all arrogant disloyall subiects If â—ffect succeede correspondent to my option God be thanked for it who is the chiefe worker of every good act to whome with the Sonne and the holy Ghost three persons and one God be all honour power glorie and dominion nowe and ever AMEN 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sapient 8. 1. Dionys. Arâ—â— pag. de divinis nominibus c. 4 2. Thess. 2. v. 4 5 6 7 8 9. 1 Greg. 9. lib. 1. decret tit 33. cap. 6. Glossa ibid. Gregor ubi supra Glossat lib. 1. decretat tit 7. cap. 3. Gerson de potestat eccles consider 12. part 3. Gerson ubi supra Bellarminus de Rom. Pont. lib. 5. cap. 8 1 2 3 Secundò principalitèr Bernar. ad Gaufridum epist. 125. 3 Robertus Bellarminus lib. 5. de Rom. Pontif. cap. 7. Bellarm. cod cap. Bellarm. cap. codem Bellarm. ubi supra 1 2 3 Prou. c. 8. 15. Rom. c. 13. v. 1. 4 Sylvest de papa para 2. 5 Bellar. derom pontif lib. 5. cap. 7. Luc. 12. 2. Mat. 16. 13. Mat. 23. 3. Mat. 15. 3. Mat. 15. 9. 1. Ioh. 4. 3. Roffensis cont assertion Luther art 18. prope initium Deut. cap. 2. vers 4. 2. Machab. cap. 12. vers 26. Matt. cap. 11. vers 25. Bellar. lib.