deteyned from them For while they gaue away their owne they vnawares and fondly deemed that they onely restored that which was not their owne in deed Instruction 8. The word Pope was not the proper and peculiar name to the Byshop of Rome for the space of 528. yeares after Christ. The Church of Rome was made the Head of all other Churches and the Byshops there the heads of all other Byshops by the imperiall constitution of Phocas 607. yeares after Christ. That the Pope could not erre iudicially was not authenticall in the Romish Church for 1500. yeares after Christ. That the Pope could vnmarrie persons lawfully married by Christes institution was neuer heard of in the Christian world vntill the yeare 1550. after Christ at which time Pope Iulius presumed to dissolue lawfull Matrimonie by his vnlawfull Dispensation It was neuer thought lawfull for the naturall Brother to marry his naturall Sister vntill the time of Pope Martin who by the instigation of the Diuell set the same abroach in the yeare 1418. after Christ. Popish Veniall sinnes were first hatched by Pope Pius 1566. yeares after Christ. That the Blood of popish Saints could worke mans redemptiō was neuer heard of for the space of 1161. yeares after Christ. The like may be sayd of many other Popish Articles for which I referre the Reader to my Tryall of the New Religion I deeme it enough for the present to insinuate to the Christian Reader that our Church hath onely abolished Superstition Errours and Heresies by litle and litle crept into the Church and doth still keepe all and euery iot of the Old Romane Fayth and Religion The Capucheenes at Rome did the like when they euen with the Popes good liking reformed the dissolute Franciscans Yea Pope Pius himselfe of late dayes did the like while he reformed the popish deformed missals and breuiaries in his late Councell gathered at Trent If hee that now is Byshop of Rome would reforme all the rest by abolishing all Nouelties by litle and litle brought into the Church as we haue done he should finde the remnant to be the Old Romane religion in verie deed Marke well the whole Discourse following where all this is soundly prooued as more cannot be wished The Contentes of the Chapters Chapter 1. Proouing THat the name and worde Pope was in the primatiue Church common to all Byshops aswell of Rome as else where That the Byshop of Rome neither is nor ought to be nor euer was called The vniuersall Byshop of the whole Church That the name Pope was not peculiar to the Bishops of Rome for more then 528. yeares after Christ. That the Iesuite volens nolens is enforced to graunt the same Chapter 2. Proouing That the Pope may not be controulled though he carry with him thousands vpon thousands into Hell That it is Sacriledge to dispute of the Popes power That the Pope with his Pardons can deliuer all soules out of Purgatory-fire That the Pope can dissolue that Matrimonie which is firme and stable by Christes institution That the Pope can dispense with the Brother to marrie his owne naturall Sister That the Pope hath as great power as Christ himselfe had on earth That the Pope may doe whatsoeuer pleaseth him That the Pope can make of nothing something That the counterfeit Donation of Constantine was the originall of all Popish superroyall power That whatsoeuer the Emperours of latter time gaue to the Church of Rome they were induced to do the same by the coozening trickes of the Byshops of Rome That the Popes Sozimus Bonefacius and Celestine falsified the Canons of the Nicene Councell so to aduance them-selues aboue all other Byshops That no Byshops nor Priestes ought to appeale to the Church of Rome That the Councell of Nice gaue the primacie of honour to the Church of Rome because it was the Seat of the Emperour and Caput Mundi That all Christians euen the Byshops of Rome are subiect to the Canons of the Nicene Councell That the Nicene Synode did confine and knit the iurisdiction of the Byshop of Rome Chapter 3. Proouing That Marriage of Priestes was euer lawfull during the time of the old Testament That the Marriage of Priestes is prohibited onely by the law of Man and not by any positiue constitution either of Christ or his Apostles That it was euer lawfull for the Byshops and Priestes of the East-church to marry and to beget children in time of their Priesthood That the Marriage of Priestes was euer lawfull also in the West-church vntill the time of Pope Siricius and in Germanie for the space of 1074. yeares after Christ. That all secular Priestes may Marry notwithstanding the Popish solemne Vow annexed That by Popish fayth and doctrine Marriage is of force after the single Vow of chastitie That the Vow single is of one and the same nature with the Vow solemne That the Marriage of Priestes is lawfull after the solemne Vow so it be done by the Popes Dispensation That the forced and coacted Chastitie of Priestes hath been so intollerable as nothing hath brought more shame to Priesthood more shame to Religion more griefe to godly men Chapter 4. Proouing That popish Pardons are neither found in the holy Scripture nor in the auncient Fathers That the popish Maister of sentences could finde no mention of them in the writinges of the holy Fathers That Byshoppe Fisher graunted the young age of late popish Pardons That the best learned Papistes are not able to defend the same Chapter 5. Proouing That the Greeke Church neuer beleeued Purgatorie That the Church of Rome beleeued it not for the space of 250. yeares That the Church of Rome beleeued it not all at once but by litle and litle That the inuention of Purgatorie was the birth of popish Pardons That the primatiue Church was neuer acquainted with the Popes Pardons nor yet with popish Purgatorie Chapter 6. Proouing That popish Auricular confession cannot be prooued out of the Old Testament That the New Testament doth not impose an heauier yoake vpon vs then did the Old That popish Auricular confession is not necessarie for mans saluation That it is neither commaunded by Christ nor yet by his Apostles That it is established by the meere law of man grounded only vpon a falsely imagined Apostolicall vnwritten tradition That it was not an Article of popish Fayth for the space of 1215. yeares after Christ. Chapter 7. Proouing That euery Sinne is Mortall of it owne nature That fiue famous popish Writers Roffensis Almaynus Bains Durandus Gersonus doe all confesse the same That the Jesuite S. R. graunteth freely that the Church of Rome had not defined some Sinnes to be Veniall vntill the dayes of Pius the fift which was not fiftie yeares agoe Chapter 8. Proouing That the Pope may erre both in Fayth and Doctrine iudicially That many Popes haue erred De facto That great learned Papistes did constantly confesse so
teach and with Fire and Faggot violently vrge the same but is a thing in deed indifferent For if it had been necessarie vnto mans saluation all the holy and learned Fathers of the Greeke Church should haue perished euerlastingly But some will here demaund how that can be prooued To whom I answere that the same is plainely and expressely prooued in the Popes owne Decrees Which is such a testimonie against the Pope and his Popelings as none greater can be had The expresse wordes of the Popish Decrees haue already sounded in our eares This mine Obseruation is confirmed by the plaine wordes of the same Decrees where it is freely confessed that that opinion which holdeth sinnes onely to be confessed vnto God of necessitie is true lawfull and honest Let the wordes of the Decree be well marked because it sheweth all the holy Fathers of the Greeke Church to confound the Pope and all his Jesuited Popelings But let vs heare the verdict of a famous popish Cardinall of Rome Cardinall Caietanus as we haue seene already auoucheth constantly that Auricular and Secret confession is against Christes holy Institution as is also the Precept that compelleth vs to frequent the same For the better explication of this famous Cardinals Assertion because the Pope and his Jesuites can not endure to heare the same I will heere lay open before the eyes of the indifferent Reader the best answere that the Papistes haue or can inuent against the same Iosephus Angles that famous Popish Byshoppe not well pleased with the Popish Cardinall as it may seeme writeth of his Doctrine in this manner Hinc intelliges cauendum esse Caietanum super Ioan. cap. 20. vbi duos errores affirmauit vnum est institutam fuisse â— Christo Confessionem voluntariam cum sit ab Ecclesia definitum necessariam esse ad salutem Nam quod est voluntarium vt religionis ingressus non est ad salutem necessarium Alterum scilicet modum confitendi ad aurem non esse a Christo institutum Et hic error est in Conc. Trident. damnatus Hence mayest thou vnderstand that wee ought to take heede of Caietane vpon the 20. of John where hee affirmeth two errours the one is that Christ instituted Confession voluntary albeit the Church defined the same to be necessarie to saluation The other is that Christ did not institute Confession Auricular which is made in the Priestes eare And in the next page the same Angles telleth vs that the Councell of Trent did of purpose condemne Caietans opinion By the doctrine of this great Learned Papist who was a Cardinall of Rome and a Frier Dominican we see clearely these three poyntes First that the best learned Popish Doctors condemne Poperie and iustifie the doctrine of the Church of England Secondly that Auricular Confession was voluntarie in the dayes of Cardinall Caietane who liued aboue a thousand yeares after Christ. Thirdly that this Cardinall gaue such a deadly wound to Popish Confession a Ragge of the New religion that the Councell of Trent could find no better remedie but to condemne his Opinion as Hereticall Wisely therefore doth the Popish Byshoppe Angles exhort his Readers to beware of Caietane Bonauenture Hugo Panormitane and the Popish Glosse because they all with the Popes deare Canonistes tell vs constantly that Popish Confession hath no better ground then pure Mans inuention And consequently all such may iustly be deemed as blind as Beetles that do not see Popish Auricular Confession to be a rotten Ragge of the New religion The Iesuites Seuenth Chapter Of Popish Veniall sinnes COncerning Popish Veniall sinnes I will first set downe and lay open to the Reader the state and trueth of the Controuersie now in hand and that done refute refell the Iesuites counterfeite and pretensed Answere to the same The 1. Conclusion Euery Sinne is mortall of it owne nature I prooue it sundry wayes First because the Prophet in the spirit of God pronounceth Death to be due to euery Sinne Anima quae peccauerit ipsa morietur The soule that sinneth it shall die Secondly because S. Paul teacheth vs that The reward of sinne is death Thirdly because S. Iohn affirmeth euery Sinne to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say The transgression of Gods Law for so doth Ben. Arias Montanus that famous Popish Linguist translate the Greeke word and therefore no deniall can be made thereof Fourthly because the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vsed in the Scripture for Sinne and signifying a declining or swaruing from the right way doth emphatically and plainely confirme the same Fiftly because S. Bede Dionisius Carthusianus and Nicolaus Lyranus doe all three with vniforme assent expound S. John of Mortall sinne S. Bede who for his Learning and Vertue was renowned throughout the Christian world and therevpon surnamed Venerabilis hath these expresse wordes Virtus huius sententiae facilius in lingua Graecorum qua edita est Epistola compraehenditur Siquidem apud eos iniquitas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vocatur quod significat quasi contra legem vel sine lege factum Siquidem lex graecè 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appellatur Sequitur sed et Latinum nomen eidem rationi congruit quod iniquitas quasi aequitati aduersa nuÌ„cupatur Quia quicunque peccat contrarius nimirum aequitati diuinae legis peccando existit The force and efficacie of this sentence is more easily perceiued in the Greeke tongue in which the Epistle was written for Iniquitie with them is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth As done against Law or without Law for the Law is called in Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Latine word also agreeth to the same reason because it is called Iniquitie as being against Equitie For euery one that sinneth is by reason of sinne contrary to the equitie of Gods Law Dionysius Carthusianus a famous and learned Papist hath these expresse wordes Lex autem diuina est aequitas ipsa sicque mortale peccatum est iniquitas id est non aequitas vtpote violatio aequitatis The Law of God is Equitie it selfe and consequently Iniquitie that is not Equitie as the trangression of Equitie is a mortall sinne Lyranus an other famous Popish Writer hath these wordes Peccatum est transgressio legis diuinae Lex autem diuina est ipsa aequitas et ideo in omni peccato mortali est aequitatis corruptio et per consequens iniquitas Sinne is the transgression of Gods Law and the Law of God is Equitie it selfe And therefore in euery mortall sinne there is corruption of Equitie and consequently there is Iniquitie Sixtly because holy Moses pronounceth euery one accursed that keepeth not the whole Law Seuenthly because fiue famous and great learned Papistes Iacobus Almaâ—nus Durandus Jo. Gersonus Michael Baius and Byshop Fisher not able to answere the reasons against Veniall sinnes doe freely and constantly affirme without all And 's or
â—ffes that euery Sinne is mortall of it owne nature Our reuerend Byshoppe Roffensis hath these expresse wordes Quod peccatum Veniale solum ex Dei miseri oâ—dia Ventale sit in hoc tecum sentio That a Veniall sinne is only Veniall through the mercie of God not of it owne nature therein doe I agree vnto you Loe the Popish glorious Martyr my Lord of Rochester who was as learned as any Byshoppe or Pope of Rome confesseth honestly and truely that euery Sinne is mortall of it owne nature The famous and great learned man Ioannes Gersonus otherwise a great Papist can not denie this veritie for these are his words Nulla offensa Dei est Venialis de se nisi tantummodo per respectum ad Diuinam misericordiam qui non vult de facto quamlibet offensaÌ„ imputare ad morteÌ„ cum illud posset iustissime Et ita concluditur quod peccatuÌ„ mortale et veniale in esse tali non distinguuntur intrinsece et essentialiter sed solum per respectum ad Diuinam gratiam quae peccatum istud imputat ad paenam mortis et aliud non No offence of God is Veniall of it owne nature but onely in respect of Gods mercie who will not de facto impute euery offence to death although hee might most iustly doe it And so I conclude that Mortall and Veniall sinnes as such are not distinguished intrinsecally and essentially but onely in respect of Gods grace which imputeth this sinne to the paine of death and not the other Many other like sentences the same Learned man hath but these may suffice to content any reasonable minde Jacobus Almaynus Durandus and Michael Baius teach the very same Doctrine as our Jesuite in this Chapter doth freely graunt not able to gainesay the trueth therein Now out of the Doctrine of this great Learned man who was of high esteeme in the Councell of Constance I obserue these golden Documentes First that euery Sinne is Mortall of it owne nature Secondly that no Sinne is Veniall saue onely in respect of Gods mercie Thirdly that God may most iustly condemne vs for the least Sinne we doe Note seriously gentle Reader this word iustissimè most iustly for it confoundeth our Jesuited Papistes and striketh dead Fourthly that Mortall and Venial sinnes are the very same intrinsecally and essentially and doe but differ accidentally that is to say they differ in accident but not in essence and nature in quantitie but not in qualitie in mercie but not in deformitie in the subiect but not in the obiect in imputation but not in enormitie saue onely that the one is a greater Mortall sinne then is the other For as M. Gerson auoucheth learnedly God may most iustly condemne vs for the least sinne we do howsoeuer our Jesuites and Iesuited Papistes doe flatter themselues in their cursed deformed Venials The Second Conclusion Euery Sinne is against the Law of God and not onely besides the Law as the Popish Thomistes Jesuites would haue it I prooue it by many argumentes First because we must giue an account of euery idle word at the generall doome as our Lord Iesus telleth vs which doubtlesse we should not be bound to doe if the least idle word were not against Gods Law For how can God a most iust Iudge condemne vs iustly for that sinne which of it owne nature is Veniall He can not doe it for his Iustice sake The Jesuite S. R. in his pretensed Answere to the Downe-fall of Poperie is bold with God in that behalfe These are his expresse wordes Hee is no wise person who will fall out and be offended for euer with his friend for euery triffle as the taking up of a Straw nor hee is a iust Prince who should inflict death for stealing a Pinne And I beleeue Bell would thinke himselfe vniustly handled if he were so dealt withall Wherefore if God should doe this we should neither account him a wise Friend nor a iust Prince These are the words of S. R. that shamelesse Jesuite whom B. C. our Fryer his brother calleth a Learned man Secondly because S. Austin defineth Sinne thus Peccatum est transgressio Legis Sinne is a transgression of the Law The same holy Father in an other place defineth Sinne in this manner Peccatum est dictum velfactum vel concupitum aliquid contra Legem aeternam Sinne is a word deed or thought against the eternall Law of God And what the eternall Law is he sheweth in the words next following which are these Lex aeterna est ratio Diuina vel voluntas Dei ordinem naturalem conseruari iubens perturbari vetans The eternall Law is the reason or will of God which commaundeth the order of Nature to be kept and forbiddeth it to be broken Thirdly because S. Ambrose defineth Sinne after the same manner in these expresse words Quid est N. peccatum nisi preuaricatio Legis diuinae et caelestium inobedientia praeceptorum For what is Sinne but the transgression of Gods law and disobedience to his heauenly preceptes Loe Sinne sayth S. Ambrose is nothing else but the Transgression of Gods law that is to say nothing else but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as S. John tearmeth it and as Arias Montanus doth interpreat it Fourthly because Josephus Angles that famous Popish Fryer and Byshoppe teacheth the same doctrine euen in that Booke which he dedicated to the Pope himselfe these are his expresse wordes Omne peccatum veniale est alicuius Legis transgressio Patet quia omne veniale est contra rectam rationem et agere contra rationem est agere contra Legem naturaleÌ„ praecipientem non esse a regula rectae rationis deuiandum Euery Veniall sinne is the transgression of some Law This is euident because euery Veniall sinne is against right reason and to doe against right reason is to doe against the law of Nature which commaundeth vs not to decline or swarue from the rule of right reason The same religious Fryer and learned Popish Byshoppe hath in an other place these wordes Regula qua bonitas nostrarum actionum mensuratur vel est temporalis et est recta ratio nostri intellectus vel est aeterna quae est voluntas diuina cui subordinatur temporalis Ideo N. aliquid est contra rectam rationemque est contra voluntatem Dei quae est regula aeterna Et defectus istarum regularum est vniuersa malitia nostrarum operationum The rule with which the goodnes of our actions is measured is either temporall and it is the right reason of our vnderstanding or else it is eternall which is the will of God to which the temporall is subordinate For therefore is any thing against right-reason because it is against the will of God which is the eternall rule And the defect of these rules is the whole malice of our actions This is the constant and plaine Doctrine of the Popish
Byshoppe which hee was bold to present to the Popes Holynesse where it found kind acceptation and therefore is and must be authenticall though it giue our Holy Father a deadly blow Out of which learned Discourse I obserue these worthy Lessons First that euery Veniall sinne is against right reason Secondly that euery Veniall sinne is the transgression of some Law Thirdly that to doe any thing against right reason is to doe against the law of Nature Fourthly that the law of Nature commaundeth not to decline from the rule of right reason Fiftly that the temporall rule with which the goodnesse of our actions is measured is the right reason of our vnderstanding which is giuen to euery one in his creation birth or natiuitie Sixtly that the eternal rule with which the goodnesse of our actions ought to be measured is the Will of God Seuenthly that therefore our thoughtes wordes and workes are against right reason because they are against the Will of God which is the law Eternall Which Obseruations if they be duely pondered doe euidently prooue and plainely conuince that euery Sinne is Mortall of it owne nature Fiftly because euery one is accursed which keepeth not euery iote of the Law Sixtly because Christes blessed Apostle S. Iames telleth vs plainely That whosoeuer shall keepe the whole Law and but offende in any one precept is guiltie of all Seuenthly because God will destroy all manner of Liers and all workers of Iniquitie Odisti omnes qui operantur iniquitatem perdes omnes qui loquuntur Mendacium Thou hatest all workers of Iniquitie thou wilt destroy euery one that is a Lyer Thus saith the holy Prophet of God in the spirit and person of God Out of which wordes I obserue two poyntes of great consequence First that where all are comprised there not one among all is excepted and consequently the sacred Text is to be vnderstood euen of euery least Sinner and of euery least Lyer Secondly that where Destruction is for Punishment inflicted there Gods Law doubtles is transgressed and so is euery Popish Veniall sinne against the Law Eightly because Christ himselfe teacheth vs That besides the Law against the Law is all one in rei veritate in the trueth of the matter Qui non est mecum contramâ— est et qui non congregat mecuÌ„ spargit He saith our Maister Christ that is not with mee is against mee and hee that gathereth not with mee scattereth Ninthly because Durandus a famous and learned Popish Writer confuteth the fondly inuented distinction of their Popish Canonized Saint Aquinas which the Pope and his Jesuites hold for the maintenaunce of late start-vp Poperie to weete that Veniall sinnes are praeter Legem non contra Besides the Law but not against the Law These are the expresse wordes of Durandus Ad argumentum dicendum quod omne peccatum est contra Legem Dei naturalem vel inspiratam vel ab eis deriuatam To the Argument answere must be made that euery Sinne is against the Law of God either naturall or inspired or deriued from them And this opinion of M. Durand is this day commonly defended in the Schooles So doth Fryer Ioseph tell our holy Father the Pope these are his wordes D. Thomas et eius sectatores tenent peccatum Veniale non tem esse contra Legem quaÌ„ praeter Legem Sequitur Durandus tamen et alij permulti hanc sententiaÌ„ impugnant affirmantes peccata venialia esse contra mandata Et haec opinio modo in scholis videtur coÌ„munion S. Thomas and his followers hold that a Veniall sinne is not so much against the Law as besides the Law But Durand and very many others impugne this opinion auouching Veniall sinnes to be against the commaundementes And this opinion seemeth now adayes to be more common in the Schooles Heere I wish the reader to note by the way out of the word modo now adayes the mutabilitie of late start-vp Romish religion as also the dissentioÌ„ of popish Schoole-doctors in the misteries of their fayth and Doctrine For in that their Byshoppe the Fryer sayth modo now adayes he giueth vs to vnderstand that their Romish Doctrine is now otherwise then it was of old time and in former ages And in that he telleth vs of the great dissension amongest their Doctors he very emphatically layeth open to the Reader the vncertainty of Romish fayth and Religion For doubtlesse if their tyrannicall Inquisition and the dayly feare of Fire and Faggot were taken out of the way the Popes ridiculous and plaine Heathenish Excommunications with his Decrees and Definitions in matters of Fayth would be of small account and troden vnder foote This is a most worthy Note and must be well remembred For the Old Romane religion was Catholique pure and found and with it doe not I contend I onely impugne the late start-vp Romish Fayth and Doctrine which the Pope and his Romish Schoolemen haue brought into the Church Tenthly because Vega a great Learned Papist very famous in the Church of Rome doth not onely teach euery Veniall sinne to be against the Law but withall he constantly affirmeth that therefore none lyuing can possibly keepe the whole Law at once For albeit hee hold that euery part of the Law may be kept at some time yet doth he constantly denie that the whole 〈◊〉 kept at once because one partiâ—â—â—â—â— broken with Popish Venials against the Law while an other is kept The third Conclusion Albeit euery Sinne be Mortall of it owne nature yet are not all sinnes equall and alike but one greater then an other I prooue it first because our Lord Iesus doth distinguish the degrees of Sinnes while he affirmeth him that is angrie with his brother to be guiltie of Iudgement him that sayth to his brother Raca to be guiltie of a Councell him that calleth his brother Foole to be guiltie of Hel-fire Secondly because the holy Ghospell telleth vs that the Sinnes of the Sodomites and of the Gomorrhaeans shal be punished more remissely in the day of Iudgement then the sinnes of those Citizens who would not receiue the Apostles nor hearken to their preaching Thirdly because Tyrus and Sidon shall be more remissely dealt withall in iudgement then Corozain and Bethsaida The case is cleare I need not stand about it For euery Child can tell vs that it is a greater Mortall sinne to steale a goodly Gelding or a great fatte Oxe then it is to steale a fatte Calfe or a fatte Hogge Yea a greater sinne to kill a Man then to eate an Egge in Lent though Popish inflicted punishment doth not euer so insinuate But hereof more at large when I come to speake of Popish Lent The fourth Conclusion Veniall sinnes of their owne nature are against Charitie and doe breake friendshippe and amitie with God I prooue this Conclusion against the Pope his Iesuites and all Jesuiâ—ed Popelinges whether in England
Gods most Holy most Wise and most Pure Decrees For which respect God telleth vs by the mouth of his Prophet that his wayes are not as ours For My thoughtes sayth Esay are not your thoughtes neither are your wayes my wayes saith the Lord. Gods Will is the Rule by which all mans thoughtes wordes and workes must be measured But Mans Will is no Rule or Law to measure Gods actions or to direct his most Iust most Holy and most Pure Purposes Ordinaunces and Decrees Secondly Man can but punish the body temporally but God can punish both body and soule eternally Man can but punish the outward actions of man but God can punish both the outward actes and the inward thoughtes Man can but punish the temporall iniurie done to man but God can punish both that and the eternall iniurie done to his most sacred Maiestie surpassing Omnipotencie and ineffable Deitie Offence done to Man is finite and limitted but offence done to God is infinite and illimited Thirdly Sinnes which are but small in respect of man are exceeding great in respect of God For example sake a reprochfull word spoken against a Meane priuate person is respectiuely a small offence the same word spoken against a Great personage of high place in Church or Common-weale is a farre greater Offence the same spoken against our Soueraigne Lord the King is the greatest of all three And consequently when we offende God whose person is of infinite Worthinesse of infinite Maiestie of infinite Power our offence obiectiuely must needes be infinite howsoeuer our Iesuites and Jesuited Papistes flatter themselues in their Venials Fourthly the thinges which are trifles in our Iesuites iudgement are great and heynous Sinnes in the tribunall of our Lord Iesus Adams eating of the Apple was one of our Iesuites trifles The looking backe of Lots wife was an other The sinne of Infantes in their natiuitie was an other For which respect sundry of their best learned Doctors haue inuented a third place beside Heauen and Hell for those Infantes which die without Baptisme Superfluous idle Wordes an other All which for all that are heynous and grieuous Sinnes with God And no maruayle seeing the Least sinne that can be named is against the infinite Maiestie of God and consequently of infinite deformitie And our Iesuite S. R. sheweth himselfe to be a very noddie while he publisheth these wordes For who will say that a little superfluous Laughter breaketh the order of Nature Marke well gentle Reader and thou shalt see Poperie stricken dead When our Jesuite S. R. was not able to answere the Authorities of the holy Fathers layd open by T. B. in the Downe-fall of Poperie which did euidently conuince that the Breaking of the order of Nature was against the eternall Law and Will of God hee was enforced to say as there is to be seene in the Page noted in this Margent that the Fathers S. Austen and S. Ambrose defined such Sinne as breaketh the order of Nature which also is Mortall Sinne not Veniall In which wordes he vnawares confoundeth himselfe For he truely sayth against himselfe That the Sinne which is against the Order of Nature is a Mortall sinne indeed But withall hee sayth vntruly That a litle superfluous Laughter breaketh not the order of Nature For if it be true as it is most true which Christ himselfe hath told vs viz. That euery idle and superfluous word breaketh the order of Nature in that it is against the Law eternall it followeth by a necessarie consequence that euery superfluous and idle Laughter breaketh the order of Nature in that it is against the Law eternall to which the Law and Order of Nature is subordinate To which I adde to second my former proofe that the order of Nature as Nature to weete of Nature afore not after Adams fall was pure free and voyde of euery spot bleamish excesse defect or other fault whatsoeuer and consequently of euery vaine idle and superfluous Laughter But perhaps our Fryer will say that idle and superfluous Laughter is besides the order of Nature not against the same as he before affirmed his Venials to be besides the Law but not against the Law of God If he so doe the confutation is at hand First because Christ sayth plainely that Hee is against hâ—m whosoeuer is not with hâ—m Againe because Vega Durandus Almaynus Baius Gersorus and all the Popish Schoole-doctors of best esteeme do auouch plainely and resolutely That euery Sinne euen the least that can be named is against the Law Whereupon Vega that great Learned Papist a man of high esteeme in the late Councell of â—rent concluded egregiously and learnedly That the whole Law is impossible to be kept at once For albeit he graunt that euery part of the Law may be kept yet doth he withall confesse that while we keepe one part thereof we can not but breake an other Ninthly because our Fryer S. R. that Learned man as his brother Jesuite B. C. stileth him confesseth lustily though vnawares against himselfe that involuntarie Concupiscence is naught euill disorderly because it is against the rule of Reason and much more doubtlesse is superfluous voluntarie Laughter against the order of Nature rule of Reason and consequently it breaketh friendshippe with God as being quite opposite to the eternall Law which is his diuine Will and Reason Tenthly because the same Jesuite freely confesseth in an other place That the Least Sinnes want equitie and conformitie to Gods Law and consequently he must volens nolens confesse withall That his falsely supposed Venials are truely Mortals against Gods friendship and his eternall Law Now let vs heare our Jesuite speake for the honour of the Pope B. C. The common opinion most receiued and most sound is that some Sinnes of their owne nature be small or Veniall others great and Mortall Byshoppe Fisher and some foure other alleadged by Bell thinke that all Sinnes of their owne nature be Mortall and that it proceedeth from the Mercie of God that some be Veniall because he would not vpon diuers smaller Sinnes impose so great a punishment But notwithstanding this small difference neither B. Fisher nor any of the others denie Veniall Sinnes as Bell and his consorts doth T. B. I answere first that the Papistes themselues doe not agree in their Popish Fayth and Doctrine as the Jesuite heere confesseth to their confusion For he freely graunteth that the great Learned Papistes whom I named viz. Jacobus Almaynus Durandus Gersonus Michael Baius and Byshoppe Fisher doe all fiue constantly hold and defend that all Sinnes are Mortall of their owne nature And withall he telleth vs that the Pope and Church of Rome hold the contrary opinion Secondly that Small sinnes and Veniall sinnes are all one as our Iesuite heere teacheth vs. And my selfe will not deny that some sinnes respectiuely are small of their owne nature as
it is alreadie prooued in the third Conclusion To which I adde that the holy Fathers when they speake of Venial sinnes doe euer vnderstand Small sinnes respectiuely In which sense my selfe do willingly admit Veniall sinnes as also sinnes Veniall by the mercie of God But withall I wish the Reader euer to remember what Gersonus Almaynus Baius Durandus and Roffensis teach vs viz. that euery least Sinne is Mortall of it owne nature which is the flat Doctrine I heere defend Thirdly that the difference amongst the Learned Popish Doctors concerning Veniall sinnes is a matter of small importance which I exhort the Christian reader in the bowels of our sweete Redeemer neuer to forget For it doth plainely conuince if nothing else could be sayd in that behalfe that Poperie is the New religion What is Popish fayth a matter of Small moment Is it not necessarie to saluation If the Pope will say it I am ready to confirme it Roffensis Baius Almaynus Durandus and Gersonus all being both learned and zealous Papistes affirme constantly the force of trueth compelling them that euery Sinne is Mortall of it owne nature Contrariwise the Pope his Jesuites and Jesuited vassals affirme teach and beleeue as an Article of Popish Fayth that many Sinnes are Veniall euen of their owne nature This notwithstanding our Jesuite telleth vs roundly though nothing Clerkly that the difference is but small So then Articles of Popish fayth are small or great as it pleaseth the Pope His bare Will as we haue heard and seene is a warrant sufficient in euery thing as who can change the nature of thinges if we will beleeue him and of nothing make some thing Fourthly that my selfe hold no Opinion teach no Article of Fayth defend no Position but such Opinions Positions and Articles as the best learned Papistes haue holden taught and defended before mee For my woonted maner euer hath been is and shall be to wound the Papistes with their owne Weapons and to conâ—ound the Pope with his best Learned Proctors B. C. This being so let vs consider what a notable vntrueth the Minister offereth to the view of his Readers when he sayth Almaynus Durandus Gerson Baius and other famous Papistes not able to answere the reasons against Veniall sinnes confesse the trueth with the Byshop that euery Sinne is Mortall Hee doth cunningly abuse them in leauing out those wordes of it owne nature which ought to be added after their opinion and himselfe likewise doth adde in citing of Roffensis immediately before T. B. I answere first that the vntrueth our Fryer speaketh of proceedeth from his owne lying lippes as by and by it will appeare Secondly that our Fryer doth falsely peeuishly vnchristianly and impudently abuse both his Reader and mee when he chargeth me to abuse my Authors in leauing out their wordes What wordes sir Fryer haue I left out These wordes forsooth of it owne nature sayth our Iesuiticall Fryer O malitious Jesuite Where is thine Honestie where is thy Christianitie where is thy Fayth where is thy Conscience Art thou become a flat Atheist art thou at defiance with true dealing Thou seemes to make thy soule saleable for the Popes pleasure Doth not thine owne Penne condemne thee when thou grauntes that I added the same wordes in citing of Roffensis immediatly before Let the indifferent Reader be an indifferent Iudge betweene vs. I added the wordes immediatly before as our Fryer truely sayth it therefore had been an irkesome tantologie to cite them againe in the next wordes following especially seeing I affirme the Popish Doctors Almaynus Durandus Gersonus and Baius to hold and defend the selfe same opinion that Byshoppe Fisher affirmeth to be the trueth Againe the Controuersie consisteth precisely in this speciall poynt viz. Whether euery sinne be Mortall of it owne nature or no. I defende the affirmatiue the Iesuite the negatiue And consequently I must perforce speake of Sinnes as they are in their owne nature O worthy defender of late start-vp Poperie Thou perceiuest right well that Poperie is the New religion indeed and not able to withstand the truth nor to answere mine inuincible reasons and groundes Thou fleest from that which is in question to impertinent extrauagant and friuolous cauils so to dazell the eyes of thy Readers least they behold the newnesse of late Romish Religion Out vpon such beggerly Religion as which can not be defended but by cauils coozenage lying and deceitfull dealing B. C. After this vntrueth immediatly followeth another Yea the Jesuite S. R. quoth hee with the aduice of his best Learned friendes in his answere to the Downefall of Poperie confesseth plainely and blusheth not thereat that the Church of Rome had not defined some sinnes to be Veniall vntill the dayes of Pius the fift and Gregorie the 13. which was not fiftie yeares agoe In which wordes he blusheth neuer a whit to slaunder that Learned man and wholly to corrupt his meaning Hee sayth not that the Church of Rome had not defined some sinnes to be Venial vntill the dayes of Pius the fift and Gregorie the 13. as this licentious cast-away corruptly fathereth vpon him For he knew well that to beleeue Veniall sinnes was an Article long receiued before the times of those Popes But he affirmeth onely that to hold Veniall sinnes onely to be such by the mercie of God was censured and condemned by those Popes Why did Sir Thomas his sinceritie cut away these wordes by the mercie of God Forsooth because that without lying and corruption he can obiect nothing against Catholike doctrine T. B. I answere first that our impudent Fryer lyeth egregiously when he chargeth mee to slaunder S. R. his learned Brother For vpon my saluation I auerre it I deale christianly honestly and sincerely I neuer change adde or take away any one iote of that which I finde in mine Authors Would to God our Iesuites did so deale with mee Secondly our Fryer lyeth impudently when he vttereth these wordes Hee sayth not that the Church of Rome had not defined some sinnes to be Veniall vntill the dayes of Pius the fift and Gregorie the thirteenth For these are S. R. his expresse wordes True it is that Byshoppe Fisher and Gerson were in that errour but that was both before it was condemned in the Church as it was since by Pius the fift and Gregorie the thirteenth In which wordes the Jesuite S. R. telleth vs two memorable poyntes of Doctrine Th' one that Fisher and Gerson were in an Errour Th' other that the Errour was before the Church had condemned it So it onely remaineth duely to examine what the supposed Errour was The Iesuite B. C. heere telleth vs plainely if wee may beleeue him that the Popes Pius and Gregorius condemned that opinion onely which holdeth Venial sinnes to be onely such by the mercie of God I admit the Assertion I like the Narration I onely reiect the Popes friuolous vnchristian and
plaine hereticall condemnation For I pray you sir Fryer are not those sinnes Mortall of their owne nature which are onely Veniall by mercie and fauour Doth not Veniall onely by Mercie exclude Veniall by all other wayes and meanes For doubtles whatsoeuer is Veniall of it owne nature can not be Veniall onely by Mercie Onely our fond Iesuiticall Fryer not able to defend Poperie from being the New religion is forced for want of matter to say it The nature of euerie thing is intrinsecall and essentiall to the thing and can not be taken away from the thing without the vtter destruction of the same But euerie meane Logitian euerie young Gramarian euerie wittie Ploughman and euerie Boy of discretion is able to teach and tell our Jesuite that Mercie is extrinsecall and meere accidentall to the thing and may be added or taken away from the thing without the destruction of the same Ergo whatsoeuer is Veniall not any other way but by the Mercie of God onely is vndoubtedly Mortall of it owne nature And consequently seeing all Sinnes were Mortall of their owne nature vntill the dayes of Pius and Gregorius as our Jesuites freely graunt it followeth by a necessarie and ineuitable illation that Veniall sinnes of their owne nature were neuer knowne to the Church of God vntill the irreligious and plaine hereticall Decrees of Pius the fift and Gregorie the thirteenth that is to say for the space of one thousand fiue hundred threescore and fiue yeares after Christ. For the supposed errour of Roffensis Gersonus Almaynus Baius and Durandus who all were verie learned Papistes and for all that taught and defended euery Sinne to be Mortall of it owne nature was not condemned as we see and heare it freely confessed by our Aduersaries vntill the time of Pius the fift of that name The trueth therefore is this viz. that the Church for the space of 1565. yeares after Christ beleeued euerie Sinne to be Mortall of it owne nature For as we haue seene alreadie in the first Conclusion of this Chapter God may most iustly condemne euerie least Sinne to eternall Death and Hell fire Yea as M. Gerson learnedly writeth he that holdeth the contrarie must perforce hold withall that in some case Sinne may be done lawfully and be no Sinne at all And it is but a very childish and friuolous cauill to say at our Fryer heere doth viz. that it was an Article of Popish Faith long before Pius the Pope to beleeue Veniall sinnes For such Venialles were of necessitie such either of their owne nature or else of mercie onely If our Jesuite graunt the latter I haue my desire it is the trueth which I defende If the former a double refutation is at hand First because the opinion of Almaynus Roffensis Baius Durandus and Gersonus was verie currant in the Romish Church vntill the dayes of Pius and Gregorius as our Iesuite S. R. affirmeth and the Fryer B. C. his deare Brother willingly admitteth Againe because to be Veniall both by Mercie by Nature implieth contradiction The reason is euident both for that sinnes Veniall of their owne Nature stand not in need of any Mercie and also for that Mercie mittigateth that punishment which by the Nature of the subiect might iustly be inflicted O miserable Poperie What sillie shiftes and childish cauils are inuented to defend thee from being the New Religion If any shall hencefoorth call or thinke thee the Old Religion that shall heare thine age truely discouered I shall thinke him so wise as not to know when to come out of the raine Thirdly that our Iesuite sheweth himselfe more impudent then Impudencie it selfe while he beareth his Readers in hand that I haue cut away these wordes of mine Author the Iesuite his Learned brother By the Mercie of God For I referre my selfe to the expresse wordes of the Iesuite in his pretensed Answere to the Downe-fall of Poperie which I haue truely recited in the Tryall of the New religion as I will answere at the dreadfull day of doome But our Jesuite not able to defend Poperie from being the New Religion addicteth himselfe wholly to forgerie falsehood and lying for otherwise both hee and all his Jesuited crew are at a Non-plus and haue nothing at all to say B. C. The same Catholike writer noted him in the place cited by himselfe of two vntruthes The one for calling Byshoppe Fisher the Popes Canonized Martyr the other for styling Gerson a Byshoppe Neither of which be true but he skely passeth ouer them as not knowing poore wretch what to say in his owne defence into such straites doth this dominering Doctor driue himselfe by his talent of ouerlashing T. B. I answere first that the Pope may haue a cold heart when he seeth Poperie bleeding vnto death and no Popish Doctor able to stanch the same Our controuersie is of the Nature and Essence of Sinnes whether euerie Sinne be Mortall of it owne nature or no Our Jesuite being confounded and not able to prooue any sinne to be Veniall of it owne nature answereth me thus That neither Fisher is a Popish canonized Martir nor yet Gerson a Popish Byshoppe O worthie defender of the Pope and of the late Romish Religion I demaunde of our Fryer Iesuite how farre it is to London Hee forsooth answereth a Pokefull of Plumbes I aske him What hee saith to his learned Popish Doctors Almaynus Baius Roffensis Durandus and Gersonus who all with vniforme assent affirme resolutely as the Fryer hath confessed that euerie Sinne is Mortall of it owne nature The Fryer almost frighted out of his wittes telleth mee roundly and blusheth not thereat That neither Gerson is a Byshop nor Fisher a Canonized Martyr Is not this a Learned and Clerkly answere trow yee Hath not the Jesuite much to say for the antiquitie of Poperie when he fleeth to such miserable shiftes pitifull digressions sillie cauils and ridiculous euasions What if Byshoppe Fisher were not a Popish canonized Martir What if M. Gerson the famous Chauncellour of Paris were not a Byshoppe yee know the Prouerbe Cucullus non facit Monachum Your selues can not denie that both Fisher and Gerson were verie learned Popish Writers and so it skilleth not whether the one was a Byshoppe and the other a canonized Martir or no. Secondly that our Jesuite belieth mee heere as his wonted manner is else where I referre the censure hereof to mine Answere in the Downe-fall it selfe Thirdly that M. Gerson was in his old dayes the Byshop of Paris as a litle Treatise published by the Doctors of Paris and sometime printed or bound in one volume with the Maister of Sentences plainely auoucheth to the Reader Fourthlie that Fisher was Canonized priuately at the least as Alphonsus the rector of the English Colledge at Rome did Canonize Campian in my time with a White Surplesse on his backe himselfe then singing a collect of Martirs and
dayes the Byshoppes of England now so called haue had and kept a continuall and vninterrupted succession of Byshoppes successiuely so sound firme and inuiolable as the Church of Rome is not able to shew the like This succession is so clearely prooued in my Christian Dialogue as none with right reasoÌ„ can deny the same Fourthly that the Church of England now so called hath euer since the time of King Ethelbert constantly kept all and euery Article of the old Romane Religion which she receiued from the auncient and purer Church of Rome No Papist liuing is able to giue any true instance against this irrefragable assertion Fiftly that as in processe of time many superstitious grosse and palpable errours yea flatte Heresies haue by litle and litle crept into the Church of Rome euen so hath our Church of England through the sway of the time been deeply stayned polluted with the same Sixtly that our Church in the time of King Henry the eight began to be reformed in some Articles of Fayth and Doctrine but the reformation was not perfect vntill the raigne of King Edward the sixt In which Reformation no New Article of Fayth or Religion is added to the former but the former Fayth and Religion is onely refyned purged purified and such Superstition Errours and Heresies abolished as were by litle and litle brought into the Church All and euery iote of the old Romane Religion remayneth still in our Church permanent and inuiolable But some perhappes will heere demaunde of me how the Church of Rome did so degenerate from the auncient Fayth and so foulely corrupt the old Romane Religion To whom I answere in this manner First with Egesippus that auncient and learned Father that during the life of Christes blessed Apostles the visible Church remayned a Virgin free from all Heresies and corruptions but after their death Errours by litle and litle crept into the Church as into a voyde and desart House Secondly with Franciscus a Victoria that famous popish Fryer and great learned Schooleman that by litle litle the Papistes were in his time brought to such inordinate dispensations and to so miserable a state that they were neither able to endure their owne griefes nor remydies assigned by the Pope for the same That Clemens Lâ—nus and Syluester were very good Byshoppes of Rome but that the latter Byshoppes comming after them successiuely were wicked men and nothing comparable to the olde Byshoppes there Thirdly with Iosephus Angles that famous Popish Byshoppe euen in that Booke which hee dedicated to the Pope himselfe that the Romish Religion changeth euery day Fourthly with the fiue famous Popish Doctors Iohannes Roffensis Jacobus Almaâ—nus Gersonus Durandus and Michael Baius that euery sinne is mortall of it owne nature and that the old Romane Church did so beleeue vntill the time of Pope Pius the fift that is about 1560 yeares after Christ at which time Veniall sinnes werâ— hatched in the Church of Rome This is such a constant knowen trueth as neither the Jesuite S. R. nor yet the Iesuite B. C. his deare brother can tell in the world what answere to frame to the same Fourthly with Polidorus Virgilius that famous Popish Writer that the Popish Legistes and Canonistes of latter dayes haue so wrested the holy Scriptures to their owne sense and liking as Coblers doe gnaw with their teeth and stretch out their filthy skinnes Fiftly with Platina the Popes deare Vassall and trustie Friend that in his dayes the Popedome was brought to that passe that who so could goe before others in Bribes and Ambition hee onely should haue the place Sixtly with Couarruuias that worthy popish Arch-byshoppe and learned Canonist that in these dayes either the Popes opinion must be defended or else Poperie can not stand Lastly with Iosephus Angles writing to the Popes deare Holynesse that albeit the old Church of Rome did by the commaundement of the Apostles excommunicate all non communicants in the time of the Masse or Liturgie yet hath the late Church decreed that it shall be lawfull for all Lay persons to receiue the Eucharist onely at Easter Much more I might and could say if I thought not this sufficient So then the Fayth and Doctrine this day professed and authorized in this our Church of England is indeed the old Romane religion purged refined and restored to the primatiue and most auncient puritie in King Edwardes dayes in whose happy raigne was the perfect and complete Reformation But the Fayth and Religion it selfe came from S. Peter and S. Paul yea euen from Christ himselfe their Jesus and our Jesus world without end To whom with the Father and the holy Ghost three in the distinction of persons and one in the vnitie of diuine essence be all Honour Maiestie Power Glory and Dominion now and euermore Amen A Caueat to the Christian Reader THE masked Jesuite in his Preface to the Reader laboureth with might and maine to perswade his Readers that I dare not performe that challenge which I made to the Fore-runner his wordes are these I the meanest of many millions doe accept of his Challenge and doe vndertake to defend not onely these two poynes of Iosephus Doctrine and Pope Martins Dispensation which he hath singled out as matters important but also all the rest so it may be with that equitie and fauour which was graunted to the Protestantes in France And vpon the same conditions doe prouoke him with a counter-challenge to the defence of his Bookes And a litle after he telleth his Reader That hee sendes me as many Challenges as will stand betweene Charing-crosse Chester and as many Dares as will reach from Darby to Darington To which I answere in this manner First that the Jesuites are accused and charged by their deare Breathren the popish Secular Priestes with Pride Ambition Couetousnesse Coozenage Theft Crueltie Murther Treason and all wickednesse that can be named Yea of Fryer Parsons that trayterous Iesuite they giue this testimonie in particular viz. by Parsons platformes Secular Priestes must depend vpon Blackwell and Blackwell vpon Garnet and Garnet vpon Parsons and Parsons the Priestes Bastard vpon the Deuill Peruse my Anatomy of popish Tyrannie and there thou shalt finde this trueth with great varietie of like matter Secondly that in all my Challenges I require but one onely Condition which the Iesuite passeth ouer in silence because he meaneth not to performe the same The Condition is this viz. That the Iesuite which shall accept the Challenge must put downe his name with his addition in print and send it to me Which if it be once performed during my life I promised vpon my saluation to doe what in me lyeth to procure a false conduct for the safe comming safe abyding and safe departure of him whosoeuer he be that shall accept and vndertake the true performance of the Challenge in maner aforesayd Thirdly that the Jesuite
well for Christes sake See Suruay part 3. chap. 6. and marke it well A.D. 250. See the Tryall chap. 5. and marke it well O braue Purgatorie the Greeke Church neuer beleeued thee The Iesuite hath as many lyes as words For this see the Anatomie of Popish Tyrannie His first lye His second lye His third lye His fourth lye His fift lye No vntrueth but what proceedes froÌ„ the Iesuiâ—es penne A.D. 250. I speake of the late Byshops of Rome O sweete Iesus who seeth not Popery to be the new Religion It is already prooued that the Fryer is a most impudent lyer The Iesuite snatcheth at this peece that peece but toucheth not the principall Act. 20. V. 27. Act 26. V. 22. Lyr. in 20. cap. Act. Apost Carthus ibid. Ioh. 5. V. 47. Aug. contra Adriantum cap. tom â— pag. 121. Polydor. libr. 6. cap. 1. The Iesuite B.C. p. 67. graunteth that Scotus is of the same opinion S. R. pag. 284. S.R. pag. 285. S. Austin tract 49. in Iohan. to 9. S.R. pag 286. S. Cyril lib. 11. in Ioan. cap. 68. Chrysosto 2. Thesâ— ho. 3. Epiphan Haeres 65. nos â—quidem vniusâ—uiusque quaestionis inuentionem non ex proprijs ratiocinationibus dicere poâ—â—imus sed ex scripturaruÌ„ consequentia Popish confession is neither commaunded by Christ nor by his Apostles Ex Leone Papa de paenitent dist 1. cap. quamuis Loe wise and religious Papistes hold that Confession was ordained by the law of man Syluest de Confes. secundò part 4. Couarruv â—om 1. par 1. pag. 155. Scotus in 4. libr. sent dist 17. q. 1. Loe Popish Confession is either one thing or other this or that they can not tell what The Papists cannot endure the written testimonie of Gods trueth Roffensis art 37. adâ— Luth. Pag. 11. Couar to 1. part 2. Cap. 7. Par. 4.11.14 in med what the Pope holdeth that must be defended Caietan cap. 20. in Iohan. Ponder well the next Conclusion A.D. 1215. Ab Innocentio 3 et â—â—is Angles in 4. S. paâ—â— 1. pag. 255. Popish auricular confession was not heard of in old time Nicephor lib. 12. cap. 28. f. Nicepho lib. 12. cap. 28. Auricular Confession is not necessary Rhenan in annot in lib. Tertul. de pae Loe Auricular Confession not heard of in the auncient Church Popish Confession is vnpossible euen by the confession of Papists Marke well for Gods sake Who will not be at defiance with Popery that deepely pondereth these thinges Out vpon Poperie it is flatâ—e Heresie Suruay part 3. cap. 12. pag. 504. Scotus can not tell what to say of their Popish Confession Lay away vnwritten Traditions and Poperie is at an end De Paenit Distinct. 1. cap. quamuis De paenit dist 1. cap. quamuis Ios. Angl. in 4. S. part 1. pag. â—54 Ios. Angles vbi supra pag. 255. The best learned Papistes doe vtterly condemne Popery for the New religion Ezech. cap. 18. vers 4. Rom. 6.23 Ar. Mont. in 1. Ioh. 3. Beda in 1. Ioh. 3. Carthus in 1. Iohn 3. Lyr. in 1. Iohn 3. Deut. 27.25 Gal. 3.10 Roffensis art 32 aduers. Luther p. 32â— Gers. de vit spiâ— lect 1. pag. â— Popish mortall Veniall sinnes are not distinguished essentially Marke this poynt well for it is of great consequence Mat. 12. v. 36. S.R. Pag. 268. O sawcie Fryer thy impudencie is intollerable Aug. de cons. Euang. lib. 2. C. 4. cont faust lib. 22. cap. 27. Ambros. de parad C. 8. Iosephus Angles in 4 S.P. 215. Iose. Angles in 2. sent pag. 249. Marke well this Popish Doctrine for it confoundeth the Pope Deut. 27.25 Gal. 3. v 10. Iacobi 2. v. 10. This Argument striketh dead Mat. 12. v. 30. Durand in 2. sent Dist. 42. q. 6. Ios. Angles in 2. sent pag 275. The Romish religion changeth often See and note well the Iesuites Antepast P. 109. et pag. 119. I highly reuerence the old Romane Religion Away with Popish workes of Supererogation Vide Bellarm. tom 3 â—0 l. 1216. Mat. 5. V. 22. Mat. 10. V. 15. There is great nequalitie in mortall sinnes Luk. 10. V. 14. Note Chap. 28. Esa. 59. V. 2. 2. Cor 6. V. 15. Psal. 5. V. 4.7 S. R. pag. 270. pag. 271. S.R. pag. 271. Ioh. 14. V. 23. Ioh. 15. V. 10.14 Ioh 14 V. 21. S.R. pag. 27â— Ioh. 15. V. 14. Deu. 27. V. 25. Gal. 3. V. 10. Mat. 12. V. 36. In prima Figura et modo Barbara Nauar. in Euchirid Cap. 21. Nu. 34. No sinne so small which breaketh not Gods fauour For we must neither turne to the right hand nor to the left Deut. 5.32 Caiet in 20. cap. Iohan. Mat. 12. V. 36. S.R. pag. 271. God will beatâ— our Iesuites for starting out of the way of his Commaundementes Psal. 5. v. â— Ioh. 15. v. 14. Nullum omâ—ino peccatum potest in Deum referri S.R. Pag. 268. O horrible Blasphemy what will not Iesuites write Marke well my wordes Esa. 55. v. 8. Rom. 9. v. 20.21.22 Rom. 11. v. 33. â—4 55 Mat. 10. v. 28. Genes 3. v. 6. Gen. 19.26 Limbus Puâ—rorum pontifiâ—ius Euery sin is of infinite deformitie â—altâ—m obiectiue S. R. Pag. 277. Euery Child of God will say it seeing it is against gods Law S. R. pag. 276.277 The Iesuite confoundeth himselfe while he graunteth euery sinne against the order of nature to be mortall Mat. 12. V. 36. The order of Nature before Adams fall Mat. 12 V. 30. Euery sinne is against Gods Law Away therefore with Popish works of supererogatioÌ„ No no prinâ—ipaliter S. R. pag. 186. S. R. pag. 278. Loe the Iesuite vnawares graunteth the trueth against his Pope and himselfe Fiue great learned Papistes are of Bels opinion Note well that the Fathers call small sinnes Veniall respectiuely See Chap. 2. Conclus 7. The Popes Fayth is confuted by Popish Doctors Poperiâ— without lying can not be defended O lying Frier there is no trueth in rotten newly inuented Poperie The maine poynt of the Controuersie Poperie is a beggerly Religion O most impudent Iesuite The Authors Protestation S. R. Pag. 281. Marke the falsely supposed errour Sinnes onely Veniall by mercie are mortall of their owne nature Nature and Mercie are farre differens This Ergo girdeth the Pope Vixit Pius A.D. 1565. Vixit Gregor A.D. 1572. Concl. 1. huius cap. ex Gersono et alijs The Romish Church beleeueth it can not tell what S. R. pag. 281. Veniall by Mercie can not be Veniall of it owne nature Tertiò Principaliter S. R. pag. 281. Out vpon rotten Poperie it consisteth of lying and forgerie See and note the tryall The Iesuite truely is at a Non plus A Poke full of Plumbes is the defence of Poperie Egomet tum eram testis oculatus Their Blood Bones Haire and Apparell are reserued honoured as the Reliques of Gods Martirs See and marke well the 29. and the. 30 Chapters The appeale of the Priestes is compared to the appeale of Alexander Martinus Polonus in Chronicho Polonus vbi supra
at Rome or wheresoeuer else by manifold and most important argumentes authorities and reasons First because Gods holy Prophet affirmeth constantly that our sinnes haue made a separation betweene God and vs. Secondly because th'Apostle teacheth vs that Light hath no fellowshippe with Darknesse Righteousnesse with Iniquitie Christ with Belial Thirdly because his will that committeth Veniall sinne is opposite to Gods will that haâ—eth the same And therefore the Pope and his Jesuites must either denie that Christ hateth Veniall sinnes which they dare not doe or else that Veniall sinnes breake friendship with him For doubtlesse that which a man hateth he neither loueth nor is in friendship with it Yet the Iesuite S. R. whom his brother B. C. calleth a Learned man is bold thus to write Veniall sinne destroyeth not Charitie nor breaketh Friendship with God which is the end for which the Law was made Againe in an other place thus For Veniall sinnes whencesoeuer they come to be such breake not Friendshippe with God Fourthly because the breach of Gods CoÌ„maundements standeth not with his friendship and loue For our Sauiour himselfe sayth plainely That if any loue him hee will keepe his Word Againe he sayth That none can be his Friendes nor abide in his Loue vnlesse they doe keepe his Commaundementes Againe The marke and badge of those that are in Gods Fauour is the keeping of his Preceptes For Hee that hath my Commaundementes saith Christ and keepeth them hee it is that Loueth mee And yet as we haue seene in the Second Conclusion euery Least sinne that can be named is a breach and transgression of Gods Law Fiftly because euery Least sinne that can be named wanteth conformitie to Gods Law and consequently it breaketh Friendship with God For Gods Friendes are they that doe his Will and conforme themselues to his Law Vos amici mei estis si feceritis quae ego praecipio vobis You sayth our Maister Christ are my Friends if you shall doe the thinges which I commaund you Sixtly because euery one is accursed that keepeth not the whole Law And consequently euery Popish Venialist euen hee who committeth the Least sinne of all breaketh Friendshippe and Amitie with God vnlesse perhappes our Iesuites will say which I trow they neither wil nor dare say that one may be of God accursed still abide in Gods friendship loue fauour Seuenthly because euery Least sinne must of necessitie be confessed and consequently euery Least sinne breaketh Friendship with God Hence ariseth an Argument insoluble which striketh all Papistes dead This is it marke it well All Sinnes which must of necessitie be confessed breake the friendshippe and fauour of God but all Popish so supposed Venials must of necessitie be confessed Ergo all Popish Venials breake the friendshippe and fauour of God The consequence is in forme syllogisticall therefore it may not in any case be denied It is in the first of the three Figures and in the Mode which the Logicians call Barbara The Proposition is prooued because no reason can be alleadged or in trueth be pretended why any man should be vrged to acknowledge Gods disfauour who is and continueth in his fauour For which respect as it seemeth Martinus Nauarrus a famous Popish Canonist and a man very skilfull in Theologie telleth vs roundly without blushing that Popish Venials must not be confessed of necessitie these are his expresse wordes Quibus consequens est posse quem si velit confesso vno peccato venials alterum tacere Vpon which it followeth that one may if he list confesse one Veniall sinne and conceale an other In which Assertion hee vnawares destroyeth Popish Auricular Confession For the Scripture commaundeth the Confession of all sinnes alike and consequently if Popish Veniall sinnes be not subiect to their Auricular confession neither are their Mortall sinnes subiect to the same No text of the holy Scripture neither in the Old nor in the New Testament can truely be alleadged which vrgeth the confession of the one more then it doth of the other For which cause Caietanus that famous Popish Cardinal affirmeth Popish Confession to be voluntarie and referred by Christ himselfe to the free election of euery one Josephus Angles and others are of the same opinion with Nauarre The Assumption I prooue out of Christes owne wordes which are these But I say to you that men shall giue an account in the day of iudgement of euery idle word they speake Now euery Child knoweth that to giue an account of our Sinnes is to acknowledge and confesse the same I prooue it out of the Jesuite S. R. his wordes whom the Iesuite B. C. will needes haue a great Learned man This Iesuite fore frighted with the fall he got while he was bickering with the Downe-fall of Poperie answereth in these tearmes I answere quoth hee that wee must giue an account for euery idle word not because they be against Law but because they be beside it And Bell sayth hee will beat his Horse not onely when he turneth backe but also when he starteth out of the way Thus answereth our poore begging Fryer being at his wittes end what to say He confoundeth himselfe and perceiueth it not True it is that Bell will beat his Horse when he starteth out of the way And true it is in like maner that God will beat our Jesuites for their cursed Venials when they in committing them start out of the way of his Commaundementes and he will withall tell them that hee hateth all workers of Iniquitie and so them with their deformed Venials He will also tell them that he doth not acknowledge them for his Friendes seeing they doe not his will nor walke in his wayes Eightly because euery Least sinne of it owne nature auerâ—eth froÌ„ God and can not possibly be referred to him and consequently it neither doth nor can enioy the friendshippe and fauour of God And our Jesuites blaspheame the name of God when they most vnreuerently and very brutishly affirme that God should be vniust and vnwise if he should be offended with them for their so supposed Venials The Iesuite S.R. hath these expresse words He is no wise person who will fall out and be offended for euer with his Friend for euery trifle as the taking of a Straw nor hee is a iust Prince who should inflict death for stealing a Pinne And I beleeue Bell would thinke himselfe vniustly handled if hee were so dealt withall Wherefore if God should doe this wee should neither account him a wise Friend nor a iust Prince Thus doth our Fryer in the name of al the cursed Iesuitical crew take vpoÌ„ him roundly to censure God Almightie To which horrible and blaspheamous Assertion of our presumptuous Jesuite I answere to his euerlasting confusion vnlesse he repentin time in this manner First that Mans doinges can not fitly be compared with
they neither any way can they be worthy condigne or truly Meritorious of eternall Glorie But as the troublesome way by which a man passeth to possesse the inheritaunce which his father hath freely giuen him may be sayd to worke and procure the actuall possession of the Inheritaunce not condignely or worthily to deserue the same euen so may our sufferinges be sayd to worke and procure our Glorification as a condition required at our handes or the way by which we must passe to it but neuer to be condigne worthy or meritorious of the same The reward is freely giuen by the Grace of our Adoption but that Grace maketh not our Workes meritorious and worthy of Heauen which they neither doe nor euer can deserue The 2. Conclusion Good Workes follow Iustification but they neither doe nor can goe before the same The latter part is euident because Without Fayth we can not please God Neither Can an euill tree as our maister Christ telleth vs bring foorth good fruite To which I adde with Christes Apostle that Whatsoeuer is not of fayth is sinne The former part is clearely deduced out of these wordes of our Lord Iesus Euery good tree bringeth foorth good fruite S. Austin pithily prooueth both the partes in these sweete short and golden wordes Opera sequuntur iustificatum non precâ—dunt iustificandum Workes follow him that is alreadie iustified but they goe not before him that is to be iustified The 3. Conclusion The best Workes which the regenerate doe are vnperfect polluted with sinne and in rigour of Iustice Mercie set apart deserue eternall Death I prooue it first because the Prophet of God telleth vs that all our righteousnesse is as filthy cloutes spotted and stayned with sinne Vpon which wordes holy Bernard yeeldeth this most excellent and Christian CoÌ„mentarie Nostra enim siqua est humilis iustitia recta forsitan sed non pura nisi fortè meliores nos esse credimus quam patres nostrâ—s qui non minus veraciter quam humiliter aiâ—bant omnes iustitiae nostrae tanquaÌ„ pannus menstruatae mulieriâ— For our base Iustice if wee haue any is perchaunce right but not pure or perfect vnlesse perhappes we beleeue that we are holier then our Fathers were who sayd as truely as humbly All our Righteousnesse is as filthy Cloutes Thus writeth the Popish Abbot an excellent Learned man Out of whose wordes I obserue first that the best Workes we doe are impure and vnperfect Secondly that our forefathers were as holy and perfect as we are who for all that confessed not onely of humilitie but most truely that our best Workes are vnperfect and stayned with sinne Secondly because S. Paul denied himselfe to be perfect Not saith he as though I had already attayned to it either were already perfect But Christ is our Iustice our sanctification our redemption in him we are perfect and consuÌ„mate Thirdly because the same Bernard hath these golden wordes Quomodo enim pura iustitia vbi adhuc non potest culpa deesse recta quidem interim videri potest iustitia hominum si tamen peccato non consentiant vt non regnet in eorum mortali corpore For how can their Iustice be pure who can not be without sinne Yet may the Iustice of men be right if they consent not to sinne nor suffer it to raigne in their mortall bodyes In which respect S. Iohn sayth That the faythfull sinne not because they suffer not sinne to raigne in them Fourthly because The reward of sinne is death and yet doe the best lyuers offende in many thinges Fiftly because the same Bernarde saith in an other place thus Omne quod natum est ex Deo non peccat sed hoc dictum est de predestinatis ad vitam non quod omnino non peccent sed quod peccatum ipsis non imputetur All that is borne of God sinneth not but this is spoken of the Predestinate to life not because they sinne not at all but for that sinne is not imputed to them Fiftly because S. Austen declareth this so plainely as none that ponder his words seriously can longer stand in doubt thereof these are his expresse wordes Ecce quemadmodum qui ambulant in vijs Domini non operantur peccatum et tamen non sunt sine peccato quia iam non ipsi operantur iniquitatem sed quod habitat in eis peccatum Behold how they that walke in the wayes of the Lord doe not sinne and yet are they not without sinne because now they themselues do not worke iniquitie but the sinne that dwelleth in them This Golden assertion of S Augustine Bernardus that learned religious Abbot coÌ„firmeth in these words Cupiâ—bat dissolui et cum Christo esse sciens quod peccatum separans inter nos et Deum penitus auferri non poterit donec liberemur a corpore Th'apostle desired to be dissolued and to be with Christ knowing that sinne which maketh a diuision betweene God and vs cannot wholly be taken away while we remaine in this body Out of these Testimonies of these great learned Doctors I obserue these memorable documentes First that the Children of God walke in his wayes Secondly that such their walking is vnperfect and polluted with sinne Thirdly that they are not without sinne Fourthly that this their sinne is not actuall and voluntarie but inuoluntarie and originall Fiftly that this originall sinne which still remayneth in the regenerate is such a sinne as maketh a separation betweene them and their God Sixtly because our Reconciliation with God doth not wholly purge vs from all sinne really but onely imputeth not the sinne remayning in vs vnto our charge or condemnation I will alledge the very wordes of the Latine vulgar edition to which all Papistes are tyed by their late councell of Trent Thus writeth the holy Apostle Quoniam quidem Deus erat in Christo mundum reconcilians sibi non reputans illis delicta ipsorum Because God was in Christ when he reconciled the world to him selfe not imputing their sinnes vnto them Thus discourseth S. Paul out of whose wordes I note two Lessons viz. the thing that was done and the manner of doing the same The thing done was the reconciling of the world vnto God The manner thereof was in not imputing their sinnes vnto them not in taking away their sinnes from them Sixtly this Conclusion is prooued at large both in the Chapter of Veniall sinnes in this present Triumph and in the Antepast in the Chapter of Originall Concupiscence See and note well the 7. Conclusion The 4. Conclusion Good Workes are so necessarie to attaine eternall life as the vsuall ordinarie and vndoubted way and meanes by which God in his great mercie and loue decreed from eternitie to bring his Elect to saluation as without the same none euer were are or shal be saued world without end when possibilitie time
Clergie reputed Pope Hildebrand an Heretique for withstanding the same Fiftly that the Popes so supposed Soueraigntie ouer the whole Church was in those dayes vtterly condemned of the whole Church of Germanie For Lambertus telleth vs freely and truely that all the Clergie withstood the cursed Decree of the Pope proclaimed him an Heretique and this they did euen by the flat testimonie of Christ and his Apostles Sixtly that by the verdict of al the Learned in Germanie that great goodly Country the Pope did not only enforce theÌ„ violently against their ancient Customes but withal made the way to all filthy liuing This my Doctrine is confirmed by a double argument First because Pope Pelagius the second of that name who was Byshop 200. yeares after Siricius did willingly admitte the Byshoppe of Syracusa albeit he were a married man and had a Wife and Children neither was that Byshoppe then vrged to forsake the vse of holy Wedlocke Gratianus a man of great reputation among the Papistes doth in the fore-named Distinction referre out of Pope Pelagius his wordes in this manner Siue ergo Presbyter siue Diaconus siue Subdiaconus fuerit quod praefaâ—is ordinibus constitutj licitè matrimonio vtj possunt Whether therefore he be Priest Deacon or Sub-deacon it is euident that such as are within the aforenamed Orders may lawfully haue the vse of holy Wedlocke Out of these words of Gratianus that learned and zealous Papist I inferre against the Doctrine of the Pope that Priestes Deacons and Sub-deacons may not onely be Married but withall while they be Married haue the vse of holy Wedlocke Secondly because Pope Nicholas who liued aboue three hundred yeares after Pelagius was so farre from disquieting Married Priestes for their Marriages that when the Bulgarians complayned of that fault so supposed he perswaded them to be content and not to dishonour their married Priestes This is that Doctrine which the Popes owne Canon-law affoordeth vs wee heartily thanke him foâ— it Let vs adde herevnto that the Constitution of Pelagius was not of force in Sicilia saue onely three yeares before the Popedome of Gregory the great which doubtlesse was more then two hundred yeares after the Popedome of Siricius For thus doth Pope Gregory write Ante triennium omnium Ecclesiarum Subdiaconi Siciliae prohibiti fuerunt vt more Romanae Ecclesiae suis vxoribus nullatenus misceantur Quod mihi durum atque incompetens videtur vt qui vsum continentiae non inuenit neque castitatem promisit compellatur a suo Vxore separari Three yeares ago all Sub-deacons of Sicilia were charged to forbeare the vse of holy Wedlocke according to the custome of the Romane Church Which seemeth to mee a very hard and vnconuenient thing that hee who neither hath the gift of Continencie neither yet hath vowed Chastitie should be forcibly secluded from his Wife Out of these wordes I obserue these Instructions First that the Lawes of single life tooke onely place in Sicilia about three yeares before the time of Gregory the first Secondly that it is a diabolicall thing to compell such to Marriage as neither haue the gift of Continencie neither yet haue vowed Chastitie Thirdly that the Marriage of all Byshoppes and Ministers in our Churches as also of all secular Popish Priestes euerie where is lawfull and true Wedlocke by the doctrine of Pope Gregorie the reason is at hand because none of them are Votaries For to the Vow which they call Annexed they are no more bound in the West Church then they are in the East Marke well the next Proposition The 8. Proposition All secular Priestes are so free from the solemne Vow which by the Church of Rome is annexed to Ecclesiasticall orders that their Marriages are true perfect and of force the supposed dissoluing impediment thereof not withstanding I prooue it by a triple argument First because Scotus Nauarrus Iosephus Angles Durandus and the rest doe all freely graunt that this Vow is onely annexed by the ordinaunce of the Church and by the power of man Secondly because if the secular Priestes be Votaries their Vow must either be by the word spoken or by the deed done Not the former because no such word can be prooued Neither the latter because if the act it selfe in taking orders should be the Vow annexed or essentially include the same it would follow therevpon necessarily that the Greekes likewise should become Votaries seeing they doe the selfe same thing Who for all that were neuer Votaries nor yet so reputed by the Learned Papistes as we haue already seene in the fourth Proposition Thirdly because when two thinges are essentially and really distinguished the graunt of the one doth not necessarily include the grant of the other and yet is the solemne Vow of Chastitie essentially and really distinct from sacred Orders as Nauarrus Iosephus Gratianus Sectus Durandus Antoninus and all learned Papistes willingly do graunt Marke the next Proposition well The 9. Proposition Albeit by Popish fayth and doctrine all such as Marrie after the single Vow of Continencie doe sinne mortally yet doth their Marriage holde and is of force Thus teach all Learned popish Doctors with vniforme assent no exception can be made Angelus Rosella Calderinus Couarruvias Paludanus Maior Siluester Nauarrus Fumus Scotus Aquinas and the rest do constantly affirme it It shall suffice to alleadge the wordes of Fumus in the name of all the rest Thus doth he write Secundum impedimentum est votum simplex nam qui vouet castitatem simpliciter si contrahat mortaliter peccat violans fidem Deo datam tamen tenet matrimonium The second impediment is a single Vow for he that voweth Chastitie simply if he afterward marrie committeth a mortall sinne in breaking his promise made to God but yet the Matrimonie holdeth and is of force Marke the next Proposition againe and againe The 10. Proposition The Vow single is of one the same nature with the Vow solemne not distinguished by any essentiall but meere accidentall difference I prooue it by the plaine affirmance of Josephus Angles a very learned Fryer and a famous popish Byshoppe these are his expresse wordes Votum solenne et simplex ex parte subiecti specie accidentali differunt propterea quod voti simplicis subiectuÌ„ est ad contrahendum matrimonium habile licet contrahendo peccet at vero subiectum voti solennis est ad contractum matrimonialem inhabile transgressiones voti simplicis et solennis eiusdem speciei sunt etiamsi qui solenniter vouet grauius peccet ratio est quia specifica differentia actuuÌ„ est penes obiecta et cum idem sit vtriusque voti obiectum nempe seruare continentiam erunt actus eiusdem speciei erit tamen voti solennis transgressio grauior ratione perfectioris status The Vow solemne and single differ accidentally in respect of the subiect because the subiect of the