CHAP. I. Of certaintie in Faith and Religion, and of the vnion we haue with the true, auncient, Catholike and Apostolike Church.

FAith, as saith the Apostle, Heb. II. is the ground of things which are hoped for, and the euidence of things which are not seene. If then we haue true saith, we are assured of things hoped for, although not séene. When two of the disciples Luke 24. of Christ doubted of his resurrection, he said vnto them: O fooles and slow of heart, to beleeue all that the Prophets haue spoken! Ideo fideles vocati sumus (saith Chrysostom, Hom. 1. in 1. Tim 4.) vt his quae dicuntur sine vlla haesitatione credamus. Therefore we are called faithfull, that we may beleeue without doubting those thing, which are spoken. So then all Christi­ans that beleeue, do certainly beléeue and are perswaded; and he that doubteth, beleeueth not. Further, the obiect of faith is most certaine. Heauen and earth shall passe, but my words shall not passe, saith our Sauiour, Matth. 24. Saint Augustine doth attribute that onely to the writers of ca­nonical Scriptures, that they could not erre. Neither need I to stand long vpon this point, séeing our adusrsaries also confesse, that nothing that is false can be the obiect of faith. But our aduersaries take away from Christians, all cer­taintie [Page 4] of faith and religion. For first they teach, that no Christian is to beleeue that he shall be saued: and secondly, they make mans faith vncertaine concerning the obiect. That is taught by the conuenticle of Trent, sess. 6. cap. 16. where it saith, Neque seipsum aliquis etiamsi nihil sibi conscius sit iudicare debet: that is, neither ought any to iudge himselfe, al­though he be not conscious to himselfe of any thing. And in the same session chap. 9. it determineth, that no man by the certaintie of faith ought to assure himself that he shal be saued. The second point doth follow of the diuers doctrines of the Papists. Eckius holdeth, that the Scriptures are not au­thentical Enchirid. c. de Ecclesia. without the authority of the Church. And although Bellarmine dare not allow this forme of speech; yet where he defendeth the determination of the conuenticle of Trent concerning the old Latine translation, in effect he granteth it. For if the Church onely can make Scriptures authenti­call, then without the Churches authoritie they are not au­thentical. In his booke De notis Eccles. c. 2. he saith, the Scrip­tures depend vpon the Church. Scriptura (saith he) pendent ab Ecclesia. Stapleton, lib. 9. de princip. doctrinal. cap. 4. saith, that it is necessary that the Churches authoritie should consigne and declare, which bookes are to be receiued for canonicall Scrip­ture. Necessarium est (saith he) vt Ecclesiae authoritas Scriptura­rum canonem consignet. And his meaning is, that no man is to receiue any bookes for canonicall, but such as the Church from time to time shall determine to be canonical: and those vpon the Churches determination he will haue necessarily receiued.

Secondly, the conuenticle of Trent maketh Scriptures, Sess 4. and vnwritten traditions of equall value. Bellarmine in his fourth book De verbo Dei. speaketh no otherwise of traditi­ons, then as of the infallible writtē word of God. Stapleton saith, The rule of faith doth signifie all that doctrine which is deliuered and receiued in the Church: and that very absurd­ly, Lib. 7 princ. doct. c. 1. as I thinke no reasonable man can well denie. For that being granted, the rule and doctrine ruled should be all one. But of that we shall speake otherwhere.

[Page 5]Thirdly they teach, that the determinations of the Church are no lesse firmely to be beleeued, and reuerently to be hol­den, then if they were expressed in Scriptures. Id quod sancta mater Ecclesia definit, vel acceptat, saith Eckius, Enchir. cap. de Eccles. non est minore firmitate credendum, ac veneratione te­nendum, quam si in diuinis literis sit expressum. And all our ad­uersaries do beleeue, that the Popes determinations con­cerning matters of faith are infallible, and so to be accoun­ted of.

Finally, in the canon law, c. in canonicis. dist. 19. they place the decretals of Popes in equall ranke with canonicall Scriptures.

Of these positions it followeth, that as long as men be­leeue the Romish Church, they neither beleeue truth, nor haue any certaine faith or religion. And that is proued by these arguments.

First, he that beleeueth not Gods promises concerning his own saluation, is an infidel, and hath no true faith. But this is the case of all Papists. For not one of them beleeueth that he shall be saued, nor imagineth that God hath said or promised any thing concerning his owne saluation.

Secondly, if the Scriptures depend vpon the Church, and the Church is a societie of mē: then the Papists beleeue Scriptures with humane faith, and depend vpon men. But that they do planely teach.

Thirdly, if the Church ought to consigne canonicall Scriptures, and the Pope ought to rule the Church; then if the Pope either determine against canonical Scriptures, or make fabulous scriptures equall with canonicall Scrip­tures, the Papists are to beleeue either doctrine contrarie, or diuers from Scriptures: at the least they are vncertaine what they shall beleeue. But the Pope may both erre in de­nying Scriptures, and adding to Scriptures. To answer this the Papists are driuen to affirm, that the Pope cannot erre in these determinations. But this sheweth the vncer­taintie of their faith, that dependeth vpon one little rotten goutie Pope, whose learning is not worth two chips, and [Page 6] whose pietie is lesse then his learning.

Fourthly, if the Popes consignation be necessary to make Papists beleeue Scriptures, then is their faith most vncer­taine, and rather humane then diuine. Especially conside­ring that of this Popes consignation of Scriptures, there is not one word in Scriptures. But that is their doctrine.

Fiftly, the doctrine and practise of the Church of Rome, being the rule of faith, the Romish faith must néeds proue vncertaine and variable. The consequence of this propost­tion is proued, for that both schoole-men differ from schoole-men, and late writers from the auncient, and also Popes from Popes, as I haue shewed in my bookes De pontif. Rom. That the rule of faith is as I haue said, it may be auerred by Stapletons words.

Sixthly, if saith be grounded vpon traditions, as well as vpon Scriptures, then haue the Papists no certaine faith. The consequence is plaine, for that diuers ancient traditi­ons are new ceased: and neither Caesar Baronius, nor any man is able to set downe, which are authentical traditions, which not.

Finally, if the faith of Papists rest vpon the Popes de­terminations, or else vpon the supposed Catholicke Chur­ches decrees; then is their faith a goutie, fraile, and rotten faith, or rather a most doubtfull opinion. For neither are they certaine who is lawfull Pope, nor that his determina­tions are vnfallible, nor is it an easie matter to know which are the Catholicke Churche's determinations, the Papists themselues contending and varying continually about them.

These arguments do shew, that the Papists haue either a vaine faith, or else no faith at all. And this Robert Parsons notwithstanding his obstinacie and peruersenesse must needs confesse. For simple Papists haue only these meanes whereby to direct themselues: viz. Scriptures, Fathers, or their owne Priests. Scriptures they neither heare read in a tongue knowne, nor do they much regard them. The Fathers they vnderstand not. The priests do often tel lies: [Page 7] and too farre they dwell from the Pope to know of him the truth. To omit to talke of ruder persons, and to talke of spruce Robert Parsons, gladly would I know of him, how he is assured that the religion he teacheth is true. Scriptures he denieth to be the rule of faith, and will not beléeue them to be authenticall, without the Popes determination. The Pope is but one man. If then he rely wholy on the Popes determination, his faith is nothing but a foolish fancie grounded vpon one man. If vpon the Church, yet he know­eth not the Church, but by his owne reason and sence (as I thinke) he will confesse. Rule of faith he acknowledgeth none, but the vniuersall Church: which is not onely absurd, Ward-word pag. 6. but maketh much against him. Absurd it is, for that the Church is ruled, and is not the rule, no more then the Car­penter is his rule. It maketh against him, for that it is more difficult to know the Catholicke Church of all times and places, then Scriptures, or any proofe of faith else. For to know that, it is necessary to be well seene in the historie of all times, Churches and countries. And if he refer himselfe to others, and beléeue humane histories, his faith is still grounded on men.

This being the case of Papists, and of their agent Robert Parsons; we may estéeme our selues happie, that are deliue­red from this great vncertaintie, and taught to build our faith vpon Christ Iesus, and the doctrine of the Apostles and Prophets. Other foundation can no man lay beside that 1. Cor. 3. which is laid; that is Christ Iesus, saith the Apostle. And Eph. 2. Ye are built (saith he) vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Iesus Christ himselfe being the chiefe corner stone. We know, that faith commeth by hearing, and hearing Rom. 10. by the word of God. We beléeue that the Scriptures are a perfect rule, and therefore rightly called canonicall. The A­postle speaking of the rule of faith, 2. Cor. 10. Gal. 6. and Phil. 3. meaneth no other rule but that, which was to be found in holy Scriptures.

The Fathers also procéeded by the rule of Scriptures, both where they sought direction for themselues, and also [Page 8] where they brought arguments against Heretikes. Ireney lib. [...]. aduers. Haeres. cap. 1. calleth the Gospell deliuered in Scriptures the foundation and pillar of our faith. Tertul. wri­ting against Hermogenes, saith, He abode not in the rule of faith. And why? Inter Scriptur as enim Dei colores suos inuenire nö potuerat. He could not find hi [...] colours or fancies in Scriptures. Athan. saith Orat. 2. contr. Arian. that Heretikes are to be sto­ned with arguments out of Scriptures. Out of Scriptures that Arians in the Councell of Nice, & other Heretikes in other Synods were confuted. And generally antiquitie doth call Scriptures the canon or rule of faith. Agréeably therefore to Scriptures and Fathers the Church of England in the beginning of Quéene Elizabeths raigne acknowledged the canon of Scriptures, and thence tooke the articles of our Christian faith. And therefore I call Scriptures, and that which is necessarily deduced out of Scriptures the rule of faith, not separating the rule from scriptures, as Parsons 1. Encontr. cap. 15. of his Warn-word doth cauill, but in the rule comprehending whatsoeuer is either expressed in termes, or by necessarie consequence deduced out of scrip­tures. And this I did to auoide the causls of the aduersary, which inferre, because this word Trinitie, or consubstantiall, or baptisme of children is not found in Scriptures, that scri­ptures are not a solide and entire rule of faith.

Against this Parsons in his Warn-word 1. Encontr. c. 15. alleageth first certaine names of Fathers, then certaine words out of Ignatius his Epistle ad Phil. Irenaeus lib. 3. & 4. aduersus Haeres. Tertullian. de Praescript. aduersus Haeretic. and Uincentius Lirinensis. But he spendeth his labour in vaine, and abuseth his Reader. For none of these Fathers speake of other matters, then such as are to be proued out of Scri­ptures, Lib. 3. aduers. Haeres. cap. 4. as the places themselues shew. Ireney by Tradition proueth God to be the Creator, and the mysterie of Christ his incarnation. But Parsons will not deny this to be con­tained in Scriptures. Tertullian. de Praescript. aduers. Haeret. disputeth against the heresies of the Valentinians and Mar­cionites drawing arguments from the Apostles preaching [Page 9] and tradition. But that was because they denyed and cor­rupted Scriptures. For no man can deny, but that their heresies are clearely conuinced by Scriptures. Quod sumus hoc sunt. That we are that they are, saith Tertullian speaking of Scriptures. That is likewise the meaning of Vincen­tius Lirinensis de Haeres. cap. 27. for that depost, of which he talketh, is nothing but the Christian faith contained in scriptures. But if Parsons will prooue his rule of faith, he must shew a faith grounded vpon tradition, that is not de­duced out of Scriptures. Nay, if he will not be contrarie to himselfe, he must shew, that not the Apostles tradition, as he saith in his Warn-word 1. Encoun. cap. 15. but the Ca­tholike church is the rule of faith, as he holdeth Ward-word, Encontr. pag. 6.

He doth also obiect against vs diuers alterations of reli­gion Warn-word Encontr. c. 16. in England in king Henry the eight his raigne, and in king Edwards dayes: and then asketh by what authori­tie our rule of faith was established. But first he might as well haue spoken of that alteration made in Q. Maries dayes, when the impieties of Popish religiō were established by act of Parliament. Secondly, the alterations in religion made in England of late time, make no variation in the rule of faith, that is alwayes one, but in the application and vse of it. Thirdly, albeit by act of Parliament the arti­cles of religion were confirmed, wherein the canon of scrip­tures, and the substance of our confession is set downe; yet was that rather a declaration of our acceptance, then a confirmation of the rule of faith, that in it selfe is alwayes immoueable. Our rule of faith therefore is certaine, albeit not alwaies in one sort approued, or receiued by men. But that rule of Popish faith neither in it self, nor in the approbatiō of Parliaments or Churches is certaine, or immoueable.

Finally, he asketh a question of Sir Francis in his Ward-word, p. 5. how he knoweth his religion to be true. And saith, he hath only two meanes to guide himselfe in this case, and that is either Scriptures, or the preaching of our Mini­sters. But this question, as I haue shewed, toucheth him­selfe, [Page 10] that buildeth his faith vpon the Pope, nearer then Sir Francis, who groundeth himselfe & his faith only vpon the ho­ly Scriptures, and is assured of his faith, not by these two meanes onely, but by diuers others. For beside Scriptures he hath the help of the Sacraments of the Church, of Gods spirit working within him, of miracles recorded in scrip­tures, of auncient Fathers, of the practise of the Church, of the consent of nations, of the confession of the aduersaries, of the suffering of Martyrs, and testimonies of learned men, and such like arguments. In this question therefore Robert Parsons shewed himselfe to be a silly Frier, and to haue had more malice then might.

In time past also we were, as shéepe going astray, and out of the vnion of the Catholike and Apostolike Church. Diuers of our auncestors worshipped the crosse and the i­mages of the Trinitie with diuine worship. Some like bruite beasts fell downe before Idols, crept to the crosse, and kissed wood and stone. Others worshipped Angels, the blessed Uirgin and Saints, praying vnto them in all their necessities, trusting in them, saying Masses in their honour, and offering incense and prayers to their pictures and ima­ges. For so they were taught, or rather mistaught by popish Priests.

The Komish synagogue in the very foundations of re­ligion was departed from the Apostolike and Catholike Church. The schoolemen brought their proofes out of the Popes Decretals, and Aristotles Metaphysickes. Est Petr's sedes (saith Bellarmine in Praefat, ante lib. de Pont. Rom.) la­pis probatus, angularis, pretiosus, in fundamento fundatus. The See of Peter, is an approued corner stone, precious, and laid in the foundation. The same man lib. 2. de Pont. Rom. cap. 31. calleth the Pope the foundation of the Church. Sanders calleth him the Rocke. Alij nunc à Christo (saith Stapleton re­lect. princip. doctr. in Praef.) eorúmue doctrina praedicatio, deter­minatio fundamenti apud me locū habebūt. That is: Others now beside Christ, and their doctrine, preaching, and determina­tion shall be esteemed of me, as a foundation. This he saith, [Page 11] where he talketh of the foundation of religion and the Church. But the catholike Churth had no foundation be­side Christ Iesus, and his holy word and Gospell, taught by the Prophets and Apostles. The Apostle ( Gal. 1.) denoun­ced him accursed, that taught any other Gospell, then that, which he had preached. The holy Fathers proued the faith by holy Scriptures, and not by popish Decretals, and phi­losophicall Principles.

Concerning Christs bodie the Komanists taught, that the same is both in heauen, and in the Sacrament, albeit we neither could see it there, nor feele it. But the scriptures teach vs, that his bodie is both palpable and visible, and is now taken vp into heauen. So likewise teach the Fathers: Luk. 24. Mar. vlc. Vigilius in his fourth booke against Eutyches speaking of Christs bodie: When it was on earth (saith he) surely it was not in heauen; and now because it is in heauen, certainely it is not on earth.

They haue also brought in new doctrine concerning Purgatorie and indulgences, and which is no more like to the auncient catholike faith, then heresie and noueltie to Christian religion. They teach, that whosoeuer doth not satisfie in this life for the temporall punishment of mortall sinnes committed after baptisme, and remitted concerning the guiltinesse, must satisfie for the same in Purgatorie, vnlesse it please the Pope by his indulgences to release him. Of the tor­mentors of soules in Purgatorie, and of the nature, quali­tie and effect of indulgences they talke idlely, and vnlike to the schollers of Catholikes.

The Catholicke doctrine concerning the Sacraments of Baptisme and the Lords supper they haue quite changed: in Baptisme adding salt, spittle, hallowed water, exor­cismes, blowings, annointings, light, and other strange ce­remonies. In the Lords supper taking away the cup from the communicants, and not deliuering, but hanging vp or carying about the Sacrament, and worshipping it as God: and finally, beleeuing & holding transubstantiation. They haue also deuised other sacraments, and taught that they [Page 12] containe grace and iustisse.

They were wont to kisse the Popes toe, and to re­ceiue his dunghill decrētals, worshipping Antichrist, and intitling him Christs Uicar.

All which nouelties, superstitions and heresies, by her Maiesties godly reformation are abolished, who hath resto­red the auncient Cathalike and Apostolike faith, which the Popes of Rome for the most part had altered & suppressed.

She hath also by her authoritie brought vs to the vnitie of the Catholike faith, and by good lawes confirmed true Christian religion. Before our times there was no settle­ment in matters of Religion. Durand denieth Diuinitie to be Scientia: Thomas and Richard Middleton hold that it is. Writing vpon the master of Sentences, the school-mē striue Dist. 1. lib. 1. about the words vti and frui, dissenting not only from their master, but also from one another.

They differ also much about the distination of diuine attri­butes, Vtrum sit realis, formalis, an rationis tantùm. This (saith Dionysius a Charterhouse Monke) is one of the chiefe diffi­culties In dist. 2. lib. 1 sent. of Diuines, and about it betweene famous Doctors is great dissention and contention. AEgidius doth lance Thomas, and others runne vpon both.

AEgidius in lib. 1. sent. dist. 2. would haue the persons of the Trinitie to be distinguished, by a certaine thing in one, that is not in another: but others condemne him for that opinion.

Writing vpon the 3. dist. lib. 1. sent. they denie their ma­sters examples, and one condemneth another.

Bonauenture saith, that men may attaine to the knowledge of the holy Trinitie by naturall reason: others say contrarie.

The Scotists lib. 1. sent. dist. 5. inuey against Henricus de Gandauo, for his opinion about the eternall generation of the Sonne of God.

AEgidius holdeth, that the son of God hath power to be­get another son: which displeaseth Thomas and Bonauen­ture, and is very strange doctrine.

Thomas Aquinas part. 1. q. 32. art. 4. saith, that Doctors may hold contrary opinions, Cinca notiones in diuinis. He teacheth [Page 13] also, that the holy Ghost doth more principally proceed from the Father then from the Sonne: which others mislike.

If then they agrée not about the doctrine of the holy Tri­nitie, it is not like that in matters wherein they haue liber­tie to dissent, they will better agrée. Scotus holdeth, that the In 2. sēnt. dist. 1. soule and an Angell do not differ, as two diuers kinds. D­thers teach contrary.

Some Doctors hold, that Angels consist of forme onely, o­thers In 2. sent. dist. 3. hold contrary. They dissent also about the sin of our first parents.

Pighius in the doctrine of original sin dissenteth from his fellowes. Innocentius in c. maiores de bapt. & eius effect misli­keth the opinion of the master of the Sentences, that held it to be pronitas ad peccandum, that is, a pronenesse to sinne.

The Thomists to this day could neuer be reconciled to the Scotists about the conception of our Ladie, these denying she was conceiued in sin, the others affirming it.

Gropper in his exposition of the Créed confesseth, that a­mong the Papists there are two diuers opinions about Christs descending into hell.

Bellarmine in his bookes of controuersies, doth not more violently run vpon vs, then vpon his owne consorts. In e­uery article almost he bringeth contrary expositions of Scriptures, and contrary opinions.

In the sacrament of the Lords supper, which is a pledge of loue, there are infinite contradictions among them, as I haue shewed in my bookes de Missa, against Bellarmine. The like contentions I haue shewed in my Treatises de Indul­gentijs, & de Purgatorio: and shall haue occasion more at large to speake of them hereafter.

We are therefore to thanke God, that the doctrine of faith in the Church of England is setled, and that refusing all nouelties we agrée therein with the auncient catholike Church. We acknowledge one Lord, one faith, one bap­tisme, one head of the Church, one canon of Scriptures with the auncient fathers. The rules of all auncient and lawfull generall Councels concerning the faith we admit. [Page 14] We haue one bniforme order for publike prayers, adminis stration of Sacraments, and Gods seruice. Neither do we onely agree among our selues, but also with the reformed Churches of France and Germany, and other nations, espe­cially in matters of faith and saluation. And as for ceremo­nies and rites, it cannot be denied, but that all Churches therein haue their libertie, as the diuersities of auncient Churches and testimonies of Fathers do teach vs.

Most baine therefore and contumelious is that discourse of N. D. in his Warne-word, 1. encontr. ca. 4, 5, & 6. where he talketh of the difference of soft and rigide Lutherans among themselues; of them from Anabaptists, and from Zwinglians; of all from the followers of Seruetus and Valentine Gentilis. For neither do we acknowledge the names of Lutherans, Caluinians, or Zuinglians, but onely call our selues Christi­ans: nor haue we to do with the Arians, or Anabaptists, or Seruetus, or Gentilis, or any heretikes. Nay by our Doctors these fellowe's haue bene diligently confuted, and by our gouernors the principall of them haue bene punished. But these, may Parsons reply, haue bin among vs. Admit it were so: yet do not our aduersaries take themselues to be guiltie of Arianisme and Anabaptisine, because there are diuers guiltie of Arianisine and Anabaptisme among them. We say further, that the Churches of Germany, France and England agree, albeit priuate men hold priuate opinions. Finally, where we talk of the Church of England, what a ridiculous sot was this, to bring an instance of the Churches of Ger­many or Suizzerland? nay not of the Churches, but of priuat persons, and that in matters, not very substantiall, if we admit their owne interpretations?

Hauing therefore talked his pleasure of Lutherans and Zuinglians, he descendeth to speak of rigid and soft Caluinists (as he calleth them) in England. He calleth them also Prote­stants and Puritanes. But neither do we admit these names of faction, nor is he able to shew that publikely any Chri­stian is tolerated to dissent, either in matters of faith, or rites from the Church of England. But if any there be that [Page 15] mislike our rites; yet is not that contention about mat­ters of faith, nor can the disorder of priuate persons hinder the publike vnion of the Church. Finally, I do not know any man now, but he is reasonably well satisfied concer­ning matters of discipline, albeit the same be with the great griese of Papists, who go about to stirrc vp the coles of contention, as much as they can, that heretofore haue bene couered.

CHAP. II. Of the restoring of Christian Religion, and the reduction of the Church of England to the true faith.

TRue faith in time of Poperie was a great stranger in England, most men being ignorant of all points of christian Religion, the rest holding diuers erronious points and heresies. Their ignorance we shall proue by diuers te­stimonies hereafter. Their errors and hercues are very ap­parent, and at large proued in my late challenge. That which the Apostle calleth the doctrine of diuels, 1. Tim. 4. that they imbrace for doctrine of faith. For they forbid their Priests, Monkes, Friers, and Nuns to marrie, and com­maund the Benedictines and their Charterhouse Monkes at all times to abstaine from flesh. They also forbid men to eate flesh vpen all fasting dayes, fridayes and saterdayes, and in Lent: dissoluing the commandements of God by their owne traditions. The Manicheyes abstained from egges as Saint Augustine sheweth, lib. de heres. cap. 46. Nec eua saltem sumunt, quasi & ipsa cùm franguntur expirent, nec o­porteat vllis corporibus mortuis vesci. So likewise did Papists at certain times, they cal such as allow ymariage of priests, Cap. plurùnt. dist. 82. sectatores libidinum, & praeceptores vitiorum, that is, followers of lusts, and teachers of vices: albeit the Apostle affirmeth mariage to be honorable in all sorts of men. They dissolue such mariages, albeit Christ teach, that man is not to sepa­rate [Page 16] them whom God hath ioyned together. Their Fastes they place in eating of fish, and not in abstinence from all sustenance, as the auncient Fathers by their doctrine and practise taught. Some count it as mortall sinne to eate flesh on fridayes, as to kill a man, and that a Priest doth sinne lesse in committing fornication, then in matching himselfe in honest mariage: and yet they confesse, that fornication is against the law of God, and not the mariages of priests.

They tolerated common whores, as did Simon Magus and other heretickes: and now in Rome the Pope not with­standing his pretended holinesse, receiueth a tribute from them. They do also sell Masses, imposition of hands, bene­fices, and make money of their god of the altar, and their religion: which sauoureth of the heresie of Simon Magus.

That is, churches, priests, altars, sacraments, crownes, fire, incense, prayers, yea heauen and God himselfe are set to sale among vs. Brigit in her reuelations cap. 232. saith, Priestes are worse then Iudas, for that he sold Christ for mony: but they barter him for all commodities.

As the Basilidians worshipped images, vsed enchant­ments, Irenaeus lib. 1. aduers. haeres. cap. 23. and superstitious adiurations: so do they, worship­ping not onely materiall images, but also their fantasticall imaginations. They also exorcise water and salt, saying, Exorcizo te creatura aquae, & againe, exorcizo te creatura salis.

With the Heretickes called Staurolatrae, they worship the crosse, with the Angelikes they serue and worship An­gels, with the Armenians they make the images of God the Father, and the holy Ghost.

As the Nazarites mingled Iewish ceremonies with chri­stian Religion, so do Papists, borrowing from them their paschal lambe, their Iubileys, their priestly apparell, their altars, their Leuiticall rites, and diuers other Iewish ce­remonies.

Irenaeus lib. 1. aduers. haeres. cap. 30. saith, that Marcion [Page 17] and Saturninus first taught abstinence from liuing crea­tures: from whom the Papists séeme to haue borrowed their abstinence frō certaine meates, as lesse holy then o­thers. Our Sauiour Christ and his Apostles, (as S. Augustine saith Epist. 86. ad Casulanum) neuer appointed what dayes we ought to fast, and what not. The Papists therefore haue their fasts from others then from Christ or his Apostles.

From the Manicheys they borrow their communions vnder one kind, as may be proued by the Chapt. relatum, and comperimus. dist. 2. de consecrat. and by Leo his fourth Sermon de quadrages.

The Helcesaites make Christ in heauen to differ from Christ on earth, as saith Theodoret haeret. fabul. lib. 2. cap. de Helcesaeis, his words are these. Christum non vnum dicunt, sed hunc quidem infernè, illumverò supernè. So likewise the Pa­pists teach, that Christs bodie in heauen is visible and pal­pable, but not as it is in the Sacrament.

With the Pelagians they concurre in many points, as I haue at large declared in my late challenge. Hoc Pelagiani audent dicere (saith S. Augustine lib. 2. de bono perseuerantiae c. 5.) hominem iustum in hac vita nullum habere peccatum. Now how can they cleare themselues from this, that hold, that a man is able to performe the law of God perfectly?

The Apostle Paul denyeth, that we are iustified before God by the workes of the law. The Papists haue taught quite contrarie. He teacheth vs not to glorie in our works. They say quite contrarie, that men may glorie in their workes. He sheweth that as many as receiue the sacra­ment of the Lords bodie, are also to receiue the sacrament of his bloud. They denie the cuppe to all the communi­cants beside the priest. Our Sauiour instituting the Sa­crament of his last supper, said, Accipite, manducate: that is, take and eate. These imagine that he offered his bodie and bloud really and corporally at his last supper, and that he appointed his bodie and bloud actually to be offered in the Masse, and not alwaies to be sacramentally and spiritual­ly receiued of the communicants.

[Page 18]The Papists teach, that wicked men, reprobates, and diuels may haue true faith. But the Apostle teacheth that true faith iustiāeth, & that they which haue it, liue by faith.

Commonly they hold, that charitie is the forme of faith. Which if it were true, then could not faith subsist without charitie. But the Apostle teacheth vs, that faith, as faith, doth make the iust to liue, and auncient Christians were alwayes ignorant of these philosophicall fancies.

They hold that diuers sinnes are committed, which are not forbidden by Gods law. But this sheweth, that the law of God as they suppose, is not perfect, and that the lawes of man hauing nothing in them of Gods law, bind the conscience as well as the law of God.

Finally, the very foundations of popish religion are er­ronious, the same being founded partly vpon the decretals of Popes, partly vpon the traditions of men, contained partly in their Missals, breuiaries, ond other rituall books, partly in their fabulous legends, and partly in the chest of the Popes brest: and partly vpon the old Latin translation of the Bible, which the Romanists hold to be authenticall: and partly vpō the interpretations of the Romish Church.

But since it pleased God to put into her Maiesties royall heart a resolution to reforme the church, that was so much deformed by the pharisaicall and superstitious additions of that Papists, & to restore religion according to that doctrine of the Apostles & Prophets, not only all former heresies & errors were abolished, but also the true doctrine of faith was resto­red. The which is apparent not onely by the articles of Re­ligion, which we professe, but also by our publike confessi­ons and apologies, which we haue published at diuers times. And in part it may be proued by the secret confessi­on of our aduersaries. For albeit they would gladly cauill against our confessions; yet they take their grounds com­monly out of Luther, Zuinglius, Caluin, Melancthon and o­thers, not often medling with our confessions. Diuers of them also are wont to call vs negatiue Diuines. Which ar­gueth, that so much as we hold positiuely, is for the most [Page 19] part confessed by the aduersaries themselues, and that we bring in no new faith, but that which alwayes hath bene holden and maintained in the Church of Christ, desiring onely that the positiue errors, heresies and superstitions of Papists may be abolished. Wherefore as Christians in time past extolled Constantine the great, that gaue libertie to al his subiects to professe the Christian religion, that assem­bled Euseb. hist. li. 10. cap. 5. synods of Bishops, and confirmed their decrees: so ought Euseb de vita Constant. lib. 3. c. 23. we to celebrate the memory of our gracious Quéene, that gaue libertie to all Christians to professe the truth, that caused diuers assemblies of learned men, and ratified the Christian faith by her authoritie.

CHAP. III. Of the true and sincere administration of the Sacraments of the Church restored in England.

OF the holy rites and sacraments of Christian religion we cannot speake without griefe of heart, when we consider how shamefully they were abused, mangled and corrupted by the synagogue of Antichrist. Where Christ or­dained onely two Sacraments, to wit Baptisme, where he said, Teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Matth. 18. Father, and the Sonne, and the holy Ghost: and the sacrament of his body and blood, where he said, Take, eate, this is my body, and drinke ye all of this: for this is the blood of the new testament; and do this in remembrance of me: that synagogue hath added fiue other sacraments, giuing the same vertue to their extreme vnction, and to mariage and orders concer­ning iustification, that they giue to Baptisme & the Lords supper. The master of the Sentences rehearsing the seuē sa­craments, Lib. sent. 4. dist. 2. for the Lords supper putteth Panis benedictionem, that is, the blessing of the bread, excluding the cup either from the Lords supper, or from the number of sacraments. He doth also differ from the rest in describing the vertue of the sacraments. Alia remedium contra peccatum praebent (saith Ibidem. [Page 20] he) & gratiam adiutricem conferunt, vt baptismus: alia in reme­dium tantùm sunt, vt coniugium: alia gratia & virtute nos fulciunt, vt eucharistia & ordo: That is, some of the sacraments yeeld vs a remedy against sin, and withall bestow on vs helpfull grace: others are onely for remedy, as mariage: others do strengthen vs with grace and vertue, as the eucharist and holy orders. But Bellarmine lib. 2. de sacrament. c. 13. doth shew, that the com­mon currant opinion now is otherwise, and that all these sacraments do iustifie ex opere operato: that is, by vertue of the worke wrought. As if all maried men, and priests of Baal were iustified, or as if iustification and grace came by grea­sing, scraping, crossing and such other ceremonies. But nei­ther are they able to iustifie this doctrine, nor to shew either institution, or promise of confirmation, or extreme vncti­on, or certaine signe of mariage, or repentance, or order, or the other two new deuised sacraments. Furthermore, ma­riage, repentance, and priesthood, were as well vsed in the time of the law, as in the Gospell. How then can these be sacraments of the Gospell?

They haue also altered, corrupted, and mangled Christ his institution, concerning the Sacraments of Baptisme and the Lords supper. In baptime they salt and coniure the water in which the party baptized is to be dipped. They put salt into his mouth, and touch his eares and nosthrils with spittle, which is oft times very noisom. They annoint him also on the head, and giue him a candle in his hand, and embroyle Christ his institution with diuers other ceremo­nies. Finally, to make water more effectuall, they poure oyle into the sont.

In the sacrament of the Lords supper instituted in bread and wine, they leaue neither the substance of bread nor wine, but say, that the same is transsubstantiated into Christs body and blood, and that either his body and blood, or the accidents of bread and wine subsisting without their substance make the sacrament. Secondly they hold, that Christs body and bloud are conioyned without any distance to the accidents of bread and wine, albeit they are not there ei­ther [Page 21] felt or seene. Thirdly, they haue turned the sacrament of our communion with Christ, and of our mutuall coniun­ction one with another, into a priuate action of one Priest, that eateth and drinketh all alone vncharitably, and very directly contrary to Christ his institution, who ioyntly said, Accipite & manducate, hoc est corpus meum: and bibite ex hoc omnes: Take, eate, this is my body: and drinke ye all of this: contrary to the practise of the auncient Church, that neuer solemnized this action without distribution of the sacra­ment: and contrary to the vse and reason of the sacrament. For why should not the faithfull be made partakers of that sacrament, which is a signe of their vnion both with Christ and among themselues? Fourthly, Christ and his Apostles administred the cup to as many as receiued the holy eucha­rist. But they by a solemne decrée of priests at Constance, take away the cup from all saue the priests that say Masse. Fiftly, Christ ordained that the sacrament of his body and bloud should be distributed and receiued in that action: these fellowes kéepe the sacrament in a boxe, and cary it about in solemne processions. Sixthly, they worship the sacrament, and call it their Lord and God, contrary to all rules of Chri­stianity. Seuenthly, Christ appointed a holy sacrament, and gaue not his body and bloud to be offered continually in the Masse, as a sacrifice auaileable for quicke and dead, as these good fellowes do beleeue. Finally, the Apostle shew­eth, that as oft as we celebrate this holy action, we shew forth the Lords death vntill his comming againe. But the Papists forbid this action to be celebrated in a vulgar tong, which is commonly vnderstood of the people, as much as in them lyeth hindring them from shewing forth the Lords death: they hold also that he is already come, and present in the sacrament.

But the Church of England doth religiously obserue Christ his institution, and that doctrine which the Apostles haue deliuered vnto vs. The same admitteth no sacra­mēts but two, that is, Baptisme and the Lords supper. In Baptisme we refuse the idle and superstitious ceremonies [Page 22] brought in lately by Papists. That which the Apostle had receiued of Christ Iesus, and deliuered to the Corinthians, 1. Cor. II. that we diligently obserue, renouncing their nouel­ties, heresies and blasphemies concerning the grosse, carnal and corporall presence, and eating and drinking of Christs body and bloud in the sacrament, the late deuised transsub­stantiation, the blasphemous idole of the Masse, the diuine worship of consecrated hostes, the mangled communion vnder the forme of bread, their celebration in a tongue not vnderstood of the communicants, and all the rest of their a­buses, which without either authoritie of scriptures, or al­lowance of the most auncient and sincere fathers, they haue brought into the Church.

The sacraments therefore of the new Testament being pledges of Gods loue, and seales of Gods graces, whereby he worketh in vs, we are not lightly to prize the true and sincere administration of them according to Christs holy institution, nor to esteeme this a small benefite, that the do­ctrine concerning the holy sacraments being reformed ac­cording to the canon of Gods word, both the superstitious ceremonies in Baptisme, and the idolatrous Masse, with al abuses depending thereon, were abrogated and remoued out of the Church, and the celebration of Christs holy sa­craments conformed according to the prime institution. Many godly Emperors and Kings haue deserued praise in going about to reforme abuses crept into the administra­tion of sacraments before their time: but none more then our late most gracious Queene, that from extreme abuses brought all to a most excellent order.

CHAP. IIII. Of the true worship of God established in the Church of England.

HOw the worship of God was corrupted among the Papists before the late reformation wrought by her [Page 23] Maiesties authoritie in the Church of England it wil hard­ly be of posteritie beléeued, but that there are monuments of like corruptions yet remaining in diuers other coun­tries, and good records and memorials yet remaining of their notorious abuses in this countrie. The faithfull Mi­nisters that were yet remaining vpon the comming in of Quéene Marie, wept to see the desolation of the Church, as the people of God caried into captiuitie, when they sate by Psal. 137. the waters of Babylon, and remembred Sion. They that now liue wonder at the grossenesse of popish errors. For first they erred in the rule of Gods worship. In vaine (sayth our Sauiour Mat. 15.) do they worship me teaching for do­ctrines the precepts of men. The Apostle ( Colos. 2.) doth con­demne [...], that is, voluntarie, or new deuised re­ligion, or as the old Latine interpreter hath translated that word, superstition. For so indéede humane deutles for the seruice of God without warrant of Gods word are for the most part to be called and estéemed. God in expresse tearms refuseth such deuised seruices, saying, Who hath required these things at your hands? But the founders of popish Reli­gion, as if God had appointed vs no certaine rule for these matters, haue placed the perfection of their religion in vo­luntarie vowes of abstinence from mariage, of pretended beggerie, and of other Monkish and Friarlike obseruances, and such like humane traditions. Bellarmine de Monachis cap. 2. saith, that Monkish religion is a state of men tending to Christian perfection by the vowes of pouertie, continencie, and obedience. But if a man should aske him, who taught men to aspire to perfection in this race, he will be to seeke for an answer. That God requireth or approueth such ser­uice, it will neuer be proued. They do also estéeme it a high peece of Gods seruice, to kéep holidayes in honor of Saints created by the Pope, in fasting vpon Saints vigils, in ea­ting stock-fish, coleworts, toabestooles, and such like toyes, in praying vpon beades, in often repeating Aue Maria, in worshipping of stones, bones, and rotten ragges, they know not of whom, in humbling themselues before Angels [Page 24] and Saints, and the Sacrament of the altar, in saying our Ladies Psalter, in ringing bels, in going barefoote, and woolward, and whipping themselues. By saying ouer the Rosarie of our Ladie onely, they report, that diuers mira­cles haue bene wrought. Diuers thousands of yeares of indulgences also are graunted to the company of the Rosa­rie or beades of our Ladie, as is recorded in a booke intitled Miracolidella santissima vergine Maria, printed at Venice by Bernard Giunti anno 1587. Matters which no man would admit, but fellowes made of wood, coleworts, and stockfish.

Secondly, they are deceiued in the manner of Gods worship: and that in thrée sorts. For first their worship is almost wholy externall consisting in outward ceremonies, as namely, in often rehearsall of Credo, or Pater noster, or Aue Maria, or being present at the Masse, albeit they vn­derstand nothing, or sprinkling themselues with holy wa­ter, or often crossing themselues, or going to Rome, or Hie­rusalem, or lighting of candles, or ringing, knocking, or greasing, or such like. But our Sauiour reprehendeth thē, that come neare to God with their lippes, and haue their hearts farre from him: and sheweth, that true worshippers shall worship him in spirit and truth. Next, they offend grie­uously in giuing too great honor to Angels, Saints, storks, stones, and rotten bones. Hierome in his Epistle to Ripa­rius teacheth vs otherwise. Nos non dico Martyrum reliquias &c. We (saith he) worship not, or adore, either reliques of Martyrs, or Sunne, or Moone, or Angels, or Archangels, or Cherubim, or Scraphim, or any name, that is named either in this world, or in the world to come, lest we should serue the creature, rather then the Creator, which is blessed for euer. Saint Augustine likewise lib. deverarelig. cap. 55. speaking of Angels, Honoramus eos, (saith he) charitate non seruitute, nec eis templa construimus. We honor them with loue, and not with seruice, and build no temples vnto them. Epiphanius haeres. 79. speaking of Angels, saith directly, that he would not haue Angels worshipped. But Papists kisse dumbe i­mages, pray before them, burne incense vnto them. They [Page 25] teach also, that seruice is due to Saints, and that we are to giue latriam, or diuine honour to the crosse, to the crucifire, to the sacrament of the altar, and the images of the persons of the holy Trinitie, which they indeuour to fashion in wood, mettal, and colours. They offend thirdly in the forme of their prayers, which are found in their Missals, Breuia­ries, and rituall bookes, and which cannot be denied to be both false and blasphemous. Gaude Maria virgo (say they) cunctas haereses sola interemisti in vniuerso mundo: that is, reioyce virgin Marie: thou alone hast killed al haeresies in al the world. What then, I pray you, did Christ in the meane while? and what did all other Saints? And againe: O Maria, admitte preces nostras intrasacrarium tuae exauditionis, & reporta nobis antidotum reconciliationis, &c. O Marie, admit our prayers within the holy place of your hearing, and bring vnto vs the triacle of reconciliation. And yet they say, Saints departed do not see, nor know things below, but by seeing them re­presented in the face of God, as it were in a glasse. On S. Andrewes day they pray in this forme: Sanctifie (ô Lord) In Missali Rom. these gifts dedicated vnto thee, and the blessed Martyr Satur­ninus interceding for vs, by the selfe same being pleased in­tend vs, by our Lord, &c. As if the Lords bodie, which is the thing meant by those gifts, needed sanctification, or else as if it were conuenient, that God being reconciled to vs by Christ, should no otherwise intend our prayers, then by the intercession of Saturninus. On S. Nicholas his day they say thus: Deus qui B. Nicolaum innumeris decorasti miraculis, tri­bue quaesumus, vt eius meritis & precibus à Gehennae incendijs li­beremur. That is: O God which hast adorned S. Nicholas with innumerable miracles, grant, we beseech thee, that by his merits and prayers, we may be deliuered from hell fire. Which implyeth, that not onely the miracles reported in S. Nicholas his legend are true, but also that by his media­tion we are deliuered and saued from hell. In the Portesse they pray thus: Tu per Thomae sanguinem, &c. That is, Thou ô Christ, by the bloud of Thomas, which for thee he did spend, make vs to climbe, whither Thomas did ascend. And [Page 26] againe: Opem nobis ô Thoma porrige, &c. That is, yeeld vs your help ô Thomas, gouerne them that stand, raise them vp that lie: our manners, actions, and life correct, and direct vs into the way of peace. Which argueth, that Thomas Becket had po­wer not onely to intercede for vs, but to gouerne and rule our actions. Sixtus the fourth, granted great indulgences to those that sayd this prayer: Haile Marie full of grace, the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou amongst women, and bles­sed is the fruite of thy wombe Iesus Christ, and blessed is Annae thy mother, of whom thy virgins flesh is proceeded without blot of originall sinne. And yet it containeth a plaine corrup­tion of the words of scripture, and a contradiction to some of his owne decrees. But the greatest fault is this, that it is repugnant to plaine words of scripture.

To excuse this great deformitie Robert Parsons ende­uoreth to bring the best defence he can. First saith he, let this 2. Entont. c. 6. num. 8. whipster tell vs, where we were taught to say, O stocke, or O stone help vs. As if it were not absurd to pray before stockes and stones, and to giue dumbe images the same honor that is due to the originals. Or else, as if they committed no fault because they say not, O stocke, or O stone. This excep­tion therfore declareth, that the moule of this old hacksters cap was blockish, and senslesse, like as if it were made of stone.

Secondly he saith, that S. Basil homil. 20. in 40. martyres, prayeth to the same martyrs, that Nazianzen in laudem Cypri­ani martyris, maketh his prayer to the said Cyprian: and in his o­ration in praise of Athanasius, to Athanasius, in his oration in praise of Basil, to S. Basil; that Chrysostome prayed to S. Peter in a certaine sermon of Peters chaine, and that S. Ambrose called on the same Apostle comment in cap. 22. Luc. and S. Ierome on S. Paula in epitaph. Paulae. And that S. Augustine prayed to S. Cyprian and other Saints, lib. 7. de baptis. contr. Donatist. cap. 1. But first there is an infinit difference betwéen the words of the Fathers, and the blasphemous formes of popish pray­ers. They by a figure called Prosopopoeia did speake to saints, as Orators do to heauen, or earth, or cities, or other [Page 27] things, that heare nothing. These pray to them as if they heard them, saw them, and could helpe them. Secondly, nei­ther Ambrose prayeth to Peter, nor Augustine to Cyprian, and other saints in the places mentioned. Thirdly, neither can be proue that the sermon made vpon the adoration of S. Peters chaine is authentical, nor that the oratiōs of Basil, Nazianzene and other fathers, are cléere of all corruptions, which differ so much in diuers editions. Finally, we liue by lawes, and not by the examples of three or foure fathers, disagréeing from the rest, if so be it were granted that they called vpon saints.

Thirdly he alleageth, that in the first prayer to Thomas 2. Encont. ca. 12. num. 9. Becket, there is no more blasphemy contained then when the holy prophets did mention the name, faith and merits of A­braham, Isac and Iacob, and other their holy fathers. But what if the holy Prophets do not mention the merites of Abra­ham, Isac and Iacob, but rather desire God to remember his promise made vnto them? Doth it not appeare that in spea­king of holy Prophets, he lyeth most shamefully, and like a false prophet and teacher? Againe, he sheweth himselfe both shamelesse and senselesse, that perceiueth no difference betwéene the Papists, that pray they may attaine heauen by the bloud of Thomas Becket; and the Prophets, that ne­uer prayed in that fashion, nor hoped to attaine heauen by the bloud of any, but of the immaculate Lambe Christ Iesus.

Finally he answereth, That where Thomas Becket is Ibid. num. 10 prayed vnto, to lend his hand for our helpe, it is meant he shal do it, by his prayer and intercession. But this answer is as foolish, as the prayer is blasphemous. For there is great difference betwéen the word helpe, and this prayer, Be a meanes, that we may be holpen. Againe, albeit the meaning of the word were so, yet it is a ridiculous thing to pray to any to gouerne, direct and helpe vs, that cannot gouerne, direct nor helpe vs; and farre from the meaning of Papists, who in their Legends tell vs, that Saints haue appeared, holpen, and healed such, as haue called vpon them. This [Page 28] excuse therefore will by no meanes reléeue the aduersaries, whose prayers in their Missals, and other rituall bookes are repugnant to Christian religion, and the formes and pra­ctise of the auncient Church.

Finally, they erred in the obiect of their worship, adoring creatures in stead of the Creator, or at the least aduancing creatures vnto honor not due vnto them. The law expresly forbiddeth vs to worship strange Gods, or to haue them. But the Papists do worship the Sacrament newly made by the priest, and call it their Lord and God: which is a ve­ry strange God, and neuer knowne to Christians for a god. Neither can they pretend, that they giue honor to the Sa­crament, as to the bodie of our Sauiour, while he liued v­pon earth. For this honor was due by reason of the hypo­staticall vnion of the two natures in one Christ. But there is no personall vnion betwixt Christ and the sacrament. That they call the Sacrament their Lord and their Maker; it is apparent by the common spéech vsed by the Papistes. Further in the canon of the Masse, the priest looking vpon the Sacrament, saith: Domine non sum dignus: Lord, I am not worthie. Innocentius lib. 4. de Missa cap. 19. speaking of Transsubstantiatiō by the priests words, saith, that so dai­ly a creature is made the Creator. Ita ergo quotidiè creatura fit Creator. The author of the booke called Stella Clericorum, saith, that the priest is the creator of his Creator. Sacerdos (saith he) est creator sui Creatoris. Qui creauit vos dedit creare se. Qui creauit vos absque vobis creatur à vobis mediantibus vo­bis. The like words are found in the worthy book called Ser­mones discipuli, ser. III.

Secondly, the law forbiddeth vs to make any similitude, or image of things in heauen, earth, or vnder the earth, to bow downe to it, or to worship it. But they make the ima­ges of God the Father, and the holy Ghost, and the crucifix, bow downe to them, and worship them: and that according to the doctrine of Thomas Aquinas, with the same worship that is due vnto God. They do also make the images of Angels and Saints, burne incense vnto them, pray before [Page 29] them, and kisse them.

Thirdly, they confesse their sins to Angels and Saints, saying: Confiteor Deo Omnipotenti, beatae Mariae semper virgini &c. that is, I confesse to God Almightie, to the blessed and alwayes a virgin Mary, to S. Michael the Archangell, to S. Iohn Baptist, and as it followeth in the common confessiō. But if they did not beléeue that Angels and Saints can forgiue sinnes, they would not so pray vnto them.

Fourthly, they make their vowes to saints, as appeareth by the common formes of vowes of such as enter into Reli­gion. Bellarmine also lib. 3. de cult. sanctor. c. 9. confesseth, that vowes may be well made to saints. But the scriptures teach vs, that this is an honor due vnto God. Pay thy vows to the most high, saith the prophet Psalm. 50. and Deuter. 23. when thou shalt vow a vow to the Lord thy God.

Finally, they pray to the crosse, saying: Ange pijs iustitiam, reis (que) dona veniam: that is, increase iustice in the godly, and graunt pardon to sinners: as if a stocke could encrease iustice, or pardon sinners.

We are therefore herein to acknowledge Gods fauour, and continually to praise him for his goodnes, who gaue vs such a Queen, as with al her heart sought to pul downe the altars and groues of Baal, to root out idelatry and supersti­tion, and to restore Gods true worship. In the beginning of her reigne the holy scriptures were restored to the people in their mother tongue, and Gods true worship established in the Church according to that rule. God was serued in spirit and truth, and the seruice of the Church brought back to the auncient forme of Christs primitiue Church.

CHAP. V. Of the translations of Scriptures into vulgar tongues, and reading them publikely in tongues vnderstood.

HE that doth euill, hateth the light. No maruel then, if the Ioh. 3. Pope & his crue of Masse-priests shun the scriptures, [Page 30] their workes and doctrine being euill, and the scriptures being compared to light, Psalm. 119. and to a candle shining in a darke place, 2. Pet. 1. they would if they durst, plainely prohibite scriptures, as appéereth by the practise of the beg­ging Fryers in the time of William de sanct. amore, who ha­uing brought all their fancies and traditions into one vo­lume, and calling the same the eternal Gospel; preached, that Doctores Pa­ris. de peric. nouis. temp. the Gospel of Christ should cease, and that their eternal Gos­pel should be preached and receiued to the end of the world. The Pope also could hardly be enduced to condemne this blasphemous booke of the Fryers. In the end, I confesse, he was forced for shame to abolish it; yet he conceiucd infinite displeasure against the Doctors of Paris, and fauored the Fryers as much as he could. And now, albeit he hath not simply prohibited the translation of scriptures, and reading them in vulgar tongues; yet he hath so limited the same, as in effect they are as good as prohibited. For first he will not permit, that scriptures translated into vulgar tongues shall be read publikely in the Church: as both the Trent conuen­ticle, and the practise of the Romish Church declareth. Se­condly, Pope Pius the fourth doth simply forbid all transla­tions Regulae Ind. lib prohib. of scriptures into vulgar tongues, such onely except, as are made by his adherents and followers; which are not onely false and absurd in diuers points, but also corrupted, with diuers false and wicked annotations, as the Rhemish annetations vpon the new testament being examined do manifestly declare. Thirdly, we do not find that the Pa­pists are hastie in setting forth translations of scriptures in vulgar tongues; nor can I learne that the Bible is hitherto translated into the Spanish, Italian and Dutch tongue by them. Fourthly, they will haue no Booke-sellers sel Bibles though translated into vulgar tongues by them selues without leaue. Fiftly, they wil not permit any man to read Bibles so translated by themselues without leaue. Sixtly, they graunt leaue to none to reade scriptures in vulgar tongues, albeit allowed by themselues, but to such onely, as they suppose to be resolued, or rather drowned in the [Page 31] dregges of Popish errors; and to lay men seldome, or neuer do they grant the same. I do not beleeue that Robert Par­sons, albeit well acquainted in Spaine and Italie, can name a doosen lay men of either nation, that haue licence to reade Scriptures in vulgar tongues; or that had licence in En­gland in Queene Maries time to reade Scriptures transla­ted into their mother tongue. If he know any such, he may do well to name them. If he name them not, his silence wil bréed suspition, if it be not taken for a plaine confession. Fi­nally, if any among the Papists be taken with other trans­lations, then such as themselues allow, or not hauing him­selfe obtained licence according to the foresaid rule; he is presently taken for suspect of heresie, and seuersly punished if he acquite not himselfe the better So we sée, that among them it is lawfull to reade all prophane bookes, if they fall not within the compasse of their prohibition, and to tum­ble ouer the lying legends of Saints, and the fabulous booke of Conformities of Saint Francis with Christ, and that without leaue. But Scriptures translated into vulgar tongues no man may reade without leaue.

Now how contrarie this course is to the word of God, to the practise of Gods Church, and to all reason, we may easily perceiue by these particulars. God would haue the words of the law not onely a continuall subiect of our talke and meditations, but also to be written at the entrances Deut. 6. and doores of our houses. Our Sauiour Christ preaching to the Iewes willed them to search the Scriptures. But how can this be done, if Scriptures be not translated into tongs which we vnderstand, and if no man may reade them without leaue?

In the primitiue Church they were publikely read in the Syrian, Egyptian, Punicke & other vulgar tongues. By the testimonte of Bede hist. Angl. lib. 1. it appeareth they were translated into the British tongue, and into other vul­gar tongues, the mysteries of religion being made common to diuers nations by the meditation of Scriptures. Irenaeus speaking of all the Scriptures, saith, They may be heard Lib. 2. aduers. haeres. cap. 46 [Page 32] alike of all. Hierome in an Epistle to Laeta, and in another to Celantia exhorteth them to reade Scriptures. But how can they be heard alike, if they may not be translated, nor read publikely in vulgar toungs? And why should it be more lawfull for Laeta and Celantia to reade Scriptures, then for other men and women? In his Commentaries likewise vpon the 86. Psalme, he saith, that Scriptures are read to all, that all may vnderstand. Scriptura populis omnibus legitur, vt omnes intelligant. But how can the common peo­ple vnderstand a strange toung? Chrysostome homil. 9. in E­pist. ad Coloss. teacheth, that the Apostle commandeth lay men to reade scriptures, and that with great diligence.

The Apostle teacheth vs, that the word of God is the sword of the spirit. And before I haue shewed, that it is light. Our Sauiour saith, that the word of God is food to our soule. Basil. homil. 29. saith, That the old and new Te­stament are the treasure of the Church. Vetus & nokum Testa­mentum (saith he) the saurus Ecclesiae. In his Commentaries vpon the first Psalme he sheweth, that the holy Scriptures are a storehouse for all medicines for mans soule. Chryso­stome Homil. in Psalm. 147. saith, the Scriptures are our armes, and munitions in the spirituall warfare, which we haue against the diuell. Arma & comeatus eius belli, quod est inter nos & diabolum, sunt Scripturarum auditio. Doth it not then appeare, that the Papists are enemies to Christians, and séeke to murther their soules, that by all meanes séeke to expose them naked vnto their enemies weapons, and wold willingly depriue them of medicines, munitions, armes and foode, and leaue them in darknesse without the comfort of Scriptures? For how can they vse Scriptures, that vn­derstand them not? And how can they vnderstand them, when they are read in toungs vnknowne? And how can they come to reade them, when there are so many difficul­ties in obtaining licence to haue them?

Séeing then at her Maiesties first entrance into her go­uernement, we were fréed from the thraldome and slauery of Antichrist, and had the Scriptures in a tongue vnder­stood [Page 33] restored vnto vs, and read publikely, and priuately without limitation or danger; we are to accompt the same, as a singular benefit bestowed vpon the people of England. For what can be deenied more beneficiall, then for the hun­grie to obtaine food, for naked souldiers to obtaine armes and prouisions, for poore people in want, to be enriched with such a treasure?

But saith N. D. Wardw. pag. 14. If the translator do not put downe the words of Scriptures sincerely, in his vulgar translation, then the simple reader, that cannot discerne, will take mans word for Gods word. Secondly, he saith, that if a false sence should be gathered out of Scripture, then the rea­der should sucke poison in stead of wholesome meate. But these reasons make no more against reading Scriptures in vulgar tongues, and translating them into those tongues, then against reading Scriptures in the Latin, and transla­ting them into Latine. For as well may the Latine Inter­preter erre, as he that translateth scriptures into vulgar tongues: and aswell may a man draw a peruerse sence out of the Latine, as out of the English. If then these reasons conclude not against that Latin translation, they are too weak to conclude against vulgar translations. Againe, if it be hurtfull to follow a corrupt translation, and to gather a contrarie sence out of scriptures; we are not therefore to cast away scriptures, but rather to séeke for the most sin­cere translations, and the most true sence and meaning of the holy Ghost reuealed in holy Scriptures.

Thirdly, he alleageth these words out of the Apostle, 2. Cor. 3. The letter killeth, but the spirit quickneth: against rea­ding of scriptures in vulgar tongues. But these words do no lesse touch them that follow the letter in the Hebrew & Gréek, thē in the vulgar tongs. And yet Robert Parsons wil not deny, but that it is lawfull to reade scriptures in Hebrew and Gréeke: albeit he, if it were vnlawfull, would neuer be guiltie of this fault, being most ignorant of these tongs.

Fourthly, he asketh, how vnlearned readers will discerne things without a guide. As if lay-men, because they haue tea­chers [Page 34] might not also reade the books from whence the prin­ciples of Christian doctrine are deriued. This therefore sée­meth to be all one, as if Geometricians, and other teachers of arts should debarre their schollers from reading Euclide and other authors that haue written of arts. Furthermore albeit somethings without teachers cannot of rude lear­ners be vnderstood; yet all things that pertaine to faith and manners, are plainely set downe in scriptures. In ijs quae a­pertè in scripturis posita sunt, inueniuntur illa omnia, saith S. Au­gustine lib. 2. de doctr. Chr. c. 9. Quae continent fidem, mores (que) vi­vendi.

Fiftly, he alleageth, that the vnderstanding of Scriptures is a particular gift of God. But that notwithstanding, no man is forbidden to reade scriptures in Hebrew, Greeke, or Latine. And yet if Robert Parsons vnderstand them at all, he vnderstandeth them better in the vulgar English, then in these tongues. Furthermore, albeit to vnderstand Scrip­tures be a peculiar gift of God, yet no man is therefore to refraine from reading of scriptures, but rather to reade thē diligently, and to conferre with the learned, and to beséech God to giue him grace to vnderstand them. The which is proued by the example of the Eunuch, Act. 8. who read the scriptures, and threw them not away, albeit he could not vnderstand all without the help of a teacher.

Sirthly, he vseth the examples of Ioane Burcher a pudding Wardw. p. 6. wife, as some suppose, and qualified like his mother the Blacke-smiths wife, and of Hacket, William Geffrey, and o­ther heretickes. In his Warne-word, Encontr. 1. cap. 8. he ad­deth, George Paris, Iohn More, certaine Anabaptists, and o­ther heretikes, and insinuateth that all these fell into heresies by reading of scriptures in vulgar languages. But his collectiō is false and shamelesse, and derogatorie to scriptures, and contrary both to them and to fathers. Our Sauior speaking of the Sadduceis, Mat. 22. saith, they erred, for that they knew not the scriptures. Erratis nescientes scriptur as. The Apostle talking of reading of scriptures, saith, they are profitable to instruct men vnto saluation, and not hurtfull, or the cause of [Page 35] any mans destruction. The ignorance of scriptures (saith Chrysostome ho. de Lazaro) hath brought forth heresies. Scrip­turarum ignoratio haereses peperit. And againe: Barathrum est scripturarum ignoratio: that is, the ignorance of scriptures is a bottomlesse gulfe. Finally, to obscure the glorie of this benefite of reading scriptures in vulgar tongues, in his out-worne Warne-word Encont. 1. c. 8. he saith, that such as vnderstand Latin, or haue licence of the Ordinary to reade scriptures in vulgar tongues, haue no benefit by this gene­rall permission of reading scriptures: as if euery one that vnderstandeth Latin durst reade vulgar translations with­out licence, or as if the Church receiued no benefite, vnlesse euery particular member were partaker of that bene­fite. This therefore is a most ridiculeus conceit, and likely to procéed from such an idle head. Further, the same might be alleaged against Latine translations. And yet Robert Parsons will not deny but the Church receiueth benefite by Latine translations, albeit the Greekes, and such as vn­derstand Hebrew, and not Latin, receiue no benefite by the Latine translation.

If then Robert Parsons meane hereafter to barke against the reading of scriptures, that are commended vnto vs as light, medicine, food, armes, and things most necessary; he must alleage vs better reasons then these, lest he be taken for an hereticall, or rather lunaticall fellow, that spendeth his wit in the defence of fond, senselesse, and impious po­sitions.

CHAP. VI. Of publike Prayers, and administration of Sacraments, and other parts of the Church liturgie and ser­uice in vulgar tongues.

LIke wise the Papists to take from Christians the effect and fruite of their prayers, set out most of their prayer bookes in Latine, and closely forbid the common seruice and [...] [Page 34] [...] [Page 35] [Page 36] liturgie of the Church to be said in vulgar languages. In the [...]2. session of the Conuenticle of Trent, where they ana­thematise them, that hold that the Masse should be celebrated in vulgar tongues: their meaning is to establish the rites of the Romish Church, and the Latine seruice, and to prohibit the vse of vulgar tongues in publike liturgies. And this is also proued by the practise of the synagogue of Rome, that alloweth the prayers of such as pray in Latine, albeit like Parrots they vnderstand not what they prattle: and by the testimonie of Hosius, Bellarmine, and others writing vpon that argument.

But this practise is most barbarous, fruitlesse, and con­trary to the custome of Christ his Church in auncient time. Sinesciero virtutemvocis, saith the Apostle, 1. Cor. 14. ero ci cui loquor, barbarus, & qui loquitur mihi barbarus: that is, If I vnderstand not the meaning of the words I vtter, I shall be to him to whom I speake, barbarous, and he that speaketh shal be barbarous vnto me. And againe: If I pray in a strange tongue, my spirit prayeth, but mine vnderstanding is without fruite. And a little after: I will pray with the spirit, but I will pray with the vnderstanding also. I wil sing with the spirit, but I wil sing with the vnderstanding also. Else when thou blessest with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the roome of the vn­learned say, Amen, to thy blessing, when he knoweth not what thou sayest? These words are most direct against the Latine seruice of the Papists, shewing first that the priest speaking in Latine, when the people vnderstandeth nothing, taketh a barbarcus course. Secondly, that songs and prayers without vnderstanding profit nothing. And lastly, that it is ridiculous for the people to say Amen to the priest, when they vnderstand not his prayer or blessing.

Vt quid loquatur, saith S. Ambrose in 1. Cor. 14. quem nemo intelligit? Why should he speake, whom no man can vnder­stand? And againe: What profite can he reape, that vnderstan­deth not what he speaketh? And afterward: An vnlearned man (saith he) hearing but not vnderstanding, knoweth not the end of the prayer, nor answereth Amen, that is true, that [Page 37] the blessing may be confirmed. And finally: Si ad edificandam Ecclesiam conuenistis ea dici debent, quae intelligant audientes: that is, if ye be come together to edifie the church, then must such things be spoken as the hearers vnderstand.

Omnis sermo qui non intelligitur, saith S. Hierome in 1. Cor. 14. barbarus est: that is, Euery language that is notvnderstood is barbarous. And againe: If any speake with tongues not vn­derstood of others, his vnderstanding is made without fruite, if not to himselfe, yet to others. And lastly, Sic est loquendum vt intelligant alij. We must so speake that others vnderstand. Saint Augustine expounding these words of the Psalmist, Beatus populus sciens iubilationem: nullo modo beatus es, saith he, nisi intel­ligas iubilationem: that is, thou art no way blessed, vnlesse thou vnderstand thy song of reioycing, or iubilation. And againe in Psal. 99. he mistiketh that our voice should only sing a song of reioycing or iubilation, and not our heart. Vt vox nostra solae iubilet, & cor non iubilet: which is iust the case of Papists, chanting with a loud voice, and not vnderstanding what they chaunt or pray. This place our aduersary encont. 1. c. 9. nu. 8. would take from vs, by saying that S. Augustine doth not speake of any corporall singing psalmes, but rather of in­ward iubilation. But S. Augustine mentioning our voice, and speaking of those that sing, and exhorting men in this and such like psalmes to praise God, doth refute the fellowes foo­lery. Beside that, if iubilation be with vnderstanding of the hart, then by S. Augustines iudgement, those cannot reioyce or vse iubilation, that vnderstand not what they say: as the Papists do in their iubilations and iubilies, chanting like pies and parrots, they know not what, and not conceiuing any inward ioy of any thing is spoken by the priest, that is as well vnderstood, as a Monkie chattering with his téeth, and squealing out an indistinct voice.

Theophylact also and Oecumenius writing vpon the first to the Corinthians c. 14. confirme our cause, and ouerthrow the aduersaries. Dicit quod expediat (saith Oecumenius) eum qui alia lingna loquitur, siue in psalmodia, siue in oratione, siue in doctrina, aut ipsum interpretari, & intelligere quid dicat ad vtili­tatem [Page 38] auditorum, aut aliū hoc facere conuenit. He saith that it be­houeth him that vseth a strange tongue either in singing, praier or teaching, either to interprete himselfe, and to vnderstand what he saith, for the profit of the hearers, or that it is fitting another should do it. Theophy lact saith, that the Apostle in the whole course of his speech doth shew, that he that speaketh with a tongue not vnderstood profiteth himselfe nothing.

Iustine in his apologie, and Dionysius in his Ecclesiastical hierarchie, describing the practise of the Primitiue Church, do plainely shew, that the people vnderstood the Bishop, answered him, and concurred with him. Hierome in prolog. 2. in Epist. ad Galat. and Gregorie Nazianzene in orat. in laudem Basilij do testifie, that the people did answer Amen to the priests prayer. But how could they say Amen to his prayer not vnderstanding what he said? Ephrem made diuers prai­ers and songs in the Syriake tongue, which were frequently vsed in the Churches of Syria. Iustinian the Emperor made a law, that the prayers vsed at the celebration of the sacra­ment, should be pronounced with an audible voice. But to what purpose if it were sufficient, that the people should be present onely, and not vnderstand what is said or praid?

This practise is clearely testified by Nicholas Lyra wri­ting vpon the fourtéenth Chapter of the first to the Corin­tmans: In the primitiue Church blessings and other common thing, (viz. in the Liturgie) were in the vulgar tongues, saith he.

The aduersaries also enforced by the euidence of truth, confesse, it were more profitable to haue prayers and the publike Liturgie of the Church, in tongues vnderstood of the people, rather then otherwise: as may be gathered out of the words of Strabus, Lyra, Caietane, and others writing vpon the first to the Corinthians, chap. 14.

Finally, reason maketh against the vse of a tongue not vnderstood in publike prayers. For if such are condemned, as come neare to God with their lippes, hauing their hearts farre from him, then are not they to be allowed that in their prayers ioyne not their heart with their words.

[Page 39] Secondly, the Apostle sheweth, that it is a curse laid v­pon 1. Cor. 14. infidels, when God speaketh to them in other tongues.

Thirdly, the tongue seruing to vtter our conceipts, it is a most ridiculous thing for men to vtter things neither conceiued nor meant.

Lastly. if the Romaines and Greekes in auncient time might vse vulgar tongues in their publike Liturgies, why is not the same both lawfull and commendable now?

Friar Robert Encont. 1. cap. 8. endeuoureth to shew rea­son to the contrarie. But his reason is weak and friuolous. Compating prayers with Scriptures, he saith, there is much lesse necessitie of publike seruice in vulgar tongues. But if he had meant to defend the Popes cause and his owne, and to propound the state of the contreuersie betwixt vs a­right, he should haue said, that there is no profit, or vse at all of vulgar tongues in the publike seruice in the Church, and that it is rather inconuenient and hurtfull, then other­wise. For if it be profitable, and no way inconuenient, why should not the publike Liturgie of the Church be in vulgar tongues?

Notwithstanding let vs sée, how he proueth that, which Warn-word. Encontr. 1. cap. 8. himselfe propoundeth, albeit not the point in question. First he saith, that publike seruice is appointed to be said or sung to the praise of God, and in the name of all the peo­ple by publike Priests, and other ecclesiasticall officers ap­pointed thereunto. But if publike seruice be appointed to be said, or song to the praise of God; then vnlesse he exclude the people from the praises of God, the people also is to concurre with the Priests in praysing of God, which they cannot do, vnlesse they vnderstand the language of the ser­uice. But, I trow, he will not denie, but that the people ought to ioyne in singing Psalmes, and giuing thankes to God in the open congregation. And therefore the Psalme 95. Come let vs sing vnto the Lord, is commonly vsed in the beginning of Gods seruice, and the people in auncient Liturgies were wont oftentimes to answer the Priest. A­gaine, it is false, that publike seruice was appointed to be [Page 40] said, and sung onely by ecclesiasticall officers, and that the people did not as well pray for things necessarie, as praise God for benefites receiued. But how could they do this, not knowing what they sayd or prayed? If a man should present himselfe before the Pope and speake ghibrish, or a language not vnderstood by the partie, would he not thinke himselfe mocked?

He addeth further, that it is not needfull for the people to be alwaies present at publike seruice, but onely in spirit and consent of heart. But the fellow doth plainely contradict himselfe. For how can a man be present in spirit and con­sent of heart, when he is absent with his vnderstanding, and knoweth not what is done or said? Beside that, he o­uerthroweth that, which he would proue. For if consent of spirit and heart be requisite in publike seruice, then is it re­quisite the people should vnderstand what is said, without which vnderstanding, he cannot consent. Lastly, if it be profitable, that the people be present in the congregation, where God is serued; that is sufficient for vs to proue our assertion. For why should not the people meete to celebrate the praises of God, being commaunded to keepe his Sab­boths? And why should they rather be enioyned to heare Masse, which is a profanation of Gods seruice, then to come to the Church, to praise God, and to pray vnto him, and to heare his holy word? And if the people ought to do this, then is it not sufficient, that in time of seruice they should gape on the Priest, or patter their Pater nosters, or Aue Mariaes, or rattle their beades, as the ignorant Pa­pistes vse to do.

Thirdly, he supposeth he can proue seruice in an vn­knowne tongue out of the ceremoniall law of Moyses. For because it is said Luk. 1. That all the multitude of the people was praying without at the houre of incense while Zacharie offered incense within: he would inferre very willingly, that it is not necessarie, the people should pray with the Priest in a tongue vnderstood. But if this might be applyed to the Masse, then would it also follow, that the Priest [Page 41] might offer the sacrifice of the Masse without a Clerke, and the people attend without in the church yard. It would also follow, that the people might not heare, nor see Masse. For that the people might not enter within, nor see what was done in the sanctuarie. Against vs this example fitteth not. For neither can any strong argument be drawne from the ceremonies of the law, that are now abrogated, nor can Frier Robert shew, that the Priests of the law prayed in a tongue not vnderstood, or that they vsed any publike pray­er, which the people heard not.

Fourthly, he alleageth, that the three learned languages of Hebrew, Greeke, and Latine, were sanctified by Christ in the title of his crosse. But neither is he able to shew, why these three languages should be called learned, rather then others; nor doth it follow, that in publike seruice we should vse only these three languages, because they were vsed in the title of the crosse, vnlesse our aduersarie will graunt, that it also followeth, because Chrift rode vpon an asse, that he and his consorts are onely to ride vpon asses.

Fiftly, he telleth vs, that auncient Fathers testifie, that it is not conuenient, that all things that are handled in Church ser­uice, praesertim in sacris mysterijs, should be vnderstood by all vnlearned people in their owne vulgar languages. And to prooue this he citeth Dionysius, Origen, S. Basil, Chry­sostome, and Gregorie. But herein he sheweth himselfe a shamelesse fellow, albeit all men knew it before. For none of these speaketh one word against vulgar languages. Nay all of them shew, that the people vnderstood the language of publike Liturgies. Againe, they deny not that it is con­uenient, that the people should vnderstand the mysteries of Christian religion, but rather shew the difficultie of it. But what is that to vulgar languages, when the Priests them­selues vnderstand not the mysteries of Christian religion?

A sixth argument he draweth from the practise of the Iewes, supposing that in Iurie and Ierusalem the publike ser­uice was in Hebrew, and that Hebrew was not vnderstood of the common people. But neither was publike seruice in [Page 42] all Syria in Hebrew, as appeareth by the songs and prayers of Ephrem in the Syrian tongue, nor is it likely, that the Iewes did not vnderstand Hebrew in Christs time, seeing now all the Iewes, as it is said, teach their children Hebrew. In Esdras lib. 2. cap. 8. it appeareth they vnderstood He­brew. Intellexerunt verba quae docuerat eos. They vnderstood the words which he taught them. That theresore which is spoken of interpretation, is meant of the meaning and not of the words, as very simply our aduersaries suppose.

His seuenth argument is taken from the example of the Apostles, that (as he saith) appointed the order of seruice. But this ouerthroweth our aduersaries cause. For if the Apostles neuer appointed the Masse, or the canon, or that seruice should be said in a tongue not vnderstood, but rather ordained another forme of celebration of Sacraments, as I haue shewed in my bookes de Missa against Bellarmine, and if it be a matter cleare, that all should be done decently in the Church and to edification; then is it not likely, that they would allow, or did appoint the seruice of God to be said in a tongue not vnderstood of the people, and very hard­ly vnderstood of most Priests. Here also he denyeth, That it can be shewed out of any author of antiquitie whatsoeuer, that any christian Catholike countrie since the Apostles time had publike seruice in any language, but in one of these three, (viz. Hebrew, Greeke or Latine) except by some speciall dis­pensation from the Pope, and vpon some speciall considera­tion for some limited time. But first it maketh nothing for him, or against vs, if any nation had their seruice in Greek, Latine, or Hebrew, if the same vnderstood the language of the publike Liturgie. For we onely say, that seruice ought not to be said in a language not vnderstood. Secondly, where he denyeth the vse of all other tongues beside these thrée, he sheweth himselfe either very ignorant, or very im­pudent. If he haue not read auncient fathers and histo­ries, concerning the languages of publike Liturgies, he is but an ignorant nouice in this cause. If he know the pra­ctise of the Church, and denie it, he wanteth shame.

[Page 43]That other tongues haue bene vsed in publike Litur­gies beside the thrée mentioned, it may be proued by diuers testimonies. Hierome in the funerall Sermon of Paula, saith that Psalmes were sung not onely in Hebrew, Gréeke and Latine, but also in the Syrian language. In his Epistle to He­liodorus he saith, that the languages and writings of all nati­ons do sound foorth Christ his passion and resurrection. Nunc passionem Christi, & resurrectionem eius cunctarum gentium & voces, & literae sonant. And againe in his Epistle to Marcella: Vox quidem dissona, sed vna religio: tot penè psallen­tium chori, quot gentium diuersitates. The tongue is diuers, but one religion: there be so many quires of singers, as there be diuersities of nations.

S. Ambrose writing vpon the first Epistle to the Corin­thians, chap. 14. speaking of Iewes conuerted to Christ: Hi ex Hebraeis erant, (saith he) qui aliquaendo Syria lingua, plerun (que) Hebraa in tractatibus & oblationibus vtebantur. These were Iewes, which in their Sermons and oblations vsed some­time the Syrian tongue, and oftentimes the Hebrew. Theodoret lib. 4. cap. 29. saith Ephrem made Hymnes and Psalmes in the Syrian tongue. And Sozomen saith, they were sung in Churches.

Chrysostome in 2. ad Corinth. homil. 18. saith, that in celebra­tion of the eucharist all ought to be common, because the whole people, and not the priest alone giueth thankes. Et cum spiritu tuo, nihil aliud est, saith he, quàm ea quae sunt eucharistiae communia sunt omnia: neque enim ille solus gratias agit, sed populus omnis.

Saint Augustine expos. 2. in psal. 18., saith we ought to vn­derstand what we say or sing, that like men and not like par­rots or ousels we may sing.

It appeareth by Iustinians 123. nouel constitution, and by Isidore Ecclesiast. offic. lib. 1. ca. 10. and by the ninth chapter of S. Augustine de catechisand. rudib. that the people in time past did vnderstand Church seruice.

In Britaine the Romaine musicke was not in vse before the time of Iames the Deacon of Yorke, about the yeare of [Page 44] the Lord 640. Bede lib. 1. hist. Anglic. cap. 1. stgnifteth, that the knowledge of diuine mysteries was made common to diuers nations inhabiting Britanie by meditation of scriptures.

Auentinus annal. Boior. li. 4. saith, The priests of Liburnia are ignorant of the Latine tongue, and in their mother tongue of­fer the sacrifice of the Eucharist. Adhuc (saith he) ignari sunt Romanae linguae, sacrificia patrio more, nempe Slauorum procu­rant.

The AEthiopian canon of the Masse, which they call vni­uersall, is in the AEthiopian language, as the translation witnesseth, that is published in Biblioth. patr. tom. 6. a Bignio edit.

Sigismundus Baro in his commentaries of the Muscoui­ticall affaires, telleth vs how that nation doth celebrate Masse in their mother tongue. Totum sacrum seu missa (sayth he) gentili ac vernacula lingua apud illos peragi solet.

The aduersaries themselues also testifie for vs. Thomas Aquinas in 1. Cor. 14. speaking of the vse of strange langua­ges in the Church, sayth, it was accounted madnesse in the primitiue Church, because Christians were not then instructed in Ecclesiasticall rites. Ideò erat insania in Primitiua Ecclesia, quia erant rudes in ritu Ecclesiastico.

In Primitiua Ecclesia (saith Lyra in 1. Cor. 14.) benedictiones & cetera communia fiebant in vulgari: that is, in the primitiue church blessings and other common oraysons were made in vulgar tongues.

Iohn Billet in his summe de diuin. offic. in prolog. confesseth, that in the Primitiue Church Christians were forbidden to speake with tongues, vnlesse there were some by to interprete. He saith also, that it profiteth vs nothing to heare vnlesse we vnderstand: lamenting that in his time there were so few, that vnderstood either what they heard, or what they read.

And thus much to refel Robert Parsons his notorious im­pudencie, that would néeds affirme, that it cannot be shew­ed out of any author of antiquitie, that any Catholike country had publike seruice in vulgar tongues.

His eight argument is deduced from the vse of the He­brew, [Page 45] Greeke, and Latine tongues in Asia, Africke, and the Westerne countries. But vnlesse he can shew that these tongues were not vnderstood of those people that had their publike seruice in them; all this maketh for vs, and not for him. For we do not deny the vse of these tongues to those that vnderstand them, but onely thinke it madnesse to vse them, where they are not vnderstood. In Asia the Greeke tongue was common to most nations. Therfore the seruice was in Greeke and not in Latine, albeit Parsons suppose La­tine to be a sanctified tongue. In Africke and diuerse We­sterne countries, Latine was a common language in time past: and therefore they had their liturgies in Latine and not in Greeke. It appeareth by S. Augustine retract. lib. 1. c. 20 that diuers vnderstood Latine better then the Punike tong: and Cicero pro Archia sayth, that the Greeke tongue was a common language in his time. Although therefore the publicke seruice of the Church was in Greeke and Latine, when those tongues were best vnderstood, yet it followeth not that the same should be still vsed, when no man of the vulgar sort vnderstandeth them: or that the Catholicke Church did generally, or euer practise this: or that S. Augu­stine lib 4. cont. Donatist. cap. 24. doth intend to speake for the vse of vnknowne languages, as Fryer Robert vnlearnedly and blockishly pretendeth.

Finally he alleageth, that euery man lightly vnderstandeth somewhat of the Latine. But lightly he telleth vs a loud lie, as experience may teach euery man that is not obstinate. Beside that, if it be profitable for some men to vnderstand some few words, then reason will inferre, that it were far more profitable, if the publike seruice were in a tongue that might of all the hearers be vnderstood.

It is therefore a great blessing that we may heare God speaking vnto vs in scriptures in our owne mother tongue, and praise and honor him with heart and voyce in the pub­like congregation. If then Robert Parsons meane to con­firme his owne opinion, and to ouerthrow our cause, he must bring better arguments, & answer these testimonies, [Page 46] and not fight with his owne shadow, or cauill with some words, or allegations that are not materiall.

CHAP. VII. Of the great deliuerance of Christians out of the bloudie hands of wooluish Papistes wrought by Queene Elizabeth.

No man can wel esteeme what fauor God hath done the Church of England, by deliuering the same from the cruell persecution of the bloudie and mercilesse Papists, but such as either themselues suffered, or else knew the suffe­rings and verations of their brethren in Queene Maries time. Neither do any so well apprehend Gods mercie in deliuering them from the dangers of the sea, as those that haue either passed great stormes, or escaped after ship­wracke, seeing their fellowes swallowed in the sea. But those that liued in the dayes of Queene Mary, and escaped the crueltie of those times, or else by report know the despe­rate resolution of the wooluish persecutors, both well know the fauor of God to the Church and English nation, and can not choose but shew them selues thankefull for the same.

The bloudy inquisitors neither spared old nor yong, no­ble nor base, learned nor simple, man nor womā, if he were supposed to be contrary to their proceedings. The records of Marian Bishops offices, are so many testimonials of their extreme crueltie. Neither was any free from danger, if any quarrell could be picked to him for religion. Those that were suspected, were imprisoned and hardly handled, such as recanted were put to penance, those that confessed the faith constantly, lost life and all they had. As S. Augu­stine lib. 22. de ciuit. Dei cap. 6. saith of the Primitiue Church, so may we say of the Christian Martyrs of our time: Liga­bantur, includebantur, caedebantur, torquebantur, vrebantur: they were bound, put in prison, beaten, racked and burnt. The bro­ther [Page 47] deliuered by his brother, and a mans domesticals were his enemies. Eusebius lib. 2. de vita Constan. cap. 51. saith, That without respect of age all manner of torments were inflicted vpon the bodies of Christians. Quae incendij flamma fuit, (saith he) quis cruciatus, quod tormentorum genus, quod non fuerit omnium sanctorum corporibus nulla aetatis ratione habit a irrogatum? The like may we say of the holy Martyrs of Queene Maries dayes. For neither hard dealing, tor­ment, nor fire was spared to draw men from the confession of the true faith. Neither did the cruell aduersarie respect the reuerend Prelates, nor the tendernesse of young age, nor the modestie of matrons.

But Queene Elizabeth coming to the crowne the fires were quenched, the swords were wrested out of the cruell executioners hands, and true Christians were not onely deliuered out of prison and banishment, but also freed from feare of persecution. Therefore we say with the Prophet, Pfal. 123. Blessed be God, that hath not giuen vs as a prey into their reeth. Our soule is escaped as a sparrow out of the snare of the fowler. The grinne is broken, and we are deliue­red. And as Eusebius said sometimes of the benefites, which that Church enioyed by Constantine the Great, so we may also Eccles. hist. 10. cap. 1. most iustly say: Nos haec beneficia maiora, quàm vitae nostrae Con­ditio fert, confitentes; sicut egregiam Dei eorumdem authoris mag­nificentiam obstupescimus: sic illum optimo iure totius animae viribus colentes summè celebramus, &c. We confessing these benefites to be greater, then the condition of our life may beare, as we wonder at the fingular bountie of God the author of them, so we do highly praise him deseruedly with all the might of our soule, and do testifie the holy predictions of Prophets in Scri­ptures to be true, in which it is said, Come and see the workes of the Lord, and what wonders he hath done vpon the earth, ceassing warres vnto the end of the world. He shall breake the bow, and teare armes, and burne the shields with fire. Impijs hominibus è medio sublatis, & potestate tyrannica de­leta, mundus de reliquo velut solis claritate collustratus fuit. This saith Eusebius of Constantine: but the same was also veri­fied [Page 48] of our late Quéenes raigne. For wicked men being put out of place, aud tyrannicall power ceassing, the world af­terward séemed to reioyce as lightened with the brightnes of the Sunne.

Against this discourse Robert Parsons opposeth himselfe in his first Enconter chap. 10. num. 11. and belcheth out a great deale of malice out of his distempered stomacke, being sorie, as it séemeth, that any escaped his consorts handes. But all his spite is spent in two idle questions. First he as­keth whether this freedome for persecution be common to al, or to some onely: as ifbecause seditious Masse-priests and their traiterous consorts, and other malefactors are pu­nished, this were no publike benefite, that all Christians may fréely professe religion. Secondly, he asketh whether we be free from persecution passiue or actiue: meaning, be­cause murderers and traitors suborned to trouble the state passe the triall of iustice, that we are persecutors. But his exceptions do rather shew malice, then wit. For first albeit all men be not fréed from punishment, yet is it a great bles­sing, that true Christians may professe religion without feare or danger. For in Constantine the Great his time, murderers, and rebels, & other notorious offendors were punished; and yet doth Eusebius accompt the deliuerance of Christians from persecution a great benefite. If there had bene also then any Assassins, or traiterous Masse-priests suborned to kill Princes, or to raise sedition, they should haue bene executed: and yet could no man haue called Con­stantine a persecutor. Let Parsons therefore, if he haue any shame, cease to talke of persecution, considering the bloodie massacres and executions committed by his consorts vpon Christians for méere matter of religion, and forbeare to tell vs, either of Penrie, or an hundred Priests put to death. For they were not called in question for religion, but for adhering to the Pope and Spaniard, that went about to take the Crowne from her Maiesties head, and for going a­bout by colour of their idolatrous Priesthood to make a partie for the ayde offorraine enemies, as by diuers argu­ments [Page 49] I haue declared in my challenge, and Robert Par­sons as a fugitiue disputer, and not onely a fugitiue trai­tor, answereth nothing.

CHAP. VIII. Of the deliuerance of the realme of England from the Popes exactions.

THe Pope of Rome and his greasie crew of pol-shorne Priests, although they challenge power of binding and loosing; yet as experience hath taught us, do rather bind heauie burthens on mens shoulders, then bind their con­sciences, and rather séeke to loose and emptie their purses, then to loose them from their sinnes. A man will hardly be­léeue, what summes of money they haue extorted from all sorts of men. But if we consider the hookes, engines, and diuers practises, which they haue vsed to abuse the world, we néed not make question, but their dealings are very in­tolerable. The Popes haue made mony of licences to mar­rie, to eate felth, or whit-meate, of dispensations concer­ning benefices, of indulgences, of releasing of Church cen­sures, of delegating of causes, of collation of benefices, of deuolutions, of reseruations, of prouisions, of procurati­ons, of the intricate rules of the Popes Chancerie, of gran­ting priuiledges, of licences to kéepe concubines, of com­mon whores, of annates, of contributions, of tenths, of e­rection of Churches, of ranonization of Saints, of cases reserued. Neither had they any law, or passed any act, but it was a meanes to make money. Likewise Masse-priests and Friars learning of their holy Father, seld Masses, Ab­solutions, and such licences and faculties, as lay in their hand to grant. Neither would they do any thing without money. Monkes and Friars beside buying and selling, had a most gainefull trade of begging. And such was their shamelesse dealing, that of the house of God they made a shoppe of merchandize, or rather a denne of theeues.

[Page 50]In England the Popes had a contribution called Peter pence: and yet not content therewith, or with the ordina­rie gaine of their faculties, annates, & contributions, they imposed extraordinarie subsidies as oft as themselues li­sted. The English did make a grieuous complaint against the Popes court in a certaine Synode at Lyon in the dayes of Henry the third, as Matth. of Paris testifieth. The same man affirmeth, that the Romish Court did swallow vplike a gulfe euery mans reuenues, and tooke almost all, that Bishops or Abbots possessed. Quae curia (saith he) instar barathripote­statem habet & consuetudinem omnium reditus absorbendi, imò ferè omnia quaecunque Episcopi possident & Abbates. Bonner in his Preface before Stephen Gardiners booke de vera obedi­entia: speaking of the spoile made in England by the Pope, saith it did almost amount to as much as the kings reuenues. Prouentus regios ferè aequabat, saith he.

In Fraunce king Lewis the ninth complaineth, that his kingdome was miserably brought to pouertie by the Popes In pragmat. sanct. exactions, and therefore he expresly forbiddeth them. Exa­ctiones (saith he) & onera grauissima pecuniarum per Curiam Rom. Ecclesiae regni nostri impositas vel imposita, quibus regnum nostrum miserabiliter depauperatum existit, siue etiam imponen­das, vel imponenda leuari, aut colligi nullatenus volumus.

In Spaine euery one of any qualitie is inforred to pay for two ordinarie pardons, whereof the one is for the dead, the other for the liuing. Beside this the Pope vpon diuers occasions sendeth cruciataes and general pardons; by which he procureth great commoditie. Iosephus Angles in 4. sent. cap. de indulgentijs, signifieth, that the king sometime pay­eth an hundred thousand duckats for one pardon, and af­terward remburseth himselfe, playing the Popes broker. Adde then vnto this reckening whatsoeuer the Pope get­teth out of Spaine by dispensations, licences, priuiledges, contributions and other trickes: and the summe of his col­lections-will appeare a very great matter.

The Germaines in their complaints exhibited to the Popes Legate, affirme, that the burthens laid on them by In Conclu. grauam. [Page 51] the Romish Church, were most vrgent intolerable, and not to be borne. Vrgentissima, atque intolerabilia, penitus (que) non ferenda [...]nera.

Generally all Christians complaine of them. Matth. Pa­ris in Hen. 3. speaking of the times of Gregory the 9. and of the couetousnesse of the Romish Church, saith, That like an impudent and common whore, she was exposed and set to sale to al men, accounting vsury for a litle fault, & symony for none. Permittente vel procurante Papa Gregorio adeo inualuit Ecclesiae Romanae insatiabilis cupidit as confundens fas nefas (que) quod depo­sito rubore velut meretrix vulgaris & effrons omnibus venalis & exposita vsuram pro paruo, symoniam pro nullo inconuenienti repu­tauit.

Theodoric. à Niem. nemor. vnion. tract. 6. ca. 37. speaking of the Popes Exchequer, sayth, It is like a sea, into the which all flouds run, and yet it floweth not ouer. He sayth further, that his officers do scourge poore Christians like Turkes or Tar­tarians.

Ipse Romanus pontifex (saith Ioannes Sarisburiensis lib. 6. Po­lycrat. cap. 24.) omnibus ferè est intolerabilis. Laetatur spolijs Ec­clesiarum, quaestum omnem reput at pietatem, prouinciarum diripit spolia, ac si the sauros Croesi studeat reparare. The Pope to all men is almost become intolerable; he delighteth in the spoyles of the Church; he esteemeth gaine to be godlinesse: he spoyleth countries, as if he meant to repaire Croesus his treasures. Ioannes Andreas in 6. de elect. & elect. potest. c. fundamenta. in Glossa, saith, that Rome was built by robbers, and yet retaineth a tack of her first originall.

Baptista of Mantua sheweth, that in Rome, Churches, priests, altars, and al monuments of Religion are sold. And yet he forgot to tell of the great reuenue the Pope getteth by common wheres. It is shame to consider how many be­nefices the Pope bestoweth on one man. Quae vtique abomi­natio (saith Gerson tractat. de statu Ecclesiae) quod vnus ducenta alius trecenta beneficia occupat! What an abominatiō is this, that one should possesse 200. another 300. benefices! We may i­magine what spoiles are committed in other things, when [Page 52] the Pope selleth so many benefices to one, and one man spoyleth so many Churches. Therefore saith the Bishop of Chems, oner. eccles. cap. 19. that as in the Romaine Empire, so in the Church of Rome there is a gulfe of riches, and that coue­tousnes, is encreased, and the law perished from the priest, and seeing frō the Prophet. Heu (saith he) sicut olim in Rom. Imperio. sic bodie in Romana curia est vorago diuitiarum turpissima. Crc­uit auaritia, perijt lex à sacerdote, & visio à Prophcta.

Petrarch calleth Rome couetous Babylon. L'auara Baby­lonia ha colmo il sacco de l'ira de Dio. And this is the common crie of all men, that are subiect to the synagogue of Romes tyrannie.

Is it not then a great fauor of God, that by the gouern­ment of Quéene Elizabeth we were so happily deliuered from the Popes manifold exactions, against which so many haue complained and exclaimed, and yet neuer could find conuenient remedie? Is it not an ease to be deliuered from intolerable burthens, and a great contentment to be fréed from such vniust pillages?

Robert Parsons Encont. 1. cap. II. would gladly haue the world to say, no: as hauing some share in the spoile, and like a begging Fryer liuing on the labors of others. But his ex­ceptions are such, as may greatly confirme our yea. First he saith, There hath not bene so many exactions in time past, as since the yeare 1530. and for proofe, he referreth vs vnto the exchequer bookes. But both: his exceptions and his proofes are ridiculous. For albeit much hath bene paid to the king; yet it doth not therefore follow, that we are to pay much to the Pope. Againe, it is ridiculous to séeke proofes of the Popes exactions in the Exchequer bookes, being so many that they can hardly be registred in any bookes. Beside this it is false, that the people of England hath paid more to the King then to the Pope, as may appeare by the conference of particulare. But suppose we should pay more to the king then to the pope: yet these two contributions are euill com­pared together. For to the King we owe dutie and tribute, to the Pope we owe nothing, but many hitter execrations [Page 53] for all our charges and troubles. For his malice is the root of all our troubles, and the cause of all our payments. He saith further, that notwithstanding the exactiens of the Pope, the Clergie in time past did farre excell our Clergie in ease and wealth. But that is no great commendation, if ours excell them in vertue and pietie. Beside that, Matthew of Paris in Henry the third, doth in diuers places expresse the miserable estate of the prelacie in those times by reason of the Popes gréedinesse. As for the common sort of priests that liued vpon sale of Masses, and the begging Fryers that liucd vpō almes, Robert Parsons hath no reason to extol thē for wealth, & lesse certes for other qualities. But were our Clergy burthened more thē in times past; yet hath this lou­zie companion no reason at all to mention the same, séeing the blame ariseth from that Sodomitical priesthood of the po­pish synagogue, that in king Henry the eight his dayes sold and intangled their liuings, and haue since bene occasion of many troubles, which without charge could not be ouer­passed. He saith our Clergie may sing, Beati paisperes spiritu: and so might the Romish Clergie too, if they were Christi­ans. Robert Parsons certes, himselfe abusing this place to sport, as the Pope abuseth scriptures to profite, sheweth himselfe to be an Atheist: and talking of his Clergie, he pro­ueth himself a sot. For in the world there is not a more beg­gerly, I might also say bougerly Clergie, then in Italy, espe­cially those which liue vpon the sound of bels, & by their ru­stie voices, as Grashoppers liue vpon dew, and sing swéet­ly oft times when they haue little to eate saue sallades, and pottage of coleworts, and such like suppes, and Italian Minestraes.

Afterward turning his spéech from others, he runneth very rudely vpon me, and giueth out that I haue complai­ned secretly of heauy payments to prince and patron. But either helyeth wilfully and wittingly against all truth and reason, or els some secret lying companion hath gulled him. Certes if he knew my estate, and how willing I haue bene and am, to spend more then ordinarie for resistance both of [Page 54] common enemies, and such Caniball traitors as himselfe, he would not impute this vnto me. Let him therefore bring forth the man that told him this lie, or else he must be char­ged with deuising the lie himselfe.

Finally he endeuoreth to excuse Innocentius the fourth, and to lay the fault of the extreame exactions of his time rather vpon his collectors and officers, then vpon the Pope himselfe. He pretendeth also, that Innocentius required a collection in a generall Councell. But who is so simple to thinke, that the whole state would complaine of the court and Pope of Rome, if the fault were onely in a few vsurers and caterpilling collectors? Againe, why should Matth. Paris so often complaine of this, and other Popes for their coue­tousnesse, if the fault were onely in the collectors? and why why did not the Pope sometime punish his collectors abu­sing their commission? Thirdly it appeareth, that this cog­ging pope abused the world, pretending the recouery of the holy land, & gathering great summes of money vnder that pretence, where it appeareth by the historie of Matthew Pa­ris and others, that he spent the money in warres to enrich his cousins and bastardo, and employed the aduenturers that crossed themselues for the holy land, against the Em­peror, and other Christian states. Finally it is a méere abuse to call a rabble of idle Monkes and busie Fryers, and swi­nish Masse-priestes combined with Antichrist a generall Councel, or to say that the Pope euer meant to recouer the holy land, or to enlarge Christian Religion, séeing by his aspires and contentions the Turkes haue enlarged, and Christians haue lost their Empire, being abandoned oft times and betrayed by the Pope.

CHAP. IX. Of the deliuerance of the Realme and Church of England from the yoke of the Popes lawes and vniust cenfures.

ALbeit the Cardinals of Rome, and the priests of Baal, and their adherents do not willingly complaine of the [Page 55] Pope, being diuers of them his creatures, and the rest his sworne seruants and marked slaues; yet such is the grie­uance and wrong that many haue sustained by his lawes and censures, that diuers of them haue bene forced to open their mouths, and to talke against their holy Father.

Petrus de Alliaco in his Treatise de reformat. Ecclesiae, saith, that the multitude of statutes, canons, and decretals, e­specially those that bind to mortal sinne are grieuous and bur­densome.

Budaeus in his annotations vpon the Pandects saith, that the Popes lawes serue not so well for correcting of man­ners, as making of money. His words are these: Sanctiones pontificiae non moribus regendis vsui sunt. sed propemodum dixerim, argentariae faciendae authoritatem videntur accommodare.

In France as Duarenus saith, it was wont to be a com­mon In Praefat. in lib. de Eccles. minist. prouerbe, that all things went euill since the decrées had ales adioyned to them, that is, since the decretals were published. Malè cum rebus humanis actum dicebant, ex quo decretis alae accesserunt.

The Princes of Germanie complaine, that the rules of the Popes Chancerie, were nothing but snares laid to bring Grauam. 20. benefices to the Popes collation, and deuised for matter of gaine. They say also, that the Popes constitutions were Ibid. 8. nothing but clogges for mens consciences.

Neither may we thinke, but that they had great reason thus to speake, considering both the iniquitie of most of these constitutions, and the strictnesse of the obliga­tion by which men are bound to obserue them. For what reason haue they either to prohibite mariage to any order, or state of men, not prohibited by the law of God to mar­rie, or else to restraine the libertie graunted by the lawe of God, or to forbid flesh, egges, or milke vpon certain daies? Againe, why haue they brought in, not onely their carnall presence of Christs bodie in the Sacrament, transsubstan­tiation, the idolatrous sacrifice of the Masse, but their pur­gatorie, their indulgences, and infinite such trash? Why haue they abrogated Christs institution in the celebration [Page 56] of the Lords supper, not onely taking away the cuppe from the communicants, but making a priuate action of that, which should be a communion? Is not this as much as the Pharisies did, that transgressed Gods commaundement for Mat 15. their owne tradition? And do not the Papists ordaine, that vnwritten traditions should be receiued with equall affe­ction, to the holy Scriptures?

Againe, what reason haue they to curse and anathema­tise, nay to put to cruell death, such as obey not their ordi­nances, and vniust decrees? S. Iames saith: We haue but Iam. 4. one Law giuer, that is able to saue and destroy. And no where do we reade, that the Church of Christ did persecute Chri­stians, and put them death for matters of their conscience and religion, much lesse for matter of ceremonies, or such obseruances. Neither can the aduersarie shew, that bishops excommunicated Christians, that would not rebell, and take armes against their Liege Soueraignes. Which of vs (saith Optatus, lib. 2. contra Parmenian.) did persecute any man? The Apostle he commaundeth euery soule to be sub­iect to higher powers, and not to rebell. How vntolerable then are the Romish decretals and rescripts, that not onely bind mens consciences in things free otherwise, but also in things, that may not be done without impietie?

Likewise haue diuers complained of the abuse of popish excommunications. That which our Sauior Christ saith: If he heare not the Church, let him be to thee, as a heathen man or Publican, that the popish faction translateth to the rediculous censure of the Pope, And therefore excommuni­cateth al that place not the Churches vnwritten traditions in equall rancke with diuine Scriptures; or that beléeue not, that Christians can performe the lawe perfectly, and are iustified before God by the workes of the law: or that hold not the doctrine of the Romish Church concerning their se­uen Sacraments: or that do not worship Images, or that receiue not their doctrine of indulgences, and purgatorie, and all the heresies and abhominations of the Pope: or that submit not themselues to his tyrannie: or that refuse to pay [Page 57] his annates or taxes, or whatsoeuer he and his suppostes require. Nay, they excommunicate the subiects, that rebell not against their lawfull Kings. After that Pius the fifth, that wicked and cruell hypocrite had commanded, that nei­ther the Lords nor people of England should obey Quéene Elizabeths commandements, or lawes: it followeth, Qui In Bulla con­tra Elizabe­tham. secus egerint eos anathematis sententia innodamus. That is: Those which shall do otherwise, we pronounce accursed, or anathema. Neither did the Pope onely in time past thunder out these curses, but also gaue leaue to euery base compa­nion, and for euery small trifling cause to inflict most grie­uous censures. Petrus de Alliaco speaking of the Pope and his excommunications, complaineth, that he gaue leaue to his Collectors to thunder out excommunications, to the of­fence of many, and that other Prelates for debts and light causes, did cruelly excommunicate poore men. Saepè (saith he) De reform. Eccles. per suos Collectores in multorum scandalum fulminauit, & aly Praelati leuiter, & pro leuibus causis, vt pro debitis & huiusmodi, pauperes excommunicatione crudeliter percutiunt.

The Germaines complaine, that many Christians were excommunicated at Rome for prophane causes and for gaine, Grauam. 34. to the trouble of diuers mens consciences. Romae (say they) caeteris (que) in locis per Archiepiscopos, ac Episcopos, aut saltem co­rum ecclesiasticos iudices multi Christianorum ob causas prophanas, ob pecuniae denique ac turpis quaestus amorem excommunicantur, multorum (que) sedeorum in fide infirmorum conscientiae per hoc ag­grauantur, & in desperationens pertrahuntur.

Scotus in 4. sent. dist. 19. complaineth, that the Church did too often strike with this sword: and Petrus de Alliaco saith, De reform, Eccles. that by this abuse the sword of the Church was in his time growne into great contempt.

Oflate time the Popes of Rome haue excommunicated Emperours and kings, if they would not depart with their townes, countries and crownes, and yéeid to their legats what they demaunded.

How intolerable this abuse was, we may perceiue, if we consider the heauinesse of this censure, being rightly [Page 58] inflicted by the true Church. Our Sauiour sheweth, that the partie excommunicate is to be holden for a heathen man, and a Publican. Tertullian. Apolo. 39. doth call it, the highest fore-iudgement of the future iudgement. Summum futuri iudi­cy praeiudicium. Cyprian doth esteeme them as killed with the Lib. 1. Epist. 11. ad Pomp. spirituall sword. Superbi & contumaeces (saith he) spirituali gla­dio necantur, dum de Ecclesia eijciuntur. Commonly excommu­nication is called Anathema: and Chrysostome homil. 70. ad populum Antioch. calleth it the bond of the Church.

We are therefore no lesse to be thankfull for our deliue­rance from the Popes vniust lawes, then the auncient Christians for their exemption from the yoke of the Phari­sies, and from humans traditions, from which by the prea­ching of the Gospell they were freed. Neither may we think it a simple fauour, that we are made to vnderstand, that the crackes of the Popes thundring excemmunications, are no more to be feared, then the ratling of Salmoneus that impi­ous fellow, that with certaine engines went about to counterfeit the noise of thunder. We knew alwaies that a man vniussly excommunicated, and by a Iudge vnlawfull, was no way preiudiced. Origen in Leuit. homil. 48. spea­king of a person excommunicate, saith, that he is not hurt at all, being by wrongfull iudgement expelled out of the con­gregation. Nihillaeditur in eo, quod non recto iudicio ab bomini­bus videtur expulsus. And the aduersaries confesse, that ex­communication pronounced vniustly, and by him that is not our Iudge, bindeth not. C. nullus 9. q. 2. and C. nullus primus. 9. q. 3. and C. sententia, 11. q. 3. But few vnderstood the in­iustice, and nullitie of the Popes lawes, and that he nei­ther was nor is a competent iudge, vntill such time, as by true preaching of the Gospell, which by Queene Elizabeth was restored vnto vs, the man of sinne beganne to be re­uealed.

CHAP. X. Of our deliuerance from heresie, schisme, superstition and Idolatrie.

These things therefore considered, it cannot be denied but that her Maiesties godly resermation brought great profite to the Church of England. Yet if we please to looke backe to the heresies of the Papists, and to remember how they liued in heresie, schisme, superstition and idolatry, we shall the rather praise God for that great deliuerance of his Church, which he wrought by the meanes of our late Quéene. For heresie and false doctrine is the bane and can­ker of the Church. The Apostle Paul, Ifan Angel from hea­uen should teach vs any other Gospel or doctrine beside that whith himselfe had taught the Galathians, doth pronounce Gal. 1. him accursed. S. Iohn in his second Epistle forbiddeth vs to receiue into our houses, or to salute such as bring not his do­ctrine. Heresie, schisme, and idolatrie are reckoned among Gal. 5. the workes of the flesh, the workers whereof shall not inherit the kingdome of God.

Flie, saith Ignatius, those that cause heresie and schisme, as Epist. ad Smyrnens. the principall cause of mischiefe. Quod maius potest esse delictū (saith Cyprian lib. 2. Epist. 11.) aut quae macula deformior, quàm aduersus Christum stetisse, quàm Ecclesiam eius, quàm ille sangui­ne suo parauit, dissipasse? What offence can be greater, or what blot more vgly, then to haue stood against Christ? then to haue scattered his church, which he hath purchased with his blood? Those which do perseuere in discord of schisme (saith S. Au­gustine lib. 1. de bapt. contra Donatist. c. 15.) do pertaine to the lot of Ismael.

Superstition is the corruption of true Religion, and although coloured with a shew of wisedom yet is condem­ned by the Apostle, Col. 2. Lactantius speaking of the super­stition Lib 1. Instit. diuin. c. 21. of the Gentiles, doth call it An incurable madnesse: Dementiam incurabilem, and afterward vanitie. Iustine in ser. Ibid. c. 22. [Page 60] exhort. ad Gentes, sayth, that idolatry is not only iniurious vnto God, but also voide of reason. Principale crimen generis humani, saith Tertullian, summus seculireatus, tota causa iudicy idolcla­tria. Lib. de idolol. That is: Idolatrie is the principall crime of mankind, the chiefe guiltines of the world, and the whole cause of iudge­ment. No maruell then if Iohn the Apostle exhort all men 1. Ioh. 5. To keepe themselues from idols, this sinne being direct a­gainst the honor of God, and nothing else but spirituall for­nication.

Let vs therefore see whether the Papists may not be tou­ched with the aforesaid crimes of teaching hereticall and false doctrine, and of long continuance in schisme, supersti­tion and idolatry. That the Papists teach false doctrine and heresie, the acts of the conuenticle of Trent, of Florence and Constance compared with the doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles, and faith of the auncient fathers will plainely de­clare. For as Tertullian said of old heretikes, so may we say of them: That their doctrine compared with the Apostolicke doctrine, doth by the diuersitie and contrarietie thereof de­clare, that it proceedeth from no Apostle or Apostolicke man. Ipsa doctrina eorum cum Apostolica compar at a ex diuersitate & contrarietate sua pronunciabit, neque Apostoli alicuius autoris esse, neque Apostolici, saith he. The Apostle teackech vs, That the Scriptures are able to make the man of God perfect. They say Depraescrip. aduers. haeret. 2. Tim. 3. that the Scriptures are but a péece of the rule of faith, and very imperfect without traditions.

S. Peter (2. Pet. 1.) compareth the scriptures of the Pro­phets to a candle shining in a dark place: they teach, that scri­ptures are darke and obscure.

God commaundeth vs to heare his beloued Sonne, Mat. 3. they commaund vs not to heare Christ speaking in scrip­tures to vs, but to heare the Pope, and his carolike crue, which they endue with the name of the Church.

The Apostle saith, That no other foundation could be laid 1. Cor. 3. beside that which is alreadie layd, which is Christ Iesus. These fellowes say, the Church is built vpon the Pope, and that he is the foundation of the Church: although we find [Page 61] plainely that there was no such Pope for many ages in the Church.

Christ said, Reade the Scriptures: these say directly to the vulgar sort, reade not Scriptures in vulgar tongs without licence.

S. Iohn teacheth vs, that sinne is, whatsoeuer is contrary to the law: these teach, that many sins there are not repug­nant to Gods law: viz. such things as are contrary to the Popes law.

The Apostle Paul saith, that concupiscence is sinne: these affirme the contrary. He saith, originall sinne passed ouer al; they deny it. He saith no man is iustified by the workes of the law, they teach flat contrary.

The law directly prohibiteth the making of grauen ima­ges, to the end to bow down to them and to worship them. These notwithstanding make the images of the holy Tri­nitie, bow downe to them and worship them.

The Apostle (Coloss. 2.) speaketh against the worship of Angels. They regard him not, but in humblenesse of mind inuocate and worship Angels notwithstanding.

Our Sauior instituting the holy Sacrament of his body and bloud, sayd: Accipite, manducate: take, and eate; and drink ye all of this. They say, sacrifice and worship, and drink not all of this.

To rehearse all their contradictions to the word of God, and to the Apostles doctrine, were too long for this short dis­course, let these therefore serue for an introduction. Of their heresies I haue before spoken. Pius the fourth, hath set forth a new forme of faith, of which that may be said, which Hila­rie speaketh to Constantius: Quicquid apud te praeter fidem vnā Contra Con­stantium. est, perfidia, non fides est. Whatsoeuer this wicked Pope hath set forth beside the faith of Christ, the same is perfidiousnes, and not faith. Of this qualitie is his doctrine of Romish tra­ditions, of superstitious ceremonies, of the blasphemous Hasse, of purgatorie, of indulgences, of the fiue new deui­sed sacraments, and such like doctrines.

That the Papists are by schisme rent from the Catholike. [Page 62] and vniuersal Church of Christ, it may be proued by diuers particulars. First, Christs Church hath but one head, that is Christ Iesus. But the Romish Church hath as many heads as Popes, and heads that teach doctrine both diuers and contrary to Christ our sole head.

Secondly, Christ his Church hath no other spouse but Christ Iesus. But the adulterous Romish synagogue ac­knowledgeth the Pope to be her spouse, and therefore must needes haue as many spouses as Popes, and be not Virgo, but Polygama; that is, one that hath many husbands or spou­ses.

Thirdly, the Catholike Church is built vpon the founda­tions of the Apostles and Prophets, Iesus Christ being the corner stone; and hath beside this no other foundation. But the Romish Church acknowledgeth the Pope to be her foundation. Whereupon it followeth, that she is sometime without foundation, at least during the vacancie of the popedome, and hath as many diuers foundations as Popes.

Fourthly, the synagogue of Rome doth acknowledge the Pope to be her law-giuer, and iudge, & that he hath power not onely to bind mens consciences, but also to saue and de­stroy: which doth shew that she deuideth her selfe from Christes Catholicke Church, which for many ages after Christs time had no such conceit.

Fifthly, the same doth rely no lesse vpon traditions not written, and vpon the Popes determinations in matters of faith, then vpon the written word of God: which the Ca­tholike Church doeth not.

Sixthly, this synagogue consisteth of a Pope, and his Cardinals, together with a rabble of Monkes, Fryers, and sacrificing priests. But in the prime Catholicke Church, there was no such state, nor orders of men to be found.

Finally, the members of the Romish synagogue, are not onely deuided from the Catholike Church in doctrine, sa­craments, externall gouernement and fellowship, but also one frō another, the Thomists differing from the Scotists, the [Page 63] Monkes from begging Friars, the regular orders from se­cular Priests, one Doctor from another, and one Pope oft­times from another. If then Schismatickes be no true members of the Church as their Doctors teach; then are not the Romanists of the Church. Againe, if they differ from the Catholike Church, and among themselues, then haue they long continued in Schisme.

The nature and propertie of superstition doth shew the Papists to be also most superstitious. For if it be the nature and propertie of superstition, either to giue religious honor and worship to such things, as are not capable of it, or else to worship God after humane deuises, and otherwise then he hath commanded; then do they grossely offend in super­stitiō. But it is most notorious, that they grosly offend in both those points. For first they inuocate Angels. On the feast of Michael the Archangell they say: Holy S. Michael defend vs in battell, that we perish not in the fearefull iudgement. They pray also to the Angell that kéepeth them, whom In Missal. Rom. they know not: and this adoration of Angels in the Ro­mane Catechisme is allowed, if not commaunded.

Secondly, they worship the Virgin Marie, and call her the mother of grace, and port of saluation. Bernardin doth call In Mariali. her the mediatrix betwixt God and vs, and the helper of our iustification and saluation. They pray vnto her for helpe, per amorem vnigeniti filij tui, as if Christ were a Mediator be­twixt vs and our Ladie. Bonauenture transforming the In Psalterio Bonauent. Psalmes which are made to be sung in praise of God, to our Ladie, saith, Cantate Dominae, canticum nouum: and lau­date dominaem in sanctis eius: that is, Sing to our Ladie a new song, and praise our Ladie in her Saints.

Thirdly, they worship and call vpon other Saints beside the holy Virgin, and attribute diuers Saints to diuers ci­ties and countries, as thrée kings to Colleine, S. Ambrose to Millane, George to Germanie and England, Andrew to Scotland, Iames to Spaine. They do suppose also, that Ni­cholas doth helpe Mariners, Luke painters, Crispine shoo­makers, that S. Anthonie cureth pigges, S. Gal géese, and S. Sebastian the plague. In the Romane Missall blasphe­mously [Page 64] they translate the honour of our Sauiour to Leo bi­shop of Rome, saying to Leo, Thou art a priest for euer ac­cording to the order of Melchisedech.

Fourthly, they pray to things that cannot heare, nor helpe, saying, O holy crosse helpe me: and to the holy nap­kin, Sancte Sudari ora pro nobis: O holy napkin pray for vs. And againe, Sudarium Christi liberet nos a peste, & morte tri­sti. So the Papists of Cahors in France pray, and saluting the picture of Christs face called Veronica, they say: Haile holy face printed in a cloth: as if a good part of their religion were printed in linnen cloth.

Fiftly, they worship diuers men departed, of whose sal­uation, or percase being, they haue no certaintie: as for ex­ample, S. Catherine, S. Christopher, S. George that fought with the dragon, S. Dominicke, S. Francis, and a multitude of other Monkes and Friars liker to be in hell then in hea­uen. Whereof the common prouerbe ariseth, That many are called vpon as Saints in heauen, whose soules are farre more likely to be tormented in hell.

Finally, they giue diuine worship to the crosse, and to the images of the holy Trinitie, worshipping creatures for their Creator. They do also worship rotten bones, not knowing whether they be the relickes of Saints, or wic­ked men. They kisse them, bow, and burne incense vnto them. They worship swords, whippes, nailes, the asses taile whereon Christ rode, as they say, the breeches of Io­seph, and diuers ragges, which God knoweth, from whence they came.

They practise also diuers false formes of worship, of which we may say, who hath required these things at their hands? The Ladies psalter is a forme, that God neuer com­maunded. Many of their prayers are most blasphemous. In hortulo animae printed anno 1565. at Paris by one Merlin, they pray thus: O veneranda Trinitas, Iesus, Ioseph, & Ma­ria, quam coniunxit diuinitas charitatis concordia: that is, O venerable Trinitie, Iesus, Ioseph, and Marie, which God hath conioyned with the concord of charitie. Neuer certes [Page 65] did the Prophets and Apostles teach vs so to pray, as is contained in the Breuiaries.

Secondly, they say Masses in honor of Saints and of our Ladie, and make vowes vnto them. But our Sauiour Christ neuer taught vs to celebrate the Cucharist in honor of Saints, or to offer his bodie in honor of S. Francis, Saint Cuthbert, S. Andrew, and other he and she Saints.

Thirdly, the holy Prophets and Apostles neuer taught vs, that men are saued by eating saltfish and cockles, and for swearing mariage, and such like obseruances, in which the Romanists put great holinesse.

Fourthly, God neuer commaunded any to whip them­selues, and to weare rings of iron, or woollen next our skinne, nor signified, that these things pleased him. Nay, the Apostle (Colos. 2.) condemneth such obseruations, al­beit hauing a shew of wisedome, in superstition, humilitie and not sparing the bodie.

Finally, our Sauiour neuer taught his disciples to ex­orcise salt and water to driue away diuels, nor to conse­crate Missal Rom. in fine. pasch all Lambes, and candles, and such like, as the Papistes do, prescribing certaine formes thereof in their Missals, and saying ouer salt, Exorcizo te creatur a salis, per Deum viuum, per Deum verum. That is: I exorcise thee, thou creature of salt, by the liuing God, by the true God: and after­ward Vt efficiaris sal exorcizatum in salutem credentium: that thou maist be made coniured salt, for the saluation of the faith­full. Ouer the water they say: Exorcizo te creatura aquae, &c. vt fias aqua exorcizata ad effugandam omnem potestatem inimici. That is: I exorcise thee thou creature of water, &c. that thou maist be made exorcised water, to driue away all the power of the enemie. In blessing of the pasch all lambe they pray, that God would blesse and sanctifie the creature of flesh, which they desire to receiue to the praise of God. Al which be tricks of notorious superstition. I forbeare so speake of the super­stitious toyes of the Masse in crossing, turning, knocking, washing, formes of habits and such like ceremonies, for that they require a whole discourse by themselues.

[Page 66]It resteth onely now, that I declare the Papists to of­fend in idolatrie, because notwithstanding their manifold abuses in Gods worship, they obstinately deny themselues to be guiltie therein. But whatsouer pretences they bring, they shall neuer be able to excuse themselues. For first it is notorious, and the aduersaries will not denie, but that all those are superstitious Idolaters, that giue the honour, which is properly due vnto God, vnto creatures. Supersti­tiosum est (saith S. Augustine lib. 2. de doctr. Christ. cap. 20.) quicquid institutum est ab hominibus ad facienda & colenda idola, pertinens vel ad colendum, sicut Deum, creaturam, partémue vl­lam crcaturae, vel ad consultationes & pacta quaedam significatio­num cum daemonibus placita & foederata. He saith, it is super­stitious, whatsoeuer is ordained of men for making and wor­shipping idols, pertaining either to the worship of creatures, or any part of a creature, as God, or else to magicall consul­tations, or couenants agreed vpon with diuels, for reuealing of matters. Thomas Aquinas 2. 2. q. 94. art. 1. confesseth, that idolatrie is nothing else, but the worshipping of creatures either in visible formes, or otherwise with diuine honour. And this is partly prooued out of the law of God against I­dolatrie, which not only prohibiteth the hauing of strange Gods, but also the making of grauen images, with an in­tent to bow vnto them, and to worship them. But the su­perstitious Papists do worship the Sacrament as God, and call it their Lord and God. They do also giue Gods ho­nour to the images of the Trinitie, of the Crucifixe, and crosse, and teach, that what worship is due to the originall, is due to the image or picture, as Alexander Hales, p. 3. q. 3. art. vlt. Aquinas part. 3. q. 25. art. 3. and Caietan in his Commentaries vpon him do testifie. They do also make vowes to our Ladie and to Saints, and trust very much in them. They do further call vpon Angels and Saints in all places, and offer sacrifices in their honour. Finally, they bow vnto the images of Angels and Saints, pray before them, kisse them, and burne incense vnto them. All which be points of that adoration, that is due to God.

[Page 67]Secondly, they commit those faults, which the holy scrip­tures do note and condemne in idolaters of old time. They worship creatures for the Creator, as the Apostle Rom. 1. saith the Gentiles did. They make similitudes of things both in heauen and earth, bow downe to them, and worship them: although the same be prohibited in the second com­maundement, Exod. 20. They erect monuments, and titles, and stones for signes to be worshipped, contrary to the law, Leuit. 26. They make euery day new gods, affirming that the priest maketh his maker. Now this making of new gods is noted as a propertie of idolaters, Psal. 81. They reioyce in the works of their owne hands, and worship the images which themselues haue made, as did the idolaters whereof S. Stephen maketh mention, Act. 7. They serue the hoast of heauē, as the old idolatrous Iews spokē of Amos 5. & Act. 7. seruing diuers saints, and as they call them, Militiam & cu­riam coelestem: that is, the soldiory and court of heauen. As the statues of the Gentiles were siluer and gold, the worke of mens hands, and had mouthes and spoke not, eies and saw not, as sayth the Prophet, Psal. 114. so is it with the images of Papists, that albeit of costly matter and curious worke­manship, yet neither speake with their mouthes, nor sée with their eyes. As idolaters burnt incense to their statues, as we reade 2. Paral. 30. so do Papists burne incense to their images.

Thirdly, they fall into those abuses, which the Fathers of the Church thought worthy to be reprehended of old time, as sauoring of idolatry. The Gentiles thought they could represent God in a materiall image. And so do the Papists making the image of God the Father, and God the holy Ghost. The Fathers therefore reprehend them both alike. Quis tam amens erit (saith Eusebius praeparat. Euangel. c. 3.) vt Dei formam & imaginem statua viro simili referri perhibeat? Who wil be so mad to think, that the forme and image of God may be expressed by an image like vnto a man? Hierome like­wise writing vpon the fortith of Isay, What image (saith he) wil you make for him which is a spirit, and is in all places? Am­brose [Page 68] in his oration of the death of Theodosius, sayth, It is an errour of the Gentiles to worship the crosse. Inuenit Helena (saith he) crucem Domini: regem adorauit, non lignum vtique, quia hic Gentilis est error, sed adorauit illum qui pependit in cruce. The councell of Laodicea condemneth the worship of An­gels, as idolatrous. So likewise saith Tertullian, de praescrip. aduers. haeret. that the heresie of the Simonians in seruing of Angels, was reputed among idolatries. Simonianae magiae disci­plina Angelis seruiēs vtique & ipsa inter idololatrias deputabatur. Hierome in an Epistle of his to Riparius, saith, that Christi­ans neither adore nor worship Martyrs, nor Sun, nor Moone, nor Angels, least they should therein rather serue creatures, then the Creator. Tertullian doth also say, that euery lie of God, is after a sort a variation of the kind of idolatrie. Omne De praescript. aduers. Haeret. mendacium de Deo variatio quodammodo sexus est idololatriae. Both he and diuers others say, that heresie is a kind of ido­latrie. How then can they cleare themselues from the ble­mish of idolatrie, that worship the crosse, serue and worship Angels, and are authors of so many sorts of heresies?

Fourthly, they must néedes deny the crosse, and the ima­ges of the Trinitie, and the crucifixe to be creatures and works of their owne hands, or else in worshipping of them, they must néedes confesse and yéeld themselues to be idola­ters. But that they cannot do.

Finally, the testimonie of their owne conscience doth proue them to be idolaters, in that they leaue out the second commandement, or as they make it, a péece of the first com­mandement, that is direct against the adoration and wor­ship of grauen images, and the making of them to that end, in most of their Catechismes, Manuals, Psalters, and ritu­all bookes, where they rehearse the ten commandements, as their Ladies psalters, short Catechismes, and diuers of their bookes do testifie.

But since it pleased God to restore religion in the church of England, the leuen of popish doctrine and heresie is pur­ged out, the breach of schisme and diuision from the Catho­like Church is repaired, and all superstitious and idola­trous [Page 69] worships are quite abolished and remoued out of the Church.

CHAP. XI. Of good workes, and good life.

THe Ministers of God, as they are guides to their peo­ple, and teachers of the law; so ought they to go before their flockes, shewing them examples to prouoke them to do good workes, and to cōforme their liues according to the lawes of God. Shew thy selfe an example of good workes, Tit 2. sayth Paul to Titus. All true Christians also should shew themselues zealous of good workes. For we are Gods work­manship, Ibid. Ephes. 2. created in Christ to good workes, which God hath ordained that we should walke in them. This is our doctrine, and the practise of all that professe our religion. If any hy­pocrites be found among vs, that walke not according to their profession, we renounce them, we weed them out, we punish them. If worldlings and fleshly Papists, that liue in the Realme do giue occasion of offence, this ought not to be imputed to our Religion, nor the true professors thereof, that desire nothing more then that such may be weeded out, and expulsed both out of the Church and Common­wealth.

But if we looke backe to former times, we shall find that the Papists haue not onely erred in the practise, but also in the doctrine of good workes. For first they denie, that the law of God is a perfect rule of life. And therefore haue in­uented other rules, whereby they hope to attaine to a fur­ther perfection. Secondly they hold, that by the law of God we haue not knowledge of all sinnes, teaching that it is as well mortall sinne to transgresse the Popes lawes, as to transgresse Gods lawes, as Nauarrus teacheth vs in his Ma­nuall by many particulars. Thirdly, they giue absolution to euery haynous sinner, confessing his sins, before he hath repented. Fourthly, they suppose that euery man is able to [Page 70] satisfie for the temporall penaltie of sinnes, and that the Pope hath power by his indulgences to remit sinnes con­cerning the penaltie without satisfaction. Fiftly, they teach that no man néedeth to repent for veniall sinnes, and that such sinnes exclude vs not out of the kingdome of heauen. Sixthly they teach, that man is able perfectly to fulfill the law, and by a good consequent to abstaine from all sinne, which S. Hierome declareth to be Pelagianisme. Seuenthly, they hold contrary to the Apostle, that man is to be iustified by the workes of the law, and that eternall life is to be pur­chased by our owne workes and merites.

Many other false points of doctrin they haue beside these. But their practise is farre worse then their doctrine. For o­mitting the weightier points of the law, like their ancesters the Pharisees they stand much on tithing Mint, and Com­min, and washings, & such like ceremonies. Their principall works are forswearing of mariage, begging like vagabond fellowes, eating muscles, cockles, and salt fish, and such like on fasting dayes, and saints vigiles, taking ashes on Ash­wednesday, confessing in a priests eare at Shroftide, sha­uing of crownes, going to Masse, sprinkling of holy-water, lighting of candles at noone day, crouching to images, crée­ping to the crosse, kissing of the Popes toe, praying for soules in purgatorie, gaining of pardons, going on pilgri­mage, ringing and singing for the dead, aneling and grea­sing of men and women desperately ficke, and such like.

The Popes, Cardinals, Masse-priests, Monkes & Friers, care neither much for these ceremonies, nor for other good workes. If any of them, or their adherents haue a shew of godlinesse; yet they haue denied the power thereof. If they do build schooles or hospitals, or giue largely, it is for the maintenance of their state, and to winne glorie and praise of men. The liues and actions of most of them, are most ab­hominable. The old Romaine formularie prescribeth this common forme of confession to Romish penitents: Confiteor quia peccaui nimis in superbia, inani gloria, in extollentia tam ocu­lorum, quam vcstium & omnium actuum meorum, in inuidia, in [Page 71] odio, in auaritia tam honoris, quàm pecuniae, in ira, in tristitia, in acedia, in ventris ingluuie, in luxuria Sodomitica, &c. I confesse (saith the Romish penitent) that I haue offended too-much in pride, vaine glorie, lifting vp my eyes; setting out my selfe in apparell and other gestures, enuie, hatred, desire of money and honors, anger, dulnesse, slouth, gluttonie, Sodomiticall luxurie, in sacriledge, periurie, adulterie, thefts, rapines, and all manner of fornication, in most beastly turpitude, in drun­kennesse and banquetting. And afterward there followeth such a Catalogue of all manner of impieties and villanies, that a blind man may discerne the Romanistes to be a rab­ble of damnable and indiabolated rakehels, deseruing Ti­burnes suspension, rather then the Priests absolution.

Publikely they allow stewes both in Spaine and Italie. The Pope maketh a great reuenue of the hire of whores. The harlots of Rome (saith Cornelius Agrippa lib. de vanit. scient. cap. de Lenocinio) pay euery weeke a peece of money called à Iulio, (it is about sixe pence of English money) to the Pope, and this rent yearely passeth twentie thousand duc­kats. He telleth also, how Priests let out whores to hire. The glosse vpon a certaine prouinciall constitution of Otho de concubin. Cleric. remouend. saith, that it seemeth reason, that the Church should winke at the sinne of lecherie. Nam & Ma­reschallus Papae de facto exigit tributum à meretricibus. For de facto the Marshall of the Pope doth exact a tribute frō whores. This is also confirmed by the testimonie of Io. Andreas in c. inter opera. extr. de spons. & matrim. and is well knowne to Robert Parsons, a great practiser among boyes & whores, and to all that are acquainted with Rome, Italie, and Spain. The Cardinals, that about the time of the councell preten­ded in Pope Paule the third his time, were to consider what things stood in greatest néede of reformation, speaking of Rome: In hac etiam vrbe meretrices, (say they) vt matronae in­cedunt per vrbem. That is: In this citie also whoores go like matrons through the streetes. Pius the fifth, that pretended more zeale, then his predecessors, went about to reforme this abuse, but could not. Such was the desire the Priests [Page 72] and people of Rome had, to kéepe this ornament of the ci­tie with them still, which as the Jebusiticall faction in Wis­bich affirmed, were in Rome with approbation, and with as good right as any citizen of Rome, or as the Pope himselfe. All that Pius the fift could do, was to draw them into cer­taine In vita Pij 5. stréetes, and there to confine them, as well, as such manner of people could be. The sinnes of Sodome are so rife in Rome, and all Italie, that no colours can couer them, no lawes remedie them. Boccace in his second nouel testi­fieth, That the Pope, Cardinals, Prelates, and others, did liue dishonestly and offend, not onely in naturall, but also So­domiticall luxurie. Eglitrouo dal maggiore insino al minore tutti dishonestissimamente peccare in lussuria, & non solo nella naturale, ma anchora nella Sodomitica, senza freno alcuno di rimordimento, ô di vergogna in tanto che la potenza delle meretrici & de garzo­ni ad impetrare qualunque gran cosa non era di picciol potere. Ol­tre à questo uniuersalmente golosi, beuitori, ebbriachi, & piu al ventre seruenti a guisa d'animali bruti appresso alla lussuria, che ad altro, gli conobbe apertamente. Huldericus of Augusta sheweth, In Epist. ad Nicolaum. that while by false shew of continencie, the Church of Rome refused mariage in their Cleargie, diuers committed inceft and abhominable Sodomiticall villanies with men and beastes. Sub falsa continentiae specie placere volentes, grauiora vi­des committere, (saith he) patrum scilicet vxores subagitare, mas­culorum ac pecudum amplexus non reformidare. Petrarch doth call Rome, the slaue of gluttonie, & lecherie, and saith, that lu­xuriousnesse is come to extremitie in her. Di vin serua, di letti Sonnetto 106 à di viuande, in cui lussuria fa l'vltima proua. In his nintéenth Epistle he doth not onely charge the court of Rome with in­continencie and vnbridled lusts, but with all impieties and vil­lanies. Quicquid vspiam (saith he) perfidiae & doli, quicquid in­clementiae, superbiae (que), quicquid impudicitiae effrenatae (que) libidinis audisti, aut legisti, quicquid denique impietatis & morum pessimo­rum sparsim habet, aut habuit orbis terrae: totum istic cumulatim videas, aceruatim (que) reperias. Vguetinus in his visions doth er­claime against the sinne of Sodomie. Iterum atque iterum (saith the reporter) de scelere Sodomitico verbum intulit. [Page 73] Speaking of Romish priests he saith, they giue themselues to follow harlots and luxuriousnesse, and suppose gaine to be godlinesse. And if any man suppose, that these were the sinnes of old time, and that now such abuses are reformed, he sheweth himselfe ignorant of the manners of Italie, and other popish countries. Io. Casa wrote verses in commen­dation of Sodomitrie, and a Florentine vnder the name of Grappa, hath written a Treatise called Cicalamento del Grappa, of the same argument. In the visitation of Abbeys in England, the Monkes and Friars were in diuers places detected for that abhomination. In the contention between the Iesuites and scholers of the Romish Seminarie, one Harward a Iesuite gaue out he could defent seuen for that sinne. In Rome and other places of Italie this abhomina­tion is common. At Gant anno 1578. foure Franciscans and one Augustinian Friar were burnt for Sodomie: and diuers scourged for like filthinesse. Robert Parsons, if he list, may search the acts. He doth also remember why not long since he sent for Fisher from Doway, and why Edward Weston was put out of the Colledge, and from his Lecture in Diui­nitie. Assuredly it was not for his chastitie. Of the Pope that now is, and of his late predecessors, and the Romish Cardinals I shall haue occasion to speake hereafter, if Par­sons will néede stand in contention about honestie of life be­twirt his consorts and vs. In the meane while he may re­member what fruites come of forced single life. Anselme (as Huntington lib. 5. and Roger of Chester reporteth) in one Synode forbad lawfull mariage to Priests: but in the nert he was constrained to make lawes against Sodo­mites, and therein condemned eight Abbots beside other inferious Priests and Friars.

In the Church of Rome adultery and fornication haue alwayes bene accounted smaller offences, as is set downe euidently in the chapter, At si clerici. de iudicijs. I néede not therefore stand much vpon that, and the rather for because it is notorious, that the Pope tolerateth common bordels. Yet lest Baals priests should stand too much, either vpon [Page 74] their virginitie or chastitie; I would haue them to remem­ber, not onely the liues of late Popes, Cardinals, priests, Monkes and Friers, but also what old histories and other records say against them, when they liued better then now. Let them reade Boccace nouel, 2. and diuers discourses of Monkes and Friers honesties. Petrarch. epist. 19. and others. His 106. 107. 108. sonets, Theodoricke a Niem. tract. 6. ne­moris vnionis cap. 34. where Gregory the Pope testifieth, that in two and twenty Monasteries the Monks and Nunnes liued most filthily and dishonestly. Pene omnis religio, & obseruantia dictiordinis, ac Deitimor abscessit, libido ac corruptio carnis inter ipsos mares & moniales, nec non alia multa mala excessus & vitia, quae pudor est effari, per singula succrcuerunt. The Pope himselfe was ashamed to speake all. Let them also peruse the treatise called Onus Ecclesiae cap. 22. who sayth, that Monkes and Friers are worse then diuels. Aretin lib. de hypocritis, Baptist. Mantuan lib. 3. calamit. Palingenius in Leone, and that which I haue cited out of diuers authors, lib. de Monach. cap. 8. If they desire to heare some mens reports of them, let them listen to that which followeth. Lateranense palatium (saith Luithprandus, lib. 6. cap. 6.) sanctorum hospitium, nunc est prosti­bulum meretricum. The pallace of Lateran (saith he) that was wont to be a harbor of holy men, is now become a bordell for whores. Petrarch in his 16. epistle, speaking of the Popes court, sayth thus: Nulla ibi piet as, nulla charitas, nulla fides, nulla Dei reuerentia, nullus timor: There is no godlinesse, no charitie, no faith, no reuerence or fcare of God. In his fifteenth Cpi­stle, he calleth it a den of the eues. Mantuan li. 2. fastor. willeth chastitie to be packing into villages, if that they did not also suffer the same diseases, for that Rome was become a publike stewes. I pudor in villas, sinon patiuntur easdem, & villae vomicas: vrbs est iam tota lupauar. Cardinals (sayth Brigit) giue them­selues without restraint to all pride, couetousnesse, and delights 4. Brig. 49. of the flesh. And afterward, Iam nunc in maiori veneratione ha­betur lupauar, quam vera Dei Ecclesia. Now the stewes are in more esteeme, then the true Church of God. Bishops and priests should build the Church, but as Brigit saith, they build 2. Brig. 10. [Page 75] the diuell two cities, to wit, the labor of the body, and trouble of the mind. Catherina of Siena c. 125. sayth, Religious men should resemble Angels, but are worse then diuels. Platina writing of Iohn the thirteenth, sayth, He was a man from his youth contaminated with all filthinesse and dishonestie. Wri­ting of thrée Popes, he calleth them three foule monsters. In vita Greg. 6 By the articles and proofes exhibited against Iohn the thrée and twentith, in the Councell of Constance, as it is called, it appeareth he was wholy giuen to vices and carnall desires, and was conuicted to be an incestuous person, & a Sodomite. Vrspergensis testifieth against Clement the fifth, that he was a notorious fornicator. Matthew Villani hist. lib. 3. ca. 39. speaking of Clement the sixth, and his continencie, sayth, that being Archbishop he could not keepe himselfe from wo­men, and being Pope neither could contain nor hide his fault. Innocent the eight, and Alexander the sixth, had diuers ba­stards, as Guicciardine and diuers others report. Paul the second, Iulius the second, Leo the tenth, Clement the seuenth Paul the third, Iulius the third, are all noted for their loose­nesse of life, and diuers of them conuinced thereof by their bastards.

Symony and vsury among the Romanists is so common, that as Matth. Paris sayth, they account the first no sin, the se­cond a smal sin. Felin in c. ex parte de offic. & pot. iudicis delegat. sayth, that without the rent of symonie the Popes sea would grow contemptible. Priests in time past were wont to ex­claime much of this abuse. Heu Symon regnat, per munera quae­que reguntur, sayth one in hist. citiz. Pauli Langy. Theodoric. à Niem. lib. 2. de schism. c. 7. Vsura (saith he) tantum inualuit, vt foenus non putaretur peccatum: that is, Vsurie did so preuaile, that it was accounted no fault. Paul the fourth, and Pius the fourth, set vp shops of vsury, as their acts testifie, and Onu­phrius recordeth.

Neither the Popes nor their adherents obserue oath or promise, as their acts do at large shew, and many poore Christians brought into snare by their perfidiousnesse haue felt. Theodoric. à Niem. lib. 3. de schism, speaking of Pope Gre­gorie [Page 76] the twelfth saith, that with his vowes and othes he de­ceiued the world. Votis & inrament is suis decepit mundum. Gre­gorie the seuenth contrary to his oath tooke vpon him the papacie, as is recorded in the life of Henrie the fourth. He did also absolue all the Emperors subiects frō their othes of allegiance to their soueraigne Prince. The like pradise did Pius the fift vse, in discharging the subiects from their othes to the late Quéene. The articles of the pacification of Gant anno 1578. were confirmed by solemne oath of the old King of Spaine, and yet presently and wilfully broken. Neither had the Popes faction in France any better colour to intrap poore Christians, then othes. For whiles the Admirall and diuers of the religion in France trusted solemne othes, they were brought within danger, and most cruelly and perfidi­ously massacred. Neither need we to maruell if this sect ob­serueth no othes, seeing in the conuenticle of Constance the same determined, that faith was not to be kept with here­tikes, in which number they reckon all that yéeld not to the Popes will. The Doctors of this sect hold, that the Pope can dispence with othes, and absolue men that are periu­red. Finally, those that haue trauelled France, Italy and Spaine, do know that the common sort of Papistes can scarce vtter thrée words without swearing and blasphe­ming.

The Popes and their faction haue caused all the warres and troubles in Christendome, as histories do recount. If a man do but look in the life of Sixtus the fourth, & Iulius the 2. he may easily sée what seditious and turbulent spirits they cary. But what néed we looke so high, seeing the flames of ciuil discension in Germanie, France, Flanders, England and Ireland burning so bright by the solicitation of Paul the third, Pius the fifth, Gregorie thirtéenth and fourteenth, and this Clement that now possesseth the throne of Antichrist, do so plainely declare them to be firebrands of warre and trouble? Well therefore said Petrarke, that in Rome all those mischiefes were hatched, that are now spread through the world: and neuer shall Christian Princes haue loyall sub­iects, [Page 77] as long as seditious Masse-priests are suffered to lurk within their kingdomes.

In countries subiect to y ^e Pope, they count it a little fault to murder mē, & now frō thence are come certaine assassins, which for hire and by perswasions are induced to kill men. There also impoysonments are most common. The Popes themselues vse to drinke of poysoned cups, and that by the iust iudgement of God, seeing by the cup of their poysoned doctrine, according to the prophecy Apoc. 17. they haue em­poysoned many Christian nations.

To conclude this large discourse, there is no state of men vnder the Popes iurisdiction, but it is growne to great dissolution and corruption of manners, and may be conuin­ced of diuers sinnes and abominations by infinite witnes­ses and confessions if we would stand vpon it: but I will content my selfe with two or three. Breidenbach in the hi­storie of his peregrination, speaketh generally and sayth, Recessit lex à sacerdotibus &c. that is, the law is departed from priests, iustice from princes, counsell from elders, good dealing from the people, loue from parents, reuerence from subiects, charitie from prelates, religion from Monkes, honestie from yong men, discipline from clerkes, learning from masters, study from schollers, equitie from Iudges, concord from citizens, feare from seruants, good fellowship from husbandmen, truth from merchants, valor from Noblemen, chastitie from virgins, humility from widowes, loue from maried folks, patience from poore men. O time! ô manners! And Walter Mapes that liued in the time of Henry the second, King of England, Virtutes cunctae (saith he) en iacent defunctae: All vertues lie now dead. Charitie is no where to be found. And againe, In truth I find that the whole Cleargy doth studie wickednesse and impietie, enuie raigneth, truth is exiled. The prelates are Lucifers heires. They being now aduaunced tread downe others, blinde guides they are, and blinded with idolatrie of earthly things. Robert Bishop of Aquila in his Sermons, of which Sixtus Senensis maketh mention in the third booke of his Biblioth. sanct. speaketh thus to his countrie of Italie: O Italia plange, [Page 78] ô Italia time, ô Italia caue, ne propter obstinationem tuam in te de­saeuiat ira Dei, &c. Tu in dies durior efficeris in peccatis, & mali­tia perseuerando. Fiunt iam vbique vsurae publicae, omnia foedata sunt spurcissimis vitijs carnis & ignominiosae Sodomiae: superbia pomparumiam occupauit omnes ciuitates & terras, blasphemiae Dei, periuria, mendacia, iniustitiae, violentiae, oppressiones paupe­rum & similia superabundant. O Italie (saith he) lament, ô Ita­lie feare, ô Italie beware, lest for thy obstinacie the wrath of God waxe not cruell against thee, &c. Thou euery day art more and more hardened, perseuering in thy sinnes and mali­ciousnesse. Euery where men set vp bankes of vsurie: all things are defiled with most foule vices of the flesh, and most shame­full sodomie. Pride in pompous shewes haue now filled cities and countries: blasphemies against God, periuries, lies, iniu­stice, violence, orpression of the poore, and such like vices do superabound. I would further insist vpon this argument, but that I referre diuers matters ouer to the second booke, where I shall haue occasion more particularly to examine the good workes of Papists.

But the Church of England neither alloweth publike shewes, nor bankes of vsurie, nor dispenseth with oathes of subiects to Princes, or alloweth periurie, nor shall Ro­bert Parsons find such filthines and abhominations among the professors of our religion, as are commonly practised by the Popes, Cardinals, Masse-priests, Monkes, Friars, and Nuns, and their followers. All corruptions in doctrine concerning good workes are reformed, and diuers abuses concerning manners among the Papists taken away. The which séeing it procéeded wholly of that reformation of re­ligion, which Quéen Elizabeth of pious memorie wrought by her regall authoritie among vs, we are most gratefully to accept that worke, and by exercises of pietie and charity to indeuour to shew our selues not vnworthie either of our profession, or of so great a blessing.

Against this discourse Robert Parsons talketh very scorn­fully, and saith first, that the experience of the whole world will deny, that good workes are fruites of our religion. But [Page 79] if he had bene well aduised, he would haue forborne to talke of experience. For whosoeuer hath liued among those, that are of our religion, and among Papists also, must néedes say, that the liues of Romanists are abhominable, offen­ding in whoredome, Sodomie, periurie, vsurie and all im­pieties, and discharge vs deterring and abhorring those vi­ces, and punishing them seuerely. Beside that, if he meant to winne credit, he would not talke of the whole world, be­ing not able to name one honest man, that will iustifie that which he talketh.

Secondly, he saith, our best friends renounce our workes. And then alleageth an Epistle of Erasmus mentioned by Surius, & a Postil of Luther, and a testimonie out of Aurifa­ber. But first Erasmus is none of our best friends, being in most points an aduersarie, and a professed Masse-priest. And if he were our friend, yet haue we no reason to beléeue Surius a malicious enemie, and a base Monke, hired to speake lyes. Secondly, it is a ridiculous foolerie, where we dispute of the fruites of the Gospell in England in Queene Elizabeths dayes, to bring testimonies of Luther and Auri­faber, that were dead before her time, and speake of some of their countrie people. Thirdly, they speake not of the whole reformed Church in Germanie, but rather of some that albeit they disliked Poperie, yet did not sincerely em­brace the truth. Finally, neither Luther nor Aurifaber doth charge his countrie people with such faults, as raigne a­mong Papists. He must therfore seek some witnesses that speake more to purpose, and leaue his owne treasons, filthi­nesse, periurie, lying, gluttonie, and drunkennesse, before he talke of good workes.

Finally, he pratleth much concerning the merit of workes. But if he had bene vsed according to his merits, then had the crowes long ere this eaten his carion flesh. He misliketh also, that we should giue a caueat, to auoide hy­pocriticall ostentation, albeit any man shold do good works. But this caueat concerneth him but a litle, whose workes are most wicked and odious, his writings being nothing [Page 80] but either lying and rayling libels, or fond and trifling dis­courses of points of Poperie, and his practises tending all to murdering, empoysoning, sedition, warre, and bloud­shed.

CHAP. XII. Of temporall benefites enioyed by Queene Elizabeths most happie gouernment.

BEside great successe in affaires of the Church, God hath also blessed the people of England in ciuil matters, in regard that his name is truly called vpon by vs: fulfil­ling that in England which he promised to the kéepers of his lawe by Moises. Benedictus eris (saith Moises) ingrediens & egrediens. Thou shalt be blessed in thy comming in, and going Deut. 28. out. And againe, Emittet Dominus benedictionem super cellaria tua, & super omnia opera manuum tuarum: benedicet (que) tibi in terra quam acceperis. That is: the Lord shall send his blessings vpon thy store houses, and vpon all the workes of thy hands, and shall blesse thee in the land, which thou shalt pos­sesse. First, by her happie entrance we were deliuered from the yoke of the Spaniards, and from subiection to forraine nations. A blessing very great, and which is promised to the obseruers of Gods holy lawes. The Lord (saith Moyses) shall appoint thee for the head, and not for the taile, and thou Deut. 28. shalt be aboue, and not vnder, if so be thou wilt hearken to the commandements of the Lord thy God, which I command thee this day. That is, God shall make thée commaund o­thers, and not to be commaunded by others. Libertie is a gift litle estéemed, because frée men know not the miseries of people subiect to forraine Lords. But if men would con­sider the difference of men frée, and subiect to strangers and tyrants, they would preferre nothing before it. Pro liberta­te (saith Tully) vitae periculo decertandum est. For libertie we Philippie. 10. are to contend, albeit we should hazard our liues. And again, Itapraeclara est recuperatio libertatis, vt ne mors quidem sit in li­bertate Ibid. [Page 81] repetenda, fugienda. So excellent is the recouerie of li­bertie, that we are not to doubt to lose our liues for the regai­ning thereof. Contrariwise, it is an indignitie not to be suf­fered by any Englishman honorably minded, that Spaniards should raigne ouer vs. The Spanish gouernment is very rigorous in Spaine: but in Flanders, Millan, Naples and the Indiaes the same is most tyrannicall and intolerable. Seing then that by the happie entrance of Quéene Elizabeth, the Spaniards loft their footing in England, which they had al­readie deuoured in their imagination, and both perfidious Marans, and the Popes bougerly Italians were turned out to séeke new countries, wherein to practise their fraud and crueltie: why do we not continually renew our thankesgi­uing for so great deliuerance?

Her Maiestie was alwaies desirous of peace, and neuer made warres against any, but being prouoked, and forced thereunto for the defence of her estate and people. Yet ne­uer did she take armes in hand, but she returned with victo­rie. The French entring into Scotland, and by that meanes intending to trouble England, were forced to surrender Lieth, and with scorne to returne from whence they came. Upon which great securitie ensued to both the countries.

When the Nobilitie and people of Fraunce were oppres­sed by the Popes faction, that meant after they had atchie­ued their purpose there, to assails vs in England, (as in di­uers Treatises they haue declared) by her armes and me­diation the Christians there obtained good conditions of peace, if the aduersaries perfidiously had not broken them. Both with forces in New-hauen, and by other meanes she was alwaies willing to succour that distressed people.

By her support for the most part, the states of the lowe countries being in danger to be depriued of their libertie, priuiledges and lawes, and to be tyrannized by the Spani­ards, haue long subsisted, and maintained themselues a­gainst most cruell enemies.

Anno Dom. 1588. that fléete of Spaniards, which proudly they called the inuincible Armada, by her shippes through [Page 82] Gods fauour was chased, dispersed and vanquished, and all the bragges of Spaniards and their assistants brought to nothing.

Not long after, when she saw, that to resist the enemies malice it was necessarie for her to follow the warres, she sent some forces to sea, which albeit not great nor compe­tently prouided, yet did they possesse the harbor of Coronna take the base towne, and defeat all the forces that were ga­thered against them at the bridge of Burgos. The same also entred Portugal, and had possessed it, if there had bene good correspondence. Sir Francis Drake with no great forces took S. Iago, S. Domingo, S. Augustine and Carthagena, and laid a plot to take a great part of the Indiaes from the Spa­niard, but that he defended himselfe with bribes better then with shippes or armes, corrupting some that alwaies ouer­threw most traiterously all attempts against him.

At Caliz her Maiesties souldiers burnt the kings fléete, tooke the towne, and had entred farther into the countrie, had not the Spaniard some as good friends in our armie, as the Quéene.

Not long since the English together with the States souldiers ouerthrew the Cardinals armie betwéene New­port and Ostend, to the vtter ouerthrow of the Cardinall, and the Spaniards in that countrie, if the victorie had bene pursued. And now albeit coldly pursued, yet hath it so bro­ken his forces, that he hath lien idlely euer since before O­stend, hoping rather by treatie, then by force to preuaile.

In Ireland the Lord Gray ouerthrew the Earle of Des­mond, and cut the Italians and Spaniards, that kept the fort at Smerwike, in péeces. About y ^t time also died Sanders the Popes Legate, and other traitors stirred vp to rebellion by the Pope and his agents.

Neither could D. Iuan d'Aquila kéepe his footing in Kin­sale, albeit he had with him many good souldiers and great aduantages. Diuers times hath the Pope troubled her both in England and Ireland, stirring vp first the Earles of Westmerland and Northumberland, and then certaine re­bels [Page 83] in Norfolke, and afterward procuring diuers seditious fellowes in Ireland in hope of his blessing to rebel. But his blessings haue bene turned into cursings, and all his treche­rous deuises haue come to nothing.

Finally, we find Gods promise to his people by Moyses Deut. 28. verified in her. For where he sayth, That God would make all his peoples enemies to fall down before them. we sée that all the Quéenes enemies fel before her, and that the more they maligned her, the more God aduanced her. Such reputation she wan both with Christians and with Infidels, that al men had great respect vnto her, except such as maliciously oppugned her. The King of Poland and the Transiluanian haue receiued fauour of the Turk for her sake, and her friends great comfort in all their distresses.

Before the Quéenes time the Pope claimed a great part in the gouernement of England, challengingpower to make Ecclesiastical lawes, to send hither Legates, to ordaine and appoint Bishops, & in diuers cases to dispose of Ecclesiasti­call liuings, and those that possessed them. He did also leuie tenths and first fruites, and by procurations, licences and dispensations drew great summes of money out of the realme. In some cases he tooke vpon him to iudge the king, and to dispose of the crown of England. Hereof it follo weth first, that the Kings of this land for some ages before King Henry the eight, were but halfe Kings, neither medling with the externall gouernement of the Church, nor being authorized to rule their Cleargie, or to dispose of their li­uings. Secondly, that they held that poore halfe of their kingdome, which remained at the Popes pleasure, and no further, as appeared by the insolent dealing of the Pope with King Henry the second, and King Iohn, out of whose hands the Pope had almost wrested the scepter of their roy­all authoritie. But her Maiestie abolishing the vsurped po­wer of the Pope, fréed her selfe and her successors from his fyrannie, and restored that power and iurisdiction to the Crown, that was by his craft and fraudulent dealing long vsurped. She found that it belonged to godly kings to make [Page 84] lawes for religion, to rule their subiects, to dispose of the af­faires and goods of the Church according to right. So did Constantine the great, and other godly Emperors. So did Charles the great, and Lewes kings of France. So did Alfred and S. Edward Kings of England: as the lawes of the Code and Nouell constitutions, the constitutions of Charles and Lewes, and of the auncient Kings of England declare. Nei­ther before Pope Heldebrand, or rather that firebrand of hell, did any Pope take vpon him to giue out lawes or de­cretals for the gouernement, either of the whole Church, or the Churches of other kingdoms. For this matter therfore Quéene Elizabeths name deserueth to be had in perpetuall remembrance, for that she freed her selfe and her subiects from the Popes wicked lawes and vsurpations, and resto­red the auncient priuiledges and dignities to the Crowne. The which had bene much in a man, but in a woman was much more glorious.

With her also peace, which by the practises of the Spani­ards had bene exiled to our losse and shame, returned a­gain into this land. For finding this land at variance with France, and forsaken of Spaine, she found meanes to com­pound with France, and begā to settle matters at home. Ac­cording to the Prophets admonition, she sought peace and followed it. And such successe hath it pleased God to giue Psal. 34. her, that although the Pope by diuers practises hath sought to raise discord and rebellion within England, yet maugre his head, we haue enioyed peace this fiue and fortie yeares to the great contentment of her subiects, and the wonder­ment of the world. For who wondreth not that France and Flanders and other our neighbor countries being in a flame and the Pope desiring nothing more then to set our country on fire, that the moderation of a woman should maintaine her State in peace, when great Kings could not keepe their state from being consumed with warres? How great this benefite is, both the commodities of peace and the miseries of warres may teach vs. Et nomen pacis dulce est, saith Tully, & ipsa res salutaris. The name of peace is sweete, and the thing Philippic. 2. [Page 85] it selfe safe and commodious. Neither doth a people more de­sire De leg. A­grar. contra Rull. any thing then peace, as he saith in another place: and in peace not onely those to whom nature hath giuen sence, but also houses and fields seeme to reioyce. Quid est tam populare ac pax? qua non modo ij quibus natura sensum dedit, sed etsam tecta atque agrilaetari videntur? Contrariwise, warres worke de­struction of men, cities, countries, and as Tully saith, haue vncertaine euents: and nothing is more execrable then ciuill Philippic. 2. warres. Tully estéemeth him vnworthy to liue among men, Philippic. 3. that delighteth in ciuill discord and warre.

By meanes of long peace, this land is also growne to great wealth. The country is better cultiuated, trade is much increased, all arts and occupations growne to grea­ter perfection then in time past. Noblemen and Gentlemen haue doubled their reuenues, Yeomen and Merchants as­pire to the degrée of Gentlemen, and diuers men of occupa­tion do exceed men of their sort in former times. Whosoeuer compareth the common people of England with men of their qualitie in Spaine, Portugal and Italy, must néedes con­fesse, that in wealth and meanes our country men do farre excéed them.

Finally, neuer was England so populous and strong in men, as in our late Queenes dayes. Spaine and most places of Italy seeme desolate in comparison. That these are great blessings, it cannot be denied. For God promiseth increase of substance, and men, to his people as a blessing, Deut. 28. Blessed shall be the fruit of thy body, (saith Moyses to the peo­ple of God) and the fruite of thy land, the fruite of thy cat­tell, the flockes of kine and sheepe. And the multiplication of Abrahams posteritie, Gen. 17. and in diuers other places was accounted to him as a great blessing.

Wherefore as oft as we looke backe to former times, we cannot choose but call to mind those graces which we haue long enioyed by Quéene Elizabeths meanes, and be thank­full vnto God for them. If any be either vnmindfull or vn­thankfull, if he be English, I doubt not but he will proue a traitor to his Prince and country; if a stranger, then he will [Page 86] shew himselfe an enemie. In the the first ranke I place Ro­bert Parsons, in the second, certaine malicious Italian and Spanish Friers. But their discourses, wherein they would denigrate her glorie, are so fond and frinclous, that they do rather illustrate the same. To shew that her Maiestie had no power in forreine countries, Parsons alleageth, that since Calice was lost, we had not one foot of our owne beyond the seas. As if none could haue power or credite in forreine 1. Encountr. cap. 11. nu 7. parts, but such as haue cities and dominions of their owne beyond the seas, or as if it were not a signe of great power that her forces by sea and land haue alwayes bene able to bridle the ambitious aspires of the Spaniard, and the cruel rage of Antichrist, and that her authoritie hath swayed much in forreine parts, both with friends and enemies. Againe, that the English haue lost their footing beyond the seas, and were shamefully driuen out of Calice, which was reputed the key of the kingdome of France, and a doore whereby the Kings of England were wont to enter into that kingdome, it was not our fault, but of that vnfortu­nate woman Quéene Mary, that lost all, and had no good successe in any thing, and of her butcherly Clergy, that were murthering of Christs lauibes at home, while forreine ene­mies oppugned the state abroad, and would suffer no succor to be sent ouer in time.

He talketh also very idly of large Prouinces pessessed by the English liuing vnder popish religion, and of the losse we haue sustained by chaunge of our old mightie and honora­ble allies, as he calleth them. For the relikes of those large Prouinces were lost not by Queene Elizabeth, but by that vnhappie woman Quéene Mary, and her bloudy and but­cherly priests, Moreouer, if King Philip fell at variance with vs, the same was not the Quéenes fault, that kept good correspondence with him, albeit he betrayed her to the French at her first comming to the crowne, and succored the rebels of the North anno 1569. and conspired with that lonzie Frier Pius the fift to ouerthrow her. Neither haue we lost any thing, but rather gotten by his falling from vs, [Page 87] being vnited to the Low countries, and able to maister him at the sea, if the king of England will be pleased to follow his aduantage.

He chargeth her further with supporting rebels, here­tikes, and Atheists, and obiecteth vnto her, familiaritie with the Turke. But neither shall this railing companion, and principall proctor of popish traitors, rebels, and atheists proue them rebels, whom she hath succoured: nor can the Spaniard iustly challenge her in this course, beginning him­selfe first, and falling out with her for the Popes pleasure. As for that contract which her Maiestie had with the Turke, it was onely for trade of merchandise, as the arti­cles will shew; and not for amitie. And yet if by this means she had any credit with the Turke, she vsed it to the good of Christians, as the Polonians and Transiluanians can testifie. But king Philip ended his warres with the Turke to fight against Christians. And therefore no maruell, if vpon his death bed he confessed, that he neuer reaped other fruite of his trauell and expence, but sorrow and losse.

To shew that peace was no ornament of Quéene Elizabeths praise, he saith: we haue had more stirres within this 1. Encont. c, 11. nu. 5. seuentie yeares, then in a thousand yeares before. But he should haue spoken of tumults and stirres in her raigne: for that is the time we speake of. Againe, he should haue declared, that these stirres haue proceeded from vs, and not from wicked Popes, that haue bene the firebrands to set all Christendome on a flame. For if by wicked Popes, and their agents, rebellions were stirred in Yorkeshire and Lincolneshire in king Henry the eight his dayes, and in Cornewall and Deuonshire, and other places in the raigne of king Edward, and in the North, and Norfolk, and Ireland in Queen Elizabeths dayes; then are they to be charged for these disorders, and not we. But suppose great stirres had bene raised before Quéene Elizabeths time; yet that was her commendation, rather then disgrace, that she was able notwithstanding the malice of traiterous Masse-priests, to gouerne her countries a long time peaceably, which her [Page 88] auncestors could not.

He doth also talke very impudently of the patience of Pa­pists: as if their mild and bearing natures, and not the Queens moderation, had bene cause of our long peace. But the stor­ming of the butcherly Prelates at the Quéenes first com­ming to the Crown, the rebellion in the North, anno. 1569. the Norfolcian stirres, the practises of Allan with the duke of Guise, of Allan, Englefield, and diuers other traitors, with the Pope and Spaniard for an inuasion, anno 1588. of Parsons and others 1597. the conspiracies first of Parrie, then of Throckmorton, then of Someruile and Arden, then of Ballard and Babington, and afterward of Lopez and Squire; and finally the massacres and bloudie warres in Fraunce and Flaunders do shew, that they neither are mild, nor patient, nor seek any thing else, but murder and bloud­shed. If then any patience they haue had at any time, it is, as the French men say, the patience of Lombardes, that rest when they cannot moue stirres. Furthermore it is appa­rant to the world, that the Quéene was wholy resolued to follow peace, neuer taking armes, but when she was con­strained, and refusing to accept of the Low countries offe­red into her hands, because she would not intricate her selfe with warres, albeit she might with great honour, and safety haue accepted them long before.

Hauing nothing to alleage against her Maiesties peace­able gouernement at home, he telleth vs, that she hath had almost perpetual warre with all our neighbours round about vs. But neither doth he speake truly, the attempts of New­hauen, and Lieth, being of short continuance, and her Ma­iestie not entring into the Low countries quarrell before the yeare 1586. Nor to purpose, our discourse concerning principally the Quéenes peaceable gouernment at home. Beside this, the forces her Maiestie employed in the Lowe countries were so small, and the course so certaine, that the action doth scarce deserue the name of warres, being with so litle trouble to our nation, and intended rather to resist a few cut-throates, that sought to murther men, then the ar­mie [Page 89] of a king, that sought with force to subdue a countrie by iust warres. As for the Spaniards (whom Parsons ridi­culously calleth our surest allies, although they haue with­out cause dealt against vs, as perfidious enemies) they can not say, but the Quéene dcalt iustly defending her selfe a­gainst publike enemies, that sought her destruction, and the ouerthrow of her people.

To proue that the land hath not increased in wealth in 1. Encountr. cap. 11. the late Quéenes time, he obiecteth, that the Nobilitie and Gentrie keepe not so great houses, nor families, as in times past. But the witlesse fellow speaketh against himselfe. For the lesse is spent, the more remaineth. But that many are able to kéepe as great houses as in time past, it cannot be denyed. Further if he knew the state of the countrie, he might know that many houses are built and kept, where in time past there was neither house-kéeping nor house. He telleth vs further of tributes, and other duties. But his tal­king and dealing therein is but friuolous. For compare all that is paid in subsidies and other duties with former pay­ments, yet is it not halfe of that, which was exacted by the Pope, and spent in superstition and vaine deuises. But were our subsidies greater; yet being bestowed vpon our owne souldiers and people, the land is neuer a whit the poorer, but rather poore men employed by those, that can well spare all which they giue, and more.

Finally, he would insinuate, that increase of people is no blessing, séeing the Turkes by multitude of wiues haue ma­ny children, and holy Eunuches are commended that haue no children. He doth also vnder hand glaunce at the mari­age of Ministers. But first, he denyeth that, which the spi­rit of God doth directly teach, biz. that children are the bles­sing of God, and that God did promise the multiplication of his séede to Abraham as a great blessing. Secondly, al­beit particular men that kéepe themselues chast for the kingdome of heauen, are commended: yet that concerneth the lecherous and bougerly Masse-priests and Monkes no­thing, that rather for sweare mariage, then kéep themselues [Page 90] chast. Neither is that a commendation to a whole State or kingdome, if some liue chastly.

Thirdly, albeit Turkes haue many wiues: yet God doth not so blesse them with children, but that they are compel­led to vse the children of Christians, and to exact a tribute of them. To conclude, this bastardly fellow sheweth himselfe to be past shame, to talke against mariage, when himselfe was begotten by a filthie priest, and his consorts wallow in all beastly abhominations.

Wherefore let the aduersaries storme and rage as much as they list, yet will we say, and may say it most truly, that both the Church of God and the State hath receiued great blessings by Quéene Elizabeths late happie gouernment. And if nothing else, yet the vaine opposition of enemies and traitors may perswade vs, that it is so. For not onely their mislikings do fhew, that both the Church and State was well ordered, (for otherwise they would haue bene better pleased) but also their vaine ianglings and contra­dictions, they being not able to obiect any thing, which soundeth not to her Maiesties honeur and high commen­dations, confirme the same.

CHAP. XIII. Parsons his cursed talke of cursings of England by chaunge of Religion, and gouernment vnder Queene Elizabeth, examined.

THe Prophet Dauid speaking of the foolish and wicked men of his time, saith, that their throate is an open se­pulchre, Psal. 14. and afterward, that their mouth is full of cursing and bitternesse. The which we sée verified in the Pope, and his impious sect. For their throates are wide as the graue, and swallow the wealth of Europe. They also degorge out of them all the wickednesse and villanie they can deuise a­gainst the godly. Pius Quintus and Sixtus Quintus accurse the Quéene, Robert Parsons following their steppes raileth [Page 91] vpon her in diuers libels. In his Warn-word that is a com­plement of his foolery, he sayth, We receiued no blessings by her, but rather cursings. Here therefore we are to answer the barking of this cursed hel-hound, and of his accursed com­panions.

In the first encounter of his Wardword p. 4. he saith, We are deuided from the general body of catholickes in Christen­dome. But this should haue bene proued if he would haue any man to giue him credit. For we alleage, that the Pa­pists, from whom we are deuided, are no Catholikes, belee­uing the new doctrines of the late conuenticles of Lateran, Constance, Florence & Trent, & other Friers & priests, which neither were receiued of all men, nor in all times, nor in all places, which is the true propertie of Catholicke doctrine. Next we offer to proue, that we are true Catholikes, séeing the doctrine of our faith is Apostolicall, and vniuersally ap­proued of all true Christians, and for the most part confes­sed by the Papists, vntil of late time. If then this be a prin­cipall curse, to be deuided from Catholickes, then doth the same fall on Parsons his own head, and vpon his trecherous consorts, and not vpon vs.

Secondly he saith, that we of England are deuided from Lutherans, Zuinglians, and Caluinists abroad, and from Puri­tanes & Brownists, and other like good fellowes at home. But this common Iergon of Papists is already answered. For neither do we acknowledge the names of Lutherans, Zuin­glians, and Caluinists, nor can he shew that the Church of England is deuided from the Churches of France, Germanie or Suizzerland, or that one Church oppugneth another. If any priuate man do maintaine priuat opinions in doctrine, as diuers Germaines, French, and English do, or else if there be any difference among vs concerning ceremonies and go­uernment, that doth no more make a schisme in our church, then the diuers rites of Spanish, French, and Italians, and di­uers opinions in al points of religion betwéen old and new Romish Doctors, maketh a schisme in the Romish Church. For generally we all agree in substance of faith, & in rites & [Page 92] ceremonies refer euery Church to their libertie. In England publikely there is more vniformitie in doctrine, prayers & ceremonies, then in the Romish Church; albeit some priuat men, whom Parsons vseth to call Puritanes, dissent in some points. As among the Papists there are diuers that allow not all, which they hold commonly. But saith he in his Warne-word, Encont. 1. c. 15. the French, Germaines and Scot­tish do not agrée with the English in the rule of faith, as is proued in the foure, fiue and sixe and sequent chapters. But if he had found any differences, he would not haue spared to set them down. In the chapters mentioned, he sheweth not that we differ in any article of faith, or substantiall point of religion, but rather in rites, ceremonies, and some diuers interpretations of some words of Scripture.

Thirdly, he would make his reader beléeue, that we haue no certaintie in religion, and that as he foole-wisely imagi­neth, because we haue no certaine rule whereby to direct our consciences. And this he handleth both in his Wardword 1. Encontr. and Warnw. 1. enc. c. 15. & 16. and other places, skip­ping like an ape vp an downe without rule, order or reason. But while he talketh of the rule of faith, he is direct con­trary to himselfe. For in his Wardw. p. 6. he sayth, that the vniuersal Church was the direct rule and squire which we ought to follow, and in the Warnw. Enc. 1. c. 15. nu. 10. he tea­cheth, that it is the summe and corpes of Christian doctrine deliuered at the beginning by the miracles and preachings of the Apostles. Where I omit to tell Robert Parsons, that it is absurd to make the same thing to be a rule and a squire, the rule being direct, and the squire being square. It is also ridi­culous, though I do not tell him of it, to say that Christs do­ctrine was deliuered by miracles: for it was deliuered by wri­ting and preaching, and confirmed by miracles. But I can­not forbeare to tell him, that there is great difference be­twéene the Catholike Church and the Catholike doctrine. How then can these two make one rule? Next he taketh ex­ception to my words, where I say that the Church of En­gland hath a certaine rule to follow in matters of faith, as if [Page 93] the canon of scriptures, and those conclusions which are to be drawne out of them, were no certaine rule: or else as if traditions, that are no where certainly described or set downe, were a more certaine and authenticall rule then scriptures, and necessary deductions out of them.

Fourthly he giueth out, that we despaire of all certaine Warnw. 1. en­cont. cap. 17. rule or meane to trie the truth: which is a most desperate and impudent kind of dealing. For directly I told him before, and now I tell him againe, that our rule is most certaine, being nothing else but the canonicall Scriptures, and the conclusions necessary drawne out of them. Nay this rule may in part be confirmed by Parsons his owne confession. For if the corps of Christian doctrine preached by the Apo­stles be the rule of faith, as he saith VVarnw. 1. encont. c. 15. where are we to find it but in holy Scriptures? He holdeth percase that it is to be found in the Popes bosome. But if he say so in schooles, he shal not want a greater plaudit then he had, when hauing ended his comicall dealings in Bayliol colledge, he was rung and hissed out of the house. For who knoweth not, that scabs and villany are rather to be found in the Popes bosome, then any corpes of Apostolicall do­ctrine? for that is very rife with them. With the corpes of Apostolicall doctrine the Italian atheisticall Popes are litle acquainted.

We tel him further, that for trial of any point of doctrine we are not to run to the Popes sea, which is as much able to re­solue vs, as his close stoole; but to the word of God reuealed in Scriptures, and if there be any difference about a place of Scriptures, we are then to compare the same with other places, to search the resolutions of Councels, of auncient and later Fathers, of the Church of England and learned men. Prouided alwayes that nothing be receiued as a ground of faith, which is not to be deduced out of the word of God. Whether then S. Augustine, or Hierome, or Ambrose, or Luther, or Caluin, or any preacher among vs bring vs the word of God, it is to be receiued. But if they teach without that, we are not necessarily to credit them, nor to beléeue [Page 94] them in grounds of faith.

Out of the Scriptures we learne, that Christ hath giuen some Apostles, some Prophets some Euangelists, some pastors and teachers; albeit all particular matters are not precisely set downe. So likewise we are taught that these words, this is my body, are most true, & that the sacramēt is Christs body in a mysterie or sacramentally, albeit how the Sacra­ment is called Christs body there may be some differences. Likewise out of Scripture we are taught, that the King is the most principall man in his Realme, and not to be sub­iect to any other in externall gouernement, albeit euery one percase vnderstandeth not the seuerall points of his su­preme authority. These differences therefore notwithstan­ding, our rule of faith is most certaine.

Fiftly he would insinuate, that as vertue, houskéeping, & true dealing is much decayed, since her Maiesty came to the crowne, so pride in apparel, gluttony, drunkennes, lechery, swearing and other vices are much increased. But the man should shew that these vertues are decayed, and vices in­creased in men that are truly of our Religion. If he say so, then let him name the men that are guiltie of these faults. If the men that are guilty be Papists, that for the most part are knowne to be carnall and cruel, and most vitious, he striketh himselfe and not vs. If they be Atheists or hypo­crites, then his allegation maketh not to purpose. This I will speake to his teeth, that if our Ministery be no more honest and vert [...]ous, then the Popes, Cardinals, Friers, and Masse-priests, and our true professors then zelous Pa­pists, it were pitie they should liue on the face of the earth. Some proofes I haue brought before, and more I shall al­leage herafter. Let Parsons do the like against vs, and leaue his hypocriticall ostentation, and generall declamation, that maketh men rather to wonder at his impudency, then to beleeue that he dealeth truly or sincerely.

Sixthly, he very impudently imputeth all the troubles, wars and calamities that haue happened in Scotland, Ire­land, Wardw. p. 3. Warnw. 1. en­coutr. cap. 18. Flanders & France, to alteration in Religion, and wold [Page 95] lay the blame wholy vpon vs. But if he looke into their im­mediate causes; he shall find, that the mint of this money was the Popes consistorie, and that he and his agents are the onely firebrands of all mischiefe. In Ireland, Gregorie the thirtéenth stirred vp rebellion by the traitor Saunders his legate: in England Pius Quintus by his agent Ridolphi and by Morton his messenger moued the two Earles to rise in the North, Anno 1569. The same Pope a­nimated the Spanish King to make warres against the Quéene of England, and against them of the Low coun­tries. The same Pope sent not onely his agents, to stirre the French, but ayded them both with men and mony. Gre­gorie the thirtéenth likewise sent ayde to Irish rebels. The wars of Germanie were enflamed by that butcherly Pope Paule the third. To make short, all massacres, trecheries, warres and troubles haue wholy procéeded from their ma­lice against the truth. If the Pope and his adherents ther­fore haue bene troubled, so was Herode and all Ierusalem with him at the birth of Christ. If they blame vs for their troubles, so did the Pagans impute all their troubles to Christians, and their religion. But the true cause was not religion, but the hatred of impious Papists against reli­gion.

Finally, he saith, that if her Maiestie had not altered re­ligion, then her kingdome had bene flourishing and secure, and that she would haue had issue, and her succession certaine, and continued in friendship with the Pope, and auncient con­federates, and neither had wars abroad, nor treason at home: and insinuateth, that by reason of alteration of religion al is fallen out contrarie. But if Wil Sommer had written this discourse, he could neuer haue spoken more foolishly, nor impertinently. For first I haue shewed, that the state of the kingdome for diuers respects was neuer more flou­rishing. Secondly, if any danger hanged ouer our heads, the same might easily be auoyded, if lawes had bene execu­ted against traitors. Thirdly, it is now apparant to the world, that want of issue in her Maiestie hath not hurt vs, [Page 96] God sending vs so gracious and magnanimous a king. Fourthly his royall Maiestie succéeding in her throne hath declared, that she wanted no succession. The same act also sheweth, that Parsons and all his consorts are a packe of false Prophets. Parsons his booke of succession doth also de­clare him to be a false traitor. Fiftly, it is a ridiculous thing to tell vs of vnion with the Pope, and his mediation of peace. For there ought to be no agréement betweene Chri­stians and Antichrist. Here the Noddie will storme, that his holy Father should be called Antichrist. But let him an­swer my reasons in my fifth booke De Pont. Rom. against Bellarmine; and then let him storme, while his heart break. Sixtly, we haue so litle losse by breaking with the Spanish king, that all men of knowledge pray, that either he may chaunge his former courses, or that the warrcs may still continue. Finally, this land hath no reason, either to feare forraine warres, or domesticall treasons, vnlesse we will vncouple the Popes hounds, that come hither to teare the kings Maiestie and State in péeces: which I hope he and his Councell of state will looke vnto.

Whether then we looke into the Church, or the State; we must needes say, that Quéene Elizabeths raigne was most happie. And that so much the rather, for that all her aduersaries wit and malice doth not affoord any one sound argument, that doth any way sound to her disgrace. Robert Parsons hath long barked in vaine against her procée­dings. But he should remember, that the end of mad barking curres, is beating, if not hanging.

CHAP. I. Of the ignorance both of the Clergie and Laitie of England in matters of Religion in Q. Maries time, and generally of Masse priests and their followers at all times, and in all places.

BEfore I enter to discourse of Religion, first I am to shew the misery of Papists, that for the most part liued in time past, and yet liue without the knowledge of Re­ligion. Nay diuers of the Masse-priests and common people were ignorant and de­uoyd of all good learning and knowledge. The ignorance of priests and people in the dayes of Iohn Peccham Arch­bishop of Canterbury, may appeare in that he beginneth his prouinciall constitution with ignorantia Sacerdotum; and tea­cheth C. ignorantia. de sum. Trin. them the articles of the Créed, and how to handle the sacrament of the altar, shewing them, that the wine giuen to the communicants in lesser churches, was not consecrate, and that they were not too much to break the sacrament with their teeth (percase for hurtiing of it) but to sup it vp. Instru­ant eesdem, (saith he c. altissimus. constit. de sum. trinit.) sumptum ore sacraementum non nimis dentibus comminuere, sed tritum mo­dicè sorbcre perfectè. O miserable men, that were taught to sup the sacrament like an oyster! And why might they not aswell be taught to eate wine, as to sup bread?

The same man in the chapter Ignorantia sacerdotum. de of­ficio Archipresbyteri, thinketh it sufficient for priests to teach Note that this is a common text among the Papists. by themselues, or by others, and that once euery quarter, the articles of the Creed, the ten commaundements, the two com­maundements of the Gospell, (for this fellow scarce beléeued that the loue of God or his neighbor, was commaunded in the morall law) the seuen workes of mercie, the seuen deadly sinnes, the seuen principall vertues, and seuen sacraments. And what was this quarter teaching? forsooth nothing else but [Page 101] the construing or expounding of these things in English, as the text saith, Absque cuiuslsbet subtilitatis textura fantastica, without any fantasticall patcherie of scholasticall subtilties. For that ordinarily these fellowes were wont to talke of logicall and philosophicall questions, tending rather to the subuerfion, then the edification of the hearers. Now what learning I pray you was required to turne the Créed and ten commaundements into English?

Bishop Walter also in his prouinciall constitutions, tea­cheth his priests what to beléeue of confirmation and ex­treame vnction: which argueth great rudenesse in his dis­ciples.

In Quéene Maries dayes it was thought sufficient for priests to reade Latine: not one among twentie vnderstood Latine. Bonner in the first conuocation in Quéene Maries dayes, in his oration in praise of priesthood, told the priests that they were creators of their Maker: yet few of them could construe the canon, and few of them vnderstood it. Their grosse ignorance is yet fresh in memorie.

The Germaines complaine, that Bishops aduanced vnlear­ned Grauam. 47. idiots, vnfit, vile and ridiculous fellowes to the function of priesthood. Episcopi (say they) saepenumero indoctos, idiotas, inhabiles, viles (que) ac ludicr as person as ad sacerdotij functionem ordi­nant. Neither may we thinke they spoke this of malice. The Bishop of Chems saith, the people is seduced by blind guides Onus Eccles. cap. 23. which are ignorant idiots, presumptuous, couetous, hypocrits, symoniacall and luxurious persons. Againe he saith, that Bi­shops Ibidem. admit men vnworthy to charges, without all choise or due examination. Indignos beneficiatos admittunt, absque omni delectu, & debita examinatione instituunt.

Venalitate curiae Romanae (saith one) inaniter praeficiuntur le­nones, Aureū specu­lā in Antilog. coqui, stabularij aequorum, & pueri. Through the briberie of the court of Rome, bawdes, cookes, horsekeepers, and chil­dren are preferred to gouernement in the Church.

Aluarus Pelagius lib. 2. de planct. eccles. art. 20. sheweth, that the Bishops of Spaine deale no better then others, ordaining men vnlearned and vnworthy, and indiscreetly committing [Page 102] charge of soules to men vnsufficient. Episcopi alicui nepotulo sue, (saith he) committunt multa millia animarum, cui non committc­rent duo pira. Bishops commit many thousand soules to some litle nephew (or bastard) of theirs, to whom (if then did right) they would not commit two peares. How learned the priests were, we may imagine, when few of them could well say their Masse, and few vnderstand it. We may see in the cap. retulerunt. dist. 4. de consecrat. that some could not rehearse the words of baptisme, but said In nomine patria, & filia, & spi­rita sancta. Platina wondreth at the ignorance of the priests in matters of Religion. Speaking of priests in Mar­cellino: Quanta ignoratio (saith he) cum suijpsius, turn doctrine Christiane?

Neither may we maruell at the ignorance of meane priests, when the Popes themselues are vtterly vnlearned. Laziardus writing of Gregory the sixth, Epit. cap. 183. hath these words: Vt dictum est, alium cum esset rudis literarum, se­cum consecrari fecit: He made another to be consecrated with him, being himselfe voide of learning. Constat plures Papas (saith Alphonsus à castro lib. I. aduerl. haeres.) adeo illiteratos esse vt grammaticam penitus ignorent. He confesseth that some Popes are so vnlearned, that they are vtterly ignorant of gram­mar. And that may be exemplified by Iulius the second, that for fiat said fiatur, and by other Popes. Paul the second, and Iulius the third and diuers others are by their owne friends reported to haue bin but simple clerks. Felin inc. si quando. de rescriptis. saith, that the Pope cannot be deposed for want of learning. Papa propter defectum literaturae non potest deponi.

But were they learned, yet vnlesse they be learned in holy Scriptures, and teach their flockes committed vnto them, their learning is to the people vnprofitable. For like idole shepheards they do nothing, but possesse the roome and pla­ces of shepheards. The Popes, albeit they claime the title of vniuersall Bishops, teach none, hauing contrary to the example of Peter and other Bishops of Rome giuen ouer the office of feeding and teaching, and now onely famishing and destroying the Lambes of Christ. Rapis & depraedaris [Page 103] à me innumerabiles animas (saith Christ to the Pope in Brigits reuelations) nam quasi omnes qui veniunt ad curiam tuam mittis in gehennam ignis, ex eo quod non diligenter attendis ea quae per­tinent ad curiam meam. Quia tu es Praelatits & Pastor ouium mearum, ideo culpa tua est, quod non discretè consideras ea, quae ad spiritualem salutem earum sunt facienda & corrigenda. That is, Thou doest rauish and take from me innumerable soules: for thou sendest to hel almost al that come vnto thy court, because thou attendest not those things that belong to my court. Be­cause thou art a prelate and a shepheard of my sheepe, therfore it is thy fault that thou doest not discreetly the things that for their soules health are to be done and performed. And againe: Paepa qui clamare deberet (saith Brigit) venite & inuenietis re­quiem 6. Brig 96. animarum vestrarum, clamat, venite & videte me in pompa & ambitione plusquam Salomonem. Venite ad curiam meam, & exhaurite bursas vestras, & inuenietis perditionem animarum ve­strarum. The Pope which ought to crie, Come and you shall find rest to your soules, cryeth, come and see me aduanced in pomp and ambition aboue Salomon. Come vnto my court, and emptie your purses, and you shall find the destruction of your soules. Occham in the second booke of the first part of his Dialogue, confesseth the ignorance and vnskilfulnesse of Popes in Scriptures, and sayth, that no Popes since Innocent the thirds time were excellent in the knowledge of them.

Few Popes studie the law of God, many studie the laws of men, some study neither, but giue themselues to worldly delights. Quotidiè perstrepunt in palatio leges, (saith Bernard) Lib. I. de con­sid. sed Iustiniani, non Domini. Dayly lawes sound in thy pallace, but the lawes of Emperors, not of the Lord. But now it is far worse. For neither law nor reason is there to be heard, but all is gouerned by the Popes will. Is it not then a ridi­culous thing, that the Pope should be called that chiefe pastor, that feedeth not all, and that he should be made the chiefe Iudge, that in matters of faith hath neither learning nor iudgement?

Likewise the Cardinals, popish Bishops, and prelates are both vnlearned and negligent. For their learning I re­fer [Page 104] my self to experience, and to diuers histories that record their notorious ignorance. Their defect in preaching is no­toriously knowne. There be few of them, but would take great scorne of it. So far are they departed from the steps of their auncesters. Lois Mersillus an Augustinian Frier, as sayth Poggius, being asked what the two points of a Bi­shops miter signified, answered, the old and new testament. Being asked further, what the two strops meane that hang downe from the miter on the Bishops backe, said, that the Bishops knew neither old nor new testament. In ore Episcopo­rum (saith he that wrote the treatise titled Onus Ecclesiae, est lex vanitatis pro lege veritatis: The law of vanitie is in the mouth of Bishops in stead of the law of truth. They should build the Church of God, but as Brigit saith, they build the 2 Brig. 10. diuel two cities. Catherine of Siena cap. 129. saith, that vn­profitable pastors do not driue the woolues from the sheepe: for that they want the dog of conscience, and staffe of iustice, She saith also, that they feed not their sheepe in the pastures of saluation, nor leade them the way of truth. Quid hodiè erant Episcopi, (saith the Cardinall of Arles in the méeting at Basil) Syluius de gestis concil. Basil. lib. 1. nisi vmbrae quaedā? Quid plus eis restabat quàm baculus & mitra? What are Bishops of our time, but shadowes? What remaineth to them more then a staffe and a miter? If any be more studi­eus then other, yet it is not in Scriptures, but in laws, and matters of state and storie.

The Masse priests in time past vsed not to studie Scrip­tures, nor to preach. It was sufficient for them, either by themselues or by others, to expound in English the Créed & Law and some few things more, and that onely at foure times in the yeare, as appeareth by the chapter Ignorantia sacerdotum. de officio Archipresbyteri in our prouinciall con­stitutions. Now to do this, litle learning was required, and lesse vnderstanding. Clerkes (saith Math. Paris in the life of VVilliam the Conqueror) were then so vnlearned, that those that vnderstood grammer were a wonderment to their fel­lows. Adeo literatura carebant, vt caeteris esset stupori qui gram­maticam didicisset.

[Page 105]The Friers were then the onely preachers, vpon whose teaching the edification of the popish Church wholy relied, vnlesse percase some will suppose that faith may come by gazing on the priest at Masse, or on the crucifixe and dumb images, which as the prophet saith, are teachers of vanity. But these Friers were for the most part vnlearned, as the sermons of Menot, Maillard, Bromeyard & others wil teftify. Secondly, they preached onely in Aduent and Lent, & some few extraordinary times. And thirdly, the ground of their sermons were either fables or else philosophicall positions, or idle questions litle tending to edification, or matters for their owne profit. And finally, they came without lawful mission, to teach lies rather then the truth, to destroy rather then to build, to make a schisme and diuision, rather then to reduce men to loue, vnitie and concord.

Dante sheweth, that the Friers of his time wrested scrip­tures, Ca. 29. parad. and litle regarded them. Quando e posposta la diuina scrit­tura, & quando e torta. Againe he sayth, they desired their owne glorie, and preached their owne inuentions, hiding the Gospell in silence.

He telleth vs, that they tel fables, and feede ignorant and simple people with wind.

Agnellus generall of the Minorites, hearing the Doctors Chronic. Ci­tizens. Long. dispute whether this proposition, there is a God, be true, ex­claimed against this maner of dealing, and detested such questioning.

Cornelius Agrippa speaking of schoole doctors, sayth, that De vanit. sci­ent. c. de The­olog. scholast. for the Gospel and the word of God, they preach meere toyes and humane words, preaching a new gospel, and adulterating [Page 106] the word of God. Pro Euangelijs & pro verbo Dei meras nugas, & humana verba crepant, praedicantes euangelium, adulterantes verbum Dei.

Likewise doth Orthuinus Gratius in Praefat. ante lib. Petri de Alliac. de reform. Eccles. speake against scholasticall Diui­nitie, saying, that the same is ingenious to lay burthens on mens soules, and againe cunning in deuising excuses for sinne. Est ingeniosa cura ad aggrauandas conscientias, tum rursus adinue­niendas excusationes in peccatis multo solertissima.

Robertus Gallus vis. 34. saith, that the Friers preaching idle and curious questions, were designed by a vision, wherin a man appeared loaden with bread, but gnawing a long stone with a snakes head appearing at either end. Which resemblance is not altogether vnfit, séeing those that leaue the instructions of Scripture to scanne such endlesse questions, leaue bread to gnaw a stone, being in the end stung with their owne cu­riositie.

Seeing then that the preaching of popish Doctors is so mixed with idle tales, endlesse questions, and philosophi­call discourses; what profit can thereof redound to the peo­ple of God? Quid Athenis & Hierosolymis? (saith Tertullian de praescript. aduers. haeret.) quid Academiae & Ecclesiae? What concord is there betweene Athens and Hierusalem? be­tweene Philosophers schooles, and the Church?

Cardinall Prat Archbishop, as he calleth himselfe, of Decret. c. 36. Sens in Fraunce in his visitation made a law against such preachers, as like vile buffons rehearsed ridiculous old wiues tales to moue their auditorie to laughter: which sheweth that this was wont to be a common fault. Their preaching was also very contentious, and full of quarrels, one calling another hereticke, schismaticke, sacrilegious, false Prophet, and rauening wolfe; and endeuouring to proue the same by Scriptures and arguments: as appeareth by the testimonie of the Waldenses in their confession to Ladislaus.

Vbertinus affirmeth, that the locustes mentioned in the Apocalypse of S. Iohn, do signifie the begging Friars, be­cause they are scurrilous, and light skip-iackes, liue carnally, [Page 107] and gnaw the Scriptures. Quia scurriles, leues, volatiles, carna­les, rodentes sacras literas.

Commission for their preaching these Friars can shew none. The Apostle, where he talketh of pastors and tea­chers, and other Ministers of the Gospell, leaueth no roome for such vermine. The Doctors of Paris say, that Friars come Schol. Paris. apud Matth. Paris. without canonicall mission, that they preach against the truth of Scripture, that they bragge of their knowledge, and preach for gaine. How then is it like, that such fellowes can build the Church of God? Can we looke for truth at the hands of false Prophets, or edification by them that come without calling? In the prophesie of Hildegardis we reade, that the principall studie and indeuour of these false teachers shall be to resist true teachers, and to bring them to the slaughter by their intelligence with great men.

Séeing then the Papists haue no other teachers, then these false Apostles, or rather seducers, and heare nothing but tales and idle questions; it is not possible they should profit by such Sermons. Much lesse therefore is it likely they should grow in knowledge, séeing neither their lea­ders are desirous to teach them, nor they to learne of their teachers.

Linwood speaking of the articles of the Créede, saith, It C. ignorantia de sum. Trin. in Gloss. is sufficient for lay and simple men to beleeue them with an implicit faith, that is, to beleeue as the Catholike Church doth beleeue them. Alijs (saith he) qui sunt simplices, vel laici suffi­cit, quod credant eos (scil. Articulos fidei) implicitè, id est, sicut do­cet & credit sanctà Ecclesia catholica. He saith also, that such knowledge is sufficient for Clerkes, that haue no meanes to maintaine themselues at schoole, as some suppose. But sup­pose they could say the articles of faith, and beléeue them, and the rest which Peccham in the constitution, ignorantia. de officio Archipres. doth require at their hands; yet should they be very ignorant. For a man may beléeue, as the Church beléeueth, and yet know nothing, nor be able to answer to any point of faith.

Thomas Aquinas 3. 2. q. 2. art. 6. compareth Gods peo­ple [Page 108] to asses, and their teachers to oxen, holding, that it is sufficient for them in matters of faith to adhere to their superi­ors, because it is said, Iob 1. Quòd boues arabant, & asinae pas­cebantur iuxta eos. Whereby it appeareth, he requireth no great knowledge at lay mens hands, but would haue them beléeue, as their teachers do, without further enquiring. He fetcheth his proofe out of Gregorie. But whence soeuer he draweth it, he vseth Gods people very rudely, that com­pareth them to asses and oxen. Yet thus much I am con­tent to yéeld, that the Masse-priests and their followers are like oxen and asses firmely linked together by the Popes cow-heards and muleters, for the diuell their maisters ser­uice.

The same man 2. 2. q. 2. art. 5. teacheth, that lay men are to beléeue all the articles of the Creed, and no more, expli­citè. The which is no point of deep learning, & yet his scho­ler Siluester in sum. in verb. fides 6. will not allow so much, saying, that it is not necessarie for a lay man to beleeue all the articles of the faith, but as much as is sufficient to direct vs to the last end. Nec tamen necesse est cuilibet, (saith he) explicitè credere omnes articulos fidei, sed quantum sufficit ad dirigendum in vltimum finem.

The author of Summa Rosella saith, that it is sufficient for Apud Siluest. in verb. fides. simple people, and percase for lay men comming to yeares and discretion, to beleeue, that God is a rewarder of all good, and a punisher of all euill. And that other articles are to be beléeued implicitè, that is, beléeuing all to be true, which the catholike Church teacheth. Simplicibus & fortè omnibus laicis discernentibus & adultis sufficit credere Deum esse praemiatorem bonorum omnium, & omnium malorum punitorem: alios autem articulos sufficit credere implicite, credendo scil. verum, quicquid Ecclesia catholica docet. But beside that this is an argument to proue the aduersaries allowance of the peoples extreme ignorance, it is false and blasphemous to say, that any man may be saued without notice or beléeuing in Christ, as the author of Summa Rosella his words imply.

Loth the Pope is, that the people should know too much: [Page 109] and therefore he forbiddeth Scriptures to be either transla­ted, or read in vulgar tongues without licence. In publike Liturgies it is not the fashion of Papists, to suffer the peo­ple to heare Scriptures read in vulgar tongues.

The Papists also that vnderstand not Latine pray with their lippes, but not with their vnderstanding and spirit. For the Popes pleasure is, that the publike Liturgie of the Church shall not be read in vulgar tongues: whereupon the people must néedes grow dull and ignorant. Iohn Billet in prolog. lib. de diuin. cffic. complaineth of this abuse. Quid nostris tēporibus est agendū, saith he, speaking of reading of Latin seruice, vbi nullus vel rarus reperitur legens vel audiēs, qui intelligat, videns vel agens-qui animaduertat? iam videtur im­pletum quod à Propheta dicitur: Et erit sacerdos quasi de populo v­nus. He saith, that there are few or none, that reade or heare, that do vnderstand or marke what is read or heard: and that the saying of the Prophet is fulfilled: That the priest shall be like one of the people.

Costerus saith, That God and the Saints vnderstand all In Enchirid. c. de precib. Lat. recitand. languages, and therefore, that it is sufficient, if the people pray in Latine. Which as it is blasphemous, making Saints present in all places, so it is an argument, that he requi­reth litle vnderstanding in the people.

Hosius commendeth the Coliars faith, that could not tell In confess. Petrik. one article of his beléefe, but onely answered, that he belee­ued as the Church beleeueth; which is an argument, first of the commendation of ignorance among the Papists, next of Hosius his blasphemie, that would haue a man saued, beléeuing as doth the Catholike church, albeit he beleeued, or knew nothing of Christ Iesus.

Seeing then the Papists require so litle knowledge in the people, and will not suffer them, either to pray, or to haue Scriptures read publikely in vulgar tongues, and preach so seldome and so leudly; is it likely that they should prooue great clearkes?

Furthermore, the Priests in England were commaun­ded to teach the people the worship of the crosse, of images, [Page 110] of reliques, and how farre the same reacheth, as appeareth by B. Arundels prouinciall constitution beginning nullus. de haereticis.

They were also taught, what manner of men were S. Austin of Canterburie, S. Bernac. S. Dunstane, and such good fellowes. And were wont to heare many good tales of the miracles of S. Audrey, and S. Cuthburge, and other she Saints. But all this tended litle to instruction in faith, or reformation in manners.

Finally, in stend of true doctrine they were taught the traditions of men concerning worship of Saints, crosses, images, reliques, fasting on Saints Gigils, pilgrimages, indulgences, purgatorie and such like. Petrus de Alliac. lib. dereform. Ecclesiae, wisheth, That Apocryphall Scriptures, and new hymnes, and prayers, and other voluntarie nouelties should not be read in churches: Quòd in huiusmodi festis Scrip­turae Apocryphae, aut hymninoui, velorationes, seu aliae voluntariae nouitates non legerentur: but he preuailed not. Nay further, they do not onely teach false doctrines and Apocryphall no­uelties, but also most wickedly rehearsing the commaunde­ments, they haue left out the second commaundement that concerneth worship of images, albeit S. Augustine quaest. ex vet. test. 7. do set it downe for a distinct commandement from the first.

Being then taught very litle truth, and much falshood, it must néeds follow, that the Papists were in time past very ignorant; and that Iohn Billet in prolog. de diuin. off. plainely confesseth. Experience also teacheth the same, and mani­festly sheweth that they scarce vnderstood any article of the Créed. Acertaine Italian being asked not many yeares since by his confessor in Rome, whether he beleeued the holy Tri­nitie: answered, yea. Being further demaunded, what the Trinitie was: VVhat (said he) but our Lord God, and our Lady, and you our masters the priests and Friers? They are so brutish, that they verily beléeue that images walke and talke, and haue life. Certaine parishioners of a village not farre from Florence coming to the citie to bespeake a Poggio. [Page 111] Crucifixe, the caruer séeing the simplicitie of the men asked them, whether they would haue one aliue or dead. The parties after some deliberation answered, they wold haue a crucifire aliue. For (said they) if the parish like him not, we will kill him, and so ridde our hands of him.

Most of them beléeue the lyes and fables, that Priests tell them out of their legends. And those are the best part of their knowledge. A poore countrie man of ours beleeued, that S. Tinnoc of Portlemouth in Deuon was a good guardian of shéepe: and therefore offered euery yeare a fléece. On a time passing ouer the water at Salcomb with his offering, and being in danger, vowed, if he escaped to offer his horse, which he did, and the Saint with good glée and a becke ac­cepted him. But not being able well to returne on foote, he prayed he might buy his horse of the Saint. The priest was the broker and made the bargaine, but it was so hard, that the poore man said, he was a good kéeper of sheepe, but a cut-throate Saint to deale withall in buying and selling.

Commonly they neither vnderstood what they prayed, nor what was said in the Church, neither do they now vn­derstand much more, albeit the Priests in their new and salse Catechismes endeuour to teach them somewhat.

If men will not beléeue experience, yet let them reade what Friars themselues in their Sermons, and what o­thers say in their writings. Vincentius in his treatise De fine mundi, speaking of the people of his time, saith: Praedi­cationes non audiunt, articulos fidei nesciunt. They heare not ser­mons, they know not the articles of the faith.

Robertus Gallus in his 32. vision saith, that all children (except a few) shall depart from their fathers, leauing the ex­amples and admonitions of their elders, and that worldly minds shall remaine vnder counterfeit religion. Apostat abunt filij omues, except is paucis, à patribus suis, relinquentes (que) vitas & monit a maiorum suorum, & sub palliata religione seculares animi permanebunt.

Brigit in her reuelations saith, That the works and words of Christ were so neglected, that few thought of them, or re­membred 3. Brigit. 15. [Page 112] them. Opera & verba Christi sunt adeò neglecta, vt iam pauci ea recolant.

Hosius disputing against Brentius telleth vs of a Coliar, De authorit. Eccles. that could answer nothing of his faith, but that he beléeued as the Church beléeued.

We may therefore assure our selues, that the apostacie spoken of by the Apostle, 1. Tim. 4. is plainely séene in the Komish church, and that the smoke, that ascended out of the bottomelesse pit, like the smoke of a fornace, and darke­ned the Sunne and the ayre, as we may reade Apocalypse 9. was nothing else but the errors and ignorance of Papists, that couered Christian religion, and obscured the face of the Church. Of this defection and darknesse Robertus Gal­lus doth speake in his visions ca. 3. shewing, that the church should be ouerwhelmed with this darknesse, and that the same should arise out of the Church. Egressa est (saith he) caligo illa ab Ecclesia.

Sol (saith another) qui est spiritualis potentatus factus est ni­ger, Onus Eccles. cap. 19. quia non serenum coelum, sed tetrum infernum aperit. Prop­tereà peruersus Pontifex nuncupatur Angelus abyssi. The Sunne which is the spirituall power was made blacke, because he (the Pope) openeth not the cleare heauen, but blacke hell. Therefore a peruerse Pope is called the Angell of the bottom­lesse pit. And againe: the seate of the beast, that is, the malig­nant Church, is in the court of Rome, whose kingdome is darke.

Francis Petrarch in his seuentéenth Epistle describing the court of Rome: Nulla ibi lux (saith he) nullus dux, nullus in­dex anfractuum, sed caligo vndique & vbique confusio, ne parum vera sit Babylon, ac perplexitas mira, vtque Lucani verbis vtar, nox ingens scelerum, tenebrosa inquam, & aeterna nox expers sy­derum & aurorae nescia, tum profunda & iugis actuum opacitas. There is no light there, no guide, no leader in turnings, but darknesse round about, and confusion euery where, lest it should not seeme to be true Babylon, wonderfull perplexitie, and to vse Lucans words, a great night of abhominable sins, I say, a darke and continuall night, without star-light, or glim­mering [Page 113] of morning twilight, and a deepe and continuall ob­scuritie of mens actions.

Most miserable therefore, and calamitous is the state of the Papists. For if eternall life consist in the knowledge of God, and Christ Iesus, as himselfe teacheth vs, Ioh. 17. what hope can they haue, that are ignorant of God and godlinesse, of Christ, and Christs true religion? If they liue in darknesse, and without light, that want the light of Gods word; then is the darknesse of poperie great, where publike prayers, and Scriptures read publikely are kept vnder the couer of strange tongues, as a candle vnder a bushell. If the people of God were led away captiue, for that they wanted knowledge, as it is, Isa. 5. what possibi­litie haue the Papists to frée themselues from the captiuity of the diuell and Antichrist, that are ignorant of religion, and led by the noses by impostors, and false teachers subor­ned by Antichrist? Finally, if the people perish, where there is no prophecying, as we reade Prouerb. 29. then are the Papists in a most fearefull and damnable state, among whom the word of God is not sincerely preached, and to whom wicked Masse-priests and Friars for the word of God preach humane deuises and lyes. The very heathen vnderstood, that the knowledge of God was the beginning, the cause, and rule of humane happinesse. [...] (saith Pythagoras) [...]. Apud Sto­baeum. If then they vnderstand not their miserie, that want the knowledge of God; they are more ignorant and lesse excusable then heathen people.

Against this assertion, I doubt not but Robert Parsons will take exception, who in his Wardw. pag. 12. stormeth, when he heareth vs but once to mention the ignorance of Quéene Maries times. But the matter is too manifest for him to face out with bigge words. He telleth vs of Tonstal, Watson, Christophorson, Fecknam, Gardiner and White. But neither was the learning of these men extraordinarie, as some of their doings yet extant declare, nor was their learning great in the true knowledge of diuinity. Nor was [Page 114] this a good consequence, these men were learned, therfore the people were also learned. For these men seldome prea­ched, and but to few, and to very litle ediftcation. He addeth therefore in the Warn-word 2. Encountr. cap. 6. that the lear­ning and skill of Doctors and teachers maketh the people in­telligent and skilfull. But that is, where they teach and in­struct the people, which these did not. There also he telleth vs, that in other countries the common people, yea children and babes are able to answer in Christian religion. But first this concerneth times past nothing. And next this fashion of catechizing is but in few places exercised, and by the Ie­busites in imitation of true teachers. For so the diuels mi­nisters imitate Christs Apostles. Thirdly, the Catechisme of Papists is nothing, but the Creede, the Pater noster, the Law, and seuen Sacraments, as Bellarmine deuideth his do­ctrine in his Italian Catechisme: and of Aue Maria, and o­ther deuises, as other Catechismes shew. Fourthly, there is much mixture of ceremonies and false doctrine. Finally, the Italians and Spaniards are litle wiser for this cate­chizing.

He telleth vs also in his Wardw. p. 12. of the profound learning of the school-doctors in Spaine and Italie, and saith, We dare not once appeare to dispute with them. But nei­ther maketh the skill of the diuers sects of Friars for the Priests or the people, that are not taught by them. Nor is their learning skill in Scriptures or Fathers, which few of them reade, as appeareth by the confession of Ferdinand Vellosillo in his preface vpon his aduertences on the Do­ctors. Nor are there so many learned, as is pretended. True it is, that they are now more diligent, then they were in time past, but it is rather to suppresse truth, then to teach truth. For they teach seldome, and talke of vaine specula­tions, and desire nothing, but that the people should be ig­norant in Gods word: which popish ignorance is now al­most as much in Italie and Spaine, as in time past. God en­lighten those nations, and make them once sée the truth, and vnderstand their ignorance.

CHAP. II. Of the common workes of Papists.

BUt may our aduersaries say, albeit in time past men were not so learned; yet they liued better then men of our times. And true it is that S. Augustine saith, That men Li. 3. conf. c. 8 vnlearned earnestly contend for heauen, while learned men without vnderstanding wallow in flesh and blood: if we vn­derstand it of those that onely had learned Christ Iesus and him crucified, and were vnskilfull in other matters; and not of those rude and ignorant people, that albeit running in worldly affaires, were notwithstanding vtterly ignorant of Christ Iesus. Wherefore as we haue before proued the Papists to be commonly most ignorant of diuine matters, so now we will briefly touch their liues and actions, to see if their manners correspond with their skill. And the rather I follow this course, for that Schoppius telleth vs De indulgen. of their braue workes done in the times of Iubileys, and Ro­bert Parsons is euer talking of good workes, as if that were the proper possession of his consorts. Wherein I would not haue any to thinke that when I name Papists, I meane to speake against all our forefathers (who indeed positiuely held not all points of popery, but rather professed Christia­nitie positiuely, albeit they did not resolutely denie popish errors) but onely such as are the chiefe founders, teachers, and maintainers of popish Religion, and which with great zeale persecute all that resist it, or refuse it.

These fellowes therefore, I say, haue no cause to glorie or boast of their workes. For whether we looke into the di­uersitie of times or states of men, or else consider euery ver­tue and good worke by it selfe, or looke into the countries drowned in Popery; I doubt not but we shall find the zela­tors and chiefe pillers of popery very defectiue, and no way answerable to the commendation which their hired Pro­ctors do commonly giue them.

[Page 116]For the times before the yeare of our Lord 1500, I haue already alleaged the testimonies of Brigit, Petrarch, Catherine of Siena, Boccace, Breidenbach, Hugetin, Robertus Gallus, Math. Paris, and diuers others: vnto which I will adde the testimonie of Platina, Vspergensis and VVernerus. I need not say (saith Platina) how excessiue the couetousnesse In Marcellino of Priests is, and of those especially that are in principal places, nor how great is their lust, ambition, pompe, pride, sloth, igno­rance of themselues, and of Christian doctrine, how corrupt their religion is, and rather dissembled then true, and how cor­rupt are their manners, in prophane men, whom they call se­cular, to be detested, seeing they offend so openly and pub­likely, as if they sought praise hereby. He saith, their vices were Ibidem. so increased, that they seemed scarce to leaue any place for Gods mercie. And in Gregory the fourth, In omnem luxum & libidinem se effundit Ecclesiasticus ordo: The Clergie (sayth he) doth run headlong into all luxuriousnesse and lust. If then the people follow such guides, we may well imagine in what termes the Church stood in his time. Then began mis­chiefes to be multiplied, saith Vrspergensis, there sprang vp hatred, deceits, & treasons. Heu, heu, Domine Deus, (saith Wer­nerus) In fasc temp. quomodo obscuratum est aurum, mutatus est color optimus! qualia contigisse circa hac tempora, etiam in Ecclesia & sede A­postolica, quam vsque huc tanto zelo, custodiuisti, legimus scandala! quales contentiones & amulationes, sectae, inuidiae, ambitiones, in­trusiones, persecutiones! ô tempus pessimum, in quo defecit sanctus, & diminutae sunt veritates à silijs hominum! Alas, alas, O Lord God, how is our gold obscured! how is the good colour (or state of things) changed! what scandals do we reade to haue happened about these times in the Church and Apostolicke see, which hitherto thou hast with such zeale preserued! what contentions and emulations, sects, enuies, ambitions, intrusions and persecutions! ô most wicked time, in which holy men are failed, and truth diminished from the sons of men! He sayth also, that about one thousand yeares after Christ, Christian faith began to faile, and that men gaue themselues to sooth­saying and witchcraft.

[Page 117]The wickednesse and profanenesse of latter times, and of times present, the Papists themselues must needes ac­knowledge. And yet because Robert Parsons thinketh so well of his consorts, I would haue him to turne backe to that which is said already. Let him also reade that which followeth out of later writers. Apud plerosque religionis nostrae primores (saith Iohn Picus of Mirandula) ad quorum exemplum In orat. ad Leon. 10. componi atque formari plebs ignara debuisset, aut nullus, aut certè exiguus Dei cultus, nulla benè viuendi ratio atque institutio, nul­lus pudor, nulla modestia. Iustitia vel in odium, vel in gratiam de­clinauit, piet as penè in superstitionem procubuit, palani (que) omnibus in hominum ordinibus peccatur, sic vt saepenumero virtus probis viris vitio vertatur, vitia loco virtutum honorari soleant, ab his qui suorum criminum quasi septa, & tanquam moenia, & inauditam petulantiam, & diuturnitatem impunitatem esse putauerunt. A­mongst the most of the principal men of our religion, saith he, after whose example the ignorant sort of people ought to con­forme themselues, there is either none, or but litle religion, no order or institution of good liuing, no shame, no modestie. Iustice inclineth to hatred or fauor, godlinesse is almost ouer­throwne by superstition, and al states of men do sin publikely, and in such sort, that oftentimes vertue is a reproch to honest men, and vices are honored for vertues, of those who haue thought vnusual insolencie, continuance and impunitie, to be the walles and defences of their crimes. Afterward he taxeth the luxuriousnesse of all estates, the furiousnesse of lustes, the ambition and couetousnesse and superstition of the Cleargie.

Baptista of Mantua writing to Leo, hath these words:

That is, Help holy father Leo, the Christian common wealth is falling, and religion is sicke, and at the point of death.

Marcellus Palingenius in his booke to Hercules Duke of Ferrara, complaineth of a generall corrupiton in the world. Paling. Virgo

That is, Willingly I leaue this world, full of innumerable fraudes, deceits, incests, rapines, where there is no true dealing, no pietie, iustice, peace or rest, and where all sinnes reigne. And againe:

Both cuntries & woods are infamous, euery citie is now a bor­del. If we consider the Popes, although they be called most holy, yet nothing can be deuised more wicked & flagitious. Sabinian that followed Gregory the first, went about to abro­gate all his acts. His life was blameable (as saith Werner) and his end fearefull. Of Constantine the second, he saith, that he gouerned with great scandall, and was the fift infamous Pope. Not long after succeeded Iohn the eight, or as some count the ninth, that played the harlot being Pope, and died in trauell of childbirth: a matter most infamous, and not to be excused with words, or any impudent deniall of Iebusites. Platina in the life of Sergius the third, speaking of diuers Popes about those times: Hi verò largitione (sayth he) & ambiticne pontificatum quaerētes, & adepti posthabito diuino cultu inimcitias non secus ac saeuissimi quidam tyranni inter se exer­cebant suas voluptates postea securius expleturi, cum nullibi exta­rent, qui eorum vitia coercerent. That is, These men seeking the popedome by bribery and ambition, and hauing gotten the same, neglecting the seruice of God, did prosecute their e­nemies no otherwise then most cruell tyrants, purposing af­terward to satisfie their pleasures, when there was none to correct or controle them.

VVernerus of Iohn the twelfth saith, that he was totus lubricus, that is, wholly giuen to lust. Platina accordeth with him in the mans faults, though he reckon him the thirtéenth. Both agrée, that he was slain of the diuel. In the life of Greg. the sixth, Platina calleth 3. Popes, three most foule monsters.

Beno, Platina and others testifie, that Siluefter the second and Benedict the ninth were Magicians, and gaue them­selues [Page 119] ouer to serue the diuell.

Of Gregorie the seuenth, not onely Beno the Cardinall, but also diuers others report that he was a Necromancer, a murderer, a bloudie and cruell man. The Councell of Brixia deposed him as a notorious necromancer, possessed with a diabolicall spirit, and an apostate from the faith.

After the times of Gregorie the seuenth, the Popes ne­uer ceassed to trouble Christendome, vntill such time, as they had ouerthrowne the Romaine Empire, and made way for the Turke, and dissolued all good orders both con­cerning religion and iustice.

He that continueth the storie of Vrspergensis saith, that Clement the fifth was a notorious fornicator. Hic, vt habet Chronicon Hermanni, (saith he) fuit publicus fornicator.

Matteo Villani in his historie lib. 3. cap. 39. witnesseth against Clement the sixt, that he kept the Countesse of Tu­renna, and made no conscience of the shame of the Church. Della vergogna della sancta Chiesa non sifece conscienza.

Iohn the 23. was an incestuous person, a Sodomite and a most abhominable atheist, that beleeued not the immorta­litie of the soule, as was prooucd in the conuenticle of Con­stance. The articles and proofes are yet to be read in the acts of that assembly, and reported by Peter Crabbe. Sixtus the fourth passed Nero the tyrant in all crueltie and villanie.

Of Innocentius the eight the common report went, that he begot of diuers women sixteene bastards, eight males, and so many of the female kind.

He was otherwise giuen to gluttonie, auarice, idlenesse, and all filthinesse, as Marullus recordeth:

saith he. Yet none of the rest may séeme to compare with Alexander the sixth, whether we respect beastly life, or impious infideli­tie [Page 120] He wasted the world, (as one saith of him) ouerthrew law and religion.

He had secret intelligence with the Turke, set Italie on a flame, by empoysonment and practise tooke away mens liues, and beside harlots, of whom hée begot diuers children, he abused his owne daughter Lucretia, as diuers Historians report.

Such as these were, we find that Leo the tenth, Cle­ment the seuenth, Paule the third, Iulius the third, Pius the fourth, and the rest, haue bene accompted, that is, men without religion or honestie. What Clement the eight now is, Rome knoweth, and his decayed ioynts speake. There­fore doth Brigit bring in Christ speaking to the Pope and saying, Why dost thou hate me? why is thy boldnesse and presumption so great? For so indeed they liue, not as if they were ignorant of Christ, but as if they did deadly hate him.

The Cardinals, which are the Popes assistants, would be loth to shame their holy Father, and creator the Pope. And therefore albeit he excell others, yet these sometimes excell him in all licentiousnesse and loosenesse of life. The Cardinall Pietro Aldobrandini, and S. George, and Detti, the present Popes minions I hope will say for me. To leaue them to their friends, and to their owne consciences, let vs looke backe to the Cardinals made by Clement the sixt. Mattheo Villani in his third booke, cap. 39. signifieth, they had neither learning, nor honestie. Sixtus quartus his ne­phew Petrus Riarius died young spent with pleasures. Obijt, voluptatibus confectus, saith Onuphrius. His excesse in glut­tonie and venerie by his owne friends was much noted and spoken of. Farnesius prostituted his sister to Alexander the sixt for a Cardinals hat. Neither was he more infa­mous for baudrie, then for lecherie, crueltie, and vnkind dealing with his kinred.

[Page 121]The Cardinall of Valentia killed his owne brother and threw him into the riuer of Tiber: and afterward being cal­led Caesar Borgia proued the most infamous monster, wher­of there is any record in histories. Innocentius de monte that was Iulius the thirds Ganymedes, was made Cardinall for a reward. What maner of men Hippolito de Medici, and the young Cardinals made by Leo the tenth were, let the stories report. Brigit saith, that sometime iustice dwelt in Rome, but now her princes were murtherers. And 4. Brigit 3. Brigit 21. 49. Cardinales extenti, & effusisunt ad omnem superbiam, cupi­ditatem, & delectamentum carnis. That is: Cardinals are ex­cessiue in all pride, couetousnesse, and delights of the flesh. Al­uarus Pelagius, lib. 2. de planctu Eccles. art. 16. speaking of Cardinals, saith: That in riches they are increased, but much diminished in pietie. Aucta est possessio, diminuta religio.

The Prelates, Monkes, Friars, and Nunnes, follow the steppes of their leaders. Aluarus Pelagius hauing recke­ned vp many faults of popish Bishops, knowne to the world, as admitting men vnworthie, vsing negligence in their calling, wanting knowledge, and such like, he saith, they offend priuily, yet so as it may be easily seene, in vnclean­nesse of life, simonie, fraud, pride, couetousnesse, and that they are not ashamed. Nay he saith, they haue a whores forehead, and declare their sinnes like Sodome In occulto peccant per suas Lib. 2. de planct. Eccles. art. 20. immunditias, & Simoniacas pactiones, fraudes, superbias, & in­uidias, & auaritias, quaetamen à plerisque sciuntur. Nullam ha­bent verecundiam aliqui ex eis, sed nec de eis in quibus publicè de­linquunt. Imò in peccatis gloriari videntur, vndè frons meretricis facta est eis. Nec de peccatis erubescunt, & peccatum suum sicut Sodoma praedicauerunt.

The militarie orders of Knights professing religion, as Ibid. art. 23. he saith, tread their obseruances vnder foot with their fleshly liuing, and serue the flesh rather then Christ Iesus. Monkes Art. 25. degenerate from their auncestors, conspire, wander, contend, liue dissolutely. Priests liue incontinently, giue themselues to Ibid. art. 27. witchcraft, intangle themselues in worldly affaires. Contra san­ctam castitatem, quam Domino promiserunt, (saith he) sic offen­dunt [Page 122] continuè, etiam publicè, praeter eanefandissima, quae in occulto perpetrant, quod nec chartae reciperent, nec calamus possit exarare. No bookes (saith he) can containe, nor pen describe the vn­speakeable abhominations which they commit.

Speaking of lawyers, souldiers, merchants, husband, men, men and women he doth recken vp such impieties, Lib. 2. de planctu Ec­cles. blasphemies, witcheries, filthinesse and abhominations, fraudes, oppressions and other faults, that it séemeth im­possible among the Gentils and Turkes to find worse men.

With him Brigit also concurreth, charging the Go­uernors 3. Brigit 10. of the Church with thrée notorious vices, that is, whoredome, auarice, and prodigalitie. Tria facinora exercent Ecclesiae prouisores, (saith Brigit) in carne vitam meretricalem habent. Secundo sunt insatiabiles similes voragini maris ad cupidi­tatem pecuniae. Tertiò, bona irrationabiliter, & prodigaliter, sicut torrens impetu suo aquam fundens, pro superbia largiuntur. She saith also, that as they ride great horses, so the diuell rideth them, striking their brests with his heeles. Supra colla Praela­torum, qui pro vana gloria magnos equos ascendunt, sedent Dia­boli, & suis calcibus pectoraeorum impellunt.

Catherine of Siena cap. 125. saith, that religious men, pre­tend Angels life, but for the most part are worse then diuels. Religiosi collocati sunt in religione, velut Angeli, sed quamplurimi sunt demonibus deteriores. And againe: religious men are made the diuels instruments corrupting religion within themselues, and among their brethren, and without among lay men.

Oflay men Brigit giueth no more commendation, then 1. Brigit. 41. of the rest. Lay men (saith she) in Baptisme and other Sacra­ments promise to serue God, but now they are departed from God, as if they were ignorant of him. The word of God they mocke, and Gods workes account as vanitie: they say Gods commaundements are too grieuous, they breake their word and their oathes, they haue left God, and ioyned them selues to the diuell, they seeke their owne things, and not those which are Gods. Laicus dedit fidem in baptismate, ac in suscep­tione aliorum Sacramentorum promisit se Deo seruiturum: nuno autem discessit à Deo, quasi ignorans Deum: verba sacra habet pro [Page 123] ludibrio, opera diuina pro vanitate, mandata Dei ait sibi nimis gra­uia, factus est fidei & promissi iuramenti violator, derelinquit Deū, & associauit se diabolo, propriam laudem quaerit, & quae sua non quae Dci sunt.

Mantuan speaking of Masse: priests, sayth, that shepheards Alphons. lib. 6 hate their flocks and care not to feed them, but to sheare them and mocke them being so spoyled. Pastores odere pecus, nec pas­cere curant, sed tondere greges, pecori (que) illudere tonso. And in his third booke of Calamities, he saith, they are filthy, incestuous, and hated of God.

Religious men also, as he saith, haue wooluish hearts, Lib. 3. calam. and are defiled with great crimes.

Palingenius telleth vs, that if we meane to kéep our houses Leo. vndefiled, we must auoid Monks, Friers and al maner of Masse priests: he saith that there is no greater plague, that they are the scumme of the people, a fountain of foolery, a sink of sin, wolues clothed in lambes skins, seruing God for hire, and not for reli­gion, that they deceiue simple men vnder a false colour of reli­gion, and vnder the shadow of religiō commit an infinit num­ber of wicked acts and villanies. Finally, that they are robbers, adulterers, bougrers, and slaues of gluttony and luxuriousnesse.

And this may be verified by the filthy liues of the Masse­priests in England, which enter into no house, but leaue a filthy sauor of their villanie behind them, neither sparing [Page 124] the good wife, nor the good mans daughters, nor the ser­uants of the house, as partly the diuers confessions of the priests themselues & of parties abused, and partly the depo­sitions of witnesses and records do proue: of which I wold set down some here, but that I would not blemish any that is repentant, nor touch the reputatiō of any simple Papist, but where I am vrged.

The same man doth say further, that al is ful of errors, foo­leries and flagitious crimes.

But if Papists do so many good workes, as Parsons pre­tendeth; let vs sée what they are, and in what places they are done. First, workes of true and sincere religion they care not for. The Popes giue ouer teaching, and busie them selues not much with praying. Nay they persecute such as professe religion, and will not suffer the vulgar sort to vn­derstand what they pray, commaunding them to pray pub­likely in tongues not vnderstood.

Prelates now delight in warre, other things they esteeme as toyes, they neither regard the precepts of their fathers, nor Christs Religion.

Iustice is slowly administred among them: for the Pope easily dispenseth with the breach of all Ecclesiasticall laws, and giueth absolution for most hainous sinnes before, and sometime without all satisfaction. Vrspergensis speaking of the dayes of Innocent the third, Exaltatum est cornu (saith he) iniquitatis: The horne of iniquitie is exalted. He sheweth also, that then iustice was sold for money. In time past (saith Bri­git) 3. Brig. 21. iustice dwelt in Rome, and her princes were studious of peace, but now all is turned into drosse, and her princes are murtherers.

Neither do they so many almes déedes, or deale so boun­tifully, that they néed much to brag of their liberalitie. Pe­trarch doth call Rome couetous Babylon: and sayth, that [Page 125] couetousnesse raigneth there. Multo aequanimius ferunt millium Cant. 107. Epist. 19. fine nom. animarum iacturam (saith Clemangis) quam decem solidorum: They had rather lose ten thousand soules, then ten shillings. De corrupt. Eccles. stat.

But percase by reason of their solemne vowes they are chast and continent. Alas there is nothing more sensual and luxurious. Quis non moechatur? (saith Palingenius, speaking of the Romish vnchast Cleargie) that is, Who doth not of­fend in luxuriousnesse? Huldricus doth shew, that this for­swearing In Ep. ad Nic. of mariage is cause of great vncleanenesse. Pelagius lib. 2. de planct. Eccles. art. 27. saith, that by reason of priests vowes and licenciousnesse, almost halfe the people in Spaine are bastards. Speaking of priests, Nimis incontinenter viuunt (saith he) at que vtinam nunquam continentiam promisissent, ma­ximè Hispani & regnicolae, in quibus prouincijs in pauco maiori nu­mero sunt filij laicorum, quàm clericorum. This I cite at large for the honor of bastard Parsons, that is so well affected to some old bastard Spaniards.

Truth is no friend to such lying companions. VVhat truth can be there (saith Petrarch) where all is so ful of lyes? Epist. 16. sine nom. He excepteth not the secret places of Churches, the seates of iustice, nor the Popes throne. Quis vsquam (saith he) vero locus, vbi omnia mendacijs plena sunt? For their fraud and lies, Palingenius calleth priests and Friers impostors and crafty In Leone. foxes.

Neither can we commend them much for their clemency, albeit their Popes sometimes affect the name and title of Clement. For they prosecute their enemies as cruelly, as euer did tyrants, as Platina saith in Sergio. 3. they torment poore simple Christians, that touch their abuses and massacre them. They are red with the blood of saints.

Finally, neither vertue nor pietie sheweth it selfe in any of their actions. What are then the good works that our ad­uersaries so much commend in them selues? Forsooth pil­grimages to Rome, oblations to saints, almes giuen to sturdie Friers & Monks, building of Seminaries for rebellious youths, [Page 126] eating of fish and toadstooles, and muscles on fasting dayes, vowing of virginitie and single life, whipping a mans selfe, do­ing penance by a Proctor, praying to Saints, hearing of Mas­ses, and such like. Nay they accompt it meritorious, to massacre Christian Princes and others, when the Pope doth excommunicate them. But part of these workes are flagitious, part superstitious, none good. If then they al­leage vs not their good workes and proue them, their glory and boasting of their workes will proue vaine and odious.

Finally, they must thew vs, where these workes are done, for which the Papists looke to merit eternall life, and by which they claime iustification. If they say at Rome, as no doubt they will, calling the same the holy citie, then we shall wonder at their impudencie. For that citie both in re­gard of Priests, and people, of all others is knowne to be most flagitious. Peters pallace (saith Mantuan) is polluted, Lib. Calam. 3. and rotten with luxuriousnesse.

And againe:

The same man ( lib. 4. fastorum) telleth Leo the tenth, that he was to reforme thrée things: first, the bloudie broiles of Italie: secondly, the poyson of the court of Rome that infe­cted all countries: and thirdly, the abuses of religion, that was much oppressed. The manners of Italie, Robert Bi­shop of Aquila rehearseth. The sinnes of Rome are noted by Petrarch in his Sonnets beginning: Fiamma dal cielo, and L'auara Babylonia, and Font ana di dolore, where he signifieth, that she deserueth to be consumed with fire from he auen, for her notorious wickednesse. Palingenius bringeth in the di­uell Capricorn. affirming, that both the men and women of Rome were his, for that all did apply themselues to luxuriousnesse, glutto­nie, theft, and fraud, contending who should excell others.

[Page 127]If then pure religion is to visite the fatherles and wi­dowes in their aduersitie, and to liue an vnspotted life in this world, as Iames the Apostle teacheth, then is not Pa­pish religion true nor vndefiled. If such as do the workes of the flesh described Galat. 5. shall not inherite the king­dome of God; then is the state of Papists most miserable, vnlesse they repont. They may say to themselues, Peace, peace, and boast themselues, that they can do mischiefe. But therc is no peace to the wicked, neither shall their misthie­uous malice and bloudie massacres alwaies escape vnpu­nished.

CHAP. III. Of the erronious, and absurd doctrine of Papists, concerning the foundations of Christian Religion.

WRetched is the state of those, that liue in darknesse and ignorance, and without the knowledge of re­ligion and vertue. Ignorantia magnum malum, and as Tully saith, nescire turpe: It is a shame not to know. But not to know God, nor his lawes, is both shamefull and damna­ble. Qui ignorat, ignorabitur, saith the Apostle: that is, God will not know him, that is ignorant of God. Yet farre worse 1. Cor. 14. it is, to do maliciously and wickedly, then onely to liue in ignorance and blindnesse. But worst of all it is, to hold ob­stinately dangerous and false opinions, contrarie to the faith of Christ. If then beside their ignorance and leudnes, the Papists hold diuers erronious and false opinions con­cerning religion, then cannot their estate be otherwise, then miserable. Let vs therefore sée, what they hold both concer­ning the foundations, and also concerning diuers necessa­rie points of religion.

The Papists giue out, that the Pope is the foundation, and the rocke, vpon which the Church is built. Bellarmine lib. 2. de pontif. Rom. cap. 31. talking of the Popes titles saith, [Page 128] that he is called a foundation, and that he is fundamentum aedificij Ecclesiae, the foundation of the building of the Church. In his Preface before his bookes de Pontif. Rom. speaking of these words of Isay, Ecce ponam in fundamentis Sion lapidem, lapidem probatum, angularem; saith, that these words not vn­fitly may be applyed to the Pope: as if he were that corner stone, that is placed in the foundations of Sion.

Stapleton likewise in his Preface before the relection of his doctrinall principles, affirmeth desperately, that God speaketh in the Pope, and that the foundation of Christian re­ligion, is necessarily placed in his authoritie teaching vs. It was much to say, that he was any way the foundation of religion. But to make him a necessarie foundation, was a greater presumption, then I find in his fellows. His words are these, In hac docentis hominis authoritate, in qua Deum lo­quentem audimus, religionis nostrae cognoscendae fundamentum ne­cessariò poni cernimus.

Neither can any of them well deny, but that the Pope is the rocke, vpon which the Church is built, and against which the gates of hell cannot preuaile, séeing generally they proue the Popes authoritie out of Christs words to Peter, Mat. 16. For if these words be not meant of the Pope, but of Christ, whom Peter confessed; then are they fondly alleaged for iustification of the Popes authoritie.

In summe all their practise sheweth, that the Pope to them is summa summarum, and the corner stone, and chiefe foundation of the popish Church. For alleage Scriptures, they quarrell about the interpretation, and admit no sence but that which the Pope alloweth, although his glosses and interpretations be neuer so contrarie to the text. A­gaine, alleage Councels, they enquire, if the Pope haue allowed them. Alleage Fathers speaking against the Pope, they reiect them. But alleage the Popes determination, there they stop like restie iades, and will not be drawne further. So the Pope, and his resolutions are the founda­tions, nay, they are all in all with Papists.

But this is not onely contrarie to the words of Scrip­ture, [Page 129] Isay 8. and 28. Mat. 16. and 1. Cor. 3. and Ephes. 2. where Christ is made the corner stone and sole foundation of the Church, but also contrarie to all Fathers, and good interpreters of Scriptures.

The same is also most absurd and contrarie to reason. For first if the Pope were the foundation of the Church; then should there be as many foundations, as Popes. Se­condly, the Church should be built vpon foundations di­uers from Christ. Thirdly, the foundations of the Church should differ one from another, one Pope centradicting, and crossing another. Fourthly, the Popes being sometimes reprobates and damned, hell should preuaile against the foundation of the Church, which is most absurd. Fiftly, the Church during the vacation should be without foundatiō, and a woman being Pope, the Church should be built vpon a woman. Finally, the Church should be built vpon men subiect to infirmities, errors and mutations, and not vpon Christ Iesus, the vnmoueable rocke.

The Conuenticle of Trent talking of the bookes of the Sess. 4. old and new Testament, and of traditions as well concer­ning faith, as manners, doth receiue both with equall affe­ction and reuerence, as it were either deliuered vnto vs, either by the mouth of Christ, or by the holy Ghost, and kept by continual succession in the Catholike church. Omnes libros tam veteris quàm noui testamenti, cùm vtrius (que) vnus Deus sit author, nec non traditiones ipsas, tum ad fidem, tum ad mores pertinentes, tanquam vel ore tenus à Christo, vel à Spiritu Sancto dictatas, & continua successione in Ecclesia catholica conseruatus pari pietatis affectis ac reuerentia suscipit ac veneratur.

Those likewise among the Papists, that procéede Do­ctors, or take any degrée in schooles do professe, that they most firmely admit and embrace the traditions of the Apo­stles, and the Church, and other ecclesiasticall obseruances, and constitutions. Apostolicas & ecclesiasticas traditiones, reli­quas (que) eiusdem Ecclesiae obseruationes, & constitutiones firmissimè admitto, saith euery one of them.

Bellarmine lib. 4. de verbo Dei cap. 1. beginning to speake [Page 130] of traditions, hitherto (saith he) we haue disputed of the written word of God; now we will begin to speake briefly of the word of God not written: accompting traditions to be the word of God as well as holy scriptures.

Aliud hodie religionis Christianae fundamentum (saith Staple­ton) habemus, non quidem à Christo aliud, sed ab ipsis literis Euan­gelicis Praefat. ante relect. prin­cip. doctrin. & Apostolicis aliud: That is, we haue now another foun­dation of Christian religion, not diuers from Christ, but diuers from the Euangelicall and Apostolical scriptures. So either he excludeth scriptures from being the ground of Christian religion, or else maketh vnwritten traditions equall vnto them. Afterward in his Analysis prefixed before his Doctri­nall principles, deliuering to his disciples the grounds of Christian religion, he vouchsafeth the scriptures no place among them.

But first, if by the books of the old testament they vnder­stand all the bookes contained in the old latine vulgar tran­slation of the Bible; then they admit the third and fourth bookes of Esdras, and all additions to the originall text, to be canoniall scriptures: which contradicteth their owne de­crées concerning the canon of Scriptures.

Secondly it is absurd to make vnwritten traditions e­quall with the holy Scriptures. For these are certainly knowne to procéed from God. But of vnwritten traditions the aduersaries can bring no proofe, but from men. Now who is so presumptuous as to match the testimonies of men with the word of God? Augustine in his 48. epistle to Vincentius, speaking of the fathers writings, saith, they are to be distinguished from the authoritie of the canon. And in his eight epistle which is to Hierome, he saith, that vnto the Scriptures alone this prerogatiue is to be giuen, that none of them containeth any errors. All other authors he wold haue censured and examined by them, being not free from er­rours.

The holy Scriptures are alwayes consonant and agrée­able to themselues. But traditions do not onely contradict one another, but also are repugnant to holy Scriptures. [Page 131] Polycrates as Eusebius lib. 5. Eccles. hist. c. 23. reporteth, main­tained the obseruance of the feast of Easter according to the practise of the Churches of Asia to be according to the Apo­stles traditions: Victor and the Church of Rome thought contrary. Some maintained the fast vpon the Sabbath, others denied it, and both held by tradition. Siue hodiè Chri­stus natus est, &c. whether Christ was borne or baptized as this day, saith Hicrome serm. de nat. to. 3. there is a diuers opinion in the world, and according to the diuersitie of traditions, there are diuers iudgements. The Romanists do found their com­munion vnder one kind, and their Masses without commu­nion, and the externall & propitiatory sacrifice of the Masse, and the hanging vp the Sacrament in the Pire, and the di­uine adoration giuen to it vpon tradition. But all these obseruations are impious, and contrary to Scriptures.

Some traditions are now abolished, as the prohibition of Saterdayes fast, the rite of standing when we pray be­tweene Easter and Whitsontide, the formes of prayer in old time vsed in celebration of the sacrament of the Lords supper, and diuers others, whereof some are mentioned by Basil lib. de Spir. san. c. 27. Bellarmine also lib. 4. de verbo Dei, c. 2. confesseth, that some traditions were temporarie. But it is impious to say, that the holy Scriptures are temporary, or at any time to be abolished.

Diuers traditiōs are no where found, but in the Legends, Missals and Portesses, and such books of smal account and credit, as for example, the ceremonies & rites of the Masse, the prayers of the canon, the formall adoration of Saints and Angels, the incredible narrations of S. Clement, S. Ni­cholas, S. Christopher, S. George, S. Catherine, S. Dominicke, S. Francis and infinite other Saints: which no man may re­ceiue with like affection as he receiueth holy Scriptures, but he shall infinitly disgrace the Scriptures, and shew him selfe to be no Catholike.

Furthermore, if the Papists build their faith vpon tra­ditions, then is their faith humane, as hauing no ground but the testimonie of this man and that man, that speaketh [Page 132] of traditions. Their faith is also most weake and fantasti­call, as being built vpon the lies reported in Legends, and the fantasticall ceremonies contained in the Missall and Breuiary.

The holy Scriptures are called the old and new testa­ment, and the Apostle Ephes. 6. calleth the word of God the sword of the Spirit. Writing to Timothy he saith, holy scrip­tures 2. Tim 3. are able to make the man of God perfect and absolute, and wise vnto saluation. But howsoeuer the blind Papists fauor their traditions, yet I hope they will be ashamed to cal their fardle of traditions Gods eternal testament, or the sword of the spirit, or to say, that traditions are able to make the man of God perfect, or wise to saluation.

Finally, no holy father did euer make Ecclesiastical tra­ditions not written, nor contained in Scriptures, but only commended by the Church of Rome, or kept by custome, or taken vp by fancie, and recorded only in humane writings of equall authoritie with canonicall scriptures. Infidelitatis argumentum est &c. (saith Basil) It is an argument of infidelity, and a most certaine signe of pride, if a man wil reiect any thing In serm. de fid confess. that is written, or bring in any thing not written. The like say­int he hath Moral. 72. c. 1. & 86. & 22. Neither is it like that he should speake of traditions repugnant to scriptures, as some do answer. For euery Christian man knoweth, that nothing is to be receiued contrarie to Scriptures: and to admonish men of that, had bene superfluous.

Si quid dicatur absque scriptura (saith Chrysostome hom. in Psal. 95.) auditorum cogitatio claudicat, nunc annuens, nunc hasi­tans. If any thing be spoken without proofe of scripture, the mind of the hearers resteth in suspence, now yeelding, now denying. Neither doth he speake onely of a mans owne in­uention, but also of all other mens reports or deuises with­out ground of scripture. In his thirteenth homily vpon the second Epistle of S. Paul to the Corinthians, he calleth Scri­ptures a most exact rule. What néed then haue we of the ad­ditions of traditions not written, if scriptures be a most ex­act rule?

[Page 133] Diabolici spiritus est (saith Theophilus lib. 2. paschal.) aliquid extra scripturarum sacrarum authoritatem putare diuinum. It is a signe of a diuellish spirit to thinke that any thing is diuine which is without the authoritie of holy scriptures. What rea­son then hath Bellarmine to call traditions the word of God not written? Hierome in his commentaries vpon the 23. of Mathew, speaking of a certaine tradition: Quod de scripturis authoritatem non habet, eadem facilitate contemnitur, qua proba­tur: That which is not confirmed by authoritie of scriptures, is with the same facilitie contemned, that it is proued. And writing vpon the first chap. of the prophet Aggey, he saith, That the sword of God doth strike all those things, which men of their owne accord do find out, and feine as it were Aposto­licall traditions without the authoritie and testimony of scrip­tures.

Ubi de re obscurissima disputatur (sayth Augustine lib. 2. de peccatorum merit. & remiss. c. 36.) non adiuuantibus diuinarum scripturarum certis, claris (que) documentis, cohibere se debet humana praesumptio, nihil faciens in alteram partem declinando. Where we contend about some most obscure question, there mans pre­sumption ought to stay it selfe, declining to neither side, if the certaine and cleare documents of scripture helpe vs not.

The next ground of the late Romish faith is layd vpon the old latine vulgar translation. For whosoeuer receiueth Sess. 4. not the scriptures, as they are contained in the old vulgar la­tine translation is pronounced accursed by the conuenticle of Trent. Againe, the same conuenticle purposing to declare what Latine edition or translation of scriptures is authenticall, determineth that the old latin vulgar tran­slation shall be authenticall, so that no man vpon any pre­tence dare or may reiect it: Vt nemo illam reijcere quouis praetex­tu audeat vel praesumat.

Canus in his theologicall common places, as he calleth them, doubteth not to affirme that the Iewes haue corrup­ted the Hebrew text of the old testament: and this diuers o­ther papisticall writers haue also supposed. The glosse vpon the chapter vt veterum. dist. 9. affirmeth plainely, that both [Page 134] Iewes and Greekes haue corrupted the copies of scriptures in those tongues. But the old vulgar Latine translation most Papists now bold to be sincere, incorrupt and pure, and al­low as authenticall.

Bellarmine in his second booke De verbo Dei, cap. 2. saith, that albeit the scriptures in Hebrew be not altogether corrup­ted, yet they are not sound and pure, but haue certaine errors. Likewise lib. 2. ca. 7. speaking of the Greeke text of the new Testament, he sayth, that the same is not sound nor without errors, and that it is not safe alwayes to correct the Latine by the Greeke. But in the same booke cha. 10. with all his force he endeuoreth to defend the old Latine translation as au­thenticall. The which is not onely a plaine declaration of the weaknesse of the Romish faith, that is built vpon so corrupt grounds, but also of the absurd and vnreasonable procéeding of our aduersaries. The prophet cryeth out a­gainst the Iewes, that forsooke God the fountaine of liuing water, and digged to themselues pits or cisternes that could Ier. 2 hold no water. Is it not then admirable that any should be so blind as to forsake the originall textes of Scripture, and to flie to the corrupt cisternes of the Latine vulgar transla­tion?

Hilary vpon the 118. psalme sayth, That he hath often ad­monished his hearers, that the Latin translatiō could not yeeld satisfaction for their vnderstanding. Frequenter admonuimus (saith he) non posse satisfactionem intciligentiae ex latinitatis tran­slatiene prestari.

Ambrose teacheth vs, that where there is contention about the variation of Latine translations, there the Greeke bookes Lib. 2. de Spir. sanct. c 6. are to be looked vpon. Si quis de Latinorum codicum varietate contendit (sayth he) quorum aliquos perfidi falsauerunt, Gracos inspiciat codices. And in his booke De incarnat. c. 8. So haue we found (sayth he) in the Greeke text whose authoritie is grea­ter.

Hierome in an Epistle to Sunia sayth, that in the old testa­ment we are to haue recourse to the Hebrew text. In his pre­face in 4. Euang. he sheweth, that there is great variety [Page 135] of Latine bookes, and that in correcting of errors and fin­ding the truth we are to returne to the Gréeke originals. Si veritas est quaerenda (saith he) cur non ad Gracam originem reuertentes, ea quae malè ab interpretibus reddita, vel addita, vel mutata corrigimus?

Augustine also in his second booke De doctr. Christ. cap. 10. saith, That to correct Latine copies, we are to haue re­course to the Hebrew and Greeke bookes of Scripture. Ad exemplaria Hebraea & Graeca, (saith he) à Latinis recurratur. And in the same booke chap. 15. Latinis emendandis, Graeci ad­hibeantur codices. Latine bookes of Scripture are to be men­ded by the Greeke originals.

The aduersaries also themselues are ashamed some­times to say, that either the old Latine vulgar translation is to be preferred before the originall Text of Scripture, or that the same is authenticall. The Canonists glossing vpon the Chap. vt veterum. dist. 9. affirme, that where the Copies varie, the originall is to be exhibited, and that the Latine of the old Testament is to be corrected by the Hebrew; and the Latine of the new Testament, by the Greeke bookes. Isidore Clarius, Caietane, Pagninus, Forerius, Oleastrius, Erasmus, and diuers others haue noted diuers faults in the old La­tine vulgar translation. Sixtus Senensis lib. 8. Biblioth. sanct. confesseth, that diuers faults, barbarismes, solecismes, and transpositions are found in the Latine translation. And saith: that the Church was moued by diuers iust causes to dissemble them.

Finally, reason teacheth vs, that the determination of the Romish Church, that preferreth the Latin vulgar tran­slation before the Hebrew and Gréeke text, is most absurd. For if the Latine bookes were to be preferred before the He­brew and Greeke text, or else to be estéemed authenticall; then were we either to preferre, or to giue like credit to Hierome, and other authors that translated the old vulgar Latine bookes, and to the holy Prophets and Apostles. A­gaine, transumpts and copies might by like reason be pre­ferred before the originall instruments. Thirdly, the old [Page 136] Latine translation is proned false by diuers witnesses, by comparing of places, & for that one edition of the old vulgar translation doth differ from another. Non potest verum esse, quod dissonat: that cannot be true, that is repugnant and con­trarie to it selfe, as Hierome saith in Praefat. in Iosuam, & in Praefat. in 4. Euang. But the edition of the vulgar transla­tion set out by Clement the eighth doth much differ from that, which Sixtus Quintus set out before. Iosue 11. 19. Cle­ment readeth, quae se traderet: Sixtus readeth quite contrarie, quae se non traderet. 2. Reg. 16. 1. Clement hath & vtre vini: Sixtus readeth, duobus vtribus, Ioan. 6. 65. Clement readeth qui essent non credentes: Sixtus, qui essent credentes. And so it may appeare by diligent collation, that there are notable differences throughout the whole Bible. Lastly, if the La­tine text were more authenticall, then the Hebrew or Greeke: why do not our aduersaries shew, that the aunci­ent Fathers, or some learned men of late time at the least, haue corrected the Hebrew and Greeke, according to the Latine, and not rather contrariwise?

The fourth foundation of Romish religion is the deter­mination of the Pope in matters of faith. The Conuenti­cle of Trent teacheth, that it belongeth to the holy mother the Sess. 4. Church to iudge of the true meaning of Scriptures. Now for as much as no man knoweth more certainely, what is the holy mother Churches meaning, then the Papists holy Father the Pope, therefore they do hereof conclude, that the Pope is to determine principally of the true sence and meaning of Scriptures.

In the Rubrike of the decrées cap. in canonicis. dist. 19. we find, that the Popes decretals are to be reckened among cano­nicall Scriptures.

Bellarmine lib. 3. de verbo Dei cap. 3. saith: that the Spirit of God (he should say of the diuell) is in the Pope, and that he together with a Councell is chiefe Iudge in matters of con­trouersie of religion. And in the same booke cap. 4. he hol­deth, that no man may recede from his iudgement, or determi­nation.

[Page 137] Stapleton in his booke of doctrinall Principles, or grounds of his religion, goeth about to prooue, that the Popes sen­tence and determination is infallible. And so much do these good fellowes rely vpon their holy Mothers and holy Fa­thers interpretation, that they receiue the same without any long inquisition, though neuer so foolish and contrarie to Scriptures. Our Sauiour in the institution of the holy Eucharist, said, Take, eate: but they beléeue the Pope, that saith, Gape and gaze, but take not, nor eate: but rather hang vp the Sacrament. He said, Bibite ex hoc omnes, that is, Drinke ye all of this, but the Pope saith, Drinke not all of this, and they beléeue the Pope. The Apostle saith, It is better to marrie then to burne, and that mariage is honorable among all men. But the Pope doth interpret these words so, as if he had said: It is better to burne then to marrie, and that mariage is reprochfull and vnlawfull to Priests: and Papists beléeue the Pope. So do they likewise in infi­nit false interpretations.

But that the Popes interpretations and sentences shold be the foundation of religion, is a matter contrarie to reli­gion and reason. The Apostle Ephes. 2. saith: that the Church is built vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Pro­phets, Iesus Christ being the corner stone. And therefore it is said to be built vpon them, because both of them preach Christ. Apostolos habemus authores, &c. we haue the Apo­stles for authors of our doctrine, saith Tertullian, lib. de prae­script. aduers. baeret. He saith also, It lyeth not in mans power to determine any thing (in matters of faith) of his owne head. Quamuis sanctus sit aliquis post Apostolos, &c. Howsoe­uer holy, or eloquent a man be, saith Hierome in Psalm. 86. yet comming after the Apostles he deserueth no authenticall credit. The Lord declareth in Scriptures.

Augustine in his second Epistle to Hierome sheweth, that no mans writings are comparable to holy Scriptures. And this the Canonists themselues confesse in their glos­ses vpon the Chapter, Noli meis: and Ego solis. dist. 9.

Are not the Papists then most miserable, that build [Page 138] their faith vpon the Popes Decretals, that are contrarie to Scriptures, to Fathers, one to another, and oftentimes void of truth, wit, learning, religion or honestie?

The last foundation of Romish faith is the preaching of Masse-priests and Friars. Quomodo Christus eius (que) doctrina (saith Stapleton) Christianae religionis fundamentum est, sic alij nunc à Christo missi, eorúmue doctrina, praedicatio, determinatio, Praefat ante relect. prin­cip. doctrin. fundamenti apud me vim & locum habebunt. As Christ and his doctrine is the foundation of Christian religion: so others now sent of Christ, and their doctrine, preaching, and determina­tion shall in my opinion haue the force, and place of a founda­tion, saith he. And afterward he declareth, that those, whom the Pope sendeth, are sent by Christ, and the men which he meaneth. But if this be the foundation of their religion, then is the same built vpon old wiues fables, forged tradi­tions, lying legends, philosophicall subtilties, scholasticall disputes, popish Decretals, humane inuentions and such like principles. For of thē consisteth the greatest part of these fellowes sermons, as both experience & diuers Friars idle Homilies, which euery man may sée, do plainely testifie.

Furthermore, if these be the foundations of popish Re­ligion, then is the same built vpon man, and not vpon God; vpon humane deuises, and not vpon the infallible word of God; vpon sand, and not vpon a rocke. Such also as these foundations are, such is the building, that is, weake, false, and erronious: such is the Romish religion, which the Pope and his adherents by force of armes, trea­sons, murthers, empoysonments, lyes, glozing flatterie, and all meanes possible would thrust vpon vs: and such are the conclusions that are built on these foundations.

Finally, séeing no man can be saued, that buildeth his faith vpon men, vpon vnwritten traditions, vpon vncer­taine grounds and lying reports, let the Papists consider with themselues in what miserable state they stand, and returne to the true faith in time, lest like the foolish man in the Gospell, they build their house on sand, and be ouer­whelmed with the fall thereof. Mat. 7.

CHAP. IIII. Of diuers other blasphemous, ridiculous, and absurd points of popish Religion.

TRue Religion is most true, venerable, and respectiue of Gods true seruice. If then popish Religion containe any vntrue or ridiculous, vaine, and blasphemous doctrine, then is it not true, or Apostolicall, or Christian: nor can it stand with Christian Religion, séeing no man can serue God and Baal, nor Dagon could stand before the arke of God. But notorious it is, that popish Religion centaineth many blasphemous, ridiculous, and absurd points.

First, concerning the flesh of our Lord and Sauior Christ Iesus they teach falsly and blasphemously, and say, that a mouse or dog, or hog may eate the body of Christ. Nay they are not ashamed to affirme, that his most holy body may be cast out vpon a dunghill, or into any vncleane place. Prima opinio (saith Alexander Hales part. 4. sum. q. 53. m. 2.) quae dicit quod corpus Christi defertur, quocunque species deferunt, vt in ven­trem canis, vel suis, vel in alia lo ca immunda, videtur vera. And a­gain, p. 4. sum. q. 45. m. 1. si canis aut porcus deglutiat hostiam con­secratam, non video quare corpus Christi non simul traijceretur in ventrem canis vel porci. Is a dog or hog should swallow a con­secrate hoft (saith he) I see no reason why the body of Christ should not withall passe into the belly of a dog or hog. Tho­mas Aquinas likewise, although made a saint by the Pope, yet shameth not to hold this prophane and vnholy opinion, part. 3. q. 80. art. 3. And in his comment. in 4. sent. dist. 9. q. 2. The same is also stiffely maintained by Brulifer in 4. sent. dist. 13. quest. 5. And this is the common opinion of schoole­men.

That the priest is able to make his Creator, they make no question. Bonner counted this among the prerogatiues of priesthood, in his absurd spéech which he made in the Con- [...] [Page 144] stian faith by the very confession of the aduersaries. The same also may otherwise be proued, if they should not con­fesse so much. For how is Christ ascended, if his body be hanging ouer euery altar? How is it credible that he shall come from heauen to iudge quicke and dead, if he be lur­king in euery consecrate hoast? How was he conceiued, and borne of the virgine, and suffered death on the crosse, if he had a body of such a simple nature, that it was like light in glasse, and might be in many places at once without filling any?

Finally it implyeth a notorious contradictiō for Chrifts body to be in heauen visible, and here inuisible; to be there palpable, and here impalpable; to be continued, and not continued; eaten here, and not eaten in heauen; here with­out filling of a place, there filling a place; here in the priests hands, and there not.

Absurdly also do the Papists talke of Christ his most ho­ly sacrifice. Christ (sayth the Apostle Heb. c. 9.) was once of­fered, that he might take away the sinnes of many. And Hebr. 10. Christ hauing offered one sacrifice for sinnes, doth perpetually sit at the right hand of God. And againe: With one oblation he hath for euer sanctified those that are sanctified. But the Papists say, that our Sauior offered him selfe twise, once at his last supper, and the second time vpō the crosse. They teach also, that the priest in euery Masse Synod. Trid. sess. 22. c. 1. doth offer vp the body and blood of Chrift really for a sacri­fice for quicke and dead. The which is not only contrary to Scriptures, but derogateth much from the perfection and vnitie of Christs sacrifice. For how is Christs sacrifice per­fect, if the same be so often reiterated? How is Christ his sa­crifice one and the same, if euery pelting priest do offer vp this sacrifice? The same is contrary to the doctrine of the Fathers, which teach that the sacrifices of Christians are spiritual, and no where say, that they offer vp Christs body and bloud really. Iustin in dial. [...]. saith, that prayers and praises of God are the onely acceptable sacrifices of Chri­stians. With him concurreth Tertullian lib. 3. contra Marcionē. [Page 145] This visible sacrifice (saith Augustine lib. 10. de ciuit. Dei ca. 5. speaking of the Eucharist) is a sacrament of the inuisible sa­crifice, that is, the same is a holy signe of it. Likewise Chry­sostome hom. 17. in epist. ad Heb. saith, that our oblation is but a commemoration of Christ his death, and a figure of that ob­lation which Christ made. Finally, it is most blasphemous. For in the Masse the priest taketh on him to be a mediator for Chrift, and prayeth that God would looke on Christ with a propitious and serene countenance, & accept the sacrifice of his body as he vouchsafed to accept the offerings of Abel, A­braham and Melchisedech. The scriptures teach vs, that Christ onely is a priest after the order of Melchisedech, as we may reade in the 110. psalme, in the fift and seuenth chapter to the Hebrewes. The Lord hath sworne and it shall not repent him, saith God by his Prophet, thou art a priest for euer after the order of Melchisedech. The same also is proued, for that he onely continueth for euer. He was with­out father concerning his humane nature, without mother concerning his diuine nature, and hath neither beginning nor ending. But the Masse-priests continue not for euer, nor are they without father or mother, nor are they with­out beginning or ending. Are they not then presumptuous fellowes to enter vpon Christs office, and to arrogate to themselues priesthood after the order of Melchisedech?

But were they priests after the order of Melchisedech, yet did Melchisedech neuer offer the body and blood of any man, nor do we reade that either he or Christ did offer for the quicke and dead at his last supper. Are they not then fla­gitious fellowes, that imagine themselues able to offer the son of God? Are they not presumptuous priests, that with­out warrant haue deuised such a sacrifice? Our Sauiour Christ sayth, that such do worship God in vaine, which teach doctrines, which are the commaundements of men. But these fellowes deuise a worship of God contrary to his word crucifying Christ againe, and laying violent hands vpon him according to their owne imaginations.

Christ hath taught vs to pray vnto the Father in his [Page 146] name, saying, Our father which art in heauen. He hath also promised we shall obtaine our prayers which we shall so make. If you shall aske my father any thing in my name (sayth he) he will giue it vnto you. The Apostle doth also teach vs, that as there is but one God, so there is but one Mediator betwixt God & man, the man Christ Iesus. In the Epistle to the Hebrewes we reade, that it behoued vs to haue an high Priest, holy, innocenr, vndefiled, separated from sinners, and Heb. 7. higher then the heauens. For such a one onely was able to reconcile vs, and to make intercession for vs. As for Angels, Saints, or saints relikes, the auncient fathers did neuer vse as mediators, or intercessors, or spokesmen to God. Am­brose in his treatise of Isac saith, that Christ is our mouth, by which we speake to the Father; and our eye, by which we see the Father; and our right hand, by which we offer to our Father. S. Augustine writing vpon the 108. Psalme, affirmeth, that the prayer which is not offered by Christ, is not onely not able to put away sinne, but also is sinne it selfe.

But the blind Papists teach vs a farre different forme of prayer, and flie to the mediation of our Ladie, of Saints, of Angels, of the crosse; as if these were our intercessors and mediators, and as if the priesthood of Christ had bene tran­slated to saints. They say, Maria mater gratiae, mater miseri­cordiae: Mary mother of grace, mother of mercie: turning our father which art in heauē, into our mother which art in hea­uen. They say, Haile Mary full of grace, our Lord is with thee, blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruite of thy wōb Iesus: holy Mary mother of God, pray for vs sinners now & in the houre of death: taking vpon them presumptuously to speake those words, which the Angell spoke by Gods di­rection to the holy virgine, and corrupting the words of scripture by their additions, and by iumbling the words of the Angell and of Elizabeth together. In their Mattins in honor of our Ladie betwéene euery verse of the Psalme Ve­nite exultemus, they put either Aue Maria or Dominus tecum, corrupting and falsifying the words of scripture. Bonauenture also most blasphemously hath corrupted and [Page 147] transformed the Psalmes into the praises of our Ladie, be­ginning thus: Beat us vir qui diligit nomen tuum virgo Maria, gratia tua animam illius confortabit. That is, Blessed is the man that loueth thy name holy virgine Marie, thy grace shall com­fort his soule. And Psal. 7. O Lady in thee haue I put my trust. And Psal. 11. Saue me O mother of faire loue. Wherein plainly he giueth the honor of God to the virgine Mary, which I thinke no man can deny to be idolatrous. In a booke called Hortulus animae, printed at Paris anno 1565. by William Merlin, in the 107. leafe, she is called, Laus sancta­rum animarum, & vera saluatrix carum, & mediatrix Dei & hominum: The praise of holy soules, and true sauiour of them, and the mediatrix betwixt God and man. And fol. 224. we reade, O vener anda trinitas, Iesus, Ioseph & Maria: O holy tri­nitie, Iesus, Ioseph and Marie. Now what is blasphemie if this be not? In the Rosary she is called, the repairer and sal­uior of a desperate soule, the distiller and giuer of spirituall grace. Goodric a certaine holy hermit, that liued in Henrie the second king of England his dayes, prayed thus: O holy Mary, Christs mariage chamber, virginall puritie, flower of thy mother, put away my sinnes, raigne in me, leade me vnto hap­pinesse with God. In the feast of S. Catherin they pray thus: Deus qui dedisti legem Moysi in summitate montis Sinai, &c. O God which hast giuen thy law vnto Moyses on the top of the mountain Sinai, and in the same place hast by thy holy Angels placed the body of blessed Catherine a virgine and martyr, grant we beseech thee, that by her merites and intercession we may come to the mountaine that is Christ. And on S. Nicholas day they pray thus: O God which hast adorned Nicholas thy Bishop with innumerable miracles, grant we beseech thee that through his merits and prayers we may be deliuered from the flames of hell. But if prayers be fruitlesse, if not sinfull, if they procéed not from true faith, and if faith be grounded vpon vndoubted and prime truth, how can these prayers auaile vs, that are grounded vpon S. Catherines and S. Ni­cholas his legends? Againe, if Christ be the mediator of sal­uation onely, as the Papists hold, how can they hope to be [Page 148] saued by the merites of S. Catherine and S. Nicholas? And how can they deny them to be mediators of saluation, by whose merits they suppose to be saued? I will not ask them what Catherine and Nicholas haue to do with them, but yet they may do wel to proue that there was euer any such vir­gin in the world, being the daughter of king Costus, as they giue out.

Upon S. Francis his day they vse this prayer: O God which by the merites of blessed S. Francis doest amplifie thy Church with the birth of new children, graunt that by his imi­tation we may despise earthly things, and alwayes reioyce be­ing made partakers of heauenly gifts through Christ our Lord. But the Apostle exhorteth vs to be followers of Christ Ie­sus, and of others so far as they be followers of Christ: and iustly we may doubt, whether Francis followed Christ or no, being the author of a rule diuers from that of Christ, and of diuers strange fancies. We may also well make a question, whether his disciples be Christs true disciples, sée­ing the doctors of Paris affirmed, they were in the state of damnation. Sure we are, that by Christs merits, and not by his merits or imitation, we are made partakers of heauen­ly gifts.

Upon S. Bathildis day, according to the order of Sarum Missal they prayed, that her merites might obtaine, that their sacrifices & oblations might be accepted, seeing she offered vp her self a liuing, holy, and welpleasing sacrifice vnto God: as if Christs body and bloud were not to be accepted, but by the merits of S. Bathildis, or as if by her sacrifice, our sins were done away.

Upon Thomas of Canterbury his day they prayed, that by the blood of Thomas they might ascend to heauen. And on S. Lucies day they pray, O Lucie, spouse of Christ, thou didst hate the things of the world, and shinest with Angels, by thine owne blood thou hast ouercome thine enemie. As if men were saued by the blood of Thomas, as wel as Christs blood: and as if Saints by their owne blood, without Christ, could ouercome their enemies.

[Page 149]So wicked and blasphenious these prayers are, that the most ingenious Doctors of the popish schoole haue much a do to excuse them, and do very badly agrée either one with another, or with the truth. Hosius in confess. petrik. ca. 58. hath these words: When a man commeth to saints, he doth not desire mercie of them, but onely their intercession. And again: We giue no more vnto them (saith he) when we call vpon them, triumphing with Christ in heauen, then to any one of our brethren militant on earth. But therein he lyeth notori­ously. For commonly they call the virgine Mary mother of mercy, and desire her to protect them, and to do away their sinnes. Likewise they pray to be saued by the blood of Tho­mas, & by the merites of other saints; which I trow is more then they will giue to euery one of their brethren in earth.

Bellarmine saith, that it is not lawful to ask glorie or grace, or other meanes tending to blessednesse, of saints, as authors of Lib. 1. de san. beatit. 6. 17. Gods benefites. But this is contradicted as well by the do­ctrine, as by the practise of the Romish church. Sotus in con­fess. cath. saith, that saints in heauen are our coadiutors, and fellow-workers in the worke of our saluation. Saltzger wri­ting vpon this argument, affirmeth that we pray to saints for two benefites, the first is to the end they may pray for vs, the second is, that either visibly or inuisibly they may bestow their helpe vpon vs. Clichtouey teacheth, that saints haue se­uerall graces to bestow on them that call vpon them. Alexan­der Hales sayth, Sanctos oramus vt mediatores, per quos impetra­mus. We call vpon saints as mediators, by whom we obtaine. Thomas sayth, we receiue benefites from God by the meanes of saints: Beneficia Dei sumimus mediantibus sanctis. Antoninus part. 3. sum. Tit. 3. sayth, that Gods benefites descend downe to vs by the mediation of Angels and holy soules. And againe p. 4. Tit. 15. Maria ita aduocat & interpellat, vt Deum patrem placet, & conuersos in gloriam inducat. Mary is so our aduocate and intercessor, that she doth pacifie the Father, and bring re­pentant sinners into glory. Bernardine in his booke of Mary, sayth, that no grace commeth from heauen vnto the earth but by Mary, and vnlesse the same passe by the hands of Mary: for [Page 150] that all graces do enter into Mary, and from her are cōmunica­ted to vs: and for that she is the mediatrix of saluation, of con­iunction, of intercession, of communication. Commonly they pray to the virgin Mary in this forme: Giue vs peace, protect me. To S. George they addresse themselues saying, this saint let him saue vs from our sinnes, that we may rest in heauen with blessed soules: Hic nos saluet (say they) à peccatis, vt in coelo cum beatis possimus quiescere. And if they did only intercede for vs, & not bestow vpon vs the things we pray for; why do some beg of S. Anthony the health of their swine, and of S. Winnoc the good standing of their sheepe? Why do they pray to S. Luis for their horses, and to S. Nicolas for good passage at the sea? Why do Painters call on S. Luke, and Phisitions on Cosmas and Damianus, and Shoo makers on S. Crespin? Finally, why do they tell vs in their legends of the appari­tions of diuers saints in time of warre, pestilence, and other sicknesses, and working diuers feates? For if they did onely intercede for vs, then one saint might serue for al purposes, and then should they onely appeare as suppliants to God, and not as bestowers of graces and workers of wonders. Finally, then should we not say, helpe me, heale me, defend me, but pray to God that I may be holpen, healed, and de­fended.

Are not the Papists thē in miserable state, that forgetting for the most part their onely Mediator and Redéemer, run to saints and Angels? nay, runne to such as are no saints, nor euer were in the world, as George that killed the Dra­gon, Catherin the daughter of Costus, Christopher that bore Christ, and such like?

Are they not mad to pray vnto such as they know not, whether they heare them or not? And do not some say, that they are euery where present to heare our praiers? Others, that they heare such prayers as God reuealeth vnto them? Others, that they sée all things in Gods face? Others that they vnderstand by relation of Angels? It cannot be denied. For Bellarmine confesseth it, lib. 1. de Beatitudine sanct. ca. 20. and that which he affirmeth, that saints do sée all in God [Page 151] from the first beginning of their blessed estate, is most ab­surd. For what is seeing to hearing? Againe, how can things temporarie be imprinted in the essence of God? or can Saints sée some things, and not all, if they comprehend that, which is in the incomprehensible essence of the Deity?

Most wretchedly also they do worship dumbe images knéeling vnto them, kissing them, and burning incense vn­to them, saying to the crosse: O crux aue spes vnica: auge pijs iustitiam, rets (que) dona veniam. All haile, ô Crosse, my only hope, increase iustice in the godly, and grant pardon to sinners. And crying to the Crucifixe, Thou hast redeemed vs, thou hast re­conciled Bellar. dei­magin. c. 23. vs to thy Father: and calling a blocke mother of mercie, and saying before stockes and stones: Our Father, and Aue Maria, and knocking their breasts, and whipping themselues before Images, as the idolatrous Priests did before their idols. The Apostle when he laid before the Co­rinthians the miserable state they stood in, while they were yet Gentils, he vseth no other tearmes then these: Ye know that ye were Gentiles, and were caried away vnto dumbe I­dols, as ye were led. Which is as much, as if he should say: You were miserable and blind, when ye were caried away vnto dumbe Idols. Why then may we not say the same to Papists? They may percase deny the case to be like. But in my challenge I haue by many arguments proued them to be grosse. Idolaters, & haue clearely shewed, that they haue no better excuse for their worship of Images, then the ido­latrous Gentiles had for their worship of idoles. Are they not then likewise blind and miserable? Thinking to thrust others out of their societie, which they call the Church, they haue flatly excluded themselues from the societie and communion of the Catholike Church. For if their Church be a companie of men professing the same faith, and partici­pating the same Sacraments, vnder the rule of lawfull pastors, and especially of the Pope: as Bellarmine saith, lib. 2. de Eccl. milit. cap. 2. then are they not the catholike Church. For that Church was long before either Pope or Bishop of Rome. Beside that, false it is, that either the Apostles, or [Page 152] whole Apostolike Church was subiect to the Bishop of Rome, or that Iohn the Euangelist, that liued long after Pe­ter, was subiect to Linus, Cletus, or Clement, in whose time he liued. Finally, false it is, that God appointed the church to be gouerned by the Bishops of Rome: there is nothing thereof in Scriptures. The Fathers shew, that the chiefe authoritie in externall matters was in generall Councels and Emperors. And Bellarmines idle disputes concerning his Pope are long since ouerthrowne.

That they are not the true Church, it appeareth also, for that they heare not the voice of Christ, but sollow a stran­ger: for that they haue receiued diuers heresies, and deuised new Sacraments, relinquishing Christ his institution in the celebration of the Lords supper: for that they haue other foundations of their religion, then were laid by Christ, or his Apostles: for that they persecute true Christians, mur­ther them, and massacre them, and by all meanes persecute them: and for diuers other reasons laid downe in mine an­swer to Bellarmines booke De Eccles. militante. If then it be not possible to be saued without the Church, in what case are they, that running after the Pope, which is that Anti­christ, of which the Apostle speaketh 2. Thess. 2. are run out of the Church? And whither are they runne? forsooth into the confusion of Babylon: where the Pope, Cardinals, Masse priests, & Friars make merchandize of mens soules. Bellarmine saith, that neither faith, hope, nor charitie, nor o­ther De Eceles. milit. cap. 2. internall vertue is required, that a man absolutely may be said to be a part of the Church, but onely an externall profes­sion of the faith and communion of the Sacraments. Who then will not leaue that societie, which, for ought that we know, may be a packe of Turkes and infidels, without all vertue, religion, and honestie, especially if they professe the Romish faith externally?

Further, as they haue excluded themselues from the Church, so they haue put themselues vnder the subiection of Antichrist, that is the head of the malignant Church, and to his Cardinals, Masse-priests, and Friars, which [Page 153] rabblement are fitly resembled to the maister Cooke of hell, his scalders, the blacke-guard, and all the scullerie of Sa­tan. Whatsoeuer the Pope decreeth, that they receiue. A­gatho the Pope hath told them in good earnest, that all san­ctions C. slc omnes. dist. 19. of the Apostolike see are to be receiued, as if they were confirmed by the diuine voice of Peter. Be the Pope neuer so vnlearned, or foolish, or peruerse; yet if he say the word sitting on his close chaire, it must stand. His voice they take to be infallible: his sentence is honoured like a diuine Ora­cle. Likewise his Cardinals, Masse priests, and Friars, al­beit they be the false Prophets, spoken of by S. Peter, 2. Pet. 2. and diuersly detected by S. Iohn in his Reuelation to be limbs of Antichrist, yet are they followed. These leade, and their simple hearers follow them the way, that leadeth to destruction. Their teachers bring to themselues swift dam­nation, as the Apostle S. Peter saith, and they cannot escape beléeuing their damnable heresies, and running after them in their wicked wayes. Pius Quintus that helhound, that first barked against Queene Elizabeth our late Soueraign, In Bulla con­tra Eliz. saith, that Christ committed his Church to Peter alone: vni soli. But that is most false. The Apostle (Ephes. 4.) saith: He gaue some Apostles, some Prophets, some Euangelists, some Pastors and teachers. Likewise Mat. 28. he said to all the Apostles, Go and teach. Beside that, what doth the au­thoritie of Peter belong to the Pope? S. Peter had neither such rubie Cardinals, nor such a parti-coloured guard of Switzers, nor such a hellish rabble of Masse-priests and Fri­ars, as the Pope hath. Contrariwise, he preached and suf­fered as the Pope doth not. Others say, that Masse-priests and Friars are the Apostles successors. But we find them to be the locustes, that (as S. Iohn foretold) came out of the bottomelesse pit, mentioned Apocalyps. 9. If they were the Apostles successors, then would they teach the Apostles doctrine, and not the Popes decretals, scholasticall inuen­tions, philosophicall subtilties, and such fooleries. Againe, they would not lead their miserable disciples from Christ to Antichrist.

[Page 154]They haue also declined from the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles concerning the Sacraments. Our Sauiour onely instituted two, that properly deserue the name of Sacraments, to wit, Baptisme and the Eucharist, as the writings of the Apostles beare witnesse. The Fathers also confirme vnto vs two onely Sacraments of the new Te­stament. Cyprian, lib. 2. Epist. 1. Tunc demum planè sanctifi­cari, & esse filij Dei possunt, si vtroque Sacramento nascantur. Then may they be sanctified and made the sonnes of God, (saith he) if they be regenerate by both the Sacraments. Au­gustine de symb. ad Catechum. saith, Haecsunt Ecclesiae gemina Sacramenta: these are the two Sacraments of the Church. Neither doth any Father name more Sacraments then two, where he speaketh properly, as may be proued by the testimonie of Iustines second Apologie, of Tertullian, lib. 1. & 4. contr. Marcion. Of Clement recognit. lib. 1. Of Ambrose lib. de Sacrament. Of Cyril of Ierusalem, in his catechisticall Sermons, of Augustine lib. 3. de doctr. Christ. cap. 9 of Grego­rie cap. multi secularium 1. q. 1. (who although he name Bap­tisme, Chrisme, and the bodie and bloud of our Lord; yet Chrisme was nothing but an addition to Baptisme:) Of Paschasius and others. Sunt Sacramenta Christi (saith Pas­chasius) De corp. & sang. Christi. in Ecclesia catholica, Baptismus, corpus quoque Domini & sanguis. The Sacraments of Christ in the catholike Church are Baptisme, and the bodie and bloud of our Lord. And so manifest a matter it is, that Bessarion writing vpon the Sacrament, confesseth, that there are two Sacraments onely deliuered in the Gospell. But the Papists haue added other fiue Sacraments vnto these two, giuing like vertue vnto confirmation, mariage, order, penance, and extreame vn­ction, as vnto Baptisme and the Lords Supper: and tea­ching that Sacraments containe grace, and iustifie the re­ceiuer. So that if we will beleeue them, as well he is iu­stified, that is confirmed, maried, ordered or annoynted, as he that is baptised, or made partaker of the Lords body and bloud. Where Christ distributed the Sacrament of his bodie and bloud, and gaue both the kinds to all communi­cants, [Page 155] they seldome distribute the sacrament, and take the cup from all but the priest. In confirmation and extreame vnction they vse other signes and formes then euer Christ ordained. They teach that Christians are able to satisfie for their sinnes, and that the Pepe by indulgences hath power to remit satisfaction, and to do away the temporall punish­ment of sinne. Are they not then most miserable, that haue corrupted the sacraments and seales of Gods eternall te­stament, and as it were broken the couenants betwixt God and vs, and despised the pledges of his loue?

Of Christian faith they thinke so basely, that they make it nothing but a bare assent to Gods word, as well in fea­ring the threatnings of the law, as beléeuing the promises of the Gospell; & teach that not only reprobate men, but also the diuels also may haue true faith. Bellarmine lib. de iustif. 1. c. 15. speaking of the saith of wicked men and diuels, sayth, that both is true and right, and catholike faith, and compara­ble to S. Peters faith concerning the obiect.

Grace that maketh vs acceptable to God (saith Bellarmine) cannot really be distinguished from the habite of charitie. But Lib. 1. de gra­tia cap. 6. if this be true, then may Christians be saued by their workes without the help of Gods grace working with thē, which is méere Pelagianisme. For if charitie, as it is in vs habitually, make vs beloued; then it is our loue towards God, and not Gods grace or loue towards vs, or his grace helping vs, and remitting our sins through Christ that sa­ueth vs properly.

They denie that a man is certainly to perswade himself of his owne saluation, or to beléeue the same, and all their confidence they put in their owne workes and merites, ho­ping to be saued by pilgrimages, indulgences, eating of fu­madaes, créeping to the crosse, kissing of the Popes toe, praying to saints, to stockes, to stones, giuing of money to lazie Monkes and Friers, and such like humane de­uises.

Are they not then most wretched, that neither vnderstand what is grace, nor what is faith, nor what is charitie, nor [Page 156] what belongeth to good works? He that beleeueth not (saith our Sauior, Marke 16) shall be damned. The Apostle also sheweth, that none is iustified, but by the grace of Christ. Nay he sayth, that Christ saued vs, not by the workes of righ­teousnesse, Tit. 3. Ibidem. which we had done, but according to his mercie, by the washing of the new birth, and the renewing of the holy Ghost. By eating holy bread, they hope to attaine health of body and soule, as it is in the Ronish Missall: they doubt not also, but that their eating of their paschall lambe, ten­deth to the praise of God. By holy water they teach, that not onely diuels are driuen away, but also veniall sinnes remitted. Finally, there remaine but few points of religion which the Papists with their leuen, partly of Iudaical and heathenish superstition, and partly of hereticall doctrine haue not corrupted. What then resteth, but that we deplore their blindnesse which admit such erronious, absurd, and blasphemous points of doctrine, and wilfully resist those that offer vnto them the truth out of Gods word?

CHAP. V. The miserable state of Papists in matters of Religion is pro­ued further, for that they are depriued of those bles­sings which we haue receiued by the ab­rogation of popish heresies and superstition.

I Do not thinke but that our aduersaries, albeit they differ from vs in other points, yet in this will ioyne with vs, and confesse that it is a miserable thing to wander without any certaintie in religion. Parsons in the first encounter of his Wardword doth in effect say so much: and albeit they should denie it, yet it is a matter very euident. For as the Apostle sayth Rom. 2. Those that sinne without the law, shall perish also without the law. If they know the law, and do it not, the law will accuse them and condemne them. If they [Page 157] regard not to know the law, yet shall Gods iustice lay hold vpon them for offending the law, which they ought to haue knowne. The Apostle Ephes. 2. when he would put them in mind of their miserable estate before their conuersion, saith they liued without Christ and without God in the world. As if nothing can be deuised more damnable, then to liue with out certaine knowledge of God and of Christ Iesus. The Gentiles (as the Apostle saith Ephes. 4.) walke in the vanitie of their mind, hauing their vnderstanding darkned, and being strangers from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardnesse of their heart: which argu­eth the miserable state of Christians, that liue like Gentils without the true knowledge of Christ Iesus. God hath al­so appointed a certaine ministerie in the Church, giuing some Apostles, some Prophets, some Euangelists, some Pastors and teachers, and among the rest one end was, that henceforth we should be no more children, wauering and carried about with euery wind of doctrine. But the Papists, for the most part, as is shewed, liue without the knowledge of God, and the rest are caried about with the blast of euery blundering Pope, & wauering as the wind of his blustring bulles and decretals do carie them. Upon the Scriptures they ground not themselues, but must take both such scrip­tures and such doctrine, as he shall deliuer them.

Secondly, it is a miserable thing to be deuided from the vnitie of Christ his Church. For as out of the arke of Noe all perished in the old world; so all that are without the Church of Christ, shall vndoubtedly perish. Those sheepe that are without Christ his fold, are exposed to the mercie of the wolfe, and without hope of saluation. How then can the Papists looke for saluation, that in faith and sacraments are deuided from the Catholicke and Apostolicke Church? Further, by many properties they shew themselues to haue no affinitie with the true Church, as before I haue de­clared.

Thirdly, without true faith it is impossible to please God. The same is the doore, by which we enter into the [Page 158] kingdome of heauen. But we haue shewed, that in many points the Papists haue declined from the true faith. What hope then can they haue either to enter into the kingdom of heauen, or to please God? How hapneth it they see not their wretched state? Absque notitia sui Creatoris, omnis homo pecus est: Without the knowledge of God, a man is no better then a beast, saith Hierome epist. 3.

Fourthly, the Sacraments are the seales of the new Te­stament betwixt God and vs. Our Sauior taking the cup at his last supper, called it The new Testament in his bloud. If then the Papists haue violated Christ his institution, in their doctrine and ministration of sacraments, as by diuers arguments we haue declared; then haue they declared themselues vnworthy to be partakers of his couenant.

Fiftly, Those which despise the Lord, shall themselues be despised, saith the Lord 1. Sam. 2. And as he promiseth bles­sings to those that worship him, and kéepe his commande­mēts; so he threatneth cursings to those that refuse to heare the voice of the Lord, and to kéepe his commaundents and ceremonies prescribed for his worship. Quod siaudire nolue­ris vocem Domini Dei tui, vt custodias & facias omnia mandata eius & caeremonias, quas ego praecipio tibi hodiè, venient super te omnes maledictiones & apprehendent te, saith Moyses Deut. 28. Let the Papists then consider well with themselues what they haue done, in transforming the worship of God into the worship of creatures, and seruing him not, as he hath appointed, but according to their owne deuises and fancies: and let them beware that these plagues & curses ouertake them not, séeing they haue wholy neglected the true wor­ship of God.

Sixthly, Strange tongues are for a signe (as the Apostle sayth, 1. Cor. 14.) not to them that beleeue, but to them that beleeue not. The Prophet also threatneth as a plague, that God wil speake to his people by men of other tongues, and in strange languages. In loquela labij, & lingua altera loquetur ad populum istum. It is therefore strange that the Papists Isay 28. féele not the hand of God vpon them, when they heare scrip­tures [Page 159] read, and prayers said publikely in a language, which they vnderstand not: and a thing to be wondred at, that they chuse rather to liue in this blindnesse, then to haue the word of God read in a toung which they are able to vnder­stand, and whereby they may learne to feare God.

Seuenthly, the very heathen haue oft times chosen to die, rather then to sée themselues oppressed by tyrants. Yet such is the stupiditie of Papists, that they suffer the Pope and his Priests to tyrannize ouer them, loading their con­sciences with intolerable lawes and false doctrine, and spoi­ling their goods by diuers kinds of exactions, and endange­ring their liues by their Inquisitors, and massacrers, and such like executioners of their bloudie decrées.

8. Most dangerous is euery diuision among those of one societie, but most miserable it is, when they which pro­tesse themselues to be of Gods Church, are deuided one frō another. For the Church is a house of vnitie, and not of dissention. But among Papists one holdeth of Benet, ano­ther of Francis, another of Dominicke, another of Clare: and in no point of doctrine do all their Doctors agree together. Superstitiously also they obserue dayes, times, and distin­ction of meates, and consecrate salt, water, bread, candles, and paschal Lambes. Finally, they leaue the Creator, and serue our Ladie, Angels, and Saints, and other creatures. Nay, for reliques of Saints they worship oft times the ashes, relikes and bones of wicked men and reprobates; nay, of bruite beasts.

9. It is an vnseemely thing for those, that professe holl­nesse, to shew themselues examples of all beastlinesse, as the Popes and holiest men of the papists are wont to do. Therefore séeing the dogs, sorcerers, whore-mongers, mur­therers, idolaters, and lyars shall be shut out of the king­dome of heauen, they are not to looke to be admitted, with­out spéedie reformation.

10. No Prince liuing vnder the Pope can assure him­selfe of his state: nor can any subiect, that liueth vnder such a prince assure himselfe either of his life, or goods. For if [Page 160] the Pope haue power to take away kingdomes, and to be­stow them vpon others: how can any King or prince as­sure himselfe he will not attempt the same, when occasion serueth, considering his violent procéeding against Empe­rours and kings in time past, and against our late noble Queene, against Henry the third and fourth of Fraunce, and diuers others? And if euery one by him and his Inquisitors declared Hereticke, is to lose life and goods; who can assure himselfe of either, if he acknowledge not his authoritie, and refuse his religion?

11. No man certes shall prosper, that shall follow An­tichrists sect or religion: If any man worship the beast, and his image, (saith the Angel Apocalyps. 14.) and receiue his marke in his forehead, and in his hand, the same shall drinke of the wine of the wrath of God, of the pure wine that is pow­red into the cuppe of his wrath. But that new Rome and the Popes gouernment is the image of the old Romaine Em­pire, and that the Pope is Antichrist, it plainely appeareth by diuers arguments, which I haue declared in my fifth booke De pontif. Rom.

12 Those Kings that liue vnder the Pope, are but halfe kings. For first, their Cleargie in diuers cases is exempt from them, and next they haue not to do with the rest of their subiects in ecclesiasticall causes. O miserable kings, that haue fallen downe to worship the beast, and haue suf­fered such base bougerly Italians to take away more then halfe of their royall authoritie!

13 We find that no kingdome can long liue in peace, which is subiect to the Popes controlment. For if the Pope do find himselfe aggréened, then both he trouble the peace of the State; if the same offend him not, but pay what he re­quireth: yet if he fall out with others, then must that king­dome make warres at the Popes pleasure. By the Popes solicitation both England, France, Flaunders, Spaine, and all Christian countries haue endured great troubles. The Turkes liue farre more quietly vnder their Sultans, then Papists vnder the Pope.

[Page 161]Finally, considering the intolerable exactions of the Pope, and his furious inclination to warre and bloudshed, and the tyrannie both of the Pope and his adherents: it is no maruell, if the papisticall people be poore, and much wa­sted. Whether then we respect things of this life, or of the life to come, there is no creature more miserable then a Papist. Do you not then wonder, that any should like the popist gouernment: It were certainely much to be won­dred, but that experience doth teach vs, that the Cimmeri­ans that dwell in darknesse care not for the light, and that brutish beasts delight in brutishnesse, and base people in seruitude, and superstitious people in vanities and super­stitions.

CHAP. VI. Of the contradictions of Popish Doctors in prin­cipall points of Religion.

Of the dissentions of popish Doctors in matters of re­ligion, I haue said somewhat before. Yet because Pa­pists make vnitie in matters of saith to be a marke of the Church, and confidently deny, that their Doctors dissent in any point of any moment; I haue thought good to insist yet more vpon this point, that the world may see, not only their miserie, that as men not resolued in most points of religion, wauer betwirt contrarie opinions, but also their notorious impudencie that deny it. Therein also both ap­peare some Papists wonderfull simplicitie, that séeing the contention of their Doctors, do not vnderstand their diffe­rences; and séeeing their differences and vncertaintie of popish Religion, do notwithstanding sticke fast in the filthy dregs, and abhominable corruptions thereof.

1. Pighius lib. 1. Eccles. hierarch. cap. 2. saith, That Scriptures are not aboue our faith, but subiect vnto it, Stapleton Princip. doctrin. lib. 12. cap. 15. holdeth, that the Church and Scrip­tures are of equall authoritie. Eckius in enchirid. loc. com. cap. [Page 162] de Eccles. saith: That the Scriptures are not authenticall with­out the authoritie of the church. Bellarmine thought best not to dispute this question.

2. Nicholas Lyra, Hugo, Dionysius Carthusianus, Hugo Car­dinalis, Thomas de Vio, and Sixtus Senensis lib. 1. Biblioth. sanctae, reiect the last seuen Chapters of the booke of Hester, as not canonicall Scripture. The Conuenticle of Trent, Bellarmine and most popish Doctors of late time hold them to be canonicall: and thinke hardly of those, which teach contrarie.

3. Iohn Driedo, lib. 1. de Scripturis & dogmat. Eccles. denyeth the booke of Baruch to be canonicall Scripture. Bellarmine lib. 1. de verb. Dei, and most of his fellowes be of a contra­rie opinion.

4. Caietan and Erasmus in their Commentaries vpon the Epistle to the Hebrewes, of Iames, Iude, the second of Peter, the second and third of Iohn, do dissent from the rest of their fellowes, partly concerning the authors, and partly con­cerning the authoritie of those Epistles.

5. Iames bishop of Christopolis in Praefat. in Psalm. And Ca­nus lib. 2. cap. 13. de locis theologicis, affirme, That the Iewes haue depraued and corrupted the Scriptures. An opinion false and blasphemous, and therefore contradicted by Bellarmine lib. 2. de verb. Dei. and diuers others.

6. Sainctes Pagninus in Praefaet. interpretationis suae Biblior. And Paulus bishop of Foro-sempronij lib. 2. cap. 1. de die pas­sionis Domini, deny, that the vulgar Latine translation was made by Hierome. Augustine of Eugubium, and Iohn Picus of Mirandula hold contrarie. Bellarmine and Driedo say, that it is part his, and part others.

7. Alexander Hales and Durand hold, that the diuine attri­butes are not distinguished, but in respect vnto creatures. Henricus and Albertus Magnus in 1. Sent. dist. 2. hold con­trarie.

8. Richardus in dist. 3. lib. 1. sent. holdeth, that the most holy Trinitie may be demonstrated by naturall reasons, Scotus, and Francis Maronis, and Thomas affirme contrarie.

[Page 163] 9. About the faculties of the soule, called potentiae, the school­men are deuided into thrée sects. Some hold that they are Vid. lib. 1. sen. dist. 3. & dd. al one with the substance of the soule: others, that they are accidents: the third, that they are betwéene substances and accidents.

10. Abbas Ioachim and Richardus de sancto victore, taught di­uinam essentiam generare & gigni. The contrary is taught by Ibidem. Peter Lombard and his followers.

11. Peter Lombard lib. sent. 1. dist. 17. taught, that charitie, wherewith we loue God and our neighbor, is the holy Ghost, and that it is not any thing created. But now most of his fol­lowers haue in this point forsaken him, and hold con­trarie.

12. In the 24. distinct. of his first booke, the same Peter Lom­bard saith, that words of number spoken of God, are spoken onely relatiuely, and that the word Trinitie implieth no­thing positiuely, but onely priuatiuely. Which because it contrarieth the mysterie of the holy Trinitie, is denied al­most by all his followers.

13. In the 44. distinction of the same booke he saith, that God can alwayes doe whatsoeuer he could euer do, and willeth whatsoeuer he would at any time, and knoweth whatsoeuer he he knew at any time. But his disciples hold direct con­trarie.

14. Thomas p. 1. q. 46. art. 2. holdeth, that the world, or at the least some creature might haue bene from euerlasting. So likewise holdeth Bonauenture, and some others. Richardus doeth maintaine the opposite opinion.

15. The Maister of Sentences in 4. dist. 1. and Gabriel, and Vega lib. 7. in concil. Trident. c. 13. hold, that not onely substan­ces, but accidents are also created. Alexander Hales q. 9. m. 6. & q. 10. m. 1. and Thomas p. 1. q. 45. art. 4. affirme that only substances are created.

16. About this question, An omnium aeuiternorum, sit vnum ae­uum vel multiplex: there are fiue different opinions, the first of Scotus, the second of Thomas, the third of Durand, the fourth of Henricus, the fift of Bonauenture.

[Page 164] 17. Likewise about this question, Quae sit ratio formalis cur Angelus sit in loco, there are fiue diuers opinions, all repug­nant one to another.

18. Thomas and Richardus do affirme, that two Angels can­not be in one place together: Scotus, Occham, and Gabriel hold the contrary.

19. Thomas teacheth, that Angels haue not intellectum agen­tem & possibilem. Scotus doth directly contradict him.

20. Scotus and Gabriel teach, that diuels and good Angels do vnderstand naturally both our thoughts, and the thoughts one of another: but to Thomas p. 1. q. 57. art. 4. this seemeth absurd.

21. Antisiodorensis lib. 2. sum. teacheth, that Christ had Ange­lum custodem: other schoole-men denie it.

22. Scotus sayth, that the will is the onely subiect of sinne: Thomas denieth it.

23. Concerning the place of paradise, there are thrée different opinions. Some hold that it reacheth to the circle of the Moone. Thom. in 2. dist. 17. and Bonauenture doe place it vpon a high mountaine. The rest place it in the East.

24. Concerning the nature of frée wil, there are diuersities of opinions among schoolemen and others, as Iosephus Angles sheweth in lib. 2. sent. dist. 24. & 25.

25. Richardus holdeth that frée will cannot be chaunged by God. Others for the most part hold the contrary.

26. Thomas, Bonauenture and Sotus hold, that grace is not a qualitie infused, but a qualitie inherent in the soule. Alexander Hales and Scotus hold that it is a qualitie infused.

27. Iosephus Angles in lib. 2. sent. dist. 26. rehearseth thrée se­uerall opinions of schoole doctors about the diuision of grace in gratiam operantem & cooperantem: whereby it may appeare, that in talking of grace they do endeuor to shut out grace.

28. Certaine schollers of Thomas beléeue and teach, that no man being of yeares of discretion can be iustified by the ab­solute power of God, without the act and concurrence of frée will: Scotus, Vega and Caietane say quite contrary. [Page 165] Both their opinions are touched by Iosephus Angles in 2. sent. dist. 27.

29. Richardus in 2. dist. 27. art. 2. q. 1. Scotus in 1. dist. 17. q. 1. art. 1. and Durand in 1. dist. 17. q. 2. & others hold, that a mā may me­rit the first grace de congruo. Gregorius Ariminensis in. 2. di. 26. Lyranus in Ioan. 1. Waldensis and others do denie it. Sotus li. 2. de nat. & grat. c. 4. saith, that the former opinion is neare to pe­lagianisme.

30. Gregorius Ariminensis in 2. dist. q. 1. and Capreolus in 2. di. 27. q. 1. hold that no man without the illustration of Gods speciall grace, can attaine to the knowledge of any morall truth. But Thomas and Scotus in 2. dist. 27. do hold contrary.

31. Durand placeth originall sinne in the carnall appetite: Thomas placeth it in the whole substance of the soule: Scotus differeth from both, and placeth it in the will of man.

32. Iosephus Angles rehearseth thrée diuers opinions in 2. dist. 37. about this question, whether a sin of omission may be committed without a positiue act.

33. The same man reckeneth fiue different opinions about the difference of mortall and veniall sinnes. And thrée opi­nions concerning this question, What is sinne of malice.

34. Bellarmine lib. 1. de pontif. Rom. c. 12. saith, that the keyes of the Church are nothing but order and iurisdiction. Caietan in tractat. de iustit. & authorit. Romani pontifisis, holdeth that the keyes of the Church include somewhat more.

35. Pighius lib. 4. hierarch. eccles. cap. 8. holdeth, that the Pope cannot fall into heresie, nor be deposed. Turrecremata lib. 4. sum. part. 2. c. 20. saith, that the Pope falling into heresie ipso facto, is deposed before God, and cast out of the Church. There also he saith, that some held that the Pope neither for manifest nor secret heresie is deposed, or could be deposed. Caietane in tract. de author. Papae & concil. c. 20. & 21. holdeth, that the Pope prouing a notorious hereticke, is not depo­sed ipso facto, but that he may and ought to be deposed by the Church. Bellarmine himselfe lib. 2. de pontif. Rom. c. 30. hol­deth, that if the Pope be a notorious hereticke, he then of him­selfe ceaseth to be Pope.

[Page 166] 36. Iansenius denieth, that the comming againe of Helias can be proued out of the 48. of Ecclesiasticus. Bellarmine lib. 3 de pont. Rom. c. 6. wondreth that he should be of that opinion.

37. Franciscus Victoria relect. 2. de potestate Ecclesiae q. 2. and Alphonsus à Castro lib. 2. de haeret. iust. punit. sayth, that as well Bishops as Apostles did immediatly receiue iurisdiction from God. Turrecremata lib. 2. sum. de Eccles. c. 54. and Iacobatius de concilijs, hold, that the Apostles receiued their iurisdiction from Peter, and other Bishops from Peters successor. Caietane in tract. de author. Papae, Dominicus à Soto in. 4. dist. 20. and Her­uaeus de potestate Papae, teach, that the Apostles receiued their power from God, and all other Bishops from the Pope. And this is also the opinion of Bellarmine.

38. Hostiensis in c. nouit. de iudicijs, and Augustine Triumphus in summa de potestate Ecclesiae q. 1. art. 1. and others very trium­phantly affirme, that the Pope by the law of God hath full power ouer the whole world, as well in ciuill as Ecclesiasticall affaires. Driedo, Turrecremata, Sotus, Sanders, and others rec­koned vp by Bellarmine lib. 5. de Pontif. Rom. c. 1. are content to abate somewhat, and to say, that directly the Pope hath not power ouer all the kingdomes of the whole world.

39. The Doctors of Paris hold, that a generall councell cannot erre. Caietane in apolog. p. 2. c. 21. and Turrecremata lib. 3. sum. c. 32. hold contrary.

40. Petrus de Alliaco, Ioannes Gerson, Iacobus Almain, and others in their treatises De potestate Ecclesiae, hold that a ge­nerall Councell is aboue the Pope. Others hold, that the Pope is aboue the Councell, as Iacobatius de concilijs, San­ders de visib monarchia, and Bellarmine lib. de concilijs. Others wéene, that although the Pope be aboue the Councell, yet it lyeth in his power to make the Councel aboue the Pope, as is euident by the glosse, nonsi 2. q. 7. and c. in synod. dist. 63.

41. The Romane Catechisme in the exposition of the Creed: Waldensis fol. 1. lib. 2. c. 9. Turrecremata lib. 1. c. 3. and others do shut out excommunicate persons from being members of the Church: but this is misliked by others, as Bellarmine confesseth lib. de Eccles. militant. c. 6.

[Page 167] 42. Alexander Hales 3. part. q. vlt. art. 2. and Turrecrem. lib. 1. de Ecclesia cap. 30. affirme: That in the passion of Christ the holy virgin onely had true faith. Bellarmine lib. de Eccles. mi­lit. cap. 17. maruelleth at them, and condemneth their opi­nion.

43. Ioan. Maior in 4. dist. 24. q. 2. saith, that by Gods lawe Priestes are forbidden to marrie. The same opinion doth Clichtouey hold, lib. de continentia Sacerdot. cap. 4. But Tho­mas in 2. 2. q. 88. art. 11. saith, that the vow of continencie is annexed to priesthood by the lawes of the Church onely. And many follow his opinion, and among the rest Bel­larmine.

44. Marsilius de Padua writeth, that Clearkes are subiect to secular Princes. The Canonists in c. tributum. 23. q. 8. & in c. quamuis, de censibus in 6. hold, that both their persons and goods are exempted from temporall princes iurisdiction. Franciscus victoriarclect. 1. q. vlt. de potest. Eccles. and diuers others cut the controuersie in the midst, and hold, that they are free for their persons and goods, partly by the law of God, and partly by priuiledges of Princes, and partly by nei­ther.

45. How the soules of holy men departed do know what we say or do, Bellarmine bringeth in three diuers opinions, lib. de sanct. Beat. cap. 20.

46. Caietan in Exod. cap. 20. taketh an image and an idoll for one thing. Bellarmine lib. de cult. sanct. cap. 7. reproueth him for it. Likewise he misliketh Ambrose Catharine, who in a tract of images saith, That God prohibited images simply, but that this prohibition was positiue and temporall.

47. Occham, Maior and Richardus are of opinion, that a Sa­crament cannot be defined. Scotus in 4. dist. 1. q. 2. holdeth, that it may be defined imperfectly. Ledesma in tract. de Sa­crament. in genere q. 1. art. 2. holdeth, that it may properly be defined.

48. Bellarmine lib. 1. de Sacramentis cap. 18. bringeth in di­uers opinions concerning the forme and matter of Sacra­ments, no one agréeing with others.

[Page 168]Finally, I haue alreadie rehearsed infinite contradictions of the Romanists concerning the Masse, in my booke de Mïs­sa contra Bellarm. concerning purgatorie and indulgences, in my bookes against Bellarmine of that argument. I haue also in the first booke touched diuers contradictions and cō ­trarieties in the doctrine of our aduersaries. And to be breefe, I say, and offer to proue, that there is no article of Christian faith, wherein the aduersaries do not varie and disagree one from another. God grant they may once sée it, and leauing their idle bangling about vaine questions of mixt diuinitie, returne to the Catholike faith, which is a doctrine of agreement and vnitie.

CHAP. VII. Of the seruile and wretched state of the English nation, vnder the raigne of Queene Mary, and gene­rally of all people liuing vnder the Popes lawes and religion.

HAuing at full discoursed concerning matters Ecclesia­sticall, it followeth now, that I speake of matters touching the state politike, beginning first with our owne nation vnder the vnhappie raigne of Quéene Marie, some­time Quéene of England, and then touching other Princes and States, that are subiect to the thraldome of the Pope and his Babylonish religion.

First then it is apparent, that she brought her selfe and her people into danger, by reason of her match with king Philip: and no question but she had brought this kingdome into subiection, if not into seruile bondage, if God had not crossed the deseignes of man, and dealt mercifully with vs, both taking away the Quéene in the strength of her age, and preuenting the wicked counsels of bloudie traitours and persecutours, who (as Iohn Hales saith) meant to haue brought this land vnder strangers: and altering the State In Orat. ad Eliz. before the Spaniards had taken any firme footing in England.

[Page 169]How great danger this land stood in, those that then li­ued may well remember, and we cannot chuse but acknow­ledge, if we looke backe and consider the working of Quéen Marie, of the popish prelates, and of the Spaniards. The Quéene sought by all meanes to put the kingdome into the hands of king Philip. The popish prelates sought to sup­presse religion, which could not be without the oppression of our libertie. The Spaniards ruled insolently, and went about to make themselues strong, aduancing those which were of their faction, and thrusting backe all, that were studious of their countries libertie. The bulwarkes or blo­cusses, that were made for defence of the land against strangers, they suffered to fall: they brought in strangers; they put the commaund of the kingdome into the hands of such as were best affectioned to themselues, and least care­full of their countries libertie.

What would haue ensued of this, it is an easte matter to coniecture by the deportment of Spaniards in other coun­tries, that are subiect to their gouernment.

In the Indiaes they rule not like men, but rather like barbarous tyrants and sauage beasts. Contemning all iu­stice, (saith Bartholomaeus à casas writing of the cruel vsage of the Spaniards towards the Indians) they delight to see In his Pre­face to king Philip. streames of mans bloud, which they haue shed, and seeke with infinite slaughter to depriue those great countries of the natu­rall inhabitants thereof. In short space they killed diuers hundred thousands, onely in one Iland called Hispaniola: the women they abused, the treasure and commodities of the countrie they spoiled.

The people of Naples were in the time of Charles the fift, who otherwise was a good prince, so vexed and oppres­sed by the Spaniards: as an Ambassadour of the people of Siena said to Henry the French king, that for release of their extreame bondage they seemed desirous to liue vnder the Nat. Com. hist. lib. 6. Turke: Vt Turcarum imperia ad tantarum miseriarum refugium exoptare videantur. He saith further, that the Spaniards laid so many grieuous tributes vpon the people, that diuers aun­cient [Page 170] townes were thereby deformed, and left desolate.

The Dutchie of Mitan also by the Spanish tyrannie, as those that haue trauelled that countrie do know, is brought to great pouertie. The taxes and customes are grieuous, the oppressions wrought by the souldiers many, the lawes vnsupportable. Neither doth it auaile them to complaine. For that remedie they haue often tried, but all in vaine. But no people was euer more oppressed, then the Flem­mings, Brabansons, Hollanders and other nations of the Low countries. Their liberties they haue disanulled, their lawes they haue litle regarded, their townes they haue spoiled, their countrie they haue almost wasted. By the fundamentall lawes of the countrie, they might neither place strange gouernours ouer them, nor bring in forraine forces among them. But the Spaniards haue done both. By the lawes, the king of Spaine could neither impose taxes vpon the subiect, without the consent of the States, nor condemne any man, but by the lawes of the countrie. But he hath both done the one and the other. The Duke of Alua without the consent of the States, or order, required the hundreth part of that which euery man was worth, and the tenth of all things bought and sold in the countrie. The noble Carles of Egmont and Horne, and diuers No­ble men of the countrie, that had done him great seruice, he caused to be done to shameful death. The prince of Oranges eldest sonne, contrarie to the lawes of the Uniuersitie of Louain and countrie, he caused to be caried prisoner into Spaine. Finally, contrarie to the lawes of the countrie he altered the ecclesiasticall State. making new Bishops, and erecting new offices of inquisition in diuers places of the countrie And this the king did, hauing sworne to obserue Ludouic. Guicciard. de Paesi bassi. the lawes and priuiledges of the countrie. I will not here recount the murthers, rapes, robberies, thefts, spoiles, and wrongs which the Spanish souldiers and officers haue committed. For that would require a great volume, and it would be said, that these are the calamities of warres, and wrongs of priuate persons. Yet if Spaniards bring warres [Page 171] and calamities with them, and sée not these wrongs redres­sed: it sheweth how much their tyrannicall gouernement is to be auoided and detested. But that is made appa­rant by the lawes and procéedings, which are publikely a­uowed.

The Portingals may be an example to all nations, suffi­cient to make the Spanish gouernement odious. For al­though they be neare neighbors, and agrée with the Spa­niards in Religion, language, lawes and humors; yet haue they not found any more fauour at their hands, then other nations. Their Nobilitie is almost ouerthrowne, the Mer­chant decayed, the Commons spoyled. The exactions are intolerable, and yet farre more tolerable then the wrongs offered by Spaniarqs, from whom neither the husband can kéepe his wife, nor the father his daughter, nor the citizen or countriman any thing he hath. Adde hereunto the vio­lence that is offered to mens persons, and the iniuries of words that they dayly sustaine; and then you will confesse, that the Portingals liue in great misery and bondage.

In England also the Spaniards, albeit but few, began to play their partes, offering violence to diuers mens per­sons, and attempting the chastitie both of matrons and vir­gins. In the parliament, which is the foundation of the li­bertie of our nation, they attempted the ouerthrow of our libertie, not onely by conioyning king Philip with the Quéene, but also leauing out the Quéenes title of supreme authoritie in the summons, and taking away the frée electiō of the Commons in chusing their Burgesses, and thrusting out Bishop Watson, Alexander Nowell, and diuers Burges­ses out of the parliament.

Nay such is the rigor of the Spanish gouernement, that the Spaniards themselues cannot well like it. The priuiled­ges of Aragon, the last king abrogated vpon pretense of dis­order in the fact of Antony Perez. Escouedoes sonnes could neuer haue iustice for the death of their father. Murders and violences are rarely punished. The taxes, customes and payments are so grieuous, that not with standing all the ri­ches [Page 172] that commeth from the Indiaes, nothing can be deui­sed more bare, poore and miserable, then the common sort of Spaniards. The imposition vpon fifh, wine, oile and silkes, which are the principal cōmodities of the country, is great: and other customes are not easie. In the market the tenth penie is exacted commonly for all commodities bought and sold.

Wherefore if we respect nothing else but the yoke of the Spanish gouernement, we may account our nation in very miserable termes in Quéene Maries dayes.

Yet was not that all the mischiefe she brought with her. For beside the yoke of Spaniards, she put vpon her subiects the yoke of the Popes tyrannie, and of his Italians, relin­quishing the first fruits and tenths of Ecclesiastical liuings to the Pope, and making her people subiect to all his extor­tions and pillages: which not onely to this nation, but also to all Christians hath alwayes bene very grieuous.

Matthew Paris speaking onely of one Popes Legate, and In Hen. 3. P. 530. his rauinous pillages, sayth, excepting church treasure, there remained not so much mony behind as he had caried with him out of England: Nec remansit eadem hora, vt veraciter dicebatur, in Anglia tantum pecuniae, exceptis sanctorum vasis & ornamentis Ecclesiarum, quantum à regno extorserat Anglicano. The same man beside all this, as the same author testifieth, bestowed thrée hundred benefices at his own and the Popes pleasure. Vnde regnum quasi vinea exposita omni transeunti, quam exter­minauit aper de sylua, miserabiliter languit desolatum. Whereupō it fel out, saith he, that the kingdom did miserably languish, be­ing laid desolate, & made like a vineyard, exposed to euery one that passeth by, and which the bore of the wood did roote out. He that shall reade that storie, shall find strange inuentions to extort money from the people, and vnderstand that great summes of mony were transported out of England by the Popes agents and countrimen. Bonner in his preface be­fore Stephen Gardiners booke De vera obedientia, sayth, that the Popes prey in England was so great, that it amounted to as much almost as the reuenues of the Crowne.

[Page 173]The English nation complained to the Pope in the synod Math. Paris. in Hen. 3. at Lyon in the dayes of king Henry the third, of diuers enor­mous pillages and exactions made by him and his officers, but could find no remedy. The Emperour, as Mathew Paris testifieth, found fault with the King of England, for that he lbid. suffered his countrey to be impouerished so shamefully by the Pope. Imperator reprehendit regem Angliae (saith Mathew Pa­ris) quod permitteret terram suam tam impudenter per Papam de­pauperari. If we account the tenths, first fruites, rents com­ming of dispensations about Ecclesiasticall benefices, for mariages and vowes, money for licences to eate flesh and white meates, to kéepe concubines, to erect new societies and orders of Friers, money for indulgences and pardons, canonizations of saints, erecting of Churches, for rescripts of iustice, for absolution from othes, for sale of Masses, and such like Babylonish merchandize: we shall find that the summe doth farre excéed Bonners accompt. So iniurious was the Pope in extorting, and so patient was this land in bearing all burdens, that worthily it deserued to be called the Popes asse.

Nay such corruption was entred into the Romish church, that no act of religion could be executed without paying somewhat. At christening they paid a chrisme cloth; at bu­riall, a herse cloth. Neither could any be maried, or housled, or absolued, but some what was paid. At Candlemasse they offered candles, at another day bread, and because bread would not downe without drinke, they offered also good ale in some places. By these meanes the priests of Baal li­ued vpon the poore mans labour, and got the husbandmans cow, the artificers instruments, and what euery man had, from the owners: and pressed the very marrow out of the common peoples bones.

To all these pillages, from which king Henry the eight of famous memorie, and his sonne king Edward had fréed vs, Quéene Mary did make her people subiect.

She also put her people vnder the bloodie hands of the butcherly Romish inquisitors Bonner, Gardiner, Storie, [Page 174] and their fellowes: which contrary to iustice, and all good forme of procéeding, caused foure or fiue hundred to be put to most cruell death in a short space, and were the occasion of the death of many hundreds more, that either for want, or by diseases died, being driuen to leaue their houses, and to shift for themselues. Some also died in prison, before they came to their triall. Whosoeuer would not forsake the truth, was driuen to forsake his countrey, kinred & friends, and to flie into strange countries for succor. So we sée murder, tortures, banishments, bands and persecution of Gods saints were the monuments of her raigne.

Therefore it plėased God to afflict this countrey with a great penury and dearth: the like was not heard of for ma­ny yeares before, nor since. Our histories say, that wheats was for foure markes the quarter, and mault for 44. shil­lings: which, considering the rate of things, is twise or thrise so much as that summe amounteth vnto now. Hereupon it came to passe, that the people were constrained to make bread of acornes, that had refused the bread of Gods word, and that many died for extreme want and penury: and yet was not the country halfe so populous as now.

Finally, to her perpetuall dishonor, and the shame of all Papists, she lost Calice, Ghines, & whatsoeuer by the kings of England was left her in France. King Edward the third that most victorious prince wanne Calice: and she like a most disastrous Quéene lost it: neither did any thing pros­per that she tooke in hand. In the beginning of her raigne she was driuen to flie into Suffolke disguised, and had by all likelihood lost both her life, crowne and hope, if the profes­sors of the Gospell of Norfolke and Suffolke had not resor­ted vnto her, and defended her against those that pursued her: for the which she promised them liberally, but perfor­med nothing. They deliuered her from danger, and she eon­trary to her promise, deliuered them vp to the bloudy exe­cutioners to be pursued with fire and fagot.

She maried with a stranger, to the great dislike of all true hearted Englishmen. But well was she requited. For her [Page 175] husband neuer did well like her, and in the end he went from her, and did in a manner forsake her.

Great hope she had to leaue vs a king of her owne body to raigne after her; but her expectation was turned into a mockerie, and all the Masses said, and prayers deuised, and offerings to Saints relikes, for her safe deliuerie, tooke no effect. The saying of the Prophet ( Psal. 7.) was fulfilled in her. She conceiued griefe and brought foorth iniquitie. Con­cepit dolorem, & peperit iniquitatem. Salomon for that he was a iust Prince, had a sonne giuen him to sit vpon his throne af­ter him, as we reade 1. King. 3. Was not then this merci­lesse Quéene iustly punished with barrennesse, for making so many childlesse?

Without cause she fell at variance with the French, en­tring into her husbands quarrell. But she spent her labour and treasure in vaine, left the state in debt, and lost all she did aduenture for.

At the sea she was most vnhappie, losing a goodly shippe called The great Harrie, by fire, and hauing no successe in any thing. And so it appeareth, that she liued and died dis­gracefully, leauing no memorie behind her, but of cruell persecution, of Spanish slauerie, and of disgrace, dishonor, and losse to our nation. Neither doth any accompt other­wise of her, then as of a woman vnhappie in her mariage, cruell in persecuting Gods Saints, vngratefull to those that were her best friends, vnkind to her subiects, disastrous in all her enterprises.

The like successe had those kings of England, that were most forward in the Popes seruice. Before king Henry the seconds time the Popes agents had litle to do in England. He was the first that gaue them grace. But sée his reward. The Pope maintained Becket and other his rebellious sub­iects against him, and forced him to most disgracefull and base conditions of agréement. Furthermore the Popes a­gents in his time found such fauour, that vntill the ragine of king Henry the eight, this Land could neuer be ridde of them.

[Page 176]King Richard the first for the Popes pleasure crossed hint selfe for the holy land, and went thither with great forces of men, and royall prouisions. But nothing he gained, be­side a vaine name of a valiant man. On the other side, his losses and disgraces were exceeding great. For first, he lost most of his fléete: then he lost the best part of his men. Thirdly, he lost diuers good townes in France, where his enemies tooke aduantage of his absence. Fourthly, he was taken prisoner in his returne. Fiftly he impouerished him­selfe and his countrie in leauying money for his ransome. And lastly, was vnnobly slaine before a litle castle in France by a base fellow. So litle did the Popes pardons and blessings auaile him.

Neuer did any king of England more for the Pope then king Iohn. For he resigned his Crowne into his Legates hands, and indeuoured also as much as in him lay, to make his kingdome tributarie to the Pope. Let vs then see what fruite he reaped of his deuotion to the Pope. First, he liued in continuall iarre with his subiects. Secondly, he lost Nor­mandie, and diuers townes of great moment, to the French. Thirdly, in his dayes the French made warre vpon him in England, and bid him base at his owne doores. Fourthly, he suffered his kingdome to be pillaged by the Pope. Finally, he died of poyson ministred to him by a Monke of Swinsted Abbey, as Caxtons Chronicle reporteth.

King Henry the third was flatly cousened by Innocent the fourth, and deluded with a promise of the kingdome of Naples for his sonne Edmond. But for this vaine title he payed full deare, not onely suffering the Pope to spoile his countrie, but also paying himselfe great summes to the Pope.

King Henry the eight, for the deliuerance of Clement the seuenth, spent infinit treasure vainely. And that was the successe of all the kings of England that did seruice to the Pope.

Generally, all those that liue vnder the Popes iurisdi­ction, liue most miserably, being neither secured for their [Page 177] goods, nor liues, nor liberties, either from their neighbour princes, or from the Pope. First, they serue two kings, wheresoeuer they liue: that is, their King or Duke, and the Pope. If they offend the Pope, they are proclaimed here­tickes, and are déemed worthie of death, yea albeit the con­trouersie be no matter of Religion. Lewis of Bauier and his followers were reputed heretikes, he for taking on him the Empire without the Popes allowance, these for yéelding obedience to their lawfull prince. The like censure was gi­uen against all that followed the Emperour Henry the fourth, and Fredericke the second.

If they offend their Princes, either in word or act, the pe­naltie is death. Poggio sheweth, that a rich man being ac­cused of treason, answered, that he had not offended, but if his goods had offended, he would not consent with them. And thus by renouncing that which he had, he escaped.

The lawes are very rigorous both of Pope and popish princes, the executions very cŕuell and barbarous. Onu­phrius speaking of the times of Alexander the sixt, saith, that there was neuer more outrages committed by Spadassins and cut throates: that the people of Rome had neuer lesse free­dome: that there was a great number of priuic promoters, and that euery euill word was punished with death. But this is common to all Italian princes. Murthers and spoiles are litle regarded, euery word, nay euery thought against them if it be knowne, is punished most rigorously.

The Spanish inquisitors in crueltie passe most sauage beastes. Upon euery light surmise they procéed against most innocent persons, and some they racke, some they famish, some they burne, some they cut péecemcale. The very Pa­pistes themselues could neuer endure it, nor would suffer it, but by force. The Venetians will none of it. The Neapoli­tans Natal. com. hist. lib. 2. refusing the same, yéeld this reason, quia per simplicem a­licuius maleuoli accusationem, nullis requisit is probationibus, nul­lis (que) defensionibus acceptis, posset quisque in carceres detrudi, & vi­ta, honore, & facultatibus priuari. Because by the single accu­sation of one malitious fellow, neither proofes being sought, [Page 178] nor exceptions receiued, any man might be thrust into prison, and depriued of his honors, goods and life. Are they not then miserable, that liue vnder the danger of the cruell inquisi­tion? Meteran. lib. a. hist. Bel. The people of the Low countries do affirme, that the Inquisition was the originall ground of the troubles and tumults of the Low countries, and that the Cardinal Gra­nuélle endeuouring to bring in the same, was the ruine of his countrie. At the first the same was practised principally against Turkes and Moores. Who then doth not detest the Spaniards and Italians, that practising the same against Christians, do plainly declare, that they hold them to be no better then Turkes and Moores?

The common forme also of inquisition against Christi­ans is very cruell, odious, and intolerable, considering first that the Romanists take all for heretikes, that reproue them for their villanies, superstitions and heresies; and next for that they neither obserue forme nor order of iustice, nor res­pect young nor old, men aliue nor dead: oftentimes tortu­ring Cap. accusa­tus de Haeret. in 6. mens bodies most cruelly, and spoiling their goods most gréedily, and punishing any that dissent from the sy­nagogue of Rome in matter of the Sacraments, as if they Cap. ad abo­lendam. de haeret. had conspired the destruction of their prince and countrie.

By this cruel procéeding in the raigne of Charles the fift, the bloudie popish tormentors in the low countries put to death fiftie thousands, as the Histories of the Low coun­tries testifie. In England, like sauage wolues they spoiled Meteran. hist. Belg. lib. 2. the flocke, during the raigne of Queene Marie. How many haue bene executed in Spaine, Italie, France, and Germanie by these Inquisitors, it is hard to recount. Oflate, because the executioners were not sufficient to satisfie their cruelty, they haue caused many thousands without all order to be massacred.

Paul the 4. that first brought the inquisition into Rome, brought himselfe and his house into perpetual hatred of the Romanes, insomuch, that vpon his death the people ran fu­riously Onuphrius. in Paulo. 4. together, broke his statue, threw downe the armes of his house, burnt the inquisition court, and were hardly [Page 179] restrained from doing further violence to the inquisi­tors.

The Popes exactions in all countries are very gricuous, Ipse Romanus Pontifex (saith Iohn of Salisbury) omnibus gra­uis Polyerat. lib. 6. c. 24. & ferè intolerabilis est. The Pope is become grieuous and vntolerable vnto all men. Againe, speaking of the Church of Rome, he saith, She sheweth her selfe rather a steppe-mother then a mother, and that Scribes and Pharises sit in her, which lay importable burdens on mens shoulders, which they wil not once touch with their fingers.

Petrus de Alliaco speaking against the multitude and greatnesse of the Popes exactions, busieth himselfe to find a De reform. Eccles. remedie, by diminishing the excessiue charges of the Pope, the number of Cardinals, and disorders of inferior prelats: but al in vain. He proueth by the testimonie of Humbertus, that the cause that disposed the Greekes to reuolt from the Ibidem. Church of Rome, was the grieuance of that Church in exacti­ons, excommunications and lawes. Speaking of the orders of Friers, he saith, that their state is burdensome to all men, and hurtfull to hospitals and lazar-houses, and preiudiciall to all states of the Church.

Bernard of Clugny describeth the qualities of Rome fitly: In Satyrd. Roma dat omnibus, omnia dantibus: Rome giueth all things to all men (saith he) but prouided that they pay for it. And again: Omnia Romae cum praetio: All things may be had at Rome if you will buy them.

Amongst vs (saith Mantuan) Churches, priests, altars, masses, crownes, fire, incense, prayers, yea heauen and God himselfe is set to sale.

Budaeus saith, that the Popes lawes serue not now so much for direction in manners, as by bankers craft (sor so I may al­most Annot. in Pandect. terme it) to get money. Sanctiones pontificae non moribus regendis vsui sunt, sed propemodum dixerim, argentarie faciendae authoritatem videntur accommodare.

[Page 180] Mathew Paris affirmeth, that the Church of Rome in the times of Henry the third, coufounding right and iustice, like In Hen. 3. a shamelesse and common whore was set to sale to all men, ac­counting vsury for a small fault, and symonie for none. Eodem tempore (saith he) permittente, vel procurante Papa Gregorio adeo inualuit Romanae Ecclesiae insatiabilis cupiditas confundens fas ne­fas (que) quod deposito rubore, velut meretrix vulgaris & effrons om­nibus venalis & exposita, vsuram pro paruo, symoniam pro nullo in­conuenienti reputauit.

And this taking with the Pope, is a matter so plaine and open, that they count symony for no sinne in the Pope. Papa non dicitur facere symoniam conferendo beneficia & dignitates ac­cepta pecunia, saith Bartolus in l. Barbarius. de offic. praet. 2. col. And that as Theodoric à Niem in his booke of Schisme saith, is the opinion of diuers Canonists. Felin de offic. & potest. iudic. delegat. in c. exparte. 1. nu. 1. saith, that moderne Do­ctors hold without distinction, that the Pope is not obnoxious to the crime of symonie, and that himselfe is of that opi­nion.

What by colour of law, and what without law, the Pope and his shauclings do spoyle the whole Christian rommon wealth. The gaine of the Popes faculties, and of popish pardons, Masses, and dirges, and other such like pa­pall wares and commodities, amounteth to a great masse of money. Therewith the Pope maketh warres, the Masse-priests and Friers maintaine themselues, and their bagga­ges, and all their pompous traine and brauery.

In the meane while the poore people wring, that beare most of this charge. Further, they are bound to prouide the furniture of altars, images, Churches, and all that is requi­red for Masses. In a certaine bisitation at Como, by the Popes legate called Bonhomme so many particulars are commaundėd to be prouided, as could not in seauen The Acts of that visitation were printed at Collein. anno 1585. leaues be comprehended. In Spaine euery man of a­ny sort is compelled to buy two indulgences; the one for the quicke, the other for the dead. The common rate of a pardon they say is foure reals of plate. If the executors wil [Page 181] not be at the charge of a funerall, they vse to compell the parties.

The Pope to get money in his owne territorie beside all this raiseth new customes and impositions dayly, ma­keth a monopoly of whores, and hath ordinarie bankes of vsury, as the world knoweth, and popish writers con­fesse, where they speake of their Monti di pieta.

The like do other popish Princes, in so much, that if a man do well consider all, he must needs confesse that their gouernement is nothing else but a méere tyrannie, odious to God and man.

Therefore God doth punish them often with warres, se­dition, sicknesse and famine, and other vsitations. In Spaine it is an ordinary matter to see the people die of famine. In Italy caterpillers haue often deuoured the corne, and name­ly anno 1576. In the life of Pius the fift, the people of Genua an. 1572. do write, that many of their people died of hunger, and that sew had meanes to satisfie themselues with bread. The Iebusites in their annuall letters speake of a great fa­mine in Italy and Sicily an. 1592. and shew, that diuers were constrained to eate dogs.

What successe the Popes souldiers, and other idlola­trous Papists haue had of late yeares, diuers may remem­ber: the histories are full. Charles the fift seruing the Pope against the Germaines, was in the end forced by D. Maurice to leaue the country, & to saue himself by flight. The which he did with such spéed, that diuers of his companie forgot to put on their bootes. In his enterprise against Algier, he lost a great part of his armie and fléete, and returned la­den rather with scorne then spoile. In the end when he saw nothing succéed, he crept contemptibly into a mona­stery, and died as sonie say crazed in his braine, and most in­gloriously.

King Philip in his memorials to his sonne consesseth, that he spent 5594. millions of duckets in 33. yeares, and yet neuer reaped any thing for his labour, but anguish and sorrow. His noble actes by his sonne Charles, were written [Page 182] in a blanke booke. His first attempt was against the Mores in the Iie of Zerbi. But therein his fléete was taken and o­uerthrowne by the Turkes, and his whole armie slaine or discomfited. Leauing the Turkes, he thought to trie his manhood against Christians. But in his warres he behaued himself so manfully, that thinking to subdue the Low cun­tries by force, which yéelded vnto him for loue, in the end he lost halfe of that which he possessed before. Purposing to make a conquest of England, he was himselfe conquered and ouercome by a woman. Bragging of his inuincible fléete, he found himselfe and his fléete vanquished by small forces. In the end he aymed at the crowne of France, promised vn­to him by the traiterous Iebusites, and their associates, but his losse and scorne receiued in that countrey made an end of that old King.

In Hungary nothing hath succéeded of late yeares, that hath bene enterprised by the Popes counsell. Eugenius the fourth caused Ladislaus the King of Poland and Hungarie to breake with the Turke, promising him great pardons and aides. But his whole armie was defeated, and himselfe slaine at the battell of Varna.

Francis the first, that was confederate with Pope Clement the seuenth, was taken prisoner at Pauia: and promising to roote out religion out of France, neuer prospered in any en­terprise.

Henry his eldest sonne confederating himselfe with the Pope for the extirpation of such as forsooke the errors of poperie, was slaine miserably at a tournament, receiuing a wound in his eye, with which he threatned to sée Anne Bourg a holy Martyr executed.

His sonne Francis died yong of an apostcme in his eare, being iustly punished, for that he refused to heare the cries of the oppressed.

His brother Charles the ninth, the author and contriuer of the bloody massacre of France, anno 1572, wherin so much innocent blood was shed, died bléeding at all the conduits of his body, and wallowed in his owne blood after he had [Page 183] shed so much of others.

Henry that third, was slaine by a Dominican, or rather a de­monicall Friar, hauing bestowed great charge and labour in killing of Gods saints. And so the line of Francis de Va­lois, and his sons failed, and the kingdom is translated into the house of Bourbon, which they persecuted.

The Leaguers of France, which mutined for the main­tenance of poperie, are now ruined, and the Duke of Guise and the chiefe leaders of those rebels come all to vnhappie ends.

Neither had those Christians, that either in the holy land or clsewhere, fought vnder the Popes banners better suc­cesse for the most part. Rodolphus who at the requėst of Gregorie the seuenth, rebelled against the Emperor Henry, was by him ouerthrowne and slaine in battell. Neither did Mathildis the Popes paramour, and her souldiers spéede much better.

Mathew Paris rehearseth diuers attempts by Christians, In Willel 2. set on by the Pope against the Sarracens, but for the most part vnhappy. Walter Sansauior that first went against thē, lost his armie in Bulgaria. Peter the heremit was defeated with all his forces before Nice. Godescalcus a Dutch priest also, would néedes leade an armie against the Turkes: but he was likewise ouerthrowne with all his companie. God­fray of Bullein, albeit he wanne Hierusalem, yet he lost di­uers hundred thousands in the aduenture, and his posteri­tie did not long hold that which they had wonne.

In this seruice Lewis the ninth of France was taken pri­soner first, and afterward lost his life. In the same did the noble Fredericke Barbarossa perish, and infinite other Chri­stians. The French men blasphemed against God, seeing Ibid. they had no better successe in the holy land, as he saith. De di­uina conquerebant ur ingratitudine, qui labores suos & deuotionis sinceritatem non respiciebat, sed quasi in alienum populum tradi in manus hostiū patiebatur. Finally, al that tooke the Popes part against the Emperors Henry the third, fourth, and fift, Fri­dericke the first and second, and others, had euill successe.

[Page 184]Considering the premises therefore it is much to be wondred, that any princes should serue the Pope, that is so notoriously declared to be Antichrist, and that they shold take his marke in their hands and foreheades, especially seeing the euill successe, that others haue had in his seruice, and the plagues, that are threatened against these, that take his marke vpon them. Much also it is to be lamented, that Christians should continue vnder the grieuous yolie either of the Pope, or popish religion. Rome in time past was mistresse of the world, & the Church of Christ there most famous for pietie throughout the world. But now she ser­ueth Antichrist most basely, and is infamous for her impie­ties.

Baldus speaking of Italie, saith: that she is of all other countries the most miserable, as wanting one to redresse her wrongs. Olim prouinciarum domina, nunc omnium miserrime.

Lewis the 9. in his pragmaticall sanction confesseth, that the kingdome of France was miserably impouerished by the Popes exactions. Molinaeus in his booke de paruis datis, calleth the Popes exactions barbarous. Iulian a Cardinall in an Cpistle to Eugenius the fourth, who deluded the Ger­maines demanding reformation of certaine abuses, told the Pope plainely, that the ruine of the Papacie was at hand, if order were not taken presently to satisfie the people. Fi­nis pro certo est, saith he, securis ad radicem posita est.

The Germaines in a certaine méeting at Nuremberg told the Popes Legate, that the burdens imposed by the Pope were so grieuous, that they neither could, nor would beare Grauam. German. them any longer. Praedict a vrgentissima at que intolerabilia, pe­nitus (que) non ferenda onera diutius se nec perferre velle, nec tolerare posse. Among these grieuances they recken prohibitions of mariages, and certaine meates at certaine times, and to certaine persons, contrarie to Gods law, pillages by pre­tence of pardons vnder colour of going to warre against Turkes, or building of Churches, and such like; reseruation of absolution in certaine case, cousmage of stationarie Fri­ars or limitors, the multitude of Friars, drawing causes [Page 185] to the Popes cognition, appointing of delegate Iudges and defenders of mens right, as they are called, exempti­ons, reseruations, and prouisions of liuings Ecclesiastical, priuiledges, rules of the Popes chancerie, commendaes, immunities of Monkes, Friars, and priests, from pay­ments and punishments, vniust excommunications, and interdicts, multitude of holidayes, lāds coming into mort­mayne, encroching vpon lay mens lands and geeds, pen­sions and charges laid vpon venefices, superfluities and superstitions in honoring of Saints, and such like.

What resteth then, séeing as Christians do sée the mise­ries of the people, that liue vnder the yoke of the Popes kingdome and his adherents, but that they séeke all law­full meanes to be fréed from this tyrannie, and to shake off the yoke of this Antichristian gouernment.

CHAP. VIII. That no king liuing vnder the Pope, and receiuing his doctrine, can assure himselfe of his kingdome.

THat the yoke of Antichristian and popish gouernment is grieuous and intolerable to all Christians, we haue made it apparent by diuers particulars. But could any Christian indure it; yet Christian Kings and Princes haue least reason to do it. For as their place is higher then o­thers, so the dishonor that is offered to them, and the ha­zard which they incurre, is of farre greater consideration, then if that same should be offered to priuate persons. And yet no man runneth into greater hazard, nor receiueth greater wrongs at the Popes hands, and by means of his doctrine and gouernment, then Christian Kings and princes. For first they are in no assurance of their state: and secondly, they runne in daunger to lose their liues, if they receiue the Popes authoritie and doctrine within their kingdomes: Of which two we will speake seuerally and in order.

[Page 186]That they stand in no assurance of their states, it may be proued, first, by the Popes doctrine: and secondly, by their practise. Their doctrine is cleare both by the Popes decretals, and by the common opinions of their principall Doctors. Clement the fift in the Chapter beginning Romani de iure iurando. declareth, that the Romane Emperours take an oath of sealtie and subiection to the Pope. Romani prin­cipes (saith he) orthodoxae fidei professores, &c. That is, the Em­perours of Rome professing the faith, with feruour of faith and readie deuotion honoring the holy church of Rome, whose head is Christ our Redeemer, and the Bishop of Rome our re­deemers Vicar, haue not thought it an indignitie to submit their heades, and to bind themselues by oath, from whom they haue receiued, not onely the approbation of their person assumed vnto the imperiall dignitie, but also vnction, conse­cration, and the crowne of the Empire. But if the Emperor receiue his Empire from the Pope, then may he be deposed by the Pope. And if he take an oath of fealtie and obedience to the Pope, then is he forsworne, if he obey not his sen­tences and censures, as the Canonists teach.

Likewise the same Pope affirmeth, that the Emperor is bound by oath to roote out the enemies of the Romish Clem. Rom. de iureiu­rando. church, and not to make any confederation or league with any enemie of the Pope, or any suspected vnto him. Which being graunted, it followeth, that no King or Emperour can make peace with others, then such as the Pope liketh, and that he is to make warres vpon such as he misliketh. A matter which now presently much concerneth all Chri­stians. For if the Spaniards or other the Popes vassals haue respect to this law, as no question but they haue, then all capitulations betwixt them, and Christian princes of our profession are made by his dispensation, and to hold no lon­ger then it shall stand with the Popes good liking.

The Author of the glosse vpon the same chapter both al­so plainely declare, that the Emperour is subiect to the Pope. Modo quaero, (sayth he) nonne Iesus voluit, &c. Now I aske (saith he) whether Christ Iesus would not, that these [Page 187] Princes, to whom he hath giuen temporall iurisdiction, &c. should be in some sort subiect vnto his Vicar, that is, to the Bishop of Rome: and whether he would not, that these Prin­ces should giue oath to the Bishop of Rome; and whether he would not, that they should submit their heads to the same Bishop. VVhereunto Clement aunswereth in the text, that they should. And very plaine it is, that this was the mea­ning of Clement, séeing he determineth, that the Emperor ought to take an oath offealtie and obedience: fidclitatis & obedientiae: but if he sweare fealtie and obedience, then is he to shew himselfe obedient, and the Pope may punish him, if he sweare false. So we see, that if the Popes law hold, then the Emperor for his Empire is tenant at the Popes will, and may hold it no longer, then he continueth in his obedience, vnlesse he will either refuse to sweare, or be for­sworne.

In the chapter Pastorelis Clement. de sent. & re indicata: the Pope declareth, that he hath superioritie ouer the Empire, and that in the vacancie of the Empire himselfe ought to suc­ceed the Emperour. Thereupon also he contradideth the Emperors procéeding, and declareth the Emperours sen­tence against Robert king of Sicilie to be void, and without effect. But if the Emperour cannot procéede against rebels, but that his sentence shall be reuersed by the Pope; then is he the Popes vassall and subiect, and cannot longer hold the crowne, then it shall please the Pope. Neither may other princess looke for greater fauour at the Popes hands, then the Emperor.

Boniface the eight in the Chapter, Vnam sanctam. extr. com. de maiorit. & obedient. doth expressely determine, that the Pope hath both swords, and that he hath power both to make kings, and to depose them. Spiritualis potestas pote­statem terrenam instituere habet, & iudicare, si bona non fuerit. That is, the spirituall power hath right to ordaine the earth­ly power, and to iudge the same, if it be not good. And a­gaine: if the earthly power go astray, the same must be iudged by the spirituall power. That is, by the Pope. But if he haue [Page 188] right to iudge kings; then hath he right to pronounce iudg­ment against them, and to take their crowne frō them. This decretal was published against Philip the French King, but no doubt, but the Pope taketh himselfe to haue the same right against all other kings. Nay, albeit the same sentence séemeth to haue bin suspended in regard of the French king by the chapter Meruit extr. com. de priuilegijs, yet haue la­ter Popes procéeded against some French Kings, as for ex­ample, Lewis the twelfth, and Henry the third. How may then other Kings hope to escape their censures that are not priuiledged?

Now if any man except and say, that this is not the do­ctrine of Rome that now is, he shal shew himself to be but a nouice, that thinketh that any Papist dare depart from the doctrine of his holy fathers decretals. Beside that, if we search the bookes of late writers, we shall find that they do not digresse from their elders. Iosephus Vestanus in his trea­tise De osculatione pedum Pontificis, p. 137. among diuers prin­ciples and dictates of the Popes doctrine, deriued as he saith from Gregory the seuenth, setteth downe these two: first, that it is lawful for the Pope to depose the Emperor: and next, that he hath power to absolue subiects from their oath of obe­dience to tyrannicall princes. But if he haue power to depose princes, and to loose the subiects from the band of their obe­dience vnto them; then is it manifest, that princes can no longer hold their crownes then it shall please the Pope.

Bellarmine likewise lib. 5. de Pontif. Rom. c. 6. speaking of the Pope, saith, he hath power to change kingdomes, and to take from one, and to giue vnto another, if that be necessary for the sauing of soules. And this he offereth to proue. Potest mutare regna (saith he) & vni auferre, atque alteri conferre siid necessa­rium sit ad animarum salutem, vt probabimus.

Pius the fift in his bull against Quéene Elizabeth affir­meth, that the pope is made a prince, and set ouer al nations and kingdomes, to pull vp, to destroy, to dissipate and spoile, to plant and build. Hunc vnum (saith he) super omnes gentes, & omnia regna Principem constituit, qui euellat, destruat, dissipet, dis­perdat, [Page 189] plantet & adificet.

The Iebusites of France, in their booke entitled, La veritè defendue, a booke as true as Celsus his book written against Origen lib. 1. contra Celsū. Christian religion, entitled by him Vera oratio, or a true dis­course do defēd the authoritie of the Pope, which he chalen­geth in iudging and deposing temporall princes. Nay, which is more strange, they blush not to affirme, that this great soueraignety in the Pope is profitable for princes, that stand in more doubt of loosing their tēporall kingdoms then of any other losse. But howsoeuer it is, if princes stand vpon loosing their crownes at the Popes pleasure, then are they in poore estate, and without any assurance of their kingdomes, considering especially the malice of the Pope against such as professe the truth, and his ambition in en­croching vpon his neighbors dominions.

Ghineard a Iebusite was hanged in Paris anno 1594. for writing and holding diuers seditions positions, wherof one was, that the crowne of France might, and ought to be tran­slated into another family, then that of Bourbon. Neither néed any man make question, by whom he meant that this feat should be wrought, séeing the Pope is the man, whose au­thoritie the Iebusites and Cananites seeke to aduance aboue Kings.

Finally, Robert Parsons in his Warnword, part. 2. f. 117. 6 alleageth a booke entitled, De iusta Henrici tertij abdicatione, that is, of the iust deposing of the French King Henry the third: whereby it is apparent, that he also holdeth, that the Pope may iustly depose Kings. Neither is it likely, that he would so busily haue sought to stirre vp rebels in England, and to suborne cut-throtes to kill the Quéene, or that he would haue desired that Pius the fift his bull against her might be suspended for a time concerning Papists, if he had not taken her to be deposed by the Pope.

But because this doctrine of the Popes authority, that of it selfe is litle worth, would auaile nothing, vnlesse the peo­ple also can be drawne to fauour the Popes faction; there­fore the Pope and his schollers giue also a power to the [Page 190] people to depose Kings and princes, especially if once they proue tyrants, that is, as Iebusites teach, if they be excom­municate by the Pope, or else séeke to maintaine their state or the truth against the biolence and practises of the popish saction. Gregory the seuenth tooke away all regall power from Henry the fourth, and gaue the same vnto Rodulph of Saxonie, commaunding all Christians to receiue Rodulph for their King, and not to obey the Emperour Henry in any thing, as being absolued from their othes, which they were wont to giue vnto Kings. Regiam ei potestatem adimo (saith Gregory the Platina in Greg. 7. seuenth) interdico (que) Christianis omnibus illo iuramento absolutis quo fides regibus dari consueuit, ne Henrico vtla in re obtemperent, Rodulphum in regem suscipiant. But this could not be execu­ted, vulesse the people had some power giuen them, to put by the one, and to receiue the other. Nor can princes stand firme, if seditious Popes can giue the people this po­wer.

Innocent the fourth, likewise deposed Friderick the second, Math. Paris in Hen. 3. forbidding his subiects to obey him, and commanding them to whom it appertained to chuse another King. As if it lay in the power of the people to do the one or the other: or as it the princes authoritie stood in this case vpon the peoples pleasure.

Pius the fift declared Quéene Elizabeths subiects to be fréed from their obedience, and not onely commaunded them not In Bulla cont. Elizabeth. to obey her, but by all perswasions moued them to depose her. Is not this then a plaine and euident argument, that the Pope doth giue power to the people contrary to the do­ctrine of the Apostle, Rom. 13. and Tit. 3. to rebell against princes, and to depose them?

William Raynolds a renegate Englishman, in a treatise set out vnder the counterfeit name of William Rosse, and entitled, De iustaereip. Christianae suprareges impios & haereticos authoritate, iustissima (que) Caetholicorum (he should say cacolicorū) ad Henricum Nauarraeū, & quemcunque haereticum à regno Gal­liae repellendum confederatione, doth in expresse termes giue the people power to depose Kings, and maintaineth impu­dently [Page 191] the wicked league of the French rebels against their King. In the 2. chap. of that booke, he affirmeth, that the right of al the Kings & kingdoms of Europe is laid vpō this founda­tion, that common wealths or people, may depose thir kings. His words are, Quodius omnium Europae regum & regnorum hoc fundamento nititur, quodresp. possint suos reges deponere. But therein he sheweth himselfe and his consorts to be the most notorious traitors of all Europe.

Likewise Robert Parsons our aduersary (if such a base companion may deserue that name) and a notorious fire­brand of sedition, in his booke of succession to the crowne of England made against the iust title of King Iames, and in fa­uour of the infanta of Spaine, in his first booke chap. 1. ende­uoureth to proue, that succession to gouernement by neare­nesse of blood, is by positiue lawes of the commonwealth, and may vpon iust causes be altered by the same. His intention is to shew, that they which made that law may also alter it. In the third chapter he striueth with himselfe to shew, that not onely vnworthy pretenders may be put backe, but that Kings in possession may be chastised and deposed. The first part of which proposition is directed against our most wor­thy and rightfull King, before his comming to the crowne: the second aymeth at him now, that by Gods grace he is attained to the Crowne. In the fourth chapter he sayth, that othes in diuers cases bind not subiects, and that some­times they may lawfully proceed against Princes. Matters so seditious and odious, that it séemeth to me admirable, that such a leud companion should be suffered so impudently to barke against the authority of Kings, or that the Archpriest or the Iebusits, or Masse priests that depend vpon him, and allow this doctrine, and percase yet stand for the infantaes title, together with their cōsorts, shold be suffered to liue by the lawes of that King, whom by their wicked doctrine they haue sought to dispossesse of his right, and to depose from his royall throne. Neither is this the doctrine of these base companions only, but also of other more famous Doctors, and of the most illustrious ring-leaders of the Iebusites.

[Page 192] Bellarmine lib. 5. de pontif. Rom. c. 6. saith, It is not lawful for Christians to tolerate a King that is an infidel, or an hereticke, if he go about to draw his subiects to his heresie or infidelitie. His words are these: Non licet Christianis tolerare regem infi­delem aut haereticum, si ille pertrahere conetur subditos ad suam hae­resim aut infidelitatem. Now it is well knowne, that such as receiue not the superstition and heretical doctrine of the Ro­mish synagogue, are by the sect of Papists accompted here­tikes, and litle better then infidels.

Emanuel Sa a Iebusite also, in a booke called Aphorismi confessariorum, holdeth these aphorismes ensuing. In verbo Princeps. That the Prince may be depriued by the common­wealth for tyrannie, and also if he do not his dutie, or when there is any iust cause, and another may be chosen of the grea­ter part of the people. But some (saith he) suppose, that onely tyrannie is a iust cause of deposition. His words stand thus: Potest princeps per remp. priuari ob tyrannidem, & si non faciat of­ficium suum, & cum est causa aliqua iusta, & alius eligi à maiori parte populi. Quidam tamen solam tyrannidem causam putant. And in the word Tyrannus, he affirmeth, that he may deposed by the people, although they haue sworne to be obedient to him, if being admonished he will not amend. Potest deponi à populo etiam qui ei iurauit obedientiam perpetuam, si monitus non vult corrigi. True it is, that he speaketh of a tyrant. But the Papists account al tyrants, that wil not yéeld to the Popes will, or that are by him excommunicate, as is proued by the example of their writings against King Henry the eight king of England, and the French Kings Henry the 3. and 4. and diuers others.

Frier Ghineard a French Iebusite held, that Henrie the French King now liuing was bery fauorably dealt withal, if he were onely deposed and thrust into a monasteric. The same man in diuers positions maintaineth the rebellion of the leaguers in France, which by force of armes sought to depose their King. A doctrine seditious, and so iudged by the parliament of Paris, which also adiudged the author to death for the same. Finally, we are not to doubt but that [Page 193] this is the doctrine, not onely of the Iebusites, but also of al Papists that are combined together for the maintenance of the Popes seate and faction.

This then being the wicked and seditious doctrine both of the Pope and his principall Doctors, concerning the de­posing of Kings, and translating of kingdomes: let vs now sée whether the papistical faction hath not from time to time endeuoured to put the same in execution. Gregory the se­uenth, otherwise called Hildebrand or helbrand, as he was the first that broched this doctrine of deposing of Kings, so did he vse all manner of violence to execute the same. He set both Germanie & Italy on fire, while he prosecuted the Em­peror with fire and sword. He did also trouble the peace of the Church, and brake the vnity of Christians. Hildebrandus (sayth Beno de vita & gest. Heldebrandi) non solum Ecclesiae per­turbauit pacem, sed etiam ecclesiasticam scidit vnitatem. Sigeber­tus In Chron. anno 1085. saith, that the same Gregory confessed, that by the instiga­tion of the diuell, he had stirred vp anger and hatred against mankind. Confessus est &c. saith he, se suadente diabolo contra humanum genus odium & iram concitasse. The Emperour by this meanes was spoyled of a great part of his Empire, and had his true subiects slaine, and his countrey bexed with warres, and himselfe in the end brought to great ex­tremitie.

Alexander the third hauing excommunicated Fridericke Barbarossa, stirred vp Germanie, France, & Italy against him, purposing wholy to dispossesse him of the Empire. He sent letters to Christian Princes and people, (sayth Platina) yeelding reasons of his proceeding against Fridericke. Nei­ther néede wée to doubt, but that the drift of his letters was to mooue them to take armes agaynst the Empe­rour.

Innocent the third caused both Philip and other Empe­rors to be furiously persecuted, both by their subiects, and by others. Neither did he cease vntill he had brought them both to destruction. Against Philip he gaue out very brauely, that it should cost him his miter or triple crowne, [Page 194] but he would pull the crowne from his head. The same Pope brought Iohn king of England into such straites, that he forced him to surrender his Crowne into the hands of his Legat, and to receiue the same of him againe, as it were of sauour. O miserable blindnesse of princes, that did suffer themselues to be brought to this slauery! O miserable se­duced people, that followed a stranger, nay Antichrist a­gainst their Christian King!

Gregorie the ninth hauing excommunicated and deposed the Emperor Friderick the second, set vp Robert the French Kings brother against him, promising him aide and money for the attaining of the Empire. Adquam (dignitatem) opes & operam effundemus consequendam, saith Gregorie. By the prea­ching Math. Paris in Hen. 3. Ibidem. of the Friars, he armed the people of Millan, & others against the Emperor, absoluing them from their sins if they would fight against him. When preaching serued not, he made the Minorites and others to rise in armes against the Emperor. Praefectos Mediolanensis (sayth the Emperor) imò verò papalis exercitus, statuens loco sui G. de monte longo praedictū, & fratrem Leonem ministrum ordinis fratrum minorum, quinon solum aċcincti gladijs & loricis, verum etiam praedicationi insisten­ter Mediolanenses & alios, quicumque nostrum & nostrorum per­sonam offenderent, à peccat is omnibus absoluebant. Further, he stirred vp those which had bound themselues by vow to fight against Saracens, to leaue them, and to fight against the Emperour. The like course did Innocent the fourth con­tinue, stirring vp not onely open enemies, but also domesti­call traitors, by poyson, or by other meanes to destroy the Emperour. Praedicti facinoris patratores (sayth Fridericke) tam Ibidem. fugitiui scilicet, quàm obessifratrum minorum stipati consortio, cru­cis ab eis signo recepto, authoritatem summi pontificis per Aposto­licas liter as praetendentes, negotium apertè se gerere sacrosanctae matricis Romanae Ecclesiae praedicant, ac praedictae mortis & ex hae­reditationis nostrae summum pontificem sic asserunt incentorē. The Emperor plainely declared, that the Pope not onely autho­rised those that made warre against him, but also such as by treason conspired to take away his life, promising great reward [Page 195] by the false preaching Friars, to those that should kill him.

Iohn the 22. Bennet the 12. & Clement the 6. with impla­cable hatred prosecuted Lewis of Bauier for no other cause, but because he took vpon him the title of Emperor, without their allowance. Ioan. pontifex (saith Platina) Iohann. Vrsinum in Italiam properè mittit, qui Florentinos & Guelphos omnes in Bauarum confirmaret. Writing the life of Bennet the 12. he saith: That by his procurement all the countrie fell into arms. Adarma omnia respicicbant. The same man caused the Ro­maines to rebell against the Emperor. Clement the 6. dealt with the Uicounts of Milan to resist the Emperour, and both in Italic maintained a strong faction against him, and also made Charles king of Boheme Emperor to trouble him in Germanie.

Boniface the eight gaue plenarie remission of sinnes to all that would fight against the house of Colonna, which he before had excommunicated. Taking displeasure against Philip the French king, he did excommunicate him, and gaue away his kingdome to Albert. Philippum eius (que) regnum (saith Platina) Alberto regi subijcit. He did also indeuour to put his sentence in execution: and percase had done it, but that Philip by the industrie of Sciarra Colonna and Noga­ret preuented him, and apprehended the furious Pope. Fer­dinand king of Spaine had no other pretence to inuade the kingdome of Nauarre, but onely to execute the sentence of Iulius the second, that had excommunicated him for taking part with the French. No doubt therefore but one time or other the French king, that is the king of Nauarre also, will require satisfaction of the Pope and Spaniard, that did him this wrong. But in the meane while we may sée in this fact of Iulius the arrogance of the Popes, that take vpon them to depose kings at their pleasure, and to giue away their kingdomes.

This seditious course of the Pope in sentencing kings, was also the sole pretence almost of the Leaguers rebelli­ous stirres against Henry the third in France. For when the Iebusites and their faction had declared, that the king was [Page 196] iustly deposed, then did the rebels take armes against him, and ceassed not to pursue him to the death. The Spaniards also for the same cause ayded them, and concurred with them. Likewise the execution of the Popes sentence against Henrie the fourth of France, was the cause both of the re­uolt of his subiects, and of the warres made against him by the prince of Parma and the Spaniards. Such a firebrand of warres do we find the Popes sentence to be.

No sooner was Henry the eight, king of England, pronounced excommunicate by Paule the third, but he sent Cardinall Poole to stirre vp the French King to inuade his kingdome. Afterward when he saw, that the French could not be stirred to execute his pleasure, he caused diuerse re­bellions to be raysed against him by the seditious clamours of Masse-priests, Monkes, and Friars, both in York-shire and Lincolne-shire, and other parts of England. Sanders confesseth, that he commanded the Nobilitie and chiefe men of England, by force and armes to oppose themselues against De schis. lib. 1 the king, and to cast him out of his kingdome. Principibus vi­ris ac Ducibus Angliae, caeterae (que) Nobilitati praeeipit, vt vi & ar­mis se Henrico opponant, illum (que) è regni finibus eijcere nitantur.

The like course held Pius Quintus that wicked Pope, a­gainst Quéene Elizabeth of pious memorie: for he did not onely declare her depriued of her kingdome, but by all meanes sought actually to depriue her of it: and that first by dealing with the French and Spanish by force of arms to inuade her realmes, and afterward stirring vp and com­forting Malcontents and Rebels, to set the realme in com­bustion by ciuill warres. Hierome Catena in the discourse of the life of this impious Pius, sheweth: how he perswaded the Spaniard, that he could not otherwise better secure the Low-countries, then by ouerthrowing the Queene of En­gland. He declareth further, how he induced the French to take part against her. Likewise did Gregorie the thirtéene send forces into Ireland, together with his legate Sanders. Sixtus Quintus by all meanes hastened the Spanish fléete, that came against England, anno 1588. Neither haue they [Page 197] and others ceassed vpon all occasions to séeke her hurt and destruction.

This therefore is a most cleare case, that no Christian king can be in safetie, as long as he suffereth Iebusites and Masse-priests to aduance the Popes authoritie, and to preach seditiously, that the people hath power to put Prin­ces out of their royall seate. It is very dangerous also to foster any man within the Realme, that beléeueth this se­ditious doctrine.

True it is, that Papists cast many colours to hide the beformities of this doctrine: but these colours are easily washed away, as not being able to abide any weather. First, they alleage, that diuerse popish Princes haue en­ioyed their kingdomes quietly without molestation. But we are able to shew more Princes of late time troubled by the Popes practises, then they are able to shew, to haue li­ued peaceably by them. Furthermore, the reason why Popes do not trouble all, is, because it were not safe for them to fall out with too many at one time, and not because their ouer large authoritie is not preiudiciall to all. For if the Pope may depose all kings vpon cause. then all kings stand in like danger, séeing no man can auoide all causes of quarrell.

Bellarmine lib. 5. de pontif. Rom. cap. 6. saith that the Pope doth practise this power for sauing of soules. But experience teacheth vs, that through his excommunications, and sen­tences of deposition pronounced against diuers kings, he hath ruined kingdomes, and brought infinite people to de­struction both of bodie and soule. Theodoric of Niem spea­king of the deposing of the king of Hungarie by Boniface the 9. saith: There followed of it great slaughter of innume­rable people, destruction of churches and houses of religion, the burning of cities, townes and castles, and infinite other mischiefes, which follow long warres: because kings without the hurt of many cannot be deposed. His words are these: Vndè clades hominum innumerabilium, & Ecclesiasticorum & pi­orum locorum, & Monasteriorum enormis destructio, incendia ci­uitatum [Page 198] oppidorum, villarum, & castrorum, nec non infinita alia, quae guerrae secum producunt, diu vigentia subsequebantur: quia non sine multorum dispendio re [...]es deponuntur.

Emanuel Sa in his aphorismes, for confessaries doth signi­fie, that this doctrine holdeth against tyrants only. But what doth this reléeue the Papists, when those which fall out with the Pope, and yeeld not to his most vnreasonable re­quests, are presently by Friers and priests proclaimed ty­rants: The very Papists themselues cannot deny, but that Quéene Elizabeth was much renowned for her rare cle­mencie: and that not without cause, seeing she sparcd al­wayes those, that would not haue spared her, if it had lien in their power to haue hurt her: and yet they accuse her of tyrannie. In the resolution of certaine cases of conscience, set out by Allen and Parsons for instruction of English tray­tors: Non gerit se vt Reginam, (say they) sed exercet tyrannidem. She doth not behaue her selfe as a Queene, but doth exercise tyrannie. The like words they gaue out against the French king now raigning, albeit he hath shewed mercie to many deseruing none. Duke Ernest sending away one, that vn­dertooke to kill the Count Maurice: amazzate (said he) quel tyranno? that is: kill me that tyrant?

Others alleage, that the Pope proréedeth onely against heretikes and notorious offendors. But that is a most no­torious and palpable vntruth: for no man is more eagerly prosecuted, then religious, pious, and godly Christians, as the executions of France and Flanders do shew. And if they will not confesse it true in Christians of our time: yet can they not deny it in the times of the Emperors, Henry the third, fourth, and fifth, of Fredericke the first and se­cond, and of Lewis of Bauier, who made such confessions of their faith, being declared heretickes, as the Popes thē ­selues could not contradict: and yet did the Popes excom­municate them, and sought to depose them as heretikes and tyrants. Likewise did they prosecute other kings and Emperours, albeit consenting with them in matters of faith. Henrie the third of France, of late was cruelly perse­cuted, [Page 199] and murdred by the popish faction: and yet was he very superstitiously addicted to popish religion. Suppose then, that the Pope would procéed against none but here­tickes and tyrants; yet it is an easie matter and very vsual for him to picke quarels, and to impute heresie and tyranny and great crimes to most innocent men.

Finally they may say, that the Pope is alwayes assisted by Gods holy spirit, and cannot erre in his sentences of ex­communication, and deposing of Princes, especially for matters of religion. But this allegation is most brutish, ri­diculous, and refuted by euident experience and most eui­dent proofes that teach vs, that he is rather led by the spirit of Sathan, who was a murtherer from the beginning, and is the author of rebellions and troubles, then by the spirit of God, that is the God of peace, and author of concord a­mong Christians.

Wherefore let all Princes that liue vnder the Popes o­bedience, consider well the former reasons and examples, and look into their owne danger and slippery estate. For al­beit now the Pope hath his hands full, and cannot or dare not offer them wrong; yet many occasions may be offered of falling out betwixt them and the Pope. And in that case either they must confesse, as we do, that the Pope is a false prophet and Antichrist; or else yéeld vp their Crowne at his pleasure, or else defend their right without lawful title, and that both against rebels and forreine enemies: which will be a matter hard for them to do.

CHAP. IX. That no King or Prince can secure his person against the attempts of traitors, if he suffer any in his king­dome that teach or hold the Popes do­ctrine concerning the deposing and killing of Kings.

THis corollary or conclusion, is necessarily deduced frō the doctrine of Papists, concerning the Popes power [Page 200] in deposing of Kings and Princes. For if it be lawfull for the Pope to depose a Prince frō his royall throne, then is it lawfull for the Pope to command any assassin or cutthrote to murder him, séeing it is not likely that a magnanimous King wil yéeld to so base a companion as the Pope, nor giue vp his Crowne without force and compulsion.

The same is also proued by the general practise of Popes, by the wordes of the Popes bulles, by the doctrine of their principall followers, and by diuers particular facts and at­tempts both of Popes and their wicked instruments and agents. For first we find, that those Popes that haue gone about to depose Kings, haue also vsed all meanes to destroy thē & to cut their throtes. The which may be verified by the procéeding of Gregory the seuenth against Henry the Em­peror, of Paschalis and Vrban against his sonne, of Alexan­der against Fridericke Barbarossa, of Innocent the third a­gainst Philip and Otho, of Gregory the ninth and Innocent the fourth against Fridericke the second, of Clement the fift against Henry of Lucembourg, whom he caused to be poy­soned in the sacrament. Of Iohn the 22. and Clement the sixth against Lewis of Bauier, of Paul the third against Hen­riè the 8. King of England: of Pius the fift, Gregory the 13. and Sixtus Quintus against Quéene Elizabeth: and finally, of the Popes that fauored the rebellious leaguers of France against the French Kings Henry the third and fourth, and diuers others. For why did they raise rebellion, moue warres, and suborne secret traitors to attempt against the persons of Kings, but that they meant to giue leaue to des­perate cutthrotes to kill them?

Secondly, the words of the Popes buls, and the doctrine of their wicked agents doth notoriously manifest their leud and damnable purposes touching this point. Gregory the 7 doth first depriue Henry the Emperor of his Empire, and Platina, in Greg. 7. forbiddeth his subiects to obey him. Next, he commaundeth all to accept of Rodolph as their King, and to obey him. But neither could he be deposed without armes, nor might Rodolph be suffered to raigne during the life of the Em­perour [Page 201] Henrie.

Paul the third in his seditious bull against Henry the 8. king of England, commaunded the Nobles and other princi­pall men of the countrey to oppose themselues with force and armes against him, and to caft him out of his kingdome. But armes are taken in hand for no other purpose then to kil such as resist: and a weake conceit it is to thinke, that King Henry could be thrust out of his kingdome, vnlesse he were also depriued of his life.

That impious Pope Pius the fift also, that sent Nicholas Norton to moue an insurrection against Quéene Elizabeth in England, and his legate Sanders to do the like in Ireland, did intend no lesse then the destruction of her person, if the rebels had preuailed. In his bull against her he declared, that he had authoritie to pull vp and to destroy, and forbid­deth her subiects to obey her: which could not be executed without her destruction.

Sixtus the 5. in his declaration anno 1588. against the same Quéene, hauing at large rayled with his foule and fil­thy mouth against the Lords annointed, exhorteth all her people to lay hands on her, to arrest her, and to concurre to her punishment. That is also the end of that traitor Cardinall Allen his seditious exhortation to the Nobilitie and people of England and Ireland. But because the Papists had no better successe an. 1588. therefore they suppressed this dis­course for very shame, least their dealings for the destructiō of princes should be made manifest, and least the mysteries of Romish Babylon should be reuealed.

Parsons that bastardly English renegate, in his booke of Parsons an abbettor of cuttrotes & King-killers. succession, part. 1. cap. 3. alloweth the deposition of K. Iohn, of King Edward the second, King Richard the second, King Henry the sixth, and of diuers violent attempts made by subiects against their lawfull Kings. Thereby it appeareth also, that he approueth warres and rebellions made to de­pose Kings, and to destroy them. Nay, allowing the violent death of Caesar in the Senate, he seemeth directly to per­swade the murder of princes: which is the rather to be be­leeued [Page 202] for that he was an agent in the printing, and as his consorts the Masse-priests say, in making the libell set out by Allen against Queene Elizabeth, proclaiming reward to all that could lay hold vpon her, nay that could kill her.

Now least any man should doubt of the doctrine of the infernall Iebusites in this point, Emanuel Sa in his apho­rismes for confessaries, doth thus instruct all Masse priests: In verbo Ty­rann. Tyrannicè gubernans iustè acquisitum dominium, non potest spoliari fine publico iudicio, lata verò sententia potest quisque fieri executors That is, he that gouerneth tyrannically his state, which he hath gotten iustly, cannot be spoyled of it without publicke sentence (of the Pope); but sentence being passed, euery man may execute the sentence: he meaneth, that he may kill the King. He sayth also, that the people haue power to depose the prince. He doth further vnderstand the Pope to be euery Kings lawfull Iudge. Is it then to be maruelled, if the Masse-priests and their followers; grounding themselues vpon these resolutions, attempt against princes persons?

Iohn Ghineard one of the sect of the Iebusites, did pub­likely acknowledge in the parliament of Paris, anno 1594. that he had written these words: The cruell Nero (that is, Henry the third) was slaine by one Clement, and the counter­fet Monke by the hand of a true Monke. Againe, the heroicall áct done by Iames Clement, as a grace of Gods holy spirit, and called by that name by our diuines the Iebusites, was iustly commended by Bourgoin late prior of the Iacobins, a confes­sor and martyr. Talking of the king now raigning, he wrote that he would haue him shut into a cloister, and deposed. But if he cannot be deposed without warre, then (sayth he) let warre be made against him. And if there be no meanes to pre­uaile by warres, let him otherwise be killed. I would therfore haue indifferent men to iudge, whether this be not spiritual doctrine.

Our owne country Masse-priests also do not differ from their fellows in this point. One of them setting downe cer­taine resolutions for the instruction and consolation of the English, as he saith, asketh this question, Whether a Catho­like [Page 203] (he should say, a trayterous papist) is not bound by ver­tue of the Bull, (of Pius Quintus) to take armes against Eliza­beth, and to depose her, imprison her, and kill her, if occasion should serue, and if he haue hope to obtaine victorie. To this he answereth: Ex vi Bullae, putamus eum non teneri ad ea quae proponuntur, nisi omnia it a comparata essent, vt certa paratc (que) spes esset victoriae: quo casu propter bonum commune fidei & religionis ij tenerentur, qui aliquid possent praestare. That is: by force of the Bull, we do not thinke, that he is bound to do those things that are proposed, vnlesse all things were so ordered, that the hope of victorie were certaine and readie: in which case, for the common good of the faith and religion, those should be bound, that are able to do any thing. So it appeareth, that nothing held the Papists from laying violent hands vpon the Queene, our most gracious soueraigne Ladie, but that they had not all things readie, nor were in hope of certaine victorie. And this no doubt is the resolution they haue a­gainst all princes, that resist either the Pope, or their caco­like religion. The tenth question is this: An stante Bulla in virtute, &c. Whether the Bull of Pius Quintus standing in force, a priuate man might not kill Elizabeth, (our late Quééne) and the reason is, because she is a tyrant, and had no iust title to the Crowne: and whether the Pope cannot dis­pence, that this may be done, so it were likely, that by her death, catholike (they should say popish) religion should be restored. To this question answer is made: As touching this matter, if any by her death could certainely deliuer the realme from oppression, without all doubt, it should be law­full for him to kill her: but as matters do now stand, it is best not to speake of that matter. Hereby we may plainely sée, that this generation doth continually talk of killing Chri­ftian kings, and desire nothing more, then to murther thē, and to destroy them, that they may make way for the Pope. These questions are found in the acts of the coun­cell of Yorke, and were found in a search for Dauid Ingleby a Masse-priest, and no doubt, were allowed and brought into England either by him or by some of his conserts.

[Page 204]According to this damnable doctrine, the Popes and their adherents haue from time to time endeuoured, part­ly by cut-throates and assassins, and partly by diabolicall practisers and empoysoners to destroy princes, that stopped the course of their ambition. Beno the Cardinall saith, that Vita & gesta Hildebrandi. Gregorie the seuenth watching the Emperor, that was wont to pray much in the church of S. Marie, hired a fellow to place great stones vpon the beames or vault of the church, right ouer the place where he prayed, which being throwne downe might kill the Emperour. The words are these: Im­perator solitus erat frequenter ire ad orationem ad Ecclesiam S. Mariae, quae est in monte Auentino, Hidelbrandus autem, cùm per exploratores omnia eius opera solicitè inquireret, locum in que frequentiùs Imperator velstans, velprostratus orabat, notari fecit, & quendam, promissa pecunia, ad hoc induxit, vt supratrabes Ec­clesiae occultè lapides magnos collocaret, & ita aptaret, vt de alto super caput Imperatoris demitteret, & ipsum contereret. About the same time also, he sought (saith Beno) to destroy the Em­perour by secret traitors, but God preserued him. And then Ibid. there were some, that thought Hildebrand to be conscious and the setter of the treason, because a litle before the treason, like a false Prophet he presumed to foretell the kings death. The words of Beno are these: Eisdem diebus parauit Impera­torem perdere per occultos proditores: Deus autem eum custodiuit. Et eodem tempore fuerunt nonnulli, qui existimauerunt ipsum Hil­debrandum conscium extitisse, & ordinatorem proditionis, quia eis­dem diebus paulò ante proàitionem, de morte regis falsò prophetata praesumpsit. Neither are we to doubt, but they will empoy­son princes if they can, séeing Popes (as Beno, and diuers authenticall authors testifie) vse to empoyson one another.

Innocent the fourth, by Peter de vinea, a speciall fauorite Matt. Paris in Henric. 3. of Fridericke the 2, caused poyson to be offered vnto him. Ecclesiae inimici dixerunt, (saith Mat. Paris speaking of Pope Innocent) quod ad hoc facinus cor Petri eneruanào muneribus & pollicitis maximis inclinarat. The enemies of the Church (or of the Pope rather) say, that with great rewards and pro­mises, the Pope had induced Peter de vineis to vndertake this [Page 205] foule fact. And afterward, absorduit Domini Papae fama per hoc non mediocriter. That is: The fame of the Pope by this fact was not a litle stayned. Furthermore, saith Matth. Paris, the Emperour returned into Apulia hauing drunke poyson, as it is sayd: Redijt in Apuliam, vt dicitur, potionatus.

Henrie of Lucemburge the Emperour was poysoned by a Dominican Friar, that being hired by the contrarie fa­ction conueyed poyson into the Sacrament. Quidam religio­sus (saith Vrspergensis) porrexit Imperatori intoxicatam Eu­charistiam. Anno 1313. A certaine Friar gaue poyson to the Emperour in the Eucharist. The same is also testified by Baptista Igna­tius, supplementum Cronicorum, Textor in officina cap. veneno ex­tincti, and diuers others. Auentinus sayth, the Friar was moued thereto by Clement the fifth. That it was so, the great execution done by the Emperors souldiers vpon di­uers conuents of the Dominican Friars, doth declare.

But what néede we séeke forraine histories, when histo­ries report, that king Iohn of England was poysoned by a Caxtons hi­storie. Monke of Swinsted Abbey, for that he was supposed to be aduerse to the popish faction?

We may also remember, that of late the French king Henry the third, was most shamefully murthered by a Do­minican Friar called Iames Clement, set on by the popish Leaguers, and perswaded thereto by the Iebusites of Paris. The Pope also that then was, did highly commend the mans zeale in a solemne oration, made in the consistorie of Cardinals vpon the first intelligence of this fact. Neither do I thinke, that any of the popish faction will condemne the man, although his déed was most execrable.

Iohn Iauregui a desperate Spaniard anno 1582. dischar­ged Acta Ioan. Iaureg. and Metecanihist Belg. lib. 11. a pistole vpon the prince of Orenge, with a full pur­pose to kill him. His master perswaded him vnto it, but no­thing did worke more with him, then his confessors incou­ragement, who vnderstanding his resolution, did not only confirme him in his purpose, but also giue him absolution, and minister the Sacrament vnto him. For that is the fa­shion of these helhounds, to giue the Sacrament to such [Page 206] wicked assassins, to confirme them in their wicked purpo­ses. That which Iauregui attempted, Balthasar Gerard did Confession of Gerard. afterward performe most trecherously and villanously. And so by the hand of a base rascall, a noble prince was murthered, and a lyon trecherously slaine by a curre. The attempt was grounded partly vpon the old king of Spains promises, and partly vpon the encouragements giuen him by one D. Geryon a Minorite of Tornay, and a Iebusite of Trier, to whom he confessed himselfe, and which promised, that he should be a martyr, if he died in the execution of that enterprise.

Diuers desperate assassins likewise haue attempted to Meteran hist. Belg. lib. 17. murther that valiant and noble prince Maurice, which hath so long maintained his countries libertie against the ty­rannie of the Spaniards. Michael Reiniehon a Masse-priest and curate of a village called Bossier, was executed for that attempt. He was apprehended first vpon suspition, but af­terward he went about to hang himselfe, his owne consci­ence accusing him. But being stopped of his course, he did afterward confesse his malicious purpose, & his abettors.

Peter du Four confessed, that he was set on to kill prince Maurice, by the promises of Duke Ernest, who speaking to him in Italian, vttered these words: Facete quel, che ma­uete promesso, amassate quel tyranno: that is, performe your promise made to me, and kill that tyrant. He confessed also, that by vertue of a Masse, which he heard in a certaine chappell at Brussels, he was made beléeue, that he should go inuisible.

Peter Panne voluntarily confessed, that certaine Iebu­sites perswaded him to kill the Count Maurice, and that by their meanes he was furnished with a knife for the pur­pose. He persisted in his confession at his execution, and so was done to death. A matter so plaine and manifest, that Coster and Parsons denying it, do rather confound them­selues, then conuince the mans confession. For suppose the poore man was mistaken in some names, which might well be, considering that the Iebusites do vse to change their [Page 207] names; yet it is absurd to thinke, that any would confesse a matter against himselfe, and set it downe with so ma­ny circumstances, if there neuer had bene any such mat­ter.

Peter Barriere was executed not many yeares since at Melun, for that he was conuinced by diuers witnesses, and afterward confessed that he came to the court of France with a full resolution to kill the French King Henry the 4. He confessed also, that he was animated thereto by a Car­melite, a Iacobin, a Capuchin, and a Iebusite at Lyon, and that he had conferred with the Curate of S. Andrew at Paris, who told him, that he should for this fact be translated into paradise, and obtaine great glorie. He talked also with the Rector of the colledge of Iebusites, where he receiued the sa­crament, and with another preaching Iebusite, who (as he sayd) assured him, that his resolution (viz. for killing the king) was most holy and meritorious. Wherefore being conuinced by diuers witnesses and presumptions, and by his owne confession, wherein he persisted vnto the death, he was by an ordinary course of iustice condemned and exe­cuted. The Iebusites and their followers (I confesse) say, that he was a light headed fellow. But his answers, and the whole proceeding against him, which is particularly set downe by a Papist in the Iebusites Catechisme, lib. 3. cap. 6. doth declare the quite contrary, and proue manifestly, that he came to the place with a ful resolution to do that wicked act, being encouraged thereunto by the Iebusites, and other pillers of the Romish Church, that without such execrable murthers cannot stand. The same also proueth, that he an­swered in all that cause like a man well aduised.

Iohn Chastel wounded the French king Henry the fourth Registers of the Parlia­mēt of Paris. with a knife, and purposed to haue cut his throte. After the act being examined, he confessed that he had learned by phi­losophy, which he had studied in the colledge of Iebusites at Paris, that it was lawful for to kil the King, and that he hath often heard the Iebusites say, that it was lawfull to kill the King, being out of the Church. In the end persisting in his [Page 208] confessiō, he was put to death. His master alsowhich taught him this philosophie, was banished the Realme of France. Finally, the parliament of Paris considering the sequele of this damnable doctrine, pronounced the Iebusites to be ene­mies of the king and kingdome, and banished them out of France, and caused a piller to be erected in the place where Chastels fathers house did stand, testifying that the Iebusites are a peruicious sect, and enemies to kings. Gladly would the Iebusits put away this disgrace, but it is engrauē in stone: and their instances and answers are such, as rather further blot them, then reléeue them.

Crighton accused one Robert Bruis before the Count de Fuentes, for that he had not murdred a certaine Noble man of Scotland, nor would disburse fiftéene hundred crownes to thrée, that at his solicitation had vndertaken that mur­der. Such is the violent humor of the Iebusites, and so are they transported in their passions and rage to kill princes.

But nothing I suppose, doth better discouer the execra­ble intentions of the wicked Iebusites and Masse-priests against Kings, then their trecherous practises at diuers times attempted against Quéene Elizabeth. Pius Quintus dealt with the King of Spaine by force to ouerthrow her, and stirred vp her subiects secretly to rebell against her. Six­tus Quintus an. 1588. left not off to solicite the Spanish king against her, vntill the Spaniards were ouerthrowne at the sea, and had their land forces scattered. But when warres and open force wrought no good effect, they and their fel­lowes and adherents set murderers and empoysoners on worke. Anno 1584. William Parry vndertooke to kill her: the which resolution so well pleased Pope Gregorie the 13. that Cardinall Como in the Popes name, promised him pardon of all his sins, and a great reward besides for his en­deuour. Monsignor, saith he, his Holinesse hath seene your let­ters, with the credentiall note included, and cannot but com­mend the good disposition, which as you write, you hold for the seruice and benefite of the publike weale: wherein he ex­horteth you to continue, vntill you haue brought it to effect. [Page 209] And that you may be holpen by that good spirit that hath moued you, he granteth you his blessing, and plenary indul­gence and remission of all your sinnes, assuring you beside the merite you shall haue in heauen, that his Holinesse will make himselfe your debtor, to acknowledge your deserts in the best fort he can, &c. Where note I pray you, that the Pope pro­miseth heauen, and not only reward in earth to such as des­perately aduenture to kill Kings. The said Parrie was not onely encouraged by the Pope, but also resolued by Pal­mio a Iebusite at Venice, and other Iebusites at Lyon, and lastly by Anniball Codret to put his disseine in execution. And so hauing receiued the sacrament at Paris, he came for England with full assurance to be made at the least a mar­tyr, and with a desperate purpose to murder his dread So­ueraigne: matters not onely made manifest by witnesses, and presumptions, but also confessed by himselfe, and recor­ded in publike acts and histories. It appeareth also, that Robert Parsons, whose head is now become a mint of trea­sons, had a finger in this businesse. His owne letter dated the 18. of October, an. 1598. will conuince him, if he deny it. For therein he confesseth, how when he perceiued that a cer­taine English gentleman meant to discouer Parries practise against the Queene, that he did disswade him, and so wrought with the man, that he was content Parry should proceed on without being by him bewrayed.

When as D. Gifford at Paris, and other priests at Rhemes, Notes of the practises of Iebusites. had perswaded Sauage to kill the Quéene, as the onely ob­stacle of their purposes; yet did he seeme cold in his resolutiō, vntill such time as a Iesuite méeting with him at Ewe in France, did perswade him to go on resolutely, and without doubting.

That Ballards and Babingtons conspiracie tended to the destruction of the Quéenes person, it cannot be denied. For not onely witnesses and presumptions, but also their con­fessions declare so much. Neither did Babington giue ouer his wicked purpose being taken, but wrote to Sauage by all means to haften his enterprise for the killing of the Quéen: [Page 210] which was the cause that brought both them and others to their ends.

Neither are we to doubt, but that diuers Papists of note, both in England and other places, knew of this treason, sée­ing alwayes it was their fashion, in generall termes at the least, if not in particular maner, to giue notice of such mat­ters. For Ballard went ouer of purpose to Paris, to acquaint D. Allen and the Duke of Guise and others, with his owne and his consorts determination.

Someruile was so resolute in his purpose, and so iocund, that he could not kéepe his owne counsell secret, but would néedes professe to his friends, that he was determined to kill the Queene: but being detected, he wilfully made away him selfe, to saue the hangmans labor. Aiden was executed for the same treason.

Sir William Stanley and Iaques his Lieutenant, with the helpe of two Iesuites called Holt and Sherwood, and cer­taine other traitorous English Masse-priests, perswaded one Patricke Collen an Irish man, and a desperate fencer, to go ouer secretly into England and to murder the Queen, shewing by what means he might do it, without any great danger. To encourage him the better, they gaue him thirty pound sterling, for to put himself in order and to defray his charges, and loaded him with large promises of further re­ward and preferment: all which the man being apprehen­ded did voluntarily confesse, as the acts and processe do de­clare, and was therefore condemned and adiudged to die.

Edmund York and Williams being charged with the like treason, confessed also, that partly by the perswasion of Holt the Iebusite, who abused the consecrated host, to induce them and resolue them, and partly vpon hope of an assigna­tion of fortie thousand crownes shewed them by Hugh Owen, they promised to vndertake the killing of the Quéen. They said further, that D. Gifford, D. Worthington, & that vnworthy knight Sir William Stanley, together with diuers other English fugitiues beyond the sea, were acquainted [Page 211] with this their resolution and practise, and encoraged them by all meanes to go forward. Afterward, when these sedi­tious Iebusites and Masse priests, and their abbettors per­ceiued, that by the sword they could not take away the Quéenes life, then they set on empoysoners to do the fait. And that is apparant first by the fact and confession of Lo­pez and his consorts, and next by the treason of Edmund Squire, and the Iebusite Walpoole. Unto Lopez for this ex­ecution fiftie thousand crownes were promised: and the onely stay of assurance, was the safetie of the Quéene. The billes of payment directed to Carrera and Pallacio for the summe aforesayd, are yet extant, and will alway conuince the actors in this most execrable attempt of notorious bil­lanie.

Walpoole deliuered a poyson to Edmund Squire, where­with it was agréed, that he should annoint the pummell of the Quéenes saddle. He coniured the man with all the vio­lent adiurations he could deuise. He caused him to receiue the sacrament, and to damne himselfe if he did not both meane truly, and resolutely execute that which he had pro­mised. In the end he promised him the state of a glorious saint in heauen, if he died in the performance of the act. The which things the partie himselfe constantly confessed with­out all torture, and persisted in his confession to the end. Li­tle therefore doth it auaile Martin Aray, and Fitherbert, or rather Fitzputain, Parsons, or others to denie it, grounding themselues vpon the violence of the rackmasters, as they call them, and the reuocation of his confession at the gal­lowes. For neither was the man euer put to the racke, nor euer did he recant that which he had sayd before of VVal­poole and his practise: whereof, the first is testified by pub­like acts, the second by infinite witnesses yet liuing. Are they not then both shamelesse and witlesse, that vpon méere fancies and hearesayes deny publicke actes, confessions of parties, depositions of witnesses, plaine presumptions, and most euident proofes.

Wherefore if Christian princes will either beléeue the [Page 212] doctrine and grounds, or looke into the practise and procée­ding of this Satanicall race of king-killers & empoysoners; I doubt not but they will prudently beware of them, and neither suffer them nor their abettors to come néere them, or to remaine within their dominions. If they haue not hi­therto looked into matters, which so neere concerne their liues and safetie, I pray God they may yet do it in time. Quéene Elizabeth, being a most mild prince, was told that Pope Clement and his faccion thought well of her, and meant her no harme. But wise men considering the maner of her death, and effects of some drugs that are wont to ex­ulcerate the mouth, to greeue the stomacke, to bereue men of sence, to worke a stipticity and stupidity, and the concourse, and whispering, and preparations of the popish faction a­bout the time of her sicknesse, do much feare that the was not well dealt withall. I pray God reueale the truth, and grant al others by her example to beware of the Popes and Iebusits most dangerous practises, which neuer cease wor­king mischiefe if they may haue fit oportunitie.

CHAP. X. That kings and Princes liuing in subiection to the Pope, are but halfe kings, and demi-princes.

BUt suppose the Pope and his conspiring and working crew, should neither attempt to take away the crowne, nor the life from a prince, that beléeueth his lawes and yéel­deth to the Pope all that authoritie which he claimeth, yet doth he lose halfe his reuenues, authoritie, and regall soue­raigntie.

For first the Pope shareth the Kings reuenues, claiming tenths, first fruites, subsidies, confirmation and disposition of Ecclesiasticall liuings, and infinite summes of money for pardons, licences, dispensations, and all maner of rescripts. Those which are acquainted with the Popes faculties and incrochments in former Kings dayes within this land, [Page 213] and now in Spaine, Italy, and other popish countries, know they are intelerable, and no way inferior to the Kings reue­nues. Nay, if a King néed a dispensation for an Ecclesiasti­call matter, he is forced to bargaine with the Pope, and to buy it deare. The absolution of King Iohn had like to haue cost him the Crowne of England.

Secondly, not the King but the Pope is King of priests and ecclesiasticall persons. Boniface the 8. in the chap. Clericis de immunit. eccles. in 6. doth excommunicate both Kings and others, that impose taxes and subsidies vpon the Cler­gie. He doth also lay the same censure vpon those clergie men, that pay any subsidies to ciuill Magistrates: which sheweth, that he kept them for his owne selfe.

Alexander the fourth, in the chap. Quia nonnulli de immunit. eccles. in 6. exempteth the possessions and goods of clergy men from toll and custome.

Bellarmine in his treatise De exemptione clericorum cap. 1. setteth downe these propositions. In causis Ecclesiasticis liberi sunt clerici iure diuino à secularium principum potestate. That is, In Ecclesiastical causes clerkes are free from the commaund of secular princes, by the law of God. And by ecclesiasticall cau­ses, he vnderstādeth all matters which concerne the church, and which by hooke or crooke the Popes haue drawne to their owne cognition. Againe he sayth, Non possunt Clerici à Iudice seculari iudicari, etiamsi leges ciuiles non seruent. That is, Clerks are not to be iudged of secular Iudges, albeit they keep not his temporall lawes. His third proposition is this: Bona clericorum, tam ecclesiastica, quàm secularia libera sunt, ac meritò esse debent, à tributis principum secularium. That is, The goods of clerkes, whether they belong to the Church, or be temporal, are free from tributes of princes, and so ought to be. He sayth also, that secular princes, in respect of clerkes, are not soue­raigne princes, and that therefore clerkes are not bound to o­bey them. Now, how is the King absolute in his kingdome, if he haue neither power ouer the persons of the clerks, nor their goods?

Emanuel Sa in his aphorismes, In verbo, Clericus: in his book [Page 214] first printed, and alleaged by him that wrote the Franc dis­course, hath these words: Clerici rebellio in regem, non est crimen laesae maiestatis, quia non est subditus regi. The rebellion of a clerk against the King, is no treason, because he is not the kings sub­iect. This is plaine dealing, and sheweth that the king is no king of the Clergie, where the Popes lawes beare sway. But because these words be somewhat too plaine, therefore in a later edition of these aphorismes set out at Venice, they haue for their owne ease cut out the words, albeit in effect Bellarmine and others teach so much.

Their practise also declareth that this is their meaning: for Thomas Becket stoutly resisted Henry the second, and his Mat. Paris. in Hen. 2. parliament enacting, that clerkes offending against the kings lawes, should answer before the kings Iustices. Further, he would not agree that clerkes lay-fee should come in trial be­fore them.

Sixtus quartus did enterdite the state of Florence, for that they had executed the Archbishop of Pisa notoriously taken in a conspiracie against the State. Xistus, quòd sacrato viro, & Archiepiscopo it a foedè interfecto Cardinalem quoque cap­tiuum fecissent, Hieronymo instigante grauissimum Florentinis (sa­cris omnibus interdictis) bellū intulit, saith Onuphrius: That is, Sixtus warred vpon the Florentines, and enterdited them for that they had killed the Archbishop of Pisa being a priest, and layd hands on a cardinall. And yet he declareth they were a­ctors in the conspiracie against Iulian and Laurence de Me­dicis, that then ruled the State.

This was also the greatest quarrell of the Pope against Henry the third of France, for that he caused the Cardinal of Guise to be killed, being culpable of most enormous trea­sons against him. Now what can Kings do against their subiects, if they may not punish them offending in trea­son?

Thirdly, the Popes do draw many temporall matters from the cognition of the King, to themselues and their ad­herents. Boniface the 8. c. quoniam. de Immunitat. Eccles. in 6. doth excommunicate all those that do hinder matters to be [Page 215] brought frō triall of temporall iudges to Ecclesiasticall courts, and namely those, that will not suffer all contracts, confirmed by oathes, to be tried before Ecclesiasticall iudges. By which meanes almost all causes were brought before them, and the Kings iurisdiction almost stopped and suspended. The Kings of England therfore, to restraine these incrochmēts, made the law of Praemunire, putting them out of his prote­ction, that wold not be tried by his lawes. Is it not strange then, that Christian princes should suffer such companions to vsurpe their authoritie, and not onely in causes Ec­clestasticall, but also in temporall to beare them selues as iudges.

Finally they deny, that Christian Princes haue power either to make Ecclesiasticall lawes, or to reforme abuses in the Church, or to gouerne the Church concerning exter­nall matters. All papists do so distinguish betwixt Eccle­siastical and politicke gouernement, that they exclude tem­porall Princes from the gouernement of the Church, and make them subiect to the Pope. Bellarmine lib. 1. de Pontif. Rom. c. 7. determineth, that temporall Princes are no gouer­nours of the Church.

Ifthen Christian Princes loose part of their reuenues, and part of their iurisdiction, and are quite excluded, both from the gouernement of the Church, and also disposing of the persons and goods of Ecclesiasticall persons; most appa­rent it is, that such Princes as admit the Popes authori­tie, are either but halfe kings, or else not so much, loosing more then halfe their authoritie, by the Popes incroch­ments.

How contrarie this is to the doctrine of the Apostles and ancient fathers, we néede not here dispute. S. Peter teacheth Christians to honour the King: and Paule exhorteth euery soule to be subiect to the higher powers. Now what greater dishonour can be offered to a king, then to take away his authoritie? And how are they subiect, that pay the King nothing, and claime exemption from his gouernement? Our Sauiour willeth all to giue to Caesar, that which is [Page 216] due to Caesar, and Peter payed tribute to Caesar. But his false successors pay no tribute to Caesar, but take tribute of Caesar, and challenge it as due to them selues. Nay, they haue against all right vsurped his imperiall citie of Rome, and released all clerkes from temporall Princes obedience.

Tertullian saith, Christians honored the Emperour, as the Ad Scapulam next man in honour to God, and onely inferiour to God. Co­limus Imperatorem (saith he) sic, quomodo & nobis licet, & ipsi expedit, vt hominem a Deo secundum, & quicquid est à Deo con­sequutum, solo Deo minorem. Chrysostome sheweth, that the Apostles wordes Rom. 13. concerne clerkes and religious men, as well as lay men.

The same is also contrarie to the practise of the Church vnder the Law, and vnder the Gospell. and derogatorie to the Kings authoritie. For both vnder the Law, and when Emperors began to professe Christian religion, they made lawes for the Church, and reformed Ecclesiasticall abuses, as both Scriptures, and the lawes of the Code and No­uelles testifie.

Thirdly this authoritie is plainly vsurped by the Pope and his followers. For vntill Gregorie the seuenth his time, who by force and armes preuailed more, then by rea­son; we find, that the clergie and Church was gouerned by Christian princes, and their lawes.

Finally the same is disgracefull to Kings, and burden­some to subiects, and most vnreasonable. Disgracefull it is to Kings to loose their royalties, and to be made subiect to forreiners. Burdensome it is to good subiects, vpon whom the whole burden is laid, and they exempted which are best able to beare. The Germaines in their grieuances, Grauam. 28. shew, that the charge of the warre against the Turke is laid wholy on lay-mens shoulders. Finally, it is no reason, that those should liue vnder the Kings protection, that neither pay him tribute, nor acknowledge his authoritie.

But of the vnreasonablenesse of these incrochments we shall haue occasion to dispute elswhere. Here it is sufficient to shew, that the Popes vsurpations, exactions and whole [Page 217] authoritie is preiudiciall to Kings, & vntollerable to their subiectes.

Be wise therefore D ye Kings of the earth, and serue Christ Iesus: but beware that in stead of Christ, ye serue not Antichrist. And you that are fréed by the preaching of the Gospell from the bondage of the Popes traditions and ex­actions, take héed that you suffer not your selues to be en­tangled againe in his snares, & brought againe into bon­dage. The Popes agents tell you of many goodly actions of the Pope, and set out the beautie of traditions with faire words. But they séeke nothing, but to bring you into a snare, and to make merchandise of your soules, and to blind you so, that you shall not be able to sée the miserie of those, that liue vnder him, or the trash of his false doctrine and traditions. God graunt you therfore the spirit of wisedome and discretion, that you may stand fast in the liberty of true Christians, and neuer be entangled againe with the yoke of Popish bondage.

CHAP. I. A legend of No saint, but of Robert Parsons his life, calculated in fauour of that swarme of traitors, which euery yeare he sendeth out of his seditious Seminaries.

BEfore I enter into this discourse, I do pro­test, that I was drawne into it more then halfe against my will, by the importunitie of Robert Parsons, who first began this course: and albeit without commission went about to make enquiry what I am, what I did at Caliz, what in Ireland, and what in other pla­ces, and to obiect whatsoeuer he thought might moue ei­ther suspicion of crime, or occasion of ieast. But séeing I am [Page 220] forced to defend my self, I professe and proclaime it openly, that I will spare neither Iebusite nor Masse priest, nor Archpriest, nor prouinciall Iebusite, nor Pope, nor Cardi­nall, that shall come in question. Howbeit let all the rest sleepe for this turne. Now we will talke onely of Robert Parsons, and see what reason he had to aske a reason of other mens actions, that is so obnorious to so many accusations himselfe. Our Sauiour Christ calleth him hypocrite, that espieth a mote in another mans eye, hauing a bcame in his Math. 7. owne eye. Qui sibi hoc sumpsit (saith Tully) vt corrigat mores Accusat. in Verr lib. 3. aliorū, ac peccat a reprehendat: quis huic ignoscat, siqua in re ipse ab religione officij declinarit? Whosoeuer arrogantly taketh vpō him to correct other mens manners, and to reprehend their faults; who will pardon him if in any thing he decline from the reli­gious and prescript rule of dutie? Let vs then sée whether Parsons hath kept himselfe within the compasse of religion or rule, and walked, within any precincts of dutie.

The man was borne in an obscure village in Somerset­shire: his putatiue father was called Cowbucke, a poore Blacksmith, of the race, or at least qualitie of Vulcan: for he was matched to Parsons his mother, a woman scarce so ho­nest, Her husband tooke a filthy disease of her, of which the poore man died. Some call that dis­ease, Il mal Francese. they say, as Venus. His true father was sir Iohn Hay­wood a Masse priest, and sometime a Monke of the Abbey of Torre in Deuonshire, a lustie stallon, both as a Monk, and as a Masse-priest, and an honest man, as may be presumed: for he lost one of his eares for conueying away an honest woman condemned to the gallowes. This decowled Monk made the mariage betwixt Cowbucke the smith and Ro­bert Parsons his mother. So Stalino would haue placed Ca­sina with his hind Olympio, Sperans sibi parat as fore clam vx­ore Plautus in Casina. excubias for as: That is, hoping without his wiues priuitie to keepe watch abrode. And Holt the Iebusite would haue maried his wench or concubine to one Thomas Edwards (a man, and matter not vnknowne to Parsons). It may be he will say, this is from the purpose: yet can he not deny, but that it is good to illustrate matters by examples.

Some say Robert Parsons is not vnlike the Monke, Tum [Page 221] quòd malè audit, that is, both because he heareth euill of one side especially, and because he hath not both his eares on one side. The lineaments of his face also do bewray him to [...]e of kinred to Haywood. Finally, his desire to be a monkish Iebusite, and a priest, doth argue that he was a priests or Monks sonne: and his gibing and iesting, that he was Hay­woods son, who was in his time a mad ieasting knaue. For as Tully saith, sonnes do follow lightly the example of their fa­thers, as he proueth by the examples of Scipio and the yon­ger Pro Rabir. posthumo. Decius. Neither is it materiall that these men were not bastards, seeing bastardie doth not alter the case.

Certes if Haywood was not his father, then was he much deceiued, kéeping Parsons at schoole, and bringing him vp as his sonne. Then was also Robert Parsons much abused, that would not be called by the beastly name of Cowbucke that had his name of two horned beasts, but of the priestly title of his true father: and being charged with bastardie in Bayliol colledge in Oxford durst neuer stand to it, but as guiltie of that matter departed the colledge, for feare he should haue bene thrust out headlong. The matter certes was much suspected, this Heywood lying in the black­smiths house, and supplying the mans place, and being ge­nerally defamed for this matter.

Finally, if he wil not beléeue me, let him heare his owne consorts the secular priests depose against him. Parsons (sayth the author of the discouery of English Iesuites) is by birth a bastard, begotten of the body of a base woman, by the parson of the parish where he was borne, and his right name is not Parsons, but Cowbucke. Againe: the same parson that begot him, did afterwards foster him, and hauing brought him vp at the schoole, sent him to Oxford, and placed him in Bayliol colledge, whence he was expelled being master of Arts, not for religion, as he hath vaunted, but for his bastardie, factious conuersation, libelling, and other misdemeanors. This note of bastardie is also put vpon him in a certaine declaration of the priests made to the Pope, and was not forgotten either by him that wrote the reply to Parsons libell fol. 91. or by [Page 222] the Quodlibetist, Quodl. 4. art. 2. p. 109. We may not imagine (saith he) that father Parsons was ignorant of his owne estate, as being a sacrilegious bastard in the worse sense, scilicet a Spu­rius, begotten by the parson of the parish where he was borne, vpon the bodie of a very base queane. This is the testimony of Watson, a popish martyr: and I hope Parsons wil not de­nie a martyrs testimony.

If then, Spuria vitulamina non dabunt radices altas, nec stabile firmamentum collocabunt: that is, if bastard slips shall not take deepe roote, nor stand on a firme foundation, then is it not like, that this caluish vitulamen, or bastard, the son or calfe of goodwife Cowbucke, can take déepe roote. Insomuch as many wonder that this bastard slip is not grafted vpon Ti­burne stocke, and long since withered like an elderne sticks without pith.

While he was yong, the fellow was much noted for his singular impudency and disorder in apparel, going in great barrell hose, as was the fashion of hacksters in those times, & drawing also déepe in a barrell of ale. Heare I pray you, what A. C. the author of the Masse-priests late supplicatiō, sayth of him in his third letter. He was (saith A. C.) a com­mon alehouse squire, and the drunkeneft sponge in all the pa­rish where he liued. His mother could kéepe no good liquor for him: such a dangerous enemie was he to the aletap. The same A. C. chargeth him with begetting two bastards male and female vpon the body of his owne sister betweene the age of seuenteene and 23: and this saith he, was the cause why he ranne away, and became a Iesuit. O famous vir­gine Iebusit, or rather filthy incestuous Cananite! O braue patron of Romish or rather rammish virginitie!

Of nature he was malicious, and from his youth giuen to speake euill, and to write libels. One libell he wrote a­gainst D. Squire, wherein he touched a certain Ladie, which had like to haue turned him to much trouble. Since he ran out of his country, the writing of infamous libels against his dread Soueraigne, and other principall gouernors of the State, hath bene his principall studie, as the libell [Page 223] against master Charke, the libell against my Lord of Ley­cester, commonly called Greenecote, the libell against the Queene, set out vnder the titles of Cardinall Allen, Didimus Veridicus, and Andreas Philopater, against my Lord Trea­surer lately deceased, against the whole state intituled de Schismate Anglicano, and diuers others, which either hée wrote, or published, or holpe to write or publish, doe plaine­ly testifie.

If then the authors of famous libels be infamous; why is not Parsons punished for an infamous libeller? If ba­stards be irregular, why is he made a Iesuite and a priest? Are such bastardly and infamous Parsons fit persons to be made priests? and is this the perfection of the Iebusiticall order, which they brag off?

While he continued in Bailiol colledge, one Stancliffe his fellow burser did charge him with forgery: Beside that Bagshew in his Apologie. diuers other articles were put vp against him, and twen­tie nine or thirtie came before the master and fellowes, as Bagshaw saith, to demaund iustice against him. Christopher Bagshaw his fellow priest testifieth, that being burser, he Ibidem. disfurnished the colledge library of many auncient bookes, and rare manuscripts. A true man he is, as it seemeth, being conuinced both of forgery, filchery, and periury: But be­cause he was sworne to be true, a true thiefe to the colledge. For these and other misdemeanors, he had the fauour to re­signe being first lawfully expelled, as saith Bagshaw in his apologie against Parsons slanders, and with such fauour he departed, that no man seemed desirous he should re­maine in the colledge any longer. I thinke he may remem­ber, that he was rung with belles out of the house, which was either a signe of triumph, or else of his dismall depar­ture out of the world. At the same time, he made a submission with many teares, as saith Bagshaw, and promised, that he would euer after carry himselfe in a good sort: but if he forgot his oth made first, it was no maruell, if he forgot his promise made after.

Hauing receiued this disgrace, not long after he fled like [Page 224] a fugitiue out of his countrey, and became a Iebusite. For note, that periured fugitiues, make prime Iebusites. So, that was verified in him, that is commonly found true in others, Quod desperatio facit monachum. For desperatly hee cast himselfe away into a monkish order, although not long before he had deepely protested, that he would neuer be­come a papist.

What religion was in him, it may appeare, for that sud­denly he tooke on him a religion, which he had a litle before forsworne. Beside that, being in England he alwaies profes­sed the same religion that we doe, and in priuate commu­nication with his friends, seemed desirous to learne some good course of study of diuinitie. Being burser, hee bought many bookes written by learned men of our side, and pla­ced them in the library of Bailioll colledge in Oxford. What is then to be collected of all his demeanour and actions, but that disgrace and malice, and no other reason made him a papist, a friar, and an apostata?

Departing out of the countrey, hee went not away empty handed. For he carried away diuers summes of mo­ney, which he had receiued of his schollers friends, without rendring accompt. Promising also to make a match be­twixt one of his schollers and a gentlewoman his mothers neighbour, he tooke money of both the parties friends, al­beit neither of the parties knew any such matter, nor their friends had talked together. A very prety tricke to be plaid for his first prize of cosinage. The seculer priests charge him with mispending the almes that is bestowed on the english Seminaries, vpon his intelligencers, & spies, in po­stage, and vpon his priuat pleasures. After his departure out of England, the man cosined the Prince of Parma, the Spanish king, and others, offering like a montebanke, the crowne of England to sale to any that would buy it. A thing certes of good price, if he could haue made his sale good.

He may remember, that Marforio in Rome touched him in a certaine ticket for this grosse cosinage. But great won­der [Page 225] it is, that the Pope hath not trussed him ere this, fin­ding all his promises of intelligences, treasons and packes in England, to be nothing else but méere cosinage, moc­kery, and knauery, to procure himselfe to be made Cardi­nall.

And this, both himselfe, and his brother and friends did so greedily looke for, that on a time being aduised to weare a péece of scarlet before his stomacke, and giuing order, that a péece might be brought from the marchant, his wit­lesse brother thinking the time of his aduancement had bene come, caused as much scarlet to be brought to him as would make him a Cardinals robes. But with great con­fusion and blushing, like as if his face had bene died scar­let, Parsons conueyed the man and his scarlet out by a posterne gate. But the scorne and blemish still stucke to him.

Of his vertuous life in Spaine, and in the colledge at Rome, we neede not to stand much, seeing the markes of his honesty appeare in the pustules of his face, but especially in his scabbed legs. The which mysteries of Iebusites, least they should be reuealed, they haue a graunt of the Pope to haue Physitions of their owne company. While the stirres continued betweene the Iesuits, and the English schollers in Rome, one Harward gaue out, that he could name seuen Sodomites in that colledge. But may Parsons friends an­swere, That is no nouelty among the fiery Ignatians, that forsweare mariage. For seeing they refuse honourable ma­riage, it is Gods iust vengeance vpon them, that they should fall into these filthie & abominable disorders. Eue­ry one of the masse-priests according to the formulary of Rome doth say and confesse, quòd peccaui in Sodomia, that is, Ordo Rom. edit. ab Hit­torp. I haue sinned in Sodomy.

The man naturally is a coward, yet when he passeth through strange countreyes, he goeth disguised, and calleth himselfe Captaine Cowbucke. But albeit he be no souldier, nor worthy of that profession, yet should he haue come anno 1588. with the Spanish forces against his countrey. And so [Page 226] many hath he suborned to kill the Queene, and to stirre re­bellion in England and Ireland, that he hath caused more blood to be shed, then the greatest souldier of our time. His impudency in lying, and great cunning in iugling, may be conuinced by his bold assertions and denials against all truth, and by his shifting and cogging in all his writings: which giue plaine euidence, that the man when he sted from his countrey, left honesty, shame, and conscience be­hind him, if euer he had any, as by diuers arguments in the treatise ensuing shall, god willing, be verified. In the meane while, see what his fellow traitors say of him. He that set foorth the reply to Parsons libell, doth testifie, that he will affirme, or deny any thing, and saith, that he hath a brasen forehead, and prayeth, that God would send him more shame, more honesty, and more truth. Speaking of his cun­ning conueiance he saith, he will neuer leaue his iugling trickes: and againe, that like a Gipsey he playeth at fast and loose.

His life vnto the rest of his consorts is so scandalous, that the martrized Quodlitelist with admirati ō doth thus exclaime, quodl. 8. art. 5. pa. 238. ô monster of mankind, fit­ter for hell then middle earth, and afterward: thou giuest occasion for diuers to thinke, thou art not a mere man, but some fairies brat, or begotten by some incubus, or aerish spirit, vpon the body of a base woman. and quodl. 6. art. 7. and discouery pa. 70. Blackewell, saith a certaine masse-priest, must depend vpon Garnet, and Garnet vpon Parsons, and Parsons on the deuill. Doe not you thinke then, that this is a braue dependance, and that the warneword is braue stuffe that is calfreted and deuised by a dependant vpon the de­uill? but may his friends say, this was spoken out of chol­ler. Heare then what the archpriest said, when he heard, that Robert Parsons was first come into England. This man sayd he, will shame vs all: he is for his expulsion, and man­ners so infamous. Howsoeuer he hath shamed others, him­selfe he hath shamed by his leud, loose, and discomposed patcheries.

[Page 227]Of his cruell disposition, he hath giuen vs many argu­ments. Bagshaw his apologie. While he was yet in Bailioll colledge he prosecuted seuen young men of farre better parentage then himselfe, and gladly would haue had them hanged for taking cer­taine puddings from a pupill of his called Himmes. He en­deuoured to draw Himmes his father into bond, that hée should not cease to prosecute the fellonie, and would haue proceeded further, had not the councell taken order to stay his violence: it may be he thought, that taking of puddings was a great matter, considering especially, that the wealth of the tripewise his mother consisted in tripes, puddings, and souce: but sée Gods hand against this pro­secutor of takers of puddings, he is now so swollen like a blacke pudding, that the memory of Parsons puddings will not lightly be forgotten. A man shall hardly find a fitter fellow to play Ballio the baud, then Parsons being a baudy, burley, pudding growne fellow, and very like the baud in Plautus, cum collatiuo ventre & oculis herbeis, that is, with his bumbasted and barrellike bellie, and eyes greenish like grasse. In Rome he hath long bene the tormentor of the boyes of the English colledge, although his friends in his excuse say, he loueth them but too well, and namely one Fisher a fine youth, that sometime was a Ganymedes to Edward, or as he called himselfe Odeward Weston some­time reader of Sodomiticall diuinitie at Doway: although now for his beastly loue, they say, he hath lost his place and lecture, and is sent to Antwerpe to loue wenches there. Prouided alwayes, that he meddle not with boyes, espe­cially, scandalously. As for Fisher he is now at Rome, as they say, to do penance with Robert Parsons Protonotarie of Sodome: if he be not fishing in the sea. Whē Bishop and Charnocke agents of the secular priests in England, were sent to Rome, Sir Robert handled them very rudely. These priests doe exclaime mainely against his crueltie. He tooke away their writings and valists, he caused them to be im­prisoned, and hardly examined: and at the length sent them away, re infectissima. But what should I neede to stand vp­on [Page 228] prooues of his bloody and cruell disposition, when it is apparent, that diuers wayes he hath sought to destroy the Queene, whom he should haue honoured, as his most gracious soueraigne? He sought also to deliuer vp his coun­trimen to haue their throats cut by the Spaniards, nay by Italians, Marans and infidels. One William Browne alias Ch. P. in a letter dated the 16. of August anno 1599. affir­meth, that he hath a letter of Parsons his owne hand, dated 1598. wherein he confesseth, that he knew of Parries practise for the killing of the Queene, and that the said Parsons kept backe a gentleman, that intended to discouer the same. A certaine other papisticall fellow, in a treatise concerning the practises of Iesuits for killing of Princes, doth charge Parsons for aduancing the practise of Party and Sauage a­gainst the Quéens life, for dealing with the Duke of Guise to enter into England with 5000. men, to surprize the Quéene lying at Greenewich, and the citie of London. Neither haue the Spaniards made any attempt against England without the priuitie and solicitation of Parsons, the arch-plotter of treasons.

William Browne aliàs Ch. P. doth charge Parsons to be a In a letter da­ted August. 16 anno 1599 common detractor, and saith that he detracteth without re­spect of religion, truth, or common honestie. If then he de­tract from his owne fellowes, & rayleth vpon such, as him­selfe pleaseth, though in the generall cause ioyned with him; we may not maruell, if he play his with parts vs, whom he taketh to be his enemies, & by whose detractiō he hopeth to merit, and to winne a Cardinals hat. Finally the mans traitorous practises against the Quéene and his countrey, in many volumes cannot sufficiently be desci­phred. His first comming into England was to make a side, and to moue rebellion. And that is prooued by his fa­culties graunted anno 1580. Petatur (saith he) à S. domino nostro, &c. that is, Let it be desired of our most holy Lord the Pope, that the bull declaratorie of Pius the fift against Elizabeth and her adherents, be vnderstood in this manner, that the same bull shall alwayes bind her and all heretikes, [Page 229] but not (Romish) Catholikes, as matters doe now stand, but onely then, when the bull may publikely be put in execution. By this facultie being granted, then it appeareth, that the bull of Pius Quintus was in force against the Quéene and her subiects, and that Parsons came to stirre vp false Catho­likes, or rather false traitors, to put it in execution, as soone as occasion should be offered. Now according to the tenor of his faculties, the fellow ceased not to rake in the coles of mens discontented humours, and to make a partie against the Queene. The papists saw he dealt so openly, that they feared, least if the fire tooke, a number of them should be burned in the flames. Such was the feare of the wisest of them, that they told him plainely, that if he retired not himselfe, they would discouer him to her Maiesties officers.

Being thus forced more then halfe against his will to depart out of England, yet ceased he not to procure vs trou­bles from Scotland, as the king now raigning can tell, and his libell against the Earle of Leicester, that seemeth to fa­uour the kings title, doth manifestly proue. Nay in a let­ter to the Earle of Angus he doth plainely confesse, that at that time he was for the kings title, and sought presently to set it on foote, without longer staying for the Queenes death.

In France he encouraged the D. of Guise to come with an army into England, not forgetting in the meane while to aduance the treason of Parry & Sauage. There also he was acquainted, by the meanes of Ballard, with Babingtons con­spiracie. Neither is it to be doubted, but he knew of friar Sammiers comming to the kings mother, of which ensued the ruine of her, as the authour of the Iesuits Catechisme testifieth. It is said also, that he caused 500. crownes to be deliuered to Ch. Paget to come ouer into England to treat with the Earle of N. whereof his destruction ensued not long after.

In Flanders he sought also to draw the D. of Parma into quarrell with the Queen of England, offering him the Lady [Page 230] Arbella, and the crowne of England for his sonne. But he was no more able to performe his offer then the deuill, that promised to giue all the kingdomes of the earth to Christ. That packe being broken, he solicited the prepara­tions of the Spaniard against England anno 1588. ayding Card. Allen to make that most execrable libell, which he titleth an exhortation to the Nobility and people of England and Ireland, which containeth all the disgrace that could be deuised, both against the Quéene, & her subiects. Whatso­euer he did in deuising of that traitorous libell, one W. Br. alias Pag. chargeth him, that hee holpe to print it, and gaue diuers copies to his friends.

Departing out of the low countries, he committed the managing of matters to one Holt, a man of his owne socie­tie and confrairy of tray tours. If then Holt was acquain­ted with the practises of Yorke, Williams, and Daniel, for killing the Quéene, as he is charged by W. Br. alias Ch. Pag. or with Heskets trecherous agency with the Carle of Darby; then no doubt, but R. Parsons was made priuie therewith also, seeing he was but as an inferiour sphere concurring with Parsons, that like primum mobile drew with him all inferior traytors, and made all matters of treason to be taken in hand.

Residing in Spaine, his onely purpose was, to set this land in combustion. To worke a detestation of her Maiestie, and of the English nation in the mindes of the Spaniards, he caused a most slanderous libell set forth before in Latin, to be translated into Spanish by one Ribadineira a man of his owne trayterous order, adding thereunto di­uers slaunderous and most vntrue reports of his owne, auouching his owne lies vpon the credit of Sanders being now dead. And that this is true, not onely his owne con­science doth witnesse, but that ribald Ribadineira must ac­knowledge, if he be aliue, and will testifie truth. For to draw the king of Spaine into the party, he set out a most fond booke of titles to the crowne of England, casting the same with all the force of his wit vpon the Infanta of Spaine, [Page 231] seeking to depriue the right heires, and endeuoring to bring vs vnder the captiuitie of strangers: to which end also he caused diuers of the English nation residing in Spaine to subscribe to that title.

With the helpe of Creswell and others his adherents, he caused diuers trecherous inuectiues to be published against her Maiesty & the State; and that partly vnder the names of Andreas Philopater, Didimus Veridicus, and such like counterfet names, and partly without names.

By his, and other his traitorous consorts solicitation, king Philip the second sent forth a fléet to sea: of which, two attempts followed: the one about the yeare 1598. in which diuers ships by stresse of wether were wracked on the coast of Spaine, betwixt the Rocke and Cap. finis terrae: the second followed not long after. The first is proued by D. Stillingtō, and other Massepriests, perswaded by Parsons to come with publike enemies against England: the second is mentioned in a letter of the said Parsons to Th. Fitzherbert, and publike­ly diuulged by the Adelantadoes proclamation, of which hereafter we shall haue occasion to speake. And so earnest was the king of Spaine in setting forth this fleete against England, that at one time, returning to himselfe out of a trance, the first words he speke, were, Whether is the Ade­lantado gone for England? At another time, being at his de­uotions, he said, He would spend the furniture of his chap­pell, but he would be reuenged vpon the English. The Se­cular priests in their reply to Parsons libell, fol. 65. do also mentiō these preparations. Neither is it to be doubted, but that Parsons concurred in the solicitation of them. The au­thor of the Reply speaking of these preparations for England: These two preparations (sayth he) are so euident, to haue pro­ceeded with his concurrence and cooperation, as he no way can deny it without the note of impudency, so many witnesses, and his owne letters bring in testimonie against him. He doth likewise affirme, that the vrging of diuers to subscribe to the Infantaes title, is a matter notorious and euident, and to be proued by the othes of diuers priests. In his letters to a cer­taine [Page 232] Earle of Scotland, Parsons plainely confesseth diuers practises set on foote by himselfe against England, and that he sought to aduance the Spanish Infantaes title, as being of his religion.

The resolutions of cases of conscience, set out by A. P. that is, Allen and Parsons, for direction of their traitorous schollers, are nothing else but resolutions to proue them both traitors, and enemies to their countrie, declaring the Queene to be a tyrant, and no lawfull Queene, and her officers no lawfull officers, and ayming wholly at the ouerthrow of the State.

Finally, it is auerred by the secular priests, that Parsons had a finger in the rebellions of Ireland. Neither is it to be doubted, but that he & his agent Creswel were acquainted with the enterprise of D. Iuan d'Aquila in Kinsale, many traitorous English being that time in companie with the Spaniards.

If then this be one of the chiefe pillars of Romish faith, certaine it is, that the Romish faith standeth vpon disloyal­tie and trechery, or at least vpon a wicked disloyall traitor. If Papists wold consider these his prartises, they wold not so much esteeme his directories, libels, discoueries, inuectiues, wardwords, or rather a wardrobe of knauery and villanie, his Warnewords, & such like odious fardles of idle words, which rather direct men to the gallowes, then to religion and vertue: which shall further appeare in the answer fol­lowing. This in the meane while I thought to relate, for ease of his holy father, if percase he list to saint this horse­holy Frier. And if in the meane while he be not created Cardinall, by reason of his infamous bastardie, and foule bellaquerie, & too open playing aboue boord: yet let him be a Cardinall, and a card ercarniticable, vested with Cardi­nals robes of yellow, blew, and greene, like the Knaue of Clubbes.

CHAP. II. Of the title Warne-word, and other matters promised and prefixed in the front of Parsons his booke.

A goose (they say) may be knowne by a feather. If men will not beléeue me, yet may it be verified by the goose Parsons. For by his most foolish title, being the first fe­ther of his gooseships worke, we may assure our selues we shall haue a great péece of foolerie. For albeit he promise vs but one Warneword, yet hath he sent vs a whole fardle of idle words and fantasticall fooleries.

Secondly, as admonitions and warnings are sent to friends, and not to enemies; so might he haue done well to haue giuen some admonitions to the bougerly boyes of the English seminaries, that suffer themselues to be abused too shamefully by the bougeronicall Masse priests, to the disho­nor of their nation; and not to vs, that regard not witlesse admonitions a straw. The tragicall poet might haue told Eurip. in Me­dea. this comicall admonitor, if he had but had any one graine of wit, that a wicked mans offers and gifts are vnprofitable. The Greeke is, [...]. But the asse vnderstandeth no Greek, and not much Latin, being onely acquainted with the iron tongue of his mother the blacksmiths wife.

Thirdly, his whole labour being spent in iangling and bangling about some pild matters of his popish paltry re­ligion; he must shew how all that nastie geare will come within the compasse of his title, vnlesse he will haue the same throwne out among the waste of his idle inuen­tions.

Fourthly, his running vpon the letter in the titles of his Warneword, Wardword, Wastword, and in his mentioning of Watchword doth shew, that there is more rime then reason in his booke, and doth presage, that we should rather [Page 234] haue ratling words, then sound reason. He sayth, that the VVarneword containeth the issue of three treatises. And yet he onely handleth two chapters of eight, beside other con­trouersies, seldome daring to giue the true issue, taking al­wayes Papists for Catholickes, and popery for truth: which is denied. Is it then like that he meaneth truth, that falsifieth his word so grossely in the first words of his booke?

After that he talketh of a reiection of an insolent and van­ting minister, masked with the letters O. E. and of certaine shifts and deceits, as he pretendeth of ours. But herein his friends complaine, that his eyes were either out or not at home. For if he had looked vpon himselfe, that commeth forth masked with N. D. which letters with the helpe of O. E. come neare Noddey: he would not haue found fault with me for the same matter. Howbeit to prouoke him to shew his bastardly face, I haue bene content to leaue all the foure letters to him alone, and plainly to set downe my name, promising that I will take him to taske, in what forme soeuer he turneth himselfe into, if it be not into the shape of a clew of packthréed, which is endlesse, and of no good goust. In the meane while, if he had not bene the mi­nister of Satan, he would not haue made a test at the mini­stery of the word of God, which is an office not refused by the Apostles, nor by holy fathers of the Church, nor by any, but by the idolatrous priests of Baal. As for the termes of insolēcy and vanting, of shifting and deceiuing, I doubt not but to fa­sten them so iustly vpon Parsons, and that by due proofe, that all the world may sée the vanity and insolency of this decei­uer. Now I will onely tell him, that it becommeth not him to obiect insolencie, vanting, shifting and deceit to any other. For nothing is more absurd then that such a buzzard as he, should impute to others his owne buzzardly quali­ties.

For the posie of his booke, he taketh a sentence that fit­teth himselfe wondrous well: neither will we deny that it belongeth to him. Flie an hereticke (sayth the Apostle) after Titus 3. [Page 235] one or two admonitions. Who then doth not flye Robert Parsons an archhereticke, as I haue proued at large? It followeth, sayth Parsons, For such a one is subuerted, and sin­neth damnably against his owne iudgement. Where I omit to speake of Parsons his false translation. For why should I helpe him, that pronounceth sentence against himselfe, by his owne iudgement, while he remained among vs? And now no doubt but in his owne conscience he is condemned, knowing that it is idolatry to giue diuine honour to the sa­crament of the Lords body, and to the images of the Trini­ty, and herefie to hold, that a man can liue without al sinne, or at the least to fulfill the law perfectly. For that by the Fa­thers iudgement is Pelagianisme.

In the end he addeth, Permissu superiorum: as if his supe­riors had giuen him licence to play the knaue. Beside, he may do well to tell vs who these superiors are. For if the Pope and his generall giue him licence to publish libels and slaunders against vs; we will be bold to answer his li­bels, and to touch his superiours to their litle satisfaction, and to the great griefe of Parsons.

CHAP. III. An answer vnto certaine personall accusations of Robert Parsons against my selfe and others.

AGainst all our aduersaries accusations, beside particu­lar defences, we haue these generall exceptions for the most part: first we say, of matters criminall that we are cleare. Secondly, that Robert Parsons and his consorts are most guilty. Now what is more ridiculous then that blind bayard should find fault with him that hath good eyes? Om­nia quae vindicaris in altero (sayth the famous Romane orator Tully) tibi ipsi vehementer fugienda sunt. Etenim non modò accu­sator, Lib. 3. accusat. in Verrem. sed ne obiurgator quidem ferendus est is, qui quod in altero vitium reprehendit, in eo ipse deprehenditur. That is, All those [Page 236] faults which you will censure in others, you must diligently es­chue your selfe. For who can endure him to accuse or chide o­thers, which is taken himselfe in trip for that which he repre­hendeth in others? Thirdly we say, that our aduersaries haue no reason to exclaime against vs for euery sinal fault, when they offend far more grieuously themselues. It is ab­surd for him that hath neuer a good legge, to reproch a man for halting. The Poet saith, Loripedem rectus derideat, AEthi­opem albus. Let him that goeth vpright, laugh at him that hal­teth: Iuuenal. and him that is white, point at a blacke Moore. Finally, such things as fall out indifferently on both sides, are not to be obiected as crimes to the other. Si iniquus es in me iudex, (saith Tully to Curio) condemnabo codem ego te crimine. If vn­iustly you censure me, I shall iustly condemne you for the same fault.

To come to particulars, this admonitor doth charge sir Francis Hastings, for that without commission he made him­selfe In the Epistle to the Reader a generall watch-man ouer all the land, and hath written a most bitter and bloudie pamphlet against the Catholickes, (as he sayth) replenished with all kind of slaunders, and most odious calumniations. Likewise in his obseruations vpon the preface of my reply to his Wardword, fol. 11. b. he sayth, my preface tendeth wholy to bloodshed and crueltie against Catholikes: and sticketh not of his liberalitie to cal me a no­torious firebrād of seditiō. But if he charge no better, we shal easily discharge our selues, and lay such a charge vpon him, that his owne friends shall confesse him to be a notorious sot, & a leud accuser, to deale on this fashion. For first, what reason had he to aske a commission in this case, seeing euery one hath not onely a commission, but is also bound by dutie and allegeance to maintaine the State, & to do his prince and countrey seruice? In reos maiestatis & publicos hostes (saith Tertullian) omnis homo miles est: that is, Euery one is autho­rised a souldier against traitors and publike enemies. Could Apolog. c. 2. Robert Parsons more manifestly declare himselfe enemie, then by bauling against those that speake against traitors and publicke enemies? Secondly, why may not a Knight [Page 237] speake for his prince and country, when he like a traitorous knaue without commission or allowancc taketh to himselfe liberty to speake for notorious traitors & publike enemies? Thirdly, it is a matter ridiculous for an enemy to accuse men of bitternesse and bloody cruelty, of slanderous accusa­tions and sedition, and yet to bring neither proofe nor sus­pition to conuince them. This therefore is rather a tricke of a scurrilous rayler, then a graue accuser: and such termes Tully in his oration pro Caelio, calleth rather railing and scol­ding, then accusing. Fourthly he sheweth himselfe an absurd fellow, to talke either of bitter and bloodie pamphlets, or of odious calumniations, or of bloodshed and crueltie, or of Ca­tholickes, when as himselfe is a senslesse hereticke, and an apostate from religion, and hath spent now this twentie yeeres and vpward in rayling and libelling, in laying plots of treasons, in soliciting inuasions, and such like practises: séeking nothing else but to cut the throtes of his countrey­men, and to bring them into subiection vnto the Spaniards and Italians, as before hath bene declarcd at full. We are therefore to beséech his knaueship, seeing he pleadeth for e­nemies, and traitors and heretickes, to giue vs leaue to speake for our countrey, our Soueraigne, our Religion and libertie. Fiftly, Catholikes are they, which beleeue and hold that which the Catholicke church in old time did vniuersally hold, as sayth Vincentius Lirinensis de haeres. c. 34. But the Ca­tholike church in old time did neuer vniuersally hold either the popish reall presence of Christs body without any di­stance from the accidents of bread and wine, or that the ac­cidents did subsist without their substance, or that Christs true body was impalpable and inuisible, and both in heauē and earth at one time, or transsubstantiation, or the popish Masse, or communion vnder one kind, or the rest of the po­pish sacraments, or popish purgatory and indulgences, or such like. Nor did Catholikes euer prefer the Latin transla­tion of the old and new testament before the originall text, or place traditions in equall ranke with Scriptures. Saint Augustine sheweth, that catholikes and true beleeuers are all Lib. de vera relig. cap. 2. [Page 238] one. But Papists are not Orthodoxi, nor true beléeuers, as I haue shewed in my challenge. Sixthly, when we speake against Papists, we meane properly the factious adherents to the Pope and Spaniard, and Parsons his crew of seditious archipresbyterial and diabolical practisers against the state: against whom when we discourse, our whole intention is to saue, & not to spill blood, which they séeke to do, and will, if they be not speedily restrained. Finally, séeing Robert Parsons is so braue a disputer, we must pray him to bring good arguments, or else to lay aside his great bombasted Ie­busiticall words of slander and calumniation. He may do wel also, to shew vs the difference betwéene slaunder and calum­niation, which he in great heate hath distinguished, especi­ally being so excellent a practiser in calumniation, as his publication of Sanders de schismate, and Philopater and other libels do proue him to be. It would finally be knowne, why this fellow that neuer knew his true father, and loued so well his mother, should be called Andreas Philopater, rather then Andreas Philiometer. It is a question also why he should be called Andreas, rather then Robertus Philôpater. But percase on his toombe he will haue this grauen: Hic iacet Andreas, qui lapidauit eas. Pro Andreas Philopater, dic A­ue Maria and Pater noster.

Speaking of sir Francis Hastings in his Epistle to the Rea­der, he would gladly fasten vpon him a suspicion, as if he desired some diuidend of the liuings of Papists. And againe, 1. encont. c. 11. he chargeth him and other knights with dayly féeding vpon papisticall fellows goods. In his obseruations vpon my preface, fol. 11. b. he sayth, I watch for scraps: and that I and my hungrie crew stand by, and for desire licke our lips, hoping to haue some share in the deuidend. Drawing metaphors from his owne, and his hungry companions practise, who couching like dogs at the Popes féete, are still looking for scraps and bare bones, & gaping for diuidends: and to satisfie their extreme néed, sometime like curres run grinning vp and downe the stréetes of Rome, and cannot be satisfied. Others fall together by the eares for bishoprickes [Page 239] and promotions in England and Ireland; which they hope will be conquered daily. But their ambitious desire is like a hungry mans dreame, that thinketh he eateth, and yet ariseth in the morning sore ahungred. In his table he no­teth, that I am poore & needy, but if he had not bene a poore and needy pamphleter, he would haue bene morewary, then thus desperatly to lie vpon the credit of his intelligencer. For it is well knowne, that Sir Fr. Hastings liueth in hono­rable reputation without desire of any mans goods. I, al­beit I had no preferment of the Church, yet could I liue of my patrimony. Neither of vs, nor any knight professing the Gospell, doth liue in such estate, that he being a beg­ging Friar by his profession, and by birth a poore blacke­smithes wiues sonne, may well obiect either neede, or grée­die scraping for other mens goods vnto vs. Nay we are so farre from desiring the goods of papists, that we with them, as Saint Augustine epist. 50. did the Donatists, that they were Catholikes and honest men, and so we would not onely leaue them that is theirs, but giue them also part of that is ours. With vs they deale as the Donatists did with S. Augustine, and we answere Parsons as he did them. Quòdnobis obijci­unt (saith he) quodres corum concupiscamus, & auferamus, vti­nam Catholici fiant, & non solùm quae dicunt sua, sed etiam nostra inpace nobiscum & charitate possideant. If this wish content them not, I would wish them together with all their goods in Italie with their owne holy father. Which if the Spani­ards and Italians, and the bloody Inquisitors would permit to men of our profession, they would accompt it a great fa­uour. But now such is the crueltie and extremitie of the papists, that they torment and put to death all that pro­fesse the truth, and not onely share and deuide, but also take all, most gréedily without respect of their poore widowes, fatherlesse children, or their poore kinsfolkes. This hauocke the Inquisitors make in Spaine, and this spoyle was made by our butcherly enemies in the dayes of Queene Mary. Parsons therefore, in putting this vpon vs, did nothing els, but put vs in mind of the rapines of papists in Quéene Ma­ries [Page 240] dayes, and shew, what detestation we ought to haue of that cursed, rauinous, and woluish broode, that dealeth with Christians in this sort.

He findeth also fault with my stile, as outragious and Answere to my Epistle fol. 1. b. intemperate: and obiecteth scurrilitie and turpitude vnto me. But if he would haue men to beléeue him, he should haue conuinced me by proofes. For no man, I thinke, that is wise will beléeue such a bankerout disputer on his bare word. Againe he should haue shewed good example him­selfe, that requireth such respectiue termes in others. He is still rayling and raging like a butter wife, and most in­temperatly and furiously. Hauing therefore declared him­selfe a scurrilous filthy fellow, he sheweth himselfe an im­pudent sot, to obiect his owne faults to others. Of his scur­rilitie I do meane to make a whole chapter. Of his turpi­tude, his baudy and filthie rimes against Beza in the de­sence of his rayling censure against master Charke, yeeld proofe sufficient. I may therefore vse Optatus his words to Parmeniam against him. Cùm pro his erubescere debueras, ca­tholicos innocentes accusas. That is, where thou shouldest blush for thine owne faults, thou accusest others that are innocent. As for my stile and termes, they shall alwayes be iustified, when Parsons hath any matter to obiect against them.

Descending from his magistrall throne of his royall pe­dantery, to speake of my epistle, it pleaseth him to diuide it Ibidem. into three principall parts, to wit: into notorious folly, ap­parant falshood, and ridiculous vanitie in bragging and van­ting. But seeing he hath diuided no more wisely, he must take the parts all to himselfe, being a notorious sot, a false packer, and a vaine and ridiculous bragger. Such a one the wise man describeth Prouerb. 6. Homo apostata (saith he) vir inutilis graditur ore peruerso, annuit oculis, terit pede, digito loquitur, prauo corde machinatur malum, & omni tempore iurgia seminet. It seemeth a proper description of Parsons an apo­state from religion, a man of little worth, that goeth vp and downe with a peruerse and wide mouth, which win­keth with his eyes, giueth a signe with his feete, speaketh [Page 241] with his fingers, deuiseth mischiefe in his wicked heart, and at all times soweth discord and contention. It follow­eth therefore, that he looke for the execution of that which followeth: Huic exemplo veniet perditio sua, & subitò contere­tur, nec habebit vltrà medicinam. This mans destruction will come quickly, and he shall suddenly be broken in peeces, and shall find no further remedie. As for the folly, falshood and vanitie he talketh of, they are so surely fastened vpon him­selfe, that he shall neuer put them vpon me. To conuince me of folly, he hath alledged the words of Tully, that cal­leth him a noddy orator, as he saith, that alledgeth such matter as maketh no lesse for his aduersarie, then for himselfe. But if this be the part of a noddy, then is Parsons a three­fold noddy, who alledgeth almost nothing, but it may with better reason be reiected vpon himselfe, then cast vp­on others: as for example, where he talketh of heresie, ray­ling, bloody pamphlets, folly and such predominant humors and qualities in himselfe. Against me the words of Tully make nothing. For albeit I do call him noddy that taketh for his deuise N. D. which with the addition of two vowels make noddy; yet cannot he by any meanes make noddy out of O. E. which letters I assume to fhew his folly, vn­lesse he will lend me his owne name, which I do not meane to borrow at this time. Againe, if he may come vp­on the stage with the maske of N. D. why may not he that defendeth, take the two next letters O. E? The lawes are 1. ff. quod quisque iuris. plaine that no man may refuse to stand to that law, by which himselfe meaneth to receiue aduantage. Further­more talking of two letters, where I say he is a man of two or three letters; he answereth but by halfe, and there­fore is like to rest a noddy, and a man of three letters, that is Fur, and the rather for that like a thiefe he came into England, entring not by the doore, but stealing in some other way with picklocke faculties, and treche­rous instructions from the Pope. Finally the man sheweth himselfe to be, not an orator, but rather a foolish grammari­an, that calleth consonants the material part, & vowels the [Page 242] formall part of words. For if this were true; then should no word be compounded of bowels, nor should bowels stand without consonants, nor should forme and matter be proper to bodies, but common to words also, and fan­cies. Thus we sée how Robert Parsons, since he ran out of England hath outrun both grammér and logike, & is now learning to spell N. D. It may be if he passe Tiburne clean­ly, he wil shortly enter into his Puerilis, and learne to con­strue stans puer ad mensam, or percase pendens in patibulo. To conuince me of apparant falshood, he saith, albeit he might remit himselfe to a multitude of examples in the encounters ensuing, yet he will shew one for a proofe of the ministers ta­lent in this kind. But whosoeuer list to compare my an­swers with his examples, shall find that his multitude of examples doth shew the multiplicitie of his banities, and that his whole Warneword, is but a fardell of foolery. As for this one example, which he alleadgeth, it may serue to iustifie my honest dealing throughout the whole booke, and to shew, that he hath neither wit, nor honesty. In my reply I charge him, that he hath written diuers odious chartels and bookes, both against particular men and the State, and namely, First certaine chartels against some in Oxford: Next Leicesters common-wealth. Thirdly, a libell intitled a Confu­tation of pretended feares. Fourthly, the booke set out vnder the name of Andreas Philopater: Fiftly, the Libell to the no­bilitie and people of England and Ireland, set out vnder Card. Allens name. Sixtly, Dolmans booke of titles. Se­uenthly the Wardword. Eightly, the relation of the dispute betwixt M. Plessis and Eureux. But because I doe not men­tion other bookes written by him, as for example Houlets reasons of refusal: the Discouery of Nicols: the Censure against Charke: the Epistle of persecution, and his Directory; he saith that in recounting eight bookes, I tell nine lies, fiue priuatiue, and foure positiue. But in talking of priuatiue lies, hée sheweth himselfe not onely a positiue, but a superlatiue di­zard. For if euery one lyed, that reckned not vp all his pal­try pamphlets; he would bring himselfe and his owne [Page 243] friendes within the compasse of lying. He must therefore iustifie this fiction of priua [...]iue lies, for else he doth nothing. It standeth him also vpon, to shew that euery one is to take notice of his fooleries, and patcheries. For such is the howling of Parsons Houlet, and the Epistle of persecution, where he taketh that which is in question for granted. The Censure of Charke, and Discouery of Nicols do consist prin­cipally of rayling. The Directory is stollen out of Gaspar Loarti, Granatensis & others. He hath no reason therefore to brag of such bald inuentions. Where he obiecteth fal­shood to me, for charging him with certaine libels written against some in Oxford, and with the libell called Leicesters Common-wealth, & the treatises entitled a Confutation of certaine pretended feares, & Letters to the nobilitie and peo­ple of England and Ireland; his friends are much ashamed in his behalfe. For the stile and phrase of these tookes, com­pared with the Wardword, and other pamphlets confessed to be his, the testimony of diuers priests in England, that ordinarily charge him with these bookes, the confessions of some of his friends, do conuince to lie most shamefully. Nay his owne conscience doth accuse him, and conuict him. For listen, I pray you, what he answereth. I neuer heard, saith he, any man of notice and iudgement ascribe them to him before: and if I be not deceiued, other authors are knowne to haue written them. Now what is this, but to confesse that couertly, that he denyeth coldly? And what traitour or fellon, or séely fellow being charged at the barre with noto­rious treasons and fellonies cannot answere thus, albeit he be charged with things most manifest? For what trai­tor cannot say, I neuer heard any man of iudgement or no­tice ascribe this treason vnto me? And againe; If I be not deceiued, others are knowne to haue committed this treason. But if Ro. Parsons answere no better, he will soone be conuicted and trussed for a traitor. In the meane while, he shall here onely rest conuicted of lying and foolery. Of which he may also be conuicted, in that taking on him to disproue me, where I charge him to be the authour of the [Page 244] Wardword, he doth afterward plainely confesse it. He doth also make me to say, that he hath written in all, eight con­temptible treatises (which are no words of mine, but cogged in by him) and chargeth me with suppressing his bookes: where I confesse plainely, that he hath written other base and paltry pamphlets. Whosoeuer therefore will estéeme the rest of my discourse, by this against which he taketh such ex­ceptions, as he would haue it, may see, that as I haue dealt in all things plainely and sincerely, so this fellow dealeth most childishly, impudently & idleiy in most of his discour­ses.

To conuince me of ridiculous vanitie in vaunting, (as he calleth it) he alleageth nothing, but only a challenge made by me to himselfe in fiue new encounters. I do also request, if himselfe be busie about some packe or practise of treason, or els percase about some plotto win a Cardinals hat, & wil not or hath no leisure to answere; that either Creswel, or some other babling Iebusite may be set forth to try his skill in this combat. But neither is it a ridiculous matter to de­fend the truth, nor any vanity to challenge Parsons, or his paltry schollers, and seditious companions. Beside that, if it be vanitie in vs to challenge some few, then should Robert Parsons be a most notorious vaine fellow, that in defence of his Censure against matter Charke, doth most proudly challenge the whole Church of England to dispute, and in his Wardword vanteth that we dare not to deale with him and his fellowes. Campian also challenged all commers, in his ten reasons, as if a common fencer should challenge all men at ten weapons. And yet Parsons I trow, will not accuse him of ridiculous vanitie in vanting. Nei­ther will the seditious crew of traitorous seminary com­panions giue the title of Thraso, Goliah, Behemoth, or Leui­athan to all challengers. For then could not ruffling sir Ro­bert, nor cauilling Campian escape their censure: conside­ring especially that in all their pamphlets they breath furie out of their nostrils, and folly out of their dried sculs, bragging and vanting most vainely and excessiuely. But [Page 245] Parsons speaking against others, forgetteth alwaies to looke backe vpon himselfe, or else age perhaps hath dried vp his wit. Omnia fert aetas, animum quoque, saith the Poet, age de­cayeth Virgil. Eglog all things, & Parsons vnderstanding also. His braine is dryed with Spanish sacke, and Spanish seabbes haue seized on his scull.

Afterward, not being able to iustific his thréefold accusa­tion against my Epistle, he roueth at certaine personall matters farre from the questions in controuersie. First he saith, I haue bene a souldier, but what of that? was not Igna­tius the first founder of his sect, a lame souldier? And were not Pope Clement the seuenth, Iulius the second, and other Popes, whom he dare not disclaime, great men of warre? Let him therefore beware, least desiring to strike others, he wound the lame souldier his founder, and the Popes his holy fathers, and himselfe, that counterfeiteth sometime to be a souldier, and calleth himselfe captaine Cowbucke, being but a cow and a coward. But it may be percase, that he accompteth it irregularitie, for a man of the Church to be a souldier: for so he seemeth to insinuate. But he is much de­ceiued in his own canons. For albeit, to be a bastard is irre­gularity, yet is it not so to be a souldier. And if it were so by the Popes laws, who (because the Iews said, it was not law­full Ioan. 18. for them to put any to death) do therefore exclude their clergie from iudging of matters of death; yet it is ridicu­lous to exact the obseruation of the Popes lawes of Christi­ans, when the papists do reason so absurdly from the words of the Iewes, and regard their owne constitutions nothing at all. Beside that, if such traitors as himselfe and the Iebusites of Paris thinke it lawfull to beare armes a­gainst their liege Souereignes; I hope he cannot disproue them that haue serued their princes against foreine ene­mies and traitors.

He saith also, I haue bene a pirate. But that sheweth, he is badly informed, and worse affected, that calleth all that serue their countrey by sea, pirats. As for me, I count it honour, to be rayled on by professed enemies of [Page 246] their Prince and countrey, and shall the rather endeuour to do seruice both against enemies, traitors and railers.

Further, saith he, I vnderstand, that he hath bene iudge marshall among souldiers. But while he thinketh to offer me disgrace, he saith more honour of me, then I would per­case haue sayd of my selfe, if I had not vene occasioned by him. For that is a place of honour, as the Auditors ge­nerall of the Spanish armies can assure him. Neither is the same incompatible with my calling, although I ser­ued the Queene in that place in the low countries, before I had any function in the Church.

He is also much offended, that I haue sometime taken vpon me the trayning of yong souldiers, that were to be led against such villeines and traitors as himselfe, comming with Spainiards, and forraine enemies against their coun­try. But if he be sorie that he and his consorts could not cut his countrimens throats without resistance, I am glad, if I haue made my countrimen the more able to serue both a­gainst common enemies, and such cut-throate traitors: and I doubt Hot but to vse my skil to the benefit of my country, if euer such traitors as himselfe is, offer to bring with him any bougerly Italians, or bragadocio Spaniards against England.

He proceedeth and saith, I am married and matched, as a minister ought to be. In an other place he glanceth at my wiues French hood. But what if I was married before I entred into the ministery, and be able to maintaine her so without any profits of my Ecclesiasticall liuings? Beside that himselfe being a filthy bastard, and borne of a base queane, as the Quodlibetist being a goodly martyr in the Calendar of traitors telleth him, he sheweth himselfe both witlesse and shamelesse, to speake against honorable mari­age, and such as are knowne to be descended of worship­full parentage. Furthermore he giueth vs occasion to de­test the filthie masse-priests, monkes and Iebusites, that abiuring lawfull marriage, burne in vnlawfull lustes, and are knowne to be adulterers, fornicators, sodomites, and [Page 247] most beastly and swinish fellowes.

He shameth not also to affirme, that I was forced to retire out of Ireland for certaine iniurious speeches against the Earle of Ormond, and the Irish nation. But what if the Earle of Ormond and the Irish nation will cleare me? Is not he a busie fellow to meddle with their matters without fée? A­gaine, what if I came away with the leaue and liking both of the generall and others? Wil it not appeare that he lieth like a shamelesse fellow, without leaue or liking of any but himself, who like a monky liketh best his own deformitics? But he may learne both, if he list to informe himselfe either by English or Irish that knew those matters, how they pas­sed. As for those whom he stileth witnesses, Omni exceptione maiores, they neuer receiued any greater disgrace then in medling with me, and haue since declared themselues to be men rather to be lamented for their folly, then credited for their dignitie.

But nothing is more ridiculous, then that Robert Par­sons should find fault with my intemperancy of spéech, sée­ing I do but answer his intemperate and exorbitant inue­ctiues, that in scurrility and rayling are superlatiue. But if he will néeds find fault, let him bring reason, least his wri­ting séeme to want both wit and reason.

His last charge against me in his answer to my Epistle concerneth discontentment, and complaints against the State. But it is like the rest, that is, fond, false, and friuo­lous. For neither is it likely that I should be discontent with the present state, or grieued with any ordinary charge, when both in most honorable actions, and in my publike writings, I haue to the vttermost of my power defended the State, and haue willingly put my self to extraordinary charge in all seruices for my countrey. This resolution also is both in my selfe and others, not onely to spend our goods, but our liues also in defence of our country and of the truth against all malignant firebrands of sedition, and miserable slaues of Antichrist that shall dare to assayle the Realme. Finally, if in any thing I haue shewed discontent, it is in [...] [Page 252] of writing, did not both hate and séeke to hurt her Maiesty. Next, whether such as do allow such malicious railing and livelling, do not concurre with them in hatred, and deserue to be hated and expulsed out of all kingdomes well gouer­ned, as leud libellers, benimous serpents, and damnable traitors.

Let any man reade the first page of the Wardword (sayth Parsons) and then tell me whether this minister haue any for­head at al (though his head be great inough) who saith, I do not so much as go about to proue any such matter, that he flattered the state. And this saith he, forgetting his owne brazen face and forehead, and the blacksmiths his mothers husbands forked head, and his mothers litle honestie recorded in so many bookes of the secular priests, and spoken of commonly in the country. Beside that, it is most apparent that he doth not once mentiō sir Francis in the first page of his book, saue in the title, much lesse proue him a flatterer. And if as he saith, that was the but of his discourse, then like a blind archer he missed the but, & shot wide and far off. It appeareth also, that he was not in his wits, when he began thus to exclaim and cry alarme.

Fol, 35. he imputeth vnto me idle babling and calumnia­tion: whereas all his wast Warne-word is nothing but a fardle of idle words, and méere babling, and foolery, except where he addeth some additions of knauery; & that not only in calumniation and lying, but also in diuers kinds of villa­ny and trechery.

Fol. 36. he sayth, I flatter to get a bigger benefice. But if a man should aske him, how he knoweth my mind, he wil like a restie iade be at a stop. Onely he imagineth me to be like himselfe, who caused a solemne supplication to be presented to the King of Spaine, subscribed with the hands of diuers base knaues and whores for want of more worthy witnes­ses, declaring, that to vphold the cacolike cause, it was ne­cessary that Robert Parsons should be made forsooth no lesse then a Cardinall. He made meanes also for the Kings let­ters to the Pope to the same effect. And no doubt they had [Page 253] taken effect, but that he had iugled too much aboue the boord, and was knowne to be a bastardly, base, resuse, ribaldicall, rascall fellow.

Fol. 72. speaking of sir Francis, like Scogan he scorneth and like an impudent companion accuseth him, as not aboun­ding in good workes: whereas himself aboundeth in all euil workes, as for example, impietie, heresie, trechery, filchery, lying, cogging, lechery, beastly filthinesse, and all knauery. As for sir Francis his pietie & charitable dealing, the same is sufficiently knowne: and greatly should I wrong him, if I shold compare him with any of Parsons his consorts, which was begotten on the backside of a smiths forge, in that cun­try where sir Francis hath an honorable charge.

In his second Encounter, ca. 13. such ruffianlike and raue­nous companions (saith he) do possesse, buy and sell Catholike benefices: forgetting that himself wandred long vp & down England and France, sometime in the habite of a souldier, sometime like a ruffianlike Leno, sometime like a knitter of thrummed caps, and that himselfe liued long by rapine, co­sinage and knauery. He forgot also how the Popes, Cardi­nals, and Masse-priests buy and sell benefices, masses, in­dulgences, and such Babylonical wares, as I haue here­tofore shewed. As for Ecclesiasticall liuings, they belong to true Catholikes indéed, and not the priests of Baal, nor the limbes of Antichrist, nor to idolatrons Monks, Friers, and such vermine: vpon which kind of dogs we do not vse to cast away the childrens bread.

The rest of his charges & accusations being like to these, I should greatly wrong the Reader if I should stand longer about them. Now then, that we haue answered for our selues, listen I pray you what we haue out of this foolish Warneword to obiect against Parsons. And first, because re­ligion is a point among Christians of speciall consideratiō, we will see how atheistical and irreligious he hath declared himselfe to be, like Prometheus sacrificing bare bones coue­red with shew of fat, and himselfe taking the best for him­selfe, and making a profession of the name of Iesus, and ha­uing [Page 254] a shew of godlinesse, but not with standing denying the power thereof. 1. Tim. 4.

CHAP. IIII. Containing notes of certaine speeches, arguing Ro­bert Parsons his impietie and atheisme.

I Néed not to insist much vpon this point, the man being already conuinced by the testimony of the secular Masse­priests his consorts, that haue often holpen him to heaue at the end of a Masse, to be a méere Machiauelian, an irreli­gious person, and an Atheist. VVilliam VVatson a famous fellow, Quodl. 8. art. 5. calleth him a beast, a diuell, and a mo­nopoly of mischiefe. But if any doubt of it, these testimonies out of his VVarne-word, against which we dispute, may assure him.

The holy Scriptures do euery where vse this word Mi­nister of Christ, or minister of the Gospell in good part: as for example in these words, Rom. 15. That I should be the Mini­ster of Iesus Christ towards the Gentiles. And 1. Cor. 3. VVho is Paul then, and who is Apollo, but the Ministers, by whom ye beleeued? And 2. Cor. 11. They are the Ministers of Christ. And Col. 1. He is a faithfull Minister of Christ. Is he not then an impious fellow, & doth he not declare himself the slaue of Satan, that euery where vseth this word in scorne and con­tempt, saying, sir minister, the minister, insolent minister, and giuing out, that a true minister, and false minister is all one to him?

In his answer to my Epistle, speaking of my request to haue Creswell to answer, he alludeth to Christs words, Mat. 20. & Mar. 10. where answering the sonnes of Zebedey, he sayth, Nescitis quid petatis. For making himselfe Christ, and me one of the sons of Zebedey, he sayth, Nescis quid pe­tis. So shamelesse he is in taking vpon him the person of Christ, & abusing Christs words to his scornefull purpose. [Page 255] He should therfore rather haue made himself a beare ward, & his seditious schollers beare-whelpes, & Creswel the crier of the game. In the end of his wild obseruations vpon my Preface, he obiecteth preaching vnto me, where in great re­proch he calleth me preaching Deane. Yet the Apestle Rom. 16. and 1. Cor. 1. teacheth vs, that preaching is the meanes to reueale the Gospell, and to bring men to Christ. It is no maruell therefore, if this limbe of Antichrist do hate prea­ching, by which men are brought from Antichrist to Christ, desiring nothing more then to kéepe his countrimen in darknes, and to reduce them backe into Egypt.

Fol. 22. he iesteth at Sir Francis Hastings, & saith, He doth imitate the spirit of some hidden prophet. But what is more impious, then to vse the name of a prophet, & of Gods holy spirit to make vp a iest?

He professeth, that he handleth controuersies of religion, and yet fol. 33. b. he calleth his dispute an Enterlude. Do you then thinke that this man deserueth credit, that of a Masse­priest and Iebusite is now become a Comedian, & séemeth to make a iest of religion? Eusebius liked not the Gentiles, that in their Theaters made sport with matters of Christian De vita Con­stant. lib. 2. c. 60. religion. What then may we think of this counterfet Chri­stian, but that he is worse then the Gentiles?

Fol. 29. he defendeth Panormitan and Hostiensis, that af­firme, that Christ and the Pope haue but one consistory, and that the Pope can (as it were) do all things that Christ can do, except sinne. But therein he professeth his owne impietie, rather thē excuseth theirs. For who doth not acknowledge it to be a matter impious, to compare a man to Christ in all things except one, and to make Christ the author of the Popes sentences and iudgements? Likewise it is impious to defend the Glosse, that sayth, Dominus Deus noster Papa. c. Fol. 30. cum inter extr. Io. 2 [...]. de verb. signif. as doth Parsons. Nay, he goeth about to face down Sir Francis, that doth reprehend it. Neither is it materiall, that the name of God is giuen sometime to creatures. For that is by a similitude, and not absolutely nor properly.

[Page 256]Fol. 38. he defendeth Steuchus and Pope Nicholas, that say that Constantine called the Pope God, and held him for God: which was neuer vttered by Constantine, nor can be spoken without blasphemie.

Fol. 40. he maintaineth the words of Cusanus, that sayd, that the iudgement of God changed. But S. Iames saith, Apud Deum non est transmutatio, there is no change with God. Iacob. 1. This was also an opinion of the Arrians, Dei verbum posse mutari, that the sonne of God, which is the eternall word, may be changed, as Athanasius testifieth decret. Nicen. sy­nod. contr. Arrian. Furthermore it is blasphemous, as hée holdeth with Cusanus, to say that Gods institution in the sa­crament may be changed.

Fol. 42. he saith, Sir Francis cometh out with a decalogue of blessings, answering perhaps to the ten Commaundements, for whose obseruation the Iewes haue many blessings promi­sed: founding a scurrilous iest vpon the ten Commaunde­ments, and emplying, that among Christians there is no such reward for performance of the law, as among the Iewes.

Fol. 45. he placeth Trinitarians among heretikes, as if it were heresie to beléeue in the holy Trinity.

Fol. 60. and 61. he beareth his reader in hand, that rea­ding of scriptures in tongues vnderstood, is cause, that men fall into heresies: direct contrary to the doctrine of our Sauior, Search the scripture, saith he: for in them ye thinke to haue eternall life. Thus he blasphemeth the sacred word of God with his impure mouth.

Fol. 79. he maketh a iest of the words of our Sauiour, Matth. 5. where he saith, Our clergy may sing, beati pauperes spiritu. This I say is mere impiety. For so should he sing too, if he were of an Atheist, and had forgotten, that these are Christs words.

Fol. 81. he maketh sport with words of Scripture, com­paring Cadburie to the ruines of Hierusalem: and yet this fellow is estéemed a worthy patron of poperie: such a pa­tron, such a cause.

[Page 257]Fol. 101. he denyeth scriptures to be the rule of faith: which is as much, as if he meant either impiously to ouer­throw the canon of scriptures, or else to preferre vncertaine traditions before them.

2. enconter c. 5. fol. 32. 6. he compareth reading of scriptures, to excesse of apparrell, spending much, and playing at dice: like a cheating companion drawing similitudes from his owne practise, to disgrace the word of God.

Chap. 6. encontr. 2. he will not confesse his errour, that sayd before Wardw. p. 14. that the words of the Apostle, 1. Cor. 3. make against reading of scriptures. Who can de­nie (saith he) but Saint Paul talking of scriptures, as they were in the learned tongues, saith of them, litera occidit? But to ac­cuse men for reading of scriptures is impious, and sauoreth of the error of the Origenists, and Swenchfeldians errour, that condemne the letter of the Scriptures. Neither can he excuse himselfe, saying, that he meant rash reading. For the Apostle where he saith, that the letter killeth; talketh not of reading, but of the effect that the scriptures worke in mens harts, shewing that the letter condemneth those, which by grace are not moued effectually to embrace the word.

Chap. 11. encontr. 2. most blasphemously he compareth Christs miracles to the miracles of Thomas Becket, and his lying legend to the scriptures. For which he deserueth to be marked as a miraculous blasphemer. In the same place he saith, that materiall honour in worshipping saints, hurteth not the deuout, nor diminisheth their merit. Which is as much as if he should say, that those that worship theeues and male­factors, as saints; offend not, but rather merit with God. And that men may worship they know not whom, nor what.

Fol. 99. he maintaineth a blasphemous prayer, wherein papists desire to come to heauen by the blood of Thomas Becket. And to mend the matter saith, it is no more then the Prophets did, mentioning Abraham, Isac and Iacob. And [Page 258] yet no Prophet or godly man euer prayed to come to hea­uen by their blood.

2. encontr. c. 14. he defendeth those blasphemous verses, Hic des deuotè, caelestibus associo te, mentes aegrotae per munera sunt tibi lotae. Whereby the papists teach, that mens sinnes are washed by almes: which is derogatory to the blood of Christ, wherein our sinnes onely are washed away, and wée cleansed.

Fol, 114. 2. encontr. c. 14. cauilling with Sir Francis Ha­stings about his inference made out of the words of Durand, that saith, How that indulgences are not found in scriptures; he affirmeth, that the illation of those that dispute against the doctrine of the Trinity, and the consubstantialitie of the sonne of God with his father, and baptisme of infants, is as good, as that of Sir Francis against indulgences. But it is most blas­phemous to compare the doctrine of the highest mysteries of our religion, which the ancient fathers proued, and we doubt not but to proue out of scriptures, with the crash and pelfe of indulgences, that haue neither ground in scrip­tures, nor fathers, nor reason. As at large I haue proued in my booke De indulgentijs against Bellarmine.

Our doctrine of faith iustifying without works, Parsons calleth an idle deuice and a mathematicall illusion, the which Fol. 126. toucheth the Apostle as well as vs. For he saith, That by the Gal. 2. workes of the law no flesh shall be iustified. It toucheth also the fathers, that say workes go not before, but follow after righteousnesse. The same also toucheth the papists themselues, which confesse, that our first iustice is not of works. But whatsoeuer Christians are to think of works, Parsons hath no reason to put any confidence in his owne workes, vnlesse he hope to be saued by iugling, lying, cog­ging, rayling, cousening, committing treason and villanie. Neither hath he cause to talke of mathematicall illusions, hauing himselfe egregiously deluded all those, with whom he hath dealt, and beléeuing, as it séemeth, no heauen but mathematicall. If he hope to go thither by the Popes par­dons tyed about his necke, like necklaces, and flying vp­ward [Page 259] like a yong dragō; he is far deceiued. That is no place for such dragons, nor are pardons, wings to flie so high withall. We hope rather to sée him sent flying to his holy father with an hempen halter about his necke, and led tri­umphantly in a dongcart to the gallowes, as a due reward for his lend workes, and treasons.

Is it not then strange, that such an atheist should talke of religion? The heathen Philosopher laugh edat Epicurus discoursing of God, whose prouidence he denied: and no Cic. lib. 1. &. 2. de nat. dcor. man had euer reason to endure to heare the atheist Diago­ras disputing of diuine matters. How then can papists esteeme of this mans idle Directories and discourses in re­ligion, that is declared an atheist, and a man all voyd of pietie and religion? And yet is he not more impious, then ridiculous, ignorant and malicious.

CHAP. V. Of diuers ridiculous, and childish errors, and mista­kings of the supposed great doctour Parsons.

IT is the part of hypocrites to espie a mote in another mans eye, but they sée not the beames that are in their owne eyes. This we may sée verified in our captious ad­uersary. For albeit curious in espying faults in others; yet could he not auoyd grosse errors in himselfe.

In the Epistle to the reader, he speaketh of the author of the Wardword in the third person, praysing him as a Catho­like man. And yet presently after forgetting himselfe, hée speaketh of him in the first person, where he talketh of en­larging himselfe, and of his reioynder.

In his answere to my Epistle, fol. 3. b. he supposeth, that these words, non tam despectum, quàm vexatum dimittam: are taken out of Tullies second Philippicke. But the oration being read ouer, will discouer the truants error. For in all that oration there are no such words. It may be he had [Page 260] read some such like words in Tullies oration, in Vatinium. But the poore ideot could not hit vpon it.

Fol. 5. b. he saith, that this word maxime, the end of do­ing any thing is first in our intention, and last in performance and execution, is taken out of Aristotle. But the great do­ctor cannot tell where to find it. And when he seeketh it, he shall find, that he mistooke later writers for Aristotle.

Fol. 13. b. he telleth vs, that Irenaeus lib. 2. c. 54. and lib. 4. c. 2. doth call heresie, pandoram: whereas he, lib. 2. c. 54. doth not once name pandoram, and lib. 2. c. 55. and lib. 4. c. 2. where he hath that word, he doth not by pandora vnderstand heresie, but matrem spiritualis conceptionis: the mother of spiri­tuall conception: of whom and their Sauiour the Valentini­ans imagined spirituall creatures to haue their originall, as may be gathered out of these words Ireney lib. 4. cap. 2. Quem patrem volunt nos audire. Hi, quisunt pandorae peruersissi­mi sophistae? vtrum ne bythum, quem à semetipsis finxerunt, an ma­trem eorum?

Fol. 14. b. he alleageth Ciceroes booke De Legibus: not knowing, that Cicero wrote thrée bookes De Legibus, and not one booke onely, as Parsons imagineth.

In the margent of the 15. leafe a. he alleageth part. 29. of Augustines Enarration in psal. 80. Whereas that expositiō is not diuided into parts. He doth also cite Augustines Com­mentaries vpon the 27. chapter of Iosue, where neither that booke hath more then 24. chapters, nor Augustine euer wrote any Commentaries vpon Iosue.

He saith further, fol. 15. a. That heretikes are the proper idolaters of the new testament, and that all other externall idolatry is abolished by Christs coming. Wherin he abuseth the termes of Gods testament, vttering words, as if idola­ters were suffered by Gods testament, and sheweth grosse ignorance. For not onely Zigabenus in Sarracenicis, but di­uers other histories do testifie, that the Sarracens are idolaters. The same also is testified by Benzo and other writers of the Indians. And no man can deny, but that ma­ny hundred yeares after Christ idolaters liued in Italie, and [Page 261] all other countries, as the volumes of Baronius, if he looke them, will testifie. Finally, the papists that worship the sa­crament, the crosse, the crucifire, and the images of the tri­nitie as God, must needs be idolaters. But were papists no idolaters, yet had Parsons no reason to shew it by men­tioning idolaters and heretikes so intempestiuely, and spea­king of them so ignorantly.

Fol. 17. he saith, Iohn the first bishop of Rome, wrote a letter to the Emperour Iustinian, whose title is this: Gloriosis­simo & clementissimo filio Iustiniano Ioannes episcopus vrbis Ro­me. Likewise in other places he ascribeth this letter to Iohn the first: and yet Platina testifieth, that Iohn the first, Bishop of Rome, died before the raigne of Iustinian the Em­perour. And if he will not beleeue him, let him reade the se­uenth tome of Caesar Baronius his Annales, & others, and he shall find, that Iustinian did not begin his empire, before the second yeare of Felix, that was successour to Iohn the first. Beside this, I haue shewed in my last challenge, that the law inter claras. Cod. de sum. trin. & fid. cath. is scarce authenti­cal. But were it so, yet doth it rather ouerthrow the Popes authoritie, then otherwise. For the prerogatiue of the Ro­maine church is there deriued from Councels & Emperors, and not from Gods word: and Iohn calleth himselfe Episco­pum vrbis Romae, Bishop of Rome, and not vniuersall bishop.

Fol. 18. for Iustinianus he nameth Iustinus, and for Eu­tyches, Euthyches: and for Circumcellions, Circumcillians. But these are small faults in comparison of that which fol­loweth, fol. 19. b. Where for Constantine Copronymus, he writeth Constantine Capronius: mindfull as it should séeme of his owne capricious trickes, who as his friends say, is Caper inter Capras. I speake to him that knoweth the man­ners of Italians. For this fault therefore in stead of N. D. let him haue a maske [...], to couer his swynes snout for very shame, and for Parsonius, let him be called Capronius.

Fol. 32. for swéete singing Sirens, he writeth sweete singing Syrienes: which maketh vs much suspect, that some swéete singing Syrian, or Italian woman, or boy hath so be­reaued [Page 262] him of his senses, as he is able to name nothing right. If he procéede on this fashion, it is much to be feared, that he will forget his owne name, if we do not put him in mind of it.

Fol. 30. where the Canonists are charged with flattery, for saying, Our Lord God the Pope, he sayth, the words are not to be found. Afterward for very compassion he saith, he will adde a coniecture how sir Francis might be deceiued: and that is in supposing that D. D. nofter Papa did signifie Domi­nus Deus. And like as if a man reading this superscription, To the right honorable our good Lord the Lord Admiral, should suppose the second L. to signifie Lady. But in talking of D. D he sheweth himselfe a double dolt, and a leud Lozel, spor­ting himselfe with his owne foolish bable. For the place al­leaged is extant in the glosse, in c. cùm inter nonnullos extr. Ioan. 22. de verb. signif the words are these: Credere Dominum Deum nostrum Papam conditorem dictae decretalis, & istius, sic non potuisse statuere, haereticum censetur. That is, to beleeue that our Lord God the Pope, the maker of the said decretall, and this also, could not so appoint it, is accounted hereticall. I doubt not therefore but Robert Parsons, although a thicke skinned fellow, when he readeth this, will blush, and his consorts take compassion of his ignorance. Lesse certes they cannot do, then call him NODE.

Fol. 35. he disioyneth (as he sayth) the harmes ensuing by change of religion from her Maiesties gouernement. As if her Maiesties gouernement could be considered without religi­on: or as if this traitor did not calumniate her gouernment, that reproueth all her actions done for religion.

Fol. 45. he deuideth Paulus Alciatus into two. Which er­rour he might haue corrected by Bellarmine in prafat. in 2. controuers.

Fol. 47. he nameth Marspurge, for Marpurge.

Fol. 71. he saith it is contrary to Sophistrie (he would say Logicke) for extremes to be in one subiect But this sheweth that Parsons head was neuer any subiect for Logick. For els he might know, that extremes that are not immediate may [Page 263] be in one: as for example, auarice in scraping, and prodiga­litie in giuing, presumption and hypocrisie, albeit properly these are not extremes in respect one of another, but of their meane vertues.

Fol. 90. b. alledging Cyrill, he citeth his catechisme, and quoteth him thus, Ciril Hierosol. catechis. 4. & 5. mistach. And so filing his mustaches, he thinketh he hath spoken sprucely. But his vnlearned quotation sheweth, that he hath scarce euer seene that father, who wrote not catechismes but cate­cheses, and not mistachical but mystagogical. The writing of Ci in Ciril with an i, is but a light fault of a lout, that vn­derstandeth no Greeke: for which, for i, Cardinals hat, let him haue a mitre with two coxcombes.

Fol. 104. b. he sayth, that Valentinian mentioned in the title of the law Cunctos populos, was son to Gratian. A most lamentable error. For histories do all testifie, that Gratian and Valentinian the yonger were sons to Valentinian the el­der. And if he will not beleeue me, let him looke Caesar Baro­nius tom. 4. in the seuerall entrances of Gratian and Valenti­nian the yonger. What a leud fellow then is this, who not content to beget neuewes on his owne sister, doth now make the brother to beget his brother.

Fol. 110. a. he saith, when a man is chosen Pope, his rude­nesse is turned into wisedome, his feeblenesse into fortitude, his infirmitie into vertue. And yet experience teacheth vs, that ordinarily they are as ignorant, as leud, vnlearned and filthy as they were before. Clement the eight for al his for­titude can scarce go without helpe. And very strange it see­meth to vs here, that the Popes chaire should serue to cure men of all ignorance, infirmities and diseases. And if this were so, it were to be wished that Robert Parsons might sit some few houres in the Popes chaire, that he might be cu­red of his rudenesse in railing, his ignorance in writing, and all other his scabbes and infirmities. I for my part beleeus rather, that the rudenesse of this rudent and mad Iebusite wold neuer be cured, although he were reboyled like Peleus. In the leafe next going before, for acephali he writeth a che­uali, [Page 264] shewing himself to be ignorant of Gréeke, and his head to be as grosse as any capels head, rather then our Church to be without head, who hold Christ for the sole head of the vniuersall Church.

To proue that Catholike men cannot receiue their faith from the Catholike Church, that is, a collection and com­munion of all faithful people: I thinke that I needed not to vse many arguments, the same being a matter so plain and euident. For then should the receiuers be no Catholikes, nor should the Catholike church consist of particular men. And finally, al the members of the Catholike church should be agents to deliuer, and all members to receiue, and no distinction should be betwéene the giuer and receiuer. But I vsed onely one argument, drawne from a common prin­ciple of schoolemen, viz. that actions are acted of singular per­sons, and not of the body collectiue: supposing that I had had to do with a schoole-man, or a man at the least that vnder­stood logicke. But now I see I am fronted with an asse, and a fellow deuoyd of logicke and reason. For otherwise he would not haue talked so idly of suppositum and singulare, and vniuersale, nor deriued his logick from Tolet, nor denied my argument. For if in God the whole essence doth suffer, and not the sonne of God, or if the whole essence should be borne, and not the sonne of God, as Parsons must graunt, if he will haue actions to proceed à toto collectiuo: then doth he fall flatly into the heresie of the Patripassians, & ouerthrow­eth the high mystery of the holy Trinitie. Againe, al his dis­course about termes collectiue and vniuersall, maketh a­gainst himselfe. For if, as Aristotle saith, [...]. [...]. Metaph 1. If all actions and generations be indiuiduis, and singular persons, and not in things vniuer­sall, or bodies of commonwealths; then I say true, and he false. He may also receiue backe his boyeries and fooleries, and kéepe them to himselfe. That the vniuersall Church doeth not properly deliuer the faith, they themselues also after a sort confesse. For whē they bring proofe of their faith, they go to this Pope and that Pope, this man and that mā, [Page 265] and not to the vniuersall body of the Church. The same is also proued by the example of a body politicke. For if par­ticular men do all actions that belong to the State, and not all the cōmonwealth, how can the vniuersal Church be said properly to decree, to proclaime, to giue out? Must all méete, & like a Chorus speak or act a part? O meere dizardry! O piti­full ignorance, and that to be corrected with many stripes! Nay himselfe in the end is driuen to say, fol. 109. that when Papists say, that their faith is deliuered by the vniuersall church, their meaning is, that albeit particular priests, &c. deli­uer the same, yet for that they do it not as of themselues, but by the order of the vniuersall church, that the vniuersall church deliuereth it. So you sée he commeth like a resty iade to the montoier, and sayth as we say in effect; and to helpe himselfe belyeth his fellowes. For I do not thinke that he is able to shew any Papist so sottish, as to say, that the vniuersal catho­like church deliuereth the saith to priuate persons.

In his second encounter c. 3. in writing Bedes words he committeth a grosse Soloecisme, where he sayth, Scientiam seruatur & confitetur, he should haue sayd, scientiam scrutatur & confitetur, but that his spectacles failed him. His disciplcs therefore may do wel to keep vp their master, that hath for­got his Grammar.

In the same encounter fol. 37. he doth ridiculously proue his Masse by the Leuiticall sacrifice of Zachary mentioned Luke 1. and foolishly argueth that Papists may prosit much by hearing Masse, albeit they vnderstand it not. But one great inconuenience he must take héed of. For if the exam­ple of Zachary make for the Masse, then as the people were without when Zachary offered within, so the people may be in the churchyard when the priest is at Masse. So they shall neither need to heare Masse, nor sée Masse.

Fol. 58. of the second encounter, the Patch confesseth he fetcheth his diuinitie from Thomas Aquinas. The Warder (sayth he) shewed at large out of S. Thomas. Whereby his doltish folly is proued at large, that alledgeth so braue an author to vs, that for Diuinity is of equall credite with [Page 266] Robert Parsons, though farre more subtill and better learned.

Fol. 65. answering to a place out of Paraleip. Vrspergensis he sayth he findeth it not. But that was either his great ig­norance, or the thicknesse of his spectacles. Let him there­fore looke that booke in the notes vpon the yeare 1518. and he shall find these words there recorded: Sic dicerem in scholis sed tamen manet in aeternos. Diuersum sentio.

Fol. 67. for Petilian and Cresconius, he nameth Petilian & Crescentius; shewing himself well trauelled in S. Augustins workes.

Fol. 106. b. [...]. encounter chap. 13. ignorantly he doeth so interpret the words Primo mancipio Gehennae, in the chap­ter, si Papa dist. 40. as if Boniface did call the Pope the chiefe bondslaue of hell. The Glosse doth notoriously conuince him of ignorance. Mancipio sayth the author of the Glosse in cap. si Papa dist. 40. id est, diabolo qui mancipatus est Gehennae. But howsoeuer it is, the Pope is litle beholding to Par­sons, that calleth him the chiefe bondslaue of hell, and I doubt not, but if he take the bastardly Irbusite handsome­ly, he will whippe the knaue like a Mancipium gehennae or gally slaue, vntill he haue recanted his words, and brought him out of hell. In the meane while the wretched Papists may see their seruile estate, that follow oftentimes either the diuell, as the Glosse sayth, or the diuels bondslaue the Pope, as Parsons the Popes slaue of ignorance con­fesseth.

Fol. 113. 2. encounter 14. he speaketh false Latine, say­ing, Qui parcè seminit, parcè & metet, putting seminit for seminat, and quoting the 2. Corinthians 11. for 2. Corinthi­ans 9.

Fol. 114. 2. encounter chap. 14. he distinguisheth the do­ctrine of homousion and consubstantialitie, as two seuerall points of Christian Religion, whereas the learned (out of which ranke I blot Parsons) know that [...] in Gréeke is nothing but consubstantiall. Fol. 115. in the same chapter he quoteth Durand lib. 4. in sent. dist. 2. for dist. 20. A litle after [Page 267] he cauilleth with me for saying, that the Pope hath power to absolue and pardon men that haue liued most filthily and abhominably: and sayth, that absolution belongeth to the sacrament of penance, and not to indulgences. But therein the asse bewrayeth his owne grosse ignorance. For as some Papists say, indulgence is absolution, others say it is absolu­tio & solutio, as Bellarmine disputeth lib. 1. de indulg. ca. 5. and might haue taught the same to Parsons, if he would haue looked on him. The Pope therefore may do wel to lash this asse, and to graunt him no pardon, that knoweth not the grounds and first principles of his owne foole (or as some call it school) diuinitie. Nay he remembreth not the common formes of pardons. Gregory the 13. anno 1578. granting a pardon to those cutthrotes, that came with D. Iuan d'Austria Meteran. hist. Belg. into the Low countries (for to such are his indulgences granted) giueth them indulgence and remission or absolu­tion from their sins after confession and communion. Con­fessione & communione peracta (sayth Gregory) impetretis om­nium peccatorum vestrorum indulgentiam. O holy Pope, that granteth pardons to such cutthrotes! O patch Parsons, that knoweth not the forme of his holy fathers blessings!

Wherefore as the Apostle sayth of the idolatrous Gen­tiles, that when they professed themselues wise, they became Rom. 1. fooles: so we may say of the idolatrous hereticke Parsons, that while he professed himselfe a teacher of others, he hath shewed himself an ignorant dost. Likewise as the heretikes called Gnostici professed themselues great clerks, Imperitiae suae nomen scientiae vendicantes: that is, challenging to their ig­norance the name and title of knowledge, as Hierome sayth in Isaiae c. 44. So the illuminate Iebusites professe arts and learning, and Parsons is as arrogant as the best of them. But if he looke downe vpon these so many and so grosse er­rors, committed within one of his volumes; whatsoeuer he thinketh of himselfe, I hope hereafter he will not con­temne others. [...] [Page 272] pendir of the acts of that Councell. Alexander the firt was a man without religion. Humana iura, nec minus caelestia, ipsos­que sustulit deos: saith one of him, that is, He tooke away the lawes of man, lawes of God, and God himselfe. Leo the tenth did no otherwise accompt of the Gospel, then as of a fable, as his words to Cardinall Bembus testifie. The like may be affirmed also of many impious Popes: Let Parsons therefore beware, that he proue not his consorts to be in­fidels, and himselfe a consort and slaue of infidels.

Fol. 41. he saith, D. Giffard hath his Deanry by true a­doption. Which is a matter most ridiculous. For others haue their Deanries by election, and not for respect of kin­red by adoption, much lesse for dealing against his country, or for treason.

Fol. 43. he talketh of chirping of sparrowes, cackling of hennes, pratling of dawes, chiding of women, and of a foole, that said to one, that had a great nose, that he had no nose. Which argueth, that the man had neither nose, nor braine, nor good sence, cackling like a broode henne, chirping like a sparrow, pratling like a daw, scolding like a butter womā, braying like an asse, and barking like a curre.

Fol. 81. he talketh of the patience of papists: which I wonder that any man can reade with patience. For neither do they teach patience, nor practise it, if any occasion be gi­uen to the contrary. Was not this then a ridiculous sot, to talke of the patience of Lombards, or papists?

Fol. 100. he affirmeth, That the sum & corps of Christian doctrine was deliuered at the beginning by miracles. Now we confesse, it was confirmed by miracles: but how it can be deliuered by miracles, Parsons will be much encombred to shew, without shewing himselfe a wondrous wisard.

Fol. 106. he would haue the actes of the wicked conuen­ticle of Trent confirmed, and allowed by kings, as auncient Emperours confirmed the faith published in the Nicene Councell. But it is folly to desire matters so absurd, and plaine impiety to compare the hereticall decrées of Trent with the faith of the Nicene Councell.

[Page 273]To proue the saintlinesse of Thomas Becket, in his 2. en­contr. c. 10. he alleageth the Popes canonization. But what is more ridiculous, then to talke to vs of the Popes cano­nizations, who proceed commonly by hearesay, & without party, and as it seemeth, for mony would canonize a horse? Secondly, he alleageth for witnesses, Herbert Hoscan, Iohn Salisbury, Allen of Teuxbery, William and Edward Monkes of Canterbury, Peter Bloys and others. But all these wit­nesses are not worth a messe of Teurbery mustard. For what auaileth it to rehearse names of dumbe idols, that passe by, and say nothing? Againe if I may be so bold, I will answere Parsons in his owne termes. You see what cogging it is, one of them to alleage another.

Fol. 77. rehearsing the words of Th. Becket out of Houe­den, Do you not seeme to heare in this place, saith he, the voice of S. Iohn Baptist, to his king Herod? Where I may an­swere him with his owne words, and say not vnfitly: Do you not see a fellow with a face as hard as a lopster, that doth compare Th. Becket and his cause, to Saint Iohn Bap­tist, and his constancie: the first contending for profit, and idle panches, the second for the law of God? Ridiculously also he compareth Thomas Becket to S. Ambrose, a holy do­ctor of the Church, the said Thomas being nothing else but an idle preacher of priueledges preiudiciall to Princes, and not so holy, nor so learned as S. Ambrose by many degrees.

Where he is charged to haue threatned vs with broken heads, and Bastonadoes, a logike very familiar with papists; he answereth fol. 73. That he speaketh figuratiuely. But ex­perience teacheth vs, that where they can do it, they do it li­terally. It were therefore good to beware of the woodden daggers of these woodden fellowes.

Fol. 110. b. he affirmeth, that by indulgences, are distri­buted the treasures of the Church. A matter of meere foolery, of which may be said the saurus carbones: that is, our trea­sures proue coles. For poore people hoping to receiue a treasure, receiue méere cole dust, and yet for that trash wast great treasures. Iosephus Angles, signifieth that the Pope Fl. doct. c. de indulg. [Page 274] now and then receiueth an hundred millions of duckets for an indulgence: which is no small matter for such small wares.

In the same place he telleth vs of the Popes doctrine of indulgences, which is nothing else but a fardle of foolery, as in my discourse against Bellarmine I haue shewed at large. This Patch, if he had remembred himselfe, would haue proued somewhat, and not haue told vs a tale of the Popes tub full of mustie indulgences, more nastie then an old mustard pot.

2. encontr. c. 15. fol. 117. I shall alleage (sayth he) most au­thenticall testimonies, to wit, foure bookes for the negatiue, written and printed at Lyon presently vpon the fact it selfe, intituled, De iusta Henrici tertij abdicatione. But this allegatiō serueth vs better then him, and is a most authenticall testi­mony of Parsons foolery, and of the Popes trechery. For what is more repugnant to law, conscience and reason, thē to beléeue a notorious rebel and traitor declaiming against his liege soueraigne, most trecherously, and wickedly mur­dred by a louzie frier? And what is more intollerable, then that the Popes of Rome and their adherents being aduan­ced by Christian princes should now be praised for deposing of princes and cutting their throtes? This authenticall te­stimony therfore might well haue bin spared, wherein Par­sons a traitor produceth his fellow traitor for a witnesse in discharge of his owne and his fellowes treasons and villa­nies.

Fol. 123. he talketh most foolishly of penance, repeating what he hath sayd before in his Wardword. But whatso­euer he bableth of penance and satisfaction, and passing through a néedles eye; yet if a man can gaine a plenary in­dulgence, which for mony is easie to be had, then al penance inioyned, and satisfaction ceaseth, and God is plainely moc­ked. If he had bene wise therefore, he would haue forborne to talke of penance, the doctrine whereof by the Papists is wholly corrupted and ouerthrowne.

Finally, albeit he talketh much of law, and of Catholike [Page 275] Religion; yet he sheweth himself to be like those, of whō the Apostle speaketh, which would be doctors of the law, and yet vnderstand not what they speake, nor wherof they affirme. And 1. Tim. 1. like old heretikes, which as Hilary lib. 8. de Trinit. saith, al­though they lie foolishly, yet they defend their lies farre more foolishly. Cum stuliè mentiantu [...] (sayth he) stultiùs tamen in men­dacij sui defensione sapiunt. Compare their doings with Par­sons his foolish Warneword, and you shall sée he farre passeth them all in foolery.

CHAP. VII. Containing diuers false allegations, and falsifications of Fathers and others committed by Parsons.

THere are diuers kinds of falsifications, as we may learne by the Romane lawes ff. ad l. Corn. de falsis: by the cannon law, de crimine falsi: and by those Doctors that haue written Commentaries and glosses vpon these titles. But to know the diuersitie and nature of them, we shall not néed curiously to looke either into the lawes or commenta­ries of learned lawyers, séeing Robert Parsons in his Warn­word, which like a warning péece may serue all true men to beware of his falshood and trechery, doth furnish vs with particular instances and examples of most sorts of them.

First he maketh no conscience either to curtal his aduer­saries words, or to adde somewhat vnto them, of which they neuer had so much as a thought. Fol. 6. he sayth, that Sir Francis obiecteth vnto him the seeking of the ruine of the church and common wealth by his exhortation to peace, and mitigation in religion: whereas the Knight obiecteth no such matter, nor hath any such words. He doth also séeme to charge him as enemy of peace, whereas the honorable Knight neuer misliked peace, or any motion tending there­to, but rather discouered the false practises of Papists, that [Page 276] anno 1588. talked of peace, when their fleete was at the sea to cut our throtes being vnprouided, and 1598. made an o­uerture of a treaty, when the Adelantado had great forces readie at the Groyne and other ports of Spaine to come for England.

Where Sir Francis prayeth for the prolonging of her Ma­iesties dayes, to the holding out stil of the Popes vsurped au­thoritie: Parsons in his VVarneword doth so expound him, as if he prayed, that her life might hold out still. And this to Fol. 8. the intent he might runne vpon the Earle of Essex, barking like a Tinkers curre at a dead Lyon.

In my Preface I say, that obstinate recusants for the most part are secretly reconcilcd to the Pope, and in time past adhered to her maiesties enemies. But Parsons to make the matter more hainous, turneth obstinate recusants into recusant Catholikes, and falsly leaueth out these words, for Fol. 13. 1. the most part. As if I had called them Catholikes, which I neuer thought, or as if I knew not that there is great diffe­rence betweene the factious reconciled papists, and those that of simplicitie and ignorance fauour papisticall heresie and superstition.

Againe, where I say, that extraordinary fauour, or rather remisnesse of lawes and iustice towards disloyall Papists, hath caused diuers rebellions both in England and Ireland, and made them bold to attempt against her Maiesties life and gouernement, and giuen some of them courage to con­spire with forreine enemies, &c. and that by suffering of malcontents to practise, the sinewes of gouernement haue bene dissolued: and that many thinke, that against persons that are so euill disposed, and so firmely linked to forreine e­nemies good iustice is most necessary: Robert Parsons ium­bleth many words together, and cutteth off that which I sayd of conspiring with forreine enemies, and the attemp­ting against her Maiesty, knowing that many of his friends are the Spanish kings pensioners, and haue diuersly attem­pted against her Maiestie. Further, he cutteth out these words many do thinke, and by a strange metamorphosis [Page 277] changeth disloyal papists into catholike recusants, making me to say, that too much extraordinary fauour and remisnesse towards Catholikes hath caused diuers rebellions both in En­gland and Ireland, and that it hath dissolued the sinewes of go­uernment, and that it is more profitable to execute lawes then to pardon offenders: as if I had spoken generally against all papists, & not singled those that conspire with publike ene­mies, and attempt against the State: and as if I had misli­ked all remisnesse & pardon towards all papists. If Parsons body were so māgled as he hath mangled and transformed my words, we should not long be troubled with his wran­glements. In this sort he dealeth continually with vs. And so he dealeth also with other authors.

Fol. 14. b. The old Romane lawes (sayth Parsons) do giue generall authoritie to the body of the common wealth to pu­nish particular offenders, & non è contra, as Cicero signifieth in his booke De Legibus. But he belyeth impudently the old Romane lawes, and Cicero De Legibus. For both of them do authorize particular Magistrates and officers, and not the whole commonwealth to punish offenders. Magistratus (sayth Tully) nec obedientem & noxium ciuem multa, vinculis, verberibus (que) coercento. So likewise do old lawes, as in the ti­tles De Legibus. 3 de poenis and de publicis criminibus in the Pandects we may sée. Further, common wealths or states, do make lawes, and receiue not authoritie from lawes. Finally, it is an absurd thing to make the common wealth iudge, or executioner of lawes. For if that were so, then should the hangman be the common wealth, and contrariwise. And by a good consequent, if Parsons should play the hangman, the commonwealth might ride vpon the gallowes. The which is so great an inconuenience, that rather then it should be granted, it were better that the Iebusite were hanged vpon the gallowes.

Fol. 15. a. citing Augustine de ciuitate Dei lib. 18. cap. 51. and Cyprian lib. de vnit. Eccles. and Hieron. in c. 8. Ezechielis, & in c. 11. Oseae, & in c. 11. Zachariae, & in c. 8. Danielis. And Augustin enarrat. in Psal. 80. part. 29. & super lib. Iosuae cap. 27. [Page 278] he sayth that they out of the 13. of Dcuteronomy proue that heretikes may and ought to be put to death, which are the proper idolaters of the new Testament. But in citing of these authors, the man seemeth neither to haue eyes, nor iudge­ment, nor honestie. For Augustine lib. 18. de ciuitate Dei, c. 51. doth neither mention the 13. of Dcuteronomic, nor proue that heretikes are to be put to death. The like may be an­swered to the testimonie of Augustine in Psal. 80. of which ridiculously he citeth the 29. part. Further, we find no com­mentaries of Augustine vpon the booke of Iosue. Cyprian in his book De vnitate Ecclesiae, hath no such matter as Par­sons supposeth. Most falsly also doth he cite the places out of Hierome.

In the same place he citeth Augustine super lib. Iosuae ca. 27. Fol. 15. a. in marg. and de vtilitate ieiunij, cap. 8. Whereas he neither wrote commentaries vpon Iosue, nor any 27. chapter is to be found in that booke. Beside that, the booke de vtilitate ieiunij is a bastard, and of the qualitie of Parsons, and none of saint Augustines.

Fol. 17. translating the law Cunctos populos. Cod. de sum. Trin. & fid. Cath. he cutteth out the words that containe the forme of faith professed by the Emperour, and that part that sheweth that the iudgement and punishment of here­tikes belonged to the ciuill Magistrate. The first, because it giueth power to ciuill Magistrates to publish formes of Christian faith. The next, because he imagineth that the iudgment and condemnation of heretikes belongeth onely to the popish hereticall Clergie.

Fol. 25. b. he affirmeth, that Tertullian lib. de praescript. ad­uers. haeret. sayth, That it is impossible for two heretikes to agree in all points. Let him therefore quote these words, or else in this point we will note him for a falsarie. Mentior (sayth Tertullian, speaking of certaine heretikes) si non etiam a regulis suis variant inter se, dum vnusquisque proinde suo arbitrio modulatur quae accepit, quemadmodum de suo arbitrio ea composuit ille qui tradidit. He sayth they vary among themselues from their owne rules, and that euery one at his pleasure doth mo­dulate [Page 279] and temper the things he receiued, as he that deliuered them composed them at his pleasure. But this wanteth much of Parsons words and meaning, as he wanted much of sin­cere dealing.

Fol. 29, he affirmeth desperatly, that the great commission for the Popes iurisdiction, is contained in the 16. of Matthew in these words, I will giue thee the keyes of the kingdome of heauen, &c. forging notoriously the Popes letters patents. For neither is there any mention of the Pope or Bishop of Rome in these words, nor doth our Sauiour speake of any keyes, or power of binding and loosing, that is not common to all Bishops, which are the Apostles successors. Further­more, general words wil not serue to cary halfe the Popes power. Finally, if we will beléeue Bellarmine lib. 1. de Pont. Rom. c. 10. here is nothing giuen to Peter, but only promised to him.

Fol. 38. he alledgeth Pope Nicholas his Epistle, and Constantines donation, both notoriously and impudently being forged, and by the forgeron or blackesmiths putatiue sonne erroniously interpreted.

Fol. 39. speaking of certaine words of Cusanus: This (sayth he) of the change of Gods iudgement, after the iudge­ment of the Church, & of the supreme Pastor, is a commō say­ing of the auncient fathers vpon those words of Christ, Whose finnes you loose on earth, &c. Anotorious lie. For albeit he alleage thrée, yet no one speaketh of the change of Gods iudgement, or of the Pope, or affirmeth that Gods iudge­ment changeth with the Church. Beside that, it is one thing to talke of binding and loosing, and another to say, that as the Church altereth the institution of the sacra­ments, so God altereth his iudgement. Would not this fel­low then haue a garland of peacockes feathers for his noto­rious cogging, and for his presumption in falsly alleaging and belying the Fathers?

Fol. 40. in the margent he sayth, that Hilary in Math. 16. hath a worthy place for the Popes authoritie. Yet can he not proue, that Hilary in that place speaketh one word, ei- [...] [Page 284] most materiall of his discourse.

In the same leafe, he addeth another text out of the 26. of the Prouerbs. where the wise man aduiseth vs, to an­swere a foole according to his folly, least he thinke himselfe wise. According whereunto we haue shaped an answere to Robert Parsons his Warneword, praying him very heartily to take it in good part, and not to thinke himselfe ouer wise in his owne conceit, seeing the author of that peece could neuer haue vttered such stuffs, vnlesse he had bene a three piled foole, and had attained to a higher degree, then a Cardinall in the consistory of fooles.

Likewise these words out of Ciceroes oration in Vatini­um, which he like a dolt supposeth to be taken out of Tullies second Philppic, viz. vt vexatum potiùs, quàm despectum vellem dimittere, doe fit vs as well against Parsons, as may be de­uised. For albeit he be but a base, bastardly, and contemp­tible fellow, and almost spent out in rayling and libelling, and discrasied in plotting of treason and villany, yet haue I thought it better to send him away well corrected, then to passe by him as a worthlesse and despised companion. Nei­ther do I doubt, but to returne him as large a measure of bastonadoes, as he hath offered others, and so to handle him, that his friends shall say he is dressed like a calues head souced in veriuyce.

These words of our Sauiour, Iohn 3. He that doth euill, hateth the light, and will not come to it, least his workes should be reproued; he applieth to me. And why? Forsooth because to answere Capt. Cowbuckes fencing Wardword, set out vnder the name of N. D. I take the two next let­ters to make vp N. D. a full Noddy. For this cause he sayth, I entertaine my selfe in some darknesse for a time, and expect my prey, vnder a ciphred name. And this obiection pleaseth him so well, that not onely in the eleuenth and twelth leafe, but also in diuers others places he doth incul­cate the same. But against me these obiections come all too late. For albeit at the first I could haue bene content to haue bene vnknowne in this foolish brable betwixt Parsons [Page 285] and me, and that not so much in regard of any thing sayd by me, as in regard of the bastardly companion, with whom I am matched, being an aduersary, of any learned man to be scorned. And not least of all, because such contro­uersies would rather be handled in Latin, then in English: yet being occasioned to renew my challenge, I haue set my name vnto it, and declared, that I neither feare light, nor the foules of darknesse, nor need to looke for spoyle, as this rauinous Iebusite pretendeth. Against Robert Parsons this text and obiection cometh both fitly and timely. For albeit he obiecteth ciphring of names to others, yet will he not discipher his owne name vnto vs. Nay, albeit we know his name and qualitie very well; yet will he not bewray himselfe, albeit often admonished of his playing the owle. He hath long bene plotting of treason, and therefore ha­teth the light. He hath for many yeares gone masked like a vagabond vp and downe England, and in the day time hid­den himselfe in corners. He hath long looked to diuide the spoile of his country with strangers. What then resteth, seeing he will not be dismasked, but that some of Buls pro­genie doe vnmaske him, vncase him, and trusse him?

Likewise fol. 12. he calleth me Owle, and saith, He will draw me to the light. But this foule shold haue remembred, that himselfe in a paltry pamphlet, which he set forth to disswade men from coming to Church, tooke on him the name of Iohn Houler, as a fit name for such a night bird, and that this is one of his owne proper titles. Likewise, fol. 14. b. he calleth me Owles eye, because I borrow the two letters O. E. But if O. E. signifieth owles eye, then doth N. D. signifie either a Nasty Dunse, or a North Island dog, or a notorious dolt, by as good reason.

Fol. 18. to proue the Popes headship ouer the whole Church, his noddiship alleageth the law, inter claras. Cod. de sum. trin. & fid. catho. But like a forging fellow he bringeth in counterfeit stuffs. For that is made apparent in my dis­course of Popish falsities. Beside that, this law doth quite ouerthrow the Popes cause. For whereas the Pope clai­meth [Page 286] his authoritie by the law of God, this law sayth, That the Romish Church was declared to be head of all Churches, by the rules of fathers, by the statutes of Princes, and the Em­perors fauourable speeches. Quam esse omnium ecclesiarum ca­put, sayth the law, & patrum regulae, & principum statuta de­clarant, & pietatis vestrae reuerendissimi testantur affatus. Let him therefore beware, that the Pope do not find him a trai­tour aswell to himselfe, as to his countrey.

Fol. 23. speaking of the blessings mentioned by Sir Fran­cis Hastings, he sayth, They were freshly framed out of the forge of his owne inuention. But he was not aware, that this belongeth to Uulcane the blackesmithes putatiue sonne Parsons, who from his infancy might in his puta­tiue father Cowbuckes forge learne to forge, frame and inuent nayles to tacke the Popes triple crowne to his bald head.

Fol. 25. b. you shall perceiue, sayth he, that saying of old Tertullian to be true, &c. that it was impossible for two here­tikes to agree in all points. But first, this place is not found in Tertullians booke, de praescript. by him alleaged. Second­ly, were it truly alleaged, yet doth it not belong to any more properly, then to popish heretikes. For if all the bangling Iebusites were coupled together like hounds; yet would they sooner hang together, then agrée together. And that may appeare both by the schoolemens disputes one a­gainst another in all questions almost, and also by Bellar­mines bookes of controuersies, and Suares his tedious fra­plements, about schoolematters: in which they are as much at variance with themselues, as with others.

In the same place he taxeth vs, for confused writing. And yet if you séeke all the sinkes of the Popes libra­ries, I do hardly beléeue, that you shall find a more con­fused farrago of words and matters, then the Warne­word set out by Robert Parsons. For therein the man run­neth as it were the wild goose chase, and heapeth vp a far­ble of foolery like to nothing, vnlesse it be to a bundle of sto­len tailors shreds, wherein frise, and carsey listes, locrome, [Page 287] cotton, and soutage is bound together.

Fol. 43. out of Augustine lib. 4. contra Iulian. c. 3. he telleth vs, that the forehead of heretikes is no forehead, if we vnder­stand thereby shamefastnesse. And out of Tertullian de praescr. contra haeret. That lies hardly stand one with another. Both which do excéedingly wel fit Rob. Parsons. For neither hath the man shame, nor honestie, nor do his lies hang together, as appeareth by this whole discourse.

Fol. 52. out of M. Knoxe he alledgeth as a dangerous po­sition, (and so it is) That princes may be deposed by the peo­ple. And yet that is his owne traiterous assertion in his booke of Titles, set out vnder the name of Dolman. The ti­tle of the third chapter, part. 1. is of Kings lawfully chastised by their common wealths. That is likewise his and Allens drift in their trecherous libell directed to the Nobility and people of England and Ireland: where they perswade them to take armes against the Quéene of England.

Fol. 53. he condemneth in Buchanan that which he and Beliarmine and their crew of rebellious consorts hold, viz. that if Christians deposed not Princes in the Apostles times, it was for want of temporal forces: and for that S. Paul wrote in the infancie of the church. That is also in termes holden by Bellarmine lib. 5. de Pont. Rom. c. 7.

In his first encounter chap. 10. he goeth about to proue that S. Bernard and S. Augustine iumpe with Papists in the doctrine of merits of good workes. But vnlesse he shew out of them, that workes are meritorious, not by reason of coue­nant, or promise or mercy, but for the workes sake, as Bellarm. lib. 5. de Iustif. c. 17. holdeth: and that there is a proportion or equality betweene the worke and reward merited, and that workes are meritorious ex condigno, and that charity differeth not really from grace, as Bellarmine teacheth, lib. 1. de libero arbit. c. 6. and that men are able to prepare themselues to re­ceiue grace, and finally proue the distinction de congruo and condigno, Parsons laboureth but in vaine. But this is con­trary both to scriptures and fathers. He first loued vs, sayth Ioh. 1. Ioh. 4. And the Apostle sayth, We are saued by grace, [Page 288] and not of workes. Nullus (saith Augustine in Psal. 142.) vn­quam bonū opus fecit tanta charitate, quanta potuit & debuit. No man did euer performe a good worke with so much loue as he could and ought. And 1. Confess. chap. 4. Qui reddis debita, nulli debens: Thou which restorest debt, & yet owest to no man. Bernard lib. de grat. & lib. arb. promissum quidem ex misericordia sediam exiustitia persoluendum. Promised of mercy, but to be payd according to iustice. And in his first sermon de annunt. Thou canst not (sayth he) merite eternall life by any workes, vnlesse the same be also giuen freely or gratis. And againe, Mens merits are not such, that eternall life should be due for them of right, or that God should do wrong, if he did not giue them eternall life.

Fol. 75. he saith, theeues & the worst sort of mē do not suffer persecution one of another: which is verified by the example of Parsons and his consorts. For albeit like wolues they teare, and like théeues they steale and spoile Christs lambs; yet they do not alway teare and spoyle one another. Nei­ther would the kingdome of Satan stand, if it were diuided in it selfe.

The words of S. Augustine contra Iulian. lib. 1. c. 7. alleaged by Parsons, fol. 77. b. fall right vpon his head. For both his ignorance and boldnesse is intollerable. Fol. 80. b. be saith, Calis was lost by heretical treason: which cannot be true, vn­lesse Quéen Mary and the Papists were heretikes. For none but they did lose that towne.

Fol. 83. he talketh of the chastitie of Friers, Monkes, and priests, which as he signifieth, haue ghelt themselues for the kingdome of heauen. And yet the Monk Heywood his true father was not very chast when he begot him. Nor was Parsons ghelt for the kingdome of heauen, when he begot children on his owne sister, as A. C. sayth, or when he got his hurts in Italy and Spaine, which yet sticke to his rotten shins: nor are the Popes, and Cardinals, and Massepriests, that commonly kéepe concubines, if not worse, very holy eunuches. Of D. Giffard and Weston, I shall haue occasion to speake otherwhere. Furthermore, he is often talking of [Page 289] great heads, alwayes forgetting the branched head of the blacke smith his putatiue father.

Fol. 84. and 85. he is not ashamed to talke of ciuil wars, murders, and other calamities in France, Flanders and other countries, when he cannot denie but that the Popes bloody buls, and the Iebusites the firebrands of sedition, and their agents haue bene the beginners of all these troubles, and the principall massacrers of innocent men. Was he then wel in his wits, trow you, to talk of his owne deare fathers cruelties, and to accuse Christs sheepe, as cause of the wol­uish Papists notorious murders and cruell executions?

Whereas Parsons asketh Sir Francis, whether he hath cer­taintie of faith by his owne reading, or by the credite of some others: we may aske his friarship likewise, or because he is but a doogeon dunce, of the Pope, who is, as it were, an ora­cle of Papists, the same question. And if he answer, that he hath it by his owne reading, then we shall much wonder at his impudencie. For Parsons knoweth that Popes reade li­tle or nothing, and for the most part are ignorant of schoole diuinitie. If he say his Popeship hath it by the vertue of his close stool, then is the same but filthy learning, especially the Pope being laxatine, as was Gregory the fourteenth. If he say, he haue it from his Masse-priests and friars, then are they more certaine oracles then he; and this learning must come from the tayles of friars, and not from the head of the church. Parsons therefore to cleare this doubt, fol. 110. saith, That they do not depend on the Pope as a priuate man, but as he is head and chiefe pastor of Christs vniuersal Church. He saith also, That his rudenesse is turned into wisedome. But that the Pope is the head of Christs vniuersall Church, is the thing in question. That a man should be a sot, as he is a priuate man, and wise as he is a publike person, is ridicu­lous. That he is made wise and learned being made Pope, is most false. So it appeareth, Parsons is ensnared in his owne question, and must confesse that the faith of papists is nothing else but the Popes priuate fancie, and grounded on the Popes chaire, and most absurd and sottish: which can [Page 290] not be obiected to vs, séeing we ground our selues vpon the Apostles and Prophets, who in matters of faith & saluation speake plainely, and alwayes the same things most con­stantly.

In his first encounter, chap 15. he spendeth much talke about the rule of faith. But most of his words are direct contrary both to himselfe and to his holy fathers profite. For in the Wardword, page 6. he said, the vniuersal Church was the squire and pole-star, which euery one was to follow: confounding like an ideot the thing ruled with the rule. In the Warneword fol. 100. he saith, the summe and corpes of Christian doctrine deliuered at the beginning by the mira­cles & preachings of the Apostles, is the rule of faith. Which is contrary to the Popes profit. For if this be true, then vn­lesse the Popes determinations and traditions ecclesiastical were preached by the Apostles and confirmed by mracles, they are to be excluded from being the rule of faith.

Parsons therefore is like to those, which dig pits for others, Psal. 7. but fall into them themselues. He hath prepared weapons for vs, but like a mad sot hath hurt himselfe with the same. Finally, Captaine Cowbucke like a noble woodcocke, is caught in his owne springes.

CHAP. IX. A catalogue of certaine principall lies, vttered by Robert Parsons in his late Warne-word.

THe Spirit of God (as the Apostle sayth) speaketh eui­dently, that in the latter times some shall depart from the 1. Tim. 4. faith, and shall giue heed vnto spirits of errour, and doctrines of diuels, which speake lyes through hypocrisie, and haue their consciences burned with a hote yron. Which prophecy, as in other heretikes, so especially in the Papists we may sée most plainely and euidently to be fulfilled. For they depar­ting from the auncient and Catholike faith, taught by the [Page 291] holy Apostles and Prophets, and recorded in holy Scrip­tures, haue giuen héed to spirits of error, and beléeued the trash of vnwritten traditions, and lying legends, and ther­upon haue founded their prohibitions of certaine meates, and mariages, and such like doctrines of diuels, confirming their opinions with grosse lies, vttered with seared consci­ences and brazen faces, contrary to all shew of truth. They take to themselues the name of doctors and fathers, but are false teachers and vnkind traitors. And as Theodoret saith of certaine heretikes, Christianorum sibi appellatione imposita a­pertè In 1. Tim. 4. docent contraria. Calling themselues Christians (or Catho­likes) they openly teach contrary. I could specifie it by Caesar Baronius and Bellarmine, by Sanders, Stapleton, and diuers other principall authors of the popish sect. But I will not match any man of note, with so notorious a dolt, and so base a swad as Robert Parsons is, of whom we are now to speake, though not much to his commendation. The onely example of Parsons, and that in one of his fardles of lies, which we are now to rip vp, shall shew them to be notorious and bold lyers. The diuellish and erronious doctrine of friars, we haue touched before, and shall haue often occasion to mention.

In the front of his booke, he promiseth the issue of three former treatises, and in the second page talketh of eight en­counters. But he falsifieth his promise, and lieth grossely. For of the thrée former treatises, he toucheth onely two chapters, and of eight encounters, entreth onely vpon two. Further, he declineth the true issue of matters, and runneth bias, like a warped bowle of dudgeon, into impertinent & idle questions. Doth he not therfore, as Hierom saith of one, Hierō. epist. 61 make shipwwracke in the port?

In his Epistle to the Reader taking vpon him to deliuer the summe of the controuersie betwixt him and vs, he wrac­keth himselfe likewise, thinking to wreake his malice vpon vs, and beginneth with a grosse lie. There hapned (saith he) some few yeares past (he noteth 1599. in the margent) as of­ten also before, a certaine false alarme of a Spanish inuasion [Page 292] then said to be vpon the seas towards England. Where I néed not to note the idiotisme of Parsons speech, that talketh of a Spanish inuasion vpon the sea towards England, being elle­where noted: but only I wil touch his impudencie in lying, and dcnying, that about this time the Spaniards were ready with forces at the Groyne for the inuasion of England. And the rather, for that this was the occasion that moued Sir Francis Hastings to giue warning to his countrey: and also because the same sheweth that Parsons is very sorie, that any man is acquainted with the desscines of the Spanish Ring, and that he could not take vs sleeping, and so closcly and priuiliy cut his countrimens throtes. I say then, it is a lie most notorious, to affirme that the alarme giuen vpon occasion of the Spanish preparations anno 1598. for an in­uasion of some part of England, was false. And proue it first by the words of the Ring, who recouering out of a trance, and comming to himself, asked if the Adelantado were gone for England. Secondly, by the prouisions of ships and men, made at the Groync and Lisbone, and which coming thence shaped their course for England, albeit they were by wether beaten back. Thirdly, by the testimony of one Leake a Masse priest, that was dealt with all to come for England. Fourth­ly, by the testimonie of the Secular priests in their reply to Parsons his libell, fol. 65. & sequent. who direaly charge Parsons to be a solicitor of these pretended attempts, anno 1598. Fiftly, by Parsons his letters from Rome to Fitzher­bert, wherein he desireth to vnderstand the successe of the fleete, that anno 1598. was to go for England. Finally, by the Adelantadoes proclamation made at the Groyne, and whereof diuers printed copies were to be dispersed in En­gland vpon his arriuall here. The which, for that if disco­uereth the pride of the Spaniard, and the malice of the En­glish traitors, I haue thought it not amisse to set downe the whole tenour of the proclamation with some animaduer­sions in the margent.

Considering (saith the Adelantado) the obligation which his This seemeth to be Parsons his stile. catholike Maiestie, my Lord and master hath receiued of God [Page 293] almightie, to defend and protect his holy faith, and the Apo­stolicall Romane church: he hath procured by the best meanes he could, for to reduce to the Popish reli giō is neither auncient nor true. auncient and true religion the kingdomes of England and Ireland, as much as possibly hath bin in his power. And all hath not bene sufficient to take away the Goodly pretences of leud ambitiō. offence done against God in dommage of the selfesame kingdoms, with scandale of whole christianity, yea rather abu­sing the clemency and benignity of his The Popes vaslall. Catholike Maiestie: the heads and chiefe of the True tea­chers. heretikes, which litle feare God, haue taken courage to extend their euill doctrine with the op­pressing of These ca­colikes were traitors. Catholikes, martyring them, and by diuers wayes and meanes taking from them their liues and goods, forcing them by A manifest vntruth and calumniation against the truth. violence to follow their damnable fects and errours, which they haue hardly done to the losse of many soules. Which considered, his Catholike Maicsty is determined to fa­uour and protect these Catholikes, which couragiously haue defended the Catholike faith, and not onely those, but Lurking and dissem­bling Papists. such also, as by pusillanimity and humane respects hauc consented vnto them, forced thereunto through the hard and cruell dea­ling of the said Catholikes heretical enemies. And for the exe­cution of his holy zeale, he hath commaunded me, that with Are not Spaniards thē publike ene­mies? force by sea and land, which be and shall be at my charge, to procure al meanes necessary for the reduction of the said king­domes vnto the S. Peter and Paul did not by armes con uert men to the faith. obedience of the Catholike Romane church. In complement of the which, I declare and protest, that these forces shall be employed, for to execute this holy What ho­lines can be in cutting Chri­stian mens throtes? intent of his Catholike Maiestie, directed onely to the common good of the true religion and Catholikes of those kingdomes, as wel those which be already declared catholikes, as Note that all papists are to ioyne with forreine ene­mies. others who wil declare themselues for such. For all shall be receiued and admitted by me in his royall name, which shall separate and a­part themselues from the heretikes. And furthermore, they shall be restored to the honour, dignity and possessions, which heretofore they haue bene depriued of. Moreouer, euery one shall be rewarded according to the demonstrations and feates which shall be shewne in this godly enterprise. And who shall proceed with most valour, the more largely and amply shall be [Page 294] remunerated with the goods of obstinate Honest men destined to spoile and slaughter. heretikes. Wherfore seeing almightie God doth present to his elect so good an oc­casion, therfore I for the more security ordaine and command the captaines generall of horse and artilerie, the master gene­rall of the field, generall captaines of squadrons, as all other masters of the field, the captaines of companies of horse and foote, and all other officers greater and lesser, and men of war, the Admirall generall, and the rest of the captaines and offi­cers of the armie, that as well at land as sea they They shall be vsed as traitors. vse well, and receiue the Catholikes of those kingdomes who shall come to defend the Catholike The Infan­taes title. cause with armes or without them. For I commaund the Generall of the artilerie, that he prouide them of To fight a­gainst their countrey. weapons which shall bring none. Also I ordaine and streitly commaund, that they haue particular respect vnto the houses and families of the sayd Catholikes, not touching, as much as may be, any thing of theirs, but onely of those that will obstinately follow the part of Wo be to them that call good euill, & euill good. heretikes: in doing of which, they be altogether vnworthy of those fauours which be here granted vnto the good, who will declare them selues for true Catholikes, and such as shall take To cutte their princes throate. armes in hand, or at least separate themselues from the heretikes, a­gainst whom and their fauourers all this Note war. warre is directed, in Good words, foule purposes. defence of the honor of God, and good of those kingdomes, trusting in Gods diuine mercy that they shall recouer againe the Catholike relgion so long agone lost, and make them re­turne to their auncient quietnesse and felicitie, and to the due obeience of the holy Primitiue church. Moreouer, these king­domes shall At the hands of e­nemies. enioy former immunities and priuiledges, with encrease of many others for the time to come, in great friend­ship, confederacie, and trafficke with the kingdome of his Ca­tholike Maiestie, which in times past they were wont to haue for the publike good of all Christianity. And that this be put in executiō speedily, I exhort al the faithful to the fulfilling of that which is here contained, warranting them vpon my A goodly assurance. word, which I giue in the name of the Catholike King my Lord and master, that all shall be obserued which here is promised. And thus I discharge my self of the losses and damages which God hath appointed it otherwise. shall [Page 295] fall vpon those which will follow the contrary way, with the ruine of their owne soules, the hurt of their owne country, and that which is more, the honor and glory of God. And he which cannot take presently armes in hand, nor declare himselfe by reason of the tyrannie of the heretikes, shall be He would make the En­glish traitors. admitted from the enemies camp, and shall passe to the catholike part in some skirmish or battell: or if he cannot, he shall flie before we come to the This Bra­gadocio ne­uer came in England, that here talketh of the last encounter. last encounter. In testimonie of all which, I haue com­manded to dispatch these presents, confirmed with my hand, sealed with the seale of mine armes, and refirmed by the secre­tary vnderwritten.

This being the Adelantadoes proclamation anno 1598. let the world iudge of the impudencie of Parsons, that lyeth wittingly, and saith, the alarme was false. Thereby it may appeare also, what maner of man Parsons is, that bringeth forreine enemies vpon his countrey, and is consorted with them, and yet faceth all downe that shall say the contrarie.

In his Epistle likewise he saith, that the Ward word com­ming abroade, the newes was in most mens mouthes, that the Knight disauowed the Watchword, attributing the same to certaine Ministers. Where, me thinkes, I heare Thraso say, Metuebant omnes me: All stood in dread of me. But that is not the fault that I meane here to touch. For it is his egre­gious lying, that we are here to talke of. Let him therefore either name these most men that he mentioneth, or at the least̄ some honest man, that gaue out this report as from sir Francis his mouth, or else we must say, that this lie came out of his owne foule mouth, that is now become a foun­taine of lies. He must shew also how Sir Francis could disa­uow a treatise subscribed and published by himselfe, or else it will be said, that this report of Parsons is a lie, without shew or probabilitie.

Afterward he affirmeth, that a certaine Minister wrote in supply of the Knights defence. And againe, fol. 1. he felleth, how I perusing the reply of Sir Francis, thought in mine owne opinion to make a better defence. But how can he proue that I perused the Knights answere, [Page 296] or once saw it? And whence doth he gather, what opinion I had of mine owne doings? If he proue nothing, then will it be an easie matter to gather, that he hath made two impro­bable lies. The same is proued also, for that my reply was made before the Knights Apologie was published or seene of me. For if I had seene it first, my labour might well haue bin spared, the same being more then sufficient for the refu­tation of such a banglers babling discourse.

In his obseruations vpon my preface, fol. 11. b. he sayth, My proiect and purpose of writing, is to irritate and stir vp her Maiesty, and the Councel, to ingulfe themselues in Catholikes bloud, and to spoile their goods, that I and my crew might come to haue a share. But first it is most false, that Papists are Catholikes. Secondly, no one word can he alleage out of my whole book, wherby it may be gathered, that I would haue any rigour vsed against such simple Papists, that are not factious nor mutinous. For all the harme I wish them, is, that they were wel instructed. Thirdly, if he meane those traitors, that either came or meant to ioyne with the Ade­lantado against their prince and countrey: then are they no Catholikes, nor true subiects. The same may be said also of Parsons his consorts. Finally, it is a shamelesse vntruth to say, we desire either blood or spoile; all our actions tending onely to resist forrein enemies, and wicked traitors, which séeke to shed their countrimens blood like water, and to sa­crifice it to the Pope and to giue the spoile of their country to the Spaniards, as the factious Masse-priests and the Pa­pists their consorts haue done diuers times, and namely an. 1588. and 1598. and since.

In his obseruasions vpon Sir Francis his Epistle, fol. 6. He obiecteth (saith Parsons) that I seeke the ruine both of church and common wealth by my exhortation to peace, at­tonement, and mitigation in religion. A notorious lie, refu­ted by reading of Sir Francis his Apology, where there is no one word sounding that way. Neither do we blame any ho­nest man that talketh of peace, but scorne, that traitors that haue warre in their hearts, should talke of peace, and that [Page 297] idolaters and heretikes should prate and talke of religion, when they meane nothing but to erect idolatrie, and to esta­blish popish errors and superstition.

Fol. 16. speaking of me, He blusheth not (saith he) to affirme that which all his fellowes haue denied. And what is this, trow you? Forsooth, that blasphemous and scandalous dog­matizing heretikes may be put to death. But where he saith, that all my fellows haue denied this, he sheweth him selfe a shamelesse lying companion, and the diuels fellow in forging lies. For none of my fellowes euer denied that which I affirme, but only wold not haue ignorant, & peace­able, and simple heretikes, that neither blaspheme, nor dog­matise, nor are offensiue to the State, punished with death. Likewise they condemne the cruell and bloody Papists, that burne & massacre men, women and children, for denying or contradicting any one point of their filthy, abominable, and erronious doctrine.

Fol. 18. he saith, The Emperour in a certaine edict begin­ning, reddentes: Cod. de sum. Trin. & fid. Cath. professeth his due subiection, and of all his empire to the church of Rome: which is a notorious and an impudent ly. For in that law there is no one word to be found, that importeth subiection either of the Emperour, or of the Empire to the Church of Rome, much lesse to the Pope of Rome. Nay, at that time the citie of Rome belonged to the Emperour, which lately the Pope hath vsurped, excluding the Emperour from thence. But were there any thing contained in that law, which may seeme spoken in fauour of the Romane Bishop, yet is the same proued counterfet in my late treatise concerning falsi­ties of the Romish synagogue.

Fol. 19. a. speaking of the Emperors, They professed (saith he) the Bishops of Rome to be the heads and chiefe leaders of this vniuersall and visible Catholicke Church: as before hath bene shewed by the examples of Gratian, Valentinian and Theodosius to Pope Damasus, and of Arcadius, Ho­norius and Theodosius the second, and of Saint Augustine to Pope Innocentius primus, and of Iustinian to Pope Iohn the first. [Page 298] This he saith boldly. But in these few words, a cluster of lies is packed vp close together. For neither do Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodsius write to Damasus, as the title of the law, cunctos populos Cod. de sum. trinit. doth shew, nor do they say, that Damasus was head and leader of the vniuer­sall visible Church. Nor do Arcadius, Honorius, and Theo­dosus the second talke of any such matter to be due to Inno­centius the sirst. Nor can it be proued out of Augustine, or Iustinians decrée, inter clara. Cod. de sum. trinit. that this ti­tle was giuen to Innocentius the first, or Iohn the first, or second. For beside that the law inter claras, is counterfeit, the interpreter doth corruptly translate [...], that is, the head of all priests, the head of all Churches. Nay hardly will Parsons be able to shew, that any of these did speake of the vniuersall visible Church, where they speake of the bishops of Romes authoritie. These therefore are pal­pable, if not visible lies. And that which he saith of Iohn the first, is a ridiculous lye. For he was dead, as Chronicles teach, before Iustinians reigne.

He thinketh it law full to lie all manner of lies of Caluin. And therefore boldly saith, He was a priest, and that he sayd Fol. 20. a. masse. Both which are denyed by those which wrote his life, which say he departed out of France before he receiued any orders. The same may be proued, for that his name is found in no bishops records, and for that he begunne to write his Institutions before 24. yeares of age. Of which we gather, that he hated the popish priesthood, before he was of yeares to be made priest.

Fol. 22. b. he maketh Sir Francis to say, that we haue changed old religion into Protestancy: not changing there­in his old fashion of cogging and lying. For neither doth he, nor any of vs acknowledge popish religion to be aunci­ent, nor do we call our religion protestancy: although his dealing giueth vs oft occasion to protest against his wicked and false dealing.

Fol. 23. a. he affirmeth, that Sir Francis talketh of no­thing but feares, frights and terrors. But he might doe well [Page 299] to cease talking, if he tell nothing but lies. In the place mentioned Sir Francis talketh neither of feares, frights, nor terrors. Nor doth it follow, because Parsons and his con­sorts are still packing vnderhand, and dealing with the Spaniards, that we are terrified. For we haue neither cause to feare treason, nor publike force, vnlesse we will trust traytors, and wilfully throw away our armes. Nei­ther haue Papists cause to begin to stirre, vnlesse they be weary of their liues, of peace, of ease, and of their natiue countrey.

Fol. 25. a. he boldly auoucheth, that I count it a blessing, to haue Catholike rites and seruice abolished: whereas in truth I desire nothing more, then that Catholike religion may be restored, and speake onely against the filthy abo­minations of popish masse, the idolatrous worship of saints and idols, the tyranny of the Pope, and such like: which none but the slaues of Antichrist can endure, and wil affirme to be Catholike.

That Iouinian and Vigilantius held some errors, we will not deny. But that Hierome called them heretikes for the same points that wee hold, concerning virginitie, prayers to saints, and lights at martyrs tombes, as Parsons fol. 27. affirmeth most falsly, will not be proued. For Hie­rome doth rather excuse those, that lighted candels at noone day, then condemne those that thought contrary. Neither did he euer place perfection in forced virginity, or teach prayers to saints, or allow those, that worshipped false relikes, as the papists do. This therefore which Par­sons sayth, is to be scored vp among the relikes of his lea­sings.

In the same leafe he addeth another grosse lye, saying, That Iewell (writing) against Harding, and Fulke against Allen and Bristow, do often call Saint Hierome borne pa­pist and scolding doctor. For neither the one terme, nor the other is found in their writings. Nay we should great­ly wrong Saint Hierome, if we should call him either papist, or borne papist, séeing that in his time neither the monster [Page 300] of the masse, nor other popish abominations, were either borne, or conceiued. Uniesse therefore he quote B. Iewels, and M. Falkes words; as he was borne a bastard, so we will hold him by condition for a lying accuser, and a scol­ding companion, and a fellow borne to tell lyes.

Fol. 28. b. he telleth loud lies of Panormitane, saying, That he in the chap. licet. de electione, expounding these words of Hostiensis, Cum idem sit Christi atque Papae consistori­um, quasiomnia potest facere Papa, quae Christus, excepto peccato: sheweth the meaning to be, that in matters of iurisdiction, and spirituall authoritie, for gouernment of his Church vpon earth, Christ hath left so great power vnto his substitute Saint Peters successor, as he may do thereby, and in his name and vertue, whatsoeuer his master & Lord might do in his Church, if he were now conuersant among vs vpon earth. This I say, is a loud lye, consisting of two or thrée branches. For nei­ther doth Panormitan expound the words of Hostiensis: nor doth he affirme, that which Parsons writeth in his name. Nor is he so shamelesse to write that which Parsons affir­meth. A second lye is also auouched by the forger of lyes Parsons, where he sayth, That all both diuines & canonists do agree, that all Christs power of gouernment is left to the Pope, except onely his power of excellency, according to that great commission in Saint Matthew, I will giue vnto thee, the keyes of the kingdome of heauen, &c. For neither all, nor any ancient father doth agrée to this conclusion, albeit we may boldly call them better diuines then the schoolemen: nor do all, or most of the Canouists speake of this power of excellencie; nor do the words, Mat. 16. belong to the Pope, or conteine any such commission as is pretended. And that without alleaging further proofes, the Popes owne doctors will confesse. For Bellarmine lib. 1. de Pontif. Rom. c. 10. sheweth, that Peter had nothing granted in the 16. of Matth. but promised onely. And with him also diuers others are consorted. But suppose any thing had bene granted to saint Peter; what maketh this to Clement the 8. and other Popes that are liker to Nero and Heliogabalus, then to S. Peter?

[Page 301]Likewise fol. 29. b. he sayth, That Panormitan and Hosti­ensis vttering these words, Papa potest facere quasi omnia quae Christus, excepto peccato, do explicate the comparison of Christ, not as he is God, but as he is man. Which sheweth that Par­sons taketh pleasure in lying. For else why should he say, that they explicate the comparison of Christ, not as he is God, but as he is man, when they haue not one word soun­ding this way?

In the same leafe, he belyeth the same man againe, tel­ling ds, That Panormitan, de electione c. venerabilem, saith, that Hostiensis founded his doctrine vpon the commission gi­uen to the Pope, Matth. 16. Whereas Panormitan hath no such words, nor doth in that place mention Christs words, Matth. 16. nor hath one word of any commission giuen to the Pope by Christ.

Fol. 36. b. speaking of Cromwell and bishop Cranmer: The first of them, sayth he, was principally employed in the sayd Queenes condemnation and death, as appeareth yet by publike records, and the second was vsed for her defamation after her death, as is extant at this day in the foresayd statute it selfe, where Cranmers sentence is recorded iudicially giuen by him. This saith he, but so impudently and falsly, as the same may conuince him of most shamelesse lying. For first there is no such sentence, as is here mentioned, recorded in the act, as any man may see, that listeth to reade it. Second­ly, what needeth a sentence of diuorce against her, that was now put to death, that diuorceth all marriages? Thirdly, no man euer grieued more at this act, and at that Quéenes death, then the Lord Cromwell. So farre was he off from being a stickler in it. Finally, not onely printed statutes, but the acts of the tower also do conuince this fel­lowes most shamelesse reports. Do you then thinke that he blusheth to say any thing, that is not ashamed to lye a­gainst publike acts and records?

Fol. 37. a. he saith, Cranmer carried about with him his woman in a trunke. An impudent popish fiction, for the which the inuenter and reporter deserueth to be cascd in a [Page 302] clokebag. The truth is, that the reuerend bishop fearing the Kings displeasure, about the time of the sixe articles, sent his wife away into Germanie vnto her kinred. But if he had bene disposed to haue kept her with him; yet nothing is more ridiculous or improbable, then that the should be ca­ried about in a trunke. And if Parsons were to be put in a trunk, he would say it were impossible to liue in it. He saith also, that for gaine of liuing or fauour, or quietly enioying his liuing, Cranmer would say or vnsay any thing: and for proofe he quoteth Sanders de schismate. But lawyers may tell him, that such domesticall witnesses are not worth a rush. Hie­rome also saith, That the testimonie of friends or fellowes is not to be accepted. Si amicus pro te dixerit (saith he) non testis aut iudex, sed fautor putabitur. This Sanders was a railing traitor, like to Parsons, and both of them hired to speake shame against the professors of the truth. If then a théefe is not to be credited, speaking for his fellow théefe, nor a trai­tor testifying for traitors: then let vs heare no more of this renegate rascall traitor, that died in action against his countrey, consorting himselfe with the rebellious and thée­uish Irish.

Fol. 40. They are wont to say (saith he) that S. Bernard was no flatterer. But because the man is wont to lie, no man will beléeue him, vnlesse he bring forth the parties that haue so said. For to call the Pope Abraham, Melchise­dech, and Christ, as Bernard doth, sauoureth of the flattery and darknesse of those times.

The fourth, fifth, and sixth chapters of Parsons his first encounter, are nothing else but a packe of lies, either recei­ued frō others, or deuised & cogged by himself. He affirmeth first, that Carolstadius, Oecolampadius, and Zuinglius were Lu­thers scholers. Secondly, that they were opposite to Luther. Thirdly, that there were infinite opinions among them that denied the reall presence. 4. That the Anabaptists rose out of Luthers doctrine. 5. That there was a potent diuision betwixt Melancthon and Illyricus. 6. That Caluin and Beża issued from Zuinglius. 7. That Seruetus was Caluins collegue, and that [Page 303] he and Valentinus Gentilis and other heretikes came from Cal­uin and Beza. 8. That we admit no iudge of controuersies, and laugh at Councels. 9. That Zuinglius was condemned in a synod. 10. That out of our synods at Marpurge, Suabach, and Smalcald we departed with lesse agreement then before, as Lauater and Sleidan testifie. 11. That Melancthon to proue the Zuinglians to be obstinate heretikes, gathered together the sentences of the ancient fathers for the reall presence. 12. That Zuinglius died in rebellion against his countrey. 13. That Oecolampadius was found dead in bed by his wiues side, strang­led by the deuill, as Luther holdeth, lib. de priuata missa, or kil­led by his wife. 14. That great warres arose betweene Lu­therans and Zuinglians, as he calleth them. 15. That Luther was the first father of our Gospell; which he calleth, new. 16. That Stankare was a protestant, as he calleth him. 17. That Chemnitius in a letter to the Elector of Brandeburg, doth censure the Queene of England, and the religion here profes­sed. 18. That there are warres and dissentions in England in most principall points of religion. He doth also rehearse di­uers other points, which are all vtterly false and vntrue. For first, Oecolampadius and Zuinglius were learned men, aswell as Luther, and taught truth before they knew him. Carolstadius also taught matters neuer learned of him. Secondly, except in the exposition of the words of the Lords supper, in which the Papists do differ more then any others, all consented with Luther in most things, and in this did modestly dissent from him. Thirdly, those ima­gined different opinions among them that dissallow the reall presence cannot be proued. Let Parsons shew, where they are now maintained, and by whom. 4. It is appa­rent, that Luther taught alwayes contrary to the Anabap­tists, as his writings shew. 5. It cannot be shewed, that either Melancthon condemned Illyricus, or contrariwise. 6. Caluin and Beza had their doctrine from the Apostles, and not from Zuinglius. 7. Seruetus was a Spaniard, and a Papist, and an heretike, and no collegue of Caluin. Nay by his meanes his heresies were first detected and refuted, and [Page 304] he punished. 8. It is ridiculous to say, that we admit no Iudge, and laugh at generall Councels. For we esteeme them highly, and admit the censure of any iudge proceeding by the canon of scriptures. 9. The condemnation of Zuinglius in a synode, is a méere fiction. The 10. lye is re­suted by Lauater and Sleidan. Sleidan saith, they agréed at Marpurge, That seeing they consented in the chiefe points, Lib. 7. after that they should absteine from all contention. Quando­quidem in praecipuis omnibus dogmatis idem sentirent, abstinendu [...] esse deinceps ab omni contentione. The 11. lie is refuted by Melancthons whole workes: where it is not found, that euer he called his brethren heretikes, or went about to proue them so. Nay, his principall study was vnitie and peace. 12. Zuinglius died accompanying his countrimen of Zuricke in the battel against other Cantons of Suizzerland: and standing for his: country, not against his countrey. 13. Oecolampadius died in peace, neither did Luther euer write of him, that which the Papists haue reported. 14. The names of Lutherans and Zuinglians we haue detested: and if any contention were betwirt those, that fauoured Luther or Zuinglius, yet was it rather priuat then publike. 15. Our religion we claime from the Apostles, and not from Luther, and so do other reformed Churches. 16. Stankare we condemne, as an heretike. 17. The letter supposed to be written by Chemnitius against the Quéene, is too ridiculous to proceed from him. The same doth rather sauour of the blackesmiths forge of papists. 18. In Eng­land there are no publike contentions; nor do priuate men, such specially as are reputed among vs as brethren, con­tend about matters of saluation. As for those contentions, that haue bene about ceremonies, they by the kings wise. dome are ended, to the great griefe of Parfons, and other enemies of our peace. Wherefore vnlesse Parsons can bring better proofes then Rescius, Stancarus, Staphylus, and such like barking curres of his owne kennell; both he and they will be taken for wicked and shamelesse forgers of lyes and slanders.

[Page 305]Hauing belyed vs before, in the seuenth chapter of his first encounter he telleth lies also of himselfe, and of his owne conforts. First he saith, If Papists were idolaters, that this error was vniuersally receiued among them. But that followeth not. For all Papists haue not one opinion of Saints, of relikes, of images of Saints. The second, Nicene councell denieth, That Latria is due to images, or that the images of the godhead are to be made by Christians. Some hold, that not the image, but the thing signified is to be worshipped: many hold contrary. All giue not diuine worship to the crosie, nor pray to it in one sort. Finally, Bellarmine in his bookes, de imaginibus, and de Sanctis, doth confesse, that there are many different opinions among the worshippers of images. Secondly, Parsons denyeth, that Papists are idolaters. But Lectantius lib. 1. instit. diuin. c. 19. and other fathers shew, that all are idolaters, that giue the worship of God to creatures, as the Papists do, hono­ring the sacrament, the crosse, and images of the Trinitie with diuine worship. This point is also fully proued a­gainst the Papists in my last challenge, chap. 5. Thirdly, he sayth most falsly, That all Friers and Monkes professed one faith without any difference in any one article of beliefe. The falshood of his assertion I haue shewed by diuerse in­stances heretofore. Fourthly, he sayth, The Papists may haue a ministeriall head of the Church, as well as we haue a woman for the head. But it is a greater matter to be head of the vniuersall Church, then of one Realme. Againe, we call the King supreme gouernour, for no other cause, then for that he is the chiefe man of his Realme, and chiefe disposer of externall matters. But they giue one consistory to Christ and the Pope. Furthermore, in matters of faith, we say, all princes ought to submit themselues to the Apo­stles, and their docrine. The Pope will be equall to them, if not aboue them, and determine matters of faith, as ab­solutely, as Christ Iesus. Finally, he sayth, Difference of ha­bites or particular manner of life breaketh not vnitie of reli­gion. But the Apostle repzoueth those, that sayd, I hold of [...] [Page 310] permitteth) he forbiddeth all exposition of it, vntill it be ex­amined. Let Parsons then shew, where he appointed or per­mitted vulgar translations of scriptures, if he wil not shew himselfe a lyar.

In the same encounter, in setting downe the state of the controuersie, in reporting the acts against Husse, the procée­dings of Luther, Grinaeus, and Bezaes disputations, he doth nothing but cog and lie. And for his witnesses he citeth AEneas Syluius, Dubrauius, Cochleus, Genebrard, Surius, Claudius de Sainctes and a rabble of other lying rascals, not worth a cockle shell. What then doth he deserue, but a crowne of foxe tailes, counterpointed with whetstones for his labour? Popelliniere in is seuenth booke of the historie of France sheweth, that the Papists could neuer be brought to ioyne issue, do they of the religion what they could: which is quite contrary to his shamelesse narration.

2. encounter, fol. 39. he saith, The Councell of Trent gaue libertie to all protestants (so he calleth our Doctors) to dispute their fill. A most notorious vntruth. For two onely going thither, escaped hardly with their liues, and were peremp­torily denied licence to dispute publikely, albeit they desired to be heard.

2. encount. c. 9. he denieth that the Papists meant to kéep their Indexes expurgatorie secret, and sayth, that they were deuised to purge bookes corrupted by heretikes. But experi­ence doth proue both to be lies. For vnder this colour, they haue corrupted the fathers: and this deccit was not found, vntill by Gods prouidence one copie came to Iunius his hands. And this God willing shal be proued by particulars if God grant vs life.

Fol. 93. he telleth a storie, as he saith, or rather diuers lies of Monkes making hatchets to swim, taising dead men to life, multiplying milke, and talking of monkes muies, and doing other strange miracles. Which if Parsons do compare with the miracles of the prophets and Apostles, he blasphemeth, if he beléeue as well as the miracles of the Bible: he addeth no credit to monkish miracles, but most wickedly maketh [Page 311] legends and fables comparable to holy scripture.

Fol. 101. he sayth, Sixtus 4. did leaue it free for euery one to thinke what he would. viz. in the article of the conception of our Lady in originall sinne. But that this is false, it appea­reth, first, in that he did excommunicate all those that spoke against the feast of our Ladies conception. And secondly, for that he gaue indulgences to such as prayed to her, as borne of Anna without originall sinne.

Fol. 103. he denieth that Sixtus Quintus compared the exe­crable murder of the French king Henry the third, to the my­steries of Christ his incarnation and resurrection. But the Cardinals that were in the Consistory, when first the newes were brought to Rome, can conuince him of lying and im­pudencie. Likewise a French Papist, that wrote a discourse against Sixtus Quintus, called La Fulminante, will testifie a­gainst him. Speaking in an apostrophe to Pope Sixtus, Tuappelles (saith he) ceste trahison vn oeuure grand de Dieu, vn pur exploit de sa prouidence, & la compares aux plus excellens my­steres Fulminante de son incarnation, & de sa resurrection. He chargeth P. 40. him further, That he accounted this murder as a miracle, and P. 42. honored Iames Clement as a martyr. Dieu, quelle pieté, qu'un suiect, qui tue son Roy, est à Rome vn martyr, & son assassinat vn miracle! Parsons séemeth also to denie that Henry the third was excommunicate, and will not acknowledge that the same was cause of his death: both which points are testified in the discourse, entitled, La Fulminante, which Parsons not séeing, roueth he knoweth not at what. Tu as proclamé (saith he, speaking to Sixtus Quintus) vn ban sur la vie, & conuié tous les parricides à sa mort. How then can these words vttered by a papist, inueying against Sixtus Quintus, with any pro­babilitie be denied?

Fol. 104. he chargeth vs with setting forward the Gospell, which he calleth New, with forcible attempts. But if he shew not where we haue taken armes for this purpose, these words will testifie against him, that he setteth forth lies, and is a lying companion, whose mouth is full of slan­der. In France poore men haue bene forced to take armes [Page 312] for defence of their liues against the Popes ministers, but they neuer sought the life or hurt of their King, as the rebel­lious leaguers did, who trecherously murdred their soue­raine Lord and King.

Fol. 105. 2. encount. c. 12. he denieth, that papists hold it sacrilege to dispute of the Popes doings. And fol. 107. That al­beit the Pope leade innumerable soules to hell, yet no man may say to him, Sir why do you so? The first lie is confuted by Baldus in l. sacrilegij. Cod. de crimine sacrilegij. where in plain termes he affrmeth, that it is sacrilege to dispute of the Popes power. The second is conuinced by the words of the chap­ter, si Papa, dist. 40. where it is said, That although the Pope cary with him innumerable soules to hell, yet no man may re­proue him for his faults. The words are plaine: Huius culpas istic redarguere praesumit mortalium nemo. The same words al­so which Parsons denieth, are found in diuers Canonists, and that not vnderstood in beneficiary causes onely, as he would insinuate, but absolutely. Per omnia potest facere, & di­cere quicquid placet (saith Durand) auferendo etiam ius suum cui Specul. de le­gat. 6. nunc o­stendendum nu. 89. vult, quia non est, qui ei dicat, cur ita facis? There also citing his author, he saith, Vicem non puri hominis. sed veri Deigerit in ter­ris. Likewise dist. 3. de poenit. c. quamuis, where the text sayth, Quis audeat dicere Deo quare &c. parcis? The Glosse sayth, Vel Deo, vel Papae. The like sayings are found in Baldus in praelud. fend. Col. 12, & in l. fin. Col. 1. in extr. cod. sent. rescind. Iason consil. 145. c. 2. v. 2. AEmil. Mar. Nanoless. and cap. ad Apcsto­latus de concess. praebend. extr. Ioann. 22. Gloss. in verbo conti­netur.

Fol. 106. he sayth, That many of vs and other our friends do make princes so absolute in temporal and spiritual affaires, as they may not be iudged by any mortall man. And to this purpose he citeth Bellay. But first, Bellay is none of our friends. And next, he cannot shew any of vs that teacheth this doctrine. Let him name the parties, or else we wil name him, and all will take him for a cogging companion. For neither do we make Kings aboue generall Councels, nor exempt them from all censures: although not to that effect, [Page 313] as the Romanists teach.

Fol. 113. 2. encount. c. 14. he affirmeth boldly and blindly that the grieuances of the Germain nation, was a complaint of princes called protestants, and that it was endited by Lu­ther, and exhibited against the Popes pardons at a Councell at Noremberg. But therein he lappeth vp diuers foule lies. First, the matter of the Popes pardons was but one mat­ter of many, and therefore not the sole subiect of their com­plaints, as Parsons pretendeth. Secondly, if they had not bene Papists, they would neuer haue fled to the Pope for reformation, nor giuē him such reuerent termes as they do. Thirdly, it was neuer heard of till now, that Luther was the enditer of these grieuances exhibited to the Popes legat anno 1522. Finally, this méeting at Noremberg an. 1522. was no Councell, but a diet, wherein the princes desired re­formation rather of abuses, then the dissolution of the Popes authoritie.

He denieth also, that any pardon is sold for murder of chil­dren, Fol. 116. 2. en­countr. fornication, adultery, incest, and such abominations. But let him looke once more vpon the penitentiary taxe printed at Paris, wherein the price of the pardon for euery one of these offences is set downe. If he find not these mat­ters in the penitentiaries taxe, let him looke the fées for the Popes buls, for euery of these points in the Popes Chance­ry. He shal also find in my treatise against Bellarmine, proofe for the sale of pardons. Let him therfore either search more diligently, or lie lesse confidently, or heare himself taxed pa­tiently.

Fol. 117. 2. encount. c. 15. he affirmeth, that Iames Clement conferred with no man liuing before he killed the French king Henry the third, and that he had no absolution before he committed the fact. Two lies most desperately auouched: where of the second concerning his absolution, is confuted by the confession of Iaques Bourgoin his confessor executed for absoluing him, and by the common practise of Iebusites that absolue such as go about such murders, as is proued in the fact of Walpoole that absolued Squire, that promised [Page 314] to empoyson Quéene Elizabeth; and of Holt that did the like to Yorke and Williams, that vndertooke to murder her, and by diuers like facts of others. The second is refuted by the memorials of the league, by the author of the Iebusits Ca­techisme, and by Iohn de Serres in his Inuentorie. In the memorials of the league, we find that the yong friar was induced by the Iesuites perswasions. Ne furent ils complices (saith the author of the Iebusites Catechisme, page 203.) d'auec le Iacobin de l'assassinat du feu roy? Were not they (saith he, speaking of the Iebusites) complices to the Domini­can frier that murdred the late King? He saith also, that the murder was fuborned by the Iebusites and leaguers, and that he was drawne to it by promises of paradise, and that he was assoyled for it, and almost sainted beforehand. Iohn de Serres in his Inuentorie sayth, That Iames Cle­ment communicated his resolution with Doctour Bourgoin prior of his conuent, to Commolet and other Iebusites, and the heads of the league, to the principall of the sixteene, and fortie of Paris, and that all encouraged him to this happie aduenture, promising him rewards in earth, and in paradise, if he should be martyred in the execution of his purpose, a place aboue the Apostles. Ainsi resolu (sayth Iohn de Serres) il communique son affaire au docteur Bourgoin prieur de son couuent, au pere Commolet, & autres Iesuites, aux chefs de la ligue, aux principaux de seize & de quarante de Pa­ris. Tous l'encouragent à cest hereux dessein. On luy promet ab­bayes, eueschez, & s'il auient, qu'il soit martyrisè, rien moyns qu'vne place en paradis au dessus des Apostres. May we not then rightly conclude, that Parsons is a notorious and most impudent lyar, and that the Iebusites are King­killers and notorious traitors? No question. And I doubt not but they shall be so reckened of all posteritie, not­withstanding the barking of such dogges against such re­ports.

I do therefore maruell, as Athanasius sayth of the Arrians, That without abomination and horrour of lying, they could vtter such lies, seeing the deuill is father of lyes, and lyars are [Page 315] strangers to him that calleth himselfe truth. Miror eos sine vlla abominatione & horrore mendacij it a falsa, &c. potuisse dicere, cùm mendacia patrem diabolum habeant, ij (que) qui men­tiuntur, alieni sint ab eo qui dicit, ego sum veritas. And well may I conclude, That if all lyes ought to be farre remo­ued from religion, and those positions which for re­ligion are taught and learned, (as Saint Augustine sayth) lib. de Mendacio ad Consentium. cap. 10. That then it is not religion, that Parsons doeth maintaine with so ma­ny lyes, nor can his lies stand with the grounds of re­ligion. Finally, I say to the deceiued Papists, as Con­stantine sayd to heretikes of his time: Cognoscite quibus men­dacijs Eusebius vita Constant. lib. 3. cap. 62. vestrae doctrinae inanit as teneatur. Behold by what lyes the vanitie of your doctrine is maintained. And if they beléeue not me, let them hearken to Parsons himselfe, that in his answere to my Epistle affirmeth, That he that lyeth is not to be trusted in any thing he saith, or writeth.

CHAP. X. An answere to Parsons his immodest rayling and behauiour throughout his whole Warne-word.

HArd it will be for me to recount all the scurrilous and rayling termes which Robert Parsons of his cholerick liberality bestoweth vpon Sir Francis Hastings and my selfe. It appeareth, he is of the race of those wicked men, of which the Prophet, Psal. 14. speaketh, Quorum os maledictione & amaritudine plenum est, Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitternesse. And well may I apply to him, that which Hie­rome sayd to Ruffin: Tanta confingis, quanta non diceret de la­trone homicida, de scorto meretrix, scurra de Mimo. You deuise Apolog. ad­uers. Ruffi­nnm. so many villanies, as a cutthrote would not vtter against a robber, or a comon whore against a harlot, or a scurrilous [Page 316] Scoganlike mate, against a Vize. Which I doe the lesse won­der at, because I vnderstand, he is descended of a scolding whore, and was begotten by a filthie Monke, and hath ben of late among cutthrotes and robbers, that came against his countrey. But if I do not touch all, yet will I giue you a taste of some, that by a few you may vnderstand the fel­lowes disgustful humour in many. In the front of his book, for feare of loosing time, he draweth out his Copiam verborū scurrilium, and without further aduisement calleth me In­solent and vanting Minister. Termes well fitting a bastard­ly scurrilous and scuruy frier, and euill applied to a mini­ster of Gods word, whose state is as honourable, as the vo­cation of a Iebusite is odious, antichristian and damnable. As for the termes of insolency and vanting, they rather belong to him, that insolently hath taken vpon him to con­uey the crowne of England vnto the Infanta, in his booke of Titles, which like a falsary he hath put vpon an ideot masse-priest called Dolman, and hath also vanted to the Pope, that he will subdue England to the Popes errone­ous religion.

Againe, fol. 1. he termeth my Epistle vaine and arro­gant. And yet neuer did I vainely and arrogantly desire a Cardinals hat, as Parsons hath done, nor doth my Epistle containe a supplication for some preferment, as did cer­taine letters procured by Parsons. What a vaine man then is Parsons thus vamely to talke of vanitie and arrogancy.

In his Epistle to the reader, he saith, Sir Francis is known to be one of the Puritan crew: and, as if he were a blind har­per, he is stil harping vpon this string of Puritanisme. But I must tell him that, which he will be much grieued to heare: that the contention about ceremonies and gouerne­ment of the church raysed by some more zealous then wise, and set forward by the enemies of the Church, is by the Kings great wisedome now ended. As for the terme Puri­tan, it will farre better agree with the pharisaicall Papists, then with any of our communion. For they hold that all men, if they will, are able to performe the whole law, [Page 317] and that the precepts of God are easie. Of which it fol­loweth necessarily, that a man may be without sinne. For he that transgresseth not the law, is without sinne. But to hold that, is Pelagianisme and true Puritanisme. Verum ne est, sayth Hierome in the person of one Atticus, to one that Lib 1. aduers. Pelag. defended Pelagianisme, quod à te scriptum audio, posse homi­nem sine peccato esse, si velit, & facilia esse Deipraecepta? Is it true, that I heare you haue written, that a man may be without sinne, if he will, and that Gods commandements are easie? And in the beginning of his third booke against Pelagius, he sheweth, that it is Pelagianisme to affirme, That after bap­tisme, Christians haue no sinne, and if they are without sinne, that they are iust, and when they are once iust, if they worke carefully, that they may perseuere in iustice, and eschew all sinne. In my last challenge also, I haue shewed by diuers other authorities and arguments, that the Papists are flat Pelagians, & true Puritans. Hoping that Robert Parsons will hereafter the rather forbeare to talke of puritans, him­selfe being an impure puritan, and Iebusites being nothing else, but right puritan Papists.

In the same place he sayth, My volume is more intem­perate and malignant, then that of Sir Francis: rayling fa­stest, as his fashion is, vpon him, that is next his hand. But what if my booke be more temperate, then his Wardword? Will he yet still call it Intemperate, calling his Wardword temperate? This therefore by indifferent men is to be iudged, and not by such an intemperat malignant mate. Againe, séeing I dispute against the malignant rable of Antichrist, & against Parsons and such like malicious rake­hels that séeke to bring their countrey into bondage vnder the Pope and Spaniard, he hath no reason to talke of malig­nitie, being himselfe especially a malignant traytour.

In the answere to my Epistle, he calleth me contentious minister, and afterward, formall noddy. But if it be lawfull for him to striue against his countrey, and against religion, he must giue me leaue to contend for my countrey against traytors, and for truth against falshood. We ought all to [Page 318] contend to please God, as the Apostle did, 2. Cor. 5. and not to please Antichrist. Furthermore, seeing the Apostle Paul disdaineth not to be called a Minister of Christ Iesus: this squib Frier, that is of the number of locasts spoken of Apo­cal. 9. Rom. 15. &. 1. Cor. 3 &. 4. would not scorne the title, but that he would de­clare himselfe to be a slaue of Antichrist. As for the title of formall Noddy, I doubt not but to remoue it from my selfe to him. His materiall and grosse foolery is so palpable, that if Cardinals had bene chosen of formall Noddies, he could not haue missed the Cardinals hat with an appendix of a coxcombe and a bell.

In the same place, possessed with a pang of rayling he calleth me Terentian Thraso, and Philistian Goliah. And be­cause these words did not answere his swelling conceit, he addeth Behemoth, and Leuiathan, and saith, I challenge like a giant. But all his bombasted words will not make me swell so big, as Toadlike Parsons with his barrelbelly, who albeit, he hath sometimes playd Thraso & called him­selfe. Captaine Cowbucke, yet is indeed nothing, but a cow­baby, and the whore of Babylons Ballio.

Afterward, he sayth, That vnder a vizard, I play the Vize: as if Uizes in England plaid with vizards. But in Italy euery Mountbanke and Zanni playeth with a vizard. This therefore may better fit Parsons, who since he came into Italy, hath neuer ceased to play the Uize, now taking the vi­zard of Howlet, now of Philopater, and lastly, of N. D. aliâs a noble Dizard, deseruing to be called Noddy and Zanni. He wanteth nothing but his boxes of drugs and serpents, to be a perfect mountebanke, standing now in the state of perfection of dizardry.

Speaking of my stile, he calleth it, a vaine stile of scolding and scurrility: belike, to preuent me, that I should not obiect scolding and scurrilitie to him, that hath the same both by the fatherside and motherside, and imployeth it most vaine­ly for the defence of the whore of Babylon his second whore mother.

In his obseruations vpon Sir Francis his Epistle fol. 6. [Page 319] he toucheth him with termes of bloody Sycophancie. But he doth himselfe and others wrong, to giue his owne orna­ments to those that litle deserue them. For who so will looke into the libels set out by this bastardly barking curre, he cannot chuse but giue him the garland of Sycophancie before all his fellowes. And certes no man knoweth his plots for inuasion, for conueying the crowne of England to strangers, and other stratagemes, but he-will rather take him to be the sonne of a bloody butcher, then of a blacke­smith.

He rayleth also against M. Crane, M. Sipthorpe, and M. VVilkenson, calling them doctors and Rabbins of the puritanicall presbytery: and byting like a mad dog, or at least barking against all honest men, that come in his walke. But compare them with his rakehell Iebusites, and Romish priests, nay with the consistoriall Cardinals, and we shall see, that he that alloweth the consort and com­bination of Cardinals, hath no reason to speake against those vertuous and learned men. Neither are the names and conditions of Romish priests such, as that this euill fauored companion may despise the names of these men in respect of the other, that deserue no fauour either for their titles or qualities.

Fol. 11. b. in his obseruations vpon my preface, he saith, It is spiced with poyson and venome. But all honest men are to like it the better, being misliked of Parsons and his viperous consorts,, who as they poyson mens soules with false doctrine, so do they by poyson and practise seeke to murder all, that are opposite to their wicked purposes, spi­cing the cup, so as Cardinal Allen, the bishop of Cassana, Obiected by the secular priests. Sixtus Quintus, Throkmorton, & diuers others neuer throue after they had tasted it. Parsons also hath so spiced his bookes with calumniations, that he may well be master of the di­uels spicery.

Fol. 12. Doth not our Minister, saith he, Shew himselfe more then Bizarro, that is, as he expoundeth it, light and fan­tasticall headed. And yet the heauy and beetleheaded block [Page 320] sheweth no sufficient reason of his spéech. Will it then please him to take this word, and to bestow it vpon the head of the Romish Church, who claiming to be Peters suc­cessor, and being most vnlike to Peter, séemeth to be, if not Beatissimo, yet Bizarrissimo padre, and to want both wit and braine. The 13. leafe is all farsed with reproches, but hath no more tast then his Italian porredge made of coleworts. Let him therefore take them himselfe, and bestow them at his pleasure, being a hungry mastif curre, a cunning compa­nion, and a cosiner of such as trust him; a notorious fire brand, that hath long sought to set his owne country in cōbustion; a sycophant, ready to dctract basely from honest men, by words and libels, and a shop, or rather to speake of his pu­tatiue fathers occupation, a forge of trechery and knauery. For this he voluntarily giueth to vs, but we giue it him vpon credit and warrant of his owne consorts. And to re­quite him for his courtesie, let him take from vs the choise of the best titles that are to be found in the hang-mans budget.

Fol. 14. He shall haue a K (sayth he) for the first letter of his title: which is a fauour more then I desire. Notwithstan­ding, because he is so liberall, I wold be loth to be vnthank­full: let him therfore take both the K. and the rest of the word, and an addition of p. p. in honor of the Pope, and so all will make a pild po. k.

Fol. 17. Let vs (sayth he) learne the subtill shifting of this shuffling Minister. And yet himselfe presently falsifieth the law Cunctos populos. Cod. de sum. Trin. & fid. Cath. leauing out that forme of faith which the Emperors commend in their law. It appeareth therefore, that Parsons and his consorts be a packe of cards, that neither shuffled nor vnshuffled are worth any thing, but to make sulferous matches to light candles to the diuell.

Fol. 2. he talketh of my companions, and calleth them A rude rabble of pyraticall companions: railing at men of ho­nour and seruice, that haue both by sea and land serued their countrey against all forreine enemies, set on by a packe of [Page 321] renegate traitors, and which shall alwayes be able to with­stand the practises of all bougerly Popes, and Cardinals, and all their adherents.

Fol. 26. he termeth me pedling merchant: but without all reason. For I haue with all my force withstood the Masse priests, who like pedlars come from the Pope with a packe of hallowed graines, beades, Agnus deis, pictures and such trash, being sory they cannot sell their Masses, and make trafficke of mens soules, as they were wont. But percase he despiseth all pettie pedlars, himselfe like a mont­banke offering to sell the crowne of England.

Fol. 39. But ho sir swashbuckler, sayth he, forgetting his swashing when he plaid captaine Cowbucke, and when an. 1588. he was swashing and swaggering among the Spa­niards, that he meant to bring to cut his own countrimens throates.

Fol. 41. he raileth like a lunatike friar, and fol. 58. and in other places calleth me Oedipus, himselfe playing Dauus, and like a daw cackling at euery one that commeth in his way.

Fol. 97. b. where I say, that the Church of England profes­seth the doctrine of Christ Iesus, according to the rule that was established by common consent; and that they that di­gresse from this rule are not to be accounted of our societie. Marke (sayth Parsons) the giddy head of this gagling goose. But what aileth this frantike felow thus to raile? Forsooth because he imagineth that I ioyne them of France, Germa­ny and Suizzerland, which he in his drunken fits calleth Lu­therans, Zuinglians and Caluinists, with vs in vnitie of faith, and as he beléeueth, cut them off presently againe. But the congerheaded Noddey deceiueth himselfe, if he thinke I cut them off. For in matters of faith, I doubt not but to shew that we al agree as touching the substance. And that is pro­ued in the harmonie of our confessions.

Fol. 115. What atheisme doth this martiall Minister, and this diuels Deane bring in? saith Parsons. And why? Because I deny that the Churches of France or Germany differ from [Page 322] vs in matters of substance. Yet shall this be iustified al­wayes against this diuels agent. Neither doth it therefore follow, that we haue no lawfull ministery, as this swag­gering friar newly dropt out of the hangmans budget sup­poseth, and as this wicked atheist and sworne slaue to Sa­tan inferreth.

Fol. 116. Oh (saith he) that Luther were aliue again to canuas this arrogant barking bastardly whelpe of his. But if he wish him aliue once, the Pope and the rest if he were aliue, wold with him often dead, both aliue and dead being a dreadfull enemy to the tyrannie of Antichrist, the false doctrine of friars, and a scourge to all those hungrie curres that are now barking against him, and casting forth al maner of vil­lanie against the truth. As for me, I speake of Luthers opi­nion, as some grossely vnderstand it, and not as it may be vnderstood, his words being fauorably construed. Parsons therfore for this cause had no reason to raile and scold in his mothers language. But if he would haue railed, yet it sit­teth not well for bastards, and barking hel-hounds, and proud peacockes, to obiect either bastardy, or barking, or ar­rogancy to others.

Fol. 116. he sayth, a Minister and a minstrel, a preacher and a pirate, a Bishop and a bitesheepe, a Deane and a diuell are all one. To answer him, I say they are as like as a Pope and a puppet, a friar and a frying pan, a companie of Cardinals and a packe of coate cards, a Massepriest and a mustardpot. O noble Parsons, the only minstrel that maketh vs this mirth! And as the Quodlibetist sayth, not only a pirate and a bite­shéepe, but a diuell incarnate, begot by some Cardinall diuell.

Encounter 2. c. 6. he calleth me whirleheaded Minister, and saith my reasons are circular. But the errour was in the whirling head of this quadrāgular or rather foure elbowed sot. For I do not remit men from Christ to the Scriptures, nor from scriptures to interpreters, nor backe againe as he supposeth, turning like a dizard in a morice dance: but say that the doctrine of Christ concerning saluation is apparant [Page 323] in Scriptures, and there I would haue all to rest. Albeit for vnderstanding scriptures, we are to vse all ordinary means of studie, tongues, conference of places, interpreters, praier, and the rest.

Fol. 104. he chargeth me with malepart saucinesse, and calleth me prating Minister, and that onely because I am bold to reproue the Pope and his consorts for their murde­ring and empoysoning of Princes, for their disloyaltie and rebellion against Magistrates, and for troubling the Chri­stian world for the maintenance of their pompe and super­stition. But if they wil not cease to do leudly, they must not thinke much to heare their leudnesse disciphred. The world crieth shame against their empoisonments, assassinous murders, rebellions, trecheries and villanies, and if we should not, the stones would proclaime their wickednesse. Let this hackster therefore hold his pratling, and forbeare his saucy censures, or else in my next he shall heare of more of their trecheries.

Fol. 116. 2. enc. c. 14. he talketh idly of filthy and licentious life, of pyracie, of buying & selling of benefices, of ruffians and rauinous companions, and I know not what, railing like a scolding queane, and running vpon vs like a mad dog with open mouth. Further, it appeareth he hath sold himselfe as a slaue to Antichrist, for the defence of al his abominations. But séeing he was determined to giue his tongue the reins to all scurrilitie; common reason me thinkes might teach him two things: first, not to raile without all shew of rea­son and proofe: and next, not to obiect to innocent men such crimes, as himselfe and his consorts are guiltie of. If he will not learne of others, yet shall he find that I obiect nei­ther treason, nor libelling, nor théeuery, nor lechery, nor co­sinage, nor villany, nor knauery to him, but I proue the same either by his owne trecherous writings, or by the actes of Bailiol colledge, or by the testimonie of the secular priests his consorts, or other good euidence and presumption. I do also obiect his owne proper faults. But he like a wild scol­ding whore, talketh he knoweth not what, obiecting other [Page 324] mens faults to vs, without proofe or probabilitie. Nay, whē I haue by testimonies conuinced the Romish prelates of no­torious filthines & symony: yet doth the sot talk of the same against vs, answering like an eccho, or rather like a cuckoe.

Fol. 119. 2. encō. c. 15. he runneth with open mouth vpon M. Fox, a man most pious, vertuous, and honest, taxing him for malicious and wilfull false dealing, and railing vpō him with full mouth. But as Parsons wanteth much of his hone­sty and vertue, so he commeth far behind him in vertue. His quarels are vaine, & such as rather touch the workman that made the stampes, then him. But Parsons shall neuer wipe away his owne faults with railing vpon others. And thus we see how many railing words, and how ilfauoredly hang­ing together, & how vnfitly against vs he hath vttered. Verba maledicentia (as saith Epiphanius haeres. 71. of Photinus) neuti­quā consistere valentia euomuit. These are the engins of heretiks, that is of your masters (Omiserable papists) that being cōuin­ced of perfidiousnes, they turne themselues to railing. Istae ma­chinae haereticorū, id est magistrorum tuorum sunt (saith Hicrom to Ruffin apol. 2) vt conuicti de perfidia ad maledicta se cōferant. We say therfore to papists, as Hierome said to some in his time, epist. 78. Quid maledictorum pannos hinc inde consuitis, & eorum carpitis vitam, quorum fidei resistere non valetis? Why do you of al sides frame whole webs of malicious and railing words, & carp at their liues, whose Christian doctrine you cannot resist? Do you think to preuaile with words, when your works are so leud, your doctrine so false & worthles? As for vs, we accoūt our selues happy, because men will reuile vs, and persecute vs, & say all maner of euil against vs for Christ his sake, most falsly. For Christ hath assured vs of his blessing, albeit mē do curse vs. Apud Christianos non qui patitur, sed qui facit contumeliā miser est, saith Hierom, epist. 77. ad Marcum. Among Christians he is wretched, not that suffreth reproch, but that speaketh reproch­fully against others. Finally we say to Parsons, Quid gloriaris in malitia, qui potens es in iniquitate? Tota die cogitauit iniustitiam lingua sua. Sicut nouacula acuta fecisti dolū. Why doest thou boast in thy malice, that art able to do mischiefe? All the day long his [Page 325] tongue hath run vpon mischiefe. As a sharp razor he hath dealt deceitfully.

CHAP. XI. Parsons his vaine clamors and idle ob­iections reiected.

THis chapter might very well haue taken vp most of Parsons his idle declamation. For as Hierome sayth, Quicquid amens loquitur, vociferatio & clamor appellandus est. Epist. 53. That is, Whatsoeuer a mad and brainsicke buzzard talketh, it is to be termed bauling and crying. But we wil only put here his notorious outcries and railing clamors.

Where Sir Francis Hastings hauing promised to answer all the Wardworders cauillations, leaueth him to his han­ging ward: Lo (saith Parsons) threates that go before argu­ments. And then he saith, that no fencers, nor swashbucklers, nor cutters of Queene-hiue, or other kilcowes, could euer fol­low the fray vpon Catholikes more sharply then he and Top­cliffe. But what néeded all this crie vpon so small occasion? Can he not abide to heare of the hanging ward, himself ta­king the name of a fencing warder? Againe, why should he talke of threates, when Sir Francis doeth rather prophesie what Parsons wil come to by his treasons, then threaten to follow him for them? Finally, why doth he runne vpon M. Topcliffe with a rabble of railing words, the man being not once mentioned in this place, and being more graue and honest then the chiefe inquisitor of Rome for al his scar­let robes? This belike is his round answering, distinguished (as he saith, fol. 6.) from rayling. But if his round answe­ring be no better, he shall declare himselfe to be a stale hack­ster with his ale-pot termes, and neither good disputer, nor wittie iester, in disputing, intitling traitors Catholikes and Martyrs, which is denied. And in iesting like a hollow rockes eccho, retorting his aduersaries words, & vomiting out nothing else but filthy slaunders, and outworne termes of king Henry the eight his dayes.

[Page 326]Fol. 8. he crieth out of two apparant abuses, calumniation, and flattery. And why? Forsooth because Parsons is accused to reioyce that her Maiesties yeares grow on so fast, and be­cause Sir Francis doth pray for the prolongation of her daies to the holding out still of the Popes authoritie. As if it were flattery to pray for her Maiesties long life, and not lawfull so to do. Or else, as if all the world knew not that Parsons by publishing Sanders de schismate, and diuers libels hath sought her disgrace, and both by warres and treasons to the vttermost of his power procured her destruction. But (saith Parsons) it may be presumed that the Essexian assault would haue abbreuiated this still. Where I pray you note, that be­sides the slaunder of this noble Earle, he confesseth, that if that action had taken effect, the Popes authoritie would not haue bene still holden out. By which it may appeare, that by the trechery of some hollow hearted Papists, this noble Earle was brought to destruction.

Fol. 9. most impudently he affirmeth, that nothing is an­swered to his discourse of Emoluments of tolleration of po­pish religion, and of the hurts that haue come of alteration of religion. As if popish religion being proued false, idolatrous and disastrous to all kingdomes, all his discourse did not fal to the ground. But this is the fashion of such combatants, to crie victorie when they are beaten out of the field. Like­wise he crieth out manifest vntruths, because Sir Francis saith, he was first called into the field by Parsons. But as wel may the théefe say, that the peaceable traueller that giueth war­ning to all to beware of théeues, prouoked the théefe to set vpon him. The Spaniards were ready to come for England. Sir Francis giueth the alarme. Out commeth captain Cow­bucke like a cutthrote, and setteth vpon him in his Ward­word. Is it not he then that beginneth this braul? And doth not he in fauour of publike enemies make himselfe ready to cut our throtes?

Fol. 11. he saith, my Preface tendeth wholy to bloodshed. But this grieuous accusation required some more proofe then he bringeth. Notwithstanding let vs heare what he al­leageth. [Page 327] His first perswasion (saith he) is by extolling excee­dingly her Maiesties extraordinary clemencie. As if the prai­sing of a Princes clemencie were a perswasion to crueltie. Or as if Parsons commending Pope Clements clemencie, perswaded him to rigour. Who euer heard such a witlesse speake? Another reason he imagineth me to haue drawne from the meanings of papists. But like an vnskilful archer, he neither hitteth my reason nor intentiō. He is therfore to learne, that my purpose was to arme her Maiesty againft Parsons and his consorts treasons: and rather to secure the State, then to vse violence to any, but such as by all means oppugned the State, and sought by trechery to vndermine the State.

Where I shew that heretikes, idolaters & traitors are to be punished, & therfore factious papists: he saith, thus to rea­son Fol. 14. at randō, is much like to boies argumēting in sophistry. And yet he with all his logick shal neuer answer this argument, considering that I haue proued Robert Parsons and his con­sorts to be heretikes, idolaters, and traitors. Nay W. R. in his cleere Confutation confesseth so much, not answering Ibidem. any of my arguments. But (saith he) shew me one example from the beginning of Christendom, that euer man or woman in any age was punished as an heretike, by the Christian com­mon wealth, for sticking to the religion of the Pope of Rome. As if I had not shewed, that Angelikes, Carpocratians, Mar­cionists, In my Chal­lenge. Manicheys, Prince-killing circumcellions, and As­sassins, Pelagians, Collyridians, crosse-worshippers, and diuers others holding the same points which now the Pope professeth, haue bene condemned and punished for here­tikes.

Fol. 15. he crieth out folly and impudency, in prouing that idolaters and heretikes are by lawes to be repressed. But he dissembleth cunningly whatsoeuer is otherwise brought by me, to proue Papists to be idolaters and heretikes. He pas­seth by also two Gréeke sentences, taken out of Euripides and AEschines: for to him Gréeke is of hard digestion. Fi­nally, whatsoeuer is said of the Papists for railing against [Page 328] the Quéene in the booke De schismate Anglicano, set out vn­der Sanders his name, and in other libels, Parsons doeth wholly omit, and yet he maketh a shew as if he would answer all, writhing his face like an old ape swallowing pilles.

In the same place he noteth, as he sayth, a contradiction betwixt Sir Francis and me. But the contradiction was in his vnderstanding, and not betwéen vs. For neither would I, nor he haue simple Papists punished with death: which is the opinion of S. Augustine concerning simple heretikes. Nor doth Sir Francis denie, but that factious, dogmatizing, and obstinate heretiks ought to be put to death: which both S. Augustine and I my selfe affirme.

Fol. 16. b. he giueth out, that the words of Paul (Rom. 16. where he would haue such marked diligently as caused diuision and offences, contrary to the doctrine which the Romanes had receiued) make directly against vs, and not against the Pa­pists. But then he must shew, that we haue forsaken the doctrine preached to the Romanes, and they not. He must, I say, shew that S. Paul taught, that Clernent the eight is the fpouse and rock of the Church, that there are seuen sacraments, that Christs body is corporally vnder the accidents of bread and wine, and in as many places as is the sacrament, that the accidents of bread and wine subsist without their substance, that a Christian may liue without sinne, that latria is due to the crosse, that we are to pray to saints after the fashion of the Ro­mish church, and such like points of popish doctrine. Or else he shall make a direct lie, where he saith these words make directly against vs.

Hauing rchearsed the law Cunctos populos. Cod de summ. Fol. 17. Trin. & fid. Cath. he crieth out, and willeth vs to tell him, whether the same touch not vs. But if we tell him true, it will make little for his comfort. For we neither refuse to communicate with the Church of Rome, nor the Church of Alexandria, that was in Damasus his time. Nor do we di­gresse from the faith mentioned in that law, which Parsons like a falsary cut out, seeing it made not for his purpose. [Page 329] But séeing true Christians do not communicate with the Church and Bishop of Alexandria that now is, why should Christians communicate with the Pope and his sect, séeing they haue embraced a number of nouelties and heresies, and published them in the Conuenticle of Trent, which were vn­knowne to Damasus, and to the Church of Rome long after his time?

Fol. 20. he complaineth of iniuries offered by the Watch­word, as a famous libell, as well to great forreine princes and nations, as to honourable, worshipfull, and honest subiects: whereas whosoeuer readeth the book, shal find that Sir Fran­cis spcaketh onely against forreine enemies, and notorious traitors. If then Parsons put his consorts among them, it is maruell they spit not in the rascals face and defie him. A­gaine, if Sir Francis be reprehended for writing against for­reine enemies, and domesticall traitors: what doth Parsons deserue, that hath set out Sanders de schismate, Allens wicked Exhortation to the Nobility and people of England and Ire­land, and diuers other libels to the disgrace of his liege so­ueraigne and nation, and hath taken vpon him the defence of publike enemies and traitors?

Fol. 24. he would make vs beléeue, that the Knight flyeth the true combat, & that he runneth behind the cloth of Estate. But in the first he sheweth himselfe a false accuser; in the second, a vaine bangler. For the controuersie arising about Sir Francis his discourse, what was required at his hands, but the defence thereof, and the answer to Parsons his vaine cauillations: Again, seeing his purpose was to rehearse the principal blessings that God hath bestowed vpon this land through her Maiesties gouernement, how could he satisfie mens expectations, vnlesse he touched matters of statc, as well as religion? If then Robert Parsons seuer the inconue­niences ensuing from the change of religion, from the rare good parts both in nature and gouernement of her Maiesty, as himselfe confesseth fol. 25. then doeth he like a cowardly fel­low runne out of the lists, and flie the combat, and not we. For we haue proued, and alwayes offer to proue, that both [...] [Page 334] variety in their liturges, as the missals and formularies of Toledo, Seuil, Sarum, Paris, Rome, Yorke and Millan do shew. Neither hath Parsons any thing to answere, but that in the substance of the sacrifice they agree. As if that were all, or the most part of the Romish seruice: or as if I had not shewed that this is most false, in my bookes De Missa. Se­condly, it is true that the Conuenticle of Trent hath aboli­shed diuers old missals and formularies, as the bull prefired before them shew. Thirdly, it is true that Iustine and Dio­nyse describe the forme that Christians vsed in their Litur­gies, as Iustines second Apologie, and Dionyse his bookes of Ecclesiasticall hierarchie testifie. Fourthly, the instruction of the Armenians was no act of the Conuenticle of Florence, but of some odde Masse-priest that vsed that conuenticles name. It is no lie therefore, not withstanding this instructiō that the Conuenticle of Florence did not by any cannon esta­blish seuen sacraments. Fifthly, the Conuenticle of Lateran vnder Innocentius the third, doth mention penance, but gi­ueth the name of sacrament, as I sayd most truly, to Bap­tisme and the Eucharist. Finally it is most true, that the po­pish sacrifice of the Masse was not knowne of the auncient fathers: and I haue proued it in my third booke De Missa a­gainst Bellarmine. Which if Robert Parsons confute, I shall be content that the Pope bestow on him a Cardinals hat. But if he be not able to answer, and yet will néedes cry out famous falshood, I will bestow on him a pointed cap with a bell, and a capons feather, to let all the world know, that at that house dwelleth a sot. Ignatius, Irenaeus, & other fathers that he doth mention, speake not of the body and bloud re­ally offered in the Masse, but of an oblation made in com­memoration of that sacrifice. Our writers, albeit they mis­like the fathers in some things, yet no where do they yéeld, that they speake of the popish sacrifice of the Masse, of­fered after the damnable fashion of the synagogue of Satan.

Fol. 107. he calleth for two reall differences betweene pa­pists in the points of faith. And therefore I count my selfe [Page 335] bound to shew him not two onely, but many more. It may please him therefore to reade what I haue sayd before, and to answere to euery point particularly: and then I hope he will cease his harsh and currish bawling. He must also shew, that his consorts differ not in matters of moment, or in any thing, if he will defend their vnion.

Fol. 111. he crieth out, and in his dogges boyce sayth, If this woodcocke, or any of his crew can shew any one no­ueltie, as an article of faith in our religion, &c. And againe, If O. E. or his mates can shew any one heresie, taken for an heresie by the generall Church. What then: forsooth he saith, He will yeeld in the rest. Which I would pray him to remember. For if I do not make him in this poynt a foote length of nose like a Curliew, let the Pope, if it be his pleasure, make him king of the Canaries. Nay I haue already shewed diuers both nouelties and heresies to be contained in Popish religion, and no Popish woodcocke yet hath thrust out his beake to answere, shewing themselues by their wits to be woodcockes, and by their silence Codfish. Dnely one woodcocke of Rome vnder the maske of W. R. aliâs Walphoole, or wicked Richard flusheth forth with his long bill. But his answere is such as confirmeth my chal­lenge very much: the man being not able to answere any one argument. Parsons also toucheth the heresie of the Colly­ridians, which among many other, I obiected to him, and answereth, that Papists differ from Collyridians manifeftly. But it is not inough to shew a difference, vnlesse he also shew, that his consorts hold no one point condemned as heresie in the Collyridians. But that the congerhead can­not do. For like to the Collyridians they pray to the Uirgin Mary, and offer in her honour. This answere therefore sheweth him to be of the lignage of woodcorkes. But of these matters we shall talke elsewhere.

In his 2. enconter c. 2. he cryeth out, ô cogging, ô cou­sinage: and all because Sir Francis reporteth, that the blood of a Ducke was worshipped, as the blood of Hales, and that D. Bassinet confessed his ignorance, and that the archbishop [Page 336] of Aix called the Pope God on earth, and spoke foolishly. But what if all this were true? May not we then with more reason say, O coggers, O cosiners, O Scogans, O cods-heads! But that appeareth plainly. For the imposture about the duckes blood was openly detected, and the rest is reported in the acts of Bassinets examination. Neither is it vnlikely, that vnlearned prelates should speake vnlearned­ly, or that schoole-doctors should be ignorant in scriptures, séeing all their diuinity is grounded vpon Thomas his far­dle of questions and answers. But, saith Parsons, how could a duckes blood be discerned from others blood after so many yeares? As if it were not detected also by the confessi­on of the false priests, that from time to time they renewed that blood, as they do other false relikes in many places. Here therefore Parsons sheweth himselfe to haue a shallow capacitie: and the Papists are declared to be miserably se­duced by cogging and cousening priests, and caried away most simply and idiotlike to the worship of idoles and false reliques.

Fol. 43. b. of his second encounter he cryeth out, Who shall be iudge? Meaning to con [...]y the highest authoritie in iudgement, concerning matters of controuersie about the interpretation of scriptures, to the Pope. But that is a shamelesse and most absurd course, to place a béetleheaded, ignorant and impious Pope aboue al learned holy fathers, and Councels. Beside that, the Popes sentence is alwayes vncertaine. For what can one Pope do, that his successor cannot vndo? Tertullian he sheweth, that scriptures are to Lib. de resur­rectione car­nis. be interpreted by scriptures. Si quid pars diuer sa turbat, &c, That is, If the contrary part do trouble vs in any thing by pretence of figures or aenigmatical speeches, those places that are more manifest ought to preuaile, & the certaine to pre­scribe against vncertaine.

Encontr. 2. c. 8. where he should answere my obiection out of Hosius, he cryeth out of deceitfull, fraudulent, and shamefull shifts, and notorious cousinages. But the matter being examined, I doubt not, but to lay the shame vpon his [Page 337] doltish ignorance. In my reply I alleage two places out of Hosius his confessiō, the first, where he sayth, That ignorance is not only worthy pardon, but reward also: the second where he sayth, That to know nothing is to know all things. These places I say, as he vseth the matter, are Hosius his owne, and not Hilaries, or Tertullians. For Hilary lib. 8. de Trinit. where he produceth the like words, speaketh of the igno­rance of the meaning of these words, Ego & pater vnum su­mus. And Tertull. lib. de praescript. aduers. haeret. where he sayth, That to know nothing, is to know all things; speaketh of curious knowledge beyond the rule of faith, But Hosius imagineth, that these words do proue, That [...] is sufficient to beleeue, as the Catholike church did; which neither of them euer thought. To this purpose also, lib. 3. de author. sacr. scripturae: Hosius abuseth a place out of S. Augustine contr. epist. fundam. c. 4. thinking, because he sayth, That simplicity in beleeuing, and not quicknesse of vnderstanding doth secure vs, that who so beléeueth the Catholike Church, is safe, albeit he vnderstand nothing else. But this is no part of S. Augustines meaning, but Hosius his owne lend collection, and Parsons his idiotisme and patchery, that could not discerne it.

Fol. 60. 2. encontr. he sayth, The Knight talketh as fondly, as if he had talked of the breeding of yong geese. And why? Forsooth because he sayth, The Papists breed vp their chil­dren in blindnesse and ignorance. And is not this manifest, when they debarre them from reading or hearing scrip­tures read publikely in vulgar tongues, and forbid them to argue of Christian religion? Inhibe [...]s (sayth Alexander the 4. c. Quicun (que). de haeret. in 6. ne cuiquam laicae personae liceat publicè, vel priuatim de fide Catholica disputare. Qui vero contr à fecerit, excommunicationis laqueo innodetur. Nauarrus in Enchi­rid. in 1. praecep. c. 11. sayth, It is mortall sinne for a lay man knowing this law, to dispute of religion. And Charles the fift as Neteranus reporteth, expressely forbad it.

Fol. 62. he complaineth of abusing a place of Chryso­stome Hist. Belg. homil. 13. in 2. Corinth. and sayth, We vse legierde­maine [Page 338] in euery thing. But if both his translation, and that alleaged by Sir Francis, be compared with Chrysostomes wordes in Gréeke, which begin thus; [...], &c. the same will easily discharge vs of legier­demaine, and charge Parsons with doltish ignorance, and idle and vaine cauilling, because the words were not to his humour, nor translation.

Fol. 118. 2. encontr. ch. 15. where we say that king Iohn was poysoned by a Monke of Swinestead Abbey, and that the Monke was before hand absolued of his Abbot: he cryeth out, that this example is more grosse and absurd then the former, viz. of king Henry the 3. of France. But in the former example we haue shewed, that there is no other grossenesse, or absurditie, but that such a wicked sect as the Iebusites, should be permitted to liue on the face of the earth, vnder the protection of Christian kings, séeing they séeke to murder all of them, that are excommunicate by the Pope. The history which we report of king Iohn is neither absurd, considering the hatred of the swinish ra­ble of polshorne priests, nor vntrue. Caxtons Chronicle sayth, he dyed of poyson giuen him by a Monke. Polychro­nicon lib. 7. c. 33. and Polydore virgil deny not, but that this was a common spéech. Those that mention not poyson, say that he dyed of a surfeit. Now who knoweth not, that sur­feits and poyson haue often the same symptomes and ef­fects? The absolution giuen him is proued by the com­mon practise in those cases. As for the allegations made to the contrary, they are like Robert Parsons, that is, absurd and ridiculous. Polydore (saith Parsons) affirmeth, that he dyed of heauinesse of heart. Radulphus Niger, that he dyed of surfeting. Roger Houeden, that he dyed of a bloody flixe. But all this doeth rather increase the suspition of poy­son, then otherwise. Iohn Stow is a poore author, and sa­uouring as much of Popery, as of his pressing yron and Taylery. What then if he should endeuour to cleare an old suspition, that maketh against Papists? Much lesse then should Parsons stand vp on his testimony, if he name nei­ther [Page 339] Monke nor poyson. Monkes and Papists ordinarily suppresse all things, that tend to the disgrace of their king­dome: and more credit is to be giuen to one or two wit­nesses affirming a truth against their will, then to twenty lying Monkes or Friers, or pelting Popish writers, that write for affection, rather then for truth.

Wherefore, albeit he crye loud, as the Iewes did against Christ Iesus, and stand much vpon his stout arguments and Iohn. 19. obiections, as Sophisters vse to do; yet nothing is more vaine, then his clamours and outcryes, nor more feeble then his obiections. Nazianzen epist. 31. sheweth vs, That often times it falleth out, that those that are wronged, are also accused. Iidem iniura afficiuntur, & accusantur, saith he. And experience sheweth vs, that then Robert Parsons cryeth lou­dest, when his cause is weakest. As for his disputes and obiections they are more easily ouerthrowne, then brought into forme. Multò difficilius est nosse, quàm vincere, sayth Hierome of Iouinians discourses. The same we may sée of Parsons his patcheries. For more hard it was to bring them to a forme, then to refute them.

CHAP. XII. Parsons his poore shifts, and fond and ridiculous answeres examined

SOmetimes, silence maketh fooles seeme wise. So sayth the wise man. Stultus si tacuerit, sapiens reputabitur. But Prouerb. 17. Frier Parsons could neither speake wisely, nor yet modestly kéepe silence. Cùm loqui nesciat, tacere non potest. In my Epistle to his Noddiship I obiect: First, that he published certaine chartels against his friends in Oxford. Next, that he was the authour of an infamous libell against the Earle of Lei­cester. Thirdly, that he made a libell entituled, A Confutation of pretended feares. Fourthly, that he holp Cardinall Allen to make that rayling discourse, which he directed to the No­bilitie and people of England and Ireland. Lastly, I say, he [Page 340] made foure other books of like quality. Now obserue, I pray you, what the wizard answereth to all this. For the first foure, sayth he, I neuer heard any man of notice and iudge­ment Fol. 2. b. VVarneword ascribe them to him before, and if I be not deceiued, o­ther particular authors are knowne to haue written them. He dare not deny them, being knowne to be his, least his owne friends should cry shame vpon him; nor dare he confesse them, because such infamous writings haue no grace a­mong honest men. What doth he then? Forsooth he an­swereth that which euery man may take as he list. After­ward he maketh a face, as though he would deny the other foure bookes to be his. But in the end passeth by them in silence.

Where I do signifie, that the letters N. D. do stand for Ro. Parsons, and that he was the author of the Wardword: he answereth nothing, but in sad silence passeth by, onely reporting my obiections, and saying nothing vnto them. But where I am mistaken, he vseth not to conceale my er­ror. Answering then no better, was he not a béetlehead blocke, thinke you, to request his reader not to beléeue me in any thing? For why should not others beleeue me, as well as himselfe, that dare not contradict that which I say? Such answerers with vs are hissed out of schooles.

Where I say, that Thomas Harding obteined a bull from the Pope anno 1569. to exercise Episcopall iurisdiction in England, to dispense with irregularities, and to receiue all that would be reconciled to the Pope: he answereth, That Fol. 12. b. it was neuer heard of before, that D. Harding after his depar­ture out of England to Louayne, in the beginning of her Ma­iesties reigne, came home to liue in England againe, or to ex­ercise Episcopall iurisdiction therein. As if he might not ob­teine a bull from the Pope, without coming into En­gland, and putting the same in execution. Or as if he might not come into England, vnlesse his comming were euery where noysed abroad. Or as if he might not come hi­ther, vnlesse he came to liue here againe. He answereth fur­ther, That there were bishops here in England, and that euery [Page 341] ordinary priest hath power to reconcile men to the Pope, and to dispence with irregularities. But he knoweth the bishops in England were deposed, and committed to prison, so that the Pope might wel send some others ouer with Episcopal iurisdiction, notwithstanding any thing they could do. Furthermore if he were not ignorant of the cannon law, he might know, that neither priests, nor bishops can with­out speciall faculty dispense with irregularities, and recon­cile such as the Pope condemneth for heretikes, as the ca­nonists teach him. 11. (que) 3. si quis damnatus. & extr. de sent. exc. cum illorum. And speculator lib. 1. §. de legato. and diuers o­ther places, where they write of cases reserued. But what a ridiculous fellow is this to deny, that Harding had a bull, for the purposes aboue written, when the same is extant vnder the Popes hand and seale, and followeth in these words?

Noueritis quod anno, die, mense & pontificatu infrascriptis, in generali congregatione &c. pro parte reuerendorum Th. Harding, & N. S. & T. P. Anglorum fuit porrectum memoriale & suppli­catio, quae lecta fuerunt, &c. Annis abhinc tribus, &c. Conces­sit Th. H. &c. Episcopalem potestatem, in foro conscientiae absol­uendi eos qui ad ecclesiae gremium reuertentur. Huic potestati, quia muliinon credunt, petimus vt in scriptum aliquod authenticum re­digatur. Ac etiam vlterius monente nos temporis necessitate, hu­militer petimus, vt eisdem concedatur in causa irregularitatis dis­pensandi potestas, exceptis ex homicidio voluntario prouenientibus, seu deductis in forum contentiosum. Quibus auditis & intellectis praelibatus sanctissimus dominus noster decreuit, quod praenominati absoluere possint in foro conscientiae Anglos tantùm, prout petitur, etiam ab irregulatitate incursa ratione haeresis, & ab ea dependen­te, emergente, & annexa, dummodo absoluendi abstineant per tri­ennium à ministerio altaris. In quorum fidem & testimonium &c. anno 1567. die Iouis 14. Augusti, &c. Afterwards the Nota­ries subscription and forme of absolution is set downe. Where was then Robert Parsons his honesty to shift off things so notorious?

In my Preface to the reader, I say, that obstinate recu­sants [Page 342] are for the most part reconciled to the Pope, and ad­here to forreine enemies: and yet notwithstanding doe en­ioy their lands and goods. And gladly would Ro. Parsons answere somewhat. But neither can he deny, that they are reconciled (for then the masse-priests would not communi­cate with them) nor that they adhere to forreine enemies (for then in vaine should the Adelantado presume of their helpe in his proclamation penned as it séemeth by English traytors) nor can he deny, they inioy lands and goods. For that is notorious. What then doth he? Forsooth he talketh idlely of the enioying of my benefices, and of the testimonie of certaine masse-priests. Of the which two, the first is no­thing to the purpose. The second is leudly reiected without colour, séeing euery mans confession is strong against him­selfe, and these mens confessions being in record, are not lightly to be refused. In the same place I say, that Parsons defendeth publike enemies and traytors, and seeketh the disgrace of the country and nation. To all which he answe­reth nothing, but by telling a tale of prosecuting Papists, which he termeth Catholikes. As if such may play the trai­tors, and ioyne with publike enemies openly and lawfully.

The Papists being charged for mainteining the: words of Hostiensis and Panormitane, that say, That the Pope is able to do almost all things, which Christ can do, except sinne: he thinketh to shift off the matter by speaking with Panor­mitan, That the Pope can do al things with the keye of discre­tion, Fol. 29. b. that erreth not. But this is nothing els, but to presume, that the Pope hath discretion, and the keyes of the Church; and that in the determination of matters of faith he cannot erre: whereas all the world séeth, that the Pope cometh into the Church not with keyes, but with pickelockes, and pron barres: and that he doth not so much vse the keyes, as swords and clubs; and that also without discretion or reason, killing all that speake against his triple crowne.

Where I say, that such English as are reconciled to the Pope, haue renounced their obedience to the Quéene: he telleth vs of the subiects of the king of Spaine, France, Po­land, Fol. 13. [Page 343] and of the Emperour, that haue not renounced their obedience to their Princes. But his shift is most ridiculous. For the Pope was enemy to the Quéene of England, and not to them. But if at any time the Pope happen to excom­municate any of these Princes; then is it cleare, that such subiects as follow the Pope, cannot by any meanes adhere to their lawfull Princes. Unlesse Parsons can shew, how a man can please two contrary masters, and can himselfe serue both God and the deuill.

Fol. 28. and 29. he runneth out into a large exposition of these words of Hostiensis and Panormitan: Quòd Papa potest quasi omnia facere quae Christus, excepto peccato: but all to no purpose. For he should shew, that these fellowes do not flat­ter the Pope, and not tell vs a tale of their fooleries, which as they are exorbitant, so are they vnpleasant.

In the same place he sayth, it is no more adsurditie to say, That the Pope can do almost all that Christ can, except sinne: then if a man shold say, That the Viceroy of Naples can do all that the king of Spaine can do in that kingdome, ex­cept being free from treason. But first the words of Hosti­ensis and Panormitan, importing that Christ can sinne, are blasphemous; albeit they meant, that except auoyding sinne, the Pope can do all, that Christ can do. Secondly, it is a simple shift to make the king of Spaine like to Christ, and the Viceroy of Naples like the Pope, or else to com­pare these two spéeches together. Finally, it is absurd to say, that the Uiceroy can do all things that the king of Spaine can. For he can neither moue warre, alienate the territory, nor do infinit other matters else. Beside that, there is greater difference betwixt Christ Iesus, that is God and man, then betwéene man and man. Here therefore Parsons talking of the Uiceroy of Naples playeth the Uize, and sheweth that he hath the Neapolitan scabbes in his braine.

Fol. 30. the canonists being charged for calling the Pope their Lord & God. He answereth, That he cannot find it. As if it were not to be foūd, because his nodyship cannot find it. [Page 344] Or else, as if a Cardinals hat were not to be found in Rome, because Parsons could not find it. Let him therefore looke the glosse in c. inter nonnullos. extr. Ioan 22. de verb. signif. And it may be, with the help of his spectacles and a draught of gréeke wine, he may find it. Oh, may his brother say, that he could as easily find a Cardinals hat.

Of fiue places alleaged by Sir Francis for proofe of the flattery of Popish parasites, he toucheth onely two, being not able to iustifie either of them to be void of flattery. Three places he passeth ouer in silence; which it may please him to answere in his next. One sayth, That no lesse honor is due to the Pope then to Angels. Another, That the Empe­rours maiestie is as much inferior to the Pope, as a creature to God. The third, That the Pope is ens secundae intentionis, compounded of God and man. If then he meane to answer; let him shew, how these speeches are void either of flattery or blasphemie, if he purpose to shew himselfe void of di­zardry.

Where I bring examples, and instances of notorious Fol. 37. flattery out of canonists, he sayth, They are the same for the most part which Sir Francis brought before, and are before answered: matters most false, and poorely shifted off. For neither are they the same, nor hath he answered any thing vnto them. Nay of fiue that Sir Francis brought, he an­swereth onely two, and them very leudly, loosely and vnsuf­ficiently; and of a doozen brought by me toucheth scarce two. Would not he then be turned backe with a doozen stripes, to turne ouer these doozen places? And would he not be discarded for a knauish answerer, that saith nothing to that, which I say of our deliuerance by the Quéene from the captiuitie of the Pope, as the Israelites were de­liuered from the captiuitie of Iabin, and the Cananites by Deborah?

That which I say of the flattery of Giffard and Parsons concerning their flattering of the king of Spaine, he slippeth ouer with a few words concerning the largenesse of the In­diaes. But what maketh that for the Kings greatnesse, vn­lesse [Page 345] he held that countrey with more assurance and better title? Concerning the flattery of Stapleton, Bellarmine and others, which I obiect in the 10. page of my Reply, he saith nothing. No ape could better skip ouer the chaine, then Par­sons skippeth ouer all our obiections.

For maintenance of the rebellious attempts of the lea­guers in France, and other popish disloyalties against Prin­ces, he telleth vs, 2. encon. c. 13. that when the Apostles prea­ched against the Iewish magistrates commandement, it seemed to the Iewes disloyaltie, but was not. But this is a most poore shift. For the Papists haue not onely preached against the Princes commandement, but also haue murdred them, and prosecuted them with armes: which the Apostles neuer did, or thought lawfull. Was not this Iebusite therfore a false Apostle, to pretend the Apostles examples for maintenance of rebels and traitors?

Fol. 104. he shifteth off this argument, The Pope is to be obeyed as Christ, therefore if he commaund blasphemies: by saying, that it followeth not, and that this folly is no lesse ridi­culous, then if one should say, The Neapolitans professe obe­dience vnto their Viceroy, as to the King of Spaine, crgo he is to be obeyed if he commaund treasons against the King. But his answer is so learned and wise, that Parsons for the same doth deserue to be Uizeroy, or rather a Uize in the kingdom of fooles. For first no man will affirme, that the Uiceroy of Naples cannot erre. But that is denied in Christs Uiceroy the Pope. The case therefore is vnlike. Furthermore, Pa­pists will obey the Pope, if he commaund heresie or blas­phemy, because they take his iudgement to be infallible, al­beit the Neapolitans will not follow their Uiceroy in his rebellions. Likewise doeth he absurdly shift off the obiection concerning the absolute obedience required of Christians by Boniface the 8. He sayth also, that it standeth with Gods prouidence to preserue the Church from error. As if the Pope were the Church, and not rather Antichrist, and the enemy of Christ and his Church: or as if the church could not stand if the Pope were dead, and Parsons hanged by him to beare [Page 346] him company, and to leade him through purgatory, being not able to walke of himselfe, being troubled with the gout.

Fol. 113. 2. encont. c. 14. he saith, That Parry in his letter to Gregory the thirteenth, discouered no intentiō at all of any par­ticular enterprise he had in hand: and thereby would shift off our obiection concerning the intelligence the Pope had of his purpose to kill the Quéene. But his shift is very simple. For albeit he said nothing, yet the letters of credit included frō some great man, to whō he imparted the secret, disclosed all. Now it is euident by Cardinall Comocs letter, that the Pope receiued Parries letter together with the letters of credit included. La santitá di N. S. (sayth Cardinall Como) ha vedute le lettere di V. S. con la fede inclusa. By this then it ap­peareth, that the Pope granting a plenary indulgence to a murderer, that went to kill an innocent Queene, was also a most execrable murderer, and no shepheard: a limb of Sa­tan that was a murderer from the begining, and not the head of the Church; a wolfe, and no Christian Bishop. Yea but (saith Parsons) this indulgence tooke effect, if Parry were contrite and confessed of his sinnes. As if these wicked mur­derers did not account it an act meritorious to kill a Prince excommunicated by the Pope. So it appeareth, that in this respect rather he obtained this indulgence. Nay if Ch. P. say true, Robert Parsons was also acquainted with Parries par­ticular treason, so that this will not onely remaine as a per­petuall blot of indulgences, but also of the barbarous tre­chery both of the Pope and of his bastardly proctor that set on this cutthrote to murder an innocent Lady.

Doeth it not then plainly appeare, howsoeuer closely Par­sons wold séeme to cary matters, that he doth confesse more in shifting and concealing, then he doth deny disputing? Ita opertus, ac tectus incedis, (sayth Hierom to one, epist. 6.) vt plus confitearis tacendo, quàm renuas disputando. This we may tru­ly say of Parsons, that his shifts and answers which he brin­geth to couer the wounds of his cause, do make the matter far more suspicious then before. What then are we to think [Page 347] of such a shifting and iugling fellow? Will you heare Par­sons giue sentence in his owne caúse? If he do, I hope you will say, we do produce no witnesse, that wil deale partially in fauor of our cause. But he in his 2. encon. c. 9. fol. 62. saith, that he which vseth a trick of legierdemain but once, of known and set malice to deceiue, is neuer to be trusted againe. What then remaineth now, but that such a shifting & trecherous companion be rather trussed then trusted, haltred then har­bored, baffulled then beléeued?

CHAP. XIII. Parsons his patcheric in begging things in con­trouersie discouered.

THe very name of an aduersary, and often mention of controuersies, if nothing else, me thinkes, might haue moued Robert Parsons to looke better to his proofes, and to haue presumed lesse of his begging. For albeit he be of the Ignatian sect, and by profession a mendicant friar: yet hath he no reason to beg of his aduersaries, nor to take as gran­ted, things that hang in controuersie. Nor haue we cause to maintaine of almes such vagarant sturdy roging beggars, as the laws iudge worthy of hanging. It may be he wil stand vpon termes, and sweare like a hackster, that he is no beg­gar, bestowing many thousands of crownes vpon spies and Testified by the secular priests in di­uers of their treatises cutthrotes. But the truth will appeare by the sequele of his doings.

Fol. 1. b. he accuseth me of deportment against all kind of Catholike men, though neuer so learned, vertuous, worshipful or honorable. But he shold haue proued himself & his traito­rous consorts, which are the men that I do meane, to be both Catholikes, and learned, vertuous, worshipfull and hono­rable. We of the plainer and simpler sort could yet neuer learne that it was a thing either honorable or commenda­ble to betray his prince or countrey, or to take part with Italians or Spaniards against his owne nation.

[Page 348]Fol. 7. talking of priests put to death in England, he cal­leth them and others seruants of Christ, and sayth, they suffe­red for auncient religion. But we looked for proofes, and not for bare and beggarly affirmations. For the seruants of Christ came neuer to depose Princes from their thrones. Nay our Sauior Christ saith plainely, that his kingdome is not of this world. But these Massepriests, as appeareth by records, and by their confessions, and the Popes faculties granted to them, came for that purpose. Secondly, we haue proued in our challenge, that their religion, as it differeth from the faith which we professe in England, is neither Ca­tholike nor anciēt. Lastly, we haue there also declared them to be culpable of treason, and to haue died for that, & not for their religion, though otherwise bery louzy and beggarly bellacos, and as beggarly defended by this begging and cousining companion.

In the same leafe also he affirmeth, that Christ is the Masse-priests captaine and master, and that he assureth them on his honour and power, that no one haire of their head shall perish. In the end he doubteth not to call thē martyrs. But to proue his matters, he alleageth neither testimony ofscri­pture, nor sentence of fathers. Nay where that Romish Church teacheth, that no man can be certaine of his saluation with­out speciall reuelation; yet this disciple of Antichrist affir­meth, that Christ vpon his honor hath assured Campian, Ballard, Babington, (and I thinke Lopez too) that they shall not perish. For of these I thinke he speaketh. To shew them to be no martyrs, I haue alleaged diuers reasons. Reason then would, that if he would haue wonne credit, he should haue either answered our reasons, or proued his owne cause by argument.

In his obseruations vpon my Preface, and in diuers pla­ces of his book, he giueth the name of Cathōlikes to papists. And yet he knoweth that this is a maine controuersie be­twixt vs. What punishment then doth he deserue, that wit­tingly and wilfully wil beg, or rather steale that which be­longeth not vnto him?

[Page 349]Fol. 14. most impudently he giueth the title of the Catho­like Christian church, and the vniuersall body of Christs com­monwealth vnto papists, that are neither the whole church, nor part of the Church. Unto vs he giueth the title of Pro­testants, Puritanes, and Lutherans: which we renounce, pro­fessing onely the faith of Christ Iesus. He doeth also match vs with Arrians, and other sects, which we detest. But these are points in controuersie to be proued.

Fol. 17. he sayth, that the Councel of Trent was gathered by like authoritie, as that of Chalcedon was. A matter vtterly denied by vs, and not any way proued by him. Nay it is most absurd to compare that reuerend synod assembled and moderated by the Emperors authority, and proceeding ac­cording to scriptures, to a conuenticle of slaues sworne to Antichrist, and assembled by his writ, and doing all accor­ding to his pleasure.

Fol. 20. a. he sayth, It cannot be proued that any one Pope impugned his predecessor in matters of faith. As if al our plea­ding were not that the later Popes do impugne and ouer­throw the faith of the first bishops of Rome. Themselues also deny not, but that Agatho condemned his predecessor Honorius for a Monothelite. In the same place also affir­ming, that all the Popes and Bishops of Rome from Iohn the first to Leo the tenth, held one faith: he saith, that this demon­stration is as cleare, as that three and foure make seuen. But this seuen and seuen yeare he shall neuer proue that, which with a light fingar he taketh as granted, & is clearely false. For the instruction giuen to the Armenians in the synode of Florence, and the decrees of the Conuenticle of Constance were neuer holden of Popes before them. Nor did for­mer Popes beléeue the doctrine of the Conuenticle of Trent.

Fol. 77. b. he taketh as granted, that a hundred haue bene put to death for being priests, and for being ordained to that function beyond the seas, and for defending the faith belon­ging to that function: and that great numbers are dayly ap­prehended, arraigned and condemned for standing in their [Page 350] fathers faith, and resisting nouelties. Both which are notori­ous vntruths. For neither in the arraignement of priests or others, is any question made of faith: nor is that louzy pat­ched religion that Papists hold ouer and aboue our faith, the faith of the Apostles or Fathers: nor are priests executed simply for being priests, but because they come from forrein enemies, and are combined with them: which alwayes hath bene accounted treason.

Fol. 80. he talketh idly of sending money out of England for defence of heresie: for he beggeth of vs that which he shal neuer obtaine, that popery is religion, and true religion he­resie, and that we maintaine heresie.

Fol. 104. he sayth, Our Beleefe is different from the rule of faith, receiued before throughout Christendome, and that our religion hath no ecclesiasticall authoritie for her esta­blishment, beside the parliament: matters taken vp vpon credite by this bankerout friar, that shall neuer be able to proue the least part of them. For we make no question, but to proue against him that our faith is Apostolicall and Ca­tholike, and the popish faith not, and that it hath bene con­firmed not like the louzy superstition of Papists, by lies, dreames, legends, and the Popes decretals, but by the do­ctrine of the Apostles and Prophets.

What almes then doth this impudent begging frier de­serue? forsooth a motley coate with foure elbowes, and a square motly bonet in stead of a cardinals hat. For nothing is more odious nor foolish, then that any vnder faire shews and good termes should couer euill deeds, Asserentes Antichri­stum (as Cyprian saith) sub vocabulo Christi: that is, striuing for Antichrist vnder the name of Christ. In schoote, Geome­tricians e simplic. aefat. desire their schollers to grant them certaine plaine propositions, that from them they may procéed to demon­stration of further matters. But to take as granted, mat­ters false, and to begge at the hands of aduersaries things plainely denied, is rather a practise of fooles then of schooles.

CHAP. XIIII. Parsons his pride, both in praising of himselfe, and threatning and despising others, is noted.

NOt he that praiseth himself, saith the Apostle 2. Cor. 10. but he whom the Lord praiseth, is allowed. How hap­peneth it then, that Parsons is so busie vpon euery occasion to praise himselfe: Are his actions so memorable, and wor­thy to be praised? Certes no. For nothing can be deuised more odious, the man employing himselfe wholly either in trecherous packing against his countrey, or leud libelling and railing against honest men. Further, he sheweth excée­ding contempt in speaking of others. In ore stulti virga super­biae, saith Salomon: In the mouth of a foole is the rod of pride. Prouerb. 14. What then shall we thinke of his leud and presumptuous spéeches? Shall we suppose that any is disgraced by them? We should then assuredly greatly wrong them. Falsae sunt, diffluxerūt, somno similes extiterunt impiorū iactationes. The vants of wicked men are false, and vanish away being like to sleepe, as saith Gregory Nazianzene orat. 2. in Iulianum. And yet it shal not be amisse to note this Thrasonical fellowes vaine, proud, and contemptuous spéeches.

In his Epistle to the Reader, he calleth himselfe a Ca­tholike man, and yet is he nothing but a barking curre. A­gaine, he saith he wrote a temperate Wardword: preuenting his neighbours, that should haue praised him: and calling his bedlem fits temperate words. Afterward praising his owne doings, he sayth, the Wardword seemed to touch the matter too quicke. And yet all indifferent readers will con­fesse, that it is a dull and dead péece of worke, and like the droppings of a stond of old ale, wherein he sheweth that he and his consorts are combined with publike enemies: a matter percase that may touch him and his consorts. But the same no way can hurt vs. [...] [Page 356] layd open their sinnes, as did the people of Sodome: Qui pec­catum suum quasi Sodoma praedicauerunt. Which is the case of the Romanists. For albeit the whole world cryeth shame vpon them for their corruptions in doctrine and abomina­tions in liuing; yet with them all Sodomiticall filthinen̄e is holinesse, and all truth heresie, and many corrupt points of doctrine, religion. Thirdly, it is no flattery for Christians to commend religion, or good subiects to like well of good go­uernement. Which being the case of Sir Francis, how is he accused of flattery: Finally, this patch hath forgotten his Thomas Aquinas, who 2. 2. q. 115. art. 1. doth define flatte­rie to be immoderat prayse for hope of gaine. Why then doth not the wizard conuince Sir Francis, and shew, that for gaine he hath falsely and immoderatly praysed the Queene, or some others, as he and his consorts vse to com­mend and extoll the Pope, and such as they like, and take to be of their faction:

Likewise fol. 35. he chargeth me to be a famous flatte­rer. But his argument to proue it doth excuse me. For it is no flattery, to report what Ozorius and Bizarus hath sayd of the Quéene. Neither did they say more then is true, or speake for hope of reward. As for my selfe, so farre am I from hope of receiuing of a good fee, (albeit Parsons obiecteth so much vnto me) that I looke for nothing but hatred, losse, and persecution for defence of truth. Parsons himselfe may looke for a Cardinals hat, and Bellarmine and Baronius haue gotten Cardinals hats for lying. But for vs, here be no such rewards proposed. Unlesse therfore he bring better proofes, and can shew, that we haue praysed the Queene aboue her desert, & that for hope of gaine, his friends wil confesse, that he might haue done better to haue chosen some fitter exor­dium, then this false accusation of flattery.

But the Papists for hope of gaine and preserment haue both immoderatly and imodestly set out the prayses of the Pope and his adherentes, as infinite particulars do shew. First some call the Pope their Lord and God, as the glosse upon the chap. Cùm inter nonnullos. Extr. Ioan 22. de verb. sig­nif. [Page 357] credere Dominum Deum nostrum Papā conditorem diotae de­cretalis (sayth the glosie) & istius, non potuisse statuere, prout statuit, haereticum censeretur.

Pope Nicholas c. satis. dist. 96. sayth, That the Emperour Constantine called the Pope God. Augustine Steuchus, in Val­lam de donat. Const. lib. 2. c. 67. likewise alloweth well the name of God giuen to the Pope. Audis summum pontificem (sayth he) à Constantino Deum appellatum, habitum pro Deo: that is, Thou mayst heare the Pope called of Constantine God, accompted a God.

Baldus inl. fin. Cod. sent. rescind. and Decius. inc. 1. de consti­tut. and Card. Paris. Cons. 5. nu. 75. say, The Pope is a God in earth. That is also the saying of Felin, inc. ego N. in 1. col. in text. ibi canonicè. de iureiurand. Others teach, That the Pope is Gods Vicegerent in earth, c. 1. 2. & 3. de transl. episc. dere iudicat. c. adapostolicae. & Clem. 1. & ibi Card.

Papa (sayth the Glosse) in prooem. Clem. idest, admirabilis, & dicitur à Papè, quodest interiectio admirantis, & verè admi­rabilis. So it appeareth he deriueth the Popes title of won­derment.

Others call the Pope Christs Vicar, as if Christ had left him to rule the Church in his stead. Bonauenture in breuilo­quio calleth the Pope the onely spouse of the Church, and Christs vicar generall.

Panormitan inc. licet. and c. venerabilem de electione, (sayth) That Christ and the Pope haue but one consistory, and that the Pope can do, as it were, whatsoeuer Christ can do, except sinne. Likewise holdeth, Hostiensis c. quanto. de translat. episcop. Papa & Christus (say they) faciunt vnum consistorium, it a quod, excepto peccato, potest Papa quasiomnia facere, quae potest Deus. Nay Panormitan in the chap. venerabilem, without quali­fication sayth, Quòd possit facere quicquid Deus potest. And he alleageth this for a reason: aliâs Christus non fuit ailigens pa­terfamiliâs, si non dimisisset in terra aliquem loco sui.

Gomesius writing vpon the rules of the Popes Chan­cery, sayth, That the Pope is a certaine diuine power, and sheweth himselfe, as a visible God. Papa est quoddam numen, [Page 358] & quasi visibilem quendam Deum praese ferens.

Stapleton in his dedicatory Epistle to Gregory the thir­téenth, before his Doctrinal principles, doeth adore him and call him Supremum numen in terris: that is, His soueraigne God vpon the earth. Hoping percase that his supreme God would looke downe vpon a terrestriall base creature, and bestow vpon him some great preferment.

Bellarmine doth bestow Christs titles vpon the Pope, cal­ling him the corner stone of the church, and a stone most pre­cious In praef. in lib. de Pon. Rom. and approued. In his second booke De Pontif. Rom. he titleth him the foundation, the head and spouse of the church.

Caesar Baronius his huge volumes containe most huge and many flatteries of the Popes of Rome, the man con­trary to all law of story setting forth their praises, and con­cealing their errors and faults. It would require a great volume to comprehend all, and where so many examples are contained, I should diminish his fault if I should set downe but few.

Simon Begnius a great doer in the conuenticle of Lateran directing his spéech to Leo the tenth: Ecce (sayth he) venit Leo de tribu Iudah. And againe, Te Leo heatissime saluatorem expectauimus. He calleth Pope Leo a lion of the tribe of Iuda, and his sauiour.

Certaine rimes in the Glosse vpon the proeme of the Clementines, call him the wonderment of the world. Papa stupor mundi. And againe say, that he is neither God nor man, but as it were, neuter betweene both. Nec Deus es, nec homo, quasi neuter es inter vtrumque.

Innocentius the third, in cap. solitae. de maiorit. & obed. sayth, the Pope as farre excelleth the Emperor, as the Sunne excelleth the Moone. That is, as the Glosse do­eth there calculate seuentie seauen times. He compareth also the Pope to the soule, and the Emperour to the bo­die.

Tantū sacer dos praestat regi, quantū homo praestat bestiae. Quan­tum Deus praestat sacerdoti, tantū sacerdos praestat regi. Quiregē [Page 359] anteponit sacerdoti, is anteponit creaturam creatori, sayth Stanis­laus Orichouius in Chimaera. That is, A priest doth so much excell a king, as a man doth excell a beast. As much as God is better then a priest, so much is a priest better then a king. He that preferreth a king before a priest, doth preferre a crea­ture before his creator.

Ioannes de turrecremata calleth the Pope, King of kings, and Lord of lords. And Herueus will haue him to be a In sum. de ec­cles lib. 2. c. 26 king.

The glosse and Canonists in c. ad apostolicae de sent. & re iudicat. in 6. hold, That the Pope hath power to depose princes, and Emperours, and this is now a comon conclusi­on of the Iebusites.

Clement the fift, in the chapter Romani Clement. de iure­iurando, doeth determine, That the Emperour sweareth fealty to the Pope.

Boniface the eight, affirmeth, That it is a matter of salua­tion for all men to subiect themselues to the Pope. c. vnam sanct. ext. de maior. & obed. The Canonists teach, That the Pope is not tyed to law. in c. proposuit. de concess. prae­bendae.

Baldus in c. 1. in vlt. col. de confess. affirmeth, That the Pope by reason of his authoritie is doctour of both the lawes. And commonly his flatterers affirme, That he hath al lawes with­in the chest of his brest.

Ioannes Andreas and Panormitane in cap. per venerabilem. Qui filij sint legit. say, that the Pope hath power to dispense in mariages within the degrees prohibited by Gods law.

Petrus Ancharanus Cons. 373. saith, That the Pope hath po­wer to licence the nephew to mary his vncles wife.

Panormitan in c. fin. de diuort. writeth, that the Pope for a spe­ciall great cause may dispence against the new Testament.

Papa potest permittere vsuras populis & Iudaeis, & eas tolerares that is, The Pope hath power to permit and tolerate vsury to Iewes and other people, as sayth Alexander de Imola in Consil. 1. part. 2. and Card. in Clem. 1. §. fin. 27. quest. de vsuris. [Page 360] And experience sheweth, that he permitteth vsury to the Iewes of Rome: and Paul the fourth, and Pius the fourth, set vp publike bankes of vsury called falsely monti di pietd. The Popes they are also made to beleeue, that they may permit publike stewes in Rome; and of that permission they make no small reuenue.

Likewise it is the custome of papists to flatter Princes, hoping thereby to allure them to defend their sect. Some they call most Christian, some Catholike, some great Dukes. Baronius in his Epistle dedicatory before his third tome of Annales, calleth King Philip the second of Spaine, regum maximum, the greatest of kings, and Christia­norum regum maximum decus & ornamentum. The glory and ornament of Christian Kings. He sayth also, that greater things may be spoken of him, then Xenophon wrote of Cyrus, and seemeth to compare him, or preferre him be­fore Constantine. Likewise doeth he grossely flatter the French king in his Preface before his ninth tome of An­nales.

Thomas Stapleton hath giuen immoderate prayses to Thomas Becket, and Thomas More, perhaps for name sake rather then for vertue.

Sanders, Rishton and Bozius, albeit they professe to write histories, yet do they intend nothing more then to ad­uance their owne fauourers, and to disgrace their aduer­saries.

This is also a great part of the argument of their lying legends, to set out the prayses of Monkes, Friars and such like superstitious Papists.

Likewise without cause doth he accuse vs for lying. M. Foxe vnderstanding his error concerning the execution of Marbecke, did correct the same. Yet when he said Marbecke was burned at Windsor, he lied not, speaking that which was to him reported, and like to be true, considering that the partie was condemned.

Neither doeth M. Foxe set downe Wickleffe or others in the Calendar, to the intent to make them martyrs (for that [Page 361] passed his reach) but to declare the time of their death or sufferings.

Parsons doth further threaten, to shew out of M. Foxe, and others of our writers, infinite doctrinall lies. But he threat­neth alwayes more then he can performe. In his second en­counter, ch. 2. where he giueth out these brags, himselfe ly­eth notoriously. For most false it is, that either the rebels in king Richard the second his dayes, or else the friars, whom Thomas Walsingham called lyars, were Wickleffes schollers: al­beit this shamelesse frier affirmeth both. For Ball a Masse­priest was a principall ring-leader of the rebels: and the fri­ers were murtherers, sodomites and traitors, as the rebels said of them. Let vs (sayd the rebels) destroy these murtherers, and burne these sodomites, and hang vp these traitors of the King and Realme. And this they sayd of the friars. But Wic­kleffe alwayes detested and spoke both against such abomi­nations, and such rebellions.

It is a common tricke also of Papists, to proue their do­ctrine with lies & fables. To proue transsubstantiation, they make a crucifixe to speake these words, Benè de me scripsisti Thoma, Thou hast written wel of me Thomas, when shal I be able to requite you for your paines?

To proue the real presence, they make tales of bloud ap­pearing in the sacrament, and sometimes they say Christ appeared like a litle child: which are toyes to mock children withall.

To proue purgatory, they tel vs tales of S. Patrickes pur­gatorie, of soules complaining and crying for more masses, of apparitions of Angels, diuels and soules. The same lies they abuse also to proue prayer for the dead.

For the iustification of their doctrine concerning the worship of saints and their images, they tell lies of ima­ges mouing, talking, working, walking, and of wonder­full apparitions and miracles done by them. Our La­dies image is said to speake to Hiaciullyus. Goodrike saw a boy come out of a crucifixes mouth, as Mathew Paris re­lateth.

[Page 362]Finally, the Popes and their agents, without lies and notorious forgeries cannòt maintaine their cause: as by in­finite lies of Bellarmine, Baronius, Parsons, yea and of the Popes themselues I haue iustified. Doeth it not then ap­peare, that in lying they haue set vp their rest? And will not In the Chal­lenge. the world see the abominations of popery, that cannot be maintained but by lying, forgery and force? God graunt that truth may once appeare, and open the eyes of all Chri­stians, that they may sée that which now lieth hidden, and come to the perfect knowledge of truth.