A challenge concerning the Romish Church, her doctrine & practises, published first against Rob. Parsons, and now againe reuiewed, enlarged, and fortified, and directed to him, to Frier Garnet, to the archpriest Blackevvell and all their adhærents, by Matth. Sutcliffe. Thereunto also is annexed an answere vnto certeine vaine, and friuolous exceptions, taken to his former challenge, and to a certeine worthlesse pamphlet lately set out by some poore disciple of Antichrist, and entituled, A detection of diuers notable vntrueths, contradictions, corruptions, and falsifications gathered out of M. Sutcliffes new challenge, &c.
Sutcliffe, Matthew, 1550?-1629., Sutcliffe, Matthew, 1550?-1629.
Page  1

An answere first vnto such excep∣tions, as by a certaine namelesse, and worthlesse fellow are taken to the Challenge prece∣dent: and next vnto the same parties most idle obseruations. Thereto also is added a briefe of certaine notorious falsifications and vntruthes of the Papists.

Chap. 1. An answere to Owlyglasses exceptions concerning thir∣teene vntruthes, supposed to be contained in M. Sut∣cliffes Chalenge.

Sect. 1.

*IN 19. pages of my challenge, and all direct contrary to the doctrine of Papists, Owliglasse cannot find so much, as any occasion of cauill. In the 20. pagrapi•… numb. 10. in my former, and in the latter, cap. 4 numb. 43. bee taketh holde of this, that I say, That the Papists vse exorcismes, blowings, salt, spittle, halowed water, annoyntings, light, and diuers ceremo∣nies, neither vsed by the Apostles, nor practised by the ancient Church. And this, sayth he, is an vntruth so ma∣nifest, Page  2 that Caluin doth confesse it.* But what if it be true? and what if Master Caluin do not confesse that, which I say, to bee vntruth? Is not Owlyglasse, where he goeth about to detect me of one vntruth, manifestly takē in a tray, and detected to haue vttered two vntruthes in one breath? he cannot, though he would, denie it. Well then, let vs see first, whether my wordes containe vntruth, and next, whether Caluin confesseth so much, or no.

Of my proposition there are two partes. First, I denie, that the Apostles vsed these ceremonies now in question: and secondly, I denie, that they were practised by the auncient Church of Christ Iesus. Now against the first part of my wordes, Owliglasse can obiect nothing, neither doth hee so much as touch it. But wēt he about to alledge any thing, yet the Hystorie of the Actes of the Apostles, and Christ his in∣stitution would refute his allegations. For in neither of the two, are any such ceremonies to be found.

Agaynst the second part, he alledgeth Caluins wordes, Instit. lib. 4. ca. 15. art. 19, for exufflations, halowing of water, annoynting, and light: and for exorcismes in bap∣tisme, he produceth Nazianzen. For salt hee quoteth the words of Origen. For spittle he citeth the wordes of Am∣brose, and the name of Petrus Chrysologus. But neither doth Caluin, nor any of these fathers mention either the vse of the Apostles, or practise of the ancient Church, nor doth a∣ny father speake of all these ceremonies together, nor can the practise of the Romish Church in the signes, and formes of these ceremonies be iustified by fathers, either to haue béene in the whole Church, or in any one singular Church, nor to come nearer to our aduersaries, can any one concludent ar∣gument be drawne out of any of the Fathers agaynst that which I teach. Caluin sayth, He knoweth how an∣cient the ceremonies of exufflation,*halowing of water, of annoynting, and lights is. Which if I should confesse, yet could not Owlyglasse conclude, that such ceremonies were vsed in the time of the fathers of the Church, nor that they Page  3 were vsed in the forme, the Romanists vse them. Let him conclude if he list, and then he shall see his error. Further if he be obstinate, let him proue, that the fathers prayed in con∣secrating light, *that diuelish fraud might be expulsed by it: and while they halowed water, that it might be effec∣tuall to purge mens mindes: and that they coniured wa∣ter, and salt, as the Romanists doe, praying ouer halowed water, Vt fiat aqua exorcizata ad effugandam omnem potestatem inimici: All which, I trust, he doth not beleeue that Caluin said, or thought to be ancient.

Nazianzen sayth onely, ne contemnas,* or as our ad∣uersaries translation hath: ne despuas exorcismi curatio∣nem: that is, Despise not the helpe of exorcisme. But that is nothing to other ceremonies, about which wee con∣tend: neither out of these wordes can it be proued, that exor∣cismes were vsed in the act of baptisme, but rather other∣wise, when by extraordinarie grace diuels were driuen out of the possessed.

Rehearsing the wordes of Origen, he doth curtall them. He reporteth them thus. Qui renascitur, debet sale sa∣liri. Origens wordes stand thus: Oportet eum ergo, qui renascitur vtique in Christo renascentem rationabile, & sincerū lac desiderare, & prius quam rationabile. & sine dolo lac desideret, debet sale saliri, & pannorum inuo∣lucris colligari, ne dicatur ad eum, sale non es salitus, & pannis non es inuolutus, Where I would pray the Arch∣priest Blackwell to put on his spectacles, & see whether Ow∣lyglasse hath not with his glasse eyes corrupted the place. Against me this place of Origē maketh nothing, for neither doth hee mention all the ceremonies which are in question, nor doth he speake one worde of the popish formes of exor∣cismes, nor doth he speake, as it seemeth literally, of salting, but allegorically vnderstāding true beleeuing: Si credidero spiritui, qui in Apostolo loquutus est, sayth he, Sale con∣dior. And if our aduersarie will needs vrge the litterall sense, then must he needes confesse, that men being baptized are to Page  4 be lapped in clouts, and to dr•…ke milke. For Origen spea∣keth of all these things alike. Finally, it is a very ridiculous poynt to thinke, that euerie ceremonie spoken of by Origen, was vse throughout the vniuersall Church.

* Saint Ambrose sheweth, that the priest vsed to touch the eares, and nostrils of those that were baptized. At the least, he sayth so, vnder whose name the bookes of sa∣craments, that are among S. Ambroses workes, do passe. But that is nothing to the purpose, vnlesse Owlyglasse will confesse, that whosoeuer doth touch his nose, doth spit in his face also: which were a wonderfull and archpresbyterall in∣terpretation.

He sendeth vs also to Petrus Chrysologus. But if the man had saide any thing to the purpose, I doubt not, but hee would haue taken paines out of this golden fellow, to fetch golde him selfe: whereas now he deliuereth to his rea∣der nothing but drosse.

* Neither is Bellarmine able to affoord Owliglasse any helpe in this case. For albeit he raketh into all authours good and bad: yet can he alledge no sufficient testimonie out of antiquitie for the formes and ceremonies vsed by the Popish Priests. Furthermore he cannot iustifie, that the rites of baptisme, that any one father speaketh of, were generally re∣ceyued in all the Churches. Finally, the formes of celebra∣ting baptisme described by Clemēt, Dionysius, Iustin Mar∣tyr, Tertullian, Cyprian, Basil, and other fathers do declare that no such formes were in ancient •…me vsed, as the rituall bookes now in practise in the Romish Church do prescribe. I haue therefore sufficiently discharged my selfe of the accusa∣tion he would fasten vpon me.

Secondly, Caluin doth not affirme any thing contrarie to my wordes. For albeit he knew how ancient some of the ceremonies are, which I denie to be vsed in the first Chur∣ches: yet doth he not expresse howe ancient they are, nor speake any thing of their seuerall formes, nor confesse any other thing contrarie to my assertion. To cōclude this point, Page  5 the conuenticle of Trent affirmeth, *that none of these Ce∣remonies which wee speake of, can bee omitted without sinne. Which doctrine I hope Owlyglasse will not con∣firme either out of the fathers, or out of Caluin. It is hee therefore, and not I, that hath committed this fault of lying, vnlesse he haue somewhat else to alledge for himselfe.

Cap. 1. Sect. 2. That it is not vntruth to say, that the doctrine of the Councell of Trent, that denounceth men accursed, that shall not hold baptisme to be necessarie to sal∣uation, is not Catholike.

MY aduersarie doth also challenge me, * because I affirme that the doctrine of the Councell of Trent, that denounceth men accursed, that shall not hold baptisme to bee necessarie to saluation, is not Catholike. And to iustifie his challenge, he alledgeth for himselfe, first S. Augustine, lib. 3. de Orig. a∣nimae. c. 9. Secondly the wordes of our booke of Common prayer. And thirdly mine owne testimonie, where I speake of the paines of originall sin. And in the end he concludeth, that if the want of baptisme sendeth infants into hel fire, that it is necessary to saluatiō. But al this tedious discourse is farre from the purpose. For neither doth any father af∣firme, that such are accursed, that hold not baptisme to be necessarie to saluation, which is the doctrine that I con∣demne, as not Catholike, nor can any such thing be gathe∣red out of the wordes of the Common prayer booke, or of any thing deliuered by mee. How then durst this vaine fellowe charge me with vntruth, being not able to alledge one argument to conuince mee, or any Catholike Fa∣ther to speake agaynst mee, had hee not steeled his face, and dulled his vnderstanding, so that hee neyther sha∣meth at any thing, nor well vnderstandeth what he wri∣teth? Further this is contrarie to promise made in Page  6 the beginning▪ for there hee promised, that he would put the Reader to no more labour, then to open the bookes and view the places that should bee alledged. And here hee argueth to his vttermost skill, and yet proueth no∣thing.

But suppose I had indeede said, that all that die without baptisme are not damned, and had sayd that only, and not aded any thing concerning the curse of the conuenticle of Trent, as I did: yet I hope this will not be proued to bee any vntruth. For if Circumcision did resemble baptisme, why should all infants, especially borne of godly parents, ra∣ther be damned dying before Baptisme, then such as dyed before Circumcision? Secondly I hope our aduersarie will not say, that the theefe which confessed Christ on the crosse, was damned, albeit he died without Baptisme. Nor is hée able to shew, that he was baptized, for that troubled Saint Augustine,* a man farre more learned then himselfe, and yet that could not resolue himselfe in this poynt. Thirdly Ambrose doubted not▪ but Valentinian was saued, albeit he dyed without Baptisme. *Fourthly our aduersaries say, that there are three sortes of Baptismes, viz. Of water, of the holy Ghost, and of bloud: and Bellarmine confesseth that without Baptisme men may be saued,*martydome and the conuersion of the hart to God supplying the de∣fect of Baptisme: and it is a common saying, that not the want, but the contempt of Baptisme doth damne those that depart this life without Baptisme. Finally the groūd of that opinion, that condemneth al dying without baptisme, is laid vpon these words: Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua, & spiritu sancto,*non potest intoire in regnum Dei. And yet our Sauiour doth speake these wordes of Baptisme, no otherwise then he vttereth these wordes in the sixt of Iohn: Vnlesse ye eate the flesh of the Sonne of man, and dinke his bloud, ye shall haue no life in you. If then no inter∣preter, that expoundeth these wordes of the Lordes Sup∣per, will thereupon conclude, that no man can bee saued Page  7 vnlesse he receiue the Lordes Supper, then doe not the other words inferre necessitie of Baptisme. Vnto S. Augustines wordes, lib. 3. de anima, cap. 9. I answere, that hee spea∣keth of such as die in originall sinne, and seeme to con∣temne Baptisme. But diuerse may die without baptisme, and yet not contemne it. We say also in the administration of Baptisme, that none is saued, that is not regenerate. But it is impious to tie Gods grace vnto Sacraments We doe also speake of the ordinarie externall meanes, by which saluation is obtained. But we exclude not extraordinarie courses. I doe also confesse, that infants dying in originall sinne are damned to hell fire. But I hope no man will say, that all that die before Baptisme, albeit they much de∣sired it, and beleeued in Christ Iesus, dyed in originall sinne. But sayth Owlyglasse, You say that children by Bap∣tisme are receyued into the Arke of Christes Church.* But he was simple to conclude thereof, that none is recey∣ued into the Arke without Baptisme. He sayth also, that Lay men and women by the booke are permitted to Baptise: but he should remember that it is shame for him to speake vntruth, who taketh on him to controll others in that behalfe. He concludeth finally. Seeing the want of Baptisme doth send Infants to hell, that Baptisme is ne∣cessarie to saluation. But his consequent is weake, and of no value. For many die for want of knowledge, and for want of small matters, and not onely of Baptisme. And yet God is not necessarily tyed to saue none, but such as are baptized. Sicke men also die for want of Physicke: and yet is not phy∣sicke absolutely necessary. In this place therfore the detector wandreth out of the way, and yet effecteth nothing.

Sect. 3. That Catholikes vse not after the Popish maner to sepa∣rate man & wife vpon occasion of monastical vowes.

HIs third accusation is grounded vpō these words: They holde, that by mutuall consent the ma∣ried couple may depart asunder, and that it Page  8 shall not be lawfull afterward to company together. A matter not onely strange in the catholike church, during the Apostles and their successors times, for many hun∣dred yeares, but also contrary to Christes doctrine. For what man can separate them, whom God hath conioi∣ned? but séeking to fasten an vntruth vpon me, he commit∣teth a grosse falsification himselfe. for hee cutteth off my words in the beginning, * and midst of the sentence, umbling the rest together very ill fauoredly, and marring the grace of my sentence with his lewde handling. To helpe out the matter, he alleadgeth other wordes of mine, out of the 35. page, where I say, that this proceedeth from the newe forge of popish inuention. But as before, so in this place he maketh mee speake of one thing in the singular number, where I speake of prohibition and dissoluing of marri∣ages for spirituall kinred, and dissoluing of marriages contracted, and other matters in the plurall. And hauing framed my wordes after his owne lewd fashion, and cur∣talled them at his pleasure, he chargeth me with a notable vntruth (as he calleth it) For (sayth he) there be testimo∣nies and examples in the Primitiue Church of married folkes,*that with mutuall consent vowed perpetual, chastity. And to that purpose he alleadgeth Epiphanius, Hierom, ye 2. councel of Arles, & S. Augustine. But first he minceth the matter, & dare not say any thing directly con∣trary to that, which I haue written. For I say that marri∣ed folks might not be so separated, but that they might come together againe. And he talketh of separation for a time. Now that which I say is most true, & is proued first by our sauiours words, Mat. 19. for as our sauior saith, that which God hath ioined, let not man separate. Therefore marri∣age being instituted by God is not to be broken by the tra∣dition of man. Secondly, the words of the Apostle, 1. Cor. 7. are direct for me. To those that are cōioyned in matrimo∣ny saith he, not I command, but the Lord, that the wife depart not from her husband. And if man and wife for a Page  9 time depart, he willeth thē to come together againe, least the diuell tempt them. Thirdly, the practise of the church proueth, that I haue said true, Scelus est, saith Chrysostome homil. 63. in Math. 19. in duo diuidere vnam carnē, sic et mulierē a suo viro diripere iniquissimum est. So likewise saith Theophylact. Siut impiū est suā carnem diuidere, ita et coniuges diuellere. He sayth, It is a wicked thing to separate married folks. Fourthly, reason sheweth, that if mariage be a knot indiuisible, that maried folks cannot be vpon pleasure sundered, & that it is a presūption intollerable for the Pope to dissolue mariage, whose institution is from God. Finally, it appeareth by Bellarmines dispute, de Mo∣nachis c. 37. who handling this point with more cunning then this poore swad, yet is not able to proue that maried couples were separated for religion in auncient time, or that this practise was conformable to Christes, or his Apostles doctrine, as I haue verified against Bellarmine in my trea∣tise de Monachis. As for the exāples & testimonies alledged by Owliglasse, they eyther are from the purpose, or make a∣gainst him Neither Epiphanius nor Hierome saith, that maried folks vsed not to be admitted vnto holy orders, except they did promise perpetual continency frō their wiues, as Owliglasse with his glassy conscience affirmeth, (for neyther of them hath one word of promise or vow) but the contrary rather. *Ad huc viuentē et liberos gignentem vnius vxoris virū saith Epiphanius, non suscipit (ecclesi∣a), sed eum, qui se ab vna continuit. He hath not one word of any promise, nor doth he deny, that priests may re∣turne backe againe to company with their wiues. Nay, hee sayth in the same place, that priestes and deacons haue wiues, and keep children, albeit against the outwarde rule of the church. So it appeareth, that this abstinence frō wiues, was but an humane ordinance, and not obserued in all places: which is that which I say.

Hierome likewise saith, that in certain churches they chose clerkes of bachilars, widdowes,*or such as desisted to be husbands. But the question is, whether the church v∣niuersally had any such order. And secōdly whether maried Page  10 priests did promise or vow continency, and thirdly, whether they might not returne to their wiues: in all which points Hierome faileth Owliglasse. Nay Hierome saith, that cer∣taine bishops ordained none, but maried priests, seeing the lubricity of others. Indeed I cōfesse he disliked it, but the que∣stion betwixt Owlyglasse and me is concerning the practise of the Church.

The 2. Councell of Arles, is sayd to be celebrated in Sil∣uester and Constantines time. But the acts of that supposed Councell describe a forme of the Church farre disagreeing from those times. Besides that the copies of it differing much one from another, as Surius testifieth, do shew the acts not to be authentical. But suppose they were, yet nothing is contai∣ned in the 2. Canon of that Councell quoted by Owlyglasse, but that no maried man shall be made priest, nisi fuerit pro∣missa conuersio. Which if our aduersary do translate, vnles he promise continencie from his wife, as he doth, then must he condemne mariage to be sinfull. Which if he do, then doth Owlyglasse teach doctrine of Diuels. If conuersion sig∣nifie turning from wicked life, the Canon maketh nothing agaynst me. That the 199. Epistle to Ecdicia in the works of Saint Augustine was written by him, wee, are not bound to beleeue, seeing many Epistles dayly foysted in a∣mong his, that are clearely knowne to be misbegotten. But were it his, and did he write, that Ecdicia, & her husband promising continencie, were to perseuere in that pur∣pose: yet that proueth not, that if they were not able to per∣forme their vow, that therefore they might not come togi∣ther. For they liued in one house togither, & tooke no solemne vow. Ei obsequi sayth the author of that Epistle, in dome∣stica conuersatione debuisti. Beside that, they had house and goods, and the womā was reprehended, for that she gaue them away: which is contrary to the course of Monkery in our times. Finally albeit this were the opiniō of one man, is it not ridiculous, to thinke, that all the Church in externall matters was led, and gouerned by one mans opinion?

To that place which I alledged out of the 19. of Math. hee answereth, that the band of matrimony doth cōtinue stil Page  11 after the vow of continency. But if he speake of the vow of continencie after mariage solemnized, and not consummate, he doth shew himselfe to be ignorant what his own side doth hold. For the Councell of Trent, Ses. 24. cap. 6. doth decree, that such mariages by vowes of monasticall religion are quite dissolued. The same also doth Bellar. lib. de Monach. 2. cap. 38. by arguments endeuour to proue. If he deny that mariage consummate is dissolued by vowes, yet Cassian collat. 21. c. 10. and the last law Cod. de episc. & Cleric. is against him. Likewise seemeth Peter Lomb. to hold lib. 4 sent. dist. 31. §. 2. Angelus in authent. de episc. & cleric. & Baldus in authen, sed hodie. C. de adulter. The same also albeit by the Canonists denied C. ex publico. & C. ex parte tua. de conuersione coniugat. Yet in effect by the Popish practise is granted. For seeing the maried couples may no more cōpany togither, nor liue togither, nor yeeld mutuall of∣fices of mariage loue one to another: who doth not acknow∣ledge that in effect the Pope doth breake the hands of mari∣age, & repugneth against his opiniō, that writeth to Ec dicia? for he would haue her to serue her husband in all things.*

Sect. 4. That Masses and praiers for soules departed, and spe∣ciall offices for the dead were neuer frequented by true Catholikes.

WHere I affirme, that the Papists say Masses and praiers for soules departed, & for the dead haue appointed special offices, & that my aduersarie shal neuer be able to proue, that such Masses, praiers, and offices haue bin frequented by true Catho∣likes, there Owlyglas stormeth & sheweth great impacience. Belike he perceiueth that I touch his freehold, & wound him mortally. For in the Masse the very soule of popery cōsisteth. And rather wold the priests loose all the rest of their trinkets, then Masses and Dirges, which to Masse priests is prora & puppis, & the foundation of all their hope. Therfore he saith, that this which I say, is an vntruth in grain. But if he were not a dizard in graine, he would not so rashly haue aduentu∣red vppon this point. For the first part of my proposition he Page  12 cannot deny, vnlesse he will forsweare the Masse, as he hath forsworne his liege soueraigne. The second also cannot be denied, vnlesse Rob. Parsons, or he can proue the contra∣rie. Let vs therefore see, if he can proue, that Masses, and Dirges, and set offices for soules departed, haue beene frequented of true Catholikes.

* First he alledgeth the testimony of Chrysostome, yt saith, that not without cause it was ordained by the Apostles, that in the dreadful mysteries cōmemoration should be made of the dead, knowing therby, that much gaine and profit doth come vnto them. Secōdly he alledgeth Epiph. and August. that seem to say, that Aerius was condemned for denying, that sacrifices & oblations were to be offred for the dead, or that praiers were to bee made for them. Thirdly he alledgeth, Caluins confession, that saith, it was a receiued custom 1300. yeres agone to pray for the dead, and reproueth S. August. & Monica for it. Finally he calleth out my brother Willet for a witnesse against me, in that he saith, that diuers ancient writers inclined to maintain & commend praier for the dead. And yet all this commeth short of yt, which he would proue. For first in all these proofes there is no mention of speciall offices for the dead. Secondly there cannot any Masse bee shewed like vnto the Masses of Requiem aeternā. Thirdly the Masses set out vnder Chry∣sostoms, Basils, & other fathers names, are of one sort onely. Neither shall you find, that beside the ordinary forme, they had speciales Missas votiuas, or Masses proper for the dead. Fourthly the commemoration made of the dead in times past was at the first a recitall of the names of the dead without any praier added for remission of sinnes. Fiftly in the Canon of the Masse in the old ordinall of Rome, the praier for the dead is left out. Sixtly Chrysost. neuer belee∣ued Purgatory. For in the 3. Hom. vpon the Epistle to the Philip he saith, that iust men whether liuing or dead are with Christ. He would also haue praiers made for sinners, and for those, that die entangled in loue of riches, and per consequent great sinners. Likewise in the 69 Homilie, Ad populum Antioch. hee saieth, that iust men dying Page  13 see God face to face, & would haue Christians he mourne for those that are dead in sinnes. Excogite•… eis •…uid solatii, sayth hee, modicum quidem, lamemus tamen. These he would haue also to be remembred in the celebratiō of the holy mysteries, and would haue almes distributed for them. And this is that oblation, that the fathers speak of. Fi∣nally, neuer shall Owlygasse proue, that Chrysostome, or Augustine, or any father beléeued, that Christs body and bloud was offered for the dead, as the Papists vse to offer it, or that wee are to pray, as they prayed in the memento for the dead, in the Canon.

To the place of Chrysostome I doe therefore answere, that he meant only, that the dead should be remembred in the celebration of the mysteries and was vncertaine what good it did to them, saying sometimes it did them much good, some time but litle. Vnto the places of Epiphanius, haere. 75. And Augustine de haeres. ca. 53. that Aerius was condemned for disallowing the order of the Church in this commemoration of the dead, and giuing thanks for their blessed nd. And this is that prayer, which Caluin and we confesse to haue beene in the Church along time. But this maketh nothing for Ow∣lyglasses purpose. For first the fathers neither knew, nor al∣lowed Masses without Cōmunion. Quisquis mysteriorū consors non est, sayth Chrysostome, impudens, & im∣probus astat. He condemneth him as a wicked fellow, that was present at the celebration of the Eucharist, and did not communicate. The which I haue confirmed by diuerse te∣stimonies in my Latine booke, de Missa, agaynst Bellar∣mine. There also I haue shewed, that the fathers did neuer teach, that the body and bloud of Christ were offered in the sacrament for quicke and dead. Lastly, in auncient time they made a commemoration of the Patriarks, of the blessed vir∣gin, of the Apostles, Maryrs, and others. Now they pray to them, and not for them, as in time past. Wherefore to proue Masses, and prayers, and speciall offices for the dead, such as the Romish Church vseth, to be Catholike, Owlglasse must bring vs other testimonies, and other fathers. In the meane Page  14 while he hath proued himselfe a lyar and not me, and hath vtterly ouerthrowne the Masses of Requiem and Dirges for the dead, and not proued them in any sort to be Catholike or ancient. So that if he can say no more for Masses, he may go sing a Requiem for the soule of the Masse.

Sect. 5. Of the Idolatrous worship of Papists, which they giue to Images, to Saints, to the Crosse.

*HIs fift accusation falleth vpon my words in the 1. chapter of my challenge, num. 16. where I say, that the Papists haue deuised Masses in the honor of the crosse, of the virgin Mary, Saint Francis, Dominicke, and other saints: and that vnto the Images of these Saints they burne incense, & offer their praiers and deuotions. But he to make his obiection the stronger, doth leaue out the first part of my sentence, know∣ing himselfe to be guiltie of the crime, wherewith his con∣sorts are charged. And in the latter part he leaueth out that which I say, of the Crosse and Incense, vpon which the ground of the worke is laide. Wherefore if he knew what hee wrote, he coulde not but well vnderstande, that hee had falsifyed my wordes. And yet fearing hee had not holde inough, he goeth to the 64. page, and where I say, that Damascene accounteth them Heretikes,*that wor∣ship the Images of our Sauiour, of the blessed Virgin, and the Saintes, as the Gentiles did their Gods: and that this is iust the cast of the Papists: hee leaueth out that, which I say of the Images of our Sauiour, and of the blessed Virgin, wherevpon dependeth the substance of my charge, which aryseth of this principally, that the Papists doe giue the worship of Latria to the Crucifixe, and to the Image of our Sauiour, and Hyperdouliam, to the Image of our Ladie. And finally hee reporteth my Page  15 wordes thus, as if I had sayde, that the Papistes wor∣ship the Images of Saints, as the Gentiles did their Gods, and pray vnto them: where that which I say of prayer followeth after, & standeth otherwise then hee repor∣teth. Of which maner of dealing, if he could haue conuinced me: he would haue gone beside himselfe with bragging, as now he passeth all his companions, not onely in foolerie, but also in falsifying, and cogging.

Hauing thus mangled my wordes, and left out in the first place, the Crosse, in the second, the Image of our Saui∣our, and turned both to his pleasure: hee had no reason to charge mee, with a shamelesse vntruth desperately auou∣ched. For that which I say is true, neither did I thinke that Owliglasse, or any of his consorts would haue denyed a matter so plaine. Which because it proceedeth from his ignoraunce, I will direct him to his masters, that will teach him, that the same honour is due to the Image, that is due to the originall, and that therefore, the Image of Christ is to bee worshipped, as wee worship Christ, and the Image of our Ladie with Hyperdulia, and the Images of Saintes with the worship of Doulia: as appeareth by the testimonie of Alexander Hales, 3. p. quaest. 3. art. vlt. Thomas Aquinas, 3. part. quaest. 25, art, 3. and Caietans Commentarie vpon him. Bo∣nauenture and Capreolus in 3. dist. 9. Bellarmine also confesseth so much in his Treatise de Imaginibus, cap. 20. And that this is as grosse Idolatrie, as euer the Gentiles practised, it may appeare, for that I doe not reade, that euer the Gentiles gaue the same honour to Iupiters or Apolloes Images, that they gaue to Iupiter and Apollo themselues.

I say also, that as the Gentiles did worship their Ima∣ges, so likewise the Papists doe worship the Images of the Crucifixe, the Crosse, the Images also of our Ladie, and the Saints. For first as the Gentiles called on their Idols, so the Papistes say to the Crosse, O Crux aue Page  16 spes vnica, auge piis iustitiam: and to the picture called Veronica, salue sancta facies. Secondly, as the Genttles to their Images gaue the tytles of Iupiter, Apollo, Mer∣curie: so doe Papists call their Images, Saint Peter, Saint Dominicke, Saint Frideswide. Thirdly, as the Gentiles did burne incense to their Images, so doe the Papists before theirs. Finally, as the Gentiles did bowe downe to their Images and kisse them, and pray before them, so doe the Papists fall downe before stockes and stones, kisse their Images, and pray before them, as both the practise of Po∣perie, and the doctrine of the Schoolemen doth shew. The Images of our Ladie of Loreto, of Monferrat, and in England the Image of our Ladie of Walsingham, and diuerse Saints shrines, doe shewe my wordes to bee most true. But sayth Owlyglasse, the Councell of Trent de∣creeth, that due honour is to be giuen to Images, but not so, as that wee are to put trust in them, as the Gen∣tiles did sometimes. But what if the Papists regarde not the decree of this absurd conuenticle? And what if the Papists doe more trust in the Image of the Ladie of Lo∣reto, then the Gentiles did in the Images of Aesculapius or Mercurie? Wist not Owliglasse then confesse, that his consortes doe put some trust in these Images? But that is apparent, for they beleeue shee is able to doe more, then euer the Gentiles beleeued, that Aesculapsus or Mer∣curie was able to doe. Furthermore, the Gentiles did ex∣cuse themselues, that they did not worship their Images mateially, but rather the persons represented by their Ima∣ges, as appeareth by Lactantius, li. 2. ca. 2. and Augustine in Psal. 11. and doth not this selfe same excuse serue the Pa∣pists likewise? It is apparent by all their writings, and Bellarmine, and Gregorie de Valentia haue no better defence for this their Idolatrie in their treatises of the wor∣ship of Images.

That the Papists do pray vnto Saints, and offer their praiers before their Images, it cannot be denied▪ BellarminePage  17 calleth Saints Deos per participationem.*Votum (saith he) non conuenit sanctis, nisi quatenus sunt dij per participatio∣nem. That is, vowes are not conueniently made to Saints, but as they are gods by participation.

I trust therefore hereafter Owlyglasse will not charge me with desperate vntruth in this point, nor vrge me to exhibit proofes▪ for the more I bring, the more shame will fall vpon his face. In the meane while, I would haue the Papists to obserue for their learning, that Owlyglasses metaphores are drawne either from gamesters, as here, * where he talketh of playing at barestake, and laying downe sufficient pawnes; or from women, * as where hee talketh of more towe to our Rockes. Which sheweth, that he is a better gamester, then a disputer; and is as much conuersant in womens closets, as in his study. Wherefore, if Recusants be wise, they will take better heede hereafter, howe such compagnions come neare their houses, that are so well acquainted with their wiues rockes and frockes, to say no more.

Sect. VI. That the Popes decretales before Gregorie the 7. his time, had no force of lawe.

THe sixt exception which Owlyglasse taketh against me p. 22. is, for that I say, that before Hildebrands time, which otherwise is called Gregorie the se∣uenth, the Popes decretales had no force of lawe. This saith Owlyglasse, is vntruth. And he prooueth it by a cer∣taine decree of Pope Hilarie, that liued long before Grego∣rie the seuenth, who threatned all with danger of their state, that should violate either diuine lawes, or the decrees of the A∣postolike see: and by a constitution of Gelasius c. sancta Ro∣mana. dist. 15. where he determineth, that the Popes decre∣tales are with reuerence to be receiued. But his proofes are too weake to conuince me of vntruth. For first, neither of these authorities are authenticall, seeing it is not likely, that Hilarie would match the Popes decretales with Gods lawes, nor the Church of Rome neglect Gelasius his decree Page  18 concerning apocryphal writings, if his authoritie were so great, as is pretended. Secondly, albeit Hilarie threaten, yet it appeareth not, that his threats were regarded. Thirdly, it is one thing to accept mens letters with reuerence, and an∣other thing to accept them as lawes. Fourthly, it is a ridicu∣lous thing to require men to beleeue the Popes in their own cause. Fiftly, lawes are not enacted by letters, nor recorded in scrowes; but solemnly established by publike seales and monuments, that giue them credite: which Owlyglasse can∣not shew to haue beene practised in Hilaries, or Gelasius his decretales. Finally, the state of the Church was not such then, as that the Popes could command, or binde all Chur∣ches by their letters. That therefore which he saith, is no∣thing. But I doe alleadge the testimonie of the Records of the church of Rome, which containe no ancienter decretales then those of Gregorie the seuenth, as appeareth by the book of Bulles called Bullarium, Secondly Bellarmine, that is a man of greater knowledge, then Owlyglasse, doth faile, where hee goeth about to prooue, that the Popes had power al∣waies to make lawes. For his records lib. 2. de pontif. Rom. c. 19. are weake, and all of them refuted in my answere to him. * Finally it is euident, that for diuers hundred yeares Emperors and councels made lawes, and not the Popes; and that this course continued vntill such time, as Popes by suppressing the authoritie of both preuailed; and vntill the power of Antichrist began to shew it selfe in Gregorie the se∣uenth. In this point therefore Owlyglasse sheweth himselfe ignorant of the storie of the Church; and not onely vagrant from his purpose.

Sect. VII. That the fasts of the synagogue of Rome, & their vsual formes were not established by the ancient Church.

IN the seuenth article of his supposed vntruthes, because Owlyglasse could not otherwise fasten the lie vpon me conueniently, hee doth curtall my words with an &c. and mangleth my sentence, applying that to one particular, which I direct to diuers Page  19 matters. I say, that if we seeke all antiquitie, we shall not finde where the church of Christ hath commanded vs to keepe this Popes day, and that Popes day, and to abstaine frō worke on S. Francis, and S. Dominicks, and other canonized Friers daies, or where the same hath enioyned Christians to heare masse, or to fast lent, and embre daies, & vigils of Saints, & other tides according to the fashion of the Church of Rome. But our aduersarie doth vnhandsomely place my wordes thus, as if I had said, that if we seeke all antiquitie, we shall not finde, where the church of Christ hath enioyned Christians to fast lent, and embre daies, and vigils of Saints, &c. But if he had done me right, he should haue added these wordes, and other tides according to the fashion of the Church of Rome. Which if he had done, my wordes would haue giuen him no occasion of cauill. For then neither out of the 50. canon of the councell of Laodicea, nor out of the 63. canon of the fourth councell of Carthage, nor Hieroms epistle to Marcella, nor S. Augustines sermon de tempore, nor Leo, nor Epipha∣nius his wordes, nor any other authoritie by him alleadged, could he haue brought any thing to contradict my assertion▪ neither doth master Willets confession any whit relieue him. The Councell of Laodicea doth not establish the fast of lent, nor saith any thing of choyce of meates, or the manner of fa∣sting, but would, that men should fast vpon thursday before Easter. Which argueth, that before that time, that day was not necessarily fasted. Besides that, the Councell hath no∣thing concerning embre daies, or fasts on vigils of Saints, and therefore short of my aduersaries purpose. Finally, the Synagogue of Rome doth not obserue the canon of this coun∣cel, that would haue men to eate drie meate: for massepriests eate delicate fish, and licour the same well with wine. Ther∣fore Carranza falsifieth this canon of the councel, * and for drie meates, putteth conuenient meates, fearing, as it should seeme, least he should lose his good fish, and good Spanish secke.

The Councel of Carthage can. 63. speaketh nothing of fasts established by lawe, but rather signifieth, that fasts were then vpon especiall occasion proclaimed. Qui tempore indicti Page  20 ieiunij, saith that councel. Beside that, in this canon there is no mention of any set forme of fast, nor doth the councel speake of other then clerkes, which notwithstanding are not the onely men, that should fast in Lent. Finally, this ma∣keth nothing for formes of fastes on embre daies and vigils of Saints.

Saint Hieroms order of fasting, which he speaketh of in his Epistle to Marcella against Montanus, the Romanists re∣gard not▪ for they fast betweene Easter and Whitsontide, which he did not like. Besides that, he speaketh of no forme of fasting, nor alloweth the fasting, or rather Lenten feasting of the Romanists. Thirdly, that which he speakeh of Apo∣stolical tradition is contrarie to S. Augustines wordes in his Epistle 86. ad Casulanum, where he sheweth, that the Apo∣stles set downe no daies, nor formes of fasting.

The sermons de tempore set out vnder Saint Augustines name, are found to belong to diuers others. In the 62. ser∣mon it is said, to be sinne, not to fast Lent. But the Roma∣nists obserue not the order of fasting by that author prescri∣bed. for he fasted without dining, and obserued not Sun∣daies, and abstained from wine. The Romanists doe all o∣therwise. *In isto legitimo, ac sacratissimo tempore, saith he, exceptis dominicis diebus nullus prandere praesumat. And a∣gaine, * speaking of Lenten fasting, quid prodest, saith he, vi∣num non bibere, & iracundiae veneno inebriari? If then the Papists will not abstaine from wine, why doe they vrge vs to obserue, or beleeue his formes of fasts That these Ser∣mons of fasting are not S. Augustines, it is apparant; for that they contradict his Epistle ad Casulanum.

Leo ser. 2. de pentecoste c. 9. talketh of certaine fasts; but that they were the Romish embre fasts, Owlyglasse will not proue. Neither must he thinke, that we are bound to beleeue all Leoes epistles and sermons to be either written by him, or authenticall. If Owlyglasse vnderstand not so much, I will teach him, and shewe him reasons of my saying in my next.

Maister Willet saith Calixtus instituted the foure embre fasts. But he speaketh according to the opinion of the Roma∣nists,Page  21 and well knew, that the Epistles that go vnder his name, were counterfeit.

Aerius was condemned of heresie by Epiphanius haeres. 75. and S. Augustine haeres. 53. for that he held, hat fails appoin∣ted by the Church were not to be obserued. His error was, that he held, quod iiunium non esset ordinatum, as Epipha∣nius saith. But this toucheth vs nothing. for we know, that the Romish synagogue is not the true Church, and that the ancient Church neuer approued either the Romish doctrine, or the Romish order concerning fasting.

Seeing then Owlyglasse was neither able to prooue the Romish orders of Lenten fastes, or of embre daies, nor brought any one author to iustifie the fasts vpon vigils of Saints, what an impudent fellow was he to affirme, *that in ancient times the Church of Christ enioyned Christians to fast Lent, embre daies, and vigils of Saints, shuffling in vigils of Saints into his conclusion, of which he had not brought any proofe in his premisses? Secondly, if he would contradict me, why did he not speake of the maner of the Romish fasts? Lastly, what reason hath he to charge me, as hauing dealt without conscience, where I denied their manner of fastes to be Catholike and christian; when he sheweth neither con∣science, witte, learning, nor modestie in holding the con∣trarie?

That I haue deliuered my opinion with good conscience, and that he with a cauterized conscience pinned to the Popes sléeue hath contradicted my assertion, it may also further ap∣peare by the forme of Romish fasts. For first, the Romanistes place their fasts in abstinence from flesh, and not in abstay∣ning from meate, or eating drie meats, or abstinence from wine, as the Easterne Churches did. Secondly they eate large dinners, and refraine not from them, as the author of the 62. ser. de tempore, among S. Augustines workes thin∣keth they should. Thirdly, they beléeue that by eating flesh, and redd herring, and such like meate, they are able to satis∣fie for their sinnes, and to inherit the kingdome of heauen: which is not only erronious but also most ridiculous Fourth∣ly, they teach that fasting in Lent was instituted by Christ, Page  22 and that the other fasts are apostolicall traditions. Finally, they burne true christians for eating of a péece of flesh vpon a fasting day. The which doctrine and practise is not only contrary to the doctrine of Christ, and his Apostles, and the fathers of the Church, but also to the practise of the ancient apostolike Churches, whose fashions we are farre to prefer before the practise of the late apostatical synagogue of Roome. Our Sauiour he teacheth vs, that we are not defiled by any meate, that entreth into a mans body. Quod intrat in os saith hée, *non coinquinat hominem. We may also thereout gather, that it is not meate, that doth satisfie vs. Secondly, the Apo∣stle doth signifie, that this difference of meates procéedeth from the ceremoniall law, and therefore ought now to cease. If ye be dead with Christ,* saith the Apostle, from the Elements of this world, why doe you yet decree, saying, touch not, tast not, handle not, which all goe into destruction in vse, according to the preceptes and doctrine of man. Thirdly, the Apostle doth also prophesie, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, forbidding to marry, & enioyning abstinence frō meats, which God hath created. Neither can this be vnder∣stood of auncient heretickes, that thought flesh vncleane▪ for he speaketh of the latter times and saith in nouissimis tempo∣ribus. The Papistes also would not so seuerely forbid eating of flesh, vnlesse they thought it a more holy matter to eate fish. Fourthly, Tertullian sheweth that Christians fasted vpon oc∣casion of their owne accord, and not by constrainte of lawes. Indifferenter ex arbitrio, non ex imperio nouae disciplinae, saith he, *pro temporibus et causis vniuscuiusque ieiunabant. And this he speaketh of Christians, he being then teinted with the heresie of Montanus. Augustine in his 86. Epistle to Casulanus testifieth, that he findeth no set fasts enioyned by Christ, or his A∣postles. Quibus diebus nō oporteat ieiunare, & quibus oporteat, saith he, praecepto domini, vel apostolorū non video definitum. Sixtly, lent was diuersly obserued in times past, as may be ga∣thered by ye testimony of Irenaeus, as Eusebius writeth Ecc. hist. lib. 5. c. 26. the same may be proued also out of Socrates l. 2. hist. 43. & Sozomenus lib. 3. c. 13. Spiridion did not thinke it vnlaw∣full to eate flesh in Lent, as Sozomenus testifieth lib. 1. c. 11. Page  23 of eating drie meates, and abstinence from wine, and dinners I haue spoken before. Finally, if Owlyglasse had Lynceus his eyes, yet in all ancient stories he shall not find, where any was condemned by the Church to death for eating flesh vpon friday. And why? forsooth because this is the practise of the synagogue of Antichrist, and the whore of Babylon. Let it then be iudged, whether I, or the ecstatical Owlyglasse haue vsed better conscience in discussing this controuersie concer∣ning Romish fasts, and who hath lyed, he or I.

Sect. VIII. That the auncient Church of Christ hath not forbidden Chri∣stians to solemnize marriage vpon daies forbidden by the Church of Rome.

THe 8. article of Owlyglasses exceptions is drawn out of he 32. page of my challenge. for where I say, that if we seeke all antiquitie, we shall not find, where the Church of Christ hath comman∣ded christians to keepe this popes day, or that Popes dayes. &c. Or where the same hath enioyned christians to heare Masse, or to fast lente and imbre dayes, and Vigiles of Saints, and other tides according to the fashion of the Church of Rome, or to confesse our sins to Romish Friers and Priests, or not to solemnize mariage on dayes forbidden: hée is some∣what offended at my words. but to make his obiection the stronger, he placeth them thus. If wee seeke all antiquitie, we shall not finde where the Church of Christ hath enioyned chri∣stians, not to solemnize mariage on dayes forbidden: cutting out a multitude of my wordes out of the middest of my sen∣tence; & making me to speake of one point, where I speake of diuers, and disioyning that which I coupled together, so that I may say, that if a man rake al the colledge of Iebusites. he shal not lightly find a more impudent, or witlesse falsary, then this. But to let that passe (albeit I maruel hée was not ashamed speaking against falsifications to falsifie euery place almost wich he toucheth) I say it is no vntruth to affirme, that the auncient Church of Christ did not prohibit Christians Page  24 to solemnize mariage on dayes forbidden by the Church of Rome. And my reasons are▪ First, for that I finde not any such prohibition to haue béene vsed in the histories or monu∣ments of the Church. Secondly, for that I doe not sée, that the aunciente fathers do mention in their writings any such matter. Thirdly, for that the first decretale concerning these prohibitons, that hath force of law, s in the chapter capel∣lanum. xtr. de ferijs. Gratian doth insert a certa ne coun∣terfect canon. 33. q. 4. Non oportet. But euery canonist can tell Olygass, that Gratians sentences are no law. Fourth∣ly, I doe finde that Bellarmine de matrimonio. lib. 1. 2. 31. can∣not proue this practise of prohibition of mariage to bée anci∣ent. *Fiftly, the aduersaries confesse, it is lawfull to contract mariage at any time. Wherefore then should it not be law∣full to publish and solemnize the contract, seeing solemnizati∣on is nothing, but a declaration of an act doone? Finally the poore proofes of Owlyglass doe much confirme mée in my o∣pinion. For he alledgeth nothing for his opinion, but a con∣terfect Canon of the councell of Laodicea, that forbiddeth so∣lemnization of mariages in Lent. That this Canon is coun∣terfeit, it is apparent, for that there is no apparēce of such ac∣tes in any authenticall record. Secondly, this Canon by Ow∣lyglasse is numbred the 52. so doth also Crranz number it, from whence he had it. But Bellarmine lib. 1. de Mtrim. c. 31. maketh it 25 the Canon. Thirdly, these Canons were written in Greeke, if any such were made in Lodicea▪ but these are meerely latine, and verie barbarous. In the 53. canon it is decreed non oportere Chistianos ad nuptias eunes balare, aut saltare. But were this Canon truely made by the councell of Lodicea, yet maketh it nothing for Owlylasse his pur∣pose. For those canons are not obserued, and the Roma∣nists cease not to dance at mariages. Againe, were this Canon obserued, yet it aketh nothing for prohibitions out of Lent. So that Owlyglasse will come farre short of his rec∣kening, when he commeth to conclude, that all prohbitions of times of mariage practised in the Romish church, were al∣so practised in the auncient church of Christ Iesus.

* Our aduersarie doth further tell vs, that other testimonies Page  25 might be brought for this purpose, but he will content him∣selfe with the practise of the Church of England. And that he proueth out of our Almanacks and faculties for mariages in time prohibited. But this argument effecteth nothing, but onely the disgrace of him that made it▪ for it sheweth, that our aduersarie is better studied in the Almanacke, then in Saint Augustine. Further, the Almanackes set downe the feasts and Saints of the Romish Church, and that for the benefite of Merchants, that trade with other nations, al∣though we obserue not these Popish Saints feasts. Thirdly if he were acquainted with our faculties as perfectly, as he pretendeth, he might know, that these prohibitions are not much regarded. Finally, if for a ciuil decencie the same were by some obserued; yet al ye ceremonies & orders of euery par∣ticular church, are not auncient; nor is that any thing to the Romish church, whose superstitious and wicked decrees I wonder, that so many do blindly receiue without all ground of reason If then Owlyglasse haue any more testimonies in store, his friends would be glad to heare of them, for his own credit and promise sake. Otherwise they will wish, that he had been also prohibited to marie, and to beget children, least they be troubled with a race of such dizards.

Sect. IX. That the regenerat cannot liue without sinne.

IN this ninth article, Owlyglasse doth bewray his great ignorance, neither well vnderstanding, what we hold, nor what his owne consorts hold. If he did, he would not imagine, that we did distinguish sinnes into mortall and veniall, nor would he denie, that Papists hold, that the regenerat may liue without sinne.* For first the conuenticle of Trent anathematizeth, whosoeuer shall say, that freewill is lost since Adams fall. Secondly, * the same ana∣thematizeth all that shall affirme, that a man regenerar cannot performe all the lawe and commandements of God. If then a man after Adams fall haue freewill, hee may as well doe all things well, and so liue without sinne, as all things euil. Page  26 Againe, if he be able to performe all the commandements of God, then may he liue without sinne: sinne being nothing els, but the transgression of the lawe.

*Anselme defineth freewill to be a power to keepe the will right, in respect of righteousnesse it selfe. Bellar. lib. 3. de grat. & lib. arb. c. 3. saith, that free will is a free power, of things tending to an end to choose one before another. He saith al∣so, *that by force of freewill man without grace hath power to choose that is good, and to auoide that is euill, to obserue pre∣cepts of manners, or to transgresse them. He holdeth further, that the regenerat is able to fulfill all the lawe of God:* & conse∣quently not to sinne. And that he prooueth by the words of S. Iohn, qui natus est ex deo non peccat: which he expoun∣deth so, as if no regenerat man did sin, or transgresse Gods lawe. If then man hath such a power, as they say, and may fulfill all the lawe, and abstaine from all sinne, then I trust I doe the Papists no wrong, to say, that they hold, that the regenerat may liue without sinne. And although they denie not, that a iust man hath veniall sinnes, yet of their doctrine it followeth, that he may liue without veniall sinnes▪ for if he be able to performe the lawe of God perfectly, and to loue God with all his heart and all his soule, and hath free will to doe whatsoeuer is good, and to eschew whatsoeuer is euil; then may the regenerat liue also without venial sinnes. The Tridentine conuenticle granteth, *that a man by speciall pri∣uiledge may be without all veniall sinnes. Whether we speake then of great, or small sinnes, true it is, that the Papistes hold, that the regenerat may be without all sinne, and our ad∣uersarie denying this point, neither vnderstandeth the doc∣trine of his consorts, nor the sequele of it.

But saith he, this is not contrarie to al antiquitie, that the re∣generate may liue without mortall sinnes. And his reasons are, because Gods commandements may be kept, and are not heauy. Our Sauiour Christ saith also, that his yoake is sweete, and his burthen light, and S. Luke affirmeth, that Zachary and Elizabeth were iust before God walking in all the commande∣ments and iustifications of our Lord without blame. The se∣cond councell of Arausica C. Vlt. teacheth, that by grace recei∣ued Page  27 in baptisme, Christ helping and working with them, all that are baptized may, and ought to fulfill such thinges, as per∣taine to saluation, if they will labour faithfully. Saint Basill saith it is a wicked thing to say, that the commandements of Gods spirit are impossible. Saint Hierome maketh no doubt, but God hath commanded thinges possible. Finally Saint Augustine Ser. 191. de tempore detesteth the blasphemy of them, that say, that God hath commanded any impossible thing to man. Let vs therefore sée what antiquity saith, and what is the meaning of the fathers in this point. * Our Sauiour Christ taught his Disciples, and the most holy men to pray, forgiue vs our tres∣passes. But that néeded not, if they did not commit any sinne. And S. Iames saith, we offend all in many things.* The Apo∣stle Peter signifieth, that neither the Disciples of Christ, nor the fathers were able to beare the yoke of the law.*that which was impossible to the law, saith the Apostle Rom. 8. He saith also, that the flesh is not subiect to the law, nor can be. We know also that the flesh euermore lusteth against the spirit▪ the scriptures teach vs, that no mans heart is so cleane, that he can say, that he hath loued God with all his soule, and with all his heart. Saint Ierome epist. 62. affirmeth that chari∣ty, which cannot be increased, as longe as a man liueth heere, is in no man. tanta mandata sunt, saith Saint Ambrose,*vt im∣possibile sit seruare ea. Hierome likewise writing vpon the 3. to the Galathians, saith the Apostle teacheth vs, that noe man can fulfill the law, and doe all that is commanded. nullus legem impleuit saith Saint Chrysostome in Gal. 2. Bernard vp∣on the Canticles Serm, 50. saith, that in this life the law can∣not be fulfilled of any. And experience teacheth vs as much. For the blessed virgine called Christ her Sauiour. But what néeded shée a Sauiour, if shee had not sinned? Neither can any be found, that can say, he is without sinne. The aduer∣saries also confesse it sometimes. Implere totam legem, saith Thomas Aquinas in galat. 3. lect. 4. est impossibile.

As for the reasons of our aduersary, they are trifling. Gods commandements may be keept, as S. Iohn signifieth 1. Epist. 2. but in part, and in some imperfect sort. Secondly, our Sa∣uiour also saith, that his yoake is not heauy. But Christs Page  28 yoake is not the law, but his mercy and grace. Thirdly, his commandements are not greeuous, because euery one that is borne of God ouercummeth the world.*And this is the vctory that ouercummeth the world, euen our faith. To the councell of Arausica,* and the testimonies of Hierome, S. Basill, and S. Austine Ser. 191. de tempore: one answere will serue▪ for we doe not say absolutely, That the law in it selfe is imposs ble, but that man in this life cannot performe it, by reason of his infirmity▪ neither doe we say, it is impossible to performe the law in part and imperfectly, or that ye law is impossible to be performed, because man, if hee had continued in grace might haue performed it▪ * and now as S. Austine saith, Omnia man∣data dei facta deputantur, quando quicquid non fit ignoscitur. and as he saith lib. 1. retract. c. 19. If now we cannot, yet some∣time we shall performe the law of God. But none of these say, that wee can performe the whole law, and that perfectly, or that we can be without sinne. posse omne vitare peccatum, S. Hierome doth signifie to be the opinion of the Pelagians.* If then Owlyglasse will auoyde Pelagianisme, let him forbeare to charge mée with vntruth for saying, that the auncient fa∣thers beleeued not, that a man regenerat might liue without sinne. Againe if he deny, that Papists teach, that a regenerat man may be without venial sins, the councel of Trent Sess. 6. c. 23. wil giue him the lye. He also in the latter end of the chap∣ter doth contradict himselfe, where hée saith, That whether we speake of veniall, or mortall sinnes we abuse the reader, where we say, the fathers hould not, that a regenerate man may be without sinne▪ for he himselfe confesseth regenerat men haue veniall sins. But if he dispute no better of mortall and ve∣niall sinnes, hée will giue a mortall wounde to his owne cause.

Sect. X. That the forme of confirmation now vsed by the Romanistes is newe.

LIkewise in the cause of the sacrament of confirma∣tion, as he calleth it, he talketh very idlely and weakely, and is not able to confirme any thing which he saith, nor to disproue that, which I haue Page  29 written, although after his wonted fashion he scoreth vp vn∣truths. I say, that the forme of confirmation nowe vsed by the Romanists is new, & not receiued before the councell of Florēce about the yeare of our Lord. 1423. And that I say true, it may be confirmed, First by the writinges of the Apostles, wherein we cannot finde either institutiō, forme or matter of that new sacrament. Secondly by the practise of the auncient Church, wherein albeit wée finde the formes of other sacraments, yet we finde nothing of the forme, or matter, or manner of ad∣ministration of popish confirmation. The old ordinall of Rome hath nothing concerning it. Isidore, Amalarius, and all ancient ritualistes omit it. Apud antiquiores authores,* saith Bellar: speaking of the forme of confirmation, haec omnia ver∣ba non habentur, nec hoc ordine. Thirdly the auncient fa∣thers doe neither mention the institution, nor the proper matter, nor the forme vsed in this action by the Romanistes. Bellar. albeit he searched all corners, yet found he nothing to purpose. He citeth Iustine, Tertullian, Cyprian, Ierome, & others, * but they speake only of a ceremony of vnction and imposition of handes, and that vsed in Baptisme most commonly. Fur∣ther more they haue not any part of that doctrine which the synagogue of Rome teacheth concerning confirmation. Fourthly the schoolemen differ about the institution of confir∣mation, some of them holding, that it was instituted in a cer∣taine counsell at Meldis. concerning the formes also and mat∣ter, or minister of this sacrament they are not resolued. Fiftly, we doe not find, that confirmation was receiued by any au∣thoritie before the counsell of Trent; vnlesse we take the par∣ticular instruction of the Armenians for a generall establish∣ment. Finally the weake and absurd dispute of Bellarmine, that is not able to produce any institution of this pretended sacrament, nor to confirme, either the forme, or the matter, or the doctrine of it, may resolue a man, that the whole, as it is practised by the Romish Church, is a new inuention. * All this notwithanding our aduersary saith, that it is a palpable vn∣truth. viz. to affirme the forme of Popish confirmation, to be a new inuention. For to omit saith he, how the forme of this Sacrament is as auncient, as the Apostles. But if he had Page  30 omitted this indeede; he should haue omitted a bold and im∣pudent vntruth. For how is it to be presumed, that this forme of confirmation came from the Apostles, when the ad∣uersaries themselues, before the conuenticles of Florence and Trent, could neuer agree about the forme? And what likelyhood is there, that the Apostles did practise this forme, when we finde no record or memoriall of it in auncient, and authenticall histories? Is it likely that the auncient church would not mention all the formes of their sacraments?

He saith also, that we cannot shew any later beginning of confirmation. as if we did not note the time of the instructi∣on of the Armenians, and conuenticle of Trent; before which the schoolemen babled their pleasure, but they had no cer∣taine resolution on which they depended.

* He telleth vs also, that, as S. Augustine saith, we are to be∣leeue that to be descended from the Apostles, which the vni∣uersall Church holdeth, and hath alwaies beene obserued, and is not instituted by councels. But where he saith, that this is the case of confirmation; he sheweth himselfe to be past shame in auouching so grosse vntruthes. For first we shewe, that the forme of confirmation was talked of in the conuenticle of Florence, and established in the conuenticle of Trent. Se∣condly, Owlyglasse shall neuer be able to proue, that the vni∣uersall Church receiued, beleeued or taught the Popish doc∣trine, and forme of confirmation. Would he shew the same out of the Greeke Fathers, and S. Augustine, and other do∣ctors of Africke, Italy, and other countries, he might winne himselfe some good credit. Finally, he cannot shew by any good record, that the Church of Rome hath alwaies recei∣ued the doctrine, and forme of confirmation, that now is.

This done, he proceedeth on, and saith: To omit this, and many notable things els, that it is sufficient to conuince master Sutcliffe of vntruth, that Thomas of Aquine almost two hun∣dred yeares before the councell of Florence, setteth downe the verie same forme, affirming it to be the vsuall and common forme practised in the church, and Bellarmine, noteth this place of Thomas. But he sheweth himselfe a simple fellow, to omit notable things, and to say nothing worthy to be noted. But Page  31 his simplicitie is farre greater, to thinke that either Thom. Aquinas is an authenticall witnesse, or that his testimonie doth conuince me. For albeit Thomas doe speake of such a forme, of which he must not thinke me ignorant, yet it is a ridiculous conceit to beleeue, that all the vaine conceits of schoolemen were receiued generally in the Church, & great simplicitie, not to vnderstand, that the church of Rome estée∣meth but a little the disputes of schooles, vntill their schoole opinions be receiued by the pope, or established by councels. Further, he is not able to shew, that Thomas Aquinas saith, that the forme of confirmation by him mentioned, was the v∣suall and common forme generally receiued in the Church. Our aduersarie therefore sheweth himselfe first to be a vaine fellow to take exception against me in this point, rather be∣wraying his owne ignorance, then conuincing me of vn∣truth: and next, a lying compagnion, in belying his owne maister Thomas Aquinas.

Sect. XI. That in auncient time the sacrament was not vsually kept in pixes, after the fashion of the Romish Church.

IN my former Challenge I say, that the idolatrous adoration of the sacrament, and the carying of it a∣bout in procession, and keeping of it in pixes, sauou∣reth of noueltie. Owlyglasse not daring to denie all, onely excepteth against that, which I say of pixes▪ but if he had remembred the matter of his Pamphlet, he would not haue mangled my wordes, and accusing others of falsifica∣tion, haue at euerie turne runne into it headlong himselfe. Accusing me also of vntruth, himselfe most vntruely and im∣pudently affirmeth, that testimonies of antiquitie are plentiful for keeping the sacrament in pixes. for he is not able to bring one authenticall testimonie for this point.

The councell of Nice can. 14. decreeth, that if there be in presence no Bishop or Priest (viz. beside him that admini∣streth the sacrament) that then the Deacons shall, proferre & edere, that is, minister the sacrament, and receiue it themselues.Page  32 But this is nothing to the keeping of the sacrament, the wordes concerning the time of ministration or communion onely, and the canon intending to restraine the insolencie of deacons, that at the communion presumed to receiue before eyther byshops, or elders, not that serued at the altar, but that were present at the communion, as appeareth by the olde Romish ordinall.

* The same councell also would haue the excommunicat re∣conciled before they depart this life, and to haue the commu∣nion deliuered to them▪ but he is a simple fellow, that could not see, that the communion might bee administred to the sicke, although the sacrament was not hung ouer the altar in a boxe.

*Satyrus kept the sacrament about him in shipwracke; and a certaine woman, of whom Cyprian maketh mention, kept sanctum domini in her chest. but our aduersarie is a simple disputer, that would haue the abuses of simple women, and men vnchristened, such as Satyrus then was, obserued for lawe. Beside that, it is one thing to hang the sacrament o∣uer the altar, and another thing to put it in a womans chest, or to lappe it vp in a clout▪ for this the Romanistes them∣selues allow not.

Caluin 4. institut. 17. sect. 39. confesseth, that the sacra∣ment was in olde time reserued. But he doth not say, as our aduersarie insinuateth, that this was the order of the church. Finally, our aduersary himselfe purposing to proue, that the sacrament was kept in pixes ouer the altar, conclu∣deth only, that the sacrament was kept, abandoning the pixes to be defended by some other▪ his dealing therefore sauou∣reth of great simplicitie, if not of fraud and malice, and vanitie.

But that which I said, is most true, and is at large iusti∣fied in my discourse of the masse against Bellarmine, and is prooued first by the wordes of our Sauiour, who instituting this holy sacrament tooke bread, blessed it, and broke it, and gaue it to his Disciples saying, take, eate▪ where I would wish that simple Papists would consider, that he said, take, and eate, and not depart without eating, or els keepe the sacra∣ment Page  33 in boxes, or hang it ouer the altar.

Secondly, the Apostle 1. cor. 11. declareth, that the disci∣ples of our Sauiour at his last supper did take, and eate, and drinke. How then happeneth it, that the massepriests doe not deliuer the sacrament to the people, but hang it ouer the altar? Will they prooue themselues to be not onely sacrifi∣cers, and killers of Christ, but also hangmen of Christ, and the very famishers of Gods people?

Thirdly, the fathers giue cleare testimonie against our aduersaries, that keepe the sacrament in pixes. *De ijs quae cum gratiarum actione consecrata sunt, saith Iustine Martyr, vnusquis{que} participat, eademque ad eos, qui absunt, diaconis dantur perferenda. Dominus panem saith Origen. hom. 5. in Leuit. c. 7. quem discipulis dabat, & dixit, accipite & mandu∣cate, non distulit, nec seruari iussit in crastinum. they both sig∣nifie, that the sacraments presently vpon consecration were receiued. Hesychius also writing vpon Leuit. lib. 2. cap. 8. sheweth, that what remained of the sacrament, the same was forthwith consumed.

Fourthly, councels haue repressed the lewde customes of such, as in auncient time began to reserue the sacrament. The first councell of Toledo c. 14. decreeth, that he ought to be thrust out of the Church, as a sacrilegious person, which ea∣teth not the sacrament, which he receiueth from the Priest. the like decree is found in the councell of Saragossa c. 3.

Fiftly, we doe finde the practise of Christ his church to be repugnant to this reseruation of the sacrament in pixes, as appeareth by the testimonie of Dionysius eccles. hierarch. c. 3. of Ambrose de sacramentis lib. 4. & 5. of Euagrius lib. 4. c. 35. of Nicephorus lib. 17. c. 25. and all auncient formularies of administring the sacraments.

Finally, the aduersaries themselues in this point ouer∣throw their owne practise, as appeareth by the chapter Tri∣bus gradibus, and the chapter Triforme. de consecrat. dist. 2. and the chapter sne cum olim. de celebrat. miss. that decla∣reth Honorius to be the first bringer in of pixes▪ if then Ow∣lyglasse haue no more to say in this point, he will rather ca∣rie pixes out, then bring them into the church. He will also Page  34 ouerthrow the worthie decrée of Honorius the principall pa∣tron of the idolatrous worship of the sacrament in the Ro∣mish Church; and disgrace himselfe, whose words are like painted boxes full of empty words.

Sect. XII. That the prayers of the Romish Church to our Ladie, to Saints, and to Angels, were not in vse in the auncient Church.

IN most of his obiections Owlyglasse doth not only giue the lye vnto me, but to the whole Church. for that which I say concerning diuers pointes of po∣pish religion, is also mantained by the consent of Christs Church, as may appeare by that which already is aunswered concerning the abuse of the sacrament, prohibiti∣ons of mariage, and such like. In this place I touch an abuse of Popish prayers, and say, that auncient Christians had noe mediators, but Christ Iesus, and that they did not pray to our Lady, or to Saints, or to Angels, but to God onely, in the name of Christ Iesus. Of which assertion the first parte is proued by the words of the Apostle. 1. Tim. 2. Vnus deus saith he, Vnus & mediator dei & hominum homo christus Iesus. Likewise by the words of the Apostle Hebr. 7. Whereby we vnderstand, that our mediator must be pure, and impolluted, and offer vp himselfe. and Hebr. 9. where Christ is called, the mediator of a new testament, and hath that office ascribed vn∣to him only to intercede and mediate for vs with God. Se∣condly, by the testimony of S. Austine lib. 2. contra Parmen. c 8. Si Ioannes ita diceret, saith he, haec scripsi vobis, vt non pec∣cetis, & si quis peccauerit, nos mediatorē habebitis apud patrē, ego exoro pro peccatis vestris, sicut Parmenianus quodam lo∣co mediatorem posuit episcopum inter populum & deum; quis eum ferret bonorum, & fidelium christianorum? Albeit the Bishop doth intercede and pray for the people, yet Austine will not haue him called a mediator. Thirdly, the same is proued by diuers arguments drawne frō the nature of a me∣diator. He must be pure and impolluted, and able to recon∣cile vs to God by his death and merites, he must offer sacri∣fice Page  35 for vs▪ he must mediate our peace with God the Father: as may be gathered out of the 7. and 9. chapter of the Epis∣tle to the Hebrews, he must also be able to make a propitiati∣on for our sinnes, as it is to be gatherered out of the 1. Iohn. 2. and finally he must be such a one, as can heare vs, and pro∣cure our requestes to be granted. But neither are Saints departed so pure and impolluted, that they can oppose their holinesse to Gods iustice, nor are they able to reconcile vs vnto God by their merites. Nay themselues néede Christs mediation, and therefore cannot mediate for others▪ further it is derogatory to Christs priesthood, to make them priests able to reconcile vs to God, and then appoynt them media∣tors to make God propitious vnto vs. Finally, Saints can∣not be in all places to heare the prayers of those that call vpon them; nor are they able to giue vs that, we aske, nor doe they allow those, that leauing Christ Iesus come to thē. Owlyglasse aunswereth to this point and saith, that Saints are mediators not of redemption, but of intercession▪ and that Saint Paule. 2. Thess. 3. Desired the Thessalonians to pray for him, making them mediators of intercession. But first the scrip∣tures and fathers allow none for mediators but Christ Ie∣sus, that hath redéemed vs and mediated our peace▪ they are also vtterly vnacquainted with this Popish distinction. Se∣condly, it is a ridiculous thing, because the Apostle desireth the Thessalonians to pray for him, to whome he might come, and which did vnderstand his prayer, to conclude after Ow∣lyglasse his fahion that therefore either they were to be tear∣med his mediators, or that wee may pray to those, which neither can heare vs in all places, nor grant our pray∣ers.

The Second part of my assertion is proued First, by the doctrine of our Sauiour, that taught vs to pray to the Fa∣ther in his name. Which is also confirmed by the practise of the Church testified in the 3 counsell of Carthage. c. 23. Se∣condly the words of the Apostle are direct for vs. How shall they call saith he, on him, on whome they haue not beleeued?*Thirdly, the fathers condemne the practise of the Romish Church in praying to Saints. Mariam saith Epiphanius ne∣mo Page  36 adoret, neque mulirum, neque virum. And againe, neque Tecla, neque quisquam sanctu; adoretur. non enim dominabi∣tur nobis antiquus error, vt relinquamus viuentem, & adore∣mus ea,*quae ab ipso fcta sunt. S. Ambrose saith, that wee haue accesse to kings by mediation of tribunes, and noble men, because they are men, but to come to God, that we neede noe spokeseman, but a duout minde. Fourthly, both councels and fathers condemne worship of Angels. non oportet christianos say the fathers of the councell of Laodicea,*derelicta ecclesia a∣bire, & ad angelos idololatriae abominandae congregationes fa∣cere. They say christians are not to relinquish the Church, and to runne into corners to worship Angels▪ for that they signifie▪ to be Idolatrie. Chrysostome in his 7. homily vpon the Epistle to the Colossians, refuteth the opinion of those, that vsed the mediation of Angels. Sunt nonnulli saith hée, qui dicunt, non oportere per Christum reconciliari, & ad pa∣trem accedere, sed per angelos. propterea sursum ac deorsum, quae de Christo sunt versat. Epiphanius and S. Augustine, where they talke of the heresie of the Angelikes, condemne the worshippers of Angels for heretickes. Fiftly, the prac∣tise of the auncient Church doth vtterly repugne against the forme of prayer vsed by the Popsh Church▪ for if we séeke all the rituall bookes of auncient Churches, we shall not finde, where christians prayed thus, Sancta maria Mater dei ora pro nobis, & nunc & in hora mortis. Neither was this prayer vsed,

Maria mater gratiae, mater misericordiae,
Tu nos ab hoste protege, & hora mortis suscipe.

Neither do I beléeue shall Owlyglasse find, where christi∣ans prayed thus, Sancta Maria succurre misris, iuua pusilla∣nimes,*retoue febiles, and so forth. Or as in the missall of Sa∣rum, Vt haec munera tibi accepta sint, sanctae Batildis obtineant merita. Neither can any formes of litanyes to Angels, and Romish Saints in auncient bookes be found. Finally, these formes of prayers to Saints and Angels are most absurde. for what reason haue christians, not to pray to God through Christ as they are commanded, but to run to Saints, who neither vnderstand mens thoughts, nor are present in all Page  37 places, nor can helpe vs. Nay it is a thing very vncertaine, whether many of those, yt the Romish Church doth worship, are Saints or no. the lye therefore, that Owlyglasse would fasten on me, doth touch the Apostles & holy fathers, whose doctrine I follow, and not me only. and may well be retur∣ned backe on him.

But saith he, of prayers to Saints, and Angels,*there are such plentifull proofes, that nothing can excuse him from ashame∣lesse vnttuth. And there vpon he both bringeth forth Basill, the Councell of Chalcedon, Chrysostome, Saint Ambrose, and Ruffinus. But no one of these hath one such prayer, as the Romish missals and breuiaries haue many. Further the twentith homily in honor of 40. Marties, is not authenticall, nor was euer written by Basill. Neither is euery rude voyce that passed in councell to be ascribed to ye councell, as autho∣rized vy solemne act. besides that, many Epistles and wri∣tings are set out among the actes of counsels, that deserue no credit. so we say of the 66 homily of Saint Chrysostome, and Ambroses booke de viduis, that they haue passed the handes of idolaters, and falsaries. Ruffin telleth vs onely, * what some did, not what they ought to do. but suppose some of these fathers should either by an apostrophe name Saints or Angels, or else desire in a generality, that God will heare the prayers, which the triumphant Church offereth to God for the militant Church; or admit also that any one man should pray to Saintes: yet that is nothing to iustifie the blasphemous prayers of the Church of Rome made to An∣gels and Saints; nor doth it appeare, that in auncient time there were any publike prayers to the Virgin Mary, to An∣gels, and Saints. Finally the fathers did rather praye to God at the tombes of martyrs, then praye to martyrs as God. And we are rather to follow the most authenticall fathers, and best learned, and their authenticall writings, then either such ragges, as are falsesly countenanced by the names of fathers: or some hard speaches of fathers.

Further Owlyglasse signifieth that Hierome against Vigi∣lantius defended prayers to Saints. But he must alleadge good proofe or els his reader, and euery one that readeth Page  38Hierome will tell him he lieth. Finally he alleadgeth M. Bell against mee, and adioyneth M. Gough in a treatise a∣gainst M. Fecknam vnto him. But wee all agree against him, and his erroneous and superstitious doctrine concer∣ning prayer to Saints. For albeit some one or two long since called vpon Saints; yet we all agrée, that auncient christi∣ans had no such formes allowed, or publikely vsed and fre∣quented in the church.

So it appeareth, that for prayers to Angels and our La∣dy, our aduersarie can alleadge nothing, but the custome of Collyridians and Angelikes. Neither can he alleadge any thing for prayers to Romish Saints, nor to Martyres, but certaine counterfeit writings, and priuat practises of one or two Fathers, which against the rest, and against authenti∣call writings of the same authors are of no validitie.

Sect. XIII. That auriculer confession after the Romish fashion was not e∣stablished, nor receiued into the Church before Innocentius the third his time.

THe last exception which concerning matter of vn∣truth Owlyglasse taketh against me, is, for that I denie the Romish auriculer confession to be aunci∣ent. A matter that seemeth much to pinch my ad∣uersarie, and his consorts. for that vpon this point, for the most part, dependeth the gaine of their faculties, the credit of massepriests with their clients, the accesse they haue into womens closets, and the ground of their trecherous practi∣ses. Take away confession, the faculties of Priestes, togi∣ther with their dispensations and absolutions fal, and masse∣priests will be put to their beades. Their credit also will de∣cay with their clients, if they cannot bring them on their knees before the priest sitting iudicially in his chaire. Nei∣ther shall they be admitted further into womens closets, nor haue such opportunitie to corrupt them. Et sic perierunt illae cōfabulationes amatoriae, labellorū molles morsunculae, carna∣les contrectatiūculae, & multae ad rem gerendā opportunitates.Page  39 Finally, they shal not be able any more to draw subiects frō their alleageance, nor to instill rebellion into mens mindes vnder colour of religion. Owlyglasse therefore is longer in this point, then in any of the rest, and would gladly prooue his auriculer confession, if by any meanes he could. but his testimonies are all weake and counterfeit. He alleadgeth first the testimony of the 2. councell of Chalon. but first that councell had no confirmation, but from Charles the great; by whose authoritie it was, as is said, assembled. Secondly,* that councell doth neither excommunicate those, that con∣fesse not their sinnes, nor exclude them from christian buri∣all, as doth Innocentius. Thirdly,* the canons purpose was rather to instruct them how to confesse, when they did it, then to force men to doe it. Fourthly, the 33. canon seemeth to allow confession to God onely in those, that are instructed, and sheweth, how that diuers thought that to be sufficient. Finally, it were a hard law for the Romanists, if they should be bound to stand to all canons of councels. Why then doe they vrge vs to that, which they will not performe them∣selues? Owlyglasse his conclusions out of this canon con∣cerning the distinction of publike and priuat confession might well haue been spared.

Secondly, he produceth Leoes testimonie Epist. 80. ad episc. Campaniae, who séemeth, to say, that it is sufficient in secret confession to declare the guiltinesse of mens consciences to the Priest. But neither doth he commaund men to doe it, nor exclude from buriall, those that refuse it, nor writeth to o∣thers, but his suffragan bishops of Campania, nor is his word a law, nor finally must Owlyglasse thinke, that we are bound to beleeue this their domesticall witnesse, or whatsoeuer fal∣saries haue published vnder the name of Leo.

His third witnesse is Rabanus Maurus lib. 2. de instit. cle∣ric. c. 3. who saith, that the penance must be secret for such mat∣ters, as by voluntarie confession are reuealed to the priest or bi∣shop. But this doth not shew, that euerie man was bound to confesse, or punished for not confessing, but rather that it was voluntarie, and of such sins as grieued mens consciences, against which we dispute not.

Page  40

His fourth witnesse is S. Bernard. but he deposeth no∣thing for him, nor against vs, blaming onely those, which for shame did hide their secret sinnes.* Which sheweth that men at that time were not bound to open their sinnes by any lawe, nor punished for not confessing, as is now the practise of the Romish synagogue.

His fift witnesse is M. Caluin instit. lib. 3. c. 4. numb. 7. but he saith nothing, which may seeme to make for the ad∣uersaries, but onely, that the vse of confession was auncient. For vs he saith, confession was free, and that there was no law binding men to confession, before Innocent the third: which is that, which I holde. And that which Owlyglasse layeth hold of, aketh nothing for his purpose. For albeit in aun∣cient time christians grieued in conscience were wont to con∣sult with such, as had charge of their soules, and some doe yet take that course among vs; yet that doth not prooue, that Romish auriculer confession was auncient, or that christians must necessarily confesse all sinnes, and be excluded from ab∣solution, yea from christian buriall, if they doe not confesse in the priests eare.

His sixt witnesse is M. Bell in his suruey p. 536. who ac∣knowledgeth, as it seemeth, auriculer confession to haue been established the yeare 254. But he speaketh according to the conceit of the aduersaries recordes, that deriue it no higher; and percase vnderstandeth a voluntarie frée confession, and in cases of publike penance enioyned. But all our dispute, is, whether before Innocentius the thirds decretal, men were bound to confesse all their sinnes in the Priests eares, and were excluded out of the church, and from buriall, if they did it not. To which point M. Bell saith nothing, that will re∣lieue Olygasse, in this point of confession, but that euerie indifferent man will confesse, he was an idle fellow to tri∣umph vpon such poore aduantages.

His last testimonie is deriued out of our communion booke, where a forme of confssion is prescribed for the com∣fort of the sicke. And this he enforceth because as he saith, our communion booke was framed after the imitation of the Romish portesse and masse-booke, and thereupon imagineth, Page  41that the booke speaketh of auriculer confession vsuall in the Ro∣mish Church. But first he wrongeth vs, to compare our cō∣munion booke to their filthy and abominable masse books & portesses full of abominable and idolatrous prayers, and most wicked and superstitious ceremonies, as I haue decla∣red in my refutation of Bellarmines bookes de Eucharistia & missa. Secondly, he doth wilfully and maliciously vtter vn∣truthes. For neither is there any affinitie, betwixt our bookes and the Romish missals and portesses, nor tooke wée any patterne from them, but rather from the old formularyes of the primitiue Church, which prescribed reading & singing of Psalmes, reading of scriptures, prayers and formes of mi∣nistratiō of baptisme and the Lords supper, and preaching, as may appeare by the testimony of Iustin Martyr Apolog. 2. ad Antoninum of Dionysius the Areopagite, and others that men∣tion the formes of auncient liturgies. Further, not this matter of auricular confession is enioyned by the missals, or breuiaries, but rather publike confession and absolution before the face of the whole Church. Finally the forme of confession, which the booke requireth, is neither of all particu∣ler sinnes, nor enforced vpon any, nor required but of such, as are troubled in conscience. And therefore if Papists were not blind, and obstinat, they would confesse, that Owlyglasse had little reason or honesty, when he went about to proue au∣ricular confession out of our communion booke. & Owlyglasse himselfe, if he had not béene past shame, would neuer haue af∣firmed, that auricular confession had beene ordeined of Christ. and he meaneth no doubt, the Romish auricular confession, Viz. Vt omnis vtriusque sexus postquā ad ānos discretionis per∣uenerit, omnia sua peccata solus cōfiteatur proprio sacerdoti, & infunctam sibi poenitentiam proprijs viribus studeat adimplere. That is, that euery man and woman of yeares of discretion con∣fesse all their sinnes to their owne Priest secretly, and fulfill pennance that is inioyned them. Otherwise in his life time he is shut out of the Church, and after his death prohibited christi∣an buriall. The councell of Trent Sess. 14. c. 6. saith, that au∣ricular confession is necessary vnto saluation by the law of God Francis à victoria lib. de sacrament. c. de confessione, saith that Page  42a man being at the point of death is bounde by Gods law to confesse to a Priest. If, I say, he had but one sparke of hones∣tie, or graine of modestie; he would not haue affirmed, that this maner of auriculer confession had béene ordayned by Christ, hauing neither testimony of scriptures, nor standing with the doctrine of the fathers. Delicta sua quis intelligit? saith the Prophet Psalm. 18. How then can a man confesse all his sins, which no mā is wel able to conceiue, nor the papists in their multiforme cases of consciences able to epresse? Se∣condly, the Prophet saith, that at what time soeuer a sinner doth repent him of his sinne, God will put all his wicked∣nesse out of his remembrance. If a sinner therefore repent, he may haue remission of sinnes without auriculer confessi∣on. Thirdly, the fathers doe refell this confessionall doctrine. nondico, vt confitearis (peccata) conseruo tuo, saith Chrysostome Homil. 2. in Psalm. 50. qui exprobret; dicito deo, qui curet ea. I say not, confesse thy sinnes, to thy fellow seruant, which may reproch it to thee, but speake to God, which careth for such matters. Ambrose vpon the 10. of Luke. c. 96. saith, hee readeth of Peters teares, but not of his satisfaction. And againe, let teares saith he, wash your sinnes, that by word you are asha∣med to confesse.*what haue I to doe saith Saint Augustine, with men, that they should heare my cōfessions, as if they were to heale my griefes? Cassian also collat. 20. c. 9. teacheth men to confesse to God such thinges, as they blush to confesse to men. Fourthly, it is an absurd thing to say, Christ ordained cōfessiō, & not to be able to proue it out of the scriptures. Fiftly, if confes∣on of all sinnes were necessarie; then who should escape dam∣nation? Sixtly, Papistes themselues bring diuers cases, wherin they say cōfession is not necessary, & the Pope dispen∣seth in case of omisssion of confession, which sheweth that confession is not iuris diuini, nor necessary to saluation. Final∣ly, Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople tooke a way a kind of auriculer confession for publike sinnes which was vsed in that Church, as Sozomenus testifieth.

And this is sufficient to cleare me of all vntruth obiected against me by Owlyglasse. If he thinke otherwise, or if any man will not be perswaded, let him orderly answere this Page  43 and other latin treatises, which I haue written concerning diuers of these seuerall causes. If they cannot, let them leaue for shame to belche out their wicked slaunders against vs, that shall alway be able to iustifie our allegations, and writings better then the aduersaries, that care not much, how falsely they speake or write.

CHAP. II. An answere to Owlyglasses excepti∣ons concerning thirteene falsifications pretended to be committed in M. Sutcliffes late Challenge.

Sect. I. Of two allegations of Epiphanius and Augustine pretended to be falsified.

SICVT canis qui reuertitur ad vomi∣tum suum, saith Salomon,*sic stultus qui iterat stultitiam suam. for if a foole haue a toye, or fancie in his head, you shall hardly bring him from it. This appeareth plaine by the foolish and fond deuises of our aduersaries, who hauing a conceit to worke vs some disgrace vnder pretence of vntruths and falsifications, are still talking and prating of falsificati∣ons; wherein notwithstanding the cause being examined, all the disgrace will fall vpon themselues. Robert Parsons being at Rome, and hearing of the conference, that had pas∣sed betwixt M. Plessis, and M. d' Eureux, would needes for∣sooth Page  44 send a pamphlet concerning that matter into England, with a request, that a triall might also be made concerning allegations by men of our side with vs, as it had passed be∣fore in France. The which pamphlet albeit he might sée to haue beene answered two yeares agone, and his challenge concerning matters of falsification, to be accepted by me, and that I haue begone to obiect against him diuers notori∣ous and most materiall falsifications, whereupon Romish religion séemeth to depend; yet is Owlyglasse our aduersa∣rie still returning to his vomit, and still babling of falsifica∣tions, himselfe being not able either to answere one word in defence of those falsifications, which I shewed to haue beene committed by the Romish church, and principall men actors in the Popes cause, or well able to declare, what falsification is, albeit by practise he be most cunning in it. And that ap∣peareth by the first section of his third chapter page, 47. for albeit I doe not set downe any words either of Saint Augu∣stine or Epiphanius, yet he pretendeth, that I haue falsified both. A strange matter, that a man should commit a forge∣rie in writing, and yet neither make, nor preduce any wri∣tings at all. But I quote them in the margent. for that hée may alleadge in excuse of his dizardrie▪ as if euery man that quoted an author in the margent, either vnfitly, or errone∣ously, were to be charged with the crime of falsification. The worst therefore that he is able to say against me, is error, and mistaking, but if I haue not erred or mistakene, ither Saint Augustine or Epiphanius, I hope, some cacolike massepriest will tell Owlyglasse, that himselfe was much ouerseene in the verie first setting out of the harbour, which is a verie euill presage, and a most certaine signe, that he will make no good voyage, as long as he dealeth with me in this cause. That I haue said truely, it will appeare, by comparing S. Augu∣stines, and Epiphanius his words with mine. I say, the He∣racleonites did annoint their followers departing out of this life, and gaue them a certaine kinde of extreme vnction. And I quote Augustine de haeres. c. 16. and Epiphanius de haeres. 36. Let vs then sée, whether S. Augustine and Epiphanius doe not prooue my words true.

Page  45

Heracleonitae saith he, feruntur suos morientes nouo modo quasi redimere, id est, per oleum, balsamum & aquam. Like∣wise saith Epiphanius:*quando{que} aliqui ex ipsis oleum aqua mixtum capiti defuncti immittunt. I say further, that those heretikes said prayers for the dead. and that is prooued both out of Augustine and Epiphanius. Augustine said they vsed certaine inuocations. inuocationes saith he, quas Hebraicis verbis dicebant super capita, scilicet morientium. Hoc faciunt saith Epiphanius, vt hi qui has inuocationes in vitae exitu acci∣piunt, cum aqua & oleo, aut vnguento permixtis incompre∣hensibiles siant. So it appeareth, that these heretikes did an∣noint their Disciples with oyle, hoping thereby to redéeme them and saue them. It appeareth also, that they said praiers ouer the dead, in a tongue not vnderstood. Do not then the papists resemble them, greasing their disciples that are dy∣ing, and teaching them, that by this sacrament they are iu∣stified, and mumbling prayers ouer them in a tongue not vnderstood of the assistants?

But saith Owlyglasse, the matter of our extreme vnction is onely hllowed oyle▪ theirs was oyle, water, and balme▪*the forme of ours is a short prayer; theirs a strange inuocation in Hebrew words▪ the reason of ours is for the sauing of the sicke, the lifting of him vp, and if he be in sinnes, that they may bee forgiuen him; theirs to make themselues inuisible▪ ours is mi∣nistred on the fiue sences; theirs vpon their head▪ ours before death, theirs after death. And this he prooueth by alleadging the words of Augustine and Epiphanius at large, to the wea∣rying of his reader to no purpose. For we deny not any thing concerning this matter, which either Epiphanius or S. Augustine affirmeth. But all his allegation notwithstanding will not serue to cleare the Papists from the blot of Heracle∣onisme. for admit they did not approue all their errors, and in all points, shall they therefore be discharged? Againe, it is false, that the Heracleonites did annoint only the dead▪ for S. Augustine saith, quod suos morientes vngunt. so it may be they annointed them both before death and after. Againe it is false, that the Heracleonites did not vse a short prayer, and in a strange tongue. If then they borrow greasing and pray∣ing Page  46 in a strange tongue ouer the dead from the Heracleonites, and hope to iustifie their disciples by these fond ceremonies; then I hope I haue said true in comparing the Papists to Heracleonites. Nay I did them fauour, that I said they were no worse then Heracleonites. for the massepriests oftentimes vexe poore soules, that lie vpon dying and are tormented o∣therwise with sicknesse, and tumble them sometime vp and downe in their beds, and percase kill them, that otherwise might according to morall coniectures haue escaped. Be∣side that, they touch women verie indecently, and very ab∣surdly they put oyle in mens eyes, noses, and eares. Finally, our aduersarie speaketh foolishly where he saith, extreme vn∣ction is ministred on the fiue sences. For that is a sencelesse thing to say, that the sences may be greased, and the Papists that speake orderly, say the instruments of the sences, & not the sences are annointed.

He saith also further, that S. Iames Chap. 5. maketh men∣tion of extreme vnction. And that S. Augustine and Epi∣phanius number Aerius among Heretikes for denying prayer for the dead▪ and that the Heracleonites did not say prayers for reliefe of mens soules in purgatorie. But if it would doe Owlyglasse any good, his fellowes had néede to say masses and dirges for him, albeit he be not yet in purgatorie▪ so sim∣ply doth he handle his matters. For it is false, that S. Iames maketh mention of popish extreme vnction, or that hée thought that vnction, which hee speaketh of, to be a sacra∣ment of the church; or that men were iustified by that vnc∣tion. Nay he doth not speake so much as one word of the institution or forme of extreme vnction. Secondly, albeit Aerius was condemned for denying the orders of the church, and not allowing the commemoration of the names of the dead, at the time of the celebration of the Lords supper, as then was vsed; yet that toucheth vs nothing. For our Church hath taken away the superstitious abuses of the pa∣pists; and we doe not willingly oppugne any order of the auncient church by lawes established among vs. Finally, al∣beit Epiphanius, and Augustine talke of prayers for the dead; yet did they not thinke, that onely those were to be prayed Page  47 for, or remembred in the holy ministration of the sacrament, that were in purgatorie▪ for they rehearsed the names of good and bad. And it may be, the Heracleonites did also be∣leeue a certaine purgatorie▪ for els why should they pray for the dead, especially, if our aduersaries argue well?

Finally he asketh, *with what conscience I could so intreat the fathers in concealing their words. As if Owlyglasse him∣selfe did not conceale Epiphanius his words concerning Aeri∣us, whom he chargeth with Arianisme, and other heresies, and not onely for denying prayer for the dead. I answere then his fond question, that I had no reason to rehearse Au∣gustines or Epiphanius his words, otherwise then I did, al∣leadging them only to one point, which I entended to proue: and that I did iustly and truely. Neither can any man ex∣cept against my doing therein, vnlesse Owlyglasse woulde haue men to cite whole chapters. And as for Owlyglasse, he may hold his peace with shame enough, vnles he can speake better for his clients.

Sect. II. That Epiphanius was fitly alleadged page 49. of my former Challenge.

THe like vanitie doth Owlyglasse shew in taxing me for alleadging the testimonie of Epiphanius. for the wordes that I cite, are truely described. The other testimonies I do not describe, but only quote them. Wherein then consisteth this high point of falsifica∣tion? Forsooth saith he, because he doth most vntruely charge vs, as comming neare to Marcions heresie▪ but this is not fal∣sification, as he might haue knowne, if he had knowne any thing. Nay it is not vntruth neither▪ for as Marcion suffe∣red women to baptize, and extolled virginitie although he was a false lecher, and taught abstinence from liuing crea∣tures, and separated mariage for religion, as is before de∣clared in the 4. chapter of my challenge, so doe Papists suf∣fer women to baptize, and their lecherous priests, albeit they extoll virginitie and abiure mariage, yet liue most dissolute∣ly. Page  48 Their Monkes abstaine from flesh, and they vse to sepa∣rate mariages for religion, and all this Owlyglasse was con∣tented to passe ouer in silence, as if it had been deliuered vn∣to him vnder the seale of confession, although the same was plainly and publikely obiected in my former challenge, and was easie to be found, being set downe in the same place, where he supposeth, that I haue committed this foresaide falsification.

But saith he, he doth falsifie Epiphanius, wresting him con∣trarie to his meaning▪ as if Bellarmine were to bee charged with falsification as oft, as he doth wrest places contrarie to the meaning of the authors. He saith also, that I conceale his words▪ but he must be a miraculous fellow, that will make him a falsifier, that doth not so much as alleadge any wri∣ting. Such a simple fellow is Owlyglasse, with whom I doe contend, that the poore fellow cannot tell what he would say. I will therefore helpe to tell his tale, and shew that he is the falsifier, and not I.

In my challenge I doe charge the Papists, as sauouring of diuers points of heresie maintained by Marcion, and his followers. Among other things I say, that Marcion taught that by Christs descending into hell diuers mens soules were thence deliuered, and that he separated mariages for religion. And afterwards I adde, that the Papists sauour strongly of these heresies, and namely, in that they separate mariages con∣tracted after vowes, & by vowes breake mariages before con∣tracted, and also in that they defend that diuers mens soules were deliuered out of limbus patrum, which is a place in hel, as they confesse. All this Owlyglasse iumbleth togither con∣cealing two or thrée sentences, and setting downe what hée pleaseth▪ he is therefore without colour taken in the act of falsification. As for me, he cannot charge with any such tricke; nor iustly say, that I either set downe Epiphanius his words falsely, or speake vntruely. But saith he, Marcion held, that Iewes and Infidels were deliuered out of hell, which wee beleeue not, and therefore wee are not to bee charged with Marcionisme. neither doe I charge them otherwise, then sauouring of that heresie. And this is most true▪ for al∣beit Page  49 they agrée not in particulars; yet both Marcionistes and Papists beléeue, that soules may be deliuered out of hell. Nay they are not ashamed to teach, that by the prayers of Grego∣rie, Traians soule and the soule of an idolater called Falconilla were deliuered out of hell, which Owlyglasse confesseth to be Marcions opinion. And if soules may be deliuered out of hell (which is the place of the damned, as appeareth by di∣uers testimonies of scriptures) why may not wicked mens soules be deliuered out of hell?

Finally he quoteth the fourth councell of Toledo c. 1. Ig∣natius his Epistle ad Trallianos. Cyrilles Catech. 4. Epipha∣nius haeres. 46. Hierome vpon the 4. to the Ephes. Grego∣ries morals lib. 13. c. 20. But the silly fellow had dronke too much, when he calculated his distempered exceptions▪ for els I beléeue, that he would haue remembred, that we doe not dispute here, what the fathers hold concerning limbus patrum, but whether Epiphanius were truely alleadged, or not. He tolde vs in the beginning, that he would make his readers sée and féele falsifications, and that by opening the bookes, as it were, with a wet finger▪ and yet here he is not able to shew any such matter with all the skill he hath. Nay if falsification be committed, when fathers are falsely allead∣ged, then is this Owlyglasse a notorious falsificator. For not one of them once speaketh or mentioneth limbus patrum. Nor is Bellar. albeit farther traueiled in the fathers then Owlygl. able to finde limbus patrum in the fathers writings, or that they distinguish hell into parts, or prouinces, or speake of Abrahams bosome, as the Papists doe. And that may plain∣ly appeare by Bellarmines dispute de anima Christi cap. 14. from whence our aduersarie borrowed all his broken quota∣tions, and allegations touching this point; if any man list to read the place.

Page  50

Sect. III. Of Epiphanius his words concerning the worship of Angels.

TO prooue that the Caians were reputed here∣tikes for the worshipping of Angels and pray∣ing bnto them, I alleadge the words of Epi∣phanius Haeres. 38. vnusquisque eorum vnius∣cuiusque angeli nomen inuocat. Here my ad∣uersary saith, that I haue chopt of some wordes in the midst of the sentence▪ but if I had said thus, that Epiphanius speaking of the Caians, saith, they call vpon seuerall Angels: then this accusation of Owlyglasse had fallen to the ground, for all the chopping, that I vsed was to ioyne the nominatiue case with the verbe▪ such heynous matters are they, that Owlyglasse obiecteth against me▪ he saith also, that I curtold the latter end of the sentence. As if it were not absurd, when a man citeth a father to a point, to alledge that which maketh nothing to the point. Besides that, the wordes which I omitted, doe rather make against the Papistes, then for them▪ for as the Caians do call somtime on true Angels, sometime on those which they suppose to be Angels; so do Papists in their pray∣ers pray to Vriell, and other supposed Angels. They also pray to the Angell, which they suppose to be their kéeper, as grosly as the Caians, saying, obsecro te Angelice spiritus, cui ego indignus peccator ad prouidendum commissus sum,*desi∣nenter protegas, defendas, mundes, munies me. they pray to Angels to be cleansed from their sinnes▪ and afterward, no∣tum mihi facias finem meum, diemque obitus mei. That is, make me know my ende, and the day of my death: as if An∣gels did knowe such thinges. But saith Owlyglasse, hée hath perfidiously peruerted the whole sence of that father. But if he and his consortes did vse no more perfidious dealing a∣gainst their prince and contry, then I haue doone in this case they would not so perfidiously combine themselues with for∣raine enemies. As for this charge of perfidiousnesse, it falleth not vpon me▪ for I doe alleadge Epiphanius to proue only, that the Caians did worship and inuocat Angels. And this I haue Page  51 proued out of his words most iustly & truely. But had I mis∣taken his meaning, yet is not that falsification, but an er∣ror: where as commonly the detector both falsifieth and erreth.

Being therefore not able to say much concerning the point in question, Owlyglasse asketh me, with conscience I could charge his consorts the Papistes with the abominable heresie of the Caians. But this is another accusation farre from the purpose. Beside that, I shewed him the point of the charge, & told him as plaine as I could, that both Papists and Caians worship Angels. But saith he, do we teach that ech An∣gell hath doone some horrible sinne vpon earth? or do we in∣uocat false Angels, or any Angell at all in that sorte, that the Caians did? And in the ende, he cryeth out, what is lying, what is falsification, if this be not? But his reader hath reason to crie out rather, what is foolery, what is dizardry, if this bee not? For I doe not charge the Papistes in all points to agrée with the Caians. Neither can the Papistes discharge them∣selues of the note of heresie, if in any sort they agrée with the Caians. but yt did I declare plainly, & Owliglasse cannot deny, that both Caians, and Papistes worship and call vpon An∣gels. Againe it apeareth, that the Caians were condemned not for calling vpon false Angels only, as Owlyglasse doth in∣sinuate, but vpon true Angels. Vniuscuiusque Angeli nomen inuocat, tum eorum qui sunt Angeli, saith Epiphanius, tum eo∣rum qui ficte dicuntur Angeli. It appeareth therefore, that Epiphanius accompted thē heretickes that worshipped true angels, and not only false angels as Owlyglasse falsely sup∣poseth. But if the Papistes could auoyd that charge; yet if they worship newe orders of angels, and their angelicall kéepers, it should séeme, they cannot auoyde the charge of calling vpon false Angels. Finally as the Caians called vpon angels hauing committed great sinnes, so the adulte∣rous and sodomitciall Priests confesse their great sins to an∣gels, and desire their helpe. In the old ordinall of Rome printed at Rome anno. 159. and dedicated to Sixtus quintus, euery preist in this common forme of confession beginning confiteor deo omnipotenti, saith, peccaui in Sodomia. Owly∣glassePage  52 therefore may do well to trie his skill, if he can cleare his consorts of this blot also. But he must beware, that he blurre them not as well with sodomy, as he hath blotted them with the worship of angels, being not able to touch a∣ny of the rest of my arguments, which are diuers. So braue a patron is Owlyglasse of the Popish cause.

Sect. IIII. Of the heresie of Manicheyes in condemning mariage of their Priestes.

HAuing shifted his handes after a poore sort of the heresie of the Cains, Owlyglasse in his iades pace passeth forth to treat of the heresie of Manicheyes, But I feare he wil yéeld his consorts no better sa∣tisfaction in this place, thē in the other. He saith according to his wonted vaine of railing, that I make no scruple to falsifie Saint Augustine, and to conceale his true report, to infame the Papists with the heresie of the Manicheyes. But sée I pray you the simplicitie of Owlyglasse. I doe not so much as alleadge S. Augustines wordes▪ how then can he say, that I doe fal∣sifie him? Secondly, I do not conceale any part of his mea∣ning, that belongeth to the matter in question▪ other points that were farre from the purpose I had no reason to report, séeing I doe not say, that the Papists are in all points Mani∣cheyes. My words therefore will easily cleare me of both my aduersaries his imputations. The Papists say I, agree with the Manicheyes in diuers points of heresies▪ for as the Manicheyes condemned mariage in their Priests, which for their excellencie they called electos, so likewise doe the Papists in their Monkes, and greater orders of their cleargie. It ap∣peareth therefore, that I doe not falsifie Saint Augustine, as this false and foolish fellow saith. For you sée, and he must néeds confesse, I set not downe his words▪ neither doe I con∣ceale his true report. For that which I say of the electi, or priests of the Manicheyes, is most true, and to be prooued by S. Augustine, which is the reason, that I quote that father in the margent. auditores qui appellantur apud eos saith S. Page  53Augustine speaking of the Manicheyes,*& carnibus vescuntur & agros colunt, & si voluerint, vxores habent, quorum nihil faci∣unt qui vocantur elcti. He saith, the lay people or auditours of the Manicheyes haue wiues, if they will, but the Priestes a∣mong them hue none. In this therefore the Papists sauor of Manicheisme. Further, their Monkes abstaine from flesh, as did the electi of the Manicheyes. Thirdly, they hold, that Christs body may be in many places at once, which S. Au∣gustine disputing against Faustus sheweth, to be a conceit of the Manicheyes. They do also grate vpon diuers other points of Manicheisme, as I doe obiect in my Challenge, and Owly∣glasse séemeth to confesse by his silence: especially if silence be a kind of confession, as it is in cases that lawe and reason doth binde vs to answere. But saith Owlyglasse, why doth he not tll vs out of S. Augustine de haeresibus,*what the here∣sie of the Manicheyes was? as if it were not sufficient to de∣clare, what their heresie was out of other bookes of S. Augu∣stine, and other authors. Doth he beléeue, that because S. Augustine doth not note downe all points, that they are no heresies? But saith he, it appeereth by S. Augustine de haere∣sis. c. 46. that the Manicheyes forbad mariage to all. He saith also, that Papists maintaine no such damnable doctrine▪ but that of the generall prohibition is reproued by S. Augu∣stines wordes before alleadged. Neither is t materiall, that they forbad generation▪ for it is one thing to forbid mariage, and an other to forbid generation, the Popes and popish priests forswearing mariage, and not generation, as appea∣reth plainly by the multitude of their bastards. Beside that, in some things the Papists seeme also with the Manicheyes to condemne generation, allowing publike stewes, and not remedying more vnnaturall abuses, of which no generati∣on ensueth. I hope therefore hereafter Owlyglasse will not charge me, either with falsification, or vniust dealing in this point, the filthinesse of popish priests, and their abstinence from honourable mariage approaching so neare to the filthy errors of the Manicheyes.

Page  54

Sect. V. Of the heresie of the Pepuzians.

HEere our aduersarie spendeth some idle talke about the heresie of the Pepuzians. But if he had but cast his broad eyes on the title of his chapter; hée might haue well perceiued and remembred, that he tooke vpon him to conuince me of some notorius falsification; and how that was the subiect of his chapter, and that all the rest of his dis∣course was idle and impertinent. He sheweth himselfe also to be a notable ideot, to charge me with falsifiyng S. Augus∣tine, when I do neither cite S. Augustines words, nor name him. He was also some what to hasty to charge me, with belying the Papistes, in that I make them like to the Pepuzians. For my words do cleare mee of the first, and the practise of Papists doth iustifie my words in the second. I say, that both Papistes and Pepuzians suffer women to administer baptis∣me. But Saint Augustines words to this point I doe not quote, but only to a former matter concerning the honor by the Pepuzians giuen to Pepuza, as my booke will shewe, and Owliglasse, if he were not owlesighted, might haue seene.

That the Papists are like to Pepuzians (albeit this should not haue béene disputed in this place) it appeareth First, for that as the Pepuzians did honor the towne of Pepuza, as Hie∣rusalē, and the mother Church of all christendome, so doe the Papists honor Rome, and beléeue that sée, to be a Rocke, and a diuine thing. Hanc isti (scilicet Pepuzam) saith Saint Augus∣tine,*diuinum aliquid esse arbitrantes, Hierusalem vocant. The Papists thinke noe lesse of Rome. Secondly both Papistes and Pepuzians suffer wemen to minister baptisme. Thirdly, the Pepuzians had wemen prophetesses. mulieres apud istos saith Epiphanius,*vocantur prophetissae. So likewise the Pa∣pists haue their wemen prophetesses, * as appeareth by Hildi∣gardis, Mechtildis, Brigit, and others. They also call the bles∣sed Virgin Oraculum Prophetarum, and the teacher of the A∣postles. Fourthly, the Pepuzians had wemen Préests. Epis∣copi Page  55 apud ipsos, saith Epiphanius, sunt mulieres. The Papists in this point passe them. For among them a woman was Pope, as is testified by Martin Polonus, Marianus Scotus, Pla∣tina, and diuers others.

Now what saith the falsificator, and grand excoriatour of mens writings to all this? First, he confesseth, that it is most true, that his consorts permit women to baptize. But our Sa∣uiour sent his disciples to baptize, and not any wemen. Nei∣ther did he giue to wemen that power. Further we may not thinke, that wemen may with better right Baptize, then preach. Yet the Apostle, permitteth not a woman to speake in the congregation, * and Epiphanius alleadgeth that place of the Apostle against the Pepuzians. Why then should not Pepuzians and Papists in this case be like? Secondly, he go∣eth about to shew, that the Pepuzians, and Papists are vnlike, and namely for that the Papistes doe permit wemen to baptize only in time of necessitie. And for that the Pepuzians did giue priesthood to wemen. In which two points he would inferre, that there is a mayne difference betwixt Papists & Pepuzi∣ans. But his conclusion is so simple, that it can abide noe touch. For he is an hereticke, that holdeth any pointe con∣demned for heresie, & not those only which do iumpe with he∣retickes in all points, and circumstances. If then the Papists should differ in two, or thrée points from Pepuzians; yet must they néedes sauour of that heresie, in permitting wemen to baptize, and deriuing the succession of Popes from Pope Ioa∣ne, and other particulers before rehersed. Finally he would willingly proue the vnlawfulnes of wemēs baptisme by the practise of our Church. For saith he, the same doctrine is found in the communion booke in the treatise of priuat baptisme: where albeit wemen are nor mentioned, yet for that wemē are then present only, they are expressed. He affirmeth also, that M. Hooker doth defend womens baptisme, & that I must defend it, vnlesse I will change my opinion. But while he goeth a∣bout to excuse his consorts, he runneth himselfe into danger, and like a shamelesse fellow bouldly auoucheth diuers vn∣truthes. For first the practise of the Church of England is against wemens baptisme, and diuers Popish callats haue Page  56 béene punished for attempting to administer that holy sacra∣ment. Secondly, the booke doth expresse no such matter, as Owlyglasse pretendeth, but onely would haue children in ex∣tremitie baptized priuatly, which may be done by the mini∣ster, if the parents and friends of the childe be diligent. Third∣ly, M. Hooker neuer was of that opinion, that the commu∣nion booke allowed priuat baptisme, as Owlygl. impudently affirmeth. Nay, albeit he will not denie such baptisme to be of validitie▪ yet he saith, that such persons as doe baptize in∣fants, being no ministers, doe vnlawfully vsurpe the ministers office. But Owlyglasse alleadging M. Hookers first booke p. 62. for the fift booke sect. 62. seemeth not to haue read the booke, which he quoteth. Finally for my selfe I answere that hee cannot with any deuise make it appeare, that in this point, or any other, I do oppugne, or digresse from the com∣munion booke. Owlyglasse therefore may doe well to bring better stuffe, if he will conuince me of falsification, and to cease to talke of tippets and caps, himselfe hauing as much learning almost in his cap as in his head, and so well deser∣uing a Tiburne tippet for his treacherous Diuinitie.

In the meane while let him put on a paire of spectacles, and he shall sée, that he was much deceiued, where he saith, I doe guilefully quote S. Augustine. For to this point of we∣mens baptisme I quote him not at all.

Sect. VI. Of the heresie of barefooted brethren.

OF Heretikes, that went barefoote, Owlyglasse spea∣keth very nakedly, poorely and barely. If the men he speaketh of, had been like to his discourse, they should not onely haue béen called Nudipedales for their going barefoote, but Adamitae for going naked. He pro∣mised to conuince me of falsification. but here forgetting his argument, he chargeth me for not setting downe S. Augu∣stines words. As if it were a crime, not to set downe imper∣tinent words; or as if all lawyers and diuines, that referre themselues to places not set downe, were to be accused in so Page  57 doing. For the matter it selfe, Owlyglasse cannot take any iust exception vnto my spéech, vnlesse he will deny, that bare∣footed brethren were numbred among heretikes, or that the Franciscanes, and Excalceatae and Capuchins go barefoot. Nei∣ther is it materiall that Augustine c. 64. de haeres. doth ac∣compt these fellowes heretikes, for that they went barefoote vpon a misunderstanding of scriptures, and not for penance. For it is not the misconstruing of places onely, but the verie euill opinion, that heretikes holde, that maketh them here∣tikes. Admit then, that Capuchins, Franciscans and their deare sisters the Excalceatae go barefoote vpon other reasons, then the olde barefooted heretikes; yet in the substance of their opinion, that is in the singularitie of going barefoote, both of them doe well agrée. Vnlesse therefore this masked brother of the Capuchins Owlyglasse can bring better ground of his accusation, he hath no reason on the behalfe of his barefooted brethren and sisters, to complaine of iniurious slander. But contrarywise we haue reason to wish, that sée∣ing he will néeds go masked, he would take a shooe laid aside by some one of his holy barefooted sisters, and make a maske of it to couer his false visage, that no honest man may euer know so impudent and foolish a wrangler.

Sect. VII. Of S. Augustines relation concerning the Priscillianists.

SAint Augustine speaking of the Priscillianists saith, *they disioyned maried folkes for religion sake. And these wordes I quote most truely. why then am I charged by Owlyglasse with falsification? Forsooth saith he, because ye leaue out the wordes following. But if this were a rule to prooue falsification, then would it be pro∣ued, that Bellarmine hath falsified almost al the places, he quo∣teth. for he in most places leaueth out wordes following; yea and sometimes wordes going before, and comming in the middest. To shewe the agréement of Papists and Pris∣cillianists in one point, I leaue out nothing. that they agrée in all points, I doe not affirme. Yet in making sleight ac∣compt Page  58 of othes, they both doe well agrée. And in this point also, wherein our aduersarie pretendeth disagréement, yet they agrée better, then Owlyglasse thinketh. For albeit Pa∣pists in open termes doe not say, mariage is vnlawfull; yet if those, that are maried, liue in the flesh, as is said in a decre∣tale vnder the name of Syricius, and if maried folkes be a state imperfect, and cannot please God, as diuers stifly holde; then by a consequent the Papists condemne mariage. Finally, if that was a propertie of Priscillianists to separate maried folks one from another against the will of either party, then in se∣parating mariages not consummate, the Papists are Priscil∣lianists by the confession of Owlyglasse. They are also in this Priscillianists, that they kéepe maried couples a sunder being once separated by •…nsent, and will not let them come togi∣ther againe, although they much desire it. Of which point I haue discoursed more at large in the chapter going before▪ which may abate his rage in crying out of falsifications and lies, if he be not altogether furious, and beside himselfe.

Sect. VIII. That Infidels sinne in all their morall actions.

OF the Pelagian heresie now lately reuiued by the Papists, I haue spoken already sufficiently in my former treatise chap. 4. I did also deliuer diuers arguments and testimonies in my late Challenge to prooue Papists to be Pelagians, which if Owlyglasse had béene the man he taketh himselte to be, he would haue en∣countred and answered. but he poore ideot had no such stuffe in him. Therefore denying not that Papists and Pelagians agrée well in the definition of sinne, and that they ioyntly holde, that a man may be without sinne, and that both main∣taine that concupiscence is sanctified after baptisme, after a sort, and diuers other points of Pelagianisme, he onely snat∣cheth at thrée or foure places of S. Augustine, and so with a maske on his broade face passeth on to play the Zanni in o∣ther matters. Where I say, that Saint Augustine holdeth a∣gainst the Pelagians, that the Gentiles sinned in all their acti∣ons:Page  59 he saith, I belie S. Augustine, and maliciously peruert the sence and scope of his writing. Afterward he denyeth, that it is Pelagianisme, to holde that Infidels sinne in all their acti∣ons. Againe he saith, that this point is forged by me, and false∣ly fathered vpon S. Augustine. And so he runneth on in a vaine of rayling, led on as it séemeth by his dictates, and not reading the place alleadged. for otherwise he would neuer so impudently haue faced out an vntruth, nor ignorantly de∣nyed that, which is to plainly, and in diuers places of the chapter quoted, by S. Augustine affirmed. And of this I wil make any indifferent man iudge. *Cum non ad suum finem saith S. Augustine, referuntur dona dei, hoc ipso mali his v∣tentes efficiuntur iniusti. He saith, that wicked men vsing Gods gifts, are made sinners and vniust, for that they referre them not to the right ende. And afterward, si gentilis, qui non viuit ex fide, nudum operuerit, periclitantem liberauerit, aegri vulnera fouerit, diuitias honestae amicitiae impenderlt, ad testimonium falsum nec tormentis potuerit impelli, quaero abs te, saith Augustine to Iulian the Pelagian, vtrum haec opera bo∣na bene faciat an male? Si enim quamuis bona, malè tamen fa∣cit, negare non potes eum peccare, qui malè quodlibet facit. He saith plainly, that Gentiles sinne in all their actions, though the act be good. Againe, bonum malè facit, qui infideliter fa∣cit, qui autem malè facit, profectò peccat. Againe he saith, that Infidels sinne in doing that, which of it selfe is good. Hée doth also prooue it out of the Apostles wordes, because, that whatsoeuer is not of faith, is sinne. If then the Archpriest haue any power ouer this rayling fellow; he may doe well to giue him some discipline, that hath maintained Iulian the Pelgians opinion, and denyed S. Augustines doctrine, and like an ignorant dolt crieth out, that I haue forged these words and fathered them vpon S. Augustine.

But saith he, S. Augustine doth not note this error in the Pelagians, viz. that Infidels sinne in all their actions, but repro∣ueth the heretike for a different matter, to wit, for maintaining that Infidels had true vertues. and to this point he reporteth a sentence out of S. Augustin. But therin he doth also bewray his ignorance. for as S. Augustine disputeth this point in Page  60 the beginning of the chapter, so he disputeth the other in the latter ende of the same chapter. But either our aduersarie had not so much learning, as to vnderstand latin, or els he tooke this quotation out of Bellarmine, or out of his dictates. Againe, our aduersarie sheweth himselfe to be blinde, not séeing, that, what I say, doth follow of that, which himselfe alleadgeth. For if Infidels haue no true vertues; then doe they sinne in all their actions, vnlesse our aduersary wil haue their morall actions neither to be good, nor bad. Further∣more, if the will of Infidels be like an euill trée; then can it bring foorth nothing, but euill fruit. And if whatsoeuer is not of faith, is sinne; then if the actions of Infidels doe not proceede of faith; it followeth that Infidels sinne in all their morall actions. and this is the conclusion of S. Augustine. Was not Owlyglasse then a wise fellow trow you, to auouch an vntruth so impudently? and doe you not take him to be a simple disputer, that alleadgeth words, that conuince him of folly, ignorance, and pelagianisme?

Sect. IX. That man is not able now in this frailtie of nature to performe the lawe of God perfectly.

THis point hath also heretofore béen debated. it re∣steth therefore now, that we examine onely Saint Augustines opinion herein. I say, that this is the Pelagians argument to prooue, that man is able to performe the lawe of God, because that God would not, say they, commaund things impossible. And this I prooue by Saint Augustines wordes lib. de gratia. c. 16. Magnum ali∣quid se scire putant Pelagiani, quando dicunt, non iuberet de∣us, quod sciret ab homine non posse perfici. His words are cleare, that the Pelagians vsed so to say, and argue, as I haue set downe. What is then the reason, that moued my aduer∣sarie to charge me with falsification? Forsooth saith he, be∣cause he leaueth out these wordes following of S. Augustine, quis haec nesciat? As if euery one, that leaueth out wordes following, were to be charged with falsification. Beside Page  61 that, albeit words following were to be rehearsed; yet pur∣posing only to rehearse the argument of the Pelagians, I had no reason to ioyne Saint Augustines words with theirs. But saith Owlyglasse, S. Augustine eprehendeth not the Pelagi∣ans for bringing this reason. But therein he sheweth his ig∣norance, if not malice. For what reasonable man cold euer haue imagined, that S. Augustine disputing against the Pe∣lagians did either allow their opinions, or their grounds? But if a man cold haue imagined so, yet S. Augustines wordes that follow, would haue taught him, that he disputeth against the Pelagians argument. For saith he, God doth command vs thinges, that wee cannot doe, that we may learne, what to aske of him. For faith by prayer obtaineth that, which the law com∣mandeth. His words are: ideo iubet aliqua, quae non possu∣mus, vt nouerimus quid ab eo petere debeamus.*ipsa est enim fides, quae orando impetrat, quod lex postulat. Now what can be more contrary then that, which the Pelagians say Viz. That God would not commande, if man were not able to per∣forme; And that which S. Augustine teacheth, Viz. That God commandeth vs some thinges, that we cannot doe?

Furthermore if man were able to performe the whole law, because God would not els commande it; then were it possi∣ble, for iust men to liue without all sinne; which Saint Augu∣stine in his bookes against Pelagius, and where he setteth downe the Pelagians heresies, doth note to be flatte Pelagia∣nisme. with Saint Augustine also doth Herome accorde. Fate∣beris saith Critobulus,* that susteineth the part of the Pelagi∣ans, eos qui Christi baptisma consecuti sunt, non habere pecca∣tum, &, si absque peccato sunt, iustos esse. That is thou wilt, I trow, acknowlege, that such as are baptized haue noe sinne, and if they haue noe sinne, that they be iust. But if man be able to kéepe Gods commandements; then may he also be perfect∣ly iust, and without sinne▪ our aduersarie therefore hath no reason in this place to call me, a notable falsifier. But euery indifferent man may sée, that it standeth him vpon to cleare himselfe of Pelagianisme▪ he must also vnderstand Saint Au∣gustine better, before he dispute of his doctrine of freewill, which is, so repugnant to schoole diuinity, as nothing more. Page  62Thomas Brandwardine doubted not to charge the schoolemen with flat Pelagianisme.*

Sect. X. Of the subiection of sinne to our will.

IN my challenge pag. 59 I alleadge these words of the Pelagians, that we haue freewill strong, and firme, not to sinne. And this I confirme by Saint Augus∣tine, who ascribeth these words to the Pelagians. But my aduersarie being but a nouice in Saint Augus∣tines writings was not able to find them, and finding them not, or not well discerning them, sée I pray you, how rudely hée commeth vpon me. False it is, saith he, that Saint Augus∣tine holdeth it to be Pelagianisme to say, that we haue freewill: or that sinne is subiect to our will. He addeth of his owne these words, that we haue freewill, as if I had simply denied all frée∣dome of will, or as if that were here the question betwixte vs. And afterward he saith, the place which he quoteth, find I cannot, and therefore doe confidently challenge him of play∣ing false vnder borde. But sée, I pray you, the blindnesse and impudence of this paltrie companion▪ the words, which I cite, are found in Saint Augustines first booke de gratia christi contra Pelagium & Celestium. c. 28. Cum tam forte, in∣quit (scilicet Pelagius) tam firmum ad non peccandum liberum in nobis habeamus arbitrium, quod generaliter naturae huma∣nae creator inseruit, rursus pro eius inaestimabili benignitate quotidiano munimur auxilio. Seeing wee haue so strong and firme freewill in vs, not to sinne, which God the creatour gene∣rally hath inserted into mans nature, againe of his inestimable bounty we are strengthened by his dayly helpe. Hereby it appeareth, that Pelagius taught, that sinne was so subiect to our will, as that thereby we were able to auoyde sinne. And that this is oppugned by Saint Augustine, it appeareth in the words following. quid opus est saith he, hoc auxilio, si tam forte ac firmum est ad non peccandum liberum arbitrium? I hope therefore the Papists will be ashamed of their champi∣on, the ground of whose bragges is ignorance.

Page  63

But saith Owlyglasse, Saint Augustine neuer denied free∣will. As if I had sayd, that he did, or else because wée haue fréewill after a sort, that therefore we haue fréewil and pow∣er not to sinne. This the poore ideot imagineth: and there∣fore he produceth diuers places out of S. Augustine. But I do not speake one word against fréewill, but of the strength of fréewill, to hold sinne in subiection, and to abstaine from sinne and that this is playne Pelagianisme, it appeareth both by Saint Augustine in the place already quoted, and by S. Iero∣me lib. 3. contra Pelagianos. Nay our aduersary denying, that my words are to be found in Saint Augustine, himselfe afterward vnawares pag. 73. doth cite them out of S. Augu∣gustine: shewing himselfe therein a vaine, and ignorant brabler.

Finally Owlyglasse by producing diuers places out of S. Augustine, where freewill is mentioned, imagineth that in the controuersie of fréewill, he ioyneth with the Papists, and is contrary to vs. But that he shall neuer be able to proue. nay he denieth, that man hath such a strength of fréewill, that he is able to abstaine from sin▪ which notwithstanding both Pelagians and Papists hold▪ we also deny not, but God by his grace is able of vnwilling to make vs willing, and willingly to walke in the wayes of his commādements; and that by his owne fréewill, man doth commit sinne, which is the sum of S. Augustines doctrine of fréewill, of which I may say fréely, that Owlyglasse is ignorant. But what néede I to stand longer vpon this point, séeing the question is not here of fréewill, or the power thereof, but whether I alledged Saint Augustine truely or not? what néede I, then to make any longe discourse of that which I haue already sufficien∣ly cleared?

Sect. XI. Of the representing of God by images.

IN this section Owlyglasse doth charge me with no lesse fault, then iniurious slaunder,*& malicious falsifi¦cation And why? forsooth because I say, that the men of Trent do permit the diuinitie to be figured and af∣firme, Page  64that this doth sauor of the heresie of the Anthropomor∣phites. Let vs therefore consider the words of the assembly of Trent, and the practise of papists in this point. If it shall happen sometime,* say the men of Trent, that the histories of scripture for the profit of the people, be expressed in imagery or pictures, let the people bee taught, that the diuinitie is not therefore figured, as if it might be seene with the eyes of the body, or expressed with figures▪ the words in latin are, quod si aliquando historias & narationes sacrae scripturae, cum id in∣doctae plebi expediet, figurari contigerit, doceatur populus, non propterea diuinitatem figurari, quasi oculis conspici, aut fi∣guris exprimi possit. So it is apparent, that they forbid not God the father, and the holy ghost also to be expressed in ima∣gery, or painted, when any history or narration of scripture requireth the same, but the people must be taught, what to vnderstand by these images and pictures. * The Romane ca∣techisme likewise teacheth, that the diuine maiestie is iniu∣ried, if any shall endeuour by art to expresse the forme of the diuinitie, as if that might with eyes be seene, or colours and i∣mages expressed. Which sheweth, that the papists forbid not men to make the image of God the Father in the forme of an olde man, or the holy Ghost in the similitude of a doue, but to beléeue, that the diuinitie it selfe may be figured with colours, or séene. Likewise, the cōmon practise of the church of Rome is, to figure the person of the Father in the image of an olde man, and the holy Ghost in the likenesse of a doue. If then God the Father be like an olde man, or the holy ghost like a doue; then doe the Papists sauour of the heresie of the Anthropomorphites. If these images doe not resemble God the Father, and God the holy Ghost; why are they permit∣ted? Finally, why doe papists paint and graue the holy tri∣nitie, and to the image thereof set vp lightes, and giue the worship, that is due to God himselfe? The rehearsall there∣fore of the act of the assembly of Trent, and the doctrine of the Romish Catechisme, doth rather intricate Owlyglasse, then acquit him. The same certes doth clearly discharge me from my aduersaries clamorous accusation.

Page  65

Sect. XII. Of the definition of a Romish Catholike.

THat the Romish religion, as it differeth from that religion, which we professe in England, is nothing but a packe of impostures, lies, fables, and super∣stitious toyes, I shall haue occasion to declare at full in some other treatise. But least any might thinke, that I wronged the sée of Rome, from whom all these abuses are deriued; I would pray euerie man, that hath skill and ley∣sure with indifferencie to reade the Legends of the Romish Church, the Rubtikes of the masse, their rituall and ceremo∣niall bookes, their treatises of the Popes authoritie, the fa∣bulous lies of Caesar Baronius, that filthy lying Cardinall, and such like testimonials as they prooue their religion by. Now we will onely talke of the definition of a Romish Ca∣tholike, that euery man may sée, what a bare fellowe he is, and how little religion and honesty he hath. I say that Bel∣larmine teacheth, that he is a good Romish Catholike, and a true member of the Romish church, that professeth the Romish faith, and communicateth with the Romanistes in their sacra∣ments, and is obedient to the Pope: yea although he haue nei∣ther inward faith, nor charitie, nor other inward vertue. And thereupon I conclude, that the Papists are like to the Euno∣mians, that taught, that so a man were of their religion, it skil∣led not, what sinnes he committed. That Bellarmine so tea∣cheth, it is apparant by his words in his second chapter de ecclesia militanti. Nostra sententia est, saith he, ecclesiam v∣nam esse, & non duas, & illam vnam & veram, coetum homi∣num eiusdem christianae fidei professione, & eorundem sacra∣mentorum communione colligatum sub regimine legitimo∣rum pastorum, ac praecipuè vnius Christi in terris vicarij Roma∣ni pontificis. And afterward he saith: Non putamus requiri vl∣lam internam virtutem, sed tantum externam professionem fi∣dei, & sacramentorum communionem: scilicet, vt aliquis ali∣quo modo dici possit pars verae ecclesiae, de qua scripturae lo∣quuntur. If then he be a good Romane catholike, of whom, Page  66 the true definition of a Romane catholike may be affirmed, then may all wicked and damnable heretikes be true Ro∣mish catholikes, if they professe the Romish faith, and com∣municate with the Romanists in sacraments, and submit themselues to the Pope. But saith Owlyglasse Bellarmine saith not, that such as want inward verrues, are good Catho∣likes, but onely, that they are true members of the Church. As if the true members of Christs church were not good ca∣tholikes; or as if he were not a good citizen, of whom the de∣finition of a citizen may truly be affirmed: and as if he could not be a good, and true pope, that is no good man. Of which point our aduersarie must beware, least he touch too rudely the sores of his holy father, and of a pope make no pope.

He saith further, that this obiection of Eunomianisme is ra∣ther to be charged vpon Lutherans and Caluinists (for so this papal swad doth call Christians) and vpon M. Willet, they giuing excessiue prerogatiues to faith, and such as teach, that a true faith cannot be lost. But albeit he take his pleasure to rayle vpon me; yet should he forbeare to wrong those, that are either at rest, or at the least neuer wronged him. And in this place hauing his hands so full of me, he might well haue spared to contend with others, being no match for any. To his charge I answere, that Eunomius his heresies touch vs nothing. For neither doe we déeme them good Christians, as Eunomius did, that haue no inward faith, nor workes; nor did Eunomius talke of the faith of Christ Iesus, as we doe, when we say the iust shall liue by faith, but of his owne new deuised faith. Owlyglasse therefore hath no reason, for any thing done by me, to crie out, that Bellarmine is abused, and his words falsified; nor to charge vs with Eunomius his he∣resie. But his consorts will, and iustly may thinke him an idle fellow, if he can no better either cleare himselfe, or con∣uince others, especially taking vpon him to doe both.

Page  67

Sect. XIII. Of second mariages, and whether the Papists dislike them, or no.

THe last place out of which our aduersarie goeth about to fasten an imputation of falsification vpon me is, for that I say, that the Papists like to the Montanists dislike second mariages, and denie to blesse them, accounting these mariages not so holy a sacrament, as the first. And this he saith is a slan∣der, for that Papists doe not mislike second mariages. But here, as before oftentimes, he forgetteth the subiect of his dis∣course▪ for he should haue conuinced me of falsifications, if he had remembred, what he had in hand. And yet in this place he doth not so much as touch any place by me allead∣ged, or supposed to be falsified. Onely to conuince himselfe of notorious ignorance, he hath quoted a marginall note be∣longing not to this, but to the next place (as he might haue perceiued by the direction, if hee had not béene blinde) and hath set the same ouer against my words in this place, as if I had proued my sayings of the Montanistes by Damascens chapter beginning, Christianocategori, in his booke de haere∣sibus. such a learned aduersarie haue we to deale withall.

I answere further, that I doe not slander the Papists, as my aduersarie chargeth me, when I say, that they sauour of Montanisme in disliking second mariages▪ for their counter∣feit canons doe pronounce them punishable by excommuni∣cation, that marie more then once. De his qui frequenter vx∣ores ducunt, say they, & de his, quae saepius nubunt,*tempus quidem poenitentiae his manifestum constitutum est. And af∣terward: Cum praecipiatur, say they, *secundis nuptijs poeni∣tentiam tribuere, quis erit presbyter qui propter conuiuium illis consentiat nuptijs. It appeareth therefore that they enioy∣ned penance for second mariages, as for a grieuous crime: and forbad the priest, to be present at the feast of such mari∣ed folkes. Beside that, they doe not allow, that a Priest shall blesse the second mariage: nor doe they accompt the second Page  68 mariage to be so holy a sacrament, as the first. Finally, Sy∣ricius calleth maried folkes,* and defenders of priests maria∣ges followers of lustes, and teachers of vices, sectatores libidi∣num,*& praeceptores vitiorum. And Innocentius, as if they were vnholy, and could not please God, and were in the flesh, excludeth maried folkes from the ministerie of the altar. Which sheweth, that they sauour of Montanisme, if not worse.

But saith Owlyglasse, if it be Montanisme, to denie second mariages to be so holy a sacrament, as the first, what then be they, that denie first and second mariages, to be any sacrament at all? But this is a balde kinde of disputing, to propose a mans argument, otherwise, then he frameth it. We doe not say, they be Montanists in denying the second mariages to be a sacrament, but that they sauour of Montanisme in disliking second mariages, and preferring the first before the second. Of which that is an argument, that the Papists accompt not the second mariage so holy a sacrament, as the first.

Secondly, he denyeth that Papists mislike second mari∣ages▪ but the Canon de his 31. q. 1. doth testifie against him.

He saith thirdly, that the blessing of the first mariage re∣maineth▪ and that therefore they blesse not second mariages, because they had blessed them before. But howe doth the blessing of the first mariage remaine, when a maid is maried to a widowe? Further, the Canon de his 31. q. 1. sheweth, that second mariages were punished with penance, and priests forbidden to be present at the feast, as if such mariages were impure, and vnlawfull.

He would fourthly prooue, that second mariages are not to be blessed by the testimonie of S. Augustine serm. 243. de tempore, and the 7. Canon of the councell of Neocaesarea. But after his cogging manner he belyeth S. Augustine, who speaketh nothing of the blessing of the second mariages, nor of the blessing of the priest, but rather of Gods blessing de∣nyed to such, as kéepe first concubines, and then marie. The councell of Neocaesarea hath nothing of the blessing of second mariages, but enioyneth priests to abstaine from such mari∣age Page  69 feasts, and condemneth them as vnlawfull▪ so that, I doubt, Owlyglasse will hardly, without some slie distinction, be able to defend this councels act.

He saith finally, that Montanists were not counted heretiks for not blessing the second mariages, nor for reputing second mariages not so holy a sacrament as the first, as I would make my reader beleeue, but for condemning them vtterly as wicked and vnlawfull. He beareth his reader also in hand, that I doe maliciously suppresse the authours words, to the ende, not to haue my iugling espied. But notwithstanding his iugling, and lying, he cannot so escape the note of Montanisme. For first I doe not argue the Papists to be Montanists for the rea∣son surmised by Owlyglasse, but for their dislike of second mariages▪ and this dislike I prooue by those, which he men∣tioneth, and by other arguments. Secondly, if such as con∣demne second mariages, as sinfull, be Montanists, then must they either blot out the Canon, de his 31. q. 1. or confesse themselues Montanists. The glosse is driuen to poore shiftes to salue the hurt of this Canon; and yet cannot ridde his hands with any honesty of the matter. Thirdly, it is a ri∣diculous point, to charge me with suppressing an authours wordes, when I doe not so much, as intend to name an au∣thour, nor ayme at any mans words. Owlyglasse therefore might doe himselfe more credite to leaue his lewd termes of iugling, and slandring, and such like, and bestow them on the massepriests his consorts, whose whole practise is nothing els almost, but cogging, lying, and iugling, and most shame∣full dealing.

And thus all that smoake, which our aduersarie first rai∣sed with his fierie and turbulent exclamations, is vanished away, and all doubt either of supposed vntruthes, or falsifi∣cations cleared in the iudgement of all indifferent readers, and by the confession of the aduersarie also, vnlesse he be a∣ble to maintaine the quarell which he hath begun, and to put away my answere to his former exceptions. If then hee should be taken halting in schooles, as he hath béene in this writing; I thinke he would as soone make a simple ende of himselfe, as he hath made a poore dispatch of his cause.

Page  70

CHAP. III. An answere to the detectors idle obseruations.

IT is a common rule well knowne to Logicians, that the conclusion doth follow the weaker part of the premis∣ses. Philosophers also hold, that by common course of nature, nothing can be made of nothing. If then the premisses, out of which our aduer∣sarie goeth about to deduce certaine conclusions and corollaries, be false, weake and very euill faitured; it is a great presumption, that his abortiue, and odious conclusions and corollaries are like to his former propositions, false, euil fauoured, foolish and slanderous. And if his former accusations concerning vntruths and falsifications, be nothing; it is very probable, that these idle fancies, which he calleth obseruations are no∣thing, if not lesse then nothing, and that they are like to ca∣stles built in the ayre, and foolish conceits of a man of distem∣pered humours. The which albeit the reader may well vn∣derstand by himselfe, and by my former answere, wherein all his odious slanders are well rebated; yet least Owlyglasse should runne madde by conceit of his owne prowesse, I am determined for euery indifferent mans further satisfaction, to procéede forward, and to yéeld an answere to his vaine, weake, and absurd obseruations and conclusions.

* First he obserueth, that a filthy fardle of fowle lies, and cor∣ruptions is contained in my whole booke, when one Chapter of my Challenge hath affoorded so many. But this filthy rai∣ling Page  71 compagnion compounded of a fardle of fooleries and im∣postures, and sauouring like the bottome of an olde broken lampe, of the Popes greasie superstitions, hath no reason to charge me with lies or corruptions, vnlesse he could con∣uince me, and iustifie his exceptions concerning matters sup∣posed false and forged. Whether he be able to conuince me or no, I appeale to the indifferent examination of both our discourses. I doe therefore retort this argument vpon Ow∣lyglasses masked visage thus. If where our aduersarie thought to finde most matter of aduantage, he hath wearied himselfe in his vaine cauilling course, and yet neither found vntruth, nor corruption, but rather contrariwise plaine and honest dealing; I hope all moderat papists (for of others I make no question) will neither suspect my dealing without cause, nor beléeue such vaine clamorous compagnions with∣out due proofe. Againe if Owlyglasse with his broade eyes, notwithstanding all his diligence and endeuour, could not finde in so many authorities, as I alleadged, any iust subiect of sclander; it is a great argument, that he could not well take exception to the rest of my discourse. For it is a méere simplicitie to thinke, that he would haue spared me in any thing, if he could haue taken me at any aduantage, sée∣ing he hath cried out so lowde vpon no aduantage, and am∣plified his most idle and friuolous conceits, being nothing but the flatuous blaste of a frantike massepriest. Let all Pa∣pists therefore beware, how they trust such clamorous and slipperie companions.

He noteth further, that I would be loth to haue these points examined before any learned auditorie. But how much he is abused, and presumeth to abuse his reader, may well appeare by my former answere, where not onely before a fewe, but before the whole world I haue answered all his vaine obie∣ctions.

I doe also further promise him, God sending me life, ne∣uer to faile him, as oft as he shal dare to come forth against me in like triall. But, I beléeue, he poore ideot will not an∣swere my obiections▪ for hee hath already fled out of the listes, and fayled to answere such falsifications, as I haue in Page  72 my answere to Parsons relation obiected against him, and his consorts.

He doth in the ende of this obseruation againe desire me, to procure him a free conference. but what shall that néede, when I yéeld him more, then is desired? Notwithstanding, if he thinke to winne any thing at my hands by conference; let him procure me first a frée conference at Paris and Sala∣manca; and I doe promise to procure him a frée conference at Cambridge and Oxford. In the meane while I pray him, I prouoke him, I by all means vrge him to answere in wri∣ting such lies, as I auerre his consorts to haue made, and to cleare the Church of Rome, and her principall proctors of such notorious falsifications, as I say they haue committed. If he be not able, as indéede I take him to be altogither vn∣sufficient, let Robert Parsons, Frier Garnet, or the Archpriest answere, and maintaine the quarrell which this idle com∣pagnion hath begun. And let them set their names to their writings, and come foorth with bare faces, that wee may know, what they are we deale with, and not as hitherto, fight with N.D.E.O. and such like hollowe fellowes, and meere shadowes. If not, let them assure themselues; I wil by publike writing discouer such a packe of impostures, lies, falsifications, villanies, and treasons committed by Rob. Par∣sons and his consorts, that they shall wish Owlyglasse han∣ged, that first prouoked me, and beganne this quarrell. I will also make it knowne, that they are so guiltie, that they cannot answere.

His second obseruation is, that no credit is to bee giuen vnto me concerning matter of fact. because in matters of faith and learning, as he saith, I make no scruple to corrupt, and vse broad falsification. But his collection is so childish, and fop∣pish that his owne clients, if they list, may sée, that he know∣eth not what concerneth fact, and what concerneth faith and learning, that distingusheth learning from matter of fact (as if no learning were required of Ro. Parsons to discusse matters of fact) and would make fith and learning both one (as if his consorts, that take themselues to be learned, were also faithfull christians) and teacheth, that the controuersie con∣cerning Page  73falsifications and vntruthes obiected by him, toucheth faith and not fact, as if we did not as well contend about mat∣ter of fact, as faith in this idle quarell begonne by our aduer∣sarie, and wherein the state of the mayne controuersie is, whether I haue spoken vntruth or not, and whether I haue falsified any authors alledged by me, or not.

Secondly if no credit be giuen to those, that tell lyes and falsifie authors, as Owlyglasse affirmeth; then by his sentence we are not to beléeue, either the pope of Rōe. or his agents, ye most notorius lyers & falsifirrs yt euer the world sustained. A∣gaine if no credit be to be giuē vnto my discourse concerning ye packing & trechery of his consorts, why doth he not answere me, and conuince mee of vntruth? And what reason hath he to desire his readers, not to beleeue that, which him∣selfe is not able to controule? Is not such a bald compagni∣on ashamed, to take to him as much authority as the Pope. that all the generation of antichriste is to beleeue vpon his owne bare word?

Thirdly if all his idle obiectiōs concerning pretended cor∣ruptions and falsifications he so cleared, as that I looke for no more answere of so nastie a disputer as this Owlyglasse is; then it can be no credit for him to cry so loud, or to vse these odious and slaundrous termes of corruptions. and falsificatiōs, but he ought rather to looke downe vpon his owne, and his consorts filthy factes, then to pinche at others mēs faultes.

Fourthly if the papistes his clients be so cleare, as he ma∣keth them, why doth he not answere for them playnly and honestly refuting euery point of my charge? If they be guil∣tie why doth he not rayle a spirt at Rob. Parsons, that so foolishly brought them forth to this triall, and there left them to speake for themselues?

Fifthly, if he list not to excuse any Papist for the cariage of his life, as he confesseth, what reason hath he to blame me if I vpon so iust occasions giuen me by that rinegat, and false traytor Rob Parsons haue toulde them some parte of their faultes?

Sixtly if he will not haue my verdict admitted against his clients, though conuinced by playne euidence & witnesse, he Page  74 hath no reason to require, that the verdict of Robert Parsons a most notorious and infamous libeller, and a knowne and professed traytor, and an infamous person conuicted by his owne wicked and treasonable writings, and by the testimo∣ny of his owne consorts, or the accusations of such libellers, as Owlyglasse and such worthlesse and namelesse fellowes should be admitted or receiued. Againe if he wil haue nothing to be affirmed without authenticall testimony & proofe; then must he and his malicious mates forbeare to send forth so many vaine and fabulous pamphlets.

7. Further if hee charge me hereafter with wilfull and witting falsification, as he sticketh not very boldly and often to doe; then must he proue first falsification, then this quality of wilfull knowledge: wherof hytherto he hath done neither againe, if I obiect that to him which he cannot deny; then modesty would require, that he should confesse; & shame force him not to defend any more matters knowne notori∣ously to be false.

8. If hee take to himselfe and his consorts the name of Catholike Church, and will néedes charge me with a setled malice, and desperat resolution against the Catholike Church, he must proue two thinges. First that Popish religion is the ancient catholike religion; and next, that I oppugne the ca∣tholike faith. Vnles he doe this, his reader will take him for a lewd begging compagnion, that taketh that for granted, that is in controuersie, and we must accompt him for a paltry fel∣lowe, that is not able to answere our arguments, where∣by we proue that Popish religion, which we refuse, is neither catholike, nor ancient.

9. If boldly and falsely he will denie that our faith hath had continuance and succession from Christs time, and challeng both to himselfe; he must then deny, that the faith taught in the Apostles créede, and established in the fowre first general counsels, and contained and grounded vpon the holy canonicall scriptures, hath alwayes continued since Christs time, and hath had continuall succession vntill our dayes. And to prooue the Popish faith, he must shew, that the Apostles taught, and that the holy fathers beléeued, First that Page  75 Christ had a body inuisible and impalpable, and that might be in heauen and earth and many distant places all at one time. secondly, that Christs body did not fill the place where∣in it was. 3. That accidentes may subsist without foun∣dation, or subiect. 4, that préestes may celebrate masse without communion. 5, that the préestes may take away the cuppe of the newe testament from Gods people. 6, that christians are to worship the crosse, and the sacrament with Latria, or diuine worship. 7, that the préest doth offer vp the true body and bloud of Christ to God the Father for the sinnes of quicke and dead. 8, that christians are iustified by greasing, which they call extreme vnction and by all other Romish sacraments. 9, that the Diuell is coniured out by the blasphemous Romish exorcismes. 10. that the pope is head and monarch of the Church. 11, that it is sinne to eate flesh vpon imbre dayes. 12, that the popes decrées are the foundation of the faith, and other such like points of popish doctrine,

10. If hee, be not able really, and playnly either to iustifie his owne cause, or to disproue ours; as he walketh by night himselfe, so he may do well to keepe his conceits secret, and to talke of them by night rather then by day. credit he can winne none by his vaine babling, rayling or lying.

Finally, either let him acquit himselfe like a braue fel∣low, or els desist from his odious termes, of odious stuffe, paued faces, desperat dealing, treachery, legerdermain;*false packing, crafty conueyance, filthie fardle of fowle lyes, and such like. And let him not thinke, that he shall winne any thing with such courses. For nothing can be deuised more odious and desperate, then the cause of the wicked préestes of Baal. Neither did euer any sect vse more cogging, iugling, or lewd impostures, then the Papistes. to conclude this point, nothing is more easie, thē to declaime against the Pope, and the préestes of Baal, and their impostures, fraudes, vilenyes, superstitions, trecheries, blasphemies, and all their abomi∣nations. I would therefore aduise this paltry fellow to be∣ware▪ that he giue me not iust occasion to take the like course against his consorts. I assure him, I shall make all the Page  76 packe of them infamous to posteritie.

In the second obseruation he saith further, that hee will touch one lye of mine, and that he saith, is knowne to be one, both to Spayne and Italy. But vnlesse Spayne and Italy doe vnderstand English in which toung I wrote, it can hardly be knowne to these two countries; vnlesse by Spayne and Ita∣ly he vnderstand bastardly and vnnatural rinegat English, which are either Italianated, or turned Turke or Spanish, beside that it must néeds be a strangelye, that hath filled two so great contries, and not vnlike their phantasticall corpus domini, that is really in Spayne and Italy and euery altar, as the Papish fansie, at one time. Let vs therefore heare him tell this wondrous lye, and by his testimony the only lye of all my booke set out against these lying and traytorous war∣deword,* framed by Robert Parsons. He saith, that I affirme, that Cardinall Allen was in the Spanish armado (he should say armada) in the yeare 1588, and that I repeat it diuers times, and namely (as he quoteth in the margent) reply. p. 61. p. 98. &. 110. But what if I did not once name the Spanish armada, when I talke of Allans comming against his contry? was not this lying companion armed with a Vizor of impudency, where he talketh of lying, to lye so grossely? I hope his best frends will not deny it▪ well then let vs sée what my words are, that Owlyglasse taketh hold on. I say in my reply. p. 62. that an∣no 1588. diuers rinegat English, and among the rest Cardinall Allen came with the Spaniardes to fight against their countrie. I say againe pag. 98. that Cardinall came with the Spaniardes anno. 1588. With fire and sword to destroy this lande. In my challenge p. 110. I say, cardinall Allen, and not so little as a hun∣dred preistes came with the Spanish army. And out of these words he gathereth, that I say, he was in the spanish armada but he was blind, that could not sée, that there is great diffe∣rence betwixt an army, and an armada, that signifieth a fléete; betwixt the Spanish forces, and the Spanish fléete. And a great wonder it is, that an hispaniolized english masse préest should no better vnderstand, either spanish or English. Although then, it were true, yt Cardinall Allen was not in the fléete: yet was he to come with the Spanish Armie. Neither is there Page  77 any vntruth in my wordes, as appeareth by the testimony of Allen himselfe in his wicked libell, to the nobilitie and peo∣ple of England and Ireland, where he writeth thus. *Thus much my good Lords and deare friends, I haue thought good to forewarne you, of the whole cause of these present sacred warres, and of his holinesse, and Catholike maiesties sincere in∣tention therein, & both their incomparable affections towards our nation: whereof I could giue you farre more comfortable intelligence, if I were personally present with you, as I trust I shall be verie shortly. For that is fully meant by his holinesse, and by his maiestie, and of me so much desired, that euerie short day seemeth a long yeare, till I enioy you in our Lord. Note I pray you, that by the Popes speciall appointment and the king of Spaines good liking, that vnnaturall Cardinal was to come with the Spanish army against his countrey. Note also, how much this traytor desired this inuasion, and howe that he thought euery short day a yeare, vntill it was ac∣complished.

He saith also, that the Pope preferred him to a high functi∣on, intending to send him, as his legat with full commission and commandement to treate, and deale from time to time, as well with the states of the Realme, as with his holinesse and the kings maiestie for the sweeter managing of this godly, and great affaire. Doe you not sée, and is it not plaine by the Car∣dinals owne confession, that this swéete Cardinall was ap∣pointed a principall commander in that swéete action, wher∣in he swéetly intended to cut our throates? And yet this sowre varlet in sowre termes giueth me the lie, for making him one of these inuadors, that meant to destroy this our na∣tiue countrey, which all honest men (of which Owlyglasse is none) with all their power ought to defend against such trai∣tors, as Allen was. But saith Owlyglasse, Card. Allen was neuer out of Italy, but eyther at Rome, or at Grotta Ferata. Suppose he were not, yet might he be of the party, and so farre engaged, as I related▪ for the Spanish forces and ar∣my was not then drawne togither, but part was in the lowe countries, and France, and no small parts yet remaining in Italy and Spaine. And certes if the Cardinal was not come in Page  78 person to the army; yet was he of the army, and to come with it, as appeareth, not onely by his owne wordes but al∣so by the testimony of many others, that well knew it, and in not comming, he was to be taken as a desertor, and so to be punished. But yt he that was in the way towards England, and when he heard of the discomfiture of the Spanish fleete, turned aside to wéepe at Grotta Ferrata, deseruing rather to be strangled as a traytor in Cauea Ferrata, then to take the fresh ayre at Grotta Ferrata, if that were materiall, it will be verified by diuers priests, if they be asked on their othes. Why any man should beléeue this lying compagnion, that speaketh without proofe or probabilitie; there is neither co∣lour, nor cause.

He excepteth also against that, which I say of the number of Priests, that were likewise to come with the Spanish ar∣my, and thinketh that a hundred Priests could not then bee found; there being then but two Seminaries, Rome, and Rhemes, and not aboue fiftie in both. But he should be an e∣loquent fellow, that could perswade me to beléeue that lying mate without all proofe. Why I should beleeue the contrary I can alleadge good reasons. For first, this being the ende of the erection of the Seminaries, to reduce England vn∣derneath the Popes yoke; we are not to doubt, but that all the English of the Seminaries should haue béene emploi∣ed in that action, and the whole sinke of treason let out.

Secondly, albeit in the Seminaries there were not so ma∣ny Priests to be found; yet might that number haue béene filled vp by diuers other priests, that liued here and there dispersed. Her Maiesty hauing dismissed and banished a∣boue fiftie priests, that deserued death by her lawes rather then banishment, not past two or thrée yeares before. These therefore and others should haue come into England. Nei∣ther would that barking curre Stapleton haue fayled, if he could haue séene opportunitie to hurt those, against which he had so long barked. Thirdly, diuers priests now in Englād te∣stifie, that many priests were to come with the Spanish for∣ces. Finally, Allen in his wicked libell reporteth, that priests came with the Spanish forces to serue euerie mans Page  79 spirituall necessities. But how could that be, vnlesse the num∣ber were competent? Among the rest I am enformed, that R. Parsons should haue come with his assistants, and whole councell of reformation, and that to auoide idlenesse in the meane time he holpe to write and publish the most wicked declaration of Sixtus quintus against her Maiestie. It may be also, Owlyglasse had an ore, if not in the fléete, yet in the army, or els was in England to attend the comming of it. Let him therefore thanke God, that he is not sought out, and punished as a traytor, that endeuoureth to plead the cause of traytors. And let all indifferent men iudge, whether I haue not said truely, and he most falsely, both concerning Allen, and the Priests.

The third obseruation, as he saith, is, that my deali•… doth declare the weakenesse of the cause I maintaine, the little conscience I possesse, and small learning I am maister of. For so it pleaseth our great maister Owlyglasse in a pang of po∣pish zeale to rayle. And his reasons are, for that a good cause needeth not the helpe of lies, and a good conscience will not be strained beyond the limits of truth, and sinceritie,*nor pare nor pole the venerable sentences of antiquitie, nor a man of learning frame such arguments, as flie ouer his aduersaries, and may be driuen backe vpon his owne head. And this he spea∣keth standing vpon his tiptoes, and looking vpon himselfe very prowdly, and verily beléeuing, that he hath spoken ve∣ry brauely, and almost eloquently. But if he had better loo∣ked vpon himselfe, his conscience, and cause; he would haue extended more fauour to vs his poore friends, himselfe being a sot of 24. carats, and deuoid of all learning and consci∣ence, hauing giuen proofe of his learning in his miserable de∣tection, and hauing his conscience grounded on the cases of conscience resolued by Allen and Parsons, and Peter Nauarrus, that teach men against all conscience to play the villaines; and so a man stand for the Pope, to sweare and forsweare; and finally to doe what a man list, so he haue the Popes fa∣culties for it. And what face had he to talke of sinceritie, his cause standing vpon falsifying of fathers, lying of legends, counterfaiting traditions, rayling vpon innocents, cogging Page  80 of fabulous histories, and vpon deuising of fraudes and im∣postures to abuse the world? His want of learning, I say, is proued by his weake and base talent of writing, wherein it appeareth he could not so much, as tell how to frame a sen∣tence, or how to vnderstand the things he handleth. Allead∣ging but two words of latin pag. 30. he sheweth he can no latin, vsing the plurall for the singular, saying prope initia, where a latinist would haue said prope initium, or rather in principio. quoting one verse he marreth it pag. 4. his testi∣monies are Hierom Verdussen, and English almanacks, such proofes as a man may haue three or foure for a groate▪ his arguments are such, as I haue declared in my answere. His want of conscience may, I say, appeare by the most damna∣ble resolutions of cases of conscience of Nauarrus, and other Romish casuistes, and especially the resolutions of Allen and Parsons,* two rather diuels, then diuines, teaching nothing, but how their schollers may forsweare themselues, deny their names, and profession, and play the traitors: in which cases of conscience Owlyglasse without conscience séemeth to be well practised. The third is made manifest by the fabulous lies of Caesar Baronius, lying Romish legendes, counterfeit canons and writings lately published, and such euidence, as I shall in part hereafter discouer, and that to the great griefe of this detector, if he be not a man stupide altogether, and sencelesse.

This also doth touch the cause of poperie in generall. for if a good cause néede not to be supported with lies, and fa∣bles; then is the Popes cause very bad, that cannot stande without lies. If a good conscience will not be strayned be∣yond the limits of truth and sinceritie, nor pare nor pole the venerable sentences of antiquitie; then hath Bellarmine and Parsons no good conscience. For Parsons maketh no consci∣ence to tell any lies, as I haue prooued in my answere to his woodden wardword, and the priestes haue notoriously proo∣ued in all their bookes against him, and his trecherous fa∣ction. Againe, then haue the Iebusites no conscience, that lie and falsifie according to the rules of their order, and that most shamefully, * as is proued in their Catechisme. Thirdly, Page  81 then hath the Pope no conscience, that by his lewde, and trecherous indexes, and by his Talmudicall traditions, and peruerse expositions, hath taken a course to corrupt both scriptures and fathers. If they haue no learning, whose arguments conclude not effectually, but may be retorted backe vpon the faces of the proponentes; then if Owly∣glasse be iudge, neither hath Bellarmine nor Stapleton any learning. For in diuers of our treatises, we haue made their arguments, to rebound backe vpon them.

As for my selfe, I referre my cause to be tried by any in∣different man, that shall reade Owlyglasses obiections and my answeres. My conscience, and plaine dealing the iudge of all mens consciences doth best knowe, and I hope all the course of my writings will iustifie against all the cauils of such vaine banglers. My learning, I acknowledge, is not comparable to that, which many of my brethren haue, but yet I hope by the grace of God to maintaine a truth against the prowdest of the Popish faction. But were it neuer so sclender; yet vntill my bookes against Bellarmine be answe∣red in that plaine and scholasticall sort, that I doe answere him; neither hath Owlyglasse, nor any of his consorts a∣ny reason to despise it, or to obiect want of learning vn∣to me.

Yet séeing hee doth vndertake to prooue, that I haue no learning; let vs sée, whether Owlyglasse hath any better suc∣cesse in this, then in his former allegations concerning his supposed vntruthes and falsifications. First he saith, I bring such arguments to prooue the Papists to be no Catholikes, and to maintaine new doctrine, and heresie, as touch not them, but wound the Church of England. But if this had béen so, why doth not Owlyglasse vndertake to answere my arguments? why doth he not dare to refute my discourse? If they hurt the Church of England, no doubt, but such caterpillers as he, that séeke our hurt and ruine, would not haue omit∣ted to take that aduantage. His wordes therefore are but vaine bragges, and néede no other refutation then his owne lewde performance in this encounter, and déepe silence in the rest.

Page  82

Next he saith, he will take a scantling of my learning, no∣thing answerable to my lookes, and countenance. But his scantling is very short, and vnproportionable, being but one onely argument. Beside that, it sheweth, that both learning and honestie is very scant with him. for where I go about to prooue, that the Church of Rome is not the true church of Christ, for that it wanteth true bishops, and Priests, the pal∣frey fellow onely repeateth my wordes, whereby I prooue, that euery true Church hath true bishops and priests, but durst not set downe my wordes, whereby I shewe, that the Church of Rome hath neither true bishoppes, nor priests. And where he toucheth any reason of mine, he marreth it with his lewde handling, and mangleth my whole dis∣course, omitting my thrée last reasons, and not daring to set them downe. I will therefore now let the ignorant ide∣ot knowe, that my reasons, whereby I conclude, that the Church of Rome hath no true bishops nor priestes at this time, are strong and effectuall, and that his cauillations a∣gainst my words, are vaine and friuolous.

First then I say, that no man hath ordinarie power to ordaine bishops or priestes, but he that is a bishop and a priest. But the Pope of Rome is neither true bishop, nor priest. ergo. the proposition our aduersarie denyeth not. The assumption I prooue by these arguments. First the Pope was ordained priest, but to offer sacrifices, and to say mas∣ses for quicke and dead. But neither doth this ordinati∣on make a priest, nor had true priests and elders euer any such ordination. That this ordination doth not make a priest, I prooue, for that thereby the ordained neither re∣ceiue power to preach, nor to administer the sacraments, nor the keyes of the Church, wherein priesthood consisteth. If they receiue any thing, it is to offer sacrifice. But the Papists confesse, that there is great difference betwixt the sacrament of the Eucharist, and a sacrifice, as appeareth by Bellarmines large disputes. * Further, this ordination doth not giue to priestes the right of apostolicall succession, which consisteth in preaching, and administring the sacraments, which our Sauiour committed to his Apostles, and their Page  83 successours to the worldes ende, as appeareth by Christs wordes Matth. 28. that priests in auncient time neuer had any such ordination, it appeareth by the commission, that Christ gaue to his Apostles Matth. 28. by the office of Pa∣stors described Ephes. 4. and 1. Tim. 3. and Tit. 1. where no mention is made of sacrificing for quicke and dead. neither doth this clause, hoc facite, in any author signifie, sacrifice for quicke and dead. It appeareth also by monuments of anti∣quitie, and auncient formularies. In the 4. Councell of Carthage, priests are ordained by imposition of hands, but not to sacrifice for quicke and dead. This argument our ad∣uersarie for all his contemptuous spéeches of my arguments durst not once touch.

Secondly, the Pope is not ordained, to teach or gouerne a certaine flocke, but to be the vniuersall bishop,* the head of the Church, the spouse of the Church, the foundation of the Church, and a little demy god vpon the earth, with power o∣uer purgatorie, and the keyes of heauen, and hell. And if he haue not this power; then is he not Pope. But this power is no where deliuered by any good commission to a∣ny. nor doth it belong to any bishop, for any thing we can yet learne. for if it did, then should all bishops haue that power. Owlyglasse therefore may doe well, to shewe vs this power out of scriptures and fathers. or els his silence will teach him, that the Pope is no bishop. Bellarmine tel∣leth vs of, pasce oues meas: and, tibi dabo claues. But he must finde out a better commission for the Pope. or els all bishops will haue like power, and the pope will prooue to haue no power, vnlesse he féede, and haue the keyes of the Church. which by Owlyglasse, I am assured will not bee proued.

Thirdly, the Pope doth not féede the flocke by teaching, or administer the sacraments, or gouerne the Church, as o∣ther bishops did, but contrariwise taketh vpon him to be Emperour, or gouernour of Rome, which the auncient bishops of Rome neuer did. But no man can be a King, and a bishop both together: nor a bishop without doing the office of a bishop. For Episcopatus, as the Apostle teacheth Page  84 vs, * is opus, and not onely, hoos. Our aduersarie answe∣reth, that it is Donatisme to affirme, that the efficacie of sacra∣ments doth depend vpon the good, or bad life of the ministers, and that we are to harken to those, that sit in Moyses his chaire, albeit they be Pharisees, and bad men otherwise. And this he proueth by diuers testimonies out of S. Augustine, and the harmony of our confessions, being copious, where no néede is, and silent when he should answere. But all this is no more to purpose, then if he should tell vs a tale of a horse nest, or of the popes mules and mulets▪ for what is that to me, or others, that say not, that the Pope or popish bishops are not lawfull bishops, nor haue power to administer sa∣craments, because they are Sodomites, adulterers, and wic∣ked men, but rather, that the pope is no bishop at all, be∣cause he doth not opus episcopi? He will perhaps say, he doth opus episcopi. But then he must shewe, that he fée∣deth the flocke by teaching, and that he doth administer the sacraments of the Lords supper, and baptisme orderly, and ordinarily as other bishops doe: wherein I beléeue he will faile.

Fourthly, I haue proued, that the pope is Antichrist ad∣uanced aboue all, that is called God, and the principall Pa∣triarke of Antichrists kingdome. But light and darkenesse shall as soone concurre, as the tyrannie of Antichrist, and the office of a bishop in one person. I haue prooued, that he is Antichrist in my fift booke de Pontifice Rom. against Bellar. which because he so aboundeth in learning, and I haue none, I would pray him to answere with his great learning, and especially séeing it maketh so much for the cre∣dit of his father the pope, that begot him on a strumpet the hore of Babylon, his maships mother. A braue fellow he is, no doubt, that is so well borne of father and mother. And if his stomack wil brooke no latin, let him refute my answere to Parsons wardword; if not all, yet so much as toucheth the Pope.

Finally, the Pope is an heretike, an apostata, and a most notorious simoniacal person, entring by brigues, and faction, and composition with the Spanish king, and cardinals, as is Page  85 notorious to the world, and appeareth in euery cōclaue, and is not dissembled by popish writers▪ but such by canōs, albeit otherwise bishops, are suspended frō ordaining bishops, or cō¦ferring orders. That they are heretikes it cannot be de∣nyed, vnlesse Owlyglasse can shew, that the points we haue handled in the 4. chapter of our former discourse, are no he∣resies; which if he be able to shew, I doubt not, but the pope for his paynes will make him cardinall. That the Pops are apostatates, it apeareth for yt they haue declined from the an¦cient faith, as I haue likewise declared in my former chal∣lenge. That they are simoniacal creatures, their buying and selling of the papacy, and of all ecclesiasticall liuings, of mas∣ses, of sacraments, of faculties, doth manifestly declare, and that this is a common fault of Popes, it appeareth by their rules of chancerie by the Penitentiaries taxe,* by the glosses of their canons, by Albericus de Rosate in verbo, Roma: by Theodorica Niems treatise of schisme, by baptist of Mantua, and all stories, that write any truth. Neither is this a faulte of late crept into that see▪ quē dabis mihi de tota maxima vrbe saith Bernard lib. 4 de consid. ad Eugenium, quite in papam re∣ceperit pretio, seu spe pretij non interueniente? He signifieth, that the Pope was chosen by simony, without simony certes no cardinall can sée to finde the Popes chayre.

By this it may also appeare, that the Romish church hath no true bishops, or priestes▪ for first they are ordained by the Pope, that is no bishop. Secondly the Bishops neither preach nor administer the sacraments, nor accompt that any parte of their episcopall function. Thirdly, Pope Ioane had noe power to ordeine Bishops or priestes being a woman. But all that haue liued in the Church of Rome along time haue béene ordeined by none, but such as were ordeined by her, or by bishops that were made by her. Fourthly, all préests are ordeined to sacrifice for quicke & dead. As appeareth by Ma∣chabeus, in lib. de missis episcoporum pro ordinibus conferen dis. Bellarmine also saith, yt preistes are made by these words, accipe potestatem offerendi sacrificlum: that is, receiue power to offer sacrifice. Which is no sufficient ordination, nor gi∣ueth préestes power either to preach or administer sa∣craments, Page  86 but rather a power in ancient time neuer belon∣ging to préests, as I haue proued against Bellarmine in my booke de sacrificio missae. Fiftly no simoniacall persons or he∣retikes haue power to order others; and if they doe it, their ordination by canons is declared voyd, & they are pronoun∣ced irreguler▪ and this I thinke Owlyglasse will not deny▪ but he will answere percase that the Popish bishops are neither heretikes, nor simonicall persons let him therefore, if he will make his answere good, make answere to my obiections con∣cerning the heresies, and simonyes of the Church of Rome. Sixtly, the popish bishops are all slaues of Antichrist, as ap∣peareth by their slauish oth. c. ego. N. de iureiurando. If then the pope be proued Antichrist, and the aduersary of Christ, and his Church: his adherents cānot be déemed true bishops. Finally, albeit the Popish Church had a certaine forme of ordination, and bishops and préestes so called; yet nether can the ordination be accoūted lawful being contrary to canons nor can they be déemed true bishops and priests, that neither preach that, which Christ commanded, nor obserue his com∣mission, nor administer the sacramēts according to Christs institution. Oftentimes also the Pope hath ordeined boyes, ignorant persons vtterly vncapable of episcopall function, bishops and preests. And such being so ordeined neuer did a∣ny part of ministeriall function, if then the Romish Church be like her bishops; then as she hath false and defectiue bis∣shops, so is shee a false and defectiue Church. But saith Ow∣lyglasse,*the councell of Trent hath made such holsome decrees, concerning the diligent and often teaching and preaching of bi∣shops, and preests, as Master Sutcliffe can finde no iust cause of complainte. But if he had let downe these wholsome decrées, he would haue béene much ashamed of the decrées themselues and more of the slender exequution of them. For Concil. Trid. Sess. 5, c. 2. they decrée, that bishops shall teach by thēselues, or others▪ so yt by this rule women may be préests▪ for they may teach by others, & this may be fulfilled, if bishops neuer teach at all. Beside that we doe not reade, that the first bishops of Rome, did preach by others, or set vp louzy fryers, to prate in pulpits as now is the fashion of the Romish Church. Our Page  87 Sauiour Christ bad his Disciples preach themselues, or els he would not haue sent them. And S. Peter preacheth him∣selfe, and vsed no deputation for the matter, as now the Ro∣manistes doe▪ furthermore now the execution of this lawe is so neglected, that I doe not beléeue, that Owlyglasse, albeit he hath well frequented all corners of Rome, hath heard the pope preach. And when the old Cardinall of Lorrein offerd to preach, he was derided for his labor, of all his compagniōs, so vnséemly a thing it séemeth for a Cardinal, & bishop to preach.

He answereth further. That I would be loth that our church should continue no longer, then bishops doe their duties in preaching and feeding. But he doth wrong our bishops to compare them to Romish prelats, that neither preach, nor thinke that preaching belongeth to them, and for the most parte, vnlesse it be some frier or foxe inroabed with bishops apparell, preach not, nor speake more then stockes and ima∣ges in Churches. He doth also mistake me much, if he thinke, that I conclude, that any congregation is not the true church, where bishops doe not their duties. For that is no part of my meaning▪ but I say, that the true Church cannot longe want true bishopes, and teachers, and that therfore the Ro∣mish Church is not the true Church, hauing no bishops, nor préestes at all, but in name. And that I proued, for that they wanted true priesthood, and true ordination, and were or∣dayned and sent by antichrist, by heretikes and simoniacall persons, and such as had no authority to ordayne, or sende forth bishops and preestes.

He answereth finally, that I haue no reason to carpe at the Romish clergie for their bad life▪ and lacke of learning, seeing,*our Church, as he saith, admitteth most base, lewd, & vnlearned artisās. & this he indeuoureth to proue by M. Parries words in his preface before Vrsinus his catechisme. But he lyeth like a lewde and base fellow, if he suppose, that such are admitted by our Church▪ they do thrust in, I confesse, by ye abuse of sōe on, or more▪ but ye church alloweth thē not▪ nay there are ca∣nōs made, that none is to be ordained minister, but bachilars of art, or men otherwise well qualified and knowne to be able to teach. If any doe otherwise by indirect meanes come into Page  88 the ministery, which abuse Master Parry noteth; yet I hope they are not so rude, or so lewde, as masse Preests, which are the scumme of all vileny for the most part, as those that tra∣uell Spayne and Italy knowe by practise, and our rinegat English masse Preestes by their lewdnesse and insufficiency playnly proue.

Hauing answered according to his best skill, and broken as he thinketh all our bonds, like Dalilaes cords (though some of his friends say, that a certeine Dalila hath strong hold of him) he goeth about to retort this argument vpon vs, and saith: if the true Church hath alwayes true bishops and preests, that the Church of England,*is not the true Church, as wanting true preestes and bishops. And with this argument hee ho∣peth to giue vs such a drie shauing, as he doubteth not, but he will marre the whole beauty thereof▪ but he sheweth himselfe to be but a simple barber, and a worse drie shauer▪ for nowe he cannot shew, but that we haue true bishops, hauing both lawfull ordination, and our bishops exequuting the office of bishops loyally, and orderly. Before this reformation also our bishops had all that, which our aduersaries thinke necessary in the outward calling of bishops. Besides that there fayled not among our bishops and préestes at all times diuers men, which detested the abominations of the Roma∣nistes, as Robert Grosted bishop of Lincolne, Richard Vllerston that liued about the councell of Constance, Iohn wicleffe and diuers others. But saith he, who layd hands on bishop Par∣ker. He séemeth also to make the like question of Luther and Zuinglius. I answere that bishop Couerdale and Skory, and others which were bishops in King Edwardes time layde hands vpon bishop Parker. I confesse also, that bishop Cran∣mer, Luther and Zuinglius had an externall calling, though corrupt, & in a corrupt state, yet such as Owlygalsse dare not deny to be sufficient. And beside that externall calling, it pleased God to reuele to them his will extraordinarily, and to call them out of Babylon to the knowledge of his truth▪ our aduersary therefore of all men hath least reason to challenge them for their calling. Beside that he cannot conclude, be∣cause that externall calling was then thought sufficient, that Page  89 now the popish Church hath a calling sufficient. For albeit the préestes of the Iewes, that worshiped Baal, had an exter∣nall calling, which was not disabled, when they returned to the true worship of God; yet was not their Idolatrous ser∣uice doon to Baal, nor that preesthood lawful▪ the like wee may say of masse préests. They should haue serued God aright, yet whē they serued at their massing alters, they worshipped strange Gods. But when they left their Idolatrie, then their calling tooke effect they doing that, for which they were prin¦cipally called. Furthermore he cannot say, because now all Idolatry and superstition being abandoned, we are the true church, that the papists that reteine still their superstitiōs are the true church▪ for ye true church is tryed by true faith, true worship, and seruice of God, & not by externall rites and cere∣monies, and succession without Gods true worship or the true faith. Owlyglasse would also gladly haue me to set down the names of those bishops, that gouerned our Church euer since Christ. As if all bishops, that mayntained the Apos∣tles créede, and catholike faith, were not our bishops. If they digressed from the faith, we are not to séeke for a new ranke of bishops, but to acknowledge them to be true bishops, that professed the true faith. He talketh also of my being at Cales, but it is more honesty for me to goe in the seruice of my Prince and contry against forreine enemies, then for him with forreine enemies like a disloyal traytor to fight against his prince and contry, and like a base slaue to serue the popes turne. And this may serue to iustifie my argument against the popish préesthood.

It resteth now, that I answere his friuolous obiections concerning some points which he supposeth to conteine mat∣ter of contradiction: which he vanteth, that hee will handle to the little commendation of my learning, as he saith. But if he would indéede haue disgraced me, he should haue taken in hand the aunswere of some latine treatise which I haue pub∣lished against Bellar. For therein he might haue shewed ler∣ning, whereas this discourse concerning falsifications and vntruthes is nothing but a little fardle of foolery, and a vaine bable for his clients to sport themselues with all. Well in Page  90 the meane while let vs know his worships pleasure concer∣ning these supposed contradictions.

First he chargeth me with saying, that the number of se∣uen sacraments was not certainly established, nor receiued be∣fore the late councell of Trent: and this he supposeth to be contrarie to that, which I affirme in another place, viz. that the iust number of seuen sacraments, and neither more nor lesse, was first deliuered by the councell of Florence vnder Eu∣genius the fourth, and afterward confirmed by the councell of Trent. But the poore ideot doth rather bewray his owne ig∣norance, that knew not how this doctrine of seuen sacra∣ments crept into the Romish church, and great dulnesse, that could not distinguish betwixt instructions, and canons; tal∣king or mentioning matters, and confirming them by solemne act and decree. To reforme his errour therefore, I must let him vnderstand, that the conuenticle of Florence did not by any solemne canon establish the iust number of seuen sacra∣ments, but certaine idle Friers, or others in that conuenti∣cle, or at the least vnder the credit thereof, deliuered this do∣ctrine of seuen sacraments to the Armenians. Furthermore, not all Churches, but the Armenians had this doctrine deli∣uered vnto them. I speake therefore warily, where I say, that albeit that doctrine was talked of perhaps, and deliuered to the Armenians; yet it was first confirmed by solemne act of the conuenticle of Trent, and so receiued of as many, as liked that conuenticle. So I may say likewise, that the pa∣radoxe of the Romish church concerning the subsistence of ac∣cidents in the sacrament without subiect was prated of, and debated in schooles before the conuenticle of Constance; but yet I may say also, that it was not receiued generally, nor by solemne act confirmed before the cōuenticle of Constance, where Pope Iohn the 23. was deposed for Sodomitrie, A∣theisme, and other grieuous and enormous crims in the actes of that assembly recorded.

Secondly, he would gladly finde some contradiction in my wordes, for that pag. 21. I say, as he setteth it downe, that the opinion of Luther concerning the real presence con∣cerneth not any fundamentall point of faith, and yet pag. 54. Page  91of my Challenge, affirme, that the Papists holding transubstan∣tiation doe bring in Eutychianisme, teaching that Christs body is in the sacrament without visible shape, or true dimension, or circumscription; which as Leo teacheth serm. 6. de ieiunio 7. mensis, is flat Eutychianisme. But he striueth in vaine to force contradiction out of these wordes▪ for papists may wel be Eutychianists, and yet not Luther, as I beléeue, they tea∣ching that the substance of bread is abolished in the sacra∣ment (of which followeth Eutyches his errour) and Luther holding the contrarie. For if the bread be abolished, and the sacrament is like to the person of Christ, consisting of two natures; then it followeth, that as bread remaineth not in the sacrament after consecration, so Christs humanitie is a∣bolished after the vnion of the two natures: which is flatte Eutychianisme. Further, he was a simple fellow, to leaue a charge of Eutychianisme vpon the Papists, vpon a smal hope of taking me in contradiction. Indéede I confesse, he deny∣eth it in termes, and saith, that Christs body in the sacrament is not without shape, and true dimensions. He should also haue said circumscription, if he would haue auoided the note of Eutychianisme. but if that be so, he dischargeth me of con∣tradiction. But in the meane while, he sheweth himselfe to be ignorant of the state of his owne cause, and very impu∣dent to say, that Christ his body hath all his true dimensions, and shape in the sacrament▪ which at large is disprooued in my treatise de missa against Bellar. Finally, going about to take me in contradiction, like a falsarie hee doth alter my wordes, and peruert my meaning. For I say onely, *that Luthers and Caluins priuat opinions, concerning either princes soueraigne authoritie, or the real presence concerne not funda∣mentall points of faith. And my reason is first, for that our faith is not built on priuat mens opinions, as the faith of the papists, that are bound to beléeue all the determinations of euery Pope, that doe concerne the faith. And secondly, for that Luthers opinion is not hereticall in it selfe, and as it may be expounded, but by inference of such conclusions as follow of it.

His thirde supposed contradiction is forced out of my Page  92 wordes, where I say, that the Fathers make against Bellar∣mine, and yet séeme, to make Gelasius and Gregorie Papists, that liued aboue a thousand yeares agone. But herein is nei∣ther contradiction, nor repugnance. For first it will not be proued, that either Gregorie or, Gelasius maketh for Bellar∣mine in their authenticall writings. Secondly, these two are not for antiquity or learning to be compared to Hierome, or Augustine, or the Fathers, that liued in their time, and be∣fore. Finally, albeit the dialogues, that go vnder the name of Gregorie, or the decrée of Gelasius C. sancta dist. 15. did sa∣uour of the pumpe of Poperie, and fopperie; yet that ma∣keth nothing for the papists. For it shall neuer be proued, that Gregorie did write so foppish fables and lies as are con∣tained in his dialogues; nor that Gelasius did indéede set downe all that decree, that is reported C. sancta. dist. 15. es∣pecially that of lying and fabulous legends. Neither, if in any one point, or ceremony Gregorie, or Gelasius doth differ from vs; is he therefore to be reputed to speake wholy for the papists. But saith Owlyglasse, we may as truely inferre, that seeing the protestants doe with great applause admit the actes of their holy Martyres written by M. Foxe, they receiue fabulous martyrologies, and lying legends, as it is inferred that Papists receiue fabulous martyrologies and lying legends▪ but the case is so vnlike, as Owlyglasse though a ridiculous fel∣low is vnlike to Gelasius▪ for neither doe we reade our mar∣tyrologies in churches, as the papists doe their legends; nor doe we beléeue them as grounds of faith, as the papists doe their legendicall traditions, nor doth M. Foxe report any such abominable and ridiculous fables, as are contained in the Romish legends. But all this notwithstanding if Ow∣lyglasse will impudently still compare our martyrologies with the lying legends; let him shew, if he can, where M. Foxe telleth tales of men walking without heads, talking without tongues, passing the sea without shippes, going in∣uisible, restoring of birdes to life, of a cowe bellowing being boyling in a cauldron, of remoouing mountaines and such like, as are in the legends very common, and must be beléeued as ecclesiastical traditions.

Page  93

His fourth obseruation is, that it were a point of some cun∣ning to guesse by my writings, of what religion I am. But it is a point of small cunning to guesse, that Owlyglasse is a man of no religion, making no conscience to snatch at any thing, that may serue his turne, though neuer so false; to lie, to falsifie, to rayle at all, that are not of his damned humor. If any religion he haue, it is some reliques of poperie, which he notwithstanding is neither well able to vnderstand, nor any way to defend. A religion (if we may call faction a re∣ligion) most fond, foppish, absurd, vaine, superstitious, false and impious, as partly in this treatise is declared, and shall God willing more at large be declared other-where. As for my selfe I doe him to wit, that I am a Christian, and a true Catholike, beleeuing the Apostolike faith, and professing the same, as it is set downe in the Apostles créede, in the confes∣sions of faith published in the foure first generall councels, and in the créede of Athanasius. I doe also beléeue whatsoe∣uer is expressed in holy canonicall scriptures, or may be de∣duced out of them, and I doe detest all popish superstition, blasphemy, hereticall abhominations, and all other heresies▪ and this Owlyglasse might well haue vnderstood by all the course of my writings, if he had read them, or would or could vnderstand them. But saith Owlyglasse,*on the one side, reason there is, to thinke him a conformable protestant, &c. Afterward he talketh his pleasure of new Geneua Iigs, and of harmony puritanicall. Which course of rayling, if he doe continue, there is good hope, that to accorde with this Iigge, he may ere it be long, sing a base de profundis at Ti∣burne. To the matter I answere, that in England, albeit there hath béene some difference betwéene priuat persons a∣bout ceremonies and gouernment, and that without disa∣gréement in religion; yet now all that quarrell, to the great griefe of Owlyglasse and his consorts is ended, and all godly christians iointly concurre to the repressing of the seditious massepriests, and their adherents, that by faction, and here∣sie seeke to vndermine both the Church, and state.

In this obseruation he goeth about also to prooue, that I doe not séeme to allow the doctrine established in this church Page  94 of England. But as in the rest, so in this Owlyglasse doth but trifle. I doe holde, I confesse, that baptisme is not so ne∣cessarie, but that diuers may, and haue beene saued without it, especially where there is no contempt committed in procuring it. Further I doe beléeue, that it is vnlawfull for women to take vpon them to administer baptisme; and doe aduise in case of extremitie all christians to procure the ministers presence. Thirdly, I doe vtterly condemne the doctrine of the papistes concerning their limbus patrum. Fourthly, I doe much mis∣like their superstitious stationary obambulations about the limits of parishes for the blessing of new corne, and their su∣perstitious letanies and ceremonies vsed in the fame. Fift∣ly, I deny, that euer the catholike church had any precepts, or canons to forbid mariages on such daies, and in such sort, and for such respects, as the Romish Church doth practise. Sixtly, I doe beléeue, that Luthers opinion absolutely consi∣dered in it selfe is not a fundamentall point of religion, es∣pecially if we giue his wordes a fauourable construction. Fi∣nally, I accompt none to be true christians and professours, that make no conscience of sinne, and liue not according to their profession. But what of all this? doe I therefore teach contrarie to any point of doctrine maintained by the church of England? so Owlyglasse my good friend would insinuate. But his proofes are simple, and his assertions most false. He saith, *that the Church of England teacheth, that baptisme is necessarie to saluation. But the booke, which he alleadgeth, out of which he cannot bring one word to prooue his saying, doth conuince him both of lying, and impudencie. Secondly he affirmeth, that to deny womens baptisme is contrarie to re∣ligion established. But it is not contrarie to his religion to lie and face out lies most impudently. Thirdly to prooue, that our church beléeueth limbus patrum, he should haue allead∣ged our confession, and not a certaine verset of the créede in méeter. Beside that, in that verset nothing is said, but that Christ illuminated those, that sate in darknesse; which is no∣thing to limbus patrum, a place, that cannot be illuminated, as papistes holde. Further, that verset may be rather an ex∣position of the words of the song of Zacharie,*of the illumina∣tion Page  95 of the ignorant, and of the like wordes of the Prophet Esay chap. 9. then an assertion of limbus pactum. Fourthly, the papists in their perambulations of parishes vse to blesse, or rather to exorcise corne, and to say most wicked litanyes. They vse also diuers superstitious ceremonies, which vn∣lesse Owlyglasse prooue to be allowed by our Church, he will prooue himselfe a cogging compagnion. Fifthly, he talketh of prohibitions of the solemnizations of mariages at certaine times; but he alleadgeth neither lawe, nor record to prooue, that our Church alloweth either the doctrine, or the ceremo∣nies of the Romish congregation in this point. And there, whither he sendeth vs, we finde nothing, but the testimonie of an Almanacke. Sixtly, albeit the church of England doth not holde Luthers real presence of Christes body in the sa∣crament, yet cannot the detractor shewe, but that his opini∣on may be reconciled with the Christian faith, if a man will not vrge those points, that follow of that doctrine too seuere∣ly, and further percase, then at the first Luther himselfe al∣lowed them. If a man doe gather what doth followe of it, then is the doctrine dangerous, as I and others con∣fesse.

Finally, he doth not so much as go about to shewe, that I haue deliuered any thing contrary to the doctrine of our Church, where I affirme, that good life is as well required in a true professour, as true faith. Why then is this point touched in this place? Doth it grieue him, that I touch the filthy Sodomiticall priests, and friers, and shut that abho∣minable generation out of Gods church? It séemeth so▪ and therefore to requite me, he saith, that this doctrine may touch me, for that I haue falsified and maliciously corrupted the fathers. But if I haue cleared my selfe of all those matters, that he hath laide to my charge; I hope the vanitie of his collection will manifestly appeare to all indifferent men. But hee poore ideot, appeareth not: but séeing the Romish Church, and diuers of her principall pillers to be charged with notorious lies and falsifications, passeth away in si∣lence, and is not able to answere one worde. Nay, hee leaueth his clients in the briers, and signifieth, for ought Page  96 he can doe, they must pleade for themselues.

Wherefore to leaue off further to vrge this distressed fol∣lowe, that is able to say nothing for the defence of them, whom he doth principally fauour, I may well conclude, sée∣ing the arguments which I brought in my Challenge stand immooueable, and the detectors exceptions are prooued to be vaine, and friuolous, first, that the Romish church is not the true Church of Christ Iesus. Secondly, that the religion of Papists, is neither auncient, nor catholike, Thirdly, that all papists maintaining the doctrine of the Pope, and his ad∣herents, are heretikes. Fourthly, that such as embrace po∣pish religion, are idolaters. Fifthly, that all the Popes ad∣herents and agents that haue suffered for his cause in En∣gland, are to be reputed no better, then disloyall traytors, and not, as some would haue it, Martyres. Finally, that my aduersary by his friuolous obiections hath much con∣firmed, and strengthened our cause, against which he was not able to obiect any one thing of moment; and iustified my allegations, being not able to take any iust ex∣ception against any thing said by me, nor to obiect any thing, which is not fully answered.

Page  97

CHAP. IIII. Of diuers falsities committed by the Popes and Church of Rome.

IF our aduersarie had well remem∣bred his promise, he ought not onely to haue conuinced me of vntruthes, corruptions, contradictions, and falsi∣fications, according to the title of his pamphlet, but also of maliciousnesse, and wilfulnesse. for so he vaunteth, he will. I challenge the challenger saith he, of many malicious vntruthes,*and many palpable and wilfull falsifications. But when it com∣meth to performance; of corruptions he saith nothing, con∣tradictions he toucheth slenderly, vntruthes and falsifications he can by no meanes fasten vpon me. The qualitie of mali∣ciousnes and wilfulnesse being a matter purposed, and fully promised, he vtterly forgot. In the rest how poorely he hath demeaned himselfe, by my answere to his whole dispute it will appeare, But suppose I had either mistaken a report, misalleadged a place; yet that is nothing to the cause, which by priuat mens errors cannot be eyther charged, or pre∣iudiced.

But if the Pope of Rome, to whom the papists flie in all controuersies and extremities commit falsifications; then is the cause of poperie quite ruined, and ouerthrowne. For he is the(a)rocke, and(b)foundation, vpon whom the papists build all their religion. Againe, if the Church of Rome haue practised these falsifications, then is no trust to be giuen to Page  98 her. If both the Pope himselfe, and the Church of Rome doe deliuer vnto vs lyes, and fables; then is the pope no vpright iudge, but a lying hypocrite, and the Church of Rome is not the true Church, nor a mistris of truth, but a mistresse of er∣rors and lyes.

Let vs therefore sée whether the pope or Church of Rome may not in this poynt be more iustly charged then we, and whether they be cleare of this fault or no. For that is a point farre more materiall, then any thing, which the aduersary can deuise against vs. Let vs also consider how Bellarmine & Baronius and others the Popes agents haue acquited them∣selues in their narrations, and allegations. For so it may best appeare, how vnaduisedly this detector began his qua∣rell. our aduersaries being so notorious offenders in telling vntruthes, and committing most grosse and wicked forgeryes, and wée so cleare and innocent, at the least from all willfulnesse violence and malice, if not from error.

*Whosoeuer shall concee or hide away a testament, or take it from a man, or shall blot it, or adde by interlining, or else shall forge, or write a false testament, or exhibite it, or signe it, or vse it and fraudulently reherse it, is punishable, as guiltie of forgery by the lawe Cornelia, concerning forgery and falsitie. And this is the determination of Paulus the lawyer, and al∣lowed by all men of vnderstanding, and iudgement in law. Qui testamentum amouerit, celauerit, eripuerit, deleuerit, inter∣leuerit, subiecerit, resignauerit, saith Paulus the lawyer, quiue testamentum falsū scripserit, signauerit, recitauerit. &c. legis cor∣neliae Poena damnatur. Those also are guilty, and by this law punishable, *quorum dolo malo id factum est: by whose pro∣curement, and fraude any of the foresaid points are committed. But the pope, and Church of Rome many wayes offen∣de against this lawe, as is most euidente by many par∣ticulers.

[falsification 1] First they do suppresse, as much as they can, the eternall testament of almightie God conteined in the bookes, which we for this cause call the old and new testament. For simply do they prohibit all translations of scriptures made by any Page  99 of our doctors, & not without streite limitatiōs do they permit chrstiās to haue scriptures translated into vulgar tonges by thēselues, publikely by no meanes will they haue scriptures red being translated into tonges vnderstood of the multitude. And all these thrée points are manifestly proued by the index of prohibited bookes set out by Pius quartus, and by the decrée of the councell of Trent speaking of our mens translations. li∣brorum veteris testamenti versiones viris tantum pijs & doctis,* saith he, iudicio episcopi concedi poterunt. And afterwarde: versiones noui testamenti &c. nemini concedantur. Speaking of vulgar translations of scriptures, * he saith hac in parte iu∣dicio episcopi, aut inquisitoris stetur, vt cum consilio parochi, vel confessarij bibliorum a catholicis authoribus versorum lec∣tionem in vulgari lingua concedere possint. So it appeareth they first absolutely forbidde al vulgar translations made by any of our doctors; and Secondly with harde conditions grant licence, & that to very few, to reade their owne vulgar translations of scriptures: and Thirdly, that they doe forbid all latin translations made by vs of the new testament, and with conditions and limitations permit our translations of the old testament, to be read, and that of very few. * In pub∣like liturgies of the Church they also signifie, that scriptures are not to be read in vulgar tongues. And by their practise we gather, that they thinke the publike reading of scriptures in vulgar tongues to be nothing for their profit, and purpose. Who then seeth not, that by al meanes the pope and Romish Church endeuore to suppresse Gods testament, and shew themselues therein notorious falsaries?

[falsification 2] Secondly they burne the holy scriptures vnder pretence of false translations, as may be prooued by diuers witnesses, and by their owne practise. And I thinke they will not deny, but that they haue burned scriptures trāslated by our doctors & wil defend it. yet to corrupt, or teare, or spoyle a testament, is the part of a falsary, as these wordes declare, si quis test∣mentum deleuerit. Neither could the lawe speake more playnely against Papistes vnlesse, it had sayd, si quis testa∣mentum dei combusserit.

[falsification 3] Thirdly, they haue depriued the Lords people of the cup, Page  100 which our Sauiour Christ calleth the newe testament in his bloud. hic est calix, saith he, nouum testamentum in sanguine meo.* In the conuenticle of Constance they decrée, vt sacra∣mentum a laicis sub vna specie tantummodo recipiatur. that is, *that lay men are to receiue the sacrament onely vnder one kinde. In the conuenticle of Trent they pronounce them Anathema, or accursed, that shall say, that the faithfull ought to receiue the sacrament vnder both kinds,*or that shal denie, that they tooke away the cuppe from the communicants, and ministred the communion vnder one kinde onely. for iust, and reasonable causes. Whether then the Lords cup be the new testament, or the seale of the new testament; it is euident, that the Pope and Church of Rome doe shew themselues to be notorious falsaryes. the words of the law are cleare. si quis testamentum celauerit, amouerit &c. that is, whosoeuer doth concele or keepe a testament out of the way, he is to be puni∣shed as a falsary. the same also is apparant, for that they goe about to breake▪ the seale of Gods testament. And al∣though man cannot, or will not punish this falsity in the Romish Church, and in the masse préests; yet God will as∣suredly punish so notorious a falsification of his eternall tes∣tament.

[falsification 4] Fourthly, the Pope and Romish Church haue added to Gods eternall testament corrupting the same by their tradi∣tions, and makg ivnnwritten traditions equall to the cano∣nicall scriptures. omnes libros tam veteris, quam noui testa∣menti,* say the Popes slaues assembled at Trent, cum vtrius{que} vnus deus sit author, nec non traditiones ipsas tum ad fidem tum ad mores pertinentes; tanquam vel oretenus a Christo, vel a spiritu sancto dictatas, &c. pari pietatis affectu ac reueren∣tia suscipit ac veneratur, scilicet haec synodus. and afterward they pronounce al cursed,*that shall contēne the sayd traditions. Bellarmine also and the rest of his consorts teach, that there is one word of God written, and another vnwritten, and that both are of equall authority. But it is playne falsity to forge any part of a testamēt, * or to interline it, or to adde to it. hominis testamentū saith the Apostle, nemo spernit, aut super ordinat. that is, no man addeth to a testament, or taketh on Page  101 him to superordinate or set downe more, then is declared by the testators will. And he signifieth, that it is much more odious, to adde to Gods testament, and as it were with pre∣tended nuncupatiue additions to corrupt Gods writen will and testament. Qui testamentum falsum scripserit, signauerit, recitauerit dolo malo saith Paulus,*cuiusue dolo malo id fac∣tum erit, legis corneliae, (de falsis) poena damnatur. Againe, si quis legatum sibi ascripserit, saith Africanus tenetur poena le∣gis corneliae. So if the Romish Church haue added to Gods eternall testamēt, any traditions vpon the credit of ye church, * and made them parte of Gods testament, or meane to re∣ceiue benefit, or as it were a legacie, or authoritie by any thing therein contained, the same is guilty of falsification.

[falsification 5] Fiftly the Romish Church hath committed falshood by ma∣king the old latin translation authenticall, which differeth in many poynts from the originall bookes, of the old and new testament. Statuit & declarat saith the conuenticle of Trent speaking of it selfe, vt haec ipsa vetus & vulgataeditio quae lon∣go tempore tot seculorum vsu in ipsa ecclesia probata est,*in pub licis lectionibus, disputationibus, praedicationibus, & expo∣sitionibus pro authentica habeatur. Now that this translation doth differ from the originall bookes, it cannot bée denyed. For that by collation of both is apparent. Beside that it is proued by the testimony of Isidorus Clarius in his preface to his translation of the Bible: of Erasmus, and diuers other learned men; and sometime confessed by the aduersaries thē∣selues. that this is falshood, it is proued, for that to exhibit a false copie of a testament, is falsity. It is also a noto∣rious absurdity to preferre a translation, or a copy before the originall.

[falsification 6] Sixtly, it is falsity, to adde to the rule of faith, or canon of scriptures. For if a man may not add to the rules and lawes of men, but he shall falle within the danger of the law corne∣lia de falsis, much lesse may a man adde to the rule of faith, and canon of scripture, * but he shall bee condemned for falsifica∣tion. But the Church of Rome hath in two sorts added to the rule of faith, first making the bookes of Tobias. Iudith, Ecclesiasticus, Wisedome, the Machabees, and others by the Page  102 councell of Laodicea and Hierome and other auncient Fa∣thers excluded out of the canon, canonicall, and next by ma∣king the Popes determinations, and vnwritten traditions the rule of faith, as is proued by Stapletons discourse de do∣ctrinalibus principijs, and other treatises of the Romanistes, concerning that argument. Neither hath the Romish Sy∣nagogue any thing to alleadge in excuse of her falsitie, but that such bookes haue sometime béene accompted canonicall by the councell of Carthage,* and S. Augustine: and next, that traditions haue béene much stood vpon by the auncient Fa∣thers. But the third councell of Carthage and S. Augustine speake onely of the bookes of the Bible, that were publikely read, and of the canon, as it prescribed a rule for the reading of bookes, and not otherwise, and by tradition they meane no other doctrine, then that which is contained in holy scrip∣tures; and gathered out of them.

[falsification 7] 7. Either hath Sixtus Quintus, or Clement the 8. egregi∣ously falsified the holy scriptures. For both of them hauing taken vpon them to set out the same according to the olde la∣tin translation, we finde in diuers places, either manifest contradictions, or at the least notorious differences betwixt them. As for example, Gen. 4. the Clementine edition hath, in foribus pettatum aderit? In Sixtus Quintus his edition set out at Louain peccatum tuum aderit? Gen. 5. v. 3. Clement rea∣deth, genuit ad imaginem & similitudinem suam: Sixtus hath, genuit filium ad imaginem. Contrariwise Genes. 1.27. Cle∣ment readeth, creauit deus hominem ad imaginem suam, ad imaginem dei creauit illum: and Sixtus hath, creauit deus ho∣minem ad imaginem, & similitudinem suam, ad imaginem dei &c. Genes. 9. Clement readeth, de manu viri & fratris eius re∣quiram: Sixtus hath onely, & de manu fratris eius requiram. Exod. 16. Clement readeth, cur eduxistis nos in desertum istud? Sixtus contrariwise readeth, cur induxistis? Exod. 23. Cle∣ment readeth, victimae meae: and Sixtus, victimae tuae. Leuit. 27. Clement readeth, iuxta aestimationem tuam: Sixtus, iuxta aestimationem suam. and it the 28. verse of the same chapter, Clement readeth, non vendetur; and Sixtus, non veniet. Deut. 24. Clement readeth, animam opposuit tibi, Sixtus, apposuit Page  103 tibi. Deut. 29.19. Clement readeth, & absumat ebria sitientem: Sixtus readeth, assumat ebria sitientem. Iosue 11.19. Clement readeth, non fuit ciuitas, quae se traderet; and Sixtus quite con∣trarie, quae se non traderet. 2. Reg. 6. v. 13. These words, that are found in Sixtus his edition: dixit{que} Dauid, ibo & reducam arcam cum benedictione in domum meam: are not found in Clements bible. 2. Reg. c. 15.23. Clement readeth, contra vi∣am, quae respicit ad desertum. Sixtus readeth, contra viam oli∣uae. 2. Reg. 16.1. Clement hath, & vtre vini. Sixtus readeth, duobus vtribus. 3. Reg. 7.9. Clement hath, extrinsecus vsque. Sixtus, intrinsecus vsque. 1. Paralip. 8. v. vlt. Clement readeth, vsque ad centum quinquaginta omnes. Sixtus readeth, ad cen∣tum quinquaginta millia. lib. 1. Ezrae c. 2. v. 66. Clement rea∣deth, septingenti triginta sex: Sixtus, sexcenti triginta sex. Sa∣pientiae c. 2.11. Clement hath, sit fortitudo lex iustitiae nostrae. Sixtus readeth, lex iniustitiae. Eccles. 8.8. Clement readeth, in gudium nolumus venire: Sixtus readeth, volumus venire. &c. 21. v. 15. Clement readeth, est autem sapientia. Sixtus hath, est autem insipientia. Iohn 6.65. Clement readeth, qui essent non credentes: Sixtus readeth, qui essent credentes. Heb. c. 5.11. Clement readeth, grandis sermo & ininterpretabilis; Six∣tus readeth, grandis sermo, & interpretabilis. Infinit repug∣nances also there are more betwixt these editions, which who so list to sée, let him peruse M. Th. Iames his painefull treatise intituled, Bellum papale, wherein he hath compared these two editions throughout. And if in the edition of Six∣tus Quintus his bible at Antwerpe Anno 1599. thou doe not finde these lections mentioned, thou maiest thereby further vnderstand, that some of late, since Sixtus his death, haue ta∣ken paines to falsifie his edition, and to make him to speake contrary to himselfe. If then Hierome say true, *non posse verum esse quod dissonat, that is, that what doth differ, cannot be true, then is it notorious, that one of these two popes hath falsified not onely the scriptures, but also the authenticall la∣tin translation, as they call it. And if they make no scruple to falsifie the holy scriptures of God; it is no maruell, if im∣pudently they falsifie the writings of men.

The Popes also and their consorts haue committed noto∣rious Page  104 falsifications in publishing coūterfeit canons and con∣stitutions partly vnder the name of the Apostles, and partly vnder the name of diuers auncient bishops of Rome, and lastly of diuers councels and fathers. [falsification 8] For first they haue set vs out 84. * canons vnder the names of the Apostles. Ha∣drian the Pope alloweth and receiueth the vi. Synode, and all her canons, in one of which the canons of the Apostles were confirmed▪ and thereupon Gratin concludeth, that they were authenticall. And commonly the church of Rome allead∣geth these canons, whensoeuer she hopeth to winne any ad∣uantage by them. But many reasons declare them to bee counterfeit. As first, for that contrary to the doctrine of the Church, the baptisme of heretikes is condemned can. 45. Se∣condly, can. 65. saterdaies fast is forbidden. Thirdly, once dipping in baptisme is déemed vnsufūcient can. 49. contrary to the orders of the Church. Fourthly, the catalogue of scrip∣tures rehearsed can. 84. is by none allowed▪ for neither wil the Church of Rome allow of the third booke of Machabeyes, nor of the Epistles of Clement. Fifthly, the Apostles, as is said, in those canons confirme the Gospell of S. Iohn; yet stories report, that the same was not written before the rest of the Apostles were dead. Sixthly, these counterfeit canons mention diuers orders of ministers, of fastes, of bestowing of ecclesiasticall liuings, and such like, not vsed in the Apo∣stles times. Finally, not only Isidore c. canones, dist. 16. and Leo c. Clementis. dist. 16. but also Gelasius c. sancta Roma∣na. dist. 15. doth number these canons among apocryphal writings.

But in nothing doth the impudencie of the Romish Sy∣nagogue and her agents appeare more, then in the falsis•…a∣tion of the actes of councels. For they haue not onely falsifi∣ed diuers particuler actes, and canons, and foisted them in among the actes of councels, but also deuised whole procée∣dings, as passed in auncient councels, which notwithstan∣ding are méerely forged.

[falsification 9] The actes of the councell of Sinuessa reported by Peter Crabbe and Surius seeme to be much falsified. For first of the thrée copies, that are in Surius not one agréeth with another. Page  105Secondly, séeing as 318. bishops could hardly be drawne to the great councell of Nice, in the peace of the church, albeit Constantine called them out of all parts of the world; if is not like, that in time of persecution 300. bishops could bee drawne to Sinuess▪ about Marcellinus, according as it is re∣ported in the acts of the councell. Thirdly, the spéeches of Marcellinus and the rest are so simple, and the stile so much differing from those times, that he must be of a very dull vn∣derstanding▪ that perceiueth not the falshood of the author of those actes. Fourthly, the actes of that pretended councel are contrary to themselues. For in the latter ende they say, prima sedes non iudicabitur a quoquam: and yet a little be∣fore, it is said, that the bishoppes did condemne Marcellinus. damnauerunt cum say they, extra ciuitatem. Finally, the pro∣céeding in Mrcellinus his sacrificing to Idoles, and in his triall by 72. witnesses, is most ridiculous, and no way to be iustified by authenticall records.

[falsification 10] Likewise seeme the actes of the councell of Neocaesarea and Ancyra to be counterfeit. For in times of persecution it was not like, that many bihops could assemble, or had any care of commaund and superioritie, or any credit to make lawes concerning gouernment. Besides that, histories authentical make no mention of law-making councels before the gene∣rall councell of Nice. Finally the actes are so simple, and so euill agrée with those times, in which they are said to passe, that we must either haue authenticall proofe for them, or els must haue leaue to beléeue them to be forged.

[falsification 11] The actes of the councell of Rome vnder Siluester doe so plainly appeare to be forged, that I doe wonder, that our aduersaries are not much ashamed of them. The number of bishops is said to be greater, then in the councell of Nice. The names of them are méere (a)barbarous; and (b) Gréeke bishops comming to that councell commonly haue latine names. The fable of cleansing of Constantine from his le∣prosie is there reported. 57. bishops of (c)Rinocoruris are said to be present; yet did they not subscribe. The councell was said to be assembled by the aduise of Constantine, or of his mother: they séeme not to know, whether. The actes Page  106 are most disagréeing from those times, and some of them ve∣ry ridiculous, as for example, that Nonnes should not pro∣fesse virginitie, vntill the age of 72. yeares, when such profes∣sion is néedlesse. Finally, the words are so barbarous, that they sauor of gothicall and lombardicall monkerie; and the actes so beneficiall to the sea of Rome, that euery man may sée, that later Popes vnder the title of this councell meant to couer their owne ambitious decrées, and humors.

[falsification 12] Most shamefully also haue the agentes of the Romish church corrupted the actes of the councell of Nice. Ruffin and all authenticall writers mention no more, but onely 20. ca∣nons. * Pope Stephen also confesseth, that there are but only 20. canons receiued of the Romish church. viginti tantum capitula Nicenae synodi in sancta Romana ecclesia habentur, saith he. * But Gratian vnder colour of an Epistle of Athana∣sius affirmeth, that there are seuenty canons made in that coun∣cell: and now of late one Alphonsus of Pisa a Iebusite hath set out 80. canons of that councell translated, as he saith, out of Arabicke. He might haue done well to haue said translated out of the language of China▪ for then rather would diuers haue beléeued them, then gone to China to search or examine the truth of Alphonsus his report.

[falsification 13] In the sixt councel of Carthage Sozimus bishop of Rome was manifestly conuinced by actes of the councell sent from diuers places to haue foisted in a false canon into the actes of the councell of Nice. His agents auerred, that the councell of Nice had decréed, vt si episcopus accusatus fuerit, & iudica∣uerint episcopi regionis ipsius, & de gradu suo deiecerint eum, & appellasse episcopus videatur, & confugerit, ad beatissimum ecclesiae Rom. episcopum, & voluerit audiri &c. That the ap∣peale should be receiued, but the whole councel did take him in the very act of forgerie. The same also may be proued by the true actes of the councel, and by all authenticall writers, that report the actes of that councel truely.

[falsification 14] Paschasius one of the Popes agents in the 16. action of the councel of Chalcedon according to instructions giuen him al∣leadged a piece of a counterfeit canon of the councel of Nice, beginning thus, Ecclesia Rom. semper habuit primatum.Page  107 That these words are foisted into the sixth canon of the coū∣cel, it appeareth by the view of the canons themselues, as they are set downe, not onely by Ruffinus in his ecclesiastical history, but also by Peter Crabbe, Surius, Carranza, and other Romanists.

[falsification 15] The 36. canon of the sixt synode, is thus reported in the omes of councels, and in Carranza, Renouantes quae à san∣ctis patribus 153. qui in hac regia vrbe conuenerunt, & 630. qui Chalcedone conuenerunt, decenimus, vt thronus constantino∣politanus aequalia priuilegia cum antiquae Romae throno obti∣neat, & in ecclesiasticis negotijs vt illa emineat, secundus post illam existens. post quem Alexandrinorum metropolis nume∣retur. deinde Antiochiae, & post eum Hierosolymitanae ciui∣tatis. But this canon is diuersly falsified by the Romanists. for first they cut out certaine wordes, as they are found in the 18. canon of the greeke copies of the actes of the councell of Chalcedon; and this canon of the sixth synode they turne contrarie to the meaning of the Fathers, setting it downe in these termes. *Renouantes sancti constantinopolitani decreta concilij, petimus, vt constantinopolitana sedes similia priuile∣gia, quae superior Roma habet, accipiat, nec non in ecclesiasti∣cis rebus magnificetur, vt illa, sed haec secunda post illam exi∣stens, prius quam Alexandrina sedes numeretur; deinde Antio∣chena & post eam Hierosolymitana. Thus is it set downe in the canon lawe corrected by Gregory the thirteenth, and yet differeth much from the originall▪ but in all auncient copies we reade, non tamen in ecclesiasticis rebus magnificetur vt illa: which is a farre greater corruption then the other.

[falsification 16] The fift councell of Carthage c. 3. determineth, that bi∣shops and priests and deacons should abstaine from their owne wiues,〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, as Balsamon interpreteth it, tē∣pore vicis suae, or during the time of their turne of seruice▪ to make the best of it, yet can it not signifie propria aut priora statuta. Yet the Romanistes dist. 33. c. placuit. haue falsiff∣ed the canon, adding subdeacons, that were left out of the canon, and making this canon absolutely to exclude Bi∣shoppes, Priestes, and Deacons from their wiues at all times.

Page  108

[falsification 17] In the councell of Miluis c. 22. African priests, deacons, and inferiour clerkes are forbidden absolutely to appeale be∣yond the seas. But Gratian like a falsary hath added to the canon, nisi forte sedem Romanam appellauerint, that is, vn∣lesse they appeale to the fee of Rome, which is quite contrary to the meaning of the canon. And therefore Gregory the thirteenth in his bookes of the canon lawe, hath set downe these wordes in an other letter. but he rather hurteth, then helpeth the matter, testifying that all the Romanists that al∣leadged, or vsed the canon thus before his late correction, were falsaries.

[falsification 18] In the councell of Laodicea the Fathers can. 5. forbid Christians idolatrously to worship angels, ad angelos idolo∣latriae abominandae congregationes facere. But the Roma∣nists being guilty in their owne conscience of the idolatrous worship of angels, for angelos haue set downe angulos, as appeareth by Surius, Carranza, and diuers late editions of councels. Now that this is a falshood, it is to be proued by the testimony of Chrysostomes homilies, and Theodorets commentaries, vpon the Epistle to the Colossians, and Bel∣larmine in his first booke de cultu sanctorum cap. 20.

[falsification 19] Pius the fift in a certaine contention betwixt him, and the Emperor, * to helpe his owne cause, doth most falsely alleadge a canon of the councell of Nice, whereby he would prooue, that by the determination of that councell the Pope of Rome was made Lord, and gouernour of all Princes that bore the name of Christians, and that the councell did anathematise all, that dare say contrary. E sentenza, saith he, di tutti theologi è canonisti, è determinatione de concilij, massimamente del Niceno, Ch' il succcessor di san pietro sia signore è rettore di tutti i principi del nome christiano, de tutte le prouincie, & tutte le genti, anathematizando chiunque cio ardisse contra∣dire. A wonderfull great principalitie, certes, if he should he made gouernour of all christian Princes, of all prouinces, and nations. But this principality is grounded vpon no o∣ther foundation, then lewd lies, and forgeries. For in the actes of the Nicene councell there is no such matter, as may appeare both by the testimony of Ruffin, and confession of Page  109Surius, Carranza, Bellarmine and Baronius, that are not able to shew vs any such act in the Nicene councell. We must therefore pray Robert Parsons, otherwise Howlet, and his disciple Owlyglasse to shewe vs this noble canon alleadged by Pius their holy Father: vnlesse they meane, that the world shall be made acquainted with the impostures, and falsifications of the Romish church. For as lawes deter∣mine, they are falsaries, that shall adde to lawes, constitutions, and canons, and are as falsaries to be punished. *Si quis saith Modestinus, falsis constitutionibus nullo authore habito vtitur, lege cornelia aqua & igni interdicitur.

[falsification 20] But it nothing els were; yet the counterfeit donation, which the Popes of Rome pretend to haue béene made by Constantine is sufficient to conuince them of falsification. for therein by a tricke of forgery they claime, not onely a soue∣rainty ouer the whole cleargy, but also a great part of the Westerne empire. And so stifly doe they stand in the main∣tenance of this grant, that they will hardly bee induced to heare the contrary. Augustine Steuchus in a large volume goeth about to defend it. But, notwithstanding all his plea∣ding, he is a simple fellow, that doth not sée this grant to be counterfeit; and very bolde, if not impudent, that will de∣fend it, as doth the glosse set out by Gregory the thirtéenth, alleadging the testimony of Anselme, Deusdedit, Leo nonus, Petrus Damianus, and such other forged deuises. For first it is intituled Palea, which argueth, that it was thrust into Gratian, and was for credit as light as chaffe. Secondly this donation séemeth to be translated out of the legend of Sylue∣ster. Thirdly, all stories report contrary to this donation, that Constantine was baptized at Nicomedia a little before his death. Constantinus Nicomediae baptizatus est saith The∣odoret, paulò ante mortem.*distulerat enim vsque ad illud tem∣pus, in Iordane stuuio hoc promereri desiderans. The same is also confirmed by the testimony of Eusebius, Hierome, Ruffin, Socrates, Sozomen and others. But this donation doth sig∣nifie, that he was baptized by Siluester, and as it is in Silue∣sters legend, cured of a leprosie, and that before the warres with Licinius and Maximinus. 4. This donation was gran∣ted Page  110 as is sayd, in the beginning of Constantines reigne. But that cannot be true, séeing it mentioneth Constātinople, yt was not so named, nor founded by Constantine vntill long after. In the Nicne councell Alexander was called epis∣copus Bizantij, and Sozomen testifieth, that Constantinople was founded in the height of Constantines prosperite. 5. This donation preferring the bishop of Rome before the other pa∣triarkes is playnly repugnant to the counsell of Nice, that maketh all ye patriarkes aequal. 6. The bishop of Rome neuer enioyed any such prerogatiues, as are giuen him by this counterfet grante, either in Gréece or other places. 7. He is called Vniuersalis episcopus by that grante; yet did Gregorie the first refuse that title long after this time. 8. The Popes now weare a triple crowne, yet Siluester would not, as this donation pretendeth, weare an imperiall crowne. 9. No au∣thenticall history maketh mention of this great donation. 10 Nay contrarywise histories relate, that Constantines sonnes, and successors did long after inioy those things, which are in the gift pretēded to be deliuered to Siluester. 11. Neuer were Constantine and Gallicanus consulls together. Finally the rude and rascall stile, and the circumstances of this grante, nothing fitting Constantines time, nor person, nor yet the person of Siluester, that yet scarce was secured from persecu∣tion, doe playnly declare the same to be forged.

[falsification 21] The constitution also of Ludouicus mentioned dist. 63. c. ego Ludouicus. Is most grosly forged. For first the same contradicteth the donation of Constantine. For what néeded this grant or donation, if Constantine had giuen the same, and much more before? Againe if the Popes of Rome had béene in possession of this right, the french, that were greate benefactors to that see, * would neuer haue disturbed them. 2. histories teach, that vntill Boniface the 9. his time, the popes were neuer possessed of the temporalties of Rome. 3. there are diuers copyes extant of this grant, as may appeare by Gratian, and volaterran Geograph. lib. 3. Which doe con∣tradict one another. But writinges repugnant one to ano∣ther, * and contayning manifest contradictions deserue no cre∣dit. Scripturae diuersae say lawyers, & fidem sibi iniuicem dero Page  111 gantes nihil habere firmitatis possunt. Neither can two contra∣ry propositions be taken for true as lawyers hold. in l. si is qui. § vtrum. ff. de rebus dub. &. l. vbi pugnantia. ff. de regulis iu∣ris. 4. The Romanistes neuer did chuse the pope according to this grant, nor did popes of late time grant, that emper∣ors had any authority to giue a forme for the election of the Pope. Finally, the rude and barbarous stile, and termes of the grant, and all histories, that write of the gouerment of Rome about the time of this Ludouike do proue it to be conterfect.

[falsification 22] The Popes also and their agents haue conterfected two certaine epistles vnder ye names of Iustinian and Iohn bishop Rome, which are now thrust into the code. C. de sum. trinit. & of fid. Cath. s. inter claras. And are commonly alleged for the Popes authority, and iurisdiction, as appeareth by the dis∣putes of Bellarmine, and the fabulous narrations of Caesar Baronius. the forgery is detected First, by ancient manuscript bookes, where these two epistles are not to be found, as Alci∣at testifieth parerg. lib. 5. c. 23. Secondly, these epistles are re∣pugnāt to the law next precedent. For here the emperor doth signifie, that he did then pubish this confession first,*and sent it to Iohn bishop of Rome to be allowed, or dissallowed; wher-by the law precedent and law beginning cum saluatorem. in the same title it is manifest, that he had published the same a yeare before, and sent it to Epiphanius bishop of Constanti∣ople, and to other Churches. 3. Ado of Vienna in his chroni∣cle, and Platina in the life of Boniface the 3. testifie, that the bishop of Rome was not called head of the Church before Phocas his time. 4. the law decernimus. C. de sancros. ecclesijs and law Constantinopolitana, in the same title, doth giue that yt to the bishop of Constantinople, that is héere claymed by the bishop of Rome. 5. Here the emperor promiseth to do nothing in causes ecclesiastical before he had made the bishop of Rōe acquainted withall. but that is refuted by the lawes called nouellae nu. 6. 11. &. 123. concerning the creation and ordination of bishops, the number of patriarkes & archbis∣shops, their iurisdictions and priuiledges: and likewise by the nouel constitutions. 3.5.16.58.133 &. 137. al which concern Page  112 mere ecclesiasticall causes. Finally the letter being written in Gréeke to a Romayne bishop from a Romayne Emperor, and translated after a most barbarous fashion doth playnly de∣clare the same to be forged.

[falsification 23] In the register of of Alexander the third, vnder the colour of some counterfect grantes, challenge is made by the popes to the crowne and souereinty of England. it behooueth vs ther∣fore to looke vnto the fingers of these impostors and falsa∣ries, that by one tricke of forgery are wonte to vsurpe a whole kingdome▪ nouit prudentia tua, saith Alexander the third, Anglorum regnum, ex quo Christi nomen ibi glorifica∣tum est, sub apostolorum principis manu et tutela extitisse. his meaning is if he durst vtter it, that the souerein dominion ouer England belongeth to the pope. Whosoeuer list to read ouer Augustine Steuchus ye popes bibliothecary, or rather bab∣ling falsary, shal find diuers counterfect instruments of ye sāe nature, wherby the popes clayme the kingdomes of Croatia, Aragon, Dalmatia, Denmarke, Spayne, Hungary, Poland, Russia, yea and the empire of Rome to belong to their sea. So gayn∣ful hath the craft of forgery beene to that sée. And so shame∣lesse are the popes agents in their forgeryes. [falsification 24] Most impu∣denly they make the Emperor Otho to sweare fealty to Iohn the 12. or as some recken. the 13. dist. 63. c. tibi domino. A matter so against reason forged, as nothing more. For there is not any one historiographer, that doth mention any such matter▪ nay histories report, that Otho deposed this Iohn, and caused another to be placed in his seate. So farre was he from swearing fealty to him. beside that, not any man of credit euer wrote, that the emperor held his crowne in fealty of the Pope. Bellarmine albeit he wish well to the Pope; yet doth he not holde, or beleeue any such mattter. Or at least he dare not speake or write so much. Thirdly, it is apparent, that Otho and his successors claymed iurisdiction in Rome, and the territory adioyning, longe after this supposed decre∣tale. Therefore vnlike it is, that the emperor should, as is here pretended, forswere it. Finally, the frame of the othe is most ridiculous, and the stile most brutish, the emperor calleth the pope dominum: and saith, tibi domino Page  113 Ioanni papae, ego rex Otho promittere & iurare facio. Which is a most absurd kind of spéech. For he that sweareth him∣selfe, taketh his oth directly, and maketh not others only to swere, or promise▪ but no man can deny, but that it is falsi∣ty to exhibit or vse any false instrument, or to corrupt or falsi∣fie any publike or priuat writings by any meanes whatso∣euer. paulus respondit, saith the law, legis corneliae poenateneri,*qui etiam extra testamenta cetera falsa signassent; sed et cete∣ros, qui in rationibus, tabulis, literis publicis, aliaue qua re, siue consignatione falsum fecerunt, vel vt verum non appa∣reat, quid celauerunt, surripuerunt, subiecerunt, resignaue∣runt.

[falsification 25] The epistles ascribe to Clement, Anacle tus, Euaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Hyginus. Pius, Victor and o∣ther ancient bishops of Rome are nothing but méere forge∣ryes. For first, seeing they liued in times, when latin was most purely spoken, it is not likely, but their epistles should be good latine. But these supposed epistles are most barba∣rous and Gothical, and very vnlike to the stile of Tertullian, Cyprian, Lactantius, and other fathers. Secondly, it is not like, that liuing in ancient time those bishops should speake as the Italians spoake about a thousand yeares after Christ. Thirdly, séeing there is such difference of stile in diuers wri∣ters, that no two or thrée write all alike; it is not like, if all these epistles had béene written by the men, whose names they carry, yt the stile of al should be like. Fourthly, if they were written by diuers, how happeneth it, that in diuers epistles diuers writers vse the same words, phrase and sentences? Againe what is the reason, that some of them alledge the words of the scriptures according to Hieromes traslatiō that was made longe after? Fifty, neither Bellarmine nor Baro∣nius dare maintaine; that all these epistles are authentical. 6. The Romanistes themselues doe not giue any credit to these epistles For they hold that Linus succeded Peter imme∣diatly▪ but Clement epistle. 1. telleth contrary, that he did succede Peter, being ordained by Peter himselfe. Finally, they containe some matters disagréeing farre from the times wherein they wrote, and others very impossible, and some∣times Page  114 contrarie to authenticall histories. Clement epist. 1. writeth to Iames of the death of Peter, who séemeth to be dead before Peter. He talketh of sending of bishops into France, Germany and Italy, as if he had then had men to commaund at his pleasure, and could haue disposed of things then, as in latter times. He talketh of a forme and face of gouernment, which then was not vsuall. In his second epistle most arro∣gantly he taketh on him to instruct Iames the Apostle, which had his instruction from Christ Iesus. Qualiter tenere de sacra∣mentis debemus,* saith he, te ex ordine nos decet instruere. And then full wisely he talketh, de murium stercore inter fragmen∣ta dominicae portionis. Anacletus in his first epistle, would haue all hard questions referred to the church of Rome. But it is not likely, that the true Anacletus would haue so writ∣ten, that died before Iohn the Apostle, who was better able to decide controuersies of faith, then Anacletus. In his se∣cond epistle he saith, that the Apostles appointed the 72. dis∣ciples, which the gospell sheweth vs to haue béene ordained by Christ. In his third epistle he saith, that Abilius succeeded Marke in Alexandria; whereas Anianus did follow Marke, and Abilius followed Anianus. He saith also, that Cephas signifi∣eth a head in gréeke. The same man denieth the lesser or∣ders vnder priests and deacons to be instituted by Christ or the Apostles. Euaristus talketh idely of ordaining priestes without titles, and consecrating of Churches, and stone altars; whereas titles, and churches began not before the peace of the church, and stone altars were not built for many yeares after. Sixtus beginneth his epistle thus, Sixtus vniuersalis a∣postolicae ecclesiae episcopus: whereas this title was by Gre∣gory the first, and long after Sixtus his time refused. It is not like that Hyginus being a Gréeke, wrote to the Athenians which were Gréekes in latin: which notwithstanding is sig∣nified by his epistle. Beside that he affirmeth, that the first epistle of Iohn was written to the Parthians. Calixtus in his second epistle argueth against those, that refused repentance to those, that had fallen in time of persecution, which was the heresie of Nouatus, that rose vp some prety while after his time, Pontianus in his epistle ioyneth Christ and PeterPage  115 together, contrary to the stile of those times. Marcellinus saith, non licet imperatori,*vel cuiquam pietatem custodienti aliquid contra mandata diuina praesumere: whereby he signi∣fieth, that the Emperor then professed christian religion. In his first epistle he disputeth against the Arrians, which denied Christ to be of one substance with his Father, very stoutly, and yet in his time the heresie of Arrius was not knowne in the world. Infinit other exceptions may be taken to these, and to the rest of the decretale epistles, that go vnder the name of auncient bishops of Rome. But the rest being like to these, of which we haue already spoken, there is no question, but they are all of one stampe.

[falsification 26] Melchiades 12. q. 1. c. futuram ecclesiam. telleth vs, how Constantine was christened, and gaue his seate, and other great possessions, to the church of Rome: and yet Melchiades was dead before Constantine was christened, or had giuen any thing to the Church. This act therefore must néedes be forged. and so doth the glosse confesse after a sort. falsus est ti∣tulus saith the glosse in the canons set out by Gregory the 13. which sheweth, that the Romish Church impudently vseth false titles.

[falsification 27] Next to decretale epistles, shall follow the falsification of Fathers. Out of Augustine de doctrina christiana lib. 2. c. 8. they describe this sentence, in canonicis scripturis ecclesiarum catholicarum quamplurimum diuinarum scripturarum solertis∣simus indagator authoritatem sequatur, inter quas sane illae sunt, quas apostolica sedes habere, & ab ea alij meruerunt accipere epistolas. Where these last wordes & ab ea alij, are foisted in: and thereupon in the rubrike they affirme, that the Popes decretale epistles are to be reckened among canonicall scrip∣tures: and that they go about to prooue most falsely by the te∣stimony of S. Augustine, that doth not so much as speake one word of the popes decretale epistles.

[falsification 28] The Fathers assembled in Trullo say, that Iames and Ba∣sil〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: that is, in the holy ministration of the Lords supper taught, that the cuppe was filled with wine and water. But the papists make them say, that Iames and Basil did deliuer vnto vs missae ce∣lebrationem,Page  116 that is, the first forme of celebrating masse, as they expound it.

[falsification 29] C. species. de consecrat. dist. 1. there is a place alleadged out of Gregory homil. paschali. but falsely.

[falsification 30] Likewise C. vtrum. de consecrat. dist. 2. is pretended to be taken out of Saint Augustine. yet the wordes are not found in Saint Augustine, as they are there set downe.

[falsification 31] C. in Christo. de consecrat. dist. 2. is otherwise set downe then in Hilary, from whence the place is said to be taken. In the same chapter these wordes, corpus Christi quod sumi∣tur de altari, and these which followe are also foisted into Hilary.

[falsification 32] Into the wordes of consecration of the cuppe in the very canon, they haue thrust in these wordes, & aeterni, myste∣rium fidei.

[falsification 33] Vnder the names of Fathers, they haue set vs out a num∣ber of treatises vnworthy of the Fathers learning or pietie. Vnder the name of Clement they haue published diuers con∣stitutions by him affirmed to be apostolicall Of like stampe also are Clements fabulous recognitions. yet Gelasius doth place those constitutions among apocryphall writings. Ter∣tullians and Origens tractates are often alleadged by papists; yet doth Gelasius note them, as bookes corrupted. Vnder the title of Martialis, Africanus, Amphilochius, Prochorus, and such like auncient writers, they alleadge most vaine and idle Pamphlets, neither sauouring of the pietie of those fathers, nor bearing the state of the times, wherein those Fathers liued.

Vnder the name of Cyprian are these treatises published: De montibus Sion & Sinah. de reuelatione capitis beati Ioannis. de singularitate clericorū. de cardinalibus operibus Christi. de laude Martyrij. de disciplina & bono pudicitiae. epistola ad No∣uatianum. sermones aliquot. orationes duae. which by diuers arguments appeare not to belong to Cyprian. In the booke of the Reuelation of S. Iohns head, there is mention made of king Pipin, that liued diuers hundreth yeares after Cypri∣an. and in this our opinion not onely Erasmus, but diuers o∣ther authenticall writers concurre with vs.

Page  117

Vnder the name of Hierome there are also extant, diuers counterfeit treatises, as first, a sermon de assumptione B. Ma∣riae virginis, 2. a treatise de septem gradibus ecclesiae, wherein the author reckeneth bishops for a distinct order from priests, and leaueth out exorcistes. 3. a treatise intituled laus virgi∣nitatis. 4. de attributis dei ex scripturis. 5. certaine sermons vpon principall feasts. 6. de vinculis beati Petri. 7. de diuer∣sis generibus leprarum. 8. regula monachorum à Lupo quodam tempore Martini quinti collecta. 9. ad Tyrasium de morte filiae. 10. ad oceanum de ferendis opprobrijs. 11. de vita clericorum. 12. epistola Damasi ad Hieronymum, & Hieronymi ad Dama∣sum. 13. Catalogus ad Desiderium. 14. de virtute Psalmorum. 15. de oblationibus altaris ad Damasum. 16. regula monacha∣rum. 17. de natiuitate Mariae: and other treatises.

Vnder the name of S. Augustine we haue certaine ser∣mons de tempore, de sanctis, & ad fratres in eremo, which both stile, matter, and other circumstances shewe not to be his. There are also meditations, and soliloquies, ascribed to him, but most vnworthy to beare his name. In the medita∣tions hee establisheth the worship of angels, which in his booke of heresies, he reputeth to be an heresie. that booke I haue séene vnder the name of Anselmus, yet vnworthy the learning of Anselmus. in the soliloquies we reade the fable of Longinus. Beside that, both these bookes in stile, and grace sauour nothing lesse, then of Augustines spirit. In the Ma∣nual, that goeth vnder Augustines name, beside much foolery there is plaine heresie. In the 16. chapter he sheweth, that it is in mans power to merit the kingdome of heauen; which is Pelagianisme, and a saying of S. Augustine in diuers places refuted. Beside that, the termes sauour of a scholasticall veine. The bookes called scalae paradisi, de duodecim abusio∣num generibus, de contritione cordis, de cognitione verae vitae, de speculo, de vita christiana, de assumptione beatae Mariae, de contemptu mundi, de vanitate seculi, de obedientia & humili∣tate, de bono disciplinae, de visitatione infirmorum, de conso∣latione mortuorum, de quarta feria, de tempore barbarico, de cataclysmo, de sobrietate & virginitate, speculum peccato∣ris, de vtilitate poenitentiae, de quatuor virtutibus charitatis,Page  118 and diuers other set out vnder his name are manifestly to be prooued, not to be his, and that not onely by the testimony of learned men, but also by the stile, circumstances of the time, the monastical and grosse veine of the authors, and di∣uers other notes.

Vnder the name of Basil. and Chrysostome they haue set out, not onely commentaries and masses, but also epistles and sermons; whereof some are no where to bee found in Greeke, the rest sauour rather of a frier like veine, then of those two fathers spirit.

And the like they haue done vnder the names of the rest of the fathers. But as it is forgerie to father bastards vpon wrong fathers; so it is forgery, and great wrong to set out such base stuffe vnder the name of fathers. And this may be gathered out of the lawe, qui falsam. ff. ad l. cornel. de fal∣sis. & l. cum suppositi. Cod. etiam ad l. cornel. de falsis. Like∣wise if it be falshood, to giue vs base mettall for golde, and to pare true coyne, as appeareth by the lawe, quicun{que} num∣mos. ff. ad leg. Cornel. de falsis: then is it likewise falshood, to giue vs base stuffe for the writings of the fathers.

Herein they doe also commit another point of falshood. for hauing themselues abused the names of fathers, they by all meanes endeuour to suppresse the originall writings of the Gréeke fathers. Posseuin in his rapsody, which he entitu∣leth bibliothecam selectam (albeit it is rather bibliotheca sce∣lesta) perswadeth all, that haue gréeke copies to kéepe them from the sight of students in diuinity. Bellarmine also and Baronius, and diuers others confesse sometimes both bookes, and decretal epistles set out vnder the names of fathers, and auncient bishops of Rome to be forged. Their owne testi∣mony therefore doth condemne them to be falsaries, if they vse these false writings, and alleadge them, as they do most commonly.

[falsification 34] And least any man might doubt, whether the papists are falsaries or no; in their expurgatory indexes they openly pro∣fesse themselues to be falsaries. * For what is falsity, but to take away, to adde, to alter mens writings? but this the papists doe ex professo. Sixtus Senensis confesseth, that Pius 5. caused Page  119 all the writings of the fathers to be purged, and cleansed. Ex∣purgari & ernaculari curasti saith hee, omnia catholicorum scriptorum, ac praecipuè veterum patrum scripta, haereticorum aetatis nostrae faecibus contaminata, & venenis infecta. But vnder colour of purging, and cleansing away of things no∣xious, it appeareth the Romanists haue taken out such things out of the fathers, as made against them. As for other wri∣ters, they alter and mangle them, at their pleasures. In Bertram they change visibiliter into inuisibiliter.* All that com∣meth betwéene the words, considerandum quoque quod in panc illo, and the sentence beginning, sed aliud est quod ex∣terius geritur; they dash out. and so they deale in the rest. In the censures of Erasmus, and annotations of Viues vpon S. Augustine, and in the scholiaes, marginall notes, and inde∣xes of Augustine, Chrysostome and others, they take them∣selues liberty, to doe what they list. Capnioes speculum ocu∣lare, Fabres commentaries on the gospels, and epistles, Bea∣tus Rhenanus his annotations on Tertullian they falsifie most impudently. Likewise doe they deale with all late writers. Not long since we •…nde they haue corrupted both the glosse, and sometime the text of the canon law. And this is now a common practise of Iebusites, according to a direction and commission giuen them of the Pope to corrupt all authors, that passe their fingers. Posseuima shamelesse compagnion curtalling auncient writings saith, ex lib. 2. Hermetis col. 16. *deleatur, rectè audisti. & paulò pòst, qui enim crediderunt, aut credituri sunt. In transitu sanctae Mariae, qui falsò ascribitur B. Melitoni, deleantur illa verba, in solatium ferendum angu∣gustijs, quae superuenturae sunt mihi. deleatur etiam à capi∣te 8. vsque in finem tractatus. ex libro Nicolai Cabasilae de∣leantur capita 29. & 30. In quaestionibus Anastasij quaest. 87. scribatur in margine: haec intelligenda sunt de gloria corpo∣ris. The treatise of Antonius Abbas he turneth, and man∣gleth most impudently, and practiseth the like in diuers other authours workes. If then any man séeke for falsa∣ries, let him go to papists, that make profession of forging and falsification, and which without forgery cannot main∣taine their new forged deuises, as thēselues by their indexesPage  120 of bookes prohibited confesse, and by bookes plainly falsified, it manifesty appeareth.

Finally they are falsaries, that produce or suborne false witnesses, or that vse their depositions. Poena legis Corne∣liae irrogatur ei,* saith Marcianus, qui falsas testationes facien∣das, testimoniaue falsa inspicienda dolo malo coierit. But the Popes produce counterfeit fathers, and legends to testi∣fie for them. They haue also suborned diuers vile persons to speake shame of honest men, as Bolsecus of Caluin; Lain∣gius of Buchanan, and others; Sanders, Rishton, Robert Patsons and Creswell against King Henry the eighth, Quéen Elizabeth, the late Lord treasurer, the Earle of Leicester, sir Christopher Hatton Lord chancellor, sir Francis Walsing∣ham, and others. The falsehood of these witnesses is con∣uinced by diuers publike actes, and sufficient witnesses. Bolsecus in a synode in France publikely recanted his slan∣derous booke, and professed, that he was hired, and drawne on by the aduersaries. Parsons shall heare some of his lies hereafter. His conscience in the meane while hath often tolde him of his lying. Wherefore, vnlesse Owlyglasse can answere in these pointes, the accusation of falsification doth fall on his dearest friends farre more heaui∣ly, then vpon vs.

Page  121

CHAP. V. A briefe Catalogue of certaine noto∣rious lies vttered, and recorded by the Popes, and Church of Rome.

TO go about to comprehend in one Chapter all the vntruthes, and lies of the popes of Rome, and the syna∣gogue adhering vnto them, were as possible, as to measure the sand, or to bring the Ocean sea within the compasse of one vessell. I will there∣fore out of many, choose some fewe, that by the example of some part, e∣uery man may iudge of the rest, and discerne, and hate the false packing of papists, and their adherents.

[falsification 1] Innocentius the first, or rather some other Pope vnder his name affirmeth, that none did found Churches in Italy, France, Spaine, Africke, Sicily and Ilands lying betweene these coun∣tries, but those whom Peter and his successors made Priests. He denieth also, that any of the Apostles taught in those countries, beside S. Peter, and those which he sent. Cum manifestum fit, saith he, in omnem Italiam, Gallias, Hispanias,*Africam atque Siciliam, insulasque interiacentes nullum instituisse ecclesias, nisi eos, quos venerabilis apostolus Petrus, aut eius successores con∣stituerunt sacerdotes. aut legant, si in istis prouincijs alius apo∣stolorum inuenitur, aut legitur docuisse. quod si non legunt, quia nusquam inuenitur &c. A lowde and large lye. for we reade in the Actes of the Apostles, that the Apostle Paul, who was not ordained, nor sent by Peter taught at Rome, and Page  122 other places in Italie. Freculphus writeth ytPhilip the Apostle taught in France. the French acknowledge Dionyse of Areo∣pagus, whome Paule conuerted, to be their Apostle, and first teacher▪ Iereney ioyneth Paule with Peter in the foundation of the Church of Rome. In the old records of our Church it is reported, that Ioseph of Arimathia first planted the gos∣pell in Britany. Saint Augustine sheweth that the Gospell came into Afrike from other contryes, then from Rome. For he distinguisheth Rome from those countries, frō whence the sound of the Gospell first passed into Afrike, as appeareth by these words of his epist. 162. ad Glorium, Eleusium et alios: Cum se videret, & Romanae ecclesiae, in qua semper apostolicae ecclesiae viguit principatus & ceteris terris, vnde euangelium ad ipsam Aphricam venit, per. communicatorias litteras esse con∣iunctum. Finally so lowd was the lye, that the glosse is con∣streined to say, that the word Alius; doth signifie, contrarius: which is quite contrary to Innocentius his purpose. For if his argument stand vpon this point, that therefore all the Chur∣ches in the prouinces mentioned are to obey the Church of Rome, because shée was their founder; then if other not contrary to Peter did founde those Churches; it followeth that the same were not to harken to the pope or the Church of Rome but to their founders.

[falsification 2] Gregorie the fourth saith, that all bishops causes, and the dis¦cussing of matters of religion belōgeth to the apostolike Roma∣ne See, as the head of all Churches, & the place, frō whence the Church tooke her beginning. cum nulli dubium sit, saith hée, quod non solum pontificalis causatio,*sed omnis sanctae religio∣nis relatio ad sedem apostolicam, quasi ad caput ecclesiarum debeat referri, & inde normam sumere, vnde sumpsit exordiū. Anatorious lye. For the law went out of Sion, and not from Rome: and bishops causes were handled in times past in councels, and not before the bishops of Rome. There al∣so were matters of faith decided, and not by the Romish bi∣shops, as this lying Pope affirmeth. Nay the causes of the bishop of Rome himselfe, as wel as of all other bishops, were handled in councels.

[falsification 3] Vnder the name of Athanasius the Church of Rome c. Sep∣tuaginta. Page  123 dist. 17. teacheth, that the counsell of Nice published 80. canons, which were reduced afterward to the number of 70. according to the number of 70. disciples; and that the copie brought to Alexandria was burnt by heretikes. But authen∣ticall stories doe refute this lye, and shew, that there were onely 20. Canons established in that councell. Beside yt, *Luke saith, that Christ sent 72. disciples, As the old latin transtati∣on hath. Thirdly, if the canons were 80. it were a méere fal∣sity to cut of, or reduce 80. to 70. Finally, of the burning of the canons of the Nicene counsell there is no recorde in any au∣thenticall writer.

[falsification 4] Marcellus saith, that these words. Psal. 81. ego dixi dij estis, are spoken of Preestes. And thereby would proue them to bée aboue magistrates. Si seculares in publicis iudicijs saith he, *li∣bellis vtuntur appellatorijs, quanto magis sacerdotibus haec ea∣dem agere licet, de qubus dictum est, ego dixi, dij estis? The Pope therefore may bee conuinced of notorious ly∣ing and forging by all interpreters, and not only by the text it selfe.

[falsification 5] Vnder the name of Leo. c. ita dominus. dist. 19. They teach, that Peter was assumed into an inseperable bond of vnitie with Christ. hunc in consortium indiuiduae vnitatis assumptum; id quod ipse erat, voluit nominari; a matter vntrue and blasphe∣mous, and vnworthy to be vttred by Leo. For albeit Christ consist of two natures; yet no man euer yet sayed beside this counterfectLeo, that Christ and Peter made one per∣son.

[falsification 6] Anacletus saith, that Peter was made bishop, when Christ sayd to him, thou art Peter, and vpon this rocke I will builde my Church, and the gates of hell shal not preuaile against it,*and I will giue thee the keys of the kindome of heauen. He saith, also, that the rest of the Apostles made Peter their prince; cete∣ri vero apostoli cum eodem pari consortio honorem & potes∣tatem acceperunt, ipsumque principem eorum esse voluerunt. But this second poynt is refuted by the whole tenor of the euangelical history, and the actes of the Apostles recorded by Saint Luke. For in no place we finde, where the Apostles did ordaine or make Peter their prince or gouernor. Nay we Page  124 rather finde, where Christ made all the Apostles equall. The first point is contradicted also by the words of Christ, who in the future tence said: Dabo tibi, and not Do tibi. Bellarmine also holdeth, that Peter in this place receiued nothing, but a promise. quorum verborum saith he, planus & obuius sensus est,*vt intelligamus sub duabus metaphoris promissum Pe∣tro totius ecclesiae principatum. Hee speaketh of the sence of the words rehersed by Anacletus, and by his exposition it ap∣peareth, that Anacletus sayd vntruely, that Peter was made bishop by christs words vttred Mat. 16. which may al∣so be proued by Turrecremata in his treatise de ecclesia. Final∣ly all the Popes agents hold, that Peter receiued the primacy from Christ, and not from the Apostles.

[falsification 7] Gelasius saith, that the Church of Rome obtained the pri∣macie not by any ordinances of synodes,*but by Christes owne words in the Gospell. A matter most vntrue. For the scrip∣tures speake no where of the primacy of the Romish Church▪ neither can it be proued out of the wordes, tu es Petrus: al∣ledged by Gelasius. Neither doth euery prerogatiue of Peter belonge to the Church of Rome. Nor had the apostle Peter any such high primacy, As the Pope nowe claymeth; and practiseth.

[falsification 8] Pope Nicolas saith, that Dioscorus was not condemned for matter of faith,*but for denouncing an excommunication a∣gainst Leo bishop of Rome. But the actes of the 2. councell of Ephesus being in fauour of Eutyches, and the councell of Chal∣cedon do reproue him, and playnly conuince him of vntruth. The same also may be gathered by the chapter Canones▪ dist. 15. And therefore the glosse to salue this lye, saith we must so vnderstand Nicolas his words, as if he had sayd, that Dioscorus was not condemned for matter of faith onely; which was no part of Nicolas his meaning.

[falsification 9] Omnes siue patriarchij cuiuslibet apices, siue metropoleon primatus, aut episcopatuum Cathedras, vel ecclesiarum cuiusli∣bet ordinis dignitates,* saith Nicolas the Pope, instituit Roma∣na ecclesia. But he telleth a grosse vntruth▪ for the scriptures tell vs, that the Apostle Paule ordeined bishops in Crete, E∣phesus, and diuers places both in Europe, and Asia; and Page  125 ecclesiasticall histories tell vs, that neither the Church of Ie∣rusalem, nor Antioch, nor other easterne Churches, nor their dignities were founded by the Church of Rome. Finally the actes of councels tell vs, that councelles did appoynt the seuerall limits of bishops diocesses, & did enlarge their dig∣nityes according to diuers occasions; and that emperours, and the dignities of greate cityes did adde dignity to the bishops.

[falsification 10] The same Nicolas also affirmeth, that Christ gaue to Peter terreni simul, & caelestis imperii iura. that is, the right both of the kingdome of heauen, and kingdome of earth.* But our Sauiour Christs words shew, that he gaue him no earthly kingdome, but promised him onely the keyes of the kingdome of heauen. Nay if he be Christes vicar, then he must clayme no earthly kingdome. For our Sauiour Christs kingdome was not of this world.

[falsification 11] Anacletus affirmeth, that Peter and Paule were both crowned with Martyrdome in one day, and at the same time.* a matter denyed by Prudentius peri steph. hym 12. Arator in Act. Apost. lib. 2. and the author of the 18. Sermon de sanctis, that goeth vnder Saint Augustines name, and diuers others.

[falsification 11] Pope Nicholas saith, that Constantine called the bishop of Rome God. Constat à pio principe Constantino (quod longe su¦perius memorauimus) deum appellatū.* And vpon this ground he goeth about to proue, that the Pope is not to be iudged by any. But this ground is an impudente lye, and cannot bée iustified by any authenticall writing.

[falsification 12] In the chapter beginning Cōstantinus. dist. 96. yeCanonistes affirme, That Constantine the emperor gaue his crowne, and all regall dignity in the citie of Rome, and in Italy, and in the westerne contries to the Pope. Constantinus imperator Coro∣nam, & omnem regiam dignitatem in vrbe Romana, & in Ita∣lia, & in partibus occidentalibus apostolico concessit, say they in their decrées▪ but this is an impudentlye refuted by al au∣thēticall writers, that describe the state of the empire of Rōe, and of the westerne empire after Constantines time. and is cōtradicted by the princes of Italy, yt for the most pate deny Page  126 to holde any thing of the Pope in fealty. Like vnto this fa∣ble is that, which is reported of Constantines leprosie, and how he was counselled to bathe himselfe in childrens bloud, and was at last cured by Syluester bishop of Rome by baptisme. For this is contrary to physicke, to cure leprosie by bathing in childrens bloud, and not well agreeth with diuinity, vn∣lesse it can be shewed, that baptisme cureth corporall disea∣ses. Finally, the same is not found in any good authour, but onely séemeth to be deuised by the writers of fabulous legendes.

[falsification 13] Anacletus telleth, how prouinces were distinguished by the Apostles,*and by Clement. But that fabulous relation is refuted by actes of councels, and constitutions of emperors, that from time tooke order for the limits of prouinces, and diocesses, and did innouate olde limits oftentimes; which assuredly they would not haue done, if the same had béen or∣dered by apostolicall constitutions. The same is also con∣tradicted by those, that attribute, the distinction and limitati∣on of parishes to later Popes. Finally, it is disproued by the recordes of auncient time, that signifie, how the Church be∣ing in persecution, the bishops that liued obscurely, had no reason ambitiously to contend, either about the limits of pro∣uinces, or els lesser diocesses.

[falsification 14] Vnder the credit of Tharasius they say, that Peter deposed those,*that were ordained by Simony, as he did Simon Magus. Cum Petrus diuinus ille apostolus, cuius & Cathedram sortita est fraterna vestra sanctitas, say they, hos deposuerit, vt Simo∣nem magum. But Simon Magus was not ordered, nor did euer Peter depose any so ordered, as may appeare both by the actes of the Apostles, and authenticall stories. Is not this then a fable, that they tell of Peter,, and of Simoniacall per∣sons pretended to be deposed by Peter?

[falsification 15] Innocent the fourth affirmeth, that the kingdome of Sicily is the speciall patrimony of Peter.*Regnum saith he, est spe∣ciale patrimonium Petri. But Peter neither claimed so much, nor acknowledged so much, nor knew so much. Neither do we reade, either in scriptures, or fathers, that hee had any such patrimony.

Page  127

[falsification 16] He saith also impudently, that in the person of Peter it was said to himselfe also,*whatsoeuer thou shalt binde vpon the earth, shall be bound in heauen. And therefore he concludeth, that he hath power to depose Princes. Doth it not then ap∣peare, that the Pope by lies, hath vsurped power to depose princes? and doth he not absurdly and falsely affirme, that Frederike was deposed by God, because he like a rebell pro∣nounced him deposed, being a wicked man?

[falsification 17] Clemens the fift affirmeth most falsely, that the Empe∣rours hauing the crowne of the empire set vpon their heads, sweare fealty to the Popes. That this assertion is false, * it may appeare by the emperor Henries protestation, by all histo∣ries, that talke of the emperors consecration, and by Bellar∣mines disputes. For though he was willing to gratifie the Pope with any thing, that lay in his power to grant; yet durst he not say, that the empire is holden in fée of the Pope, or that the emperor sweareth fealty to the pope. How much then is it to be wondred, that christian emperours should so patiently endure these vsurpations of popes? Doth it not plainly appeare, that S. Iohns prophecie is fulfilled, howe they shall giue their authoritie and power to the beast? Certes, * if this were not, they would neuer haue resigned their crown so basely into such beastly creatures hands, and take that of antichrist, which is originally their owne, and giuen them of God.

[falsification 18] The same Clement affirmeth, that the king of Sicile is the Churches, and his vasal,*and that he is the emperours superior iudge, and during the vacation of the empire, doth succeede the Emperour. Nos tam ex superioritate saith he, quam ad impe∣rium non est dubium nos habere, quam ex potestate, in qua va∣cante imperio imperatori succedimus. But this doth not on∣ly conuince the Pope of singular pride and arrogancy, but also of falsehood and treachery. For Gregory the first called the emperor dominum, that is, his Lord▪ and Peter was sub∣iect to the emperor, and also taught subiection to kings. Fur∣thermore it is simplicity, to teach, * that the church doth pos∣sesse earthly kingdomes, and hardly will the pope prooue, by any authenticall testimony, that the king of Sicily is his vas∣sal. Page  128 Finally, it is a shame to all the empire, to endure this ly∣ing beast to disgrace the imperial state; and a matter of méere impudency for any to affirme, that the Pope is Emperour du∣ring the vacation. And, I thinke, neither Bellarmine, nor Ba∣ronius, albeit wel paid for lying, wil affirme, ye all that, which the Pope writeth in that shamelesse decretale, is true.

[falsification 19] Boniface the 8. saith the Romish church hath two swords. In hac eiusque protestate saith he, *duos esse gladios, spiritua∣lem scilicet & temporalem, euangelicis dictis instruimur. But, that the Church hath a temporall sword, is most vntrue. for the Church hath the keyes of the kingdome of heauen, and no swordes to gouerne terrestriall kingdomes. It is also most false, that the euangelists teach vs, that the Church hath the temporall sword. For Christ said to Peter, Pasce, and not, macta oues meas. that is, féede my shéepe, and not, kill my shéepe.

[falsification 20] In the glosse of the Chapter, vnam sanctam. extr. de maio∣rit. & obed. we reade, that the Romanists affirme, that no man can be saued, vnlesse he be subiect to the Pope. Si Chri∣sto Capiti, & eius vicario subesse nolumus, salutem non pote∣rimus adipisci. The same is also gathered out of the text of Bonifaces decretale. But this is a maine vntruth. for the Apostles, and diuers of the Easterne, and Africane churches, and others not subiect to the Pope are saued, and I hope the papists will not deny, but they are saued. If they doe, I hope we may say, their denyall is a damned denyall.

[falsification 21] The same Boniface also affirmeth most vntruely, that the Pope cannot be iudged of any, but God. but the Emperour, he beléeueth, may be iudged by the Pope. That he speaketh vntruth in both these points, I haue shewed in my bookes de Pontifice Rom. and de coneilijs. Histories also report, that diuers popes haue béene iustly deposed by councels and emperors, as for example Iohn the 12. Iohn the 23. Eugenius the fourth, and others. but that the Pope did iustly depose the emperour, we reade not. For men of great excellency haue condemned the fact of Gregory the 7. Paschalis, Gregory the 9. Innocent the fourth, and others, that attempted to de∣pose the emperor. But we reade not of any man, that euer Page  129 allowed it, but such as were hired to commend all the popes rebellions, and practises.

[falsification 22] Clement the sixt saith, that Christ shed more bloud, then was sufficient for the redemption of the world,*and that the o∣uerplus was laid vp in a treasurie for the Popes to bestow for remission of temporall punishment. He telleth also a tale of the image of Christ, that appeared on the wall of the Church of our Sauiour built by Constantine. Matters if not blasphe∣mous, yet very vntrue, for not the shedding of bloud abso∣lutely, but the death of our Sauiour was the satisfaction, that was to be paied for the sinnes of the world. Secondly, Christ died not, nor shedde his bloud, that the Pope might make saie of it by his indulgences, as is his fashion; but that euery one, that beléeueth on him, might haue remission of sinnes, and be saued. Which beliefe cannot stand with the popes dispensations and indulgences. Thirdly, the fable of the apparition of this image would be proued; or els it may easily be proued, that it is a false fable deuised of idolaters for iustification of their abhominable idolatry. To relate all the lies, that are set downe in the Latine, Italian, Spanish and English legends would require a great volume. Baronius hath set out nine or tenne volumes of legendarie lies. Yet hath he not comprised the one halfe of them, that are contai∣ned in the legends. I will therefore onely giue you a taste of a fewe, that you may the better iudge of the rest. [falsification 23] In S. Andrewes legend set downe partly in the Breuiary we reade, that he being brought before Aegeas the proconsul of Achaia did most fréely reprehend him; and that he should say, ego omnipotenti deo, qui vnus & verus e•…, immolo quotidie non taurorum carnes, nec hircorum sanguinem, sed immaculatum agnum in altari. Which words are not found in any authen∣ticall writer, no nor in Abdias, albeit not authenticall. Be∣side that, the name of Aegeas is rather greeke then latine. But in those times the Romaines made no Gréekes procon∣suls. When Andrew came to the crosse, he is reported to haue said ô bona crux: which is no apostolicall spéech; nei∣ther can it be found, that in any authenticall writer the Apo∣stles are said, to haue sacrificed an immaculate lambe vpon the Page  130 altar. Finally the legend saith, that his body was translated first to Constantinople, and then to Malphi in Italy, and that his head was brought to Rome in Pius the second his time. Mat∣ters méerely forged, and by the illusions of Satan beléeued, for the establishment of the worship of Saints.

[falsification 24] In the legend of Nicolas it is said, that being an infant, eue∣ry wednesday and friday he refused to suck his nurfe vntil night,*and that being farre distant he appeared to Constantine, and so threatned him, that he deliuered three tribunes, which by ca∣lumnious accusations he had condemned to death. But these are matters, not onely false, but also incredible. for neither doe infants vnderstand what is fasting, much lesse lawes of fasting: nor can a mans body being in Lycia. as was the bo∣dy of Nicolas, appeare at Constantinople: nor can men vn∣derstand the prayers, much lesse the thoughts of men be∣ing absent, vnlesse God reuele them, of which here is no mention.

[falsification 25] Lucia a mayden of Syracus by one Paschasius gouernour of that Iland, * is said to be much importuned to sacrifice to idoles. But not preuailing, he purposed to send her to the stewes, and a man would thinke he did what he purposed▪ but see what happened. Shee stood so immoueable, that no force could mooue her, nor fire, pitch, nor rozine, nor boyling oyle hurt her; as it is in the legende. But these reportes séeme vtterly false and destitute of all proofe. nay, we doe not reade of any such gouernour of Sicile in Dioclesians time.

[falsification 26] Antony and Paul the eremites are in the Romish breuiary said to haue bread brought them by a crowe.* We doe also reade, that Antony saw Pauls soule caried by angels into hea∣uen. Finally they tell vs, howe Antony wanting meanes to digge a graue to bury the corpes of Paule in, two Lyons did digge a hole capable enough of a body. Nay it is said, that they did mourne at his graue. so they plaide the partes, and did the office both of the Sexten, and of Mourners. But these fables, as they are contrary to all reason, so they are destitute of all proofe out of antiquity. Neither is R. Parsons able to shew how soules may be seene, or lyons can mourne. Page  131 Further, * beside Helias we reade of none fedde in such extra∣ordinary sort by Rauens. Owlyglasse therefore may doe well to alleadge as good authority for the feeding of Paul and Anthony by a crowe in the wildernesse, as we can for the feeding of Helias by Rauens; and then he shall discharge the Romish synagogue of suspicion of telling vntruth.

[falsification 27] Daemones ita contempsit (Antonius) saith the Romish bre∣uiary, vt illis exprobraret imbecillitatem. that is, *Antony did so contemne diuels, that he reproched them with their weak∣nesse. But holy men mentioned in scriptures did not so. therefore it is not likely, that so holy a man would digresse from their footsteps. Neither is it likely, that they were so afraid of him, as is reported: or that he gathered monkes to∣gether; and gaue them that rule, that now goeth vnder S. Anthonies name▪ for these are legendicall fables, destitute both of proofe and probability.

[falsification 28] They tell vs also most improbable tales of Prisca, Agnes, Agatha, Catharine and other Saints. Our legends report wondrous matters of S. George, that killed the Dragon. but the Romanists are ashamed of S. George, and leaue his legend out of the breuiary. The like fables are tolde of S. Christopher: and yet the papists are not able to shew that e∣uer there was a S. Christopher, or Saint Catherine in the worlde.

[falsification 29] Likewise doth Capgraue tell strange matters, which of English papists were beléeued in time past. * Saint Bernacus saith he, killed a mortiferous beast at Rome, that before had killed, and deuoured much people, and cattell. but it is not like, that Bernac coulde doe more, then his holy father the Pope. A certaine fellow, that stroke S. Bernac was puni∣shed with swarmes of flying lice: toto corpore pediculis saith Capgraue; alatis obsessus. He spoke with Angels, sayled ouer the sea vpon a broade stone▪ turned oke leaues into loaues (viz. by changing one letter) stones into fishes, water into wine. his cow being cut in pieces, he restored notwithstan∣ding to life, and committed her to be kept by a wolfe. Finally ke yoaked Harts, and made them draw in a cart. which Owly∣glasse will hardly defend to be n lies.

Page  132

[falsification 30] He saith, that Christ appeared to Augustine the monke, and talked familiarly with him;* and telleth also how hee plagued the men of Dorset with fire. But the Saints of God in time past, did rather pray for poore men, then call for fire downe from heauen vpon them. Saint Peter also, a man of as good credit, as Capgraue, saith the heauens must containe Christ, that is thither ascended, vntill the time of the restoring of all things.

[falsification 31] When Bartilmew a monke came to Durrham, and saluted the crucifixe, the same wodden crucifixe bowing downe him∣selfe, saith Capgraue, resaluted him againe. He saith also, that he sawe the diuell sometime in the forme of a mouse, sometime of a cat; and that he imprisoned a Hawke two daies, and made her to fast, for killing him a little bird▪ and many such lies tel∣leth Capgraue of Bartilmew the monke.

[falsification 32] Scripsit ex ore angeli sanctus Brendanus sanctam regulam, saith Capgraue,*quae vsque hodie manet. that is, he wrote his rule, as he receiued it of an Angel. When as a poore fellow be∣ing followed by his enemies, that meant to kill him, fledde to Brendan desiring succour, he willed him to get vp vpon a stone hard by, and not to mooue▪ this done, his enemies that follow∣ed, stroke the stone for the man, and beleeued the man to bee the stone. He caused a fountain also to rise out of a drie ground, and was carried into paradise▪ as for dead men, hee raised them to life without any difficulty. Which things no man can passe for truth, vnlesse he be as sencelesse, as the stone, that Capgraue talketh of.

[falsification 33] Of Edith Capgraue writeth, that when she died, Angels were heard to sing harmoniously,*and seene carying her soule to heauen: that, she appeared to Dunstane being dead, that her body remained without corruption, especially her thumbe, with which she made the signe of the crosse: That she did quiet the seas, and deliuered Aldred Archbishop of Yorke being in danger in the Adriaticke sea, when he called vpon her. All which lies, if Owlyglasse will beléeue; he must be very credu∣lous, and one of those, that are giuen ouer to beléeue lies. But to make others beléeue, that these are no lies, he néedeth more eloquence, then he hath now ignorance.

Page  133

In the 8. session of the councell of Constance, as it is cal∣led, the popish church affirmeth, that Wickleffe taught, quod deus debet obedire diabolo. That is, that God must obey the diuell▪ also, that Princes being in mortall sinne, are not to bee obeyed. And diuers other matters neuer taught by Wick∣leffe▪ which may appeare first by his bookes; and net by the articles collected against him, and recorded by Thomas Wal∣singham. Neither haue our aduersaries any arguments to proue the contrary, vnlesse a man wil beléeue those infamous articles, which were by his aduersaries obiected against him after his death▪ which neither law, nor reason will admit to passe for proofe.

[falsification 35] Likewise did the papists deale with Iohn Husse in that wic∣ked assembly, condemning him for holding articles, which he in open audience denied. One reported, *that he should affirme, that there was a fourth person in the trinitie; others, that he should call Gregory the first, rimer, matters which hee vtterly disclaymed. Yet these and many more lies that con∣uenticle beléeued of him, and condemned him for them▪ and these lies of that holy man the synagogue of Rome now com∣monly beléeueth.

[falsification 36] Now the church of Rome not being able to ouerthrow our doctrine, goeth about to calumniate our principal teachers, as Luther, Caluin, Zuinglius, Oecolampadius, Bucer, Beza and others, & the principall agents either in shaking of the popes tyranny, or the establishing of religion, and namely her Ma∣iesties most noble father, her mother, her brother, her selfe, her counsellors and principall agens, the prince of Condey, and his father, the Admirall of France, Henry the 4. nowe reigning, and diuers others in Scotland, Germany, and o∣therwhere. Vnto Luther Leo the tenth imputeth calumni∣ous assertions, which he neuer held. Commonly the papists giue out that he taught, that if the wife would not yeeld to her husband, that the husband might go vnto his maide▪ that he di∣ed sodainly, that his body did stincke, and many such like slan∣ders stincking in the nostrils of all honest men. Of Bucer they report, that he turned Iewe, and died blaspheming; a matter refuted by the testimony of his enemies, that were Page  134 present at his death, and not onely by his friends. Of late they published a lying pamphlet of the reuolt of Beza, and of his death, which he yet liuing refuted. The slanders of San∣ders, and ribaldry of that ribald Ribadineira, which the pa∣pists receiue with such applause, shall shortly (godwilling) be made manifest to the world. Now it may appeare, that they are false, being deuised by Sanders, and Rishton, two lewde lozels vnacquainted with state matters, and, as it is thought, published, and much encreased by Rob. Parsons the most notorious traytor, and infamous libeller, that the con∣gregation of Iesuites euer did affoord vs.

[falsification 37] Pius the fift in his letters to the Emperor most impudent∣ly affirmeth, * that the councell of Nice made the Pope (which he termeth the successour of Peter) Lord and gouernour of all Princes christened, and also of all prouinces and nations what∣soeuer, and that the same councell did anathematise all, that should contradict that authority. A matter proued to be a no∣torious lye, by the actes of the councell▪ for therein no such matter is found. The same also is refuted by this argument, for that councels haue not to doe with the disposing of tem∣porall states.

[falsification 38] Sixtus Quintus in his rayling bull against the king of Na∣uarre, now raigning and swaying the scepter of France, and the Prince of Condey, publisheth most notorious lies. He saith, they polluted and spoyled Churches, and with torments killed Priests, monkes and friers, and did compell men to re∣ligion with threates, and bastonadaes; minis, verberibusque: No one point being to be proued against them, or that they did any thing more, then the lawes of armes enforced them for their owne necessary defence. The like slandrous Buls did Paul the third publish against Henry the 8. king of En∣gland, and Pius Quintus, and Gregory the 13. against her Maiesty.

Wherefore vnlesse Rob. Parsons and his consorts can iu∣stifie these matters to be true; it will appeare, that the Ro∣mish religion is not onely maintained with lies, but also grounded vpon a packe of lies. For such as these are, an infinite multitude of lies may be found in the Popes, and Page  135 the Churches of Romes principall recordes. Of which I shall haue occasion, if God bee pleased, to talke more at large otherwhere.

CHAP. VI. A taste of Bellarmines vnsauoury falsifications.

I Would be loth to wrong any, especi∣ally in writing, where all that reade may be witnesses of the wrong, if a∣ny be offered. Wherfore to answere my aduersaries accusatiō, that saith, I haue slandered and infamed the wor∣thy prelate Cardinal Bellarmine,*where I charged him, with falsifications and lies; I will nowe, godwilling, iusti∣fie my saying, and shewe, that his workes are not, as Ow∣lyglasse saith, the sworde of Gedeon; but rather the sworde of Goliath, whereby a man with labour and diligence may cut off both his owne head, and the head of antichrist. The same is also like a leaden sworde guilted ouer, and fayre in shew, but nothing trenchant in proofe. Hee might more fit∣ly haue compared them to Augias stable, that cōtained an in∣finit heape of dung, but to be purged, if learned men would take the paines to examine them. For my part, I doe testi∣fie before God, that they haue much confirmed mee in the truth, and truly affirme, that they are more tedious to read, then hard to refute, in matters especially that concerne vs. But now to come to the matter, I will offer to the reader a taste of his falsifications and lowde leasings, purposing to Page  136 adde more, if our aduersaries please to continew this course of examination of ours and popish authors writings. I will also ioyne with him his fellow Caesar Baronius with his x. le∣gions of lyes. Not doubting, but if they vnderstand their errours, their faces will turne crimsin. And why not their faces as well as their roabes, especially if they haue any remaynder of their pretended Virginall modestie?

[falsification 1] First he doth wilfully corrupt the sixt canon of the coun∣cell of Nice lib. 2. de pontif. Rom. c. 13. the canon beginneth thus, mos antiquus perdurat in Aegypto, vel Lybia, vel Pētapo¦li. But Bellarmine maketh the canon to begin far otherwise. Obseruandum saith hée, in libris vulgatis desse initium huius canonis, quod tale est. ecclesia Rom. semper habuit primatum. but these last words are playnly forged, as may appeare by all the copyes of the actes of the Nicene councel. neither can it excuse him, that one Paschasius act. 16. concil, chalced. hath these words, or that Copus a counterfect cmpagnion doth af¦firme, that a certaine Abbot called Dionysius doth so read this canon for Abbots may proue forgers as well as others, and little credit is to be giuen to the Popes agente in his owne cause. Further Paschasius his words so stand, that we may probably coniecture, that some latter falsary hath so set down the words of this canon, as we read them now in the tmes of councels set out by Papists. Finally, all authenticall his∣tories testifie, that before the councell of Nice the Church of Rome was litle respected: and Aeneas Siluius doth in playne termes confesse so much. Neither can Parsons deny it, vn∣lesie he put on his visor of impudency.

[falsification 2] In his booke de pontif. Rom. c. 31. he falsifieth Hieromes words, and peruerteth his meaning to proue, that he called Damasus the foundation of the Church. Hieronymus saith he, in epist. ad Dmasum de nomine hypostasis: super hanc petram ecclesiam aedificata scio. vbi Damasum petram ecclesiae vocat. But Hieremes words stand thus. ego nullum primum, nisi Christum sequens beatitudini tuae, id est, cathedae Petri cōmu∣nione consocior super am petram ecclesiam aedificatam scio. Whereby it appeareth that Hierome meant to follow none but Christ, and that he meant Christ, when he speaketh of the Page  137 Rocke. For so the pronoune Illam, that is referred to that which is further of, doth teach vs. But Bellar. to pro∣ue the Pope to bée the foundation of the Church, leaueth out Christ, and for the pronounce Illam, writeth hanc, like a cunning falsary.

[falsification 3] In the same booke and chapter he falsifieth the actes of the councell of Chalcedon. septimum est saith hée, caput ecclesiae, quo vtitur concilium Chalcedonense in epistola ad Leonem. qui but tu veut caput membris praeeras. These words I say are falsely alledged. For first it cannot bee prooued, that this epistle was written by the councell, as Surius hath recor∣ded Act. 3. Concil. Chalced. Secondly, admit the whole e∣pistle was not forged; yet there is no mention made of the heade of the Church, as Bellarmine affirmeth▪ for the worde Caput, in these words, quibus tu velut Caput membris prae∣cras: is referred to certeine Priests of Leoes order, in which ranke he sheweth himselfe principall. Bellarmine therefore to make some shew, leaueth out both the words going before, and the words following after, which playnly shew, that the authors of that epistle neuer meant to cal him the head of the Church. His falshood may appeare by the words, as they follow in that epistle Act. 3. concil. Chalced. set out by Surius. Si vbi sunt duo aut tres congregati in nomine eius say they ibi se in medio eorum fore perhibuit, quantam circa sacerdotes peculiaritatem potuit demonstrare, qui & patriae & labori suae confessionis notitiam praetulerunt? quibus tu quidem sicut ca∣put membris prae eras in his qui tuum tenebant ordinem, beneuo lenriam praeferens: imperatores vero ad ornandum decenti∣ssimè praesidebant. The Latin is rude and barbarous sauoring of a monkish humor. But by the words we may sée, that the authors of that epistle made Leo heade of preestes, and men of his cote, and not of the Church, nor councell, Wherein emperors most decentely did praeside, and sitte as cheefe moderators: as the fathers of that councell teach vs.

[falsification 4] Likewise reckening vp the names and titles of the bi∣shops of Rome, he saith that Eusebius in his cronicle anno. 44. doth giue them the title of Pontifex Christianorum. Which is a Page  138 mere forgery. For not the bishops af Rome, but to Peter only, is that title giuen, if it be not thrust into the text. But what belongeth, and is peculierly giuen to Peter, may not be claymed by euery bishop of Rome. For I hope euery one of them will not be called Simon, nor an Apostle, nor the cheefe or first Apostle. Nor will they, I suppose, write, as Peter did, in his second epistle: Simon Petrus seruus & apostolus Iesu Christi. Finally I hope Clement the 8. will not write. Clemens octauus alter Simon Petrus, & seruus & apostolus Ie∣su Christi.

[falsification 5] In his booke de Monachis. c. 6. We read these words. Dicit (Lutherus) & saepissime repetit & inculcat, Paulū cū ait, se potuisse circumducere sororē mulierem 1. cor. 9. voluisse dicere, se potuis∣se ducere vxorem. that is, Luther doth say, and often repeat, and inculcat, that Paule, when he sayd; he might leade aboute a sister, a woman, as it is. 1. cor. 9. meant, that he might mary a wife. But he doth falsifie Luthers words. For Luther saith onely, that the words 1. cor. 9. do not compell vs (to beleeue, that Paule had no wife) but rather shew,*that he had a wife, and would not lead her about with him. for speaking of this place, and of those, that collected out of it, that Paule was vnma∣ried: hoc saith he, non cog it, verum multo magis indicat, eum habuisse vxorem, sed eam circumducere noluisse. He doth also impudently affirme, that Luther doth repeate, & inculcat that often which he is not able to shew to haue béene once vttred by him. He speaketh also very improbably. For séeing Luther affirmed that Paule had a wife already, it is very vnlikely, that he should say, and that often, that Paule might mary an o∣ther wife. If then he will not be condemned both as a falsary, and a lying fellow, let him set downe Luthers words, where that is often repeated.

[falsification 6] He alledgeth also in the same place these words, as taken out of Luther; Voueo castitatem paupertatem, & obedientiam▪ dicit saith Bellarmine, formam vouendi hanc esse debere, si piè vouendum sit, voueo castitatem, paupertatem, & obedientiam vsque ad mortē liberè, id est, vt mutare possim, quando volo. yt is, Luther saith, that this is the best forme of vowes, if we will make godly vowes; I do vowe chastity, pouerty, & obedience Page  139 vnto death, but freely or conditionally, that is to say, that I may change, when I please. But Luther speaketh not one word, of the vowe of pouerty and monasticall obedience, nor euer thought, that any godly man might make a vowe concer∣ning either; nor doth he speake, or place his words so ridicu∣lously, as Bellarmine doth report. All that Luther saith to this purpose is this. Videtur forma voti apud deum sic habere,*vo∣ueo castitatem, quam diu possibilis fuerit, si autem seruare nequi ero, vt liceat nubere. That is in effect thus much. That forme of vowe seemeth most pleasing to God, that is thus vttered: I vowe chastity, as longe as I am able to containe, if I be not able, then that it may be lawfull for me to mary. Doth it not ap∣peare, that Bellarmine hath falsified Luthers words & made him, contrary to his owne doctrine, to allowe vowes of pouerty and monasticall obedience, and to speake ridicu∣lously, and foolishly, and far otherwise, then euer he spoke or wrote?

[falsification 7] In the same booke chap. 31. He saith, that Chrysostome in his commentaries (vpon the 19. of Math.) teacheth vs, that Christ by the similitude of Eunuches would proue, that it is easie and profitable to absteine from mariage. facile & vtile esse abstinere a nuptiis. But like a falsary where Chrysostome hath possible, there he placeth facile. But many thinges are possible, that are not facile, and easie.

[falsification 8] Likewise in the same booke chap. 27. he falsifieth a place of Saint Chrysostome homil. 15. in priorem ad Timoth. He re∣hearseth Chrysostomes words thus, & vidua in uiduitatis pro∣fessione christo consentit, id est christo nubit. But these words id est Christo nubit, are added by Bellarmine, and that per∣uersely. For Christ is the spouse of the Church, and not of eue∣ry capriccious nonne,

[falsification 9] In his booke de notis ecclesiae. c. 9. he maketh Luther to speake thus: non alia via potest homo cum deo conuenire, aut agere, quam per fidem. opera ille non curat. But Luthers words, as they are set downe in his booke de captiuitate Baby Ionica. c, de Eucharistia, which booke with ye rest of his workes were set out at Wittemberge, are these. nec alia via potest ho∣mo cum deo conuenire, aut agere, quam per fidem, id est, vt Page  140 non homo operibus suis vllis, sed deus promissione sua sit author salutis; vt omnia pendeant, portentur, seruenturque in verbo virtutis suae. So it appeareth, that Bellarmine cutteth off the ende of Luthers sentence, and addeth these words: opera ille non curat, to make his doctrine odious.

[falsification 10] In the same booke and chapter likewise Bellarmine falsifi∣eth another place of Luther, making him to speake thus. tam diues est homo Christianus, vt non possit perire si velit, quan∣tumcunque malè viuat. But Luthers wordes in his booke de Capt. Babyl. c. de baptismo, of the edition aboue mentioned, stand thus: tam diues est homo Christianus, vt volens non pos∣sit perdere salutem suam quantiscunque peccatis, nisi nolit cre∣dere. These wordes quantumcunque malè viuat, are added by Bellarmine, to make Luthers doctrine seeme contrarie to good workes.

[falsification 11] He would make his reader beléeue, that Caluin should say, that God is cause of sinne.* The place quoted instit. lib. 1. c. 18. doth acquite Caluin, and shew Bellarmine to be a falsary. for he doth not teach any such matter, nor hath any such words.

[falsification 12] These wordes he setteth downe as taken out of Caluins instit.*lib. 1. c. 18. §. 2. non solum permissu, sed voluntate dei homines peccant, ita vt nihil ipsi deliberando agitent, nisi quod deus apud se decreuerit, & arcana directione constituit. but he forgeth these words, quod dei voluntate homines peccant, and altereth the latter end of the sentence.

[falsification 13] Lib. 3. instit. c. 23. §. 24. dicit Caluinus saith Bellar. lib. de notis ecclesiae c. 9. dei non solum praeuisione, & permissione, sed etiam voluntate in peccatum lapsum esse Adamum. But these wordes are no where to be found in Caluin. for he hath onely these wordes: lapsus est primus homo, quia dominus ita expe∣dire censuerat.

[falsification 14] Likewise he affirmeth that Caluin hath these wordes lib. 3. instit.*c. 24. §. 14. quod aliqui verbum dei audire contemnunt, ipsorum est prauitas, sed in hanc prauitatem à deo addicti sunt. but these words à Deo are Bellarmines addition.

[falsification 15] Speaking of Philip Melancthon: dicit saith he, ita fuisse o∣pus dei Iudae proditionem,*ac Pauli conuersionem. and these wordes saith he, are found in his commentaries vpon the eight Page  141 Chapter of the epistle to the Romans. But the place viewed doth declare his falsehood. for he hath not the word ita, nor v∣seth this frame of sentence.

[falsification 16] Declaring vnto vs the heresie of the Eunomians: docebant saith he, non posse homini vlla peccata nocere,*modo fidem habeat, vt testatur Augustinus lib. de haeres. c. 54. But he hath wronged Saint Augustine in reporting, that these are his wordes. Fertur (scilicet Eunomius) saith Saint Augustine, a∣deo fuisse bonis moribus inimicus, vt asseueraret, quod nihil cuique obesset quorumlibet perpetratio, ac perseuerantia pec∣catorum, si huius, quae ab illo docebatur fidei, particeps esset. Let indifferent men therefore iudge, whether Eunomius spoke absolutely of faith, or of his owne peculiar faith. And whether it is all one, to condemne good workes, and to say, that howsoeuer Christians are most carefully to walke in Gods workes; yet that they are not iustified by good workes, but by the grace of God communicated to them through faith in Christ Iesus.

[falsification 17] Origenis haeresis fuit, perdidisse Adamum imaginem dei, ad quam creatus fuit, saith Bellarmine.* And this he saith is af∣firmed by Epiphanius haeres. 64. but he falsifieth Epiphanius, and belyeth Origen in this point. for his error was not, that he supposed man to haue lost the image of God through sinne, but that the soule did loose the same, being created and ioyned to the body. Illud secundum imaginem dicit Adam perdidisse: saith Epiphanius speaking of Origen, & inde dicit, corpus esse intelligendum, quando deus fecit vestes pelliceas, & illis induit illos. for so the gréeke text doth plainly teach vs.

[falsification 18] He saith also, that Origen taught; that hell was nothing, but the horror of conscience.* and this he auoucheth vpon the cre∣dit of Hierome in epist. ad Auitum de erroribus Origenis. But in this point also he doth mistake Origen, and falsifie Hieroms wordes. For Hierome doth not set downe any such wordes, but onely sheweth, that Origen taught, ignem Gehennae & tormenta non poni in supplicijs, sed in conscientia peccatorum. He may therfore doe well to report Hieroms wordes the next time better, least those, that are of Origens heresie be therein confirmed by his false dealing.

Page  124

[falsification 19] Of Caluin he affirmeth, that he taught, that the image of God was lost in Adam; and to prooue it, doth alleadge these wordes, as out of the 2. booke of his institutions c. 1. §. 5. per peccatum primi hominis obliterata est coelestis imago. But that which he saith of the loosing of the image of God in A∣dam, is a grosse lye. for Caluin neuer taught, that the image of God was quite lost, but blemished and much defaced. The words also are falsified. for he saith not, as Bellarmine repor∣teth quod imago obliterata esset, absolutely, but quod tan∣quam scriptura bella calamo transuerso obliterata esset.

[falsification 20] He affirmeth, that Epiphanius reporteth haeres. 64. that Proclus an heretike taught, *that sinne did alwaies liue in the regenerat, and that concupiscence was truely sinne, and that the same was onely dulled by faith, and not taken away by bap∣tisme. He saith also, that Theodoret reporteth as much lib. 3. haeret. fabul. of the Messalians. But he doth abuse both E∣piphanius and Theodoret, and doth ascribe that vnto them, which they neuer taught. Theodoret lib. 4. haeret. fabul. cap. de Messalianis doth not so much, as mention concupiscence, or vtter any such words. but rather contrary to Bellarmines report of them he saith, that the Messalians taught, that bap∣tisme like a razor cut off all former sinnes.

[falsification 21] Haec est ipsissima sententia saith Bellarmine, Lutheri art. 2. & 31. *&c. item Philippi in locis communibus c. de peccato O∣riginis, & Caluini lib. 4. instit. c. 15. §. 10. scilicet peccatum in renatis semper viuere. but in no one of these, can he finde, that sinne is said to liue in the regenerat. For our doctrine is con∣trary, and euery christian professeth, that he ought to morti∣fie his concupiscences and earthly members, and to be quicke∣ned in the spirit. Wherefore either the man lyeth intolera∣bly, or els he doth falsely alleadge the wordes of Luther, Me∣lancthon, Caluin. And that shall appeare more plainly, when Robert Parsons goeth about to iustifie his olde acquaintance Bellarmine.

[falsification 22] The chiefe errour of the Nouatians saith Bellarmine, was, that there is no power in the church, to reconcile men to God, but by baptisme. And this hee goeth about to prooue out of Theodoret lib. 3. haeret. fabul. c. de Nauato. But TheodoretPage  143 doth conuince his false report both of his owne wordes, and of this heresie. For first he sheweth, that Nauatus did deny to reconcile those, that had fallen in persecution. And after∣ward, that his followers did vtterly deny the vse and grace of repentance. Poenitentiam a suo conuentu arcent penitus saith Theodoret speaking of the Nouatians. It is also appa∣rant, that they did not restraine remission of sinnes to bap∣tisme onely.

[falsification 23] Where he speaketh of the heresie of the Nouatians, he tel∣leth vs, that Cornelius witnesseth, that the Nouatians taught,*that the Church had no power to reconcile men to God, but by baptisme, and that such as were baptized, were not by the bishop to be annointed with Chrisme. And this he saith is found in Eusebius his history lib. 6. c. 33. but neither hath Eu∣sebius nor Cornelius any such words.

[falsification 24] In his second booke de eucharistia c 9. he hath these words, Dixit (Cyprianus) latere sub specie visibili panis deum verum. but Cyprian saith onely, diuinam essentiam ineffabiliter se visi∣bili sacramento infundere. And there is no small difference betwixt these two propositions. for the diuine essence may worke in sacraments after an vnspeakable sort, albeit Christ God and man be not contained vnder the visible forme of bread in the eucharist, or water in baptisme: Especially af∣ter the forme imagined by papists.

[falsification 25] In the same booke chap. 12. he affirmeth, that Hilary doth often repeate these wordes, Christum naturaliter esse in nobis per sumptionem eucharistiae. But the same are not to be found in the 8. booke of Hilary de Trinitate, once, which he saith are found often.

[falsification 26] Likewise in the same booke chapt. 14. speaking of Cyrill he saith, Ibidem iubet vt flexo genu & in adorantium morem accedant ad eucharistiam▪ And these wordes he supposeth to bee in his fift mystagogicall and catechisticall instruction. But neither are the wordes there to be found, nor hath hee any such commandement, nor did he euer beléeue or teach, that the sacrament was to be worshipped after the po∣pish manner.

[falsification 27] Citing a place out of Saint Augustine de Trinit. lib. 3. Page  144c. 10. he would make his reader beléeue, *that our Sauiour Christ appeared to the eyes of mortall men in the formes of bread and wine. A matter neuer vttered, nor thought of by S. Augustine, nor to be found in that place, or otherwhere in his writings.

[falsification 28] Speaking of S. Augustine he saith, that in his 12. booke contra Faustum c. 10. he teacheth, that the faithfull receiue that bloud with their mouth, wherewith they were redeemed. And in the 20. chapter of the same booke, that they drinke that, which issued out of Christ his side. But S. Augustine hath not one word of receiuing of the bloud of our redemption with our mouth▪ neither doth he meane, that we doe pro∣perly and carnally drinke his bloud, or with corporeall in∣struments.

[falsification 29] Out of Hesychius lib. 2. in Leuit. cap. 8. he quoteth these wordes lib. 2. de eucharistia c. 32. sanctum altare esse locum, vbi sanctus sanctorum requiescit. but the same are falsely fa∣thered vpon that father, being neither to bee found in that chapter, nor otherwhere.

[falsification 30] * Out of Chrysostomes homil. 79. ad populum Antioch. he citeth these wordes, altari assistens sacerdos, pro terrarum or∣be, pro episcopis, pro ecclesia, pro gubernantibus ecclesiam iu∣betur deo offerre. but Chrysostome hath no such wordes of the priests offering, but saith, that the people of Antioch doe pray for all these sortes of people.

[falsification 31] * He affirmeth, that Chrysostome homil. 72. in Matth. saith, that the eucharist is offered, pro infirmis, pro sanis, pro terrae fructibus. but he hath no such like wordes, either there, or any other place: but he saith onely, that we pray in the cele∣bration of the eucharist for such as are possessed with diuels, for sicke persons, and such like.

[falsification 32] Hippolytus in his oration of the ende of the world hath these wordes, venite pontifices, qui purè mihi sacrificium die, noctéque obtulistis, ac pretiosum corpus, & sanguinem meum immolastis mihi quotidie. Bellarmine lib. 1. de missa c. 15. lea∣ueth out these words, qui purè mihi sacrificium die nocté{que} ob∣tulistis: least we should know, that he speaketh of spiritual sa∣crifices, & not of the masse, that is seldome said in the night.

Page  145

[falsification 33] Lib. 2. de missa c. 9. speaking of the multitude of priuate masses, he endeuoureth to prooue the same by a most aunci∣ent custome, as he saith, and for this ende alleadgeth an epi∣stle of Telesphorus, and a testimony out of Gregory homil. 8. in euangel. but not only the epistle of Telesphorus is counter∣feit, but both the same, and Gregories testimony is falsely al∣leadged. for neither of them speake any one word of such a custome, or of the custome of saying three masses in one night. In the same place also prosper is falsely alleadged. For he speaketh not one worde of offering one sacrifice twise in a short time.

[falsification 34] To prooue the adoration of the sacrament lib. 4. de eucha∣rist. c. 29. he falsely alleadgeth Gregory Nazianzen in laudem Gorgoniae, Cyrill of Hierusalem Catechis. 5. mystagog. Euseb. Emissenus homil. 5. de Paschate. for not one of these speaketh one worde of adoration of the sacrament, as hee affirmeth most falsely.

It were infinite to touch all the places falsified by Bellar∣mine; and I suppose, that these are more, then our woodden Owlyglasse, alias Woodward will answere. And yet these are but falsifications of one kinde. but he hath also runne into diuers other kindes of falsifications. * For whereas lawe doth declare them to be falsaries, that shall either suborne false witnesses, or father bastards vpon those, who are not their true fathers, or that shall in a testament adde a legacy supposed un∣truely to himselfe, or that shall commit any falsehood about coynes, or lawes; it is an easie matter in euery of these points to charge Bellarmine with falsification.

For first he hath produced infinite false witnesses, as for example Clement, Martialis, Anacletus, Africanus, Abdias, Amphilochius, Leontius, Paulinus, Simeon Metaphrastes, and such like false compagnions, that either write fables, or take on them false names.

Secondly, he hath fathered infinite base and paultry ser∣mons, and epistles, and other treatises vpon Cyprian, Atha∣nasius, Nazianzen, Ambrose, Hierome, Chrysostome, Augu∣stine, Cyrill, and other fathers.

Thirdly, he hath alleadged diuers counterfeit decretales Page  146 vnder the name of Euaristus, Telesphorus, Alexander, Marcel∣lus, Syricius, Innocentius, Gelasius, and others, wherein they mention diuers prerogatiues due to the Church of Rome, and to themselues, setting downe as it were false legacies, with their owne false hands, in false and forged testaments or recordes.

Fourthly, for the originall scriptures he hath oftentimes alleadged apocryphall writings, and the olde latine transla∣tion, albeit differing from the originall text, corrupting after a sort, Gods eternall testament.

Fifthly, for the pure writings of the fathers, he hath often∣times giuen vnto vs the drosse of Peter Lombard, Thomas A∣quinas, and other schoolemen: and with them hath also ioyned the corrupt testimonies of legends, and such like trash.

Finally, he hath cited infinit false canons, and counterfeit councels, and actes of councels. And this I will iustifie by diuers thousands of examples, if the woodden detector, or any of his partakers will stand to the quarrel, which he and Rob. Parsons haue begun. I haue also in diuers treatises set out against Bellarmine, discouered diuers thousands of his cor∣ruptions. I hope therefore, that our aduersary hereafter wil say, that I haue not slandered that voluminous Cardinall Bellarmine: especially, when he shall haue perused the note following concerning his vntruthes and leasings. Which now according to my promise, I purpose sincerely, and truely to deliuer.

Page  147

CHAP. VII. A note of certaine notorious vntruths, and lies boldely auouched by Bellarmine.

NExt after falsifications, we are to report some fewe vntruthes boldly auouched by Card. Bellarmine. which albeit he vttered, being yet in mino∣ribus, as they call it; yet we are not therefore to estéeme them to be lesse materiall, séeing hee is the Popes principall proctor.

[falsification 1] Habemus in eodem testamento ve∣teri saith he, Heliam & Helizeum ac filios prophetarum,*sine vxoribus & diuitijs in hoc mundo vixisse. That is, we learne in the same olde testament, that Helias and Helizeus, and the sons of the Prophets liued without wiues, and riches in this world. A plaine & euident vntruth refuted by a plaine text of scrip∣ture 2. Reg. 4.1. where we reade, how a certaine woman of the wiues of the Prophets cried to Elizeus. there also we read, that she had sons likewise. I doubt not therefore, but Ow∣lyglasse will confesse this to be a lie.

[falsification 2] Likewise in the same place he affirmeth, that almost all the fathers write, that Iohn Baptist was the first founder of monks, and eremites. Ioannem Baptistam saith he, *Monachorum & E∣remitarum principem fuisse scribunt ferè omnes patres. and af∣terward he nameth Nazianzen, Chrysostome, Hierome, Cas∣sian, Sozomenus, Isidorus, and Bernard. But this is a nota∣rious vntruth consisting of diuers parts. For first this num∣ber Page  148 is farre from almost all the fathers. Secondly, Nazian∣zen in the place quoted doth not speake so much as one word of monasticall life, * much lesse of the vowe of Iohn Baptiste. Thirdly, Chrysostome and Hierome speake not of cloyster monks, but of ermites, that liued in the wildernes. Fourthly, Cassian collat. 18. c. 6. doth make Paule and Antony, and not Iohn B ptiste, the founders of ermites life. Fiftly, Sozomen, lib. 1. c. 12. speaketh of Ermites and that not according to his owne, but according to other mens opinions, Sixtly, Isidore and Bernarde doe not say, that Iohn Baptist was the first founder of eremitical, and monkish life but rather, that Ere∣mites went into the wildernes after the example of Elias and Iohn baptist. Finally I. Baptist in nothing was like to monks. for he was not shut vp within a cloyster, nor did he forswere mariage, nor obserue a certaine rule, but was the forerun∣ner of our Sauiour, the minister of baptisme, and a greate prophet and a most excellent good man. Furthermore he had course clothing, and a thin diet, and was no tamperer in matters of state. Contrariwise the Iebusites, & other monkes liue in gorgeous houses, fare dayntily, are cladde richely, drinke wine, and albeit they be a sorte of locusts, yet neither care to eate locustes, nor wilde hony. Further they obserue a certaine rule, forsweare mariage, and disturbe states and common welthes, and are neither Préestes nor Pro∣phets, nor any way profitable for the Church or common welth.

[falsification 3] Speaking of Tertullian & Cyprian he saith, that both of thē spoke of religious wemen or nuns, and such as by solēne vowe had consecrated thēselues to God. Vterque loquitur saith he, de virginibus religiosis,*& pr solennem professionē deo consecra∣tis. A matter most vntrue▪ for albeit Tertullian wrote de vir∣ginibus velandis, & Cyprian de habitu virginum: yet ye vele and habit was such as those fathers thought fitting for all christi∣an wemen. For no man doth thinke it fit, that all christian women should become nonnes and religious women. Se∣condly, neither of those fathers talketh of any solemne vowe, or denieth liberty to those Virgines to mary, or thought it fit they should be shut vp in cloysters, or gouerned by peculier Page  149 orders or rules. But popish nunnes make solemne vowes, and after them may not mary. Beside that they liue in cloi∣sters, and are subiect to rules, and yet which is most strange, are not so good maydes as those, which Tertullian and Cypri∣an talketh of, though no votaryes.

[falsification 4] Speaking of the Apostles: verè primi fuerunt monachi Chris∣tiani, saith Bellarmine. that is, most truely the Apostles were the first monkes among Christians. But it is not the first lye, * that he made among the Romanistes. Howbeit a lye it is, and that very apparent. For Christ sent his apostles abroade into the world to teach & baptize, and not to liue in eremitages or cloysters. Secondly, the Apostles neuer tooke bond of vowe vpon thē, nor liued vnder monkish law. But saith he they had all thinges common. So had also all the first christians▪ yet it is ridiculous to say, that all Christians of those times were monkes. He alledgeth also Saint Augustines words, lib. 17 de ciuit dei. c. 4. hoc votum potentissimi vouerunt. but by vo∣tum there, he vnderstandeth no monkish vowes of obedience chastitie and pouerly; but of leauing all for Christes sake▪ which manner of vow not only the Apostles, but all christi∣ans also doe make, and perfourme, as oft as occasion requi∣reth.

[falsification 5] In his booke de monachis. c. 5. speaking of Luther: asserit mu∣lieres, saith he, non nisi ad matrimonium creatas fuisse. that is, he affirmeth, that wemen were created for no other purpose, but for mariage▪ but this is a most impudent vntruth. For Lu∣ther hath no such words, nor meaning. * For he affirmeth on∣ly, & viros & mulieres ad generandā sobolem creatos esse, that is, that both men and wemen were created for bringing of chil∣dren into the world. So it is apparent, that he foisteth in his words, non nisi, and turneth that to women, which Luther spoke both of men and wemen, and finally maketh Luther to exclude all other endes of the creation of women, where hée speaketh of one ende, and excludeth none besides that one.

[falsification 6] In the same place he auoucheth, that Luther taught, that it was all one to consult, whether a man should mary a wife, as if he should consult, whether he should eat and drinke. dicit.Page  150 saith Bellarmine, idem esse consultare, sit ne ducēda vxor, & sit ne comedendum & bibendum. But Luthers words do playn∣ly discouer his packing & lying. *Stultum est dubitare saith hée, an mulieres copulandae sint matrimonio, vel an aliqua in vxorē dcenda sit. perinde enim quaeri posse, an edendum, vel biben∣dum sit. And his meaning is, that when a mans frailty will not permit him to conteine, it is then all one to aske whether a man shall mary a wife, or whether hee shall eat and drinke. Now betwene these words, which are ascribed to Luther by Bellarmine, & the words written by Luther, there is great difference▪ for Luther speaketh indefinitly First, & saith, that it is a folish thing to doubt, whether wemen are to be ioyned in mariage, or not: and then in case he cannot containe, whe∣ther a man is to mary a wife or no▪ and Thirdly, he talketh of doubting, and not of consulting betwixt which there is no small difference▪ for of things, which we are to resolue accor∣ding to our owne knowledge, it is folly to consult with o∣thers yet may we doubt, before we resolue▪ so it appeareth, that Bellarmine leaueth out the indefinit proposition of Lu∣ther, and expresseth not Luthers case, where he reporteth his words, and falsely and leudly changeth doubting into consultation.

[falsification 7] He doth also affirme, that Luther taught, that Moyses com∣manded all the Iewes to marry, so that it was not lawfull by a∣ny meanes to be without a wife in the old testament.*dicit saith Bellarmine Moysem praecepisse omnibus Iudaeis matrimonium, ita vt nullo modo licuerit in vetere testamento carere vxore. But the words of Luther doe playnly conuince him to haue vttred vntruth. * For he saith only, in Iudaismo neminem non coniugatum esse oportuisse: that is, that the Iewes ought to be maried. But he doth not say, non licuisse vllo modo in veteri testamento carere vxore, as Bellarmine affirmeth. Nor doth he absolutely deny all exceptions to the ordinary rule & course. Finally; he talketh of the custome of Iewes, and not of an ex∣presse written law, whereas Bellarmine notwithstanding maketh him to speake of a written law.

[falsification 8] Hée affirmeth that Athanasius telleth, how Antony the er∣mite did heare holy Angels in a vision to saye that all his sinnes Page  151 were remitted, when first he entred into a monasticall life.*Tes∣tatur Athanasius in vita Antonij saith Bellarmin, B. Antonium in visione audiuise sanctos angelos dicentes, omnia pec∣cata sibi remissa fuisse, quando monasticam vitam suscepit. A notorious vntruth, notwithout some touch of forgery also▪ for first, ye very discourse of Antonies life, that passeth vnder ye name of Athanasius is forged. Secondly that counterfect fellow saith no more, but that Antonies former sins by Christs boun∣ty were sopited or couered. quod priora peccata Christi boni∣tate fuissent sopita. of remission of si•… by vertue of a monasti∣call Coule, which Bellarmine intendeth to proue, there is no inkeling.

[falsification 9] In his booke de monachis. c. 13. He hath these words; Au∣gustinus, Bernardus, Thomas existimant hoc praecepto, diliges dominum deum tuū ex toto corde tuo, simul imperari medium & indicari finem; ideo docent, non posse impleri perfectè hoc praeceptum in hac vita; & tamen non esse praeuaricatorem,*qui non perfecte illud implet. And againe docet idem Augustinus motus inuoluntarios concupiscentiae, licet hoc praecepto pro∣hibiti sint, tamen adeo non esse peccata, vt non sit opus dicere pro eis dimitte nobis debita nostra. But in these words he laypeth vp together diuers round lyes. For first false it is-that Saint Augustine saith, that such as fulfill not the lawe, whereby we are to loue God with all our soule and all our strength, are not thereby made transgressors,* but rather the contrary▪ for he sheweth, that it is necessary for euery man to giue that he may receiue, & to forgiue, that it may bee forgiuen him, & in the latter ende of the booke de perfectione iustitiae, hée teacheth vs, necesse esse dicere, dimitte nobis debita nostra, that it is necessary for vs to say, forgiue vs our trespasses. Second∣ly, Saint Augustine doth not deny, that motions troubling vs against our willes are sinnes. Thirdly, he speaketh not one word, of shewing the end, and commanding the meanes. Fina∣ly, neither doth Bernard, nor Thomas Aquinas so write, as Bellarmine affirmeth▪ would his cardinalship therfore proue, what he written, and verifie his assertion by their words, he should deliuer himselfe from a note of great falshood and vntruth.

Page  152

[falsification 10] Expounding a testimony out of the first to the Corinthians 9. chapter: *quo toto capite saith he, Paulus conatur ostendere, se plus fecisse, quàm sibi esset praeceptum, & propterea singula∣rem gloriam apud deum meruisse. And afterward he saith, ita exposuerunt omnes patres. that is, the fathers do also expound the Apostle, viz. that it may appeare, that he taught workes of superogation. But neither doth Paul in the whole chapter, nor in any part of the chapter shewe, that he did more, then was commanded, nor doth he signifie, that therefore he merited any singular glory. Secondly, it is vntrue, that all the Fa∣thers doe so expound the Apostle, as Bellarmine reporteth. for he citeth none, but Chrysostome, Ambrose and Augustine: whereof Ambrose in 1. cor. 19. doth not so much as once men∣tion workes of supererogation. Chrysostome commenting vpon the same chapter, talketh of workes done ouer and a∣boue the thing commaunded. But hee speaketh not of the whole lawe, which requireth all, that we can doe; but of some one particular precept. Saint Augustine lib. de ope∣re Monachorum c. 5. saith, that Paul did erogate more (ero∣gasse amplius) because he did remit that stipend, which hee might haue exacted. So it appeareth, that he speaketh of do∣ing more, then was required at his hands, by one particu∣lar precept; but not more, then the whole lawe required. Fi∣nally, none of these fathers that he speaketh of, mentioneth singular glory, nor saith, that the same is due for workes of supererogation.

[falsification 11] Where he citeth Iustine Martyr Apolog. 2. and Tertullian Apologet. c. 9. he telleth vntruth of them both. Iustinus ait saith he, apud nullam gentem coli Caelibatum, vt apud Christi∣anos, vbi sunt plurimi vtriusque sexus vsque ad senectutem in virginitate permanentes▪ quod idaem scribit Tertullianus. But neither doth the one, nor the other speake de Caelibatu, in which state of life both widowers and hoore-mongers maye liue, but de virginitate, that is, of chastitie and virginitie, a matter, with which the Romanists haue not much to doe, al∣beit their monkes, friers, and priests be Caelibes.

[falsification 12] He mistaketh also Hieromes wordes in epist. ad Eustoch. de virginitate. for Hierome saith not, fuisse suo tempore in coe∣nobijs Page  153 homines omnis aetatis pueros, viros, senes: as Bellarmine reporteth lib. de monachis c. 35. for he mentioneth no boies, but deuideth the whole company into senes & paruulos, that is, into the elder sort, and such as were nouices, and paruuli. By which, not children are to be vnderstood, but those, that were newly entred, albeit men of ripe yeares.

[falsification 13] In his booke de nocis ecclesiae c. 9. he signifieth, that wee confesse, that the doctrines taught by the Papists were also hol∣den by the fathers. He saith directly, that Caluin in diuers pla∣ces of his Institutions confesseth, that he dissenteth from all an∣tiquitie. Finally, speaking of the Centuriastes: in singulis Centurijs saith he, ad finem quarti capitis annotant omnes fere doctores illius seculi docuisse ea dogmata, quae nos tuemur. All which thrée points are so many vntruthes. for neither do we confesse, that the doctrine of the papists, wherein we dissent from them, is auncient: nor doth Caluin in any place affirme, that he dissenteth from all antiquity: nor doe the writers of the centuries either in so many places, or any one place con∣fesse, that all the doctors of euery age almost, did teach the doctrines maintained by papists. Nor finally doth it follow; because Caluin, and they of Magdeburge, or other priuat men doe holde strange points of doctrine, that all our Churches concurre with them; or because in some one point, or two they differ from vs, that therefore they maintaine the whole doctrine of the papists. Wherfore as his premisses be false, so his collections vpon them are fond, foolish and foppish.

[falsification 14] In the same chapter he saith, that the Eunomians taught, that no sins could hurt a man, so he had saith. And that this was Simon Magus his heresie to holde, that a man was iustified by grace, and not by workes. Eunomiani docebant non posse ho∣mini vlla peccata nocere, modo fidem habeat, vt testatur Augu∣stinus lib. de haeresib. c. 54. And againe: haec erat impijssima haeresis Simonis, qui dicebat hominem saluari per gratiam, non per operas iustas. And these heresies he affirmeth to be hol∣den by Luther, Caluin, and Brentius and others. But to cast some good colour vpon his accusation, he hath made diuers grosse lies. First, the Eunomians taught not, that no sins could hurt a man, so he had faith: but so he were partaker of that faith, Page  154 which he taught.*Docebat Eunomius saith S. Augustine, nihil obesse cuiquam quorumlibet peccatorum perpetrationem, & perseuerantiam, modo eius, quam ille docebat, fidei particeps esset. Secondly, neither doth any of vs, nor did Luther, or Caluin, or any true Christian euer holde, that perseuerance in sinne doth hurt no man▪ nay we say, that he that beléeueth truely, worketh also by charity. Why then doth he charge vs so impudently with this error? Thirdly, we speake of a true faith, and not of the heresie of Eunomius. Fourthly, not Simon Magus, but the Apostle Paul taught, that we are saued by grace. As for the disciples of Simon, they taught, that men are saued by the grace of Simon.*Docebant saith Irenaeus, ser∣uari homines secundum gratiam Simonis, non secundum ope∣ras iustas. Fifthly, we say anathema to all, that beléeue to be saued by Simons grace, or the Simoniacal Popes indulgences. Are the papists then not ashamed, to sée their champion ouer∣lash so farre in the report of these matters? Finally, we doe not deny, but good workes are the way, we are to walke in, if we meane to attaine the kingdome of heauen, though not the causes of obtaining that kingdome.

[falsification 15] He saith further, that as Florinus taught, that God was the author of sinne,*so Caluin did likewise teach. Florini haeresis erat saith Bellarmine, deum esse causam peccatorum. And a∣gaine, eadem sine vllo pudore docet Caluinus lib. 1. instit. c. 18. §. 2. Non solum permissu inquit, sed etiam voluntate dei homines peccant. &c. & lib. 3. c. 23. §. 24. dicit non solum dei praeuisione & permissione, sed etiam voluntate in peccatum lapsum esse Adamum. & infra c. 24 §. 14. quod, inquit, aliqui audire verbum dei contemnunt, ipsorum est prauitas, sed in hanc prauitatem à deo addicti sunt, vt in eis potentiam suam & seueritatem ostendat. He doth say also, that Luther, Peter Mar∣tyr, and Melancthon held the same opinion. Dicit Melancthon in comment. in c. 8. ad Romanos saith he, ita fuisse opus dei Iudae proditionem, ac Pauli conuersionem. But here néedeth a fellow with a talye, to score vp the Cardinals maine lyes. For first Caluin doth expressely deny, that God is the author of sinne, as may appeare by his first booke of his institutions chapt. 18. Secondly, it came neuer in Luthers, Peter Martyrs,Page  155 or Melancthons minde, to holde any such wicked opinion, as Bellarmine doth ascribe vnto them. Thirdly, Caluin hath not these wordes, non solum permissu, sed etiam voluntate dei ho∣mines peccare; or that God is author, or cause of sinne. Nay he directly teacheth, that the next cause of sinne, is the depra∣uation of mans will. Fourthly he forgeth lies, where he saith, that Caluin writeth, that men are addicted to doe euill by God, and that Adam did sinne by the will of God. for neither of these points will be found in his third booke of Caluins insti∣tutions, from whence Bellarmine would seeme to deriue thē. Fifthly, he doth impudently and without shame charge Lu∣ther and Peter Martyr with teaching, that God is authour of sinne. And if Robert Parsons be not able to alleadge their wordes, out of which this may be proued, he cannot deny, but that the Cardinall is a lyar. Finally, he doth slander Phi∣lip Melancthon, and without colour belye him▪ for if Melan∣cthon had taught any such wicked doctrine, as he reporteth; then would he neuer haue fayled to set downe his wordes. Which not being done, we will not fayle to charge him with vntruth▪ which I doubt not but Rob. Parsons will discharge him of, if he can.

[falsification 16] Origenis fuit error, saith Bellarmine, infernum nihil esse, nisi conscientiae horrorem, teste Hieronymo in epistola ad Auitum.*idem docet Caluinus lib. 3. instit. c. vltimo. §. vlt. But he doth impudently belye Caluin. for he neuer thought, much lesse taught any such matter. if he had done, Bellarmine vseth not to conceale his wordes. He belyeth also both Hierome and Origen, as I haue shewed •… the chapter •…ing before.

[falsification 17] He saith very impudently, that in England a woman is our chiefe bishop. Et iam reipsa saith he, *Caluinistis in Anglia mu∣lier quaedam est summus pontifex. A shamelesse lye of the Popes chiefe parasite. for albeit we giue her Maiesty su∣preme authority in ecclesiasticall ames; yet the same doth not include any power of ministeriall 〈◊〉 in preaching the word, and administring the sacraments, or vsing the keyes; nor doth it comprehend more, then doth belong to the French king, and all other kings, if they will take it, and not suffer the same to be vsurped by Antichrist, and his adherents. Page  156 His slandrous wordes, where hee like a slaue of antichrist doth call vs Caluinists, doth shew his had humor, and howe without lying and rayling, neither he, nor his consorts can maintaine their credit.

[falsification 18] Proclus Haereticus apud Epiphanium haeres. 64. saith Bellar∣mine,*dicebat peccatum in renatis semper viuere. concupiscen∣tiam enim verè esse peccatum, nec tolli per baptismum, sed so∣piri per fidem, quod idem docuerunt Meslaliani haeretici apud Theodoretum lib. 4. de haeret. fabulis. haec est ipsissima senten∣tia Lutheri artic. 2. & 31. Item Philippi in locis communibus c. de peccato Originis, & Caluini lib. 4. instit c. 15. §. 10. But to report somewhat, that may tend to slander vs, he hath re∣ported a number of lies all vpon a heape. for neither did Pro∣clus say, that concupiscence was sinne, and that it was not ta∣ken away by baptisme, but onely made dull by faith: nor did the Messalians teach any such matter. nor doth either Epi∣phanius say that of Proclus, or Theodoret of the Messalians, that Bellarmine reporteth. nor doth either Luther, or Melan∣cthon, or Caluin teach, that sinne doth liue alwaies in the re∣generat. Proclus beléeued, that the body was vinculum ani∣mae, and that the soules were created before the body: which was also the heresie of Origen. But this which Bellarmine talketh of, he neuer taught, nor was any such thing condem∣ned in him as an heresie. Luther, Melancthon, Caluin and we all doe holde, that euery christian man ought to mortifie his earthly members, and concupiscences, and that some doe it more, some lesse. Neither doth any man teach, that con∣cupiscence doth reigne, or liue in the regenerat, as this lying and slandrous mouth affirmeth.

[falsification 19] Whereas Nouatus denyed reconciliation to such as had fallen in time of persecution, * or as Bellarmine saith, power to reconcile men to God, otherwise then by baptisme, he char∣geth Caluin with this heresie, as if Caluin did deny reconci∣liation to repentant sinners, or had said, that the church hath no power to reconcile such as are fallen. As not this therfore grosse impudency, to lye so manifestly? But saith he, Caluin denied, that there was any sacrament of repentance, beside bap∣tisme. as if he, that denied this, must néedes say, that the Page  157 church hath no power to reconcile sinners to God. This certes, is not onely vntruth, but want also of all vnderstan∣ding, and modesty.

[falsification 20] He doth impudently affirme, that Luther and Caluin deny∣ing freewill, doe fall into the heresie of Manicheisme. Mani∣chaeorum est, inquit Hieronymus, saith Bellarmine,*hominum damnare naturam, & liberum auferre arbitrium. & Augustinus de haeres. c. 46. peccatorum originem, inquit, non tribuunt Manichaei libero arbitrio. idem apertè sectarij omnes. Now by sectaries he vnderstandeth all, that professe the truth. Af∣terward he doth specially name Luther and Caluin. but if he had any shame, he would not haue said, that either Luther, or Caluin doth condemne the nature of man, as the Mani∣cheyes doe, or teach that man doth sinne necessarily, and not by his fréewill. And albeit they deny the force of mans will (which is called commonly liberum arbitrium) to be suffici∣ent to vnderstand the will of God, or to performe the same; yet it doth not therefore follow, that they sauour of Mani∣cheisme. But how the papists sauour of this heresie, we haue shewed heretofore.

[falsification 21] Ho tamen est magis impius Caluinus Manichaeo, quod Ma∣nichaeus deo malo tribuat peccatorum originem, Caluinus deo bono. Herein, saith Bellarmine,*doth Caluin shew himselfe more wicked, then the Manichey, because he attributed vnto an euill god the beginning and cause of sinne, and Caluin to a good God. But if he passed not the Manicheyes, and all o∣ther heretikes in impudent lying, he would not haue thus falsly affirmed this of Caluin, who in his first booke of institu∣tions chap. 18. doth expressely prooue, that God is not the au∣thor of sinne; and in all places doth detest this opinion. Why then did not Bellarmine alleadge his wordes, if he had said any such matter? In the place quoted certes he teacheth the contrary of that which Bellarmine affirmeth, and bellow∣eth out against him.

[falsification 22] He is not ashamed also to affirme, that all of vs teach, that the visible church hath been lost now this many yeares. * eccle∣siam visibilem à multis seculis perijsse saith he, & nunc solum esse in septentrionalibus partibus, vbi ipsi sunt, docent omnes, Page  158 praecipuê Caluinus lib. 4. instit. c. 2. §. 2. But he doth belye Caluin, and all the rest. for we beléeue, that in Italy there is a visible church now, albeit the Pope sée it not. and that the church at all times consisted not of spirits, but of men visible, albeit euery one did not know them. neither doe we say, that the church at any time shall faile, or hath failed. nor is this ly∣ing cardinall able to prooue it out of our writings.

[falsification 23] Of Luther, Melancthon, and Caluin he affirmeth, that they cannot deny,*but that the seeds of Arianisme are sowne in their writings. Which is a lye most odious and malicious. for all the points of Arianisme they not only detested, but haue lear∣nedly refuted. and those proofes that Bellarmine bringeth in his preface to his treatise, de Christo, are nothing but rayling termes, and proofes of his owne malice.

[falsification 24] He saith, Iouinian taught, that a man after baptisme could not sinne,*especially if he were truely baptized, and the same error he doth impute to Caluin. But he lyeth both of the one and the other. for neither did Iouinian teach so, nor Caluin: though by his lying reportes he doe endeuour to conioyne them in one opinion.

[falsification 25] Hierome doth impute these heresies to Vigilantius, first, that he taught, that the bodies of the Saints were vncleane, and to be throwne out: next, that the prayers of the Apostles and Martyrs are not heard: and lastly, that the ministers of the Church ought to be married. But if Bellarmine do say, that in these thrée points we agrée with Vigilantius,* as he doth; then doth he make a thréefold lye. For neither doe we allow those, that would haue mens bodies thrown out to the beasts of the field, and fowles of the ayre, or otherwise vse the bo∣dies of holy men departed this life vnreuerently; nor doe we doubt, but that God doth heare the prayers of the church tri∣umphant; nor doe we thinke any man is to be constrained either to marry or not to marry. Would thē Bellarmine shew more plaine and true dealing in his disputations, his rea∣ders would better like of him, and his cause.

[falsification 26] Of Pelagius he affirmeth, that he taught that righteousnesse is lost by euery little sinne,*and that therefore euery sinne is mortall. and this saith he, is confirmed by the testimony of Page  159Hierome lib. 2. contra Pelagianos. But neither was this the error of Pelagius, who rather, as the papists suppose & teach, held, that a regenerat man may be without all sin, and that he is able to performe the law; nor doth Hierome affirme any such thing of Pelagius.

[falsification 27] Of Zuinglius he reporteth, that he did simply deny original sinne to be in euery man. He saith also, *that Caluin and Bucer deny originall sinne to be in the children of the faithfull. Mat∣ters vtterly false, and which by the whole course of their wri∣ting is refuted. neither doth it follow, albeit the children of the faithfull be holy, that therefore they are not borne in ori∣ginall sinne. For this holynesse they do not otherwise ascribe vnto them, but in regard of spirituall regeneration, and re∣mission of sinnes. But if it be Pelagianisme to teach, that o∣riginall sinne is not in all men, then are the papists Pelagians by Bellarmines confession, which exempt the blessed virgin from this sinne.

[falsification 28] Xenaias persa primus palam asseruit, saith Bellarmine, Chri∣sti & sanctorum imagines non esse venerandas. testis Nicepho∣rus lib. 16. c. 27. But this lye is confuted by the law of God against the worship of images, by S. Augustine, that con∣demneth Marcellina for worshipping and burning incense to the images of Iesu & Paul, by Epiphanius and other fathers, which I haue cited as witnesses against the idolatry of pa∣pists in my former challenge. He doth also falsifie Nicepho∣rus, in adding these wordes primus palam, vnto him.

[falsification 29] In the 14. chapter de notis ecclesiae: he telleth vs, howe Dominick raysed three dead men to life, and that he and Fran∣cis did many miracles, as they are record do in the discourse of their liues. He saith also, that Francis de Paula did great mi∣racles, and that Xauier a Iebusite did cure deafe and dumb men, and those that were sicke of the palsey, and restored one dead man to life. But all these report of miracles are nothing but miraculous lyes. for Ignatius doing no miracles, how is it likely that Xauier should doe so many?

[falsification 30] In the 17. chapter of the same booke, he telleth how Luther died sodenly, that Oecolampadius was found dead in his bed, lying downe in good health, that Carolstadius was killed by Page  160 the diuell, that Caluin died eaten of wormes, as did Antiochus and Herod and others. Lies deuised by men hyred to rayle vpon honest men, and refuted by the histories of their life and death, and by the testimony of all that were present at their endes.

[falsification 31] In his second booke de eucharistia c. 6. he hath these words: Irenaeus probat Christum esse creatorem, ex eo quod panis fit corpus Christi per consecrationem. But Irenaeus hath no such matter. nay if he should haue vsed any such argument, then must it follow, that Christs body is created, as oft as masse is saide. Furthermore it appeareth by the place of Irenae∣us lib. 4. contr. haeres. c. 34. that he disputeth not against those, that denied Christ to be the creator, but which denyed God to be the creator. And that he prooueth, not as saith Bellarmine, because by consecration the bread is made Christs body, but because heretikes offered to God bread, which by consecra∣tion was made Christs body, and because this sacrifice had béene vngratefull, vnlesse it had consisted of Gods creatures.

Finally, because it were long to set downe the particulars of all sorts of lyes vttered by Bellarmine, this I doe giue the reader to vnderstand in generall, that almost all his reports of his lying legends, vnwritten traditions, feyned miracles, new deuised prophecies, and of the fathers testimonies concer∣ning the speciall points of the late Romish religion establi∣shed in Trent, are either plaine lyes, or vntruly let downe by him. and that shall euery man perceiue, that listeth to reade my bookes de missa papistica, de Pontifice Rom. de purgatorio, de ecclesia, de concilijs, de monachis and others set out a∣gainst him; especially if he list diligently to com∣pare the fathers writings with that poyson, which he like a spider hath sucked out of them.

Page  161

CHAP. VIII. A Catalogue of certaine lies and falsi∣fications of Caesar Baronius, taken out of a smal part of the beginning of his first booke of Annales.

NOw least Bellarmine should séeme to be in lying and forging singular, I will adioine vnto him his fellow Cae∣sar Baronius a cardinall forger and ly∣ar, and one of all the authors that e∣uer I read, that most impudently a∣buseth and detorteth scriptures con∣trary to the intentiō of the holy ghost to serue his owne humour.

[falsification 1] In the front of his booke, hauing placed the image of the Romish church in forme of a woman, with a heauy woodden crosse on her shoulder, and the triple crowne vpon her left hand, with two great keyes of the Popes sellar, as it should séeme, hanging downe vnder it, and on the one side placing this word, vicit haereses, and on the other, subegit gentes: he doth giue vs to vnderstand, that hee meaneth to tell little truth in his booke, that telleth so many lies in the first front and face of it. For first it is most vntrue, that this Romish church, that is now possessed of the triple crowne, was euer sub∣iect to the crosse of Christ Iesus. For the Pope, he claymeth a power aboue all Emperors, and liueth in all delightes and pleasures, and though he cary with him headlong into hell great multitudes of soules; yet may no man say to him, do∣mine cur ita facis? His cardinals also and other adherents Page  162 liue like princes without all feare and danger, vnlesse it be in regard they feare their panches. Finally, all these persecute o∣thers and are not persecuted themselues.

[falsification 2] Secondly he lyeth impudently, where he signifieth, that Christ gaue the keyes to the Pope, and to his adherents. For he gaue them to Peter, & to such as should succeede him in fée∣ding Christs lambes, and that by preaching the Gospell and administring the sacraments, and ruling the Church ac∣cording to instructiōs giuen them by Christ, and now contei∣ned in the Apostles writinges. But the Pope is now become an earthly potentate; he féedeth not, but rather cutteth the throates of Christs lambes: his followers haue adulterated the faith, and changed the institution of Christs sacraments and now doe rather handle clauas quam claues: that is rather clubbes, then keyes, murdring as many, as will not suffer the Pope, and his masse préestes with their counterfect keyes, to creepe into the secretes, both of their consciences, and their worldly estates.

[falsification 3] False it is also, that this latter Romish Church hath subdu∣ed heresies, being it selfe ouercome and ouergrowne with he∣resies, and being like to a large fielde ouercomme with wéedes. And this I haue shewed at large in my former chal∣lenge in the chapter of Romish heresies.

[falsification 4] Neither can Baronius shew in all his voluminous legends, that the true Church in time paste did worship the wooden crosse, as the Pope, and Baronius, and others doe. If then hée by his wooman represent the true Church, he lyeth. if he re-represent the Romish church, and the purple hore apocalyps 17. He saith truely. For with the superstitious worship of the crosse, and the Popes tyranny and false doctrine shée is much oppressed, and greuously burdened. Yet that is nothing to this purpose,

[falsification 5] Furthermore all histories shewe, that sence the Pope be∣gan to weare the triple crowne, and to shew himselfe in that height of pride, which Baronius representeth vnto vs in this figure, yeSaracenes, Turkes & Gentiles haue preuayled against the pope, & his followers, as may appeare by diuers disastrous attempts made against them for the regayning of the land of Page  163Palestine commonly called the holy lande. Baronius therefore playnly coggeth, where he telleth vs, how the popes haue pre∣uayled against the Gentiles. for all the victoryes they haue gotten, haue rather béene to the preiudice of christian princes from whome they haue taken Rōe, Italy & other territories, thē of Turkes and Heathen, who by the popes false doctrine and turbulent gouernment, haue subdued a great parte of the christian world and yet are suffered for their idolatry and he∣resie to preuaile against papists.

[falsification 6] He doth also paynt the holy ghost houering ouer the popes triple crowne, & the blessed virgin with her son in her lappe as gouerning the world, and Peter and Paule supporting the wor∣ship of our lady which doe all containe notorious lyes. For we may not thinke, that the holy Ghost hath any thing to do with the mayntenance of the popish triple crowne, or that these men were inspired with gods spirit, which leauing the preaching of the Gospell sought for triple crownes & earth∣ly kingdomes. Secondly it is impious, to teach, yt our sauiour Christ is now an infant, or that he hath communicated his gouerment with his mother. Thirdly, neither doth Peter nor any other Disciple of Christ teach or maintaine the Romish doctrine concerning the worshippe of our Lady, and the Popes authority. All these figures therefore are lying and false figures.

[falsification 7] Sixtus quintus in his decretall epistle profired before Ba∣ronious his bookes saith, that he hath faithfully and diligent∣lye reported the stories of the Church, and deliuered the true fountaines of apostolicall traditions. speaking of his booke he calleth it opus fideliter scriptū, and not only reporteth so of his bookes, that already were published, but of those, that yet he had not séene, prophesiyng belike of Caesar Baronius his fu∣ture workes, perfections, and exploytes. speaking of his dili∣gence in describing of Romish traditions: he saith, that in his bookes of Annales, apostolicarum traditionum purissimi fontes aperiuntur. But this is a notorious and large vntruth. for not only his traditiōs are fabulous, but his discourse most vaine and false, being grounded, for the most part, vpon lying legendes, counterfect sermons, and orations set out vnder Page  164 the names of fathers, lewd authors, and such as Simeon Me∣taphrastes, Anastasius, Gratian, Iuo, Theodorus Studites, & cer∣tein bookes, that neuer yet sawe light, and Baronius allow∣ing this Epistle of Sixtus must néedes proue himselfe a lyar.

[falsification 8] The yeare and precise time of Christs natiuity being the ground of all his worke, it must néedes follow, that if he faile in that, then that his whole booke is nothing, but a packe of lies. That the whole worke is layed vpon that point, himselfe confesseth. haec basis quaedam, ac fundamentum annalium esto, saith he. * But that he hath erred in that point, it is very probable. Epiphanius in panario haeres. 51. saith that our Saui∣our was borne Augustus and Siluanus being consuls. Seuerus hist. lib. 2. saith hee was borne when Sabinus and Ruffinus were consuls▪ why then should we rather beléeue Cassiodorus, whōe Baronius followeth, then the other two? But if this were not erroneous, yet in the supputation of yeares continually he erreth reducing matters rather to the false tradition of the Romish Breuiaries, and other rituall bookes, then to the truth.

[falsification 9] This sentence which he placeth in the front of his booke, in petra exaltauit me, & nunc exaltauit caput meum super inimi cos meos; he doth falsely apply to the Romish church, contra∣ry to the meaning of the Prophet Psal. 26. For he speaketh of himselfe. Beside that, he saith abscondit me in tabernaculo suo in die malorum protexit me in abscondito tabernaculi sui. yt is, he hath hidden me in his tabernacle: and in the dayes of my trou∣ble hath protected me in the secret place of his tabernacle. But the Romanistes will not graunt, that the Church of Rome is a congregation hidden, or yt God doth place the same in ye se∣cret place of his tabernacle. Furthermore, that which the pro¦phet speaketh of himselfe, cannot by any meanes be applyed to the Pope, or Romish Church▪ for it is not God, that hath aduanced the Pope to this height of pride, nor doe those here∣sies, which the Church of Rome maynteineth, nor those mas∣sacres, and impostures which shée worketh proceede from god. Finally God shall destroy antichrist with the breath of his mouth, and shall not exalt him, nor suffer him long to be thus exalted.

Page  165

[falsification 10] In his epistle to Sixtus quintus he giueth the title of Vniuer∣sal or Catholike to the Romish Church, and doubteth not to affirme the traditions of the Romish Church to be holy and auncient: pro sacrarum traditionum antiquitate saith he, ac sā∣ctae Romanae catholicae ecclesiae potestate. but of the prophane∣nesse and nouelty of the Romish traditions, I haue spoken al∣ready both in my challenge, and in my bookes de missa, and o∣ther treatises against Bellarmine, and I doubt not, but there∣by euery man may conuince him of lying both concerning the holinesse, and also the antiquitie of Romish traditions. To affirme, that the Romish church is catholike concerning faith vniuersally taught, I haue declared in my challenge, to be most false▪ to affirme, that the Romish Church is the vniuer∣sall and catholike Church in regard of time and place, is not only most false, but also most absurd▪ for were the Church of Rome the true church, as it was sometime; yet as wel may we call London all england, as the Romish Church the catho∣like Church.

[falsification 11] In the same epistle most impudently he applyeth these words of Iacob Genes. 27. surge sede, & comede de venatione mea, vt benedicat mihi anima tua: to himselfe, as if he had béene a hunting about Rome, and brought Sixtus quintus a goate, or some like venaison; and as if Sixtus quintus were a prophet like to Iacob. And to fitte the words to his purpose he addeth to the text, the word Pater, and taketh away the word sede: and saith, surge pater & comede de venatione mea, vt benedi∣cat mihi anima tua. Which is a false and leud kinde of abu∣sing of scriptures.

[falsification 12] Concerning the visible monarchy of the Pope he telleth, if not a visible, yet a very palpable lye. *Catholicae ecclesiae visi∣bilem monarchiam saith he, à Christo domino institutam super Petrum fundatam, ac eius legitimos verosque successores roma∣nos nimirum pontifices inuiolatè conseruatam &c. demonstra∣bimus. But if Christ had apointed any such visible monar∣chy, it is strange, that neither the Apostles, nor first church of christians could euer sée it. Againe it is absurd to thinke, that generall councels would haue made lawes, if there had béene a generall monarke apoynted ouer them. Thirdly if Pe∣terPage  166 had béene a monarke, yet it is absurde to say, that the vi∣sible monarchy is founded vpon him. For no man saith, that the kingdōe is founded vpon the King, neither is it probable, the foundation being inuisible, that the building should bée visible. Finally, this being a ground of his legendicall fa∣bles, that the bishops of Rome succeeded Peter in the visible monarchy of the church, it must néedes follow, if this ground faile him, the cardinall lyeth in euery page of his annales, and as often, as he talketh of this matter. But that neither Peter was constituted monarke of the church, nor the bishops of Rome haue succeeded in any such phantasticall monarchy, I haue at large proued in my booke de pontifice Rom. set out against Bellarmine, some fowre or or fiue yeares sence.

[falsification 13] Out of Clement. lib. strom. 6. most simply and falsely, he af∣firmeth, *that as the Iewes knew God by the prophets, so God did separat from the commō multitude of the Gentiles, the most excellent of the philosophers, and made them capable of Gods beneficence. He alledgeth also an apocryphal text out of Paule and seemeth to affirme, that some Gentiles did knowe Christ.

[falsification 14] He saith, that the church of Ara coeli in Rome was built by Constantine in memoriam dei genitricis Mariae:* and so called for that Augustus the emperor being admonished by a Sybille did there see the virgine Mary high aboue in the aire with christ in her armes, and built an altar in that place, where he sawe the vision. Matters very fabulous. for neither doth any authenti∣call story affirme, that Christ was made knowne to Augustus, nor is it likely, that the blessed virgin and her sonne should be transported out of Iudea to be shewed to Augustus at Rōe, nor did any Sybille liue in Augustus time, nor could he learne when our Sauiour Christ would appeare in the ayre, by the bookes of the Sybilles, nor doth there appeare any such mat∣ter in the Sybilles writinges. It should seeme therefore, that Baronius was abused with some idle tale of the friers of hara poreorum, that dwell in the house called Ara coeli. & the rather I do beléeue it for that no churches were built in the honor of the blessed virgin in the time of Constantine, neither was shee Page  167 then in playne termes called dei genitrix.

[falsification 15] Vpon the credit of Orosius he is bould to tell vs, that in the place, where now the Church of our lady standeth beyonde Ti∣bre, a certaine founteine ran oile a whole day together▪ and not content herewith, he affirmeth, that Callistus bishop of Rōe, (who liued long before the councell of Nice) built there a large Church in the honor of the mother of God. Meruit locus saith he, nobilissima memoria illustrari, ecclesia nimirum ampli∣ssima dei genitricis titulo à Callisto pontifice prima omnium,*quarum extet memoria, olim erecta. Matters not only false, but incredible. For what probabilitie is there, that in the times of persecution, when Christians did hide themselues from their enemies, Callistus should erect so braue a fabrike▪ as that Church is? or what reason had Nestorius and o∣ther heretikes to deny the blessed virgin to be the mother of God, if so be in Rome so many churches had beene built in honorem dei genitricis, as Baronius reporteth?

[falsification 16] Out of apocryphall writings he telleth vs, how many sis∣ters Anna the mother of Mary had, *and that shee was but once maried, and bore Mary in her hold yeares, after shee had made a vowe to consecrat her to the Lord. And these are the braue traditions, that Sixtus quintus commendeth vnto vs, as comming from most pure fountaines. But if we are to giue no more credit to scriptures, then to such traditions ac∣cording to the determination of the conuenticle of Trent, with a little helpe this cardinall will discredit the scriptures. For neither are these things to be found other where then in legendes, nor was it a fashion in the ancient time to con∣secrat nonnes to God, nor doe we reade of many such vowes.

[falsification 17] Out of Epiphanius he doth likewise alleadge a certaine tradition, how an Angell told Ioachim, the father of Mary be∣ing in the desert, that his wife had conceiued▪* and out of Gre∣gorius Nyssenus in orat. in Natal. domini: that Anna the mother of Mary went into sanctū sanctorū, & there prayed, (séeing mo∣thers had more honor, then those that were barren) that she might not be depriued of the benefit of lawe, but might bee a mother. And that then shee did vowe, that shee would conse∣crat Page  168 vnto God, that which should be borne vnto her▪ but we doe not reade, that Angels did in scriptures foretell the birth of any, but of great and singular men. Againe, the law tel∣leth vs, that women might not come into sanctum sanctorum. Thirdly, we finde not, what seruice women did in the temple, that the holy virgin should be consecrated to Gods seruice. Finally, those which report these strange things, doe not agrée together, as may appeare by the conference of the reporte of Epiphanius haeres. 79. aduers. Collyrid. with Gregory Nys∣sens oration in Natali domini, and Hieromes epistle ad Chro∣matium & Heliodorum tom. 9.

[falsification 18] Of the blessed virgin he bringeth a report out of Euodius, that she was presented into the temple at the age of three years,*and there liued eleuen yeares, and was afterward by the hands of the priests deliuered to Ioseph to be kept. Trimula cum es∣set saith he, in templum praesentata, ibi in sanctis sanctorum traduxit annos vndecim. deinde verò sacerdotum manibus Jo∣seph ad custodiam est tradita. Matters deuised by idle fel∣lowes, not without the suggestion of Satan, as it should séeme▪ for when he could not discredit the gospell, then he deuised o∣ther fables, which being either false, or improbable might bring the truth of christian religion into question. That the virgin Mary should remaine in sanctis sanctorum, is against the lawe▪ * for thither went the hgh priest onely once a yeare. That she should be presented at three yeares of age into the temple, is against reason▪ for what seruice could a childe of those yeares do? againe, where are women commanded to serue in the temple? Thirdly, the priests kéeping her eleuen yeares, as a thing consecrated to God, they had no reason to deliuer her ouer at the time of most danger to be kept by Io∣seph. Finally, the treatises set foorth vnder the name of E∣uodius, Gregorius Nysseus, Damascenus, Germanus, Andre∣as Cretensis, Georgius Nicomediensis, and Cedrenus, allead∣ged by Baronius, are counterfeit, and differ much one from another. Is it not therefore much better, to content our selues with the history of the gospell, that reporteth that, which was necessary to be knowne concerning the birth of our Sauiour, and the holynesse of the blessed virgin, and to Page  169 omit such vaine fables, as both to Iewes and gentiles make christian religion contemptible and ridiculous, and yet haue no sufficient testimony, either of the Apostles, or other au∣thenticall writers?

[falsification 19] Whereas a brasen lauer, and the base of it, is said to be made of the glasses of women,*that watched at the doore of the tabernacle; Baronius doth gather of it, that there were certaine women, which renouncing the pompes and delightes of the world, did together with the things they possessed, especially such as were intisements to sinne, mancipate and consecrate themselues, to the seruice of God, and giuing themselues to continuall prayers, did watch at the doore of the tabernacle. But séeing God appointed all the ministeries, and seruices of his tabernacle, and appointed no seruice to be done of wo∣men at the gate thereof, it is a most ridiculous conceit of an idle braine to beleeue, that these women did any such ima∣gined seruice at the gate of the tabernacle. Beside that, it were very strange, if so many women were employed to the seruice of the tabernacle, as that a lauer and a base for it might be made of the trimming or cases of their glasses, that we should finde no mention of them in scriptures. Finally, the description of the tabernacle, tents, and orders of the Is∣raelites, which doe not import, or giue any signification of such an order of women, but rather the contrary, doth cléerly refute this vaine fiction, deuised without colour of reason, or testimony of good authors.

[falsification 20] He telleth vs further, a tedious fable of the holy virgins vow of virginity▪ but if he will make his report good, * hée must shew first, that women among the Israelites did vowe virginity, and the rather, for that we reade, that it was a re∣proach for women of that nation, not to be mothers of chil∣dren. Secondly he must shew, that young women before the age of fourtéene did make such vowes. Thirdly he must an∣swere and cleare those places of scripture, that say she was betrothed to Ioseph. for after solemne vowes Nunnes nei∣ther marry, nor are betrothed. Finally he must bring vs bet∣ter proofes, then supposals of Epiphanius and Augustine, and a counterfeit tale vnder the name of Gregorye of Nyssa.Page  170 For S. Augustine, or at least he, that lurketh vnder that ho∣ly fathers name saith, that vowes of virginity did not then stand with the fashions of the Israelites.* He signifieth also, that the holy virgin thought it impossible, hauing once vowed her maidenhead to God, that she should know a man. But that sheweth, that all the Romish Nunnes are most vnlike to this holy virgin▪ for albeit they vow and sweare, and are walled vp, so that none come at them; yet they neither think it a matter impossible, nor difficult to know men, as experi∣ence and diuers witnesses can testifie, and the Romanistes know very well, if they durst speake it.

[falsification 21] Diuers auncient fathers testifie, that Ioseph the spouse of the blessed virgin, had by his first wife diuers children; and namely Hyppolytus, as witnesseth Nicephorus hist. lib. 2. c. 3. Origenes in Matthaei c. 13. Eusebius hist. lib. 2. c. 1. Epipha∣nius haeres. 28. 51. 78. Nyssenus homil. de resurrect. Christi homil. 2. Chrysostomus homil. de annunt. Virg. Euthymius in Matth. c. 2. Hilarius in Matth. can. 1. Ambrosius in epist. ad Galat. And yet all this notwithstanding Baronius saith, this is but an apocryphall fable. Why then should we beléeue his apocryphall fables testified by one or two witnesses on∣ly, and that in writings very doubtfull, séeing he will not be∣léeue this narration, that is confirmed, as himselfe confes∣seth, by many fathers? Further, why should we beléeue him, that Iohn Baptist was conceiued in September, in the time of the solemne fast, or in that forme, which he reporteth? And why should he desire any to giue credit to his narration, con∣cerning the city of Zachary S. Iohn Baptists father, and the sanctification of S. Iohn Baptist in his mothers wombe, for which he alleadgeth no proofe, séeing he will not beléeue o∣thers, that bring testimonies of fathers▪

[falsification 22] Saint Luke sheweth, that Christ was baptized going vp∣on the thirtéeth yeare of his age: *Iesus erat incipiens saith he, quasi annorum triginta. and so doe most fathers and other learned men expound Lukes words. But Baronius, to main∣taine the credit of the Romish ordinall, will haue Lukes wordes to be so expounded, as if he were going vpon the age of one and thirty, when he was baptized. But if this were Page  171 so, then would Saint Luke haue said, quasi annorum trigin∣ta & vnius.

[falsification 23] In the accompt of years, from the beginning of the world vntill Christs time, he followeth the tradition of the Romish church, that séemeth to allow the translation of the seuenty interpreters, rather then the Hebrew text. But what is this else, but to digresse from the canon of originall scriptures, to follow either corrupt translations, or vnwritten traditions?

[falsification 24] The scriptures say, that our Sauiour was borne in Beth∣lehem, and in a stable, and that he was laide in a manger▪ and albeit the place was very meane for the king of heauen and earth to be borne in; yet it is very much to be presumed, that there was neither Oxe nor Asse in the roome▪ for they are no fit compagnions for men and women, especially for a woman being with childe. But Baronius by vnwritten traditions issuing from that pure fountaine, which Sixtus quintus speaketh of, hath found, that our Sauiour Christ was borne in spelunca that is, in a caue, within the ground. Saint Matthew calleth it a house, but he findeth it was no house, but a denne or caue. He findeth also that Christ was borne in this caue, which is some prety way out of Bethlehem▪ for so Burchard in his description of the holy land part. 1. c. 7. testifieth. He saith further, that our Sauiour was laid in a manger cut out of the rocke, and proueth it by the testimony of Hierome; albeit we reade but of few mangers cut out of rockes, and although afterward he saith it was of wood▪ and so must he say, vnlesse he will deny that to be the manger, that is shewed in the Church of our Lady ad praesepe, in Rome. He alleadgeth Chrysostome also, that saith the man∣ger was of earth or clay. Finally he beareth vs in hand, that there was an Oxe and an Asse tyed in that stable, and thinketh it sufficiently proued, because Hierome alluding to the words of the prophet, saith, that when Christ was borne, the Oxe knew his owner, and the Asse his masters crybbe▪ and this he alleadgeth out of the third of Abacuck, where no such thing is to be found. Of all which traditions, the sole reason is this, that he may maintaine the credit of the manger, which together with hey they shew at Rome as a holy relique. He Page  172 endeuoureth also by these fables to vpholde the pilgrimage to the holy land, where little is remaining to be séene, but holes, dennes, rockes and mountaines. But if he beléeue these traditions as well as the gospell; a man of small lear∣ning may see, that he is a man of a strange faith.

[falsification 25] He telleth, that the swadling clouts, wherein our Saui∣our was first wrapped, are religiously kept, and that a church was built in honour of them, and a holyday assigned to keepe the memoriall of them. But his best witnesse of them is Li∣pomanus; a man whose lies a man may feele with his hands. The Apostles certes, neuer taught vs to kéepe such reliques, or ragges rather. neither doth any authenticall s•…ry report any such thing. Nay, whosoeuer will examine them nar∣rowly, shall soone sée the notorious impostures of the Roma∣nists, that deuise and maintaine these superstitions, not for any other purpose, then for their owne credit and gaine.

[falsification 26] The wisemen, that came from the East, if we will beléeue him, were three kings. but he maketh kings without king∣domes, and like his holy father the Pope, by •…is charter or testimony giueth kingdomes away at his pleasure. Very vnlike it is, certes, that thrée kings should consort together, and take such a iourney putting themselues, not onely in the mercy of Herod a most cruell and couetous king, but also of all the kings and states, by whom in their iourney they pas∣sed. He telleth vs also, that they were Arabians. but he know∣eth, that Clement of Alexandria, Chrysostome, Cyril, Theodo∣ret, and Leo sometime bishop of Rome saith they came out of Persia. Basil and Hierome suppose, they came out of Chaldaea. Séeing then all these countries are to the Eastward of Iudea, what reason hath any to beléeue Baronius, rather then these fathers? I looked also that the Cardinall should haue tolde vs the names of the kings, and how their bodies came to Collein, and other places. for the Romish tradition is, that their names are Gaspar, Melchior, & Baltasar, or such like, and that their bodies are at Collein, and as they say, at other pla∣ces to. Percase as they are said to be thrée, so euery one had thrée bodies. and this is the assurance of Romish traditions, on which the papists build their faith.

Page  173

[falsification 27] He hath also found out the very day, when the wise men came to Bethlehem,* and for that he is beholding to the calen∣dars of the Romish Missals and Breuiaries. such braue monu∣ments and testimonies haue the Romanists of their traditi∣ons. But Eusebius in his Chronicle, and Epiphanius in pa∣nario say, they came to Bethlehem two yeares after our Sa∣uiours natiuitie. And what is he, that without proofe can set downe the certainty?

[falsification 28] He saith, that the wisemen in returning homeward did not lodge in any Inne, but in mountaines and dennes.* But how knoweth he this? forsooth because Simeon metaphrastes saith so, and for that he produceth the testimony of Cyril in his hi∣story de vita Theodosij, who as Baronius beléeueth, is a faith∣full historian. But neither can he name a more fabulous au∣thor, then Simeon Metaphrastes, nor will it be prooued, that the writing that goeth vnder Cyrils name was framed by a∣ny man of credit. such braue witnesses hath this Cardinals legendary for his traditions.

[falsification 29] Where Luke c. 2. sheweth, that when the daies of purifi∣cation of Mary was ended, she went to Hierusalem,*to offer and doe according to the lawe of Moyses: there Baronius hath found out, that she was no way bound to doe it, but as a ce∣remony, or complement. Cum alioqui saith he, nullatenus a∣stringeretur virgo sanctissima. But if she were a mother, and bore a sonne, and if he were like to other men, then was she bound to doe, as other women did, although she remained a most holy virgin. As for the wicked opinion of the Roma∣nists, that in their catechisme teach, that our Sauiour passed from his mother, as the sunne beames passe through glasse, I hope Baronius will not defend it. if he doe, he then addeth heresie and blasphemy to his fault of lying.

[falsification 30] That Anne, of whome Luke maketh mention chap. 2. he affirmeth to be a most religious Nunne.* and this he would prooue by the authority of Cyril cate•…. 10. But vnlesse hée can prooue, that she vowed chastity, pouerty and obedience to a certaine rule, Bellarmine may enforme him, that he tel∣leth vntruth. for these vowes he supposeth to bee essentiall points in monastical life.

Page  174

[falsification 31] Out of Sozomen and Nicephorus he telleth vs, that a cer∣taine great trée neere Hermopolis in Aegypt,* when as Ioseph passed by with Christ being yet a little child, did bow it selfe and worship Christ, and that with the barke, and leaues of this trée all diseases are cured. And this doth Baronius tell very sadly, and beléeue soundly, as a Romish tradition. But vnlesse he bring sounder proofe, then yt heresay, of Sozomen; we must néedes beléeue, that he is of the number of those, which because they wold not beleeue the truth,*are giuen ouer to beleeue lyes.

[falsification 32] Most sadly also he saith, but not soothly, that betwene He∣liopolis and Babylon,*there is a little fountaine, where the ho∣ly virgin did wash Christes clothes, and him two, while he was in Aegypt, and a certaine stone also hard by, where she dried his clothes, and that both christians and Saracens haue this fountaine and stone in veneration. Which if he were not stu∣pide as a stone, he would not beléeue to be true, notwithstan∣ding any credit, that is to be giuen to Borchardes fabulous narrations of the holy land.

[falsification 33] He also citeth Philo de temporibus, as an authenticall wit∣nesse to proue, * that Herod killed his owne sonne among the children, that dwelt about Bethlehem. But we doe not reade, that Herods sonne dwelt about Bethlehem. Beside that the treatise of Philo de tempoibus is conterfeit. Finally, is not he a braue author of traditions, that by tradition is able to proue, that the Romish Church worshippeth Herodes sonne, that was an infidle, for a young saint.

[falsification 34] He affirmeth also, that Zacharie the father of Iohn Baptiste was slaine of Herod,* for that he did hide away his sonne in the slaughter of the children of Bethelem, and that the colour of bloud remained many yeares after vpon the paue∣ment in the place of the slaughter. but Hierome in his com∣mentaries vpon the 23. of Mathew doth condemne this fa∣ble, and shw, that it was a dreame taken out of apocrypha bookes. Whereby it may also appeare, that diuers Romish traditions are nothing else, but dreames taken out of apo∣cryphall writinges.

[falsification 35] * But this may seeme a small fitton of a lye, in respect of Page  175 that which followeth, where speaking of the 9. yeare of the age of our Sauiour, he saith, *that our ladies house wherein our Sauiour was brought vp, was by the ministery of Angels ta∣ken vp all whole into the ayre, and so caried first into Dalmatia, and then into Italy to Loreto. And to proue this, he alledgeth the words of the Angell concerning the miraculous concep∣tion of Christ, that sayd, non esse impossibile apud deum omne verbum. As if because a virgin could conceiue without man, it were likewise credible, that Angels should carry an olde house ouer the seaes into strange contries: or as if it were not a strange thing, that this cardinall should beléeue the tran∣sportation of this house to Loreto as firmely as hée beléeueth Christ his incarnation. *Tursellinus that writeth a longe dis∣course of this fable, speaketh of one house of our Lady, and doth not distinguish betwéene the house, where the virgine heard the salutation of the Angell; and where our Sauiour was brought vp. But the curious cardinall doth diligently distinguish both; and yet he is not able to shew, why the one house should rather be transported then the other. Beside that both he and Tursellinus do differ about the place where this house should first bee seated in Italy. I for my parte wonder, that they should publish such vaine lyes with so great ostentation. Now to proue this to be true Baronius is not ashamed to test a greater lye; affirming that Gregorius Thaumaturgus did remoue not a house, but a mountaine. Which if he cold doe, it were to be wished, that he would re∣moue the 7. hils of Rome together with the Pope, and this lying cardinall, and place them at the foote of mount Tabor, for whence Baronius beleeueth, that our Ladyes house did flye ouer the Seaes into Dalmatia first, and then into Italie.

[falsification 36] Of Augustus he saith, *that he made lawes against such as li∣ued single, and yet honored those, that kept themselues conti∣nually true virgins: which containeth a notorious contradic∣tion. be•…de that, it is absurd, to proue vowes of virginity frō heathen emperous, & very preiudicial to the Romish church, that he alloweth not fictum caelibatum, nor any but those, that indéede are true virgins, of which he shall find very few Page  176 among his fellow cardinals, and not many among priestes, monkes, friers, nunnes.

[falsification 37] Where Pilate, as Iohn chap. 19. saith, wrote the title ouer the crosse in Hebrew,*Greeke and Latine letters, and as Luke testifieth. chap. 23. in Hebrew, Latin and Greeke; Baronius sup∣poseth, that the order is changed, and that the Latin inscription ought to be first. But this is nothing but to contradict the e∣uangelistes, and to respect neither the apostles, nor their wri¦tings, so the Church of Rome may winne any preheminence aboue other churches. He alledgeth, I confesse, the testimo∣ny of pope Nicholas in epist. ad Michaelem. But it is a poynt of blasphemy to beléeue, that Nicholas knew those matters better, and did report them more truely, then the euangelists. Beside that, it may well be doubted whether Nicholas wrote that epistle to Michael, or some other in his name, that with∣out all truth, and modesty aduanceth the priuiledges of the Romish Sée.

[falsification 38] Where Luke doth expresly set downe, that Iohn Baptiste began to preach,*when Annas and Caiphas were highe preistes, Baronius saith that only Caiphas was high preist in the socces∣sion of Aaron. And that he is forced to hold for feare, least hée should ouerthrowe the monarchy of the Church of Rome. Annas he saith, was chéefe priest as head of his ranke, and one of the principall heads of the Sanedrin. But if he were not high préest; why should he be named before Cayphas? or why should Luke so call him? if he might not be high preist, as contrary to law, he must vnderstand, that at this time nei∣ther the law of Moyses, nor the order of succession was right∣ly obserued.

[falsification 39] Talking of Saint Iohn Baptist he saith, hee dwelt in the wildernesse,*and keept in a denne called Sapsas. And that our Sauiour Christ did visit him oftentimes in this denne. And this he proueth by the testimony of Sophronius, and one Iohn a monke, to whome Saint Iohn appeared as he beléeueth, in this hole, and told him all this story. matters fabulous, and ridiculous. For who will grant, that Saint Iohn Baptist, whose soule was with God, kéept in this denne? it is as like that he dwelt there being dead, as being aliue. yet this is Page  177 also a Romish tradition. but whether Locustes, that S. Iohn Baptist did eate, were liuing creatures or no, as yet Baroni∣us hath not found out any certaine tradition. Isidorus of Pelusium holdeth that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the gospell signified the tops of herbes and plantes.

[falsification 40] Pag. 110 he saith, that S. Iohn Baptist did lay the foundati∣on of monasticall life, and that all Catholikes confesse it to be so. A lye notorious, as appeareth by my answere to Bellar∣mines treatise de monachis. Furthermore this his assertion may be conuinced first, for that Iohn Baptist neither made vow, nor liued after any certaine rule, nor forswore mari∣age. Secondly, for that this manner of life was but for a time. for after a while, he left his habitation in the desert of Iudaea, and came to Iorden, and into cities. Thirdly, Iohn was ordained to be a forerunner of Christ, and is commen∣ded, as a singular prophet. but monkes and friers are ra∣ther the forerunners, & staf•…ers of Antichrist, then of Christ. Neither is there any mention of them in scriptures, but in generall termes, * where we reade of locustes issuing out of the bottomelesse pit, and such like places. Prophets certes they are not, vnlesse we giue the name of prophets to false tea∣chers. Fourthly, if Iohn séeme in his manner of life to haue giuen any example to Eremites; yet that serueth other monks and friers nothing, that liue in most frequent cities, and are in continuall action. Finally, albeit Chrysostome, and Hie∣rome say somewhat of Iohn Baptist, as if he first had shewed an example of solitary life; yet neither doth that serue to prooue, that he was a precedent to other monkes, nor doe o∣ther fathers or catholike authors affirme, that he laid the first foundation of monasticall life. I hope Rob. Parsons will not say, that Iohn Baptist was like his father Ignatius Loyola, that madde maranicall Spaniard, and swaggring compag∣nion, the first author, founder and foundation of the hispa∣niolized Iesuites.

[falsification 41] Pag. 117. he saith Christ was baptized the sixt of Ianuary, and this he would prooue by the testimony of a letter of Euse∣bius ad Marinum, whose fragments are in the edition of Chri∣stopher after the history of Euagrius, as he writeth. But sée∣ing Page  178 the holy scriptures haue concealed the exat day, he shew∣eth not himselfe wise, curiously to dispute of this point. Be∣side that, he should doe vs a fauour to shew who this Chri∣stopher was, that set out Eusebius. otherwise his followers will beléeue, that he tooke Christopher for Christopherson. Fi∣nally there is no credit to be giuen to such vaine fragments set out vnder the names of auncient writers. In the histo∣rie of Eusebius we read not, that he had any thing to do with this counterfeit Marinus. so that this tradition séemeth to be built vpon a rotten foundation.

[falsification 42] Gregorius Turonensis telleth, how leprosie is cured by wa∣shing in water, where our Sauiour Christ was baptized: and Baronius beléeued he said true. But yet was this Grego∣rie no good witnesse in this case, writing nothing, but by hearesay. We are taught by holy scriptures, that baptisme was ordained a sacrament of remission of sins, and not that Iordane was made a medicine to purge lepres.

[falsification 43] Pag. 119. he supposeth, that he hath soundly confuted those, that say, that it was not said to Peter, tu es Petra, sed tu es Pe∣trus. but either must he lye, or must he charge the Euange∣list Matthew with vntruth, which is a point blasphemous. He saith also, that such as translate the word Cephas, and say it doth signifie a head, are not to be reprehended. But if he had had either head or braine, hauing taken vpon him to re∣late histories, and things done in auncient time, he would haue omitted all curious disputations for the popes vsurped supremacy, for which his grosse head fit to beleeue all fond fables, was neuer framed.

[falsification 44] Out of Abdias, which he confesseth to be an apocryphall author, he telleth, that Iohn the Euangelist by Christs perswa∣sion did neuer desire mariage. as if Christ were an enemy to mariage.

[falsification 45] He saith, that it was Simon Zelotes that was maried, when Christ was present in Cana of Galiley,*and turned water into wine: and declareth, how the memory of that miracle being celebrated in the Church the vi. day of Ianuary diuers riuers and fountaines that day ranne wine. Matters méerely fa∣bulous, and which bring christian religion into question, Page  179 if not into contempt, being auouched without any good ground.

[falsification 46] Pag. 132. he alloweth the epistle of Abagarus to Iesus Christ, and his epistle also to Abagarus: which by the testimony of Gelasius c. sancta Rom. dist. 15. are testified to be apocryphal, and by the letters themselues appeare to be forged.

[falsification 47] In the same place also he reporteth, that our Sauiour Christ printed his image in a cloke, and sent it to Abgarus. The painter should haue taken the portrait, but saith Baronius for the beames that came from his countenance, he could not doe it. He sheweth also, that by this image diuers mira∣cles were done. and all this to confirme the worship of images.

[falsification 48] Pag. 157. he telleth vs, that by diuine and humane lawes one chiefe bishop both in time past did, and ought to decide all ecclesiasticall controuersies. But the place Deut. 17. and diuers places of the new testament doe shew this to be a no∣torious vntruth, as I haue shewed in my bookes de Pon∣tifice Rom.

[falsification 49] Pag. 167. he telleth out of Euthymius, that the rich man Luc. 16. was called Nynensis, and doubteth not to affirme, that this was a story and not a parable, because diuers chur∣ches are erected in the honour of Lazarus. but the fathers thinke otherwise. And the naming of tongues, fingers and other things which are corporal, where our Sauiour talketh of soules, doth shew this discourse to be parabolicall, and the papists to be idolaters, that worship their owne fancies, and imaginations. In the meane while, it is no hard matter to discerne Baronius to be a fabler.

[falsification 50] Pag. 176. he would make his reader beléeue, that our Sa∣uiour did celebrate his passeouer in S. Iohn the euangelists house. But Simeon Metaphrastes denieth it, which is often alleadged by Baronius as a graue witnesse: and the words of the gospell séeme to speake of the owner of that house, as of a stranger.

[falsification 51] Pag. 191. he saith Missa is deriued from the Hebrew or Chaldey word. but Bellarmine his fellow telleth him, * he is deceiued.

Page  180

In the same page, he alleadgeth the counterfeit epistles of Pius ad Iustum, and Cornelius ad Lupicinum, and other forged writings, and all to shew, that the word Missa was vsed in their times.

[falsification 52] Out of Gregory of Tours he reporteth this fable, that di∣uers making thonges, put them about the piller, whereto Christ was tyed, when he was scourged, and that the same heale di∣uers diseases. He would haue tolde vs als if he could haue brought any proofe for it, that the same piller is to be shewed in Saint Peters Church at Rome. for that is a Romish tra∣dition. but he perceiued, that he had tolde a lye sufficient alreadie.

And thus we may sée, albeit I tell not all, how many lies are contained in the beginning of his first booke of Annales, being by iudgement of all men the best, and most frée from lyes. and yet I neither touch his errors in Chronology, nor much meddle with his forged and false writings. After this he telleth things most incredible, and yet without good testi∣mony of any man of credit. Of S. Paul he writeth, that his head being stricken off, there issued out milke in steade of bloud. He telleth also, that Peters chaines being kept by Plau∣tilla worke great wonders, and saith, that when Iohn the Euangelist wrote the gospell, it thundered and lightened, as when the lawe was giuen in mount Sinah. Infinit such strange tales are contained in his huge legends. If then we would doe him right; we should rather call them Aniles fabulas, then Annales.

Page  181

CHAP. IX. A sampler of Robert Parsons alias Coobucke his manifold falsities and lies, taken out of diuers libels and pamphlets published by him.

NOw I come to Robert Parsons, alias Coobuck, a man, I confesse, vnwor∣thy to bee ioyned with Bellarmine and Baronius, being farre inferiour to them in learning; yet in regard of his falsehood and treacherous dea∣ling, comparable with the most wic∣ked and shamelesse Iebusite of the whole order, and with the most false packer of all the popish faction. His scholers beléeue, that he is learned. but if his trecherous complots and packings were not more to be feared, then his learning; he were not to be reputed halfe so dangerous, as we finde him. The which, albeit I meant not here to dispute, being without the reatch of my purpose; yet because I would not haue euery such woodden fellow, as Philip Woodward alias Owlyglasse (for so men call the author of the detectiō) to take exceptions vnto my sayings, as destitute of proofe, I will briefly verifie in this place; and that by two of his bookes, which his fol∣lowers for learning & workmanship beléeue to be singular. If any man néede any further trial; he may, if he please, read my reply to his wardword, where I haue sounded his lear∣ning to be very shallow.

The first of the two is entituled, a briefe discourse contai∣ning Page  182 certaine reasons, why (papists, whom falsely he termeth) Catholikes refuse to go to Church▪ and this booke Parsons vn∣der the maske of Iohn Howlet, a fit name for such a night∣bird, doth presume most impudently to offer to her Maie∣sty. The next is called a christian directory, and commonly knowne by the name of Parsons his resolution.

His former discourse is wholy grounded vpon this rotten foundation, that the popish religion (which the Iebusiticall faction and their followers, by all their witte, learning, and other meanes séeke to promote) is the true Catholike religion. This being the foundation of the worke, if he had béene a wise builder, he would haue confirmed, and proued so strong∣ly, that her Maiesty, before whom he pleadeth, might haue conceiued well of his cause, and allowed of his reasons. but alleadging no one word to prooue this, the whole worke doth not onely fall to the ground, but also ministreth matter, that may be turned backe vpon himselfe, and employed to the hurt and preiudice of his clients. For as it is a good reason, if the popish religion be the true christian religion, to mooue men to refuse all religions opposite vnto it, so if the same be false, odious, trecherous, damnable; then neither haue pa∣pists any reason to professe it, nor others to beare with those, that obstinately defend it. but I haue shewed, that it is not onely new, and false, but also superstitious and hereti∣call. Againe, if Parsons can say nothing, why the religion professed in England, is not Catholike and apostolical; then all his reasons fall to the ground, and all his pretenses of feare of infection, of scandale, of schisme, of casting away the marke of distinction, of participation with vs, of dissimu∣lation, of naughty seruice, of the benefit of popish religion may be retorted against himselfe and his clients. For nei∣ther are Christians to suffer the practise of the idolatrous masse, nor the faction and packing of wicked dissembling pa∣pists; nor may any magistrate or other good christian with good conscience, suffer Gods true religion by schismatickes and heretickes to be scorned. And these reasons are so effe∣ctuall, that I doubt not, but those that haue the managing of these causes, will both take vp such Howlets, and deli∣uer Page  183 Christian religion from contempt of such impostors, and Atheistes.

Secondly purposing, and promising three things, whereof the first was a demonstration of reasons, why Papists should not goe to the Church, the next contained a declaration of meanes how papists should remedy, or ease themselues of their afflictions, the third was an instruction how with patience to endure affliction: the first he handleth most lewdly and loose∣ly. the other two parts he was not able to make out, abusing both his friends and his aduersaries with his false promises. Further, it may be, that his remedies were nothing, but practises of treason and rebellion, and that he meant nothing lesse, then to exhort men to patience: and that therefore he o∣mitted to speake of these two points. But why then did he promise? doth he promise that, which hee purposeth not to performe? and doth he meane to kéepe no touch in any thing?

His directory also is a most idle and vaine discourse. It should consist of thrée partes, whereof the first, as he saith, appertaineth to resolution, the second treateth of entrance, the third of perseuerance. but as his fashion is, of thrée partes promised, he kéepeth backe two, and performeth the third most simply. For first, that which he hath written concer∣ning resolution is very impertinent. for it is a very euil signe of resolution in matters of christian religion, for a man to dispute, whether there be a God or no, and whether christian religion be true or no: as Parsons doth. Againe, despaire of Gods mercy, temptations, feare of persecution, and such like impediments, as Parsons alleadgeth, doe rather hinder a man to leade a christian life, then helpe to resolue him to doe it.

Secondly, the greatest part of his discourse, is either stollen out of Gaspar Loarti, or Granatensis, or Stella, or such like fri∣er like and idle discourses.

Thirdly, it argueth, that he hath a bad conceit of popish ca∣colikes in England. for if he tooke them to be christians, he would neither go about to teach them, that there is a God, nor that christian religion is true, nor that there are rewards Page  184 offered to those that doe well, both in the life to come, and in this life, and punishments likewise for euill doers both in this life, and after this life. for euery childe among christians knoweth all this without his teaching.

Fourthly, we doe not finde, that this directory hath made any one christian, or directed him the way to life. But I doe heare many complaine, that diuers simple young men haue béen directed by him to the gallowes.

Fifthly, it should séeme, that this booke hath wrought lit∣tle good effect in Parsons himselfe, that hauing so long stood vpon resolution, is not yet come to the entrance of reli∣gion.

Sixthly▪ as lawes are made to restraine common abuses, so likewise divines should discourse of such matters, as may make most for reformation of christian mens manners. This discourse therefore of his, wherein he endeuoureth to prooue, that there is a God, that there is one true religion, that there is a heauen, and a hell, among christians already well perswaded is impertinent, and woulde better haue béene bestowed vpon Italians and Spaniardes, that scarce be∣leeue in God, or know any of the principall points of chri∣stian religion.

Furthermore, intreating of resolution, which as himselfe declareth, goeth before entrance, and perseuerance; yet doth he very wisely diuide the treatise of resolution into speculati∣on and practise. The first part saith he, shall containe matter of discourse, speculation, consideration; the second shall handle things appertaining to exercise, vse and practise. As if a man could practise, that is not entered into the exercise of re∣ligion, or as if resolution were not farre different from practise.

Finally, the booke is so full fraught with idle discourses, and the principall points so weakely proued, that it will ra∣ther make Christians to doubt of religion, then Atheistes to beleeue. It doth also containe so much poyson, that no phy∣sicke can make it holesome.

I would therefore aduise all Christians to beware of his booke of resolution by him intituled a directorie, containing Page  185 little truth, but much superstition and hereticall poyson. The same is also a disgrace to all papistes, whome he pre∣sumeth as yet not to be resolued, that there is a God, or that christian religion is true. To christians it can yeelde no instruction being a packe of stollen and bad stuffe euill trussed together. Neither is the same good, although it hath béene purged, the whole substance being leud, and full of poyson. Much I wonder, that any christian would sette it forth in this Church, and more, that chris∣tians should beleeue, that any good was like to come of such a wicked writing. And I doubt not, but that such as are in authority will remoue both that, and other such venemous treatises out of all true Christian mens handes, being rather fit for Italian atheistes, then the Eng∣lish nation.

To leaue the rest of his treacheries, heresies and other faults; which are rather to be corrected by the publike exe∣quutioner, then noted by the stile of a writer, I will only in this discourse set downe certaine notorious falsifications committed by him in sundry pamphlets set out vnder diuers counterfect names, and giue you a tast of his vnsauory lies, of which in Parsons writinges there is great store. And this so much the rather, for that in his relation sent vs from Rōe, concerning the conference some two yeares agone passed in France betwéene Monsieur de plessis, and the pretended bi∣shop of Eureux, he séemeth earnestly to desire a triall concer∣ning these points. The man also in his preface before his reasons of refusall of going to the Church, vn∣der the name of Iohn Houlet desireth that some indifferent triall may be had either by disputation or otherwise: wherein I desire he should be satisfied.

[falsification 1] First then I challenge the man, as a notorious falsificator, in that he hath set forth his owne booke concerning titles vn∣der the name of another preist called Dolman, who was ne∣uer acquanted with the matter. Wherein albeit he hath cōmitted far more haynous faults then forgery, endeuoring by notorious vntruthes to set ye crowne of england vpon the Infantaes head; yet is it a fault also worthy to be censured, to fa¦ther Page  186 his bastard writinges, vpon others▪ that this is forgery, it is apparent by the testimony of the doctors in L. Cornel. de falsis. and their iudgement is grounded vpon great reason. For if it be forgery to adde one clause to a testament or other writing: then it is a mayne forgery, to publishe a false tes∣tament, a false booke, or other false writing vnder other mēs names.

[falsification 2] * Secondly he hath published vnder the name of Sanders, and Rishton diuers enormous and wicked slanders against King Henry the 8. of famous memory, against her maiesty, and the principall persons of this church and realme of En∣land, setting out his owne vilanous lyes vnder the name of Sanders long before dead, and of Rishton, a man no way like∣ly to commit any such wickednesse against his Prince and country, of Howlet, Dolman and others. As for Rishton it is now well knowne, he had small intelligence of state mat∣ters. Neither did he vse to meddle or practise in them. Fur∣ther those that know him, doe testifie that the stile of Sanders his booke is farre vnlike his. Thirdly, his credit was not such, as that he was able to get his bookes printed, especially being of that nature. Finally, we doe not beléeue, that Rishton hauing receiued grace at her Maiesties hands, and being de∣liuered from death, which he had deserued, by her great fa∣uour, would thus requite her, or that being a man of milde disposition he would rayle so maliciously and falsely, against his prince and contry. And therefore I beleeue, if the man be aliue, and were examined vpon his oth, that he would de∣ny that booke to be his, and declare it to be Robert Parsons his worke. And though he doe it not; yet diuers others doe playnly declare so much, & we haue great reason to beléeue their declaration to be true. For he is a great stickeler in mat¦ters of state, and he hath writen such like libels before. Fur∣thermore at his request Ribadineira his fellow Iebusite see∣meth to haue set forth the same booke translated into spanish. Finally I doe not thinke, that Parsons will vpon his oth, and without all equiuocation affirme, that he had noe finger in the making and publishing of that most wicked and slaun∣derous booke.

Page  187

[falsification 3] In those bookes which goe vnder the name of Sanders and Rishton, Robert Parsons hath committed diuers particuler falsities, and namely in publishing diuers letters in the name of Frier Forest and others, which neuer were made by the authors, whose name they carry. For first we doe not finde them in the first edition of that booke anno 1585. Secondly it is absurde to thinke, that either Forest, or simple women did write, as is reported. Finally they doe rather sauor of Parsons his veine, who is able to make to speake, and to write whome he pleaseth, and what him∣selfe listeth. So plentifull and impudent he is in forging false writings.

[falsification 4] Fourthly vnder the name of Iohn Houlet, whome nowe all the seculer masse préestes in England doe wonder at like an Owlet, he hath set forth an impudent discourse, concer∣ning reasons why papistes goe not to the Church. He will not I thinke, deny it to be his. how then can he deny himselfe to be a falsary?

To come to particuler falsifications, albeit in his booke of resolution he hath noe reason to falsifie any place alleadged, winning no aduantage by it; yet hath he so dealt therein, and so hath he enured his fingers in this practise, that he cannot forget to forge and falsifie.

[falsification 5] In the margent of his preface fol. 8. he saith it is an old tricke of heretikes to abuse simple people with obscure places of the scriptures: and for this he quoteth Epiphanius contra haere∣ses, and Augustine ad quod vult deum: as if they should say so. He would also inferre, that it is a matter very dange∣rous, to alledge scriptures. But if he doe not exhibit their testimonies, it will be an easie matter to proue that this is an old tricke of Parsons to father his owne bastardly fancies both vpon the fathers, and vpon others. Is not this then bastardly dealing?

[falsification 6] In the same preface fol. 10: he ascribeth this sentence to Luther in epist. ad Iohan. Heragium Typographum Argenti∣nensem: their opinion of the sacrament they beganne with lyes, and with lyes they doe defende the same. And they doe broch it abroade with wicked fraud of corrupting others mens Page  188 bookes. Likewise he affirmeth of Zuinglius, that in his booke de sacrament. fol. 412. he should call Luther a fowle corrup∣ter, and horrible falsifier of Gods word, and one that followed the Marcionistes and Arians, that razed out such places out of holy writte, as were against them. He maketh also Carolus Molinaeus in translat. testam. noui part. 11. to accuse Caluin, that he made the text of the gospell to leape vp and downe at his pleasure, and that he vsed violence to the same, and added of his owne to the very letter for drawing it to his purpose. But who so list to peruse the writings of Luther, Zuinglius, and Molineus, shall plainly perceiue, that like a falsary he chan∣geth and altereth their wordes at his pleasure. neither can he excuse himselfe, vnlesse he be able to shewe these wordes out of the authors, which he mentioneth. He chargeth Be∣za also, for that in the preface to his new testament set out anno 1556. he accuseth Oecolampadius with all his brethren the diuines of Basil, for great impietie in abusing the sacred scriptures translated by them. But he abuseth his reader in laying that to Bezaes charge, that was neuer vttered by him, nor is to be found in his preface.

[falsification 7] Fol. 11. of his preface, he quoteth Saint Augustine lib. 8. confess. c. 12. as if he should say, that Saint Anthony had re∣uealed to his mother a religious rule of life, which he should followe. And fol. 12. he saith that Saint Augustine did so reuerence Anthonies doings, that he made the same a princi∣pall motiue to his owne conuersion. But Saint Augustine doth not so much as in one word mention any rule of religi∣ous life, nor did he follow Saint Anthony in other matter, then in reading the scriptures. Nor doth he say, that Saint Anthony reuealed any religious rule to Monica S. Augustines mother. In this therefore Rob. Parsons followeth his olde rule, or rather vnruly course of forgery.

[falsification 8] Pag. 64 of his bookes printed at Louan, he alleadgeth for his ground, the counterfeit writings of Aristaeas, which he calleth Aristeus; and vpon his credit telleth diuers histories. But such false grounds are more likely to peruert, then to confirme men in the faith.

[falsification 9] Pag. 259. he corrupteth Saint Augustines wordes de fid. Page  189 & operibus c. 14. and peruerteth his meaning, quoniam haec opinio tunc fuerat exorta saith Saint Augustine (scilicet vt praecepta & professa fide opera iustitiae contemnantur) aliae apostolicae epistolae Petri, Ioannis, Iacobi, Iudae, contra eam di∣rigunt maximè intentionem, vt vehementer astruant fidem sine operibus nihil prodesse. These wordes Parsons translateth thus, for that this wicked opinion of onely faith was sprong vp in the Apostles time by ill vnderstanding of Sint Paul, &c. he addeth to Saint Augustines wordes wicked; and where he speaketh of a sole faith, or rather solitary faith deuoide of workes, hee maketh him to speake against these, that say, that faith onely iustifieth, or applyeth iustice vnto vs, which Saint Augustine misliketh not. for in that same chapter he saith, that workes follow him, that is iustified, and go not be∣fore iustification.

[falsification 10] Pag. 269. he alleadgeth a counterfeit writing vnder the name of Athanasius, wherein Saint Anthonies the ermites life is described: and of the liues of Paul and Hilarion sup∣posed to be Hieromes: but altogether false, like Dolmans booke of titles.

[falsification 11] In his directory page 353. he maketh Cyprian to say, that Christ appeared to a bishop in the forme of a goodly young man. He saith also, * that Saint Augustine did often vse to re∣count this example, and alleadged Posidonius for his witnes He saith further, that Cyprian writ a booke de Mortalitate. But first this discourse is but one poore sermon, and no booke. Secondly it is vncertaine, whether this sermon was his or no. Thirdly he saith not, that Christ appeared, but that a goodly young man appeared to that Priest. Finally he lyeth of Saint Augustine, as well as Cyprian: and in his allegati∣ons forgeth as fast, as if he were the sonne of a blacksmith, and brought vp in his forge.

[falsification 12] In the same place ridiculously he alleadgeth certaine ser∣mons ad fratres in eremo, which he fathereth most falsely vpon Saint Augustine▪ and this his owne side as well, as the learned men of ours could haue tolde him, if he had but had so much sence, as to vnderstand them. In the two pa∣ges following, he telleth certaine fables of the apparitions Page  190 of good and bad angels; and layeth them vpon Gregory the dialogiste and Bede, whose bookes are much corrupted by monkes, and such like falsaries.

[falsification 13] To prooue purgatory, he alleadgeth a certaine counterfeit booke that is attributed to Saint Augustine, intituled de ve∣ra & falsa poenitentia, and a forged prayer supposed to be said by Saint Ambrose, when he went to say masse, and such like counterfeit stuffe, as may be found in his directory pag. 369. and the pages following.

[falsification 14] Lib. 1. p. 1. c. 11. of his directory, he alleadgeth a place out of Saint Ambrose ser. 2. in psal. 118. where hee supposeth him to speake of popish purgatory, but he speaketh of pur∣ging onely in this life, and of such a purgatory, as that some passed through it to hell. But the papists teach, that no man passeth out of their purgatory into hell. He is therefore fit∣ter to talke of the fire of his putatiue fathers forge, then of the fire of purgatory, which he shall neuer be able to prooue with any forgery.

[falsification 15] Lib. 1. p. 2. c. 1. he maketh Saint Augustine to say, con∣fess. lib. 6. c. 12. that his owne passions, and the diuell would needes perswade him before his conuersion, that he should ne∣uer be able to abide the austerity of a vertuous life. But S. Augustine hath neither any such wordes, nor any such mea∣ning. For first he speaketh not of a vertuous life, but of ab∣stinence from mariage, to attaine to wisedome. Secondly he saith, the Diuell or Serpent went about through him to perswade Alypius, and speaketh nothing of the Diuels per∣swasions to himselfe. Thirdly, he doth not so much as men∣tion austere life in that place▪ neither is it so austere a mat∣ter to forsweare mariage, as is pretended, especially if God giue men grace to liue chaste. The Iesuits and massepriests certes haue no reason to talke of austeritie of life, albeit they forsweare mariage, especially if they liue at ease, and fare daintily, and wallow in all filthinesse, as they shall heare particulerly hereafter, if they content not themselues with this present payment.

[falsification 16] Likewise he citeth certaine Meditations, and Sermons vn∣der the name of Saint Augustine, pratum spirituale vnder the Page  191 name of Sophronius, the legend of Barlaam vnder the name of Damscene, and diuers other forged and counterfeit wri∣tings. He doth also abuse both the scriptures and fathers most impudently, as I shall at more leysure particulerly de∣monstrate. Especially, if he or any other dare vndertake to answere my challenge, and to reply vpon my answere to his disciple Owlyglasse.

[falsification 17] * Where Saint Paul 2. Tim. 4. speaketh of Alexander the copersmith, he changeth his words, and saith, he commanded Timothy not to consent to Alexander the heretike. And this corruption séemeth to be committed in fauor of his putatiue father the blacksmith, whose occupation, percase, he was loth to sée disgraced.

[falsification 18] * Alleadging Saint Augustine contra Maximinum, he sée∣meth to signifie, that he wrote but one booke. Againe, he would make Saint Augustine to say, that it was the fashion of heretikes, to haue scriptures in their mouth. But Saint Augustine in all his thrée bookes against Maximinus hath no such wordes. nay himselfe in those bookes alleadgeth scrip∣ture often, and reasoneth out of them, and plainly signifi∣eth, that his instructions were drawne from thence. De diuinis scripturis instructi, saith he.

[falsification 19] * Speaking of the Pope, hee giueth his reader to vnder∣stand, that Cyprian de simplic. praelat. and epist. 47. & 55. and Chrysost. lib. 2. de sacerdot. Innocentius epist. 93. apud Augu∣stinum, and Leo epist. 84. and the Synode of Alexandria apud Athanasium, and Theodoret lib. 2. hist. c. 4. call the Pope the high priest of the Church, the bishop of the vniuersall Church, the pastor of the Church, the iudge of matters of faith, the re∣purger of heresies, the examiner of all bishops causes, and final∣ly the great priest; in obeying of whom, all vnitie consisteth, and by disobeying of whom, all heresies arise. But scarce doth he speake truely of any one of these fathers or councels, as a∣ny man may sée both by examining the places, and in my booke de Pontifice Rom. against Bellarmine. would Parsons set downe the fathers words, he might also sée it himselfe, if he pleased.

[falsification 20] Where he saith, that the fathers of the primitiue Church Page  192 with one consent affirme, that the body and bloud of Christ was by Christ appointed to be offered vp daily for remission of sinnes of quicke and dead, and quoteth Dionyse, Ignatius, Ter∣tullian, Augustine, Chrysostome, Gregory, Hierome, Cyprian and others; with one breath he falsely alleadgeth them all, as I haue particulerly demonstrated in my third booke de missa against Bellarmine. which if Parsons doe answere, I maruell.

Whosoeuer list to sée further triall of Parsons his falsifica∣tions, let him reade his treatise of the discouery of Nicols, and other such like pamphlets set out by him, wherein I dare be holde to say, that euery second place alleadged by him in any matter of controuersie, is falsely alleadged. Yea sometime to kéepe his forging fingers in vre, he alleadgeth fathers and scriptures falsely, where he doth not gaine any thing to him∣selfe by the false quotation, and allegation, but onely a per∣petuall note of a wicked falsary.

Neither is it a matter much to be maruelled at, if Robert Parsons hath committed diuers falsifications, seeing in cases of conscience resolued by him and Allen, he teacheth, that it is lawfull to change a mans name, to deny his countrey, to equi∣uocate, dissemble and speake vntruth, yea to sweare and for∣sweare most falsely: most of which points are counted plaine forgery. beside that, his putatiue father by his occupation was a forger. If then Owlyglasse séeke a paterne of falsifica∣tions; let him go to Robert Parsons, who is the onely master, and a more excellent forger then Coobucke his putatiue fa∣ther, albeit all his life long he wrought in a blacksmiths forge. Only it were to be wished, that he had béen a forger of horshoonailes, and not of false writings.

Page  193

CHAP. X. A note of certaine notorious lies, and vntruthes vttered by Robert Parsons, alias Coobucke.

I Néed not say much to conuince Rob. Parsons to be a most false Iebusite, and a most impudent lying compag∣nion. The seculer priests in their re∣ply to Parsons his treatise entituled a manifestation of the folly and bad spirit &c. and in their answere to the Iesuites apology, haue eased me of that labour▪ for they conuince him plainely of lying, cogging, and facing, and doubt not to af∣firme, that he can say nothing without lying. But yet because his woodden scholer Owlyglasse hath begun this course, and thinketh to winne some aduantage by scoring vp my vn∣truthes, I will briefly note some vntruthes of the master lye-maker, and excellent imitator of him, that is, the fa∣ther of lies.

[falsification 1] First then I say, that in his most slanderous libels set out vnder the names of Sanders and Rishton, of Andreas Philo∣pater, of Didimus Veridicus, of Allen in his letters to the nobi∣litie and people of England, and Ireland, and all those libels which haue béen published within these 20. years against the late Lord treasurer of England of worthy memory, against the Lord of Leycester, and others, all which were either made by him, or published by him, or by his helpe and counsaile, he lyeth in grosse. For the bookes from the beginning to the en∣ding are full of notorious and villanous lyes against king Page  194Henry the 8. against his principall agentes, against Quéene Elizabeth and her counsaile, and the whole Church and state of the Realme of England. and this, if God be pleased, I purpose shortly to shew at large. Neither néede I to declare any particular, seeing there is no man, that hath any intelli∣gence of matters of state, but he knoweth, that the same bée most false and slanderous. But to leaue to speake of those bookes, that consist of nothing but lyes, I wil note diuers par∣ticuler leasinges out of other bookes of his, wherein, not∣withstanding, he pretendeth more truth.

[falsification 2] In his wardworde pag. 69. he saith, it appeareth not, that Iesuites sought her maiesties bloud; especially not Parsons. A most notorious and shamelesse lye. For it is not only most true, that these wicked assassinors of princes, and King kil∣lers haue also sought her maiesties bloud, but also nowe most apparent. For not only Palmio and Codret two Iesuites did resolue Parrie to kill the Queene, and that it was an act meritorious so to doe, * but also sence that time Holt and Wal∣poole haue excited diuers to take on them that wicked inter∣prise. The first appeareth by the confession of Parrie aboute the yeare anno. 1584. the second by the confessions of Squire, Yorke, Willams, Patricke Ocollen, and others. It appeareth also that Parsons was well acquainted with Parries treason both by cōfessions, and witnesses. Further this many yeares he hath endeuored, to the vttermost of his power, to stirre vp forrayne enemies against her maiestye, which no man can doe, but he must néedes entend her distruction▪ and if hée deny that, his owne letters which are to be shewen, and the testimony of the seculer preistes, * and the wicked libell vnder the name of Allen directed to the nobility and people of England and Ireland, which he holpe to print and pub∣lish; and which wholy & opēly aymeth at her maiesties state and person, will conuince him. But this poynt I haue dis∣coursed in my reply to Parsons his wardworde at large, and the same is diuersly confessed in the seculer préestes bookes. And therefore thus much may serue in this place to proue him both a lyar, & a most wicked assassinor of his liege prince and souereine.

Page  195

[falsification 3] In the fift encontre of his wardword he saith, that those that oppose themselfes against the Iesuites, are either Iewes, Turkes, and Infidels; or those that make diuision and say, I am of Caluin, I am of Luther, or those that haue made shipwracke of faith; or false bretheren such as loue praeheminence as did Diotrephes; or els worldlinges. And in these few wordes he telleth diuers notorious lyes. For first neither Iewes, nor Turkes do oppose themselues against the Iesuites. Se∣condly, among all those, that professe religion he cannot bring forth one that saith I am of Caluin, or Luther. Third∣ly, Parsons himselfe is a Iesuite, and a principal stirrer among them, and yet like Diotrephes sought to be a cardinall, which dignity for his bastardy and vileny he hath missed. Fourth∣ly, he will not say, that Sixtus quintus was a Iewe or Turke, nor that the colledge of Sorbona, and clergy of France, or par∣liament of Paris are within the compasse of his diuision; al∣beit all these haue opposed themselues against the encroche∣ments of the Iesuites. Finally, the seculer préestes, that deale against the Iesuites, are neither Turkes nor Infidels in Parsons his reckening. Yet haue they manfully stood against the Iesuites trecherous plots for their contry, as Parsons will not deny. Doth it not then appeare, that he hath told vn∣truth, and that the Isuites are an odious generation contrary to Parsons his assertion?

[falsification 4] Speaking of the alteration of religion in his first encounter he saith, that by occasion thereof haue ensued battailes,*mur∣thers, destructions of countries. And that townes, cities, hou∣ses and particular men, three princes, two Queenes, and one King haue thereby beene brought to their bane. Hee saith also further, that the houses and linages of Hamiltons, Dougla∣sses, Stuards in Scotland, of desmond and other peres in Ireland haue beene thereby ruinated. And finally, that in France and Flanders there is no ende of those, that haue beene destroyed by this change of religion. A most shamelesse and palpable vntruth. For not religion, or any alteration therein, but the malice of the Pope and wicked practises of Iesuites, and there consorts haue caused most of these troubles. The rest haue happened vpon other accidentes. By the Popes secret Page  196 practises, and Charles the 9. his great disloyalty many thou∣sandes of innocentes were massacred in France the yeare of our Lord 1572. by the working of Claude Matthieu a Iesuite and others his consortes that league was made, which brought infinit calamities to the people and kingedome of France. Paule the third stirred vp warres against the princes of Germany. Pus the fift was the firebrand, that inflamed the Northren rebellion in England. Sanders the Popes legat was the originall cause of the destruction of the earle of Desmond. And happie had the late Quéene of Scots beene, if shée had not béene to credulous to beléeue Sammier and o∣ther seditions Iesuites entisinge words and promises. the at∣tempt of Spaniardes against England anno. 1588, was set for∣ward by Frier Sixtus quintus at the solicitation of Robert Par∣sons and his fellowes, albeit here he would gladly discharge himselfe, and lay the fault vpon others. the Iesuites were the causes of the destruction of the Duke of Guise, of Hen∣ry the french King, that was murdered by Iames Clement, of the Duke of Parma, of the discontentment of the Prince of Transiluania. neither was the losse of Sebastian King of Portu¦gal, of his whole army & his estate to be ascribed to any other thē to ye wicked counsaile of the Iesuites, which gouerned him wholy and drue him into that action they haue also brought the King to Poland in danger to loose his kingdome of Sueth∣land, and caused the ouerthrow of Ferdinand of Croatia by the Turkes: and finally both haue they ruined as many, as haue harkened to their turbulent counsels, and will they ruine as many, as will be guided by them. And this is not only proued by experience, but also testified by diuers re∣cords, and bookes in England, and France of late set out by men of their owne religion. The diuisions certes which they haue caused in ye emperors army in Hungary haue wrought many calamities to christendome.

[falsification 5] In the same encounter he saith, that before the late alterati∣on of religion, there was one forme of seruice, one number of Sacraments, one tongue, one Sacrifice, one heade of the Church throughout all christendome. but in my reply pag. 19. I haue shewed, that this shorte sentence containeth 〈8 pages missing〉Page  205 the truth haue respected temporal commodity, or as if we did not vrge them with the truth of apostolicall doctrine, and the ancient christian faith.

[falsification 38] In the preface of his directory. fol. 13. p. 2 he saith, that S. Ambrose, S. Augustine, S. Gregory & S. Bernard perswade men by their examples to be afraid of purgatory. A fourfold lye. for neither did S. Ambrose, nor any of the rest speake of a purga∣tory, wherein christians did satisfie for the temporall punish∣ment of sins remitted in earth. nor did they beléeue any such purgatory. Whatsoeuer they held of another purgatory, viz. for veniall sinnes; yet false it is, that they perswaded men to be afraid of it by their examples.

[falsification 39] In his directory lib. 1. p. 42. he saith, that the world know∣eth, that Socrates was put to death for isting at the multitude of gods among the gentiles: a matter which the world knoweth to be a lie, and is refuted by Plato, & al that write of his death.

[falsification 40] In the same place he saith, Plato was wont to report of Zeno the stoike, that he should say, that either there was one God, or no God. but the record of the report will not be found. Fur∣ther, if Plato liued before Zeno, it was not like, that he should prophecy what Zeno would say. These lyes certes be∣ing the grounds of Parsons proofes where he goeth about to shew, that there is a God: are rather like to make a gentile, or heathen mā obstinate, then to make him beléeue in one God.

[falsification 41] Pag. 174. he telleth, that the number of infants slaine at Bethlehem was 14. thousand. and this he goeth about to proue by the greeke calendar, and the liturgy of the Aethiopians. but such fables as he bringeth, doe rather discredit christian reli∣gion, then prooue it. We beléeue, that Herod killed the yoong children in Bethlehem, and thereabouts. but so many as 14. M. could not be found in that quarter, as is very likely.

[falsification 42] Pag. 269. he saith, that Philo the Iew doth set forth strange things in the life and exercises of S. Marke, and of his disciples, that liued in Alexandria. But if Philo in his booke de vit. con∣tēplat do neither speake of S. Marke, nor his disciples in A∣lexandria, I hope that Parsons disciples will be ashamed of their masters ignorance, and confesse that he hath lyed.

It were an easie matter, to set downe infinit lyes of this Page  206 lying compagnion, whoe without lying is not able to speak any thing, as his consorts the seculer priests say. but when he hath cleared himselfe of these, he shall haue twise so many more obiected against him, and drawne out of his simple writings. In the meane while it may appeare, that neither he, nor his disciple Owlyglasse had any great reason to chal∣lenge the combat of vs for falsifications and lyes.

CHAP. XI. That Owlyglasse himselfe hath falsi∣fied diuers authors and allegations in his little lewd Pamplet, wherein he chargeth others with falsifications.

IS it possible, thinke you, to worke some∣what out of nothing? certes no. Strange therefore it may seeme vnto you, that I endeuour out of this small Pamphlet, that is as nothing, to make something. Yet if you please to consider the particu∣lers ensuing, you shall finde, that in this trifling discourse of the woodden detector, wherein he hath shewed neither witte, learning, nor honesty, nor any good thing; that there are diuers points contained, that may conuince him both to bee a falsary, and a false lying com∣pagnion.

[falsification 1] Out of Origen pag. 11. c. 2. he citeth these words, qui renas∣citur debet sale saliri.* But the fathers words are these, opor∣tet ergo eum, qui renascitur, vtique in Christo renascentem rati∣onabile & sincerum lac desiderare, & prius quam rationabile Page  207 & sine dolo lac desideret, debet sale saliri, & pannorum inuolu∣cris colligari, ne dicatur ad eum, sale non es salitus, & pannis non es inuolutus. So then by this it appeareth, that he cutteth a∣way the words in the midst, and leaueth out the words in the end of the sentence, and ye maliciously to serue his purpose. for otherwise it would haue appeared, that Oregin spoke allego∣rically, or that al children and others, that are to be baptized, must as well drinke milke, and be lapped in cloutes, as sal∣ted, or touched with salt.

[falsification 2] In his preface he abuseth Hostiensis and Panormitane ma∣king them to say, that thrée thinges precisely are required in a falsary. And that domage or hurt ensueth of euery falsificati∣on. the fellow quoteth their words out of a pamphlet prin∣ted at Antwerpe by Hierom verdussen concerning the confe∣rence betwixt Plessis and Eureux. and therefore no maruel, if he cite them falsely, taking their words at the second hand of so base and lying an author.

[falsification 3] In my former challenge p. 20. these are my words. They dissolue mariage contracted by entring into religion, as they terme it, and although it be consummated, yet they hold, that by mutuall consent, the maried couple may depart a sunder, and that it shall not be lawfull for them afterward to company toge∣ther. They separate also mariage for spirituall kinred, and force all, that-will be preistes, monkes, or friers to forsweare, marri∣age. Matters not onely strange in the catholike Church du∣ring the times of the Apostles, and their successors for many hundred yeares, but also contrary to Christes doctrine. For what man can separate them, whome God hath ioyned? And what reason hath man to commande any to forsweare mariage, which the spirit of God pronounceth to bee honorable? But my aduersary like a falsary, that is, like himselfe, first lea∣ueth out the beginning of the sentence; secondly hée cutteth somewhat out in the midst, * and finally he curtalleth the ende of my sentence, reporting only these words, and in this sort. They hold that by mutuall consent the married couple may de∣part a sunder, and that it shall not be lawfull for them afterward to company together, a matter not only strange in the catholike church during the Apostles, and there successors times, for ma∣ny Page  208 hundred yeares, but also contrarie to Christes doctrine▪ for what man can seperat whome God hath ioyned? So it appea∣reth, that he cutteth out that, which I said of dissoluing of ma∣riage contracted, by monkish vowes, and vpon pretence of spi∣rituall kinred, ad that also, which I say of forswearing of ma∣riage▪ he doth also make me to speake in the singuler nomber, where I speake in the plurall. which course if any man take with the fathers writings; he may easily make them speake vntruth, and what he listeth. But in the meane while Owly∣glasse sheweth himselfe a falsary.

[falsification 4] Where Pag. 24. of my former challenge I say, that papists of late time haue deuised masses, and offices in the honor of the crosse, of the virgin mary, of S. Francis, Dominike and other saints, and that vnto their images they burne incense and offer their prayers and deuotions:*Owlyglasse according to his fa∣shion doth thus transforme my words, as if I had sayd only, that the Papists offer their prayers and deuotions to the images of our Ladye, S. Francis, S. Dominike. Whereby it appeareth, he doth detruncate my wordes leauing out the beginning, and that which I said concerning the crosse, and burning of in¦cense, vpon which points the argumēt, which I brought was principally laide. If a man should so vse him, as he hath v∣sed my words, I doubt not, but he would be much offended.

[falsification 5] Pag. 62. of my challenge I say, that Damascene accomp∣teth them heretikes, that worshipped the images of our Saui∣our, of the blessed Virgin, and the Saints, as the gentiles did their gods: and I added, that this was the case of the papists, because both gentiles and papists bow to images, pray to them, burne incense to them, and offer sacrifice before them: and yet both deny, that they worship stocks or stones, but rather those per∣sons, that are represented by them. But Owlyglasse crushing my wordes together, as if he meant to wring veriuice out of them, & taking out, what he pleaseth, doth so report my wordes, as if I had sayd onely, that the papists worship the images of Saints, as the gentiles did their gods, and that they pray to them. And thus this butcherly falsifier of mens wri∣tings hath mangled my wordes, as I haue particulerly no∣ted heretofore.

Page  209

[falsification 6] To prooue, that the popes of Rome had power to make lawes in ancient time, and did practise that power, he alled∣geth a forged canon of Hilary sometime bishop of Rome, that liued about the yéere of our Lord 461. but the same is not ex∣tant in ancient record. neither is it like, that he would vse such a thundring stile, as did the author of this decretale epistle. thirdly, no godly bishop would match his owne decrées with Gods ordinances. Nulli fas sit, saith he whatsoeuer he was, sine status sui periculo, vel diuinas constitutiones, vel apostolicae sedis decreta temerare▪ finally, if the bishops of Rome in this time had vsed this stile, all the world would haue laughed at their folly.

[falsification 7] Pag 23. Chap. 2. he doth also curtall my words with an &c. and maketh me to speake of one particular, where I speake of diuers things, and leaueth out some principall parts of my as∣sertion. I say, if a man seeke all antiquity, he shall not finde, where the church of Christ hath commanded vs to keepe this popes day, or that popes day, and to absteine from worke on S. Francis, and S. Dominikes day, and other canonized friers daies, or where the same hath enioyned Christians to heare masse, or to fast Lent or Ember daies, or vigils of Saints, and o∣ther tides according to the fashion of the Church of Rome. but my aduersarie leaueth out all that, which concerneth hearing of masses, and keeping of holy daies of the popes canonized saints, and of other tides, and of the maner of fasting.

[falsification 8] Likewise, pag. 26. he mangleth my words and sentences, and giueth them a new forme, neuer deuised by me. I speake of diuers things together, pag. 32. of my challenge, and say, that they are not to be found in all antiquitie. he maketh me to speake of solemnization of mariages in times prohibited by the Romish church.

[falsification 9] He doth likewise mangle my words, pag. 32. leauing out that, which I speake of adoration, and carying about the sacra∣ment. The like dishonest dealing he vseth in most of those pla∣ces, which he alledgeth not of my challenge, as may appeare by my answere to his former exceptions, and by the words themselues, if any man list to compare my booke with his pam∣phlet. What then néed I to touch him for particular falsifica∣tions, Page  210 when the allegations of his woorthlesse treatise are no∣thing almost, but continued falsifications?

[falsification 10] Pag. 32. he citeth the 13. canon of the councell of Nice for the 12. and where the councell speaketh of excommunicate persons onely, he maketh the same to speake of all Christians, and to determine, that the holy communion should be denied to none at the point of death: as if the eucharist, as now is the popish fashion, were then caried to all sicke persons, which is no part of the councels meaning.

[falsification 11] Pag. 35. he bringeth in a counterfet booke of S. Ambrose, de viduis, and yet clippeth his words, forcing him to speake for praiers to angels, which true S. Ambrose, as may appeare by my answeres to his exceptions, condemned.

[falsification 12] Pag. 36. he produceth Hierome as a witnesse for prayers to saints, and alledgeth his booke against Vigilantius for that pur∣pose▪ but vnlesse he falsifie S. Hieromes words, he shall not find any thing in him, that maketh for his aduantage.

[falsification 13] Pag. 53. & 54. he falsly alledgeth the 4. councell of Toledo c, 1. Ignatius his epistle ad Trallianos, Cyrilles cateches. 4. Epi∣phanius haeres. 46. Hierome vpon the 4. to the Ephes. Grego∣ries Morals, lib. 13. c. 20. and all to prooue Limbus patrum, which the papists fancy to be in hell, and a receptacle of the fa∣thers before Christ. His falshood may appeare, for that not one of these testimonies maketh for Limbus patrum. and that, if he will not beléeue me, Bellarmine will teach him, lib. de ani∣ma Christi c. 14. where he shall not once finde his Limbus pa∣trum mentioned in any father.

[falsification 14] Pag. 62. he doth falsly ascribe the defence of womens bap∣tisme to Master Hooker of blessed memorie. whosoeuer listeth to reade Master Hookers fift booke of Ecclesiast. policie sect. 62. shall finde, that he condemneth women that presume to bap∣tize children, albeit he do not pronounce the baptisme by them administred, to be of no validitie.

[falsification 15] Pag. 80. & 81. he alledgeth S. Augustine ser. 243. de tempo∣re, and the councell of Neocaesarea c. 7. to prooue, that the cu∣stome of not blessing second mariages is no new deuice, but a practise of the primitiue church▪ and yet neither doth the ca∣non alledged, nor the author of that sermon speake one word Page  211 of blessing of second mariages. Furthermore, neither this ser∣mon, that he alledgeth, séemeth to be S. Augustines, nor are the acts of the councell of Neocaesarea authenticall.

Finally, if this simple fellow had alledged more places, more he would haue alledged falsely, being not able to alledge any thing almost truely.

If then the Archpriest Blackewell doe happen to méet with this owle of Canke wood; he may doe well to admonish him, not to abuse the testimonies which he alledgeth, and his rea∣ders patience, which he trieth to the vttermost with such nota∣ble falsities. he himselfe confesseth, that it is a flagitious matter, to poule and pare the sentences of venerable antiquitie. There resteth therefore nothing, but séeing he hath confessed his fault, that the Archpriest set him to penance, and afterward cause him, if he haue a good voice, to sing masse, séeing he can say no better.

CHAP. XII. A Note of diuers vntrueths told by Owlyglasse in his pamphlet, wherein he pretendeth to charge others with vntrueths.

IT is a shame for any man to lie. but for him, that taketh vpon him to charge others with lying, euery foot to lie, is not only a great shame, but also an ar∣gument, that he is past shame. let him therefore the next time looke better to himselfe, and desist to raile, face, and slander, vnlesse he stood himselfe vpon better ground, and did vse more trueth in his dealing.

[falsification 1] In his preface he saith, that popish religion was planted here by Gregory the great▪ but he telleth a great vntrueth. for nei∣ther Page  212 was Gregory euer here in this Island, nor did either he, or his agents mainteine that doctrine, that is published by the conuenticle of Trent, or those points, which I haue declared neither to be ancient, nor generally holden.

[falsification 2] He doubteth not also to affirme, that Gregory receiued that religion, which now the papists professe, from Peter. Let him therefore shew, that all those points of doctrine, against which I except in my challenge, were receiued from Peter, or els he must receiue answere, that speaking of religion, he speaketh without religion, reason, or conscience.

[falsification 3] He chargeth me and M. Willet, with assaulting the impreg∣nable fort of Gods church, and battering that rocke, against which the gates of hell shall not preuaile. but if he meane the true church, then doth he make a lie of vs. if he meane the pre∣sent Romish congregation adhering to the pope, he maketh a lie of the pope & his church. for we haue by many arguments declared, that the Romanists and their adherents are not the true church. We haue also shewed, that the gates of hell haue preuailed against them, and that declining from the apostolike faith, they are fallen into many foule heresies.

[falsification 4] Further, speaking of his consorts, he saith, they repaire to the continuall tradition and practise of the church, and that we reiect the same▪ but he lieth both in the one and the other▪ for neither doe the Romanists regard the generall practise of the a∣postolike church for many hundred yéeres after Christ, nor doe we desire any thing more, than that late customes and traditi∣ons reiected, we may returne to the sound forme of apostolike faith, and gouernment.

[falsification 5] He saith, they haue recourse to the consent of the ancient learned fathers, and that we reiect them. but the first is proued a lie by Bellarmine, and other popish proctors, who most light∣ly reiect the fathers, when they make against them▪ the second is reproued by our confessions, wherein we shew, that we de∣sire nothing more, than that all latter decretals called, we may returne to the ancient fathers faith.

[falsification 6] He telleth vs further, that papists appeale to generall coun∣cels, and that we will not admit them. but after his fashion hée hudleth vp lies by couples. for neither doe they admit any Page  213 councels, but such as pleaseth them; nor do we refuse to admit any article of faith established by ancient and lawfull generall councels.

[falsification 7] He would make men beléeue, that popish religion is most seuere. and yet the world knoweth, that in all places papists mainteine open stewes, and in Rome and diuers great cities suffer Iewes and Turks to dwell quietly. Further, the pope doeth set to sale all sinnes, and euery polshorne paltry fellow thinketh he can giue absolution to sinners; which bringeth the keyes of the church into contempt. Finally, no sect euer liued more loosely, or leudly. These things therefore, vnlesse they be better answered, do sufficiently conuince him of lying; and his consorts of loose liuing, and popish religion of lightnesse.

[falsification 8] In the same lying preface he saith, that protestants (doctrine) looseth the raines to all liberty, that vnbrideled sensualitie will neuer put vp petition for any greater. and by protestants, he vnderstandeth true Christians, that abhorre the abominati∣ons of Babel. but if he had not giuen the raines to his vnbride∣led tongue to speake all villany of honest men, he would not haue vttered, and if he had not béene a brutish beast, that vseth not to be rained, he would not haue written such impudent lies. Let him therefore set downe our doctrine, wherein wée seeme to let loose our sensuall affections, and let him if he can, shew any man of our side, that alloweth publike stewes as the Iesuite Weston,a and his consorts did at Wisbich some thrée or foure yéeres agone, affirming that whores were in Rome, cum approbatione, and to trusse all short, with as good right as the pope. And if he dare, or hope to win aduantage by it, let him compare the liues of the popes, cardinals, and Romish clergy and people, with such as truely professe our religion; and examine the honesty of both. and if not, let him leaue his lying, and railing vpon honest men.

[falsification 9] Pag. 11. chap. 2. For spittle, saith he, speaking of the cere∣monies of baptisme, we haue the warrant of S. Ambrose lib. 1. de sacrament. c. 1. but whatsoeuer he hath, we haue here a no∣torious lie deliuered by him. for S. Ambrose in that place hath not one word of spittle, much lesse of spittle in baptisme, for which he is alledged. I woonder then, if Philip WoodwardPage  214 haue made vp these woodden animaduersions, that the other masse priests do not spit in his face, and defie him. and the ra∣ther, for that he supposeth euery word of S. Ambrose, or the au∣thour of that counterfet treatise to be a sufficient warrant, whom the papists in diuers points regard not, as I haue shewed in my treatise De missa, now published against Bellar∣mine.

[falsification 10] In the same chapter, pag. 12. he saith, that for ceremonies vsed by the Romanists in baptisme, viz. for exorcismes, blow∣ings, salt, spittle, hallowed water, anointings, light and others (for of these he speaketh) he hath the testimony of antiquitie, whatsoeuer I say to the cōtrary. But can any man beléeue him on his bare word? sure no. for taking on him to prooue these ceremonies, like a simple ideot he doth not so much as bring any testimony of antiquity for light, holy water, and greasing in baptisme. And the rest, which he bringeth, are farre short of his purpose. so that to proue Owlyglasse a lying companion, I néed no testimony, but Owlyglasse himselfe. his owne loose dis∣pute doth proue Ph. Woodward to be a woodden fellow.

[falsification 11] In the same chapter, pag. 11. he writeth, that I vtter an vn∣trueth so manifest, that Caluin doth confesse it. and yet Caluin was dead long before I wrote any thing. Beside that, he doth not confesse that to be vntruth, which I affirme. for he saith not, that the ceremonies in question were practised by the ancient church, which I denie: but onely affirmeth, that he knoweth how ancient they were. which may be true, albeit they were neither ancient, nor practised by the vniuersall church, but by some few superstitious persons. Finally, he is a simple fellow to tell vs of Caluin, or to make him our iudge, albeit we reue∣rence his memory, as being a learned and godly man, and an excellent instrument vsed by the Holy Ghost, to set foorth the trueth of the Gospell wickedly suppressed by Antichrist.

[falsification 12] Speaking of our Communion booke: in the same booke, saith b he, lay men and women are permitted to minister bap∣tisme. but no man did permit him thus to lie, and to speake without booke. neither would he haue taken himselfe libertie in things not permitted, vnlesse the archpriest or some false Ie∣busite had giuen him libertie to lie and speake vntrueth. That Page  215 he hath maliciously vttered vntrueth, the booke will declare, wherein there is not one word either of lay men, or women permitted to minister baptisme.

[falsification 13] Where he saith, pag. 15. that Epiphanius and Hierome af∣firme, that married persons vsed not to be admitted to holy or∣ders, except they did promise perpetuall continencie from their wiues: he telleth a notorious vntrueth. for neither did Epipha∣nius haeres. 59. nor Hierome aduers. Vigilantium, speake one word of promise, or vow made in that case. Beside that, if they should make such a promise, yet were that no warrant to permit men to leaue their wiues in that sort, nor can men de∣part or absteine from their wiues without their consent, as the aduersary knoweth, if he know any thing.

[falsification 14] He saith, pag. 16. that in maried couples disioined, the band of mariage continueth still. but the conuenticle of Trent. sess. 24. c. 6. and other authors c before alledged will tell him, that in mariages dissolued before consummation, this his assertion is vntrue.

[falsification 15] Chap. 2. p. 17. most certeine it is, that they said masses, and prayers for the soules departed, saith he, speaking of the fathers of the primitiue church. but in this point not being able to bring foorth one father, that euer said masse or dirge for the dead, he doeth after a close maner giue himselfe the lie. and to make his lying more manifest, I haue in my answere to his exceptions taken away all the colours, that he with his little learning could set vpon the matter. If he rest not with his losse, let him in his next returne shew where any ancient fa∣ther said requiem aeternam for the dead, or praied thus, absolue Domine animas omnium fidelium defunctorum ab omni vin∣culo delictorum. and finally, let him proue, that the ancient fa∣thers beléeued, that Christes body and blood were really offe∣red for quicke and dead in the masse. If he can not do this, he talketh idlely of his masse, and sheweth himselfe to be a masse priest rather in a foolish intention, than in certeine knowledge, or true popish deuotion.

[falsification 16] Pag. 21. chap. 2. he denieth, that papists put any hope in ima∣ges, or that they worship them, as the Gentiles did their gods, or that they offer their praiers or deuotions vnto them. but hée Page  216 lieth falsely, as his owne conscience may tell him, if he haue any conscience, and be not as stupide as any stocke or stone, which he is wont to worship. secondly the practise of the Romish church must néeds conuince him of lying. for among the Romanists simple people and priests also, not vnlike to hea∣then idolaters, fall downe before stocks and stones, set vp lights before them, burne incense to them, pray before them. thirdly, their vsuall formes of praiers doe shew, that he hath told vntrueth, and that lying is with him an vsuall forme. in their rituall books they say, ô crux aue spes vnica. and frier Bartilmew of Siena, that is now said to worke miracles, hath these wordes for his deuise, Christ and his crosse, and Ma∣ry, be my guide and keeper▪ and to the portrait of our Saui∣ours face, they say, salue sancta facies▪ fourthly their common doctrine is, that the image is to be worshipped with that wor∣ship, that is due to the originall. but it is to be doubted, whe∣ther the heathen were so grosse idolaters, as to giue that ho∣nour to their images. finally they goe on pilgrimage to their images more then euer did the heathen, and doubt not but they are able to doe more, then the heathen idoles, as may ap∣peare by the vowes made to the lady of Loreto, and such other saints. for neuer did the heathen more superstitiously worship Diana at Ephesus, then the Romanists worship the image of our lady at Loreto.

[falsification 17] Speaking of fastes in Lent, on ember daies, and on the vigiles of saints, he saith, that antiquitie is plentifull, viz. of testimonies in this case. and yet the wooden fellow doeth not bring any one testimony for the fastes vpon vigiles of saints, nor can he prooue the practise of the Romish church by any one testimony alledged by him, precisely.

[falsification 18] Pag. 28. chap. 2. he denieth, that papists hold, that Chri∣stian men may live without sinne▪ an impudent vntrueth, and wherein he contradicteth himselfe. for if Christians can fulfill all the law of God, as he goeth about with all his little skill to prooue, and that by diuers arguments; then doeth it necessa∣rily follow, that they may liue without all sinne.

[falsification 19] Pag. 31. he affirmeth, that the forme of confirmation, is as ancient, as the apostles. a lie of great length, reaching to the a∣postles Page  217 times, & thereof to conuince him no man néedeth to go farther then his own confession, who is not able to alledge ei∣ther the testimony of the apostles, or any ancient father for this forme of confirmation: signo te signo crucis, & confirmo te Chrismate salutis.

[falsification 20] In the same place very impudently he blusheth not to say, that the forme of consecration practised by the Romanists hath alwaies beene holden▪ and would therefore prooue it to be a constituion apostolicall▪ but his assertion is refuted both by histories and fathers, and especially by his owne silence, that speaketh more in a line, then he will prooue all his life.

[falsification 21] Pag. 34. he saith papists grant, that there is but one media∣tor of redemption, but doubteth not to hold, that there are ma∣ny mediators of intercession▪ but he lieth in both these points. for in the masse the priest is said in plaine tearmes to offer pro redemptione animarum. and sure, if they offer vp Christ Iesus properly and really; then are they mediators of redemption. the second point I haue declared to be a notorious lie in my former discourse.

[falsification 22] Pag. 43. he hudleth vp diuers lies vpon a heape. first hée saith, auricular confession was ordeined by Christ. secondly, that by the law of God men in mortall sinne were bound to re∣paire to the sacrament of auricular confession▪ thirdly, that mortall sinnes are not remitted without auricular confession▪ the first lie is refuted by the testimony of scriptures, wherein neither forme, nor institution of auricular confession is to bée found. The second is conuinced by the booke of Gods law, wherein we finde no colour of such an ordinance. the third is manifested by diuers testimonies of scripturs, which declare, dthat we receiue the promise of the spirit through faith: that efaith purifieth our hearts: that, we are washed by Christ his blood, whom we put on; not by outward confession, but by our faith and inward conuersion to God. Furthermore all these lies may be refuted also by the silence of Oulyglasse, that is not able to iustifie any one of his assertions by any text of scripture▪ beside that all papists hold, that confession is a sa∣crament of their new law, and not established vnder the law of Moyses, as Oulyglasse would insinuate. finally the decre∣tale Page  218 of Innocentius, vpon which auricular confession depen∣deth, being long after the times of the apostles and ancient fathers, is a plaine conuiction of Oulyglasses false dealing, for how can that be either instituted by Christ, or authorized by the law, or déemed necessary, that before Innocent the thirds time was neither established, nor déemed necessary?

[falsification 23] Most impudently he affirmeth, Pag. 49. that saint Iames maketh mention of the sacrament of extreme vnction▪ but that may appeare to be a lie, both for that there is no mention of a sacrament there, and for that sacraments are not to be insti∣tuted by men, but by God. finally no ancient father did euer expound these words of popish extreme vnction.

[falsification 24] Pag. 113. he saith, that I deny, that the matter of the reall presence concerneth any fundamentall point of faith▪ but if hée cannot prooue it out of my words, I hope he will not deny, but that after his woonted fashion he hath told vntrueth.

The rest of his lies you shall finde noted in my answere to his exceptions to my challenge. if then he hath begun to lie so fast, what are we to looke for, if he continue his course of writing? and if his clients doe commend him for these lies; what will they, if he procéed on as he hath begun? I, for my part, will giue my voice, to haue him canonized for lying.

Page  219

CHAP. XIII. Corollaries, and conclusions gathered out of the former challenge, and the answeres to the exceptions taken to the same.

I Néed not, as I suppose, make any large discourse in drawing out particular con∣clusions out of the former challenge and answer▪ for he is very simple, that doth not perceiue, whereto they both do tend. Beside that, I haue héeretofore touched some principall points which especially séeme to deserue consideration. but sée∣ing Robert Parsons in his relation sent vs from Rome, beside the report of matters then passed, began first to draw out cer∣teine idle obseruations; and perceiuing well, that his woodden scholar Owlyglasse doth second him, and hath likewise endeuo∣red to make obseruations, and to draw great conclusions out of his slender and misshapen premisses, I haue thought it not amisse to encounter him, although not in so weake maner with the very like course, and for his obseruations to send him likewise other obseruations and conclusions, being very loth to be behinde him in any course that may serue either to mani∣fest the trueth, or to correct the error and trechery of such leud companions.

[observation 1] First then I doe obserue, if the Iesuites and their adherents be false prophets and false teachers; that then they are most diligently to be sought out and punnished. the sequele is grounded vpon the law of God. aMoyses speaking of false prophets saith, propheta ille aut fictor somniorū interficietur, quia loquutus est ut auerteret vos à domino deo vestro. that is, that prophet or dreamer of dreames, shall be slaine, because Page  220 he hath spoken, to disturne you from the Lord your God. where it is to be noted, that false prophets and teachers are fitly ioined with dreamers of dreames. for that he, that teacheth doctrine not grounded vpon the infallable word of God, is no better then a dreamer of dreames. Christian kings they ought to be nurses of Gods church, and haue the sword committed vnto them, not onely to represse seditious persons and wicked malefactors, but also such idolatrous massepriests, as disturbe the peace of the church, and séeke to disturne men from the trueth by their false doctrine. with princes also all true Christians ought to concurre in the detec∣ting of such wicked members. If thy brother, saith Moyses, or the sonne of thy mother, or thy sonne, or thy daughter, or thy wife, that lieth in thy bosome, or thy friend, whom thou louest as thy soule, would perswade thee, saying, let vs go and serue o∣ther gods, which thou knowest not, nor thy fathers, thou shalt not yeeld vnto him, nor heare him, nor shall thy eye spare him, nor shalt thou pity him, or conceale him, but shall cause him to be slaine. for it is not sufficient for a Christian man to know and follow the trueth, but he must also auoid false doctrine and the seruice of Baal. Christes sheepe, as b he saith, they follow the true sheperd, and a stranger they will not follow. neither may we regard their faire pretences, of reconciling men to the catholicke Romish church, as they call it. for euen wolfes though rauenous, yet now and then come vnto vs in shéepes clothing. but our sauiour Christ giueth vs a caueat, to beware of them. Beware saith c he, of false prophets, which shall come vnto you in sheeps clothing, but inwardly they are rauening wolues. these will smoothly tell you, that they come to saue your soules, and pretend to come from Christes vicar; but they are the ministers of antichrist, and the idolatrous priests of Baal, and come to destroy your soules. by their fruits you shal know them. their study is sedition & alteration of state, their religion heresie and superstition, their life full of filthi∣nesse and abomination. neither doe we read of any, that haue harkened vnto the Iesuites of late yéeres, but they haue béene vtterly ruined by them. examples hereof we haue diuers, and the truth which I affirme appeareth by the Scottish d Queene Page  221 ruined by the wicked counsell of Sammier, that came disguised vnto her all in yelow satin: by the duke of Guise and the lea∣guers of France brought to destruction by Claude Matthiew: by king Phillip the 2. of Spaine intricated by the most wicked counsels of Parsons: by the king of Poland that standeth in danger to loose his kingdome of Suethland: by the death and ouerthrow of Sebastian king of Portugall in Barbary: by the prince of Transiluania, that is now by their means dispossessed of Transiluania: Ferdinande of Croatia, who together with his armie was ouerthrowen by a few Turks. listening to these presumptuous fellowes consultations: by the emperor, that is weakened by their seditious practises, losing the aid of diuers princes of religion, by the importunity of these trouble-states. as for inferior lords and gentlemen, that haue béene drawen into practises by Iesuites, and so haue ouerthrowen them∣selues, and their houses, the number of them is infinit.

[observation 2] Secondly, if masse priests be idolaters, then no man, that is zealous for the honour of God and his true religion may en∣dure them. for the law of God, that so rigorously pursueth a false prophet, doeth therefore adiudge him worthy of death, because he went about to draw men from the true worship of God. quia voluit abstrahere te, saith eMoyses speaking to the people, à domino deo tuo. and because he sought to per∣swade men to serue idoles and false gods, saying, eamus, & sequamur deos alienos. let vs goe and follow other gods. the f apostle doeth teach vs, that there is no consent betwixt the church of God and idoles▪ qui-consensus saith he, templo dei cum idolis. if it be the church of God, then it admitteth no idoles; if idoles be erected in any place, then that is not the church of God. g he saith also, that Christians cannot both drinke the Lords cup, and the cup of diuels, and by the cup of diuels he vnderstandeth the cup consecrated in honour of idoles. The prophet Dauid therefore speaking of idolaters professeth like a good king, that h he would not offer their of∣frings of blood, nor make mention of their names within his lips.iHezekias ouerthrow the high places, brake downe the images, out downe the groues, and remooued away all monu∣ments of idolatry. Iosias did likewise, and executed to death, Page  222such as had burned incense to Baal.kHelias enflamed with zeale, would not suffer one of Baals prophets to escape. contra∣riwise God doth shew himselfe highly displeased with such, as winke at idolaters. the spirit of God speaking to the bishop of Pergamus:lhabeo saith he, aduersus te pauca, quia habes illic tenentes doctrinam Balaam, qui docebat Balac mittere scan∣dalum coram filijs Israel, edere, & fornicari. likewise he re∣prooueth the bishop of Thyatira sharpely for permitting idola∣ters, and false seducing teachers, I haue against thee m saith he, some few things, because thou doest permit the woman Iezabel to teach and to seduce my seruants, to commit fornication, and to eat of things sacrificed to idoles. finally no man can call himselfe a Christian, that can be content to sée either Gods commandement openly broken in worshipping of idoles, or else secretly frustrated by secret practises and subtile euasions of Baals priests. and as idolaters shall be punished in the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone; so shall they not escape grieuous punishments, that either mainteine them, or winke at them. let no man therefore blame her Maiestie and the State, that cannot endure these idolatrous slaues of anti∣christ, and wicked masse priests of Baals order.

[observation 3] If the papists be heretikes, then are not either the popes priests to be suffred to broch their hereticall doctrine in secret corners, nor their adherents openly to maintaine their per∣uerse opinions. the emperors Gratian, Valentinian, & Theodo∣siusn put all heretikes to silence. omnes vetitae legibus diuinis, & imperialibus constitutionibus, say they, perpetuò quiescant. Valentinian and Martiano decréed, that false teachers should be put to death. Vltimo supplicio afficiantur say they, qui illicita docere tentauerint. Constantine did gréeuously punish such, as kept or concealed any books of heretikes, as is testifi∣ed by Sozomen, lib. 1. hist. cap. 20. Saint Augustine doeth greatly commend the emperors lawes made against the Do∣natistes. and Hierom writing vpon the fift to the Galathians, séemeth much to mislike the remissenesse of diuers in their procéedings against the heretike Arius. as for priuate men they are to follow the apostles counsell 2. Tim. 4. and to auoid these heretikes. saint pIohn would not haue Christians so Page  223 much as once to bid them God spéed. nolite iugum ducere saith the apostle 2. Corinth. 6. cum infidelibus. be not yoked with infidels. for what coniunction is there betwixt iustice and iniquitie? it is a hard matter to touch pitch, and not to be de∣filed. and hereticall bookes and companions seduce simple soules, that are not able to iudge. finally if reason persuade not blinde papists; yet the iudgements of God denounced a∣gainst idolaters may persuade euery man, that is studious of his saluation, to beware of their entisements, and not to fre∣quent their company. Salomon though a wise prince, was se∣duced by his idolatrous wiues, and Iosaphat hardly escaped danger, accompanying and assisting the idolatrous king A∣chab.

[observation 4] If all that adhere to forrein enemies, and refuse to acknow∣ledge the princes right, and authoritie; and that séeme rather willing and ready to take part with forrein enemies, then to stand in defence of their prince and country, be no otherwise to be accounted of, then as traitors, and publicke enemies; then are all true subiects to deale against massepriests and their ad∣herents, as disloyall traitors, and wicked enemies of their prince and country. for princes cannot subsist, vnlesse they maintaine their authority and lawes: nor can subiects liue safe hauing this viperous generation dispersed in euery corner.

In ancient time treason was accounted the greatest crime that could be committed in matters of state, and most seuerely and extraordinarily was the same punished. at this day nei∣ther will the Spaniard nor French, nor the Italian princes endure any subiect, that shall either deny his authority or ad∣here to forrein enemies; albeit they pretend religion neuer so much naturally euery man is bound to defend himselfe. but the prince is not onely bound by the lawes of nature to looke to his owne safetie, but also by the lawes of state, for that many mens safety and estates doe depend vpon him. as for those that feare, or deferre to take a course with traitors, they are ei∣ther stupide, or else pusillanimous.

The Iesuits and their adherents will, I know, deny them∣selues to be traitors. so they will also deny the Sunne to shine pro bono societatis, as they terme it, and for their cacolicke Page  224 cause, but I haue by arguments conuinced them to be trai∣tors: and if they answere not categorically, and directly, and without all equiuocations, they will by their owne silence prooue themselues to be traitors. and for the manifestation of their leud disposition, I would pray Robert Parsons, or his schollar Garnet, or Philip woodward, that is so busie, or any of the combination of the archipresbiteriall congregation of trai∣tors to answere me directly to these questions ensuing.

First whether they beléeue, the pope by his sentence procée∣ding without error against the Queene, and declaring her to be deposed, that they are still to acknowledge her to be law∣full Quéene, or no, and to obay her notwithstanding the popes commandement.

Secondly whether in that case the Pope commanding them to take armes against her Maiestie, they ought not to doe it, and are excommunicate and damned like dogges, if the pope commande them to doe it vpon paine of his curse, and they re∣fuse it.

Thirdly whether in that case, they will not perswade all pa∣pists to take armes against her Maiestie, and whether them∣selues will not concurre with them, if the pope excommuni∣cate all that refuse.

4 Whether they do not beléeue, that the pope hath power to take her Maiesties crowne from her head.

5 Whether he hath power to dispence with the subiects othes of allegiance, and to command them to rebell.

6 Whether they thinke her Maiesty can be deposed with∣out violence offered to her Maiesties person and life.

7 Whether the pope commanding them, they would not deliuer her into the hands of her enemies, or kill her, as Allen in his traiterous exhortation to the nobility and people of England and Ireland, went about to perswade them.

8 Whether they thinke it not lawfull so to doe.

9 Whether the Spaniards, or other forrein enemies comming to execute the popes sentence against the Quéene, they would fight against them displaying the Popes banner, and publishing the popes lawfull sentence (as they suppose) against the Quéene, or take part with them.

Page  225

10 Whether all are not excommunicate, that disobey the popes sentence, or contumaciously stand against him, it being not knowen, but that he hath procéeded iustly, nor they hauing power to dispute of his doings, or to determine against him.

11 Whether they will allow the fact of the erles of West∣merland and Northumberland, that rebelled in England, of Sanders and the Earle of Desmond, that rebelled in Ireland, and such like rebells, or not.

12 Whether they beléeue, that Allen, Sanders, Bristow, Parsons, and such as allow such facts of treasons, be not trai∣tors, and haue published trecherous doctrine.

13 Whether they doe take themselues bound in conscience to follow the popes sentences and decrées in deposing of prin∣ces, and bestowing of kingdomes vpon strangers, when hée shall command them vpon paine of his curse.

14 Whether they purpose not to mainteine the Infantaes title, if the pope doe so command them, or other prince, that he shall set vp against her Maiestie.

15 Whether they haue not receiued the popes breeues, and enterteined intelligence with him, and his agents. and whether they haue not receiued pensions and money out of Spaine, and thinke it lawfull so to doe. and whether they haue not taken an oth for the Spanish Infantaes title, nor brought a∣ny notes of their faction out of Spaine and Italie, as for exam∣ple, medalles, graines, reliques, agnus Dei, pictures, crosses, faculties, and such like.

16 Whether hereafter they do not meane to enterteine in∣telligence with the Pope and Spaniard, and their agents, and to acknowledge the pope for their superior. All which, if they answere not, they must néeds confesse themselues worthy to be expulsed out of this land, and sent backe to the Pope and Spa∣niard, if no worse. for thereby they declare themselues friends to them, and enemies to their countrey.

[observation 5] If it be a matter very equall, that euery man should be iud∣ged by such lawes, as themselues practise against others, as is apparent by the law. Si quis. ff. quod quis{que} iuris, &c. then haue the Romanists no reason to require any fauour at the hands of our superiours. They put true Christians to death Page  226 without all remission, if they renounce not the true Christian faith: and those, that are said to deale most mercifully with them, as some popish princes and prelates in Germany, yet do they banish all such, as they suspect not to hold popish religion. Why then do not papists acknowledge the great fauor shew∣ed to them by the state, when such notorious idolaters and he∣reticks are not serued, as they serue others? and why doe these seditious malcontents exclaime against her Maiesties late proclamation, and the state, that giueth such traitors and led practisers so faire warning to be packing?

They pardon none, that commit treason in Rome or Spaine. Why then should it be more lawfull for Iesuites and factious masse priests to commit treason in England? is not our coun∣trey as deare to vs, as Rome or Spaine to them?

They account it a matter very absurd for any to dispute, whether the Italian or Spanish lawes concerning treason, be iust or no, and whether they be to be executed or not; and such prisoners as should except against lawes abroad, would be laughed to scorne. Why then should Parsons, and Allen, and their traitorous consorts be suffered to raise against the lawes of England, and this state, as they haue done in their railing libels entitled Aduersus persecutores Anglos; Andreas Philo∣pater; Sanders de schismate, and diuers other of that nature? or why should any be suffered in corners to whisper against so lawfull and godly procéedings?

The papists will not yéeld to vs sufficient safeconduct and libertie to dispute in Milan, Paris, Collen, and Salamanca. Why then do they bragge, as if they were desirous to dispute and trie their cause in Cambridge and Oxford? and what a ri∣diculous point is it to desire that for papists, which themselues will not yéeld to vs?

They will not suffer any bookes of ours to be published in Rome, or other places, where popery is professed, if they con∣teine matter of religion; and most seuerely doe they punish such, as either sell such bookes, or reade them, or kéepe them without licence. Why then should not papists confesse, that we haue great reason to take a more strict course than hitherto we haue done with all their books, and pamphlets, and with Page  227 all that haue them, especially now, séeing that few of them come foorth, but they are fraught with slanders against the state, lies and impostures against religion, and doctrine tend∣ing to sedition and corruption of maners?

[observation 6] We may further obserue, that no man euer had lesse reason to talke of conscience, than Rob. Parsons, and his disciple Ow∣lyglasse, and their damnable consorts deuoid of all conscience. for conscience is grounded onely vpon the lawes of God, and is nothing, but the inward iudgement of euery man of his owne actions, according to the knowledge which he hath of Gods law and his word. And this is gathered out of the apo∣stles words, Rom. 1. where he saith, that the Gentiles do shew the worke of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing them witnesse, and their thoughts either accusing them, or excusing them. S.qIames he also sheweth vs, that we haue one lawgiuer and iudge, which is able to saue and destroy. S.rAugustine expounding the wordes of the apostle, Rom. 1. sheweth, that conscience is nothing, but the iudgement of eue∣ry mans soule of his owne actions. Si cor nostrum nos repre∣henderit, saithe he, rehearsing the words of Iohn 1. epist. c. 3. maior est Deus conscientia nostra. But the papists ground their conscience vpon the decrées of the pope, vpon the customs of the Romish church, vpon the vaine opinions of euery louzy canonist, vpon the wicked and treasonable conceits of Par∣sons, and Allen, in their resolutions of cases of conscience for the English nation, vpon the damnable commandements of their superiors, breaking their necks & running headlong into hell, as soone as they are commanded: and that blindly & wil∣fully for other priuat mens pleasures. and this appeareth first by Martin Aspilcuetaes enchiridion of cases of conscience, by the compendium of the Iesuit Alagona, and all the doctrine of Casuistes, which as the aduersaries cannot deny, is grounded as wel vpon the popes decretales and customes, and vpon the lawes, traditions, and customes of the Romish church, and o∣pinions of canonists, as vpon the law of God. nay there are farre more cases that concerne the popes law, then that con∣cerne Gods law.

SecondlysBellarmine teacheth, that the pope hath power Page  228 to make lawes, that binde in conscience. semper creditum est saith he, episcopos in suis dioecesibus & Romanum Pontificem in tota ecclesia esse veros principes ecclesiasticos, qui possint sua authoritate, etiam sine plebis consensu, vel presbyterorum con∣silio leges ferre, quae in conscientia obligent. héereof it fol∣loweth also, that all papists are bound in conscience to be∣léeue the popes decretales concerning faith, and to obserue his rules concerning manners, and that for conscience sake, and I thinke no papist will deny it.

Thirdly, Allen and Parsons in their most wicked resolutions teach their traitorous schollars, first to weare long haire, second¦ly, not only to change their names but also to deny their names; thirdly to deny their country & parentage;tfourthly to deny her Maiestie to be lawfull Queene, & her officers to haue power ouer masse priests▪ for that is also taught in the resolution, albe∣it not propounded in the case. u finally to forsweare themselues, and to dissemble and practise all maner of trechery▪ they also shew, how they may eat flesh on fasting daies, and come in company with men of our religion, & neglect the popes lawes also in case of danger▪ in summe their resolutions tend to no other end, but to shew how masse priests with a good consci∣ence well wrought & suppled by Robert Parsons, may by helpe of a good Romish conscience betray their countrey to the Spa∣niard, and cut their countrimens throats.

Fourthly the Rhemistes in their expositions of the new Te∣stament, writing vpon the 23. of the Acts teach their disci∣ples how to forsweare themselues, and resolue, that vpon paine of damnation they must breake their othes▪ are these fel∣lowes then Christians trow you, that handling the most sa∣cred word of God, doe by their wicked expositions teach men to violate their othes, and to abuse the holy name of God?

Finally the Iesuits hold, that the inferior being enioined by the pope, or the generall of that wicked race of Iebusiticall impostors and traitors, to doe any act, or to beléeue any thing, is not to dispute of the matter, but resolutely to execute, what they are commanded. and this they call obedientiam caecam. If then the pope, or the generall of the Iesuits command Par∣sons or Garnet to kill the Quéene, or any principall man of Page  229 England, or their owne mother, by this doctrine it followeth; that they are bound to doe it. is it not strange then, that any Christian state can suffer such traitors and parricides or their adherents to liue among them?

[observation 7] The seuenth obseruation shall be for the edification and in∣struction of the Romish cacolicks. they call themselues ca∣tholicks, and would so be called▪ but I haue declared them to be in a grosse error by very plaine euidence▪ to them therefore I say, that if they desire to be made members of Christes true church, they must come out of the Synagogue of Rome, and forsake the whore of Babylon, and drinke no more of her cup full of all abominations. Secondly if that religion, which is sprong vp of late time, and long after the times of Christ, and his apostles, cannot be true; then the Romish doctrine must néeds be false and counterfeit. Thirdly if papists desire to be true catholicks; then must they renounce the particular religi∣on of Romanists, that hath not either of all christians béene knowen, or at all times generally béene receiued. Fourthly if no hereticks deserue the name of Christians; then must they forsake the hereticall opinions of the popes and their proctors, if they will be accounted Christians and true beléeuers. Fift∣ly if idolaters shall not enter into the kingdome of heauen, let them beware of the notorious idolatries maintained by the doctrine and practise of popish religion. finally if the Iesuits and massepriests be a faction adhering to the pope, and for∣rein enemies; then had they néed to take hede how they re∣ceiue them, aide them, ioine with them, or haue any dealing with them.

[observation 8] Finally I obserue, that popish religion is nothing else but a packe of lies and impostures, and cannot stand without falsi∣fication, fraude, and violence. I haue already verified the same by many particulers. and euery man shall hereby di∣scerne, that I haue said trueth, for that neither Parsons, nor a∣ny of his consorts will vndertake from point to point to an∣swere my chalenge, and to iustifie both all such allegations, as I haue said to be falsified, and also all such narrations, as I haue challenged to be lies and false reportes. I doe rather looke for such a bald ribald like railing libell, as this was, and Page  230 such pamphlets, as Parsons vseth to set forth vnder counter∣fect names.

All you therefore of the Romish religion beware of the abo∣minations of Babylon, and of the falshood and fraud of that whore, which sitteth vpon the 7. hils. I haue, as you may perceiue touched but few particulars in comparison of those, which I could haue obiected, if time & laisure would haue ser∣ued▪ but if Parsons come forth againe, you shall haue the rest. I will also adde the notorious forgeries lies & calumniations of Posseuin, Gregory de Valentia,xAndreas Iurgiuits Vil∣nensis, that denieth vs to beléeue the articles of the apostles créed, and other such villenous companions, not forgetting Alan Copus alias Harpesfield nor Stapleton, nor any notori∣ous stickler of that wicked crew.

In the meane while marke, I pray you, how the pope with his Italians and Spaniards laugh and enioy their ease, while a number of English youthes are drawen into danger both of body and soule, running headlong of a blind and furious zeale into treason, and séeking how to maintain the popes tyranny, and to teach his errors and heresies. God for his mercy sake, if it be his holy will open their eies, that they may sée their owne grosse errors, and forsake these pernitious courses, and in the end ioine themselues with the rest of their friends, kins∣men and countrimen in a firme resolution not onely for the maintenance of the honor of their prince, country, and na∣tion, against all forrein enemies, but also for the de∣fence of true religion, against the attempts and assaults of antichrist, and false doctrine of all idolaters and hereticks, the onely vpholders of the kingdome of an∣tichrist.

Page  [unnumbered]