The Hammer.

IN this Chapter the Knight pulleth the gar∣land of Red Roses off from the heads of all Pa∣pists: I meane the Crowne of Martyrdome, by three most forcible arguments, which may thus be reduced into Syllogisticall forme.

• 1.
  • None of those who suffered death for the common Articles of the Christian Faith, which we all professe: are to be accounted Popish Martyrs.
  • But the 33. Popes and all the Martyrs in the Primitive Church, suffered death for the common Articles of faith, which we all pro∣fesse.
  • Ergo none of them were Popish Martyrs: neither can they lay any more or better claime to them then we, if so good.
• 2.
  • All that may be tearmed truely Popish Mar∣tyrs, must suffer death either for the profes∣sion of the Trent Faith in generall, or some speciall point of it, wherein they differ from the reformed Churches.
  • But none of the Primitive Martyrs suffered death for the profession of the Trent Faith in generall, or any point thereof wherein Page  129they differ from the beliefe of the reformed Churches.
  • Ergo, none of the Primitive Martyrs were Popish.
• 3.
  • If the Articles of the Romish Creed published by Pope Pius were either unknowne to the Primitive Church, or not then declared to be de fide, none in those dayes could suffer Martyrdome for them.
  • But the twelve new Articles of Pope Pius his Creed were altogether unknowne to the Primitive Church, or not then declared and defined to be de fide, as the Iesuit Page 490. in part acknowledgeth.
  • Ergo, none in the Primitive Church could suffer Martyrdome for them.

What wards the Iesuit hath for these blowes, we shall see in the examination of the particular exceptions before mentioned.

To the first. It is as true that those 33. marty∣red Popes were Martyrs of the Romish Religion, [ 1] as that Campion the Iesuit, who suffered death for Treason against Queene Elizabeth, was a Martyr. The truth is, that although Campion in his tenth Reason, search Heaven, and rake Hell also, for wit∣nesses to prove the truth of the Romish Religion, yet he findeth none, as D. Whitaker clearely de∣monstrateth in his answer to that tenth reason, and his defence thereof against Dureus. To let Page  130others passe, those 33. Bishops of Rome, the Iesuit mentioneth, who now weare Crownes of Mar∣tyrdome in Heaven, never ware the Popes tri∣ple Crowne on Earth.* They sate as Bishops of Rome, they sate not as Lords over the whole Church: neither was the cause of their death any contestation with Princes for Soveraignty, nor the maintenance of any points now in con∣troversie, as the Iesuit himselfe confesseth, but the profession of Christianity. They were not therefore Martyrs of the Roman Church as she is at this present, nor of their Trent Creed; but of the Catholike Church and the common faith once given to Saints.

To the second. [ 2] The Iesuits argument drawne from these 33. Bishops of Rome to Pope Vrbane the eighth fall short at least by 1300. yeares. If he should thus argue in the Schooles: Pope Vr∣bane the eighth, in the yeare of our Lord, 1633. held the Trent faith, and beleeved Pope Pius the fourth his Creed: therefore the 33. Bishops that suffered Martyrdome under the Heathen Empe∣rours within 300. yeares after Christ, held the same faith, and subscribed to the same Articles of Trent; he would be stampt at, and hissed out by all present; for who knoweth not that George the Arian immediatly succeeded Athanasius the most Orthodox Bishop, and that all the Arian Bi∣shops in Constantius his time, held the Sees of those Orthodox Bishops, who in the first Coun∣cell at Nice condemned that blasphemous haere∣sie. Page  131In our memory, did not Cardinall Poole a Papist, succeede Cranmer, a Protestant Bishop and Martyr? againe, did not Parker, in Q. Elizabeths daies, a learned Protestant succeed Cardinall Poole an Arch-papist, in his Arch-bishoprick of Canter∣bury? What a wooden Argument then is this, to in∣ferre succession in Doctrine from succession in the same Chaire? This wretched Argument the Iesuit proves as lewdly, by the testimonie of Pelagius the Heretike. This is indeed to Aske his brother if he be a thiefe, or no: to aske an Heretike whether your Romish Doctrine be not hereti∣call. Yet so unfortunate is hee in his proofe, that even this his onely witnesse, how liable soever to exception, saith nothing for him: Pelagius was not so absurd as to hold this position, that Peters Chaire and Faith goe alwaies together; but only spake in a glozing manner thus to Pope Sozi∣mus, Thou holdest Peters Chaire and Faith: and will the Iesuit inferre an universall from a parti∣cular? Pope Sozimus held Peters Chaire and Faith: therfore all that hold Peters Chaire, hold his Faith. What holdeth these two together?* a most strong and effectuall Bond, saith the Iesuit, namely, Christs promise to Peter, I have prayed for thee, that thy Faith faile not. The time will faile me to declare particularly how many waies this Argument of the Iesuit failes: first, Christ prayed not here for Peter onely, as Saint Austine affirmeth, What doth any man make question here∣of? did Christ pray for Peter, and not for James Page  132and John? To say nothing of the rest, it is manifest, that in Peter all the rest are contained. This prayer then no more privilegeth the See of Rome from error, than of Ierusalem or of Ephesus, or any other See of the Apostles. Secondly, Christ prayed not that Peter might not erre, who afterwards erred,* and was reproved by Saint Paul, Galathians the second: but that his Faith might not faile, that is, be overcome in that fearfull temptation, in such sort, that hee might not rise againe after his fall. Thirdly, Christs prayer is for Peter himselfe in his person, and the Apostles whom Satan winnowed, not for his See. Fourthly, if this promise any way belonged to his Successors, certainly no more to those of Rome, than Antio∣chia; so infirme is this the Iesuits proofe, which yet hee saith, Must stand firme, till Sir Humphrey can tell what Pope began to varie from his Predeces∣sours. Agreed: Sir Humphrey shall presently tell him by name, Liberius the Arrian, Vigilius the Eutychian, Honorius the Monothelite condem∣ned in three generall Councels sixth, seventh, and eighth; Iohn the three and twenty, deposed in the Councell at Constance: as for other enormous crimes, so for this his damnable heresie, that Hee denied the immortalitie of the soule, and the life to come. To which, after the Iesuit hath replied, in∣stance shall be given in many other Popes, which have beene branded with the note of heresie in like manner.

To the third. [ 3] A strange and loose inference, Page  133three and thirty Popes adored Images because their Predecessor had the pictures of Saint Peter and Saint Paul. Pope Gregorie allowed of the standing of pictures in the Church,* yet would have them by no meanes adored: Helena the mo∣ther of Constantine had the wood of Christs crosse, yet adored it not, saith Saint Ambrose. If to have the picture of Saint Peter, or Saint Paul, nay, or of Christ himselfe, maketh a man an Idolater, or a Papist, then not onely all the Lu∣therans generally, but very many of the most or∣thodoxe Divines in our, [ 4] and other reformed Churches, will be proved as good Papists as Pope Sylvester.

To the fourth. Not only Protestants, whom the Iesuit nick-nameth Heretikes, but also Contius, and other Romanists have disparaged these Epi∣stles: and if the Iesuits nose be not very flat, and stuffed also, hee may smell the forgerie of these Decretals by the barbarisme of the stile, disa∣greeing to those times, [ 5] and many absurdities and contradictions noted in them by Coqueus and others.

To the fift. If it be no matter of Faith, that this particular Priest Transubstantiateth the Bread, because no man knowes his intention, nor that particular Priest, Et sic de caeteris: It followeth, that it is no matter of Faith to beleeve, that any Priest in the Roman Church, by the words of Consecration, turneth the Bread into Christs Body. As for that, hee Page  134addeth, that it is no matter whether any ever died for this point in particular; I answer, it is a matter of great moment: for if Garnet would not take it upon his salvation, that this Bread hee consecrated, immediately before the death, was turned into Christs Body; nor any ever would, or did pawne his life for Transubstantiation: it is evident, that Papists themselves doubt of the certainty of that Arti∣cle. On the contrarie, wee can produce hundreds, nay thousands, who for denying Transubstantiation, have beene put to death, and have signed the truth of the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches, concerning the Sa∣crament with their blood: and therefore the Doctrine of the Protestants in this point, is of more credit than the contrarie, because it is strengthened and fortified by a Noble armie of Martyrs.