forgerie and more then ridiculous foolerie the Reader God willing shall finde sound and large proofes in the next Chapter The reason is euident because sixe hundred and thirtie learned and holy Byshops assembled in councell at Chalcedon decreed the Byshop there to be equall to the Byshop of Rome in all Ecclesiasticall affayres I will alleadge the expresse words of that famous Synode which our Jesuite vseth not to do least it should discouer his lyes falsehood and cunny catching trickes These are the wordes of the Councell Gloriosissimi iudices dixerunt ex his quae gesta sunt perpendimus omnem quidem primatum et honorem praecipium secundum canones antiquae Romae deo amantissimo Archiepiscopo conseruari oportere autem sanctissimū Archiepiscopū regiae Constantinopolis nouae Romae eisdem primatibus honoris et ipsum dignū esse et potestatē habere ordinare metropolitas in Asiana et Pontica et Thracia diacesibus Sequitur Reuerendi Episcopi dixerunt haec iusta sententia haec omnes dicimus haec omnibus placent hoc iustū decretū quae constituta sunt valeant haec iusta sententia omnia ordinatè decreta sunt The most glorious Iudges sayd Wee perceiue by these thinges which are defined that all Primacie and chiefe Honour according to the Canons is reserued to the most holy Arch-byshop of old Rome but the most holy Arch-byshop of the royall citie of new Rome must haue the same primacie of Honour and power to ordaine Metropolitans in the Dioceses of Asia and Pontus and Thracia The reuerend Byshoppes answered This is a iust sentence this wee all say this pleaseth all this is a iust decree The thinges which are decreed let them be of force This is a iust sentence all thinges are orderly decreed Thus teacheth vs this most famous Councell of 630. Byshops very learned and holy Fathers Out of which Decree I obserue first that the Primacie which the most auncient and best Councels gaue to the Byshop of Rome was not of Power but of Honour Secondly that this holy learned and famous Councell gaue no other name or title to Leo then Byshop of Rome but Arch-byshop of old Rome Thirdly that the same Fathers gaue the same title or name to Anatolius then Byshop of Constantinople calling him Arch-byshop of new Rome Fourthly that this famous Councell made the Byshop of Constantinople equall with the Byshop of Rome in all things the primacie of Honour onely excepted in which preheminence of Honour the sayd 630. Fathers decreed constantly that the Byshoppe of Constantinople or new Rome should be the next to the Byshop of old Rome And this doubtles is that very doctrine which I defend For I willingly graunt both in this and in all my other Bookes that the Byshoppe of Rome is the principall and chiefest Patriarke and ought according to the auncient Canons of the famous and holy Councell of Nice to haue the chiefest place in all Ecclesiasticall meetinges councels and Assemblies before all other Byshoppes in the Christian world This assertion is yet more plainely confirmed in an other place of this famous Councell of Chalcedon these are the expresse wordes Definitiones sanctorū patrum sequentes vbique et regulam et quae nunc relecta sunt centum quinquaginta deo amantissimorum episcoporum qui congregati sunt sub piae memoriae Imperatore maiore Theodosio in regia ciuitate Constantinopoli noua Roma cognoscentes et nos eadem definiuimus de priuilegijs eiusdem sanctissimae Constantinopolitanae ecclesiae Romae nouae etenim sedi senioris Romae propter imperium ciuitatis illius patres consequenter priuilegia reddiderunt et eadem intentione permoti centum quinquaginta deo amantissimi episcopi aequa sanctissimae sedi nouae Romae priuilegia tribuerunt rationabiliter iudicantes imperio et senatu vrbem ornatam aequis senioris regiae Romae priuilegijs frui et in ecclesiasticis sicut illa maiestatem habere negotijs et secundam post illam existere Wee following the definitions of the holy Fathers euery where and knowing the Canons and the Decrees of the 150. holy Byshoppes assembled vnder the Emperour Theodosius the elder of holy memorie in the royall citie Constantinople new Rome haue defined the very same touching the Priuiledges of the same most holy Church of Constantinople new Rome For the Fathers gaue Priuiledges consequently to the seate of old Rome for the Empire and dominion of that Citie And the 150. most holy Byshops hauing the same intention gaue equall Priuiledges to the most holy seat of new Rome iudging according to reason that the Citie which was honored with the Empire and the Senate should enioy equall Priuiledges with the old royall Rome and excell in Ecclesiasticall affaires as it and be the second after it In these wordes of these 630. holy and learned Fathers it is very cleare and euident that the Byshop of new Rome was equall to the Byshoppe of old Rome in all thinges the primacie of Honour onely excepted Which illation is soundly confirmed by the decree of the famous Councell of Constantinople in these expresse wordes Constantinopolitana ciuitatis Episcopum habere oportet primatus honorē post Romanum Episcopum propteria quod sit noua Roma The Byshop of the citie of Constantinople must haue the honour of Primacie after the Byshop of Rom◠because it is new Rome Loe all that wherein the Byshop of Rome excelleth the Byshop of Constantinople and consequently all other Byshops is nothing else in deed but the sole and onely Primacie of honour Which Primacie wee are so farre from denying it that wee giue the same to our Arch-byshoppes and Metropolitans in the Church of England To which I adde and it is very emphataicall that the principall and chiefe cause of making the Byshop of Rome the chiefe Patriarke and of giuing him the Primacie of honour was this and no other viz. because the citie of Rome was the Imperiall seate of the Emperour So affirme two most famous Councels of Constantinople and Chalcedon And these Councels are consonant to the most famous Councell of all Councels since the death of the Apostles to weet the Councell of Nice in Bithyni◠although that sacred Councell did not produce the reason for the aforenamed Primacie of the Byshop of Rome B. C. To this may be added that seeing Pope signifieth Father as Bell according to the truth confesseth it followeth that the Byshop of Rome was in old time reputed Superiour to all in that he was called the Father of Fathers For Steuen Byshop of Carthage writing to Pope Damasus in the name of three Councelles celebrated in Africke giueth him this title To Pope Damasus our most blessed Lord exalted with Apostolicall dignity the Father of Fathers T. B. I answere that while our Jesuite laboureth to stablish the Popes falsesly pretended soueraigntie he prooueth himselfe a very Noddie for I haue already graunted that
and a good man in deed did admit the foure first generall Councels of Nice Constantinople Ephesus and Châ—lcedon and did reuerence the same as the foure Gospels These are his expresse wordes as Gratianus hath related the same in the Popes owne Decrees Sicut sancti Euangelij quatuor libros sic quatuor Concilia suscipere et venerarie me fateor Nicenum scilicet in quo peruersum Arij dogma destruitur Constantinopolitanum quoque in quo Eunomij et Macedonij error conuincitur Ephesinum etiam primum in quo Nestorij impietas iudicatur Chalcedonense vero in quo Euticetis et Dioscori prauitas est reprobata Haec tota deuotione amplector integerrima approbatione custodio As I professe my selfe to receiue and reuerence the foure Books of the holy Gospell so also the foure Councels in like maner to weete the Councell of Nice in which the peruerse opinion of Arius is confounded the Councell of Constantinople also in which the errour of Eunomius and Macedonius is conuinced the Councell of Ephâ—sus also the first in which the impietie of Nestorius was censured the Councell of Chalcedon in like maner in which Eutiches Dioscorus were condemned These Councels I imbrace with great deuotion and keepe them with most holy approbation obiection 8 They say eightly that Pope Cornelius was Byshoppe of the Catholike Church of the whole world not of the Citie of Rome onely and they prooue it by these words of Cornelius in his Epistle to S. Cyprian Nec ignoramus vnum Dâ—um esse et vnum Christum esse Dominum quem confessj sumus vnum spiritum sanctum vnum Episcopum in Catholica Eccesia esse debere We are not ignorant that there is one God one Christ one holy Ghost and that there ought to be one Byshop in the Catholike Church But I answere that Cornelius meaneth the Catholike Church of the citie of Rome calling it rightly the Catholike Church yet not as it signifieth Vniuersall but as it connotateth a Church constantly holding the Catholike Fayth I prooue it because Cornelius himselfe in whose Epistle that is written sayth in an other Epistle directed to Fabius where he entreateth of the same matter that there ought to be one Byshoppe in that Catholike Church wherein there are â—ixe and fourtie Elders and seauen Deacons with seauen Sub-deacons so foorth These are the expresse wordes Ita igitur lepidum Euangelij patronuÌ„ Nouatum omnino praeâ—erijâ— scilicet vnum solum Episcopum oportere esse in hac Eccesia catholica in qua tamen non ignorabat quomodo enim poterat Presbyteros esse quadraginta sex Diaconos septem Subdiaconos septeÌ„ Acolythos quadraginta duos Exorcistas et Lectores vnacum ostiarijs quinquaginta duos viduas et alios morbo atque egestate afflictatos mille et quingentos quos omnes Domini gratia et benignitas abunde sustentat Hee therefore omitted altogeather this pleasant defender of the Gospell Nouatus because there ought but to be one onely Byshop in this Catholike Church in which for all that he was not ignoraunt for how could that be that there was fourtie sixe Elders or Priestes seauen Deacons seauen Subdeacons fourtie two Acolythes Exorcistes and Readers togeather with Sextenes fiftie two Widowes and others needie and sicke persons a thousand and fiue hundred All which the grace and liberalitie of our Lord doth aboundantly relieue And towards the beginning of the Epistle I find these words as Eusebius relateth theÌ„ Epistolae quidem Cornelij Episcopi Romani scriptae ad Fabium Episcopum ecclesiae Antiochenae ad nos peruenerunt quae tum acta concilij Romae habiti ab omnibus in Italia in Africa inque alijs in locis de eo errore decreta erant euidenter declarant The Epistles of Cornelius Byshoppe of Rome written to Fabius Byshoppe of Antioch came to our handes which did euidently declare the thinges which were then decreed touching that errour in a Councell then holden at Rome of all the Byshoppes in Jtaly Africa and other places This was the case the Church being troubled at that time with the Schismes and Heresies of Nouatus the Nouatians refused the communion of the Catholikes therevpon ordayned new Byshops for their Schismaticall conuenticles whereby it came to passe that in one Citie there were two Byshoppes at once a Catholike and an Heretike In Rome Cornelius and Nouatianus in Carthage Cyprian and Fortunatus Nouatus being very desirous to be a Byshoppe ioyned to himselfe two desperate companions and by that meanes three Byshoppes who were very rude and simple men These Byshoppes hee deceiued with faire speaches promises and coozening trickes Hee told them constantly that they must goe to Rome with all speed that by their sentence and iudgement all controuersies might be decided and fully ended The Byshops giuing credite to the report by reason of their simplicitie came to Rome with all conuenient speede Nouatus with a companie of odde companions like vnvnto himselfe found meanes to get them into an odde corner prepared for that end and purpose where so soone as the Byshoppes were made merry with Wine and delicate cheere hee violently compelled them to make him Byshoppe by a vaine and imaginarie imposition of handes Which being effected hee challenged the Byshopricke of Rome ioyntly with Cornelius Cornelius being lawfully possessed thereof and relying vpon the Decree of the Nicene Councell in that behalfe affirmed constantly that there could be but one Byshoppe in that Catholike Church of Rome The Catholikes therefore communicating in fayth and Christian loue with Cornelius tearmed him the Byshoppe of the Catholike Church obiection 9 They say ninthly out of S. Cyprian that all Heresies and Schismes haue sprong out of this onely fountaine and no other viz. that one Priest for the time in the Church and one Iudge for the time in stead of Christ is not regarded To whom if the whole brotherhoode would be obedient according to Gods ordinaunce no man would make any thing adoe against the companie of Gods Priestes Where by one Priest he meaneth one Byshoppe and by one Byshoppe Cornelius the Pope to whom hee writeth those thinges and consequently he argueth the Pope to be the Byshoppe of the whole Church and one Iudge for the time in Christes stead But I answere first that this in effect is the same with the former of Cornelius and consequently it ought to admit the same answere For he speaketh it vpon occasion of iniurie which the Nouatians offered himselfe in Carthage for the Nouatians there had ordeyned a new Byshoppe against him as their fellowes did in Rome against the good Byshoppe Cornelius Secondly because the wordes both precedent and subsequent doe clearely insinuate that he meaneth it of all Catholike Byshoppes each in his owne charge yea that he applyeth it to himselfe not to Cornelius Thirdly because he speaketh of a Byshoppe who hath been approoued in the Byshopricke foure yeares
THE Catholique Triumph Conteyning A Reply to the pretensed Answere of B. C. a masked Iesuite lately published against the Tryall of the New Religion Wherein is euidently prooued that Poperie and the Doctrine now professed in the Romish Church is the New Religion And that the Fayth which the Church of England now mayntaineth is the ancient Romane Religion Psal. 22. v. 16. Dogges are come about mee and the councell of the wicked layeth siege against me Psal. 120. v. 3. What reward shall be giuen to thee thou false tongue euen mighty and sharpe arrowes with hot burning coales AT LONDON Printed for the companie of Stationers 1610. To the most reuerend Father my very good Lord TOBY the L. Archbyshop of Yorke his Grace Primate of England Fifteene yeares most reuerend Father are now fully expired since I first began to write against the professed aduersaries of the auncient Christian Catholike Apostolique and old Romane religion I meane the late Byshops of Rome the Romish Cardinals the Iesuites Iesuited Papistes and Gunpowder-popish-vassals In which space of time I haue published so many Bookes in defence of the Catholique Fayth as are in number correspondent to the yeares A very long time it was the argument in hand considered before I could any way extort any Answere to any of my Bookes Howbeit when the Iesuites after mature deliberation had seriously pondered with them-selues that through their long silence many Papistes did vtterly renounce Poperie and ioyfully embrace the Catholique Fayth this day sinceerely professed in our Church then they became so ashamed of their silence in that behalfe that in the yeare 1605. they published a litle Pamphlet tearming it The forerunner of Bels downefall wherein they auouched with brasen faces that they had written fiue Bookes fiue yeares afore that time against my Motiues and my Suruey of Poperie And least it should be obiected against them that it cannot be so seeing we can neither see them nor heare of them the Fore-runner telleth vs very grauely but to their endlesse shame that the Answere is suppressed and vpon iust occasion stayed from the publication Alasse alasse how are silly Papistes bewitched with the iugling and deceitfull dealing of these seducers They haue been buzzing about the answering of my two first Bookes as they them selues tell vs almost the space of sixe whole yeares and when after their great paines and labours of so many yeares they had framed the answere in the best manner they could deuise then they suppressed the same vpon iust occasiō as their Forerunner in their name telleth vs. What haue they bestowed fiue yeares in wryting fiue Bookes against two of my Bookes and dare not to this day publish any one of them Out vpon lying lippes Out vpon trayterous Iesuites and Iesuiticall deceyuers of the world The trueth is that there is no trueth in these men And it is an euident testimonie that they are not indeed able to answere for otherwise they would not for very shame haue protested so much in print and haue performed nothing lesse I am verily perswaded that they will neuer during my life which they wish to be short and therefore haue they prouided my Winding sheete and other indirect meanes to take away my life frame any full and direct Answere to the said Bookes because in trueth all the Iesuites in the Christian world are not able to performe it the trueth being so cleare forcible against them After the Fore-runner a pretensed Answere was published in the yeare 1606. against the Downe fall of Poperie For refutation of which silly Pamphlet I addressed my Booke intituled The Iesuites Antepast which seemeth to their daintie mouthes so vntouthsome that I deeme it will serue also for their Post-past as I had formerly published an other Reply intituled The Popes Funerall to the Fore-runner of the Downefall Now lately in the end of the yeare 1608. an other pretensed Answere a silly thing God wote was published against my Booke intituled The Tryall of the new religion This Pamphlet came to my handes in Nouember last at which time I was very ill in body and also distant aboue one hundred Myles from mine owne Librarie the want whereof at that time was farre more grieuous to me then were all my painefull infirmities of body In the midst of which whiles I am writing for the trueth I find no litle comfort The case so standing albeit your Grace was then aboue fourtie Myles from me yet did I presume to bemone my selfe vnto your Grace for the supply of my present want of Bookes with whom my suite found such intertainement as I neither did nor euer could expect Bookes indeed I expected but that your Grace should also send them to me vpon your owne charges most freely and Christianly offering to send me your whole Librarie which is indeed a Librarie most excellent if I shouldst and in need thereof it seemed to mee such an honorable sauour as that I could not now in duetie omit to make this publique acknowledgement thereof The Iesuites and Iesuited Gunpowder Papistes not able to endure the sound of my Tryall wherein Poperie was tearmed and prooued the New Religion haue suborned as it seemeth Robert Parsons that lewd companion and trayterous Fryer to publish that supposed Refutation the summe and substaunce whereof they had no doubt collected and framed to his handes His name he dareth not disclose least the great disgrace which can not but insue vpon that silly Answere should eternally cleaue vnto him as being one who not able to defend Poperie by honest and Christian-like proceeding bestirreth himselfe to effect the same by continuall forgerie by lying by coozenage and deceitfull dealing as in this Booke I shall make apparant Wherein what my selfe haue effected or rather God in mee let the iuditious and honest Reader iudge and for that which he findeth well done giue God the glorie Such as it is I dedicate vnto your Grace as vnto him who hath deserued my vttermost service The Almighty blesse your Grace with many happy yeares in this life and with eternall glory in the life to come Amen Iunij 3. 1609. Your Graces most bounden Thomas Bell. Briefe Instructions for the better vnderstanding of the Discourse following Instruction 1. THE Pope Cardinals Iesuites and all Papistes generally do beare the world in hand that the Church of Rome this day keepeth inuiolably that Fayth and Religion which S. Peter and S. Paul in their time planted there I hold and defende the negatiue proouing the same soundly and euidently throughout this whole Discourse Wee all agree in this that the Church of Rome had once the true auncient Christian catholique and apostolique Fayth which she receiued from S. Peter and S. Paul my selfe most willingly subscribing thereunto I neither impugne the old Romane religion nor reprooue the auncient Byshops there it is the Late vp-start-religion of the Romish Church that now is which I detest and write against in all
my Bookes as against that Church which so aboundeth with Errours Heresies and Superstitions as I know not when and where to finde the like no not among Ethnicks Publicans Turkes Iewes or Saracens Instruction 2. There are many sectes of Fryers this day in the Church of Rome the Benedictiues began in the yeare 527-after Christ. The Carthusians began in the yeare 1084. after Christ. How this Sect had the first originall it is worthy the Reader should yeeld his due attention this is the trueth of the Storie While one Bruno was the reader of Philosophy at Paris that famous Citie in France a friend of his being a man of good carriage honest externall conuersation departed out of this life this friend lying dead vpon the Coffin in the Church soundeth out these wordes in the eares of the sayd Bruno I am damned by the iust iudgement of God With this wonderment the sayd Bruno was so terrified that hee knew no way how to be saued but by inuenting the sect of the Carthusians Behold heere the subtiltie of the Diuell who neuer wanteth meanes how to set vp Superstition and Idolatrie for if the Story be true as it is most true if many famous Popish Historiographers be not notorious lyers then doubles the Diuell was the author of the voyce as which brought foorth the spirit of Pride not the spirit of Humilitie I prooue it because this Bruno who had vowed perpetuall obedience to his superiour could not now be content to continue a Monke amongst the Benedictiues but hee must be the Lord Abbot of a new Sect For since the Sect of the Benedictes was the ready way to Heauen as late vp-start Poperie taught him it followeth of necessitie that either he condemned his owne Religion and consequently his owne if not the Diuels inuention or else my consequence perforce must be admitted And heere I note by the way the formall deformitie of all the Sectes in Poperie to weet that the Papistes ascribe Merite and saluation to the same and so Poperie is the New religion Instruction 3. The aforenamed Benedictiue-Monkes in a short time began to be dissolute and so to be deuided into many new Sectes Some were called Cluniacenses some Camaldnenses some Vallisumbrenses some Montoliuotenses some Grandimontenses some Cistertienses some Syluestrenses All which beeing most variable in life manners and obseruations will for all that be reputed right Benedictiues Euen so forsooth as our late Popes or Byshops of Rome must needes be S. Peters successors though as like to him as Yorke is like foule Sutton This sect of the Benedictiues farre altered from the first institution was reformed in the yeare 1335. for as Polydorus that famous Popish writer reporteth Monkes doe not long continue in the due obseruation of their Monasticall institution Instruction 4. The Sect called Pramonstratensis began in the yeare 1119. the first Author thereof was one Norbertus by name Who doubles either condemned the former Sectes at the least of imperfection or else was puffed vp with the spirit of Pride as were his fraterculi before him Instruction 5. The Sect of the Carmelites began in the yeare 1170. It was inuented by one Almericus the Byshop of Antioch The Sect of the Dominicans began in the yeare 1198. The sect of the Franciscans began in the yeare 1206. The Sect of the Iesuates began in the yeare 1371. The Sect of the Iesuites that cursed crew began in the yeare 1540. after Christ the Author of this Sect was one Ignatius Loyola a Souldier and a Spaniard borne This Sect as it was the last hatched so doth it in pontificall Pride surpasse all the rest It is by them selues tearmed Ordo sodalitatis Iesu the very name expressing their proud and hautie mindes For no name of so manie Sectes afore them nor any other appellation could content them vnlesse they were tearmed the Fellowes and Companions of our Lord Iesus Their deare breathren the Seminarie-Priestes tell them roundly euen in printed Bookes published to the view of the whole world that they are notorious Lyars cruell Tyrantes arrant Traytours mercilesse Murtherers right Machiuels Scribes and Pharises Gypsees Firebrands of sedition that they ride like Earles in Coaches with many Seruants attending on them that they must haue their Chambers perfumed that Gentlewomen must pull off their Bootes that they trowle vp and downe from good cheere to good cheere that they are Thieues that they threatē a conquest of noble England that they promise to restore men to their Liuinges that will take part with them against their naturall Soueraigne in briefe that they are the wickedst men vpon earth All which much other like stuffe the Reader may finde at large in the Anatomie of Popish tyranny Instruction 6. The name Pope was common to all Byshops euery where for more then 528. yeares after Christ. The Byshops of Rome Sozimus Bonifacius and Celestinus more then 417. yeares after Christ could alleadge no better groundes or reasons for their now falsely vsurped Primacie then that only which the Nicene Councell had allotted to them For which cause the aforenamed Popes falsified the Canons of that most famous Synode as S. Augustine and hundreds of Byshops with him in the Africane Councell assembled freely and roundly told Pope Celestine in their Epistle directed to him exhorting him to surcease from such proud challenges and calling his falsely pretended soueraigntie Fumosum typhū seculi smokely statelines of the world The aforenamed Popes feigned certaine false Canons to haue been made by the Fathers of the famous Nicene Councell by the which as they reported a supereminent power and iurisdiction was graunted to the Byshops of Rome ouer and aboue all other Byshops in the Christian world Whereas the true Canons of that holy Synode did confine allot and limit the iurisdiction of the Byshops of Rome euen as it did allot limit and confine the iurisdiction of other Byshops else where The Fathers of the African Councell sent this way that way and euery way to search and finde out the true copies of the Canons of the Councell of Nice yea to the Churches of the East to the Byshops of Antioch of Alexandria But when all was done that possibly they could performe the Byshops of Rome could no where ground stablish their fondly imagined prerogatiues saue onely vpon false and counterfeit Canons vntruly fathered vpon the Nicene Synode Instruction 7. The Emperours successiuely following Constantine worthily surnamed the Great graunted great priuiledges to the Church and Byshops of Rome which excellencie priuiledges prerogatiues the Bishops of Rome cunningly procured by a counterfait and falsely forged donation of Constantine the great for the late Emperours giuing credite to the counterfeit donation yeelded vp their lawfull Segnories royall Soueraignties and regall Prerogatiues to the Byshops of Rome supposing they had only restored to them that which was wrongfully
deteyned from them For while they gaue away their owne they vnawares and fondly deemed that they onely restored that which was not their owne in deed Instruction 8. The word Pope was not the proper and peculiar name to the Byshop of Rome for the space of 528. yeares after Christ. The Church of Rome was made the Head of all other Churches and the Byshops there the heads of all other Byshops by the imperiall constitution of Phocas 607. yeares after Christ. That the Pope could not erre iudicially was not authenticall in the Romish Church for 1500. yeares after Christ. That the Pope could vnmarrie persons lawfully married by Christes institution was neuer heard of in the Christian world vntill the yeare 1550. after Christ at which time Pope Iulius presumed to dissolue lawfull Matrimonie by his vnlawfull Dispensation It was neuer thought lawfull for the naturall Brother to marry his naturall Sister vntill the time of Pope Martin who by the instigation of the Diuell set the same abroach in the yeare 1418. after Christ. Popish Veniall sinnes were first hatched by Pope Pius 1566. yeares after Christ. That the Blood of popish Saints could worke mans redemptiō was neuer heard of for the space of 1161. yeares after Christ. The like may be sayd of many other Popish Articles for which I referre the Reader to my Tryall of the New Religion I deeme it enough for the present to insinuate to the Christian Reader that our Church hath onely abolished Superstition Errours and Heresies by litle and litle crept into the Church and doth still keepe all and euery iot of the Old Romane Fayth and Religion The Capucheenes at Rome did the like when they euen with the Popes good liking reformed the dissolute Franciscans Yea Pope Pius himselfe of late dayes did the like while he reformed the popish deformed missals and breuiaries in his late Councell gathered at Trent If hee that now is Byshop of Rome would reforme all the rest by abolishing all Nouelties by litle and litle brought into the Church as we haue done he should finde the remnant to be the Old Romane religion in verie deed Marke well the whole Discourse following where all this is soundly prooued as more cannot be wished The Contentes of the Chapters Chapter 1. Proouing THat the name and worde Pope was in the primatiue Church common to all Byshops aswell of Rome as else where That the Byshop of Rome neither is nor ought to be nor euer was called The vniuersall Byshop of the whole Church That the name Pope was not peculiar to the Bishops of Rome for more then 528. yeares after Christ. That the Iesuite volens nolens is enforced to graunt the same Chapter 2. Proouing That the Pope may not be controulled though he carry with him thousands vpon thousands into Hell That it is Sacriledge to dispute of the Popes power That the Pope with his Pardons can deliuer all soules out of Purgatory-fire That the Pope can dissolue that Matrimonie which is firme and stable by Christes institution That the Pope can dispense with the Brother to marrie his owne naturall Sister That the Pope hath as great power as Christ himselfe had on earth That the Pope may doe whatsoeuer pleaseth him That the Pope can make of nothing something That the counterfeit Donation of Constantine was the originall of all Popish superroyall power That whatsoeuer the Emperours of latter time gaue to the Church of Rome they were induced to do the same by the coozening trickes of the Byshops of Rome That the Popes Sozimus Bonefacius and Celestine falsified the Canons of the Nicene Councell so to aduance them-selues aboue all other Byshops That no Byshops nor Priestes ought to appeale to the Church of Rome That the Councell of Nice gaue the primacie of honour to the Church of Rome because it was the Seat of the Emperour and Caput Mundi That all Christians euen the Byshops of Rome are subiect to the Canons of the Nicene Councell That the Nicene Synode did confine and knit the iurisdiction of the Byshop of Rome Chapter 3. Proouing That Marriage of Priestes was euer lawfull during the time of the old Testament That the Marriage of Priestes is prohibited onely by the law of Man and not by any positiue constitution either of Christ or his Apostles That it was euer lawfull for the Byshops and Priestes of the East-church to marry and to beget children in time of their Priesthood That the Marriage of Priestes was euer lawfull also in the West-church vntill the time of Pope Siricius and in Germanie for the space of 1074. yeares after Christ. That all secular Priestes may Marry notwithstanding the Popish solemne Vow annexed That by Popish fayth and doctrine Marriage is of force after the single Vow of chastitie That the Vow single is of one and the same nature with the Vow solemne That the Marriage of Priestes is lawfull after the solemne Vow so it be done by the Popes Dispensation That the forced and coacted Chastitie of Priestes hath been so intollerable as nothing hath brought more shame to Priesthood more shame to Religion more griefe to godly men Chapter 4. Proouing That popish Pardons are neither found in the holy Scripture nor in the auncient Fathers That the popish Maister of sentences could finde no mention of them in the writinges of the holy Fathers That Byshoppe Fisher graunted the young age of late popish Pardons That the best learned Papistes are not able to defend the same Chapter 5. Proouing That the Greeke Church neuer beleeued Purgatorie That the Church of Rome beleeued it not for the space of 250. yeares That the Church of Rome beleeued it not all at once but by litle and litle That the inuention of Purgatorie was the birth of popish Pardons That the primatiue Church was neuer acquainted with the Popes Pardons nor yet with popish Purgatorie Chapter 6. Proouing That popish Auricular confession cannot be prooued out of the Old Testament That the New Testament doth not impose an heauier yoake vpon vs then did the Old That popish Auricular confession is not necessarie for mans saluation That it is neither commaunded by Christ nor yet by his Apostles That it is established by the meere law of man grounded only vpon a falsely imagined Apostolicall vnwritten tradition That it was not an Article of popish Fayth for the space of 1215. yeares after Christ. Chapter 7. Proouing That euery Sinne is Mortall of it owne nature That fiue famous popish Writers Roffensis Almaynus Bains Durandus Gersonus doe all confesse the same That the Jesuite S. R. graunteth freely that the Church of Rome had not defined some Sinnes to be Veniall vntill the dayes of Pius the fift which was not fiftie yeares agoe Chapter 8. Proouing That the Pope may erre both in Fayth and Doctrine iudicially That many Popes haue erred De facto That great learned Papistes did constantly confesse so
addidit etiam hoc quod vsque ad illa tempora virgo munda et immaculata permanset ecclesia sequitur Vt vero et apostolorum chorus et omnis illa aetas quae a domino susceperat viuae vocis auditum de hac luce discessit tum velut in vacuam domum falsae doctrinae impius se error immersit After these things the same writer Egesippus added this also That vnto those dayes the Church continued a pure immaculate virgin but after the death of the Apostles and all that age which had heard our Lord speake in liue voyce vnto them false and erronious doctrine began to intrude her selfe as into a voyde house or desart place Thus writeth Eusebius in that very Booke and Chapter where our Jesuite impudently auoucheth that no such thing can be found no not so much as Egesippus once named albeit both the whole matter and the wordes be in very deed as I haue heere truely put them downe yea Egesippus is named in the very beginning of the sayd Chapter as the relator of the Storie and in these words the same writer eftsoones insinuated to the reader Is it now true sir Frier Jesuite that I haue powdred mine assertion with lyes Is it true sir lyer that I vsed Iugling trickes therein Is it true that I haue done the same thicke and threefold Haue I belyed both Egesippus and Eusebius Can no such thing be found in Eusebius Is not Egesippus once named in that Chapter Is he not once named expressely and twise virtually If all this be true as it is must true in deed what shall I say or what can I say to this shamelesse and impudent Fryer Apagè apagè Out vpon rotten Poperie out vpon lying Jesuites out vpon the new Romish Religion which can be defended by no better meanes then by impudencie falsehood and flat lying What shall or what can the Reader expect at the handes of this shamlesse impudent and lying Jesuite in the rest of his Pamphlet who intertayneth him in the very beginning with such leasings such iugling trickes and such diabolicall accusations What hath this shamelesse and impudent Jesuite deserued the Whetstone nay rather with Chore Dathan and Abyram to goe downe quick into Hell This doubtlesse if nothing els should be said were enough to proue Poperie to be the new Religion I woonder how the Jesuite durst publish such notorious slaunders but on the one side being at a non-plus and not able in truth to say any thing for the antiquitie of Poperie and on the other side choosing rather to consecrate his soule to the Diuell by lying slaundering and deceitfull dealing then to graunt Poperie to be the new Religion He thought to face out the matter by imputing that to mee which most iustly and properly pertayneth to him-selfe And withall he very politikely considered the maister Diuell of Hell suggesting it vnto him that his best course was to doe the same in the beginning These thinges thus standing all wise Papistes I trow will looke more carefully into the matter and from hence foorth not giue credite to such lying Doctors such false Teachers such notorious slaunderers of the innocent If all Jesuites in England all Dominicans in Spaine all Franciscans in France and all Cardinals in Rome should conspire togeather how to accuse the innocent I know not it is aboue my reach and capacitie how they could surpasse this impudent lying Jesuite in such kind of treacherie This one thing I will now say which will appeare before the end of this Discourse that as he here beginneth so he continueth vnto the end For if his lyes slaunders cauils coozening trickes false dealing ridiculous sophistications be once taken away very litle or rather nothing at all will remaine in this his pretenced answere to the triall of the new Religion It woundeth the Pope and his Jesuites to heare Poperie tearmed the New Religion they are not able to endure the sound thereof The Iesuites first Chapter of this name and word Pope B. C. ALbeit the name Pope was attributed also to other Byshoppes yet was it in such speciall maner giuen to him that it sufficiently declared his Supreame authoritie ouer all other T. B. I answere First that S. Epiphanius called Athanasius Pope in these expresse wordes Eusebius praedictus Nicomedia episcopus erat totius ipsorū collectionis administrator ac concinnator detrimenti in ecclesia et aduersus papam Athanasiū Eusebius the forenamed Byshop of Nicomedia was the administrator of their whole collection and the contriuer of the detriment in the Church and against Pope Athanasius Secondly that S. Hierome called S. Augustine Pope in sundry Epistles written to him in these wordes Domino verê sancto et beatissimo Papae Augustino Hieronimus in domino salutem Hierom to the truly holy and most blessed Pope Augustyne sendeth salutations in our Lord. Thirdly that S. Austyn called Aurelius Pope who was but his fellow-Byshop in many things far inferiour to him Fourthly that not onely S. Austyn but Alipius also called the same Aurelius Pope Fiftly that S. Hierom callen not onely S. Austyn Pope but also S. Epiphanius Pope in like manner Sixtly that the Priestes Moses and Maximus with the Deacons Nicostratus and Ruffinus and sundry confessours did all with one vniforme assent call S. Cyprian most blessed Pope Seuenthly that the Clergie of Rome writing to the Clergie of Carthage called the same Cyprian Pope But doubtles neither would neither durst the Clergie of Rome haue called Cyprian the Byshop of Carthage Pope if the name had then been proper or any way peculiar to the Byshop of Rome Eightly that Laurentius Valla a very learned and famous Writer yea and a Romane borne is Consonant to the Clergie of Rome in that most excellent and learned Declamation which hee published against the counterfeit Donation of Constantine these are the expresse wordes of that great Learned Roman Transeo quod rasuram coronam vocas et Papam pontificem Romanū qui nondū peculiariter sic appellari erat captus I let passe that thou calles his shauing a Crowne and the Byshop of Rome Pope who began not yet to haue that name peculiarly Loe for more then 330. yeares the Byshop of Rome did not begin to chalenge that name B. C. Which appeareth first because when any was called Pope without further addition it was vnderstood onely of the Bpshops of Rome as is euident out of the Councell of Chalcedon where it is sayd The most blessed and apostolicke man the Pope doth commaunde vs this thing Secondly because the Byshop of Rome was called Pope of the whole Church as we read in the same Councell where Leo is called Pope of the vniuersall Church And Liberatus affirmeth that there is no Pope ouer the Church of the whole world but the Byshop of Rome Thirdly because he is called the Pope or Father of generall
the Byshop of Rome for the excellencie of that Citie is the chiefest Patriarke and so may be called the Father of Fathers that is the chiefest Father or Byshop of all Fathers or Byshops in Christes Church It is one thing to call the Byshop of Rome Father of Fathers an other thing to call him vniuersall Byshop or vniuersall Father The former our Church of noble England admitteth while shee approoueth two Primates th' one of England th' other of all England Euen so doe wee repute our two Arch-byshops of Canterbury and Yorke to be the Byshops of Byshops or Fathers of Fathers which is all one for either of them is Byshop of Byshops within his prouince that is the Chiefest of all the rest But this is nothing to that superroyall power of which wee are to intreate in the next Chapter which I wish the reader to marke with such attention as apperteyneth thereunto But the latter both we and great learned Popish writers doe vtterly disclaime In the Popes owne decrees I finde these expresse wordes Primae sedis Episcopus non appelletur princeps sacerdotuÌ„ vel suÌ„mus sacerdos aut aliquid huiusmodj sed tantuÌ„ primae sedis Episcopus Vniuersalis auteÌ„ nec etiaÌ„ Romanus pontifex appelletur Let not the Byshoppe of the chiefe Seate be called the Prince of Priestes or the Hie Priest or haue any such like name but onely the Byshop of the first Seate And Vniuersall Byshop none may be called no not the Byshop of Rome himselfe What doth Gratianus that famous Champion of the Romish Church tell vs soe We haue read the Popes Decree which was taken out of the Affrican Councell the wordes of Gratianus haue sounded in our eares Nay you shall heare a greater wonder Pope Pelagius doth constantly deliuer the selfe same doctrine and defineth it for the trueth to be receiued and beleeued these are his expresse wordes Nullus Patriarcharum vniuersalitatis vocabulo vnquam vtatur quia si summus Patriarcha vniuersalis dicit Patriarcarum nomen caeteris derogatur Sed absit hoc a fidelibus hoc sibi velle queÌ„piam arripere vnde honorem fratrum suorum imminuere ex quantulaecunque parte videatur Quapropter charitas vestra neminem vnquam etiam suis in epistolis vniuersalem nominet ne sibi debitum subtrahat cum alteri honorem infert indebitum Let no Patriarke euer vse the word of Vniuersalitie because if the chiefest Patriarke be called Vniuersall the name of Patriarkes is derogated from the rest But be this farre from the faythfull that any should willingly snatch that to himselfe which may any way seeme to diminish the honour of this breathren though in neuer so small a degree Wherefore let not your charitie in your Epistles name any Patriarcke at any time Vniuersall least while ye giue to an other that honour which is not due yee take from your selues that which is due To which I adde this Epigramme set downe as the contentes of the Decree in the beginning thereof Nec etiam Romanus pontifex vniuersaâ—is est appellandus Neither may the Byshoppe of Rome be called Vniuersall Pope Gregorie is consonant to Pope Pelagius in these expresse wordes Ecce in presatione Epistolae quam ad meipsum qui prohibui direxistis superbae appellationis verbum vniuersalem me Papam dicens imprimere curastis Quod peto mihi dulcissima sanctitas vestra vltra non faciat quia vobis subtrahitur quod alteri plus quam ratio exigit praebetur Sequitur sin me vniuersaleÌ„ PapaÌ„ vestra sanctitas dicit negat se hoc esse quod me fatetur vniuersum sed absit hoc recedant verba quae veritateÌ„ inflant et charitateÌ„ vulnerant Behold in the Preface of your Epistle which you addressed to mee forbidding it you laboured to impose vpon me a word of proud appellatioÌ„ calling me Vniuersall Pope which I pray your sweet holynesse not to do to me any more because that is taken from you which is giuen to an other more then reason doth require For if your Holynesse call mee Vniuersall Pope you denie your selfe to be so seeing you call mee Vniuersall But God forbid away with wordes that puffe vp the trueth and wound charitie Thus writeth Gratianus the compiler of the Decrees thus Pope Pelagius thus Pope Gregorius Out of those Positions thus constantly deliuered I obserue sundry very profitable and necessarie documentes First that none no not the Byshop of Rome may be called Vniuersall Pope Secondly that the giuing of Vniuersall to one taketh away that which is due to all the rest Thirdly that Gregorie who lyued more then 590. yeares after Christ vtterly refused the name of Vniuersall Byshop or Pope calling it a proude name and sharply reprooued Enlagius the Patriarke of Alexandria for ascribing the same vnto him Fourthly that Pope Pelagius the predecessour of Gregorie detested and abhorred the same proud arrogant name So then I may lawfully conclude that the name Pope in popish sense and meaning was not proper and peculiar to any Byshop of Rome for the space of 591. yeares after Christ. How impudent therfore is our Fryer when he auoucheth the Councell of Chalcedon to haue called Leo the Vniuersall Pope Liberatus to haue tearmed him Pope ouer the Church of the whole world Pope Damasus and Theodoretus to haue done the same All which are meere lyes notorious slaunders and irksome falsifications inuented by the Father of lyes and his deare children the Iesuiticall crew to defend late vp-start Poperie if it were possible from the imputation of the New religion B. C. And this may be the reason that albeit sometime in the primatiue Church the name was also giuen to other Byshops yet seeing in foresayd manner it agreed peculiarly to the Byshop of Rome as declaring his sone raigne authoritie ouer others the former custome ceased and so it remayned alone to him T. B. Three things our Fryer freely graunteth in these words all which such is the force of trueth are altogeather against him selfe First he confesseth the trueth vnawares that the name Pope was giuen to other Byshoppes in the primitiue Church and consequently he must graunt volens nolens that to chalenge that name as the Byshop of Rome this day doth is a rotten ragge of the New religion Secondly he sayth it peculiarly agreed to the Byshop of Rome as declaring his Soueraigne authoritie ouer others In which his assertion a notable absurdity is implyed viz. that the name Pope was aralogon and consequently was giuen to other Byshops but improperly analogically and by way of similitude as euery meane Logician can tell or Iesuâ—te Thirdly he graunteth that the name Pope did in processe of time cease to be giuen to other Bishops and so remayned to the Byshop of Rome alone Which doubtlesse is that very doctrine which I in the tryall doe defend To which I must needes adde this one thing though litle to
our Fryers liking viz. that the name Pope was giuen to other Byshops in the auncient Church as I haue prooued in my Tryall euen hundreds of yeares after the Primitiue Church To which addition this to cheere vp our Fryer is consectarie to weet that the Clergie of Rome writing to the Clergie of Carthage called S. Cyprian the most blessed Pope Which verily as is already sayd they neither would nor yet durst haue done if the name in such a peculiar manner as the Fryer would make vs beleeue had been due to the Byshop of Rome For if the sayd name had been peculiar to him and his supposed soueraignetie implied therein other Byshops could neuer haue enioyed the same in the puritie of the Church Nay other Byshops would neuer haue improperly accepted of that name and title which none but the Byshop of Rome could properly ascribe vnto himselfe B. C. With the former he hath coupled an other saying thus And so in processe of time the Byshoppes of Rome were solely and onely called Popes and of Late yeares our Holy Father and his Holynesse is his vsuall name A grosse vntrueth T. B. This assertion hath two partes The former our Fryer hath freely graunted in his immediately aforegoing words The latter he must likewise yeeld vnto against his will or else be condemned of the whole world For besides that the Iesuiticall Cardinall Bellarmine and the popish Byshop Iosephus Angles in their Books of Late yeares dedicated to the Byshoppes of Rome haue giuen them the title of Holinesse euen in the abstract it is so euident that his Holinesse is of Late yeares the vsuall name of the Byshop of Rome that if any man either in Rome or in Jâ—ahe shall deny the same he may iustly be censured worthy of the Whetstone That which he sayth of Theodoretus the Councell of Chalcedon S. Cyprian and S. Austin is very friuolous and nothing to the purpose For first I say of Late yeares and yet the youngest of our Fryer named lyued aboue a thousand yeares agoe Secondly there is great disparitie betweene a peculiar and an vsuall name A peculiar name perteineth solely and onely vnto one but that an vsuall name may agree to many at once it cannot be denyed Thirdly as our Fryer hath confessed that the name Pope was of old time giuen to many and yet afterward remayned to the Byshop of Rome alone so must he volens nolens confesse of the name Holynesse B. C. Prosecuting his former matter he sayth But this Emperour that is Iustinian lyued after Christ his birth about 528. yeares ergo this poynt of poperie is a rotten ragge of the New religion In which wordes he venteth out an vntrueth For be it that it was then appropriated to the Pope as he sayth yet how can it be New which by his owne confession was vsed xi hundred yeares agoe That is so many ages before the foundations of his Religion were laide or the name of a Protestant heard of in the whole world T. B. Our Iesuite desiring to discharge the Pope and Poperie of Newnesse would prooue it by my graunt viz. because I confesse the name Pope to haue been appropriated to the Byshops of Rome a thousand yeares agoe But our Fryer in thus disputing doth prooue him selfe a very Daw. For he must learne to know that the newnesse of a thing may be considered two wayes absolutely and respectiuely And consequently that though the name Pope be Old absolutely considered yet it is New respectiuely when it is compared with the time of the Apostles Now so it is that you Papistes beare the world in hand that your Poperie is the Old religion and that selfe-same Doctrine which S. Peter and S. Paul deliuered to the Church of Rome This is the Doctrine which I oppugne euen in the beginning of this present Chapter But our Fryer is so besotted with malice that he cannot discerne the trueth my reason standeth thus You Iesuites and Iesuited Papistes affirme desperatly and damnably that your Late start-vp Poperie is the Old religion deliuered by S. Peter and S. Paul to the Church of Rome But that is so farre from being true that the very name Pope is New as wanting aboue 500. yeares of that age or time whereof you bragge and boast ergo seeing the Apostolicke and first Religion is onely the Old religion and that which commeth after as Tertullian truly writeth the false and New religion it followeth of necessitie that the name Pope comming 500. yeares after the Old religion is but a rotten Ragge of the New Where I wish the Reader to remember that I speake of the name Pope in that sense in which the Byshoppes of Rome vsurpe the same That which our Jesuite addeth of Protestantes how absurd it is shall God willing by and by appeare B. C. I omit heere how many Ecclesiasticall names haue been brought into the Church as Consubstantiall against the Arrians Incarnation against other Heretikes the better by a new name to declare an auncient article of Fayth Will Bell for all that call these Wordes rotten Ragges of a New religion Hee never dare offer it and yet with no lesse reason may be doe it then he doth heere the name of the Pope T. B. Who seeth not to what shiftes our Iesuiticall Fryer is driuen He affirmeth desperately that I may with no lesse reason call the holy names appropriated to the sonne of God rotten ragges of a New religion then the name of the Pope But out vpon such Rotten diuinitie out vpon such paltry Fryers The sacred names Consubstantiall and Incarnation are equiualently according to the substance and true nature of the thinges signified by the same set downe in many places of the holy Scriptures Which was made most apparant against the Arrians by the Fathers of the first famous Councell of Nice but the name Pope as it is of Late yeares challenged by the Byshops of Rome and heere auouched by the impudent Fryer is so farre from being either expressely or virtually conteyned in the holy Scriptures that all sacred Writ vtterly condemneth the same as a Rotten ragge of a New religion inuented at Rome aboue fiue hundred yeares after the death of S. Peter S. Paul Againe the Holy names of Consubstantiall and Incarnation were not first common to others and afterward attributed to the sonne of God But the name Pope as I haue prooued and as the Frier hath plainely confessed was first and that more then 500-yeares common to all Byshops and in processe of time appropriated to the Byshops of Rome Thirdly the thing truly signified by the holy wordes Consubstantiall and Incarnation neuer could agree to any creature in the world but the thing truely signified by the word Pope did in the primatiue and purest age of the Church doth at this present and may in time to come truely agree to all true Byshops in Christs Church Now touching the name of Protestant I answere
ipse iudicaturus a nemine est iudicandus For the Pope is to iudge all others but none may iudge him God saue our holy Father the Pope The Eight Conclusion The Pope hath Vniuersall Iurisdiction ouer all Kingdomes Empires and fulnesse of Power in as ample and large maner as Christ himselfe had The popish famous Frier Augustinus de Ancoua hath these expresse words Papa tanquam vicarius Dej filij caelestis Imperatoris iurisdictionem habet vniuersalem super omnia Regna et Imperia The Pope as he that is the Vicar of the Sonne of God the heauenly Emperour hath vniuersall iurisdiction ouer all Kingdomes and Empires Pope Nicholas after hee hath told vs many fables of the Church of Rome doth at length tell vs that S. Peter and the Byshops of Rome his successours haue all Power both earthly and heauenly these are his wordes in the Booke of Popish decrees Christus Beato Petro aeternae vitae clauâ—gero terreni simul et caeâ—estis imperij iura commisit Christ committed to S. Peter the Porter of heauen gates the rightes both of earthly and heauenly regalitie And the popish glosse annexed to this Decree of Pope Nicholas deliuereth the matter in more gallant tearmes these are the wordes ArgumentuÌ„ quod Papa habet vtrumque gladium viz. spiritualem et temporalem This is an argument that the Pope hath both Swordes to weet the Spirituall and the temporall And in the Margent it confirmeth the same in these plaine tearmes Papa habens vtrumque gladium transtulit Imperiâ—m The Pope hauing both the Swordes translated the Empire Yea the Pope Boniface the eight made a flat Decree for the confirmation of his pretended right to both Swords as is to be seene in his extrauagant Vnam sanctam de maioritate et obedientia set downe in the sixt Booke annexed to the Decretals Appendix Fuldensis vnfouldeth this arrogant and brutish Decree in these plaine tearmes Hic Papa Bonifacius 8. constitutionem fecerat in qua se dominum spiritualem et temporalem in vniuerso mundo asserebat Vnde requisiuit Philippum regem Franciae vt a se regnum suum cognosceret quod rex facere contempsit The Pope he speaketh of Boniface the eight made a constitution in which he affirmed himselfe to be both spirituall and temporall Lord in the whole world Whereupon hee would haue had Phillip king of France to haue acknowledged his Kingdome from him but the King laughed him to scorne for his paines Johannes Gersonus a very learned Papist sometime Chancellor of the famous Vniuersitie of Paris affirmeth wonderfull power to be ascribed to the Pope thus doth hee write Sicut non est potestas nisi a Deo sic nec aliqua Temporalis vel Ecclesiastica Imperialis vel Regalis nisi a Papa in cuius faemore scripsit Christus Rex reguÌ„ Dominus Dominantium Like as there is no Power but of God so is there neither any Temporall nor Eccesiasticall neither Imperiall nor Regall but of the Pope in whose thigh Christ hath written the King of Kings the Lord of Lords Loe heere gentle Reader two thinges are proper to God alone the one to be King of Kinges and Lord of Lordes the other to be the author of all Power both which the Papistes ascribe vnto their Pope Thus writeth M. Gerson of the Popes Superroyall power which his flattering Parasites haue with his good liking giuen him although the same Gerson being otherwise a very zelous Papist did vtterly dislike and deride the same The Pope himselfe from his owne penne Gregorie the ninth deliuereth vs this doctrine Ad firmamentum caeli hoc est vniuersalis Ecclesiae fecit Deus duo magna Luminaria id est duas instituit dignitates quae sunt pontificalis authoritas et regalis potestas Sequitur vt quanta est inter Solem et LunaÌ„ tanta inter Pontifices et Reges differentia cognoscatur To the firmament of Heauen that is of the vniuersall Church God made two Lightes that is Pontificall authoritie and power Royall that we may know there is as much difference betweene Popes and Kinges as there is betweene the Sunne and the Moone The Popes glose vpon this goodly Text setteth downe precisely how farre a King is inferiour to a Pope that is to any Byshop of Rome in these wordes Restat vt Pontificalis dignitas quadragesies septies sit maior regali dignitate It remayneth that the dignitie of the Pope is fourtie times seauen times greater then is the power of the King Thus writeth the glose disputing out of Ptolomaeus that the Pope must be infinitely greater then any King in the whole world Well let vs heare the Clerkely sentence of Pope Gelasius in his owne behalfe these are his wordes Honor et sublimitas episcopalis nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari si regum fulgori compares et principum diademati longe erit inferius quam si plumbi metallum ad auri fulgorem compares The honour dignitie of a Byshop can not be equalized by any comparison If it be compared to the excellencie of Kinges and to the Diademes of Princes it shall be found farre more inferiour then if thou compare a peece of Lead with bright shyning Gold So then the Popes owne Decrees make it cleere and euident that the Lordly and more then Royall titles ascribed to them doe sound well in their eares The Ninth Conclusion The Pope can by his supereminent excellencie and fulnesse of Power change the nature of things apply the substantiall partes of one thing to another and of nothing make some thing The Popes deare glose vpon his Decretals doth plainely deliuer the truth of this Conclusion in these most golden wordes Papa naturam rerum immutat substantialia vnius rei applicando alij et de nihilo potest aliquid facere quia in his quae vult ei est pro ratione voluntas et plenitudinem obtinet potestatis The Pope changeth the nature of thinges by applying the substantiall partes of one thing to another and he can make of nothing some thing for in those thinges which he hath a minde to doe his bare Will is to him a sufficient warrant and he hath the fulnesse of Power Antonius that famous popish Arch-byshop and canonized Saint comming as Ambassadour from the Pope telleth vs if we may beleeue him that the Pope is Christes Vicar vpon earth and of equall power with God omnipotent these are his expresse wordes Cum autem vicarius Christi sit Papa nullus potest seipsum subtrahere ab obedientia eius de iure sicut nullus de iure potest se subtrahere ab obedientia Dei. et sicut recepit Christus a patre ducatum et sceptrum ecclesiae gentiuÌ„ ex Israel egrediens super omnem principatuÌ„ et potestatem et super omne quodcuÌ„que est vt ei genua cuncta curuentur sic ipse Petro
et successoribus eius plenissimaÌ„ potestatem commisit For seeing the Pope is the Vicar of Christ none can lawfully withdraw himselfe from his obedience as none can lawfully withdraw himselfe from Gods obedience And as Christ receiued of his Father the Dukedome and Scepter of the Church of the Gentiles ouer all Principalitie and power and aboue euery thing that hath beeing that to him euery knee may bend euen so Christ hath committed most full Power to Peter and to his successours the Byshops of Rome Out of these Popish authorities I obserue to the confusion of the Pope and Poperie these golden Lessons First that the Pope hath Fulnesse of power euen as largely as Christ himselfe hath it Secondly that the Pope may doe whatsoeuer pleaseth him his bare Will being a law so to doe Thirdly that he can change the nature of thinges Fourthly that he can apply the essentiall partes of one thing to another and consequently of a Pigge make an Oxe of a Gosling a Lyon and so foorth yea of a Peece of Bread the Body of our Sauiour accidents remayning without subiectes Fiftly and this surpasseth all the rest that the Pope is aboue GOD himselfe Which Collection or Obseruation though it be very strange and woonderfull is truly deduced out of these wordes Super omne quodcunque est vt ei genua cunctae curuentur forasmuch as it must needes be graunted euen of the Pope himselfe that God hath not onely a beeing but such a supereminent beeing as of which all other beeings depend and from thence receiue their beeings Sixtly that the Pope can make of nothing some thing and so create new creatures in the world as also new worldes to receiue them Which Obseruations being true as they are most true I can not but needes I must conclude that the Pope at the least is the fore-runner of Antichrist it can not with any reason be denied The Tenth Conclusion The first occasion and Popish falsely pretended foundation of all the forenamed Arrogant Lordly Superroyal and plaine diuine tytles ascribed to the late Byshoppes of Rome was a counterfeite and falsely pretended Donation of the Emperour Constantinus surnamed the great at his departure from the West into the East about 327. yeares after Christ that is to Constantinople from the citie of Rome Behold the proofe The Popes Decrees compiled and gathered togeather by his deuoted vassall Gratianus beare the world in hand and tell the Readers that the Emperour Constantine the great gaue great Power royall Excellencie and imperiall Maiestie euen the royall Crowne of pure Gold from off his head with all his tytle right prerogatiues royall authoritie power and dignitie whatsoeuer not only in Rome but also in Italie in all the West parts to the Byshop of Rome and his successours for euer And the rather to perswade all people that Constantine gaue to the Byshops of Rome as is already sayd the sayd popish Decree setteth downe the worthy motiue by which the Emperour was induced to translate the Westerne Empire with all his royall right there and to bestow the same vpon the Byshoppes of Rome These amongst many other long periods doe plainely intimate his motiue Vnde congruuÌ„ perspeximus nostruÌ„ imperiuÌ„ et regni potestatem orientalibus transferri regionibus et in Bizantiae prouinciae optimo loco nomini nostro ciuitateÌ„ aedificari et nostruÌ„ illiâ— imperium constitui quoniaÌ„ vbi principatus SacerdotuÌ„ et Christianae religionis caput ab Imperatore caelesti constitutuÌ„ est iustuÌ„ non est vt Imperator terrenus habeat potestatem Wherevpon we haue thought it meete that our Empire power of our kingdome should be remooued to the Easterne regions and that a Cittie should be built for our name at Bâ—zantiuÌ„ a place most fit for vs and that our Empire should be appointed there Because where the Prince of Priest-hood and the head of christian religion was appointed by the Heauenly Emperour it is not meete that an earthly Emperour should haue power Thus disputeth the Pope for his Primacie and Golden Crowne insinuating himselfe if we will beleeue his Antichristian pleading to be the Emperour of the westerne World This falsely pretended Donation of which I haue written more at large in the Downefall of Poperie the latter Popes did euer obiect and violently obtrude it vpon the Church neuer ceasing with importunitie to sollicite the succeeding Emperours to confirme the sayd supposed Donation and to make Rome the head of all Churches vntill such time as Pope Boniface the third of that name did with much adoe obtaine of the cruell and bloody tyrant Phocas then the Emperour who rauished many vertuous Matrones and murdered the good Emperour Mauritius with his wife and children that Rome should be the Head of all Churches This was effected about 607. yeares after Christ. So then the Maiestie of the Byshops of Rome was not heard of in Christes Church for the space of 327. yeares after Christ at which time a counterfeit and false Donation was fetched from Hell in the name of the Emperour Constantine the great Neither could the Byshops of Rome perswade any one of the Emperours for the space almost of three hundred yeares after that supposed Donation either to confirme the same or to make Rome the Head of all Churches One onely Phocas that wicked Emperour gaue some credite to it and made Rome Head of all Churches Of which subiect I haue else where disputed more at large both in the Downe-fall of Poperie and in my Suruay Now that it is a counterfeit and falsely pretended Donation albeit the Byshops of Rome haue with many coozening trickes made vse thereof for their aduancement I will euidently prooue and plainely conuince by the cleere testimonies of many learned and famous Writers who all are of high esteeme in the Church of Rome Nicolaus de Cusa a famous and learned Cardinall wrote to to the Councell of Basill his opinion concerning the falsely supposed Donation of Constantine these are his expresse wordes Sed in veritate super modum admiror sires ita est eo quâ—d in autenticis libris et in historijs approbatis non inuenitur Relegi omnia quae potui gesta Imperialâ—a ac RomanoruÌ„ pontificuÌ„ historias sancti Hier onymj qui ad cuncta colligendum diligentissimus fuit Augustinj Ambrosij ac alioruÌ„ opuscula peritissimoruÌ„ Reuelui gesta sacroruÌ„ conciliorum quae post Niconumfuere et nullam inuenio concordantiam ad ea quae de illa donatione leguÌ„tur Sanctus Damasus Papa ad instantiam beati Hieronymj actus et gesta praedecessorum dicitur annotasse in cuius opere de Siluestro Papa non ea inueniuntur quae vulgo dicuntur But in truth I greatly admire if it be so seeing it can not be found in any authenticall Bookes and approoued Histories I haue read all the Actes of the Emperours and the Histories of the Byshops of Rome which
Kingdome as one that would execute Constantinet gyft both to haue been and this day to be subiect to the Church of Rome which his successours Benedict and Clement foorthwith reuoked as a thing wicked and vniust But what meaneth this your sollicitude O yee Byshoppes of Rome that ye doe exact of euery Emperour to confirme Constantines gyft if ye doe not distrust your owne right But all in vaine as the prouerbe sayth for it neuer was at any time and what is not can not be confirmed Yea whatsoeuer the Caesars doe they doe the same being deceyued by Constantines example or supposed gyft and they cannot giue away the Empire His fourth place is comprised in these wordes Praescipsit Romana ecclesia O Imperiti O diuini iuris ignari nullus quantuÌ„uis annorum numerus verum abolere titulum potest Sequitur parum ante me natum testor eorum memoriam qui interfuerunt per inaudituÌ„ genus fraudis Roma papale accepit Imperium seu tyrannidem potius cum diu libera fuisset Is fuit Bonifacius nonus octauo in fraude et nomine par si modo Bonifacij dicendi sunt qui pessime faciunt Sequitur sed quid plura opus est in re apertissima dicere Ego non modo Constantinum non donasse tanta non modo non potuisse Romanum Pontificem in eisdem praescribere sed etiamsi vtrumque esset tamen vtrumque ius sceleribus possessorum extinctum esse contendo cum videamus totius Italiae multarumque prouinciarum cladem ac vastitatem ex hoc vno fonte fluxisse Sequitur Papa non modo remp quod non Verres non Catilina non quispiam peculator auderet sed etiam rem Ecclesiasticam et spiritum sanctum quaestui habet quod Simon ille Magus detestatur et cum horum admonetur et a quibusdam bonis viris reprehenditur non negat sed palam fatetur atque gloriatur licere ei quauis ratione patrimonium Ecclesiae a Constantino donatum ab occupantibus extorquere Sequitur Nulla itaque vnquam religio nulla sanctitas nullus Dei timor et quod referens quoque horresco omnium scelerum impij homines a Papa sumunt excusationem in illo enim comitibusque eius est omnis facinoris exempluÌ„ vt cuÌ„ Esaia et Paulo in Papam et Papae proximos dicere possumus Nomen Dei per vos blasphematur inter Gentes qui alios docetis vosipsos non docetis qui praedicatis non surandum latrocinamini qui abhominamini idola sacrilegiuÌ„ facitis qui in Lege et in Pontificatu gloriamini per praeuaricationem legis Deum veruÌ„ PontificeÌ„ inhonoratis The Church of Rome pleadeth Prescription O foolish men O men that know not the law of God! None though neuer so great number of yeares can abolish the title of trueth Not long before my birth I call to witnesse the memorie of them that were present by such fraud as was neuer heard of Rome receiued the Papall Empire or tyranny rather when it had a long time remayned free Boniface the ninth was the man equall to the eight in fraude and name if wee may call them Bonifaces who liue most abhominably But what need more be sayd in a matter most euident to all the world I contend not onely that Constantine gaue not such great giftes not only that the Byshop of Rome could not prescribe in such thinges but although they both had been so yet that the tytles of both were extinct with the wickednesse of the possessours when we may see that the dectruction and desolation of all Jtaly and many Prouinces sprange onely out of this Fountaine The Pope selleth for gaine not onely the Common-weale which neither Verres nor Catiline nor any notorious robber durst doe but also the Treasure of the Church and the holy Ghost which Simon the Magician doth detest And when he is admonished of these thinges and good men reprooue him for the same he denieth not but openly confesseth and glorieth therein that he may extort and by what meanes soeuer take from the possessours that Patrimonie which Constantine gaue to the Church Therefore he had neuer any Religion sanctimonie or feare of God And I tremble while I speake it men polluted with sinnes of all sortes alledge the Pope for their excuse For hee and his retinue are the example of all kind of mischiefe so as wee may iustly exclaime with â—say and with Paul against the Pope and his deuoted Pope-lings You are the cause that Gods name is blaspheamed among the Gentiles You that teach others doe not teach your selues you that preach against Stealing commit Robberie by the hie-way side you that abhorre Idolatrie practise Sacriledge yee that glorie in the Law boast of the Popedome by transgression of the Law dishonour the true Byshop which is GOD. Out of these plaine and euident testimonies of these famous zealous and great learned Papistes Gratianus Victoria Syluester Viguerius Fumus Nauarrus Couarruuias Gregorius Aquinas Augustinus de Anchona Glossator decretalium Gersonus Cardinalis Cusanus Antoninus Volateranus Paulus Cathalanus and Laurentius Valla I obserue these manifold Christian golden and worthy Lessons First that though the Pope be a most wicked man and carry thousands vpon thousandes to Hell yet may no man reprooue him for such his detestable cursed dealing Secondly that it is sacriledge to dispute of the Popes power and authoritie Thirdly that the Pope can not only pardon all punishment due to sinnes in this world but also bring all soules out of popish Purgatorie at his good will and pleasure Fourthly that the Pope hath often taken vpon him by his most wicked and execrable Dispensations to dissolue Matrimonie against Christes sacred Institution Fiftly that the Pope can dispense with a popish Monke already professed that he may marry vse coniugall actes with his lawfull Wife Sixtly that the Pope hath de facto dispensed with the full Brother to marry his naturall and full Sister of the same Father and the same Mother Seuenthly that the Pope may doe whatsoeuer pleaseth his maiesticall Holynesse his bare and onely Will being a sufficient warrant so to doe Eightly that the Pope hath vniuersall iurisdiction ouer all Kingdomes and Empires and not that onely but also the Fulnesse of Power in as large and ample manner as Christ him selfe had it Ninthly that the Pope can by his supereminent excellencie and fulnesse of Power change the nature of thinges apply the substantiall partes of one thing to another and of nothing make something in so much as all knees must bow and bende vnto him and consequently that he is not pure Man but God also Tenthly that the first occasion and originall of Popish Superroyall falsely pretended Primacie was a counterfeit and falsely pretended Donation of the Emperour Constantinus surnamed the great Eleuenthly that the Late Byshop of Rome solliciting the Emperour Phocas with great
importunitie to confirme the supposed Donation of Constantine obtayned with much a doe vnderpretence of the sayd Donation not the confirmation of the pretended gyft but that the Church of Rome should be the Head of all Churches Twelfely that the Byshoppes of Rome now called Popes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neither did nor could perswade any one of the Emperours for the space almost of three hundred yeares after that supposed Donation either to confirme the same or to make Rome the Head of all Churches Thirteenthly that neither S. Hierome nor S. Augustine nor S. Ambrose nor any approoued Historie doth make any mention of the sayd Donation Foureteenthly that of right the People of Rome not the Pope should set the Crowne vpon the Emperours head Fifteenthly that the Emperour had euer in his possessioÌ„ both Rome Italy the whole Westerne Empire vntill the dayes of King Pippine as also that Pope Boniface acknowledged the Citie of Rome to pertaine to the Emperour Honorius Sixteenthly that Cardinall Cusanus a great learned man a zealous Papist auoucheth constantly that he neuer read of any Bishop of Rome vntill the time of Stephanus the second who durst in the name of S. Peter presume to challenge any right in the aforenamed places Seauenteenthly that the Decree vpon which the Popes would ground their Superroyall pretended Prerogatiues is a false and counterfeit Narration and can not be found in the old Decrees Eighteenthly that Charles and Pippine spoyled the true Emperours so enriched the Citie of Rome Nineteenthly that Melchiades who was the next Byshop of Rome before Syluester doth roundly confute the sayd Donation as a thing falsely fathered vpon Constantine the great Twentethly that the Byshops of Rome were not peculiarly called Popes for the space of many hundred yeares after Christ. Furthermore that the Emperour is reported by the Popes counterfeit Decree to haue holden the Bridle of his Horse and to haue wayted at his Stirrope Where I wish the Reader to obserue seriously with me that the late Byshoppes of Rome haue vsed many coozening trickes especially the false Donation of Constantine and his pretensed seruice to the Pope so to aduance their state and superroyall Pompe and to cause Kinges and Emperours to kisse their feete Yet further that what so euer the Emperours of latter time gaue to the Church and Byshoppes of Rome that wholy proceeded from a sandy and rotten foundation with which the said Byshoppes and their flattering parasites seduced them viz. from a counterfeite and falsely supposed Donation of Constantinus surnamed the great Lastly that the late Popes or Byshoppes of Rome with their deuoted Popelinges are the cause of all kind of mischiefe and naughtinesse To all which so to cheere vp the Pope and his Popelinges I will adde a fine and graue testimonie of the Popes deare Fryer learned Schoole-doctor Franciscus a Victoria his wordes are these Et paulatim ad hanc intemperantiam dispensationuÌ„ deuentum est et hunc talem statum vbj nec mala nostra nec remedia pati possumus et ideo necesse est aliam rationem excogitare ad conseruandas leges Da mihi Clementes Lines Syluestros et omnia permittem arburio eorâ—m sea vt nihil grauius dicatur in recentiores Pontâ—fices certè multis partibus sunt prisâ—is illis inferiores By little and little we are brought to these inordinate Dispensations and to this so miserable state where we are neither able to endure our owne griefes nor the remedies assigned by Popes for the same And therefore we must perforce inuent some other way for conseruation of the Lawes Giue me Clements Lines Syluesters and I will commit all thinges to their charge But to say nothing grieuously against latter Popes they are doubtlesse inferiours to the old Byshoppes of Rome and that by many degrees Thus writeth this learned Fryer who if hee durst haue spoken his minde freely would haue told vs mirabilia First he exclaymeth against popish Dispensations Secondly he pitifully lamenteth the state of the Church Thirdly he cryeth out that the Popes doe lay such intollerable burthens vpoÌ„ them as they are no way able to endure the same Lastly he commendeth the old Byshoppes of Rome but vtterly so farre foorth as hee dareth condemneth the latter Popes or Byshoppes of Rome Whose assertion in very deed iumpeth with the doctrine which I defend and plainely conuinceth late Romish fayth and superstition to be but a rotten Ragge of the New religion Now let vs heare what the Iesuite is able to say for him selfe for the sauegard of the life of late start-vp Poperie B. C. To season the beginning of his Chapter with a litle of his mendatious powder he writeth thus Bonifacius Byshop of Rome and third of that name aboue sixe hundred yeares after Christ obtained of Phocas then Emperour of Rome that Rome should be the Head of all Churches Before which time no authenticall Writer can be named who euer ascribed the Headship vniuersall Gouernement of all Churches to the Church of Rome This is a manifest vntrueth In the Councell of Chalcedon Maximus Byshop of Antioch was confirmed by Leo the first Pope Iulius the first restored Athanasius Patriarch of Alexandria to his seate Paulus Patriarch of Constantinople and Marcellus Byshop of Ancyra deposed vniustly by an Easterne Synode as writeth Sozomenus whose wordes be these For as much as the care of all did belong to him for the dignitie of his Seate hee restored to euery of them their Church T. B. I answere first that is lying slaundering and false dealing were once set apart our Jesuites irkesome fond disputation would soone haue an end For first the famous Councell of Chalcedon was conuented holden by the commandement of Martianus the Emperour and not of Pope Leo as is euident and manifest to euery child in the very beginning of the 7. Action quoted by our Jesuite Againe the Fathers of that famous Councell acknowledge them-selues to haue come thither at the Emperours commaundement to make peace betweene Maximus byshop of Antioch and Juuenalis Byshop of Hierusalem These are the expresse wordes of the Iudges themselues Gloriosissimj Iudices dixerunt diuiniss et pijss noster Dominus Jmperator rogatus a Maximo et Juuenale sanctissimis Episcopis praecopit nos agnoscere de motis inter eos capitulis The most glorious Iudges said The most holy and religious Emperour our Lord being intreated of the most holy Byshops Maximus and Juuenalis commaunded vs to examine the coÌ„trouersies betweene them Thirdly it was the Councell not Pope Leo that confirmed Maximus and concluded a peaceable vnitie betweene him and Iuuenalis Fourthly no mention is made at all of Pope Leo who is not so much as once named in the said action of the holy and famous Councell Fiftly Anatolius the most reuerend Arch-byshop of New Rome confirmed by expresse wordes the aforenamed Vnitie
requiratur autem ne pusillanimitate aut contentione aeut alio quolibet Episcopi vitio videatur a congregatione seclusus Vt hoc ergo decentius inquiratur bene placuit annis singulis per vnamquamque Prouinciam bis in anno concilia celebrari vt cōmuniter simul omnibus Episcopis congregatis Prouinciae discutiantur huiusmodi quaestiones et sic qui suo peccauerunt Episcopo euidenter excommunicati rationabiliter ab omnibus extimentur vsquequo vel in communi vel Episcopo placeat humaniorem pro talibus ferre sententiam Concilia vero celebrentur vnum quidem ante quadragesimam Paschae vt omni dissensione sublata munus offeratur Deo purissimum Secundum vero circa tempus Autumni Concerning those who are put from the Communion whether they be of the Clericall or Laicall order let the sentence of Byshoppes throughout euery Prouince giuen according to the Canon be of force that they who are reiected be not receiued of others Let examination be had least any be secluded through pusillanimitie or contention or other fault of the Byshop That this therefore may be duly examined it hath pleased the Councell well that yearely in euery Prouince Councels should be kept twise in the yeare that when all the Byshops of the Prouince shall meete togeather in one place then such questions may be duely examined And so they that haue offended their Byshop manifestly may be iudged by all to be excomunicated not without a cause vntill it please the Byshop of the place or all in the Prouince to shew them fauour Let the Councels be kept one before Lent that all dissention being taken away a most pure Oblation may be presented vnto God The second about Autumne Thus this holy and most famous Councell out of whose definition two thinges are cleered th' one that the Byshops of the Prouince should end and determine all appeales no mention at all made or any regard had of or to the Byshop of Rome Th' other that the auncient Canon ought to be kept which commaundeth that none should receiue them to the Communion who were excomunicated and condemned by others So then the Councell of Nice did curbe the Pope and kept him vnder in his former state And withall the holy Councell prouided a very Christian remedie that none should be vniustly oppressed by his Byshoppe Which remedie was this viz. That hee who found himselfe grieued might appeale from his Byshop yet to the Byshops of the Prouince but to none else Secondly the same Councell ordayned in an other Canon that none should be created Byshoppes but by the Byshoppes of their owne Prouince as also that the Metropolitane of the Prouince not the Byshop of Rome should haue authoritie and power to confirme those who were made Byshoppes within the Prouince Thirdly that the Byshoppe of Rome had no prerogatiue of power but onely within his owne Diocesse is constantly auouched by the sayd Councell in the sixt Canon thereof These are the wordes of the Councell as Ruffinus an auncient and learned Writer about 1200. yeares agoe so within eightie yeares of the time of the Nicene Councell hath interpreted the same Et vt apud Alexandriam et in Vrbe Romae vetusta consuetudo seruetur vt vel ille Aegypti vel hic suburbicariarum Ecclesiarum sollicitudinem gerat And that in Alexandria and in the citie of Rome the old custome be kept that the one haue the sollicitude of Egypt the other of the Churches adioyning and about Rome Thus writeth Ruffinus shewing very plainely that the Byshop of Alexandria had as great iurisdiction or rather more as the Byshop of Rome Yea Cusanus a popish Cardinall vnderstandeth the Canon after the same manner with Ruffinus And it is confirmed by the fourth Canon of the same Councell as Ruffinus citeth it these are the wordes Absque quo ordinationē irritam esse voluerunt Without whose authoritie he meaneth the Metropolitane the Councell decreed the ordination to be voyde and of none effect But this sacred Decree of a Councell so holy and so famous the Pope this day contemneth and challengeth the right of all Metropolitanes to himselfe Fourthly the famous Councelles both of Constantinople and of Chalcedon did make the Byshop of Constantinople equall with the Byshoppe of Rome in all Ecclesiasticall affaires excepting onely the Primacie of honour as we haue already seene See and note well the 30. Chapter of this present Booke Aphorisme second The Canons of the holy Nicene Councell are but only twentie though the Pope and his Jesuites would haue them to be foure-score For first onely twentie are this day extant in the common Volumes of Councels Secondly no approoued Councell did euer admit or receiue any more This is very cleere and euident by the testimonie of the famous Affrican Councell as by and by God willing I shall vnfold Thirdly the famous Councels of Constantinople and Chalcedon haue flatly decreed against the falsely pretended Primacie of the Byshoppe of Rome which Councels for all that did in euery respect highly reuerence the Decrees and Canons of the Nicene Councell and consequently the sayd Councels did not acknowledge any Canon of the Nicene Synode which made for the pretended Primacie of the Byshoppe of Rome But this Aphorisme shall be further prooued by an euident demonstration in the Aphorismes immediatly following and therefore there is no need now to stand longer about the same Aphorisme third The Councell of Sardica is not a legitimate and lawfull Synode but a bastard and counterfeite conuenticle I prooue it first because S. Augustine doth acknowledge no Councell of Sardica saue one onely which was Hereticall Secondly because Cardinall Cusanus who was a great Champion of the Romish Church is of the same opinion Thirdly because the Councell of Sardica is against the Councell of Nice concerning Appellations to the Pope Fourthly because the Fathers of the famous Affricane Councell in their Epistle to Caelestine then Byshop of Rome doe most constantly affirme with vniforme assent that the Councell of Nice forbiddeth Appeales to the Church of Rome these are their expresse wordes Praefato itaque debitae salutationis officio impendiò deprecamur vt deinceps ad vestras aures hinc venientes non facilius admittatis nec a nobis excommunicatos in communionem vltra velitis excipere Quia hoc etiam Niceno Concilio definitum facilè aduertet venerabilitas tua Nam etsi de inferioribus Clericis vel Laicis videtur ibi praecaueri quanto magis hoc de Episcopis voluit obseruari ne in sua prouincia communione suspensi a tua sanctitate vel festinatò vel praeproperè vel indebitè videantur cōmunioni restitui Presbyterorum quoque et sequentium clericorum improba refugia sicuti te dignum est repellat sanctitas tua quia et nulla patrum definitione hoc Ecclesiae derogatum est Aphricanae et decreta Nicaena siue
Constantinopoli Alexander et Romanus antistes propter aetatem decrepitam Constantinopolitanus vero propter multam imbecillitatem in sedibus suis remansere Sed eorum nomine bini Presbyteri missi sunt a Iulio quidem Vitus et Vincentius ab Alexandro autem duo alij et vita et eruditione plurimum excellentes Therefore the Emperour perceiuing that the euill did grow to an head did proclaime the most famous Nicene Synode in Bithynia and by his Letters did call the Byshoppes euery where to come thither at the day by him appoynted Macarius was then Byshoppe at Hierusalem Iulius at Rome Alexander at Constantiâ—ople The Byshoppe of Rome by reason of his old age and the Byshoppe of Constantinople by reason of infirmitie did stay at home in their owne Seas But in their names two Priestes were sent from either of them Vitus and Vincentius from Julius and from Alexander other two very excellent both in learning and conuersation Sozomenus iumpeth with Nicephorus yea so doe also Pâ—atina in Agathone and Beda in his Chronologie as Genebrardus the Popes deare darling freely graunteth Where I wish the Reader to obserue seriously with mee that the Councell of Nice was holden in Bithynia in the twenteth yeare of the raigne of Constantine the great in the thirteenth yeare after his comming to Byzantium and that it continued three yeares and something more This Obseruation is profitable to the Reader for diuers good respectes Seuenthly because if this Epistle were admitted for good yet would it nothing helpe the Pope or his Iesu tea Popelinges the reason is at hand because it requires not the Pope alone but togeather withall the Byshoppes in his Citie or if ye will in Jtaly to confirme the decrees thereof So then this helpeth not to discharge Poperie of the New religion obiection 7 They say seauenthly that the Church of Rome in the Decrees of the Nicene Councell had not her preheminence and power limitted but was followed as a paterne in aduancing others for as Pope Nicolas sayth the Nicene Councell durst not make any Decree of that Church as knowing that nothing could be giuen her aboue her desert But I answere first that seeing that Example is allowed therein and made a patterne of the rest it followeth by an ineuitable consequence that the Councell did thereby decree that the Byshoppe of Rome should keepe himselfe within those limits For he must perforce confesse that as the Byshoppe of Alexandria had but the preheminence of all thereabout euen no more had the Byshoppe of Rome This is confirmed because it followeth immediately in the same Canon likewise also in Antioch and in other Prouinces let the Churches enioy their Priuiledges and Prerogatiues For the wordes of the Councell being grounded vpon the custome of the Byshoppe of Rome that as he had had preheminence of all the Byshoppes about him so Alexandria and Antioch should haue of all about them and likewise other Churches each in their owne Prouinces doe euidently conuince marke well my wordes that the Pope neither had formerly preheminence of all through the world neither this day ought to haue the same The old custome is it that the holy Councell doth respect not any prerogatiue of the Church of Rome Secondly because both Ruffinus and Cardinall Cusanus as I haue already prooued doe confirme this mine exposition Thirdly because the wordes next following in the selfe-same Canon doe vtterly ouerthrow and as it were cut the throate of the Popes falsely pretended Primacie These are the wordes Illud autem generaliter clarum est quod si quis praeter sententiam Metropolitani fuerit factus Episcopus hunc magna definiuit Episcopum esse non oportere But that is generally cleare that if any be made Byshoppe without the consent or iudgement of the Metropolitane the famous Synode hath decreed that such a one ought not to be a Byshoppe Now sir Jesuite if this be true as it is most true for all the Christian world doth and must obey the Decrees of the holy and famous Councell of Nice then doubtlesse your Popes pretended Supremacie lieth in the dust is by vertue thereof troden vnder foote For he challengeth a prerogatiue ouer all christian Nations to make Bishops euery where at his owne good pleasure as also to discarde displace them whosoeuer are made without his consent Fourthly because the next Canon hath no regard of the Church of Rome or of any prerogatiue of the Byshop thereof these are the words Quia consuetudo obtinuit et antiqua traditio vt Aeliae Episcopus honoretur habeat honoris consequentiam salua Metropâ—lis propria dignitate Because Custome and old Tradition hath obtayned that the Byshoppe of Jerusalem or Elia be honoured let him consequently haue honour the proper dignitie of the Metropolitane citie euer being safe Out of these wordes I obserue first that the preheminence and honour of particular Churches dependeth of an auncient Custome and not of any Supreame power or Prerogatiue of the Church of Rome Secondly that the Canon plainely teacheth vs that euery Metropolitane Byshoppe hath a proper Dignitie and consequently that such Dignitie resteth not in the Pope or Byshop of Rome Thirdly because the Fathers of the famous Councell of Chalcedon haue as is already prooued graunted equal Priuiledges to the Bishop of Constantinople with the Byshop of Rome in all Ecclesiasticall affaires To which I adde first that the Councell of Chalcedon decreed nothing saue that onely which the three first and most famous Councels of Nice Constantinople and Ephesus decreed before them This to be so Petrus the Metropolitane of Corinthus Athanasius Alexander and many other Byshoppes in their ioynt-Epistle to the Emperour Leo constantly affirme in these expresse wordes Vnde verò dignata est nobis scribere vestra transquillitas et apertè iussit nostram manifestare sententiam haec pietatis vestrae potentiae declaramus quia ea quae a Chalcedonensi sancto et vniuersali concilio definita sunt tanquam sanctis Synodis praecedentibus consona et in nullo contraria aut sanctorum trecentorum decem et octo patrum Niceno concilio aut Constantinopolitano 150. aut Ephesio sub beatae memoriae Cyrillo celebrato omnibus sententijs manere immutilata decreuimus Whereas your tranquilitie hath vouchsafed to write vnto vs and withall hath commaunded vs plainely to declare our sentence this we signifie to the power of your pietie that those thinges which the holy and vniuersall Councell of Chalcedon hath defined as consonant and no way contrarie to the holy precedent Synodes either to the Nicene Councell of the 318. holy Fathers or to the Councell of Constantinople of 150. holy Fathers or to the Councell of Ephesus celebrated vnder Cyrill of blessed memorie we haue decreed the same with all our sentences so to continue without maime or diminution I adde secondly that Gregorie the great who was Byshoppe of Rome himselfe
Which circumstaunce can by no meanes agree to Cornelius seeing he was not three yeares Byshoppe there Fourthly because he writeth the same to an other expressely of himselfe Thence sayth hee haue Heresies and Schismes sproung and yet do spring because the Byshop which is one and ruleth the Church is despised by the proud presumption of certaine men obiection 10 They say tenthly that S. Ambrose calleth Damasus the Ruler of the Catholike Church But I answere first that those Commentaries are falsely fathered vpon S. Ambrose that holy and famous Byshoppe of Millan The Diuines of Louan haue well obserued and freely testified the same Secondly that these wordes Cuius hodie rector est Damasus can inferre or conclude no more saue this onely that Damasus was not the Ruler but a Ruler of the Church Damasus might rightly be called a Ruler of the Church in that he was Byshoppe of the Church of Rome though not the Ruler of the Vniuersall Church The word Rector may fitly be englished a Ruler but not the Ruler Thirdly that these wordes at this day haue a semblance and relation to the dayes of Timothee viz that as Timothee did gouerne the Church in S. Pauls time so was Damasus in his time Ruler of the same So then this is the true sense and meaning thereof to weete that as Timothee was placed at Ephesus to set that Church in order and to rule it not to rule the whole so was Damasus appoynted to rule the Church of Rome but not all other Churches in the world For as S. Cyprian truely sayth Episcopatus vnus est cuius in solidum a singulis pars tenetur There is one Byshopricke part whereof euery Byshoppe holdeth wholly in solidum This word in solidum must be well marked and faythfully remembred For doubtlesse if there be but one onely Byshopricke whereof euery Byshoppe hath one part wholly to himselfe it followeth by a necessarie an ineuitable illation that there can be but one onely part thereof remaine to the Byshoppe of Rome For he can not possibly haue that whole of which euery other Byshoppe hath a part wholly Let this be well marked and neuer forgotten For if these Aphorismes and the Conclusions aforegoing be seriously pondered throughly vnderstood all that the Iesuite heere sayth or possibly can be said by the Jesuiticall seditious crew will soone appeare very childish and of no force at all Howbeit for the better helpe of the simple Reader I will answere in particular to all such poyntes as shall but seeme to haue any colour of the trueth Proceede therefore sir Fryer and plead couragiously for the Pope B. C. If Bell can prooue that this surreptitious Decree of the Easterne Byshoppes was euer confirmed then were it something which he bringeth But the Byshoppe of Rome his Legates withstood that their indirect proceeding pronouncing it to be contrary to the Decrees of the Nicene Councell And Lucentius in particular spake confidently saying That the Apostolicke Sea ought not to be abased in their presence And Pope Leo himselfe did bitterly inueigh against Anatolius for this his presumption and going against the Nicene Canons T. B. I answere first that the Popes Sozimus Bonifacius and Celestinus falsified and vrged the Canons of the Nicene Councell for the falsely pretended Primacie of the Church and Byshoppe of Rome But the holy learned and famous Byshoppes of the Aphrican Councell whereof S. Austin that rare light of the Christian world was one did roundly controll that their forgerie and naughtie dealing calling it Fumosum typhum seculi the smoakie statelinesse of the world This is already prooued very copiously in all the precedent Aphorismes especially in the third and fourth Secondly that no maruell it is if the Popes Messengers to the vttermost of their power pleaded ridiculously for their owne gaine For so did Demetrius the Siluer-smith for the like end plead for the Temple of the Goddesse Diana Yea so pleaded Pope Boniface the eight about three hundred yeares agoe against Philippe the faire then King of France The Pope challenging Superroyall power would needes excomunicate Philippe the French King but there was neuer excomunication which cost Pope so deare as that did him for his Messengers were committed prisoners his Bulles burnt and Boniface himselfe being taken by Naueret Chauncellour of France presently after dyed for very sorrow Wherein King Philippe did nothing but by the Councell and consent of the whole Clergie of France So Bennet the 13. otherwise called Petrus de Luna interdicted Charles the sixt and his Realme but the King sitting in his Throne of Iustice in the Parliament or high Court of Paris the 21. of May 1408. gaue sentence openly that the Bull should be rent in peeces and that Gonsalue and Conseleux the bearers thereof should be set vpon a Pillorie and publikely notified and traduced in the Pulpit Which Decree was accordingly put in execution in the moneth of August with the greatest scorne that could be deuised the two Messengers hauing this inscription vpon their Miters These men are disloyall to the Church and to the King These wordes are put downe by the French Papistes in their Booke called The Jesuites Catechisme translated into English by the Secular Priestes Thirdly that Pope Leo is a partie and so can not be a competent Witnesse in his owne cause For as one of your owne Popes truely said in euery triall there must be foure distinct persons the accuser the accused the witnesses and the Iudge Fourthly that the holy wise and graue Fathers of that famous Councell which S. Gregorie reuerenced as one of the foure Gospelles laughed the Popes Messengers to scorne and concluded with all their seuerall subscriptions against the Pope yea they protested publikely and zealously that no Byshoppe was compelled to any thing but that they all decreed as they beleeued These are the expresse wordes of the Holy Synode Gloriosissimj Iudices dixerunt Hj quj relecto tomo subscripserunt Asianj et Pontj sanctiss Epispopj dicant si voluntate propria vel imposita sibj aliqua necessitate coactj subscripserunt Let the most holy Byshops of Asia and Pontus which haue subscribed to the Articles openly read declare vnto the Councell whether they subscribed of their owne free accord or by compulsion of Anatolius or any other The holy and most reuerende Fathers answered seuerally protesting before God that they subscribed voluntarily according to their knowledge and as they constantly beleeued no one or other any way constrayning them therevnto It would be a thing tedious to the Reader and laborious to my selfe otherwise I would set downe the seuerall subscriptions of the Byshops For though they be long yet do they conteyne such Christian varietie of wordes as are able to touch the heart of euery honest Reader This may suffice to confound our Iesuite and to cleare Anatolius that blessed Patriarch of the immodest
praecedenteÌ„ SynoduÌ„ Episcopos earuÌ„ haeresum conuocauit sequitur cum autem conuenissent accersito ad se Nectario Imperator cuÌ„ eo de futura Synodo coÌ„municat iubetque vt quaestiones ex quibus natae fuerant haereses in disputationeÌ„ proponat quo vna fieret in ChristuÌ„ credentiuÌ„ Ecclesia et constitueretur dogma consonuÌ„ ad quaÌ„ religio conformaretur The Emperour not long after the precedent Synode calleth the Byshops of those Heresies togeather When they were assembled the Emperour calleth Nectarius the Byshop of Constantinople to him and consulteth with him concerning the future Synode and coÌ„maundeth him to propound in disputation those questions from whence the Heresies did spring to the ende that there might be one Church of the faythfull a consonant rule of fayth which might be as a paterne of religion Sigâ—bertus a famous Popish Monke writeth in this manner Secunda Synodus vniuersalis 150. PatruÌ„ congregatur Constantinopoli iubente Theodosio et annuente Damaso Papa quae MacedoniuÌ„ neganteÌ„ spirituÌ„ sanctuÌ„ DeuÌ„ esse coÌ„demnans consubstantialeÌ„ patri et filio spirituÌ„ sanctuÌ„ esse docuit The second generall Councell of an hundred fiftie Byshops is assembled at Constantinople by the commaundement of Theodosius Damasus the Pope agreeing thereunto in which Synodâ— Macedonius who denied the Holy Ghost to be God was condemned and the consubstantiabilitie of the Holy Ghost with the Father and the Sonne was confirmed in the same Theodoretus is consonant and vttereth many worthy periods The fourth Section of the Councell of Ephesus The third generall Councell being the first Ephesiue of two hundred Byshoppes was proclaymed by the commaundement of the Emperour Theodosius the younger against Nestorius denying the virgin Mary to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and affirming Christ to haue persons twaine proouing that two natures did subsist in one onely person of Christ Jâ—sus in the yeare of our Lord God 433. Euagrius hath these wordes Cum ista Cyrillus venerandae memoriae Alexandrinorum Episcopus literis suis reprehendisset Nestorius vero reprehensioni illius restitisset et neque illius neque Celestini veteris Romae Episcopi monitis acquiauisset sed temulentiam suam aduersus vniuersam Ecclesiam nihil veritus effudisset haud praeter rationem a Theodosio iuniore Orientis Imperatore petijt vt ipsius nutu Synodus colligeretur Imperialibus itaque literis cum ad ipsum Cyrillum tum ad omnium vbique Ecclesiarum Episcopos missis ad sacrum Penticostes diem in quo venit ad nos spiritus S. Conuentus indicitur When Cyrillus the venerable Byshoppe of Alexandria had by his Letters reproued the wicked blasphemie of Nestorius and Nestorius had withstood the same neither yeelding to his admonition nor to Celestines the Byshop of old Rome but still malepertly powred out his drunken conceites against the whole Church then Cyrill not without cause requested the Emperour Theodosius the younger that by his authoritie a Synode might be called by the Letters therefore of the Emperour directed to Cyrill and to all other Byshops euery where the Synode is appoynted vpon the sacred day of Penticost at what time the Holy Ghost came downe vpon vs. Thus writeth this famous Historiographer Out of whose wordes I gather many worthy instructions First that neither Cyâ—illus the Byshoppe of Alexandria nor Celestinus the Byshoppe of Rome could by any meanes reclaime or diswade Nâ—storius from his cursed and blasphemous opinions Secondly that Cyrillus lamenting the harme that thereby did redound to the Church sought to the Emperour for redresse thereof humbly requesting him that a generall Councell might be gathered for the peace of the Church and for the condemnation of the Heresie of Nestorius Thirdly that Cyrillus that holy and learned Byshoppe who was reputed a Saint in his life-time did not make suite to the Byshoppe of Rome for calling of the Councell which doubtlesse he would haue done if the gathering of Councels had belonged vnto him Fourthly that S. Cyrill sought immediatly to the Emperour not once acquainting the Byshop of Rome therewith Fiftly that the Byshoppe of Rome himselfe was commaunded to come to the Synode euen in such sort as other Byshoppes were Which I prooue by a double meane First because the Storie sayth That the Emperour called omnium vbique Ecclesiarum Episcopos the Byshoppes of all Churches euery where Secondly because Nicephorus sayth that Celestinus the Byshoppe of Rome was absent but appoynted Cyrillus in his stead These are the words Celestinus autem Roma Episcopus propter nauigationis pericula Synodo adesse detrectauit ad Cyrillum tamen vt locum suum ibj obtineret scripsit But Celestine the Byshoppe of Rome was absent from the Synode by reason of the danger of Nauigation yet he wrote to Cyrillus that he might supply his place Touching the Popes absence from Councelles the Iesuiticall Cardinall Bellarmine giueth better and sounder reasons though vnawares both against the Pope himselfe which I willingly admit wishing the Reader to obserue and marke them seriously with mee as which are both memorable and of great consequence This Cardinall yeeldeth two reasons why the Pope was neuer present at Councels in the East-churches by himselfe and in his owne person the one forsooth because it was not conuenient that the Head should follow the members the other because the Emperour would euer sit in the highest place Out of whose wordes I must needes note two important poyntes by the way The one that in the auncient Church the highest place in Councels was euer reserued to the Emperour The other that the East-churches did neuer acknowledge the Popes Primacie which he this day arrogantly challengeth ouer all Kingdomes and Regalities To which twaine this pleasant adiunct must of necessitie be annexed viz. that our humble Father the Pope who hypocritically calleth himselfe seruus seruorum Dej would neuer come to Councels in the East partes because forsooth his charitie was so great that he could not endure to see the Emperour sitting in the highest place And it is not amisse for the benefite of the Reader if I heere adioyne the maner how the Emperour Constantine sate in the Councell of Nice Sozomenus that graue Historiographer who liued more then a thousand one hundred seuentie yeares agoe hath these wordes Congregatis itaque in vnum locum per medium sacerdotuÌ„ ad caput conuentus transeundo in throno quodam qui ipsi paratus erat confedit ac Synodus sedere iussa est Erant N. vtrinque ad parietes Palatij multa posita subsellia hic vero thronus maximus erat et reliquas sedes excellebat Therefore when the Byshoppes were come togeather the Emperour passing through the midst of them to the head of the assembly sate downe in a Throne prepared for him and willed the Byshops to sit downe There were many Seates on both sides to the walles of the Pallace but the Emperours
the former Obiection this is my answere response 1 First that Kinges of late yeares are in deed so brought into thraldome by the Pope where Poperie beareth the sway as they may truely be sayd to doe the office not of Kinges as Kinges but rather of Seruantes and Slaues to the disholy Father the Pope of Rome response 2 Secondly that the Pope will not this day permit Kinges to make Lawes in Ecclesiasticall causes but onely to execute those vnchristian execrable tyrannicall Lawes which by Popes of late yeares are with Fire and Faggot framed to their handes To the latter I answere in this maner First that how and in what sort the Pope is King it is plenteously prooued in the tenth Conclusion of this present Chapter To which place I referre the Reader for his full satisfaction in this behalfe Secondly that by the Popes owne Law whosoeuer is Possessor malae fidei in the beginning can haue no iust title by prescription in the ending Thirdly that if we suppose and graunt him to be the true and lawfull King of Jtaly yet can no more be rightly inferred therevpon saue onely that hee can call and confirme Councels within Jtaly and make Lawes to his subiectes of the same Kingdome In which case I for my part will not contend with him as who onely denie his vsurped authoritie in other transmarine and forraigne Kingdomes Now let vs heare the Frier once againe to recreate our spirits with his merrie conceites B. C. Surely it were meâ—re madnesse to thinke that Anatolius would euery way haue had equall authoritie in all Ecclesiasticall causes as the Minister affirmeth seeing then we must graunt that he desired Jurisdiction in Italy and Rome it selfe Nay what were it else but to condemne Anatolius of grosse foolerie in suing for that superextrauagant grace of the Pope to the iniurie of his owne Sea and Dignitie T. B. I answere first that our Jesuite heere vnawares condemneth rather their famous Pope Gregorie of meere foolerie then Anatolius to whom he imputeth it For if Gregories report be true the Councell of Chalcedon offered him the name of Vniuersall Byshoppe and yet did the same Gregorie obiect the desire thereof against the Patriarch of Constantinople as a proud name derogating from the right of all other Byshoppes Yea your owne sweete selfe sir Iesuite doe in this very Chapter ascribe no lesse vnto your Pope and withall admit other Byshoppes beside his Holynesse Secondly that Anatolius might truly haue had equall authoritie with the Byshoppe of Rome in all Ecclesiasticall causes and for all that not haue desired iurisdiction in Jtaly and Rome it selfe For our Iesuite must know that these three are intrinsecally distinguished one from an other viz. Identitie Equalitie and Similitude There is often Similitude where Equalitie wanteth and many times equalitie where no Identitie can be found Thirdly that the Councell of Chalcedon approoueth whatsoeuer the Nicene Synode hath decreed and consequently it taketh not away from any Byshoppe his proper dignitie Lastly that this which our Fryer heere obiecteth and whatsoeuer else where to the like effect is soundly confuted in the Aphorismes aforegoing especially in the third and fift of the same And for further proofe marke well my next Answere folowing B. C. Nothing is determined in the Councell of Nice touching the Church of Rome but that is made the rule of other Churches as Pope Nicholas the first noteth who also affirmeth that the Authoritie of the Romane Church was not from Men but from God T. B. I answere first that neither Pope Nicholas nor any other Pope is a sufficient witnesse in his owne cause as is already prooued Secondly that if God had giuen such authoritie to the Church of Rome sixe hundred and thirtie holy and learned Byshoppes in one Synode 217. in an other 200. in an other 150. in an other 318. in an other all which is already prooued in the Aphorismes aforegoing would neuer haue limitted or once offered to alter the same These expresse words of the Fathers of the Chalcedon Councell may for the present be sufficient Etenim sedi senioris Romae propter Imperium Ciuitatis illius Patres consequenter priuilegia reddiderunt For the Fathers consequently gaue Priuiledges to the Sea of old Rome for the Empire of that Citie Loe Men not God gaue Priuiledges to the Sea of Old Rome And they yeeld this reason for the same because forsooth the Citie of Rome was the Seate of the Empire and reputed Caput Mundi the Head of the World Thirdly that when Pope Nicholas sayth that they tooke example of the forme of the Church of Rome for that which they would giue to the Church of Alexandria he graunteth in very deed that as the Bishope of Alexandria had but the preheminence of all there about no more had the Byshope of Rome And so it followeth that the Councell thereby did decree that the Byshop of Rome should keepe himselfe within those limittes Cardinall Cusanus and Ruffinus doe so vnderstand the Canon of the Nicene Councell Yea other Canons of the same Councell doe plainely insinuate the same sense as at large it is alreadie prooued Fourthly that if the Byshoppe of Rome had vniuersall soueraigntie from God as Pope Nicholas vntruely auouched then could no Byshop of Rome nor yet the holy Councell of Nice haue giuen or permitted such custome to the Byshoppe of Alexandria The reason is euident because whatsoeuer is De Jure Diuino no Mortall Man can dispense with the same This is so cleere and certaine as no learned Papist either doth or can denie the same Fiftly that no Custome may be admitted against the knowne Trueth The Popes owne Decrees out of S. Austen doe so teach vs these are the very wordes Qui contempta veritate praesumit consuetudinem sequi aut circa fratres inuidus est et malignus quibus veritas revelatur aut circa Deum ingratus est inspiratione cuius Ecclesia eius instruitur nam Dominus in Euangelio ego sum inquit Veritas non dixit ego sum Consuetudo itaque Veritate manifestata cedat Consuetudo Veritati Hee that contemneth Veritie and presumeth to follow Custome is either enuious and iniurious toward his Brethren to whom the trueth is reuealed or else vngratefull to God-ward with whose inspiration his Church is instructed for our Lord saith in his Ghospell I am the Trueth he said not I am Custome therefore when Trueth is manifest let Custome giue place to the same Againe in an other place thus Hoc planè verum est quia ratio et veritas consuetudini praeponenda sunt This is true in deed that Reason and Trueth must be preferred before Custome The same Decrees out of S. Cyprian teach vs the same these are the wordes Non debemus attendere quid aliquis ante nos faciendum putauerit sed quid prius qui ante omnes est Christus prior fecerit
proofe that it is most certaine that one of the Heresies of the Waldenses was against the Popes Pardons let him know from mee that therein he is a fowle mouthed lying Fryer For Platina their deare friend the Popes Abbreuiator Apostolâ—â—us hath these expresse words Iubilaeum idem retulit anno millesimo trecentesimo quo plenam delictorum omnium remissionem his praestabat qui limina Apostolorum visitassent ad exemplum veteris testamentj Pope Boniface brought againe the Iubilee after 1300. yeares and gaue full Pardon of all sinnes to such as did visite S. Peters Church and S. Pauls in Vaticano at Rome after the example of the old Law Out of these wordes I obserue these golden Lessons First that the old Iubilee was neuer heard of in Christes Church till the time of Boniface the Iewish Pope I prooue it by the word retulit hee brought againe from the Iewes Secondly that the Church was free from Popish Pardons 1300. yeares Thirdly that this Pope pardoned not onely the paine but euen the sinne it selfe yea all sinnes whatsoeuer Fourthly that this Pope brought againe the Iewish ceremoniall Law Fiftly that the remission of the old Law which our Papistes pretend apishly to imitate was not of Sinnes but of Debts Landes Bondage and such like which the Pope vseth not to pardon and yet forsooth hee would be thought to bring the Iubilee againe Of this Iubilee see woonderfull Popish coozening trickes liuely discouered in their colours in my Suruay of Popery The Perioch of the Chapter First therefore seeing the Popes Pardons can not be found in the Holy Scriptures Secondly seeing the holy Fathers in old time were not acquainted with them Thirdly seeing they depend intrinsecally vpon Purgatorie which the Greeke Fathers neuer beleeued as God willing shall be made euident in the next Chapter Fourthly seeing Pope Boniface was the first that gaue generall Pardons for all Sinnes in the yeare 1300. after Christ I must perforce conclude against the Pope and Poperie that the Popish Pardons are a Rotten Ragge not of the Old but of the New Religion This Chapter connotateth an intrinsecall order to the next following and so must be coupled togeather with the same The Iesuites 5. Chapter of Popish Purgatorie B. C. IN this Chapter after he hath disputed against Purgatorie with the authoritie of Roffensis hee commeth to his recapitulation and sayth Secondly that the Church of Rome beleeued it not for the space of 250. yeares after which time it increased by litle and litle T. B. Whosoeuer shall but with an indifferent iudgement peruse my Tryall of the new Religion togeather with this Answere of the Jesuite which is not of one man alone but of many togeather as will appeare before the end of this my Reply God willing that man doubtles can not but see as clearely as the noone day that Poperie is the New Religion This is mine Answere let it be well marked For my life and soule I dare gage that the Iesuites Answere sheweth euidently to all iudicious and indifferent Readers that it is the trueth which I defend and that all the Papistes in the world are not able in trueth to confute the same His miserable shiftes his silly euasions and coozening trickes doe euery where and in euery Chapter declare that the Jesuite is at a Non plus and knoweth not for his life how to defend the Pope For first he neuer setteth downe my wordes truely Secondly he doth but snatch at some of them which seeme to be of the least force and strength which for all that haue more force in them then he is able to deale withall His first coozening tricke in this present Chapter is this viz. That hee not daring to alleadge all mine Assertion which truly containeth the true meaning of their famous Martyr so supposed late Byshop of Rochester as which are his owne wordes in deed hee at the first leapeth ouer 40. lynes almost in which the force of my Disputation resteth and onely toucheth my Recapitulation This coozening tricke being after his maner performed hee combineth an other with it implying a greater coozening by many degrees This coozenage is contayned in these wordes Secondly that the Church of Rome I prooue it first because euery Child knoweth that the first goeth before the second Secondly because the first which the Fryer would not because he durst not touch at all contayneth nay prooueth the maine poynt in this controuersie the poynt is this This Byshop was a Learned man a great Papist and said for Poperie what possibly he could yet doth he graunt many thinges of such force is the trueth which quite ouerthrow Poperie and turne it vpside-downe First wee see by his free assertion that the Greeke Church neuer beleeued Purgatorie to his dayes and so it was to them vnknowne 1517. yeares All this the Iesuite passeth ouer in deepe silence and beginneth at Secondly Loe M. Fisher that Learned Byshoppe for so I graunt hee was telleth vs plainely and resolutely that the Holy Fathers and Learned men of the Greeke Church neuer beleeued Purgatorie vntill his time that is for the space of 1517. yeares after Christ. But our Iesuite is so blind that hee could not see these wordes Nay rather hee durst not acknowledge them because hee can not frame any colourable answere to them This is the trueth in very deed His third coozening tricke is in the omission and not speaking of these wordes Thirdly that the Church of Rome did not beleeue Purgatorie all at once but by litle and litle These wordes our Fryer Jâ—suite durst not once name least they should haue giuen him a mortall wound For in deed to speake the trueth they strike dead They shew plainely that as the holy Fathers of the Greeke Church neuer beleeued Purgatorie so neither did the Fathers of the Latine Church beleeue it all and wholly at one and the same time but by litle and litle Ah poore Purgatorie thy birth by peece-meale maketh thee the New Religion Thou art a Monster among the Iesuited Papistes Thou wast neither begotten nor borne at once but by litle and litle O sillie Poperie O new Religion His fourth coozening tricke is implyed in omitting these wordes Fourthly that the inuention of Purgatorie was the birth â—f Popish Pardons as which could haue no place till Purgatorie was found out by feigned reuelations Marke how gallantly our Jesuite confuteth Bell. You see hee is not able to endure the sound of the Bell Of fiue poyntes of great consequence he durst name onely two the Second forsooth and the Fift Of the fiue three seemed euery way vnanswerable To the second and the fift he thought he could say something in shew of wordes albeit very nothing in the trueth of the matter Which God willing shall soone appeare after the due examination of his wordes But first because the controuersie is a maine poynt of Popish Religion and the ground of Popish Pardons I
trueth that Purgatorie came from the Apostles Which more bold then wise affirmance I returne vnto our Fryer for a most certaine and shamelesse Lye for a most notorious Slaunder and for an intollerable Blasphemie against the blessed Apostles of our Lord Iesus I prooue it sundry wayes First because S. Chrysostome was one of the chiefest and best Learned Fathers of the Greeke Church who as my Lord of Rochester hath told vs very plainely and resolutely neuer beleeued there was any Popish Purgatorie while they were lyuing heere on earth and consequently that Purgatorie can neuer be truely fathered vpon that great learned holy man Secondly because those Homilies from whence our Fryer would gladly fetch Purgatorie-fire are counterfeite not S. Chrysostomes indeed Whereof this is an argument insoluble that the Greeke Fathers did neuer beleeue Purgatorie For if S. Chrysostome had taught Purgatorie in his Bookes Byshoppe Fisher that glorious so supposed Popish Martyr could not truely haue written and constantly auouched to the whole world as he did that the Greekes neuer beleeued Purgatorie Thirdly that if the Apostles had taught Purgatorie then could not so many so Learned so holy Fathers of the Greeke Church haue been so long time euen till their death ignoraunt thereof Nay if the Latine Church in their dayes had receiued Purgatorie as a tradition Apostolicall they would neuer haue withstood it but most reuerently haue admitted and most Christianly beleeued the same Fourthly that if we suppose and graunt our Fryer thus much to cheare vp his spirits a while viz. that they are S. Chrysostomes wordes which he citeth in his name yet will it not serue his turne to build Popish Purgatorie therevpon For the words do onely prooue this and no more to weete that th'Apostles taught Commemoration of the dead Which my selfe am so farre from disliking that I haue many yeares agoe approoued it in my Suruay of Poperie Yea the Papistes in their publike Prayers make frequent and vsuall Commemoration of their Martyrs whom they for all that deny to be in Purgatorie-fire and freely graunt to be in Heauen And so they can not inferre Purgatorie out of the Commemoration of the dead To this I adde that Prayer for the dead which is more then Commemoration may in a godly sort be vsed as I haue shewed at large first in my Motiues and afterward in my Suruay More then which the Iesuite can not inferre out of his Author as his Marginall note doth declare I therefore conclude that our â—esuite hath runge out a notorious vntrueth when he telleth his Reader that Purgatorie came from the Apostles B. C. Heere the iudicious Reader may also note how the Minister contradicteth himselfe In his Suruay intreating of Purgatorie he sayth Thus by litle and litle it increased till the late Byshoppes of Rome made it an Article of Popish Fayth Where in the Margent he noteth the time thus In the yeare of our Lord 250. Heere he sayth that the Church of Rome beleeued it not for the space of 250. yeares After which as he telleth vs it increased by litle and litle And so in this place he maketh the seed of Purgatorie not to haue been sowen before the yeare 250. and afterward to haue increased till it came to perfection There he affirmeth that the seed was sowen before and increased by litle and litle vntill it became ripe and perfect Poperie which was in the yeare 250. And so Purgatorie was sowen and not sowen growen and not growen an article of Fayth and not an article of Fayth in the same one yeare 250. I will not deny but the Minister hath some skill in botching togeather of old endes of Diuinitie gathered out of the Ragge market of Caluin and such like Geneua-Merchants yet I feare mee it will be hard for him so to cobble the sayinges togeather that the flaw of a contradiction appeare not T. B. I answere first that where our Fryer pretendeth some feare that I can not defend by any cobling my contradiction by him so supposed I am so free from it that I weene his heart will pant so soone as he shal peruse my answere to the same For so God helpe me I woonder he is not ashamed so to write O tempora O mores I would not haue imagined that the Maister Deuill of Hell had so possessed him as to make him the instrument of such notorious execrable and plaine diabolicall Lyes Neuer did any man heare know or read such shamelesse palpable and grosse vntruethes Who will not exclaime and cry out of Poperie that shall read this Fryers Answere and this my Reply ioyned with my Tryall and my Suruay in which hee would seeme to ground his deuillish and abhominable Lyes Fie fie how can he thinke that any of witte and iudgemet will beleeue him Hee perceiueth right well that the trueth published in my Bookes can neuer be truly answered and therefore sillie Papistes who dare not for feare of Popish tyrannicall censures read my Bookes must perforce receiue and beleeue his most execrable Lyes for the trueth Oh that they would once read my Bookes nay but this one Reply with a single eye and indifferent iudgement all parcialitie set apart Hee knoweth that hee falsely accuseth mee his owne conscience though neuer so badde can not but condemne him Euery child may easily discerne that the trueth is on my side The case is so cleare my wordes so plaine and the trueth thereof so apparant as euery iudicious and honest Reader must needes thinke him worthy to haue a Whetstone tyed at his Girdle a Foxe-tayle in his necke and a Fooles-bable in his hand If Poperie through mortall wounds receiued were not past recouerie if the trueth published in my Bookes were not vnanswereable if the Iesuite were not at a Non plus not able to defend the Pope and his late start-vp Romish Fayth he would neuer thus delude the world with his most notorious Lyes and deceitfull dealing In my Suruay marke wel for Christs sake these are my expresse words in the third part and sixt Chapter Afterward Origen being too much addicted to his allegoricall speculation fayned many odde things touching Purgatorie as the Ethnicke Plato whom he much imitateth had done before him After Origen others began to call the matter into question others rashly to beleeue it others to adde many thinges to Origens conceit Thus by litle and litle it increased till the late Byshops of Rome made it an Article of Popish Fayth In my Booke intituled The Tryall of the new Religion these are my expresse words First we see that the Greeke Church neuer beleeued Purgatorie to his dayes I speake there of Iohn Fisher late Byshoppe of Rochester and so it was vnkowen to them 1517. yeares Secondly that the Church of Rome beleeued it not for the space of 250. yeares after which time it increased by litle and litle These are my very wordes in both my Bookes The
it is alreadie prooued in the third Conclusion To which I adde that the holy Fathers when they speake of Venial sinnes doe euer vnderstand Small sinnes respectiuely In which sense my selfe do willingly admit Veniall sinnes as also sinnes Veniall by the mercie of God But withall I wish the Reader euer to remember what Gersonus Almaynus Baius Durandus and Roffensis teach vs viz. that euery least Sinne is Mortall of it owne nature which is the flat Doctrine I heere defend Thirdly that the difference amongst the Learned Popish Doctors concerning Veniall sinnes is a matter of small importance which I exhort the Christian reader in the bowels of our sweete Redeemer neuer to forget For it doth plainely conuince if nothing else could be sayd in that behalfe that Poperie is the New religion What is Popish fayth a matter of Small moment Is it not necessarie to saluation If the Pope will say it I am ready to confirme it Roffensis Baius Almaynus Durandus and Gersonus all being both learned and zealous Papistes affirme constantly the force of trueth compelling them that euery Sinne is Mortall of it owne nature Contrariwise the Pope his Jesuites and Jesuited vassals affirme teach and beleeue as an Article of Popish Fayth that many Sinnes are Veniall euen of their owne nature This notwithstanding our Jesuite telleth vs roundly though nothing Clerkly that the difference is but small So then Articles of Popish fayth are small or great as it pleaseth the Pope His bare Will as we haue heard and seene is a warrant sufficient in euery thing as who can change the nature of thinges if we will beleeue him and of nothing make some thing Fourthly that my selfe hold no Opinion teach no Article of Fayth defend no Position but such Opinions Positions and Articles as the best learned Papistes haue holden taught and defended before mee For my woonted maner euer hath been is and shall be to wound the Papistes with their owne Weapons and to conâ—ound the Pope with his best Learned Proctors B. C. This being so let vs consider what a notable vntrueth the Minister offereth to the view of his Readers when he sayth Almaynus Durandus Gerson Baius and other famous Papistes not able to answere the reasons against Veniall sinnes confesse the trueth with the Byshop that euery Sinne is Mortall Hee doth cunningly abuse them in leauing out those wordes of it owne nature which ought to be added after their opinion and himselfe likewise doth adde in citing of Roffensis immediately before T. B. I answere first that the vntrueth our Fryer speaketh of proceedeth from his owne lying lippes as by and by it will appeare Secondly that our Fryer doth falsely peeuishly vnchristianly and impudently abuse both his Reader and mee when he chargeth me to abuse my Authors in leauing out their wordes What wordes sir Fryer haue I left out These wordes forsooth of it owne nature sayth our Iesuiticall Fryer O malitious Jesuite Where is thine Honestie where is thy Christianitie where is thy Fayth where is thy Conscience Art thou become a flat Atheist art thou at defiance with true dealing Thou seemes to make thy soule saleable for the Popes pleasure Doth not thine owne Penne condemne thee when thou grauntes that I added the same wordes in citing of Roffensis immediatly before Let the indifferent Reader be an indifferent Iudge betweene vs. I added the wordes immediatly before as our Fryer truely sayth it therefore had been an irkesome tantologie to cite them againe in the next wordes following especially seeing I affirme the Popish Doctors Almaynus Durandus Gersonus and Baius to hold and defend the selfe same opinion that Byshoppe Fisher affirmeth to be the trueth Againe the Controuersie consisteth precisely in this speciall poynt viz. Whether euery sinne be Mortall of it owne nature or no. I defende the affirmatiue the Iesuite the negatiue And consequently I must perforce speake of Sinnes as they are in their owne nature O worthy defender of late start-vp Poperie Thou perceiuest right well that Poperie is the New religion indeed and not able to withstand the truth nor to answere mine inuincible reasons and groundes Thou fleest from that which is in question to impertinent extrauagant and friuolous cauils so to dazell the eyes of thy Readers least they behold the newnesse of late Romish Religion Out vpon such beggerly Religion as which can not be defended but by cauils coozenage lying and deceitfull dealing B. C. After this vntrueth immediatly followeth another Yea the Jesuite S. R. quoth hee with the aduice of his best Learned friendes in his answere to the Downefall of Poperie confesseth plainely and blusheth not thereat that the Church of Rome had not defined some sinnes to be Veniall vntill the dayes of Pius the fift and Gregorie the 13. which was not fiftie yeares agoe In which wordes he blusheth neuer a whit to slaunder that Learned man and wholly to corrupt his meaning Hee sayth not that the Church of Rome had not defined some sinnes to be Venial vntill the dayes of Pius the fift and Gregorie the 13. as this licentious cast-away corruptly fathereth vpon him For he knew well that to beleeue Veniall sinnes was an Article long receiued before the times of those Popes But he affirmeth onely that to hold Veniall sinnes onely to be such by the mercie of God was censured and condemned by those Popes Why did Sir Thomas his sinceritie cut away these wordes by the mercie of God Forsooth because that without lying and corruption he can obiect nothing against Catholike doctrine T. B. I answere first that our impudent Fryer lyeth egregiously when he chargeth mee to slaunder S. R. his learned Brother For vpon my saluation I auerre it I deale christianly honestly and sincerely I neuer change adde or take away any one iote of that which I finde in mine Authors Would to God our Iesuites did so deale with mee Secondly our Fryer lyeth impudently when he vttereth these wordes Hee sayth not that the Church of Rome had not defined some sinnes to be Veniall vntill the dayes of Pius the fift and Gregorie the thirteenth For these are S. R. his expresse wordes True it is that Byshoppe Fisher and Gerson were in that errour but that was both before it was condemned in the Church as it was since by Pius the fift and Gregorie the thirteenth In which wordes the Jesuite S. R. telleth vs two memorable poyntes of Doctrine Th' one that Fisher and Gerson were in an Errour Th' other that the Errour was before the Church had condemned it So it onely remaineth duely to examine what the supposed Errour was The Iesuite B. C. heere telleth vs plainely if wee may beleeue him that the Popes Pius and Gregorius condemned that opinion onely which holdeth Venial sinnes to be onely such by the mercie of God I admit the Assertion I like the Narration I onely reiect the Popes friuolous vnchristian and
litle children the consonant sound reboundeth as it were an eccho with the surges of the Sea Iustinus Martyr hath these wordes Sub haec consurgimus communiter omnes et praecationes profundimus et sicuti retulimus praecibus peractis panis offertur et vinum et aqua Et praepositus itidem quantum pro virili sua potest praeces et gratiarum actiones fundit et populus faustè acclamat dicens Amen These thinges being done wee all arise togeather and make our Prayers and after our Prayers the Bread is offered with Wine and Water and the Minister as he is able prayeth and giueth thankes and the people with ioyfull acclamation say Amen Philo a very auncient and learned Writer awong the Iewes sheweth this old practise of our Christian Church in these wordes Quae omnia supra dictus vir eo ordine eademque consequentia qua apud nos geruntur expressit Et vt vnus ex omnibus consurgens in medio Psalmū honestis modulis concinat vtque praecinenti ei vnum versiculum omnis multitudo respondeat All which the aforenamed man he speaketh of Philo the Jew related in the same order and consequence in which our selues doe them And that one among all rising vp in the middest sing a Psalme with tunable voyce and that so soone as he hath sung one Verse all the people answere him S. Chrysostome speaketh so plainely of the peoples praying togeather with the Priest that euē in the time of the Liturgis or Masse as none doubtlesse that either read or heare his wordes can stand any longer in doubt thereof These are his expresse wordes In eisdem iterum horrendis mysterijs bene precatur Sacerdos populo et bene precatur populus Sacerdoti Nam cum spiritu tuo nihil aliud est quam hoc Ea quae sunt Eucharistiae id est gratiarum actionis communiae sunt omnia neque ille solus gratias agit sed etiam omnis populus prius N. accepta illorum voce deinde congregatis illis vt dignè et iustè hoc faciat incipit Eucharistiā Et quid miraris si populus cum Sacerdote loquitur In these dreadfull mysteries the Priest wisheth well to the people and the people desire Gods mercie to the Priest For these wordes with thy spirit haue no other meaning The thinges that pertaine to the Eucharist that is to the giuing of thankes are common to them all for he onely giueth not thankes but all the people also with him For he first receiueth their voyce after that they being gathered togeather that he may doe this reuerently and well he beginneth the Communion And what maruell is it to thee if the people pray with the Priest S. Cyprian testifieth the same practise to haue been vsuall in his time alleadging the very wordes that the common people answered to the Priest Thus doth he write in expresse tearmes Ideo et Sacerdos ante orationem praefatione praemissa parat fratrum mentes dicendo sursum corda vt dum respondet plebs habemus ad Dominum admoneatur nihil aliud se quam Dominum cogitare debere Therefore the Priest after the Preface before the Prayer prepareth the mindes of the brethren saying Lift vp your heartes that while the common people answere wee lift them vp vnto the Lord they may be instructed to thinke vpon no other thing but the Lord. What need is there to stand vpon this poynt any longer Sozomenus sheweth plainely in his Historie that in his time which was more then 400. yeares after Christ the people and the Clergie did sing Psalmes in the Church togeather So S. Hierome testifieth of the Church of Rome that in his time the people sounded out Amen with such an eccho as if it had been with an heauenly Thunder Nicolaus Lyranus that great learned popish Doctor in his Commentaries vpon S. Paul to the Corinthians affirmeth to his Readers very constantly that in the Primatiue Church both the Prayers and all other thinges were in the Vulgar tongue Yea S. Basil sayth that in his time all the people sang Psalmes togeather in the Church And he addeth therevnto that it was the custome of all Churches so to doe By these Testimonies it is cleare and euident that in the Primatiue Church and many yeares after the Church seruice was euerywhere in the Vulgar tongue S. Gregorie sometime Byshoppe of Rome himselfe reporteth the vsuall practise of the Greeke Church which he approoueth to haue been as we haue already heard out of S. Chrysostome and other famous Greeke Writers And that which our Fryer sayth of the same Gregorie is too too childish ridiculous as it is euident by that which is already said shall God willing be yet more euident before the end of this discourse Our Iesuite heere by way of a digression more then extrauagant giueth a very short but too too sweete an admonition In which he pleaseth himselfe more then a litle with his old doting foolerie and rusty rotten Poperie He telleth his Readers whom he would gladly perswade to giue credite to his wordes that our Ceremonies are pild patches of Protestanisme rusty ragges of the Reformed Congregation and withall forsooth that our Communion Booke it selfe was neuer heard of in the whole world till the late dayes of King Edward the sixt My answere to this extrauagant and foolish admonition I purpose in God to set downe in the last Chapter of this Discourse My reason hereof is this My scope intent and purpose in this present Booke is bipartite or two folde viz. to prooue soundly and plainely to lay open to all iudicious honest and indifferent Readers that the Religion Fayth and Doctrine of the late Byshoppes Church of Rome is indeed the New religion by litle and litle crept into the Church and distinctly to name the time when and the Authors by whom euery materiall poynt Article of the new Romish Fayth and Religion did first begin as also to prooue soundly and clearely that the Fayth and Doctrine this day established in the Church of England is Catholique Apostolicall and the Old Romane religion For which respect I haue thought it meete and conuenient first to accomplish and finish the former member in proouing Poperie the New Religion And that done to prooue the Doctrine and Fayth of our English Church to be the Old Religion Which to performe as is sayd I haue steadfast confidence in my mercifull GOD all sufficient who woonderfully preseruing me from many dangers almost ineffable seemeth to haue reserued me to that end and purpose God make me thankfull and euer to referre all that I well doe to his most holy name Non nobis Domine non nobis sed nomini tuo da gloriam Thou ô God who hast chosen the foolish things of this world to confound the wise and the weake thinges to confound the mightie things thou who by
the mouth of babes and sucklings hast made perfect thy prayse thou who hast chosen Peter the Fisher Matthew the Publican and Paul the Persecutor to be thine Apostles thou thou ô God in thine vnsearchable iudgements hast ordained me the meanest and vnworthiest among many thousands to bicker with the mighty Goliath and to fight the Battell of thy Church against him the Byshop of Rome I meane who would thrust our Lord Iesus thy deare Sonne out of his throne The 17. Chapter of the Antiquitie of Popish Masse and the partes thereof B. C. HEe falsely and blasphemously concludeth euery peece of the Masse to be rotten Ragges For are the wordes of Consecration the most essentiall part thereof which came not from any man but from the institution of Christ himselfe as also the Pater noster rotten Ragges Who durst say it but Sir Thomas T. B. I answere first that one of the wordes of our supposed Consecration which is enim is no essentiall part thereof as your owne best learned Doctors tell vs. Secondly that in your supposed Consecration of the Chalice sundry wordes as Aquinas and other learned Papistes graunt are not of the Essence thereof For the larger discourse of which Subiect I referre the Reader to my Suruey Thirdly that the Holy wordes This is my body came not from Christ as they are a part of the late Romish Masse I prooue it soundly for that our Sauiour Christ did not vtter them vntill he had blessed and consecrated the Bread And consequently they neither are nor can be any part of Popish Masse as Christ ordeyned them For in Christes Consecration many thinges went before First he tooke the Bread secondly he blessed it thirdly he brake it fourthly he gaue it to his Disciples fiftly he sayd Take and eate this is my Body Whereupon I conclude with this ineuitable illation that either the wordes of popish Conseceation do not worke Transubstantiation or else that that which Christes Apostles receiued at Christes handes was not Christes body vnder accidentes without subiectes For the larger discourse whereof I referre the Reader to the Downe-fall of Poperie and to the Jesuites Antepast The rest of this Chapter God willing shal be answered soundly and plainely in the last Chapter of this Discourse at which time I hope in God I shall triumph ouer Pope and Poperie and giue them both their deadly woundes The 18. Chapter of the profound mysteries of popish Masse T. B. IN this Chapter our Iesuite being at a non-plus as many times afore doth onely charge mocke and mow at our Communion Booke the partes thereof For his answere I reserue the last Chapter His 19. and 20. Chapters require no answere at all He can say plaine nothing neither for the Kissing of the Popes Feete nor for Praying vpon Beades Hee freely graunteth euen the noueltie and non-age of them both The 21. Chapter of changing the Popes name B. C. IF our sauiour Christ constituting Simon Head of the Church changed his name and called him Peter what inconuenience or absurditie is it that the Pope assumpted to that dignitie should imitate the same and make choyce of some of his predecessours names thereby to be stirred vp to follow his vertue and sollicitude in gouerning the Church of Christ T. B. I answere first that what dignitie the Pope hath in the Church it is sufficiently disputed in the second Chapter Secondly that latter Popes haue been so stirred vp to Vertue by the example and names of the former as they haue better deserued to be reputed Deuils incarnate then holy Saintes or Godly men on earth Thirdly that our Jesuite giuing power to the Pope to doe what Christ hath done before him confirmeth what I haue sayd of the Pope in the second Chapter That he can change the nature of thinges make of nothing something and such like Fourthly that the Iesuit◠belyeth our Lord Iesus egregiously while he affirmeth him to haue changed Simons name For Christ changed no name in his Apostle but added a new name for the perfection of the former I prooue it because Christ euen after his resurrection called him three seuerall times Simon the sonne of Jona and once Simon Peter But with our lying and impudent Fryer an Horse-mill or a Mil-horse is all one Yet with honest and wise men it is one thing to change a mans name an other thing to adde perfection to the same Fiftly that as I sayd in my Tryall it is no maruell if Popes be ashamed of Christes Religion seeing they are ashamed of their names giuen them in their Baptisme To this our Fryer is mute because hee could not answere it Sixtly that our Fryer else where reprooueth scornefully that the Bread remayning after our Communion is allotted to the vse of the Minister But heere he will haue it no irreuerence to change the name giuen in holy Baptisme by which for all that he was dedicated vnto God Seuenthly that not the desire of Vertue but the sting of Pride caused Pope Hog-snoute to change his name into Sergius which noueltie was brought into the Church 840. yeares after Christ. The 22. Chapter of The paschall Torch T. B. THIS Pascall Torch inuented by Sozimus 400. yeares after Christ was very superstitiously vsed as I shewed in my Tryall But both the newnesse and the superstition our Fryer swalloweth vp and his mouth is so full therewith that he is become mute The 23. Chapter of the Popish Pax and the mysteries thereof B. C. THe soules in Purgatorie are in mutuall peace and charitie one with an other and without all feare of falling from that happy state and this signifieth the withholding of the Pax or kisse of Peace in a Masse for the dead T. B. I answere first that late Poperie is meere foolerie For seeing the withholding of the Pax signifieth mutuall Peace Charitie one with an other it were expedient to keepe the Pax as well from the liuing as from the dead especially from the Popes and popish massing Priestes For they receiuing the Pax if this great mysterie be true doe thereby insinuate to the world that they are not in peace and charitie one with an other no not in the time of their holy so supposed Masse For the rest see the Tryall and it is enough Secondly that our Papistes vsually graunt that the fire of Hell and of popish Purgatorie is all one saue that Purgatorie fire shall once haue an end And yet our Fryer heere calleth them happie that are boyling and burning there Let such happinesse for mee befall him and his cursed crew The 24. 25. and 26. Chapters T. B. FOr these three Chapters I wish the Readers to obserue with me the Iesuites free confession vttered in these expresse tearmes The principall cause of our Saluation is our sauiour Christ and his Merites Secondarie and instrumentall are many thinges as the Sacramentes and Men that cooperate vnto our Saluation Yea other Consecrated thinges as
and his successors and that their fayth can not fayle B. C. What followeth What but that Bell hath abused the good Reader with an vntrueth T. B. I answere that this in very deed followeth and that of meere necessitie that our Iesuiticall Fryer is a most impudent and shamelesse lyer Which thing I haue prooued againe againe in euery Chapter most euidently I therfore must perforce conclude that seeing the late Byshops of Rome Pius Paulus Iulius haue taken in hand roundly and most Antichristianly as I haue prooued in my Tryal and more at large in the Downe-fall of Poperie to dissolue that Matrimonie which the true Church of God durst neuer dissolue for the space of more then fifteene hundred yeares after Christ the same can be nothing else but a very filthy rotten Ragge of the New Religion The 30. Chapter of the Popes pretended Superioritie ouer and aboue a generall Councell B. C. BELL beginning with false asseueration to tell vs of the late opinion of the Popes Superioritie ouer a Generall Councell interlaceth also an other shamelesse vntrueth against the Rhemists T. B. I answere that our Fryer still continueth one and the selfe-same man that is to say an impudent and shamelesse lyar as he first began For within foure lines hee compriseth and coucheth two most notorious Lyes The former is touching the late Opinion of the Popes Superioritie ouer a generall Councell I affirme that the Popish opinion which holdeth the Pope to be aboue a generall Councell is a late vpstart Fayth and Doctrine neuer knowne to the Church of God for the space of more then fourteene hundred yeares after Christ. This our Fryer calleth a False asseueration but prooueth it not at all Hee is an honest man we may if we will beleeue his bare word But I by the power of God shall prooue the contrary to be the trueth and that out of hand The latter is concerning the Rhemistes which shall be cleared God willing by and by B. C. The Rhemists quoth hee that Iesuited brood tell vs plainely if we will beleeue them that there is no necessitie of a Generall or Prouinciall Councell saue onely for the better contentation of the people Thus hee chargeth them yet not noting any particular place But I will helpe him it is in their Annotations vpon the Actes T. B. I answere that our Fryer sheweth himselfe what he is aswell heere as else where He is so full of Charitie forsooth that he will needes helpe me for his owne intended gaine though he be thereby prooued a lying swaine for in the next Page following hee hath these expresse wordes This vntrueth the Minister had set abroach once afore in his Downe-fall and quoteth the place very orderly in this manner Rhemes test in Act. 15. Loe in one page our Fryer chargeth me of purpose to haue omitted the quotation so to delude and deceiue the Reader In an other page he graunteth freely that I haue set it downe very orderly Behold this changeable Camelion who both accuseth and acquitteth me with one breath Concerning the slaundering of the Rhemists wherewith he chargeth me this is mine answere that in very deede the slaunder fitly agreeth to himselfe which he would vntruely impose vpon mee I prooue it First Because the Rhemists plainely declare their meaning in this briefe Marginall note Though the Sea Apostolique it selfe say the Rhemists haue the same assistance yet Councels be also necessarie for many causes In which wordes they graunt as much in effect as I either affirme or require Secondly because the causes which our Rhemists name may easily be reduced to that one of mine viz. For the better contentation of the people for the controuersie is this Whether the Popes Iudgement be infallible in it selfe without a Generall Councell or no. The Rhemists answere that Papistes hold the affirmatiue viz. That the Popes Iudgement is infallible and is assisted of God euen as a generall Councell Thirdly that if the Papistes will stand to the deny all of mine Assertion then must they perforce grant against them-selues which willingly they would not that they haue no infallible trueth in their Church saue onely the Determination of a generall Councell I heare it I receiue it I like it I willingly subscribe vnto it Let the Papistes therefore defend this Doctrine That the Popes Iudgement without a generall Councell is fallible that he may Iudicially erre and be deceiued and let a lawfull generall Councell determine all controuersies and no doubt all Christians in the world will yeeld thereunto But Sir Fryer Hic labor hoc opus est For in these last and worst dayes of ours the Pope will stay at home and whatsoeuer or howsoeuer the Councelles shal decree yet must nothing be of force saue that onely which the Pope liketh to confirme as he sitteth in his Chaire at Rome This I haue prooued at large in the Downe-fall of Poperie and in my Christian Dialogue by euident demonstrations B. C. What can Bell fetch from Alphonsus to iustifie his iniurious charge of the Rhemists Alphonsus was one of those Diuines that thinke the infallibilitie of Iudgement to be in a Councell and not in the Pope alone And hee bringeth this reason Because otherwise it were in vaine with so great labour to assemble so many Byshops togeather This informeth vs very well what Alphonsus his opinion was But where doth hee say that the Rhemistes teach that the Determination of a generall Councell is needlesse saue onely for the better contentation of the people because the Popes Iudgement is infallible Hee speaketh not one word of the Rhemists and no marueile for he could not being dead many a faire day before the Rhemes Testament was published T. B. I answere that I can fetch so much from the famous and learned Papist Alphonsus as is able to kill the Pope with all his Jesuites and Iesuited Popelinges For first the Pope with his Jesuites and Jesuited Popelinges auouch most impudently and would enforce all Christians to beleeue the same that Christ built his Church vpon S. Peter and vpon his successors the Byshops of Rome and also that Christ prayed for Peter and for the Byshops of Rome that their Fayth should neuer fayle But Alphonsus condemneth that opinion for Hereticall while hee affirmeth the infallibilitie of Fayth to rest in a generall Councell not in the Pope alone Secondly Alphonsus confuteth the Rhemists most soundly euidently while he affirmeth generall Councels to be gathered in vaine if the Popes Determination and iudgement were infallible Thirdly Alphoâ—sus is one of those Learned popish Writers euen by the Iesuites free confession in this place which I wish the Reader neuer to forget who defende the trueth with vs against the Pope his Iesuites and all his Iesuiteâ— Popelinges For I doe not hold or defend any Article or poynt of Doctrine as I haue often sayd and heere our Fryer vnawares graunteth the same such is the
time and who they were that composed the partes thereof When as neither Durandus nor any other make the essentiall and very substantiall part of the Masse that is the wordes of Consecration to haue come from any other then the Sonne of God But they speake of the accidentall partes thereof to weet either deuout Prayers or Ceremonies which we willingly graunt to proceed from the institution of Christes Church T. B. I answere first that our Fryer giueth both the Pope and Poperie a deadly wound while he telleth vs that Durandus and others note at what time and who they were that composed the partes of their popish Masse Secondly that while our Fryer Iesuite maketh one onely essentiall part of their popish Masse that is the wordes of Consecration he graunteth that all the rest be Accidentall and so may be taken away from the same To which Doctrine I very willingly subscribe assuring the Iesuite that they and we shall soone agree if the Pope will thus reforme their Masse in abolishing all the accidentall partes here so named from the same Thirdly that I haue already prooued the word enim in the consecration of the Bread to be either of Mans institution or else the Deuils Fourthly that S. Thomas of â—â—quine Durâ—nâ— and other learned Papistes doe constantly affirme that God can not by his diuine power cause one the same body to be in diuers places at once And consequently that our Iesuites must either deny Christes body to be in Heauen contrary to the expresse wordes of holy Scripture or else that Christes body his flesh blood and bones can not be in their popish Masse or thirdly that the wordes of Popish Consecration came from some greater power then is in God which for all that no Papist dareth to auouch Fiftly that the wordes which are vsed in the popish Consecration of Wine came not from the Sonne of God I prooue it by the testimonie of Iosephus Angles that famous popish Byshoppe and learned Schoole-doctor whose expresse wordes are these Forma consecrationis Calicis qua Romana vtitur Ecclesia est sufficiens traditur enim ab Euangelistis et verba qua ab Ecclesia interpoâ—untur scilicâ—t nouâ— et aâ—erni testaments misterium fidei forma qua Christus consecrauit sensum handmutanâ— The forme of the Consecration of the Chalice or Cuppe which the Church of Rome vseth is sufficient for it is deliuered by the Euangelist and the wordes which the Church interlaceth to weet of the new and eternall Testament the misterie of Fayth doe not change the sense of the forme in which Christ did consecrate Thus writeth Byshop Angles plainely insinuating to his Readers that the Church of Rome vseth an other forme of Consecration then Christ himselfe did vse And consequently that the wordes of Consecration vsed in the Romish Church came not from the Sonne of God Ergo the Romish forme of Consecration is a Ragge of the New religion Sixtly that the Papistes can not tell indeed which be the precise wordes of their popish Consecration although that be the most principall and the very essentiall part of popish Masse and consequently of all popish Fayth and Religion I prooue it most euidently because Byshoppe Angles rehearseth foure seuerall opinions concerning this precise Article of popish Fayth these are his expresse words Quatuor sunt opiniones Prima S. Thomae qui omnia praedicta verba dicit esse de essentiaformae Secunda opinio est Alexandri D. Bonauenturae et Durandâ— qui affirmant de necessitate consecrationis Calicis esse haec sola verba scilicet hic est sanguis meus Tertia opinio dicit haec verba scilicet hic est sanguis meus qui pro â—ultis effundetur in remissionem peccatoruÌ„ esse de necessitate consecrationis praetermissis alijs verbis quae ab Ecclesia Romana adduntur qua forma vturtur Graeci Quarta opinio est Scoti qui ait de haec quastione nihil certitudinalitor esse nobis traditum There be foure opinions S. Thomas holdeth the first who auoucheth all the aforenamed words to be of the essence of the forme The second opinion is Alexanders Bonauentures and Durandus who affirme that these onely wordes are of the necessitie of the consecration of the Chalice or Cuppe to weet This is my blood The third opinion affirmeth these wordes This is my blood which shal be shed for many for remission of sinnes to be of the necessitie of ConsecratioÌ„ not the other wordes which the Church of Rome addeth to them Scotus the popish Doctor Subtilis holdeth the fourth opinion auouching that they know not certainely what to hold or thinke of this matter This is the best popish Diuinitie for the most essentiall part of all Poperie that the best learned Papistes are able to affoord vs so as euery child is well able to discerne that the now Romish Fayth is the New religion B. C. What doth Bell and such like Ministers that deride the Ceremonies and partes of the Masse but mocke and mow at their owne Communion-booke and partes thereof being borrowed from vs or in what they differ can shew no greater antiquitie then the late dayes of Edward the sixt at what time diuers Ministers did hammer them in the forge of their owne inuention T. B. This is that which the Pope and his deuoted Vassals neuer cease to instill into the hearts and eares of silly Papistes that so they may falsely perswade them that the Popish Fayth is the Old and ours the New Religion Wherefore albeit I haue againe and againe prooued most euidently that the Fayth and Doctrine which the Romish Church this day holdeth and teacheth is the New Religion neuerthelesse seeing these wordes heere obiected doe in some sort as it were insinuate to the Reader the most principall and maine poynt of the whole controuersie I am very willing to vndergoe the paines how great soeuer for the better contentment and full satisfaction of all such as desire to know the trueth I answere thus first that the Church of Rome receiued the true Catholique Apostolique Faith in the dayes of S. Peter and S. Paul which S. Paul himselfe testified while he affirmed their Fayth to he renowmed in the whole world Secondly that the Church of England receiued the same Catholique and Apostolique Fayth from the good Byshoppes of Rome at their first conuersion vnto the Fayth of Christ Iesus Explico Brutani now called England first receiued the Christian Fayth by Faganus and Deruvianus sent from Elutherius the good Byshoppe of Rome at the earnest request of Lucius then King of Brutani which was in the yeare 179. after Christ. After that Ethelbert the first Christian King of the Saxons was conuerted to the Fayth of Christ by Augustine Melitus Justus and others sent from Gregorie an other good Byshoppe of Rome in the yeare 596. after Christ. Thirdly that from that time vntill these our
no matters of faith In the third Aphorisme Epist. Conc. Aphric ad Celest Cap. 105. To. 1. Concil Pag. 591. This Argument can neuer be truly answered Lately Poperie is meere foolerie Gratian. Dist. 15. cap. sicut Matt. 12. v. 42. Euseb. Hist. lib. 5. Cap. 24. The Pope was both reproued and commanded The Reduplication must be well marked Galat. 1. v. 1. Galat. 2. v 8. Mat. 28. v. 19. Dist. 40. cap. fi Papa Robert ParsoÌ„s begot two Bastards Male Female vpon the body of his owne sister Betweene his age of 17. 23. he was an Heretike of the Family of Loue till he became a Iesuite See my Anatomy P. 71. The marriage of Priestes is soundly handled in the Suruey of popery The triall of the new Religion is heere soundly defended Onely the Romish church forbiddeth Priestes marriage Ier. 1. v. 1. 1. Sam. 1. v. 3. Exod. 18. v. 1. 2. Luk. 1. v. 8.9.13 14.18.19 Leu. 21 v. 13.14 Suruay P. 220. Con. 26. Q. 2. Cap. Sors Neither Christ nor his Apostles doe forbid Priestes Mariage Exod. 14.22 Heb. 1â— 29 Num. 22.28 Dan. 3.25 4. Reg. 6.6 Act. 12.7.10 Caiet in Quod lib. â—ontr Luth. This cutteth the Popes throate he can no longer liue Suruay p. 269. Viguer de differ vota §. 5. ver 14. Ant. p. 3. Tit. 1. C. 21. §. 1. A.D. 677. There was smal account of the Church of Rome Can. 6. Apost Either the mariage of Priests is lawfull or many Popes haue beene Bastardes Anton. P. 2. tit 11. cap. 2. §. 9. vide Cassiod lib. 9. cap. 38. idem planè asserit 6. Proposition Niceph. lib. 12. Cap. 34. A.D. 389. In Epist ad Aphrican Tom. 1. Concil Rom. 8.8 Priestes were married both in the East and in the West Church Heb. 13. v. 4. Pope HildbraÌ„d was reputed an Heretike for denying the marriage of Priestes Lamb. Schaf· in Chron. A.D. 1074. Mat. 19. V. 11.13 1. Cor. 7. V. 9.10 Priestes made Votaries against their willes Loe the popish Priestes tell vs that the Pope is an Heretike a madde man A.D. 1074. Vixit Pelag. 2. A.D. 580. Dist. 28. cap. de Syracus vibis Priestes may lawfully marrie euen by the iudgement of learned Popish writers Dist. 28. Cap. vlt. Dist. 31. Cap. primo Pope Gregory confoundeth the late Popes of Rome A.D. 588. This Dilemma girdeth the Pope and his Iesuited Popelinges See the 4. Proposition marke it well Nauat in Euch cap. 22. §. 18. Fumus de matrim §. 55 Io. Angles in 4. s. q. de voto art 6. diffic 2 Marke well that the Vow single and solemne are essentially one and the same The Popes dispensation doth make Priestes marriage lawfull ergo God doth not forbid it Ant. p. 2. 〈◊〉 11 cap. 2 §. â— Nauar. de iudic notab 3. p. 275. Loe the Pope can make the marriage of Friers Iesuitâ—s and Nonnes to be very lawfull Panorm de Cleric coniug Cap. cum Olim. Continencie of secular Priests is neither of the substaunce of Priesthood nor of the law diuine Panormit de cleric coniug cap. cuÌ„ olâ—â— Loe the Popeâ— learned Doctors write against the Pope Polyd. lib. 5. cap. 4. in sine Loe Priestes marriage was once deemed very lawfull Platina in vita Pâ—j 2. p. 342. Loe one Pope condemneth an other The Iesuite is stroken dead The right of Priestes that is their marriage must be restored againe A.D. 327. Hebr. 13. V. 4. Sâ—cra lib. 1. â—ap 8. Cassiodor hist. tripar libr. 2. cap. 14. Vide Gratian. dist 31. Sozo lib. 1. cap. 22. A.D. 1074. Read marke well the Suruay of Poperie The former difficultie 4. PropositioÌ„ 5. PropositioÌ„ 6. Proposition 8. 9. Propos. 12. Propos. Gloss. dist 84. Cap. in Preterito Polydorus saith plainly that S. Paul was married Lib 5. Cap. 4. Lege LocuÌ„ 1. Cor. 7. v. 7 8 9 10.32.3â— 1. Cor. 7. v. 25. The Second Difficultie Pag. 52. See the 5. Proposition Loe Priestes in old time might marry euery where Marke this poynt well for Christs sake Epiphanius Heres 59. A.D. 439. Lib. 5. Cap. 4. 1. Cor. 7. v. 32.33 Many worthy Ministers liue vnmarried in our Church of England See the 12. proposition where this is proued All this is souÌ„dly prooued already The Popes law is flat tiranny Marke well the 11. Proposition Iohn 2. v 2 8. Pag. 54 Note well the 12. proposition Out vpon Romish vnmarried Priestes P. 58. See the Downefall Pag. 10. Marke well the seuenth Proposition Reus accusator testis iudex Nicephor Lib. 12. Cap. 34. P. 61. The first Lie The Iesuite is at a non plus Pope Hog-snoute Raskell is a goodly Countrie Towne and hath euer had in it many tall fellowes very faithfull to the Crowne In the ninth Chapter following Reade the Tryall and marke well the 4. Chapter Syluester de indulg P. â— Tit. 10. Cap. 3. A.D. 1149. The old church knew not late Popish PardoÌ„s Cont. art Lutheri art 18. Our Iesuites maner is to answere my chiefest groundes with deepe silence These two kindes of Pardons must be well remembred distinguâ—shed The auncient Councels did giue one kinde of Pardons but neuer late Popish Pardons Libr. 2. Cap. 2. The Iesuits promise answeres but performe none truly Yea sundry haue vtterly renounced Poperie Marke the â— Chapter well Platina in Bonif. 8. in med Leu. 25. v. 11.12 Suruay part 1. book â— chap. 5. A.D. 1300. The next Chapter must be ioyned with this Poperie is the new Religion it can not be denyed His 1. coozening tricke His 2. coozening tricke The Iesuites vse many coozening tricks His 3. coâ—zening tricke His 4. coozening tricke What trueth is in Poperie we see that our Fryer feareth once to touch my groundes He doth but snatch at odde partes of my Disputation not able to say ought to the râ—st Roffens Cont. art Luth. art 18. A.D. 15â—7 If thou marke well this Doctrine proceeding from the penne of such a famous learned Papist thou canst noâ— but abhorre the Pope and late start-vp Poperie I wonder how any can reade such Popish Doctrine and be a Papist still S. Basill S. Gregorie S. Chrysostome and the rest Late Popâ—sh Pardons prooue Poperie to be the new Religion His first notorious Lye Argumentum ad hominem Pag. 65. His second notorious lye Marke well the word deinde His third notorious lye The Church of Rome beleeued not Purgatorie for the space of 1000. odde Iohn Fisher the Byshop of Rochester A.D. 1300. Marke well this Discourse for it striketh dead O braue defender of Poperie It is a most certaine Lye and a shameles vntrueth Pag. 62. Pag. 391. Perhaps S. Chrysostome and the other holy Greeke Fathers feeling Purgatorie-fire beleeued it when they were dead Part. 3. Chap. 6. Pag. 308. These are most notorious and impudent lyes the Deuiâ—l of Hell hath his part therein Out vpon the impudent lying of Iesuites O holy Frier O worthy councellour of the Popes O noddy Folly hath begotten thee Marke
thus viz. That about the yeare of our Lord God 1529. the Duke of Saxonie with others protested publiquely and constantly against the decree of Ferdinando the Emperour that they could not with safe conscience obey and yeeld vnto the same Whereupon the aduersaries did euer since that time malitiously call all reformed Catholikes and sound Christians by the name of Protestants But as I haue prooued in the Jesuites Antepast wee are the Legitimate and reformed Catholiques and the Papistes are Bastardes and deformed Catholiques and consequently the thing truly implyed in the name Protestant is as old as the Religion deliuered by S. Peter and S. Paul to the Church of Rome Which mine Assertion shall by the power of God be made most euident before the end of this Discourse See and note well the end of the 16. Chapter and the 17. Chapter with it as also the 29.30 and 31. Chapters being the three last of this present Booke The Second Chapter of the Popes Superroyall power B. C. TO season the beginning of his Chapter with a little of his mendatious powder be writeth thus Bonifacious Byshoppe of c. T. B. To this before I answere in particular and plaine tearmes it shal not be amisse to lay open to the indifferent Reader the Popes falsely challenged Superroyall power Which I hope in God to performe most plentiously by these Conclusions following The first Conclusion The Popes owne Decrees teach vs that though he be most wicked and carry with him thousandes vpon thousandes to the chiese Diuell of Hell yet may no mortall man reproue him for his such detestable and cursed dealing These are the expresse wordes of the Popes owne Canon Si Papa c. innumerabiles populos cateruatim secum ducit primo mancipio gehennae cum ipso plagis multis inaeternum vapulaturus huius culpas istic redarguere praesumit mortalium nullus quia cunctos ipse iudicaturus a nemine est indicandus nisi deprehendatur a fide deuius These are the wordes of Pope Bonifacius as Gratianus who compiled the Booke of Decrees hath related them I heartily wish the Reader to ponder seriously what I write protesting vpon my saluation that in all mine Assertions Authorities Allegations I deale faythfully euer citing the expresse wordes as I finde them in mine Authors their authorities and reasons The second Conclusion The Popes Power is so sacred so eminent and so surpassing great as it is become flat Sacriledge to dispute of the same Victoria a most famous and learned popish schoole-Doctor who was the first man that brought Scholasticall doctrine into Spaine deliuereth this poynt of doctrine in these expresse wordes Non spectat ad subditos determinare aut examinare quid possit Papa aut quid non possit et quomodo teneantur parere vel non quia sacrilegium est disputare de potentia principis et praecipuè Papae It pertaineth not to popish vassals to determine or examine what the Pope may doe or what he may not doe and how they are bound to obey or not because it is Sacriledge to dispute of the Power of the Prince especially of the Pope Loe we may not dispute of the Popes Power no not to know and learne how and wherein wee ought to obey him This is it indeed that maketh so many sillie Papistes euery where For Papistes must beleeue all thinges but examine nothing that the Pope doth And why I pray you Forsooth least his coozening trickes and the newnesse of late Poperie should be knowne and so both the Pope and all his Iesuited Popelings be vtterly ouerthrowne The third Conclusion The Pope can deliuer if he list all men in this world from the paine due to their sinnes in this world and not this onely but also bring all soules out of Purgatorie if that be done for them which he requireth Three verie learned and famous Popish Doctors Syluester Pryeras Bartholomaeus Fumus and Vigâ—erius doe constantly resolutely affirme this conclusion Sylmester hath these expresse words Sicut potest Papa liberare a paena peccatorum debita in hoc mundo omnes qui sunt in mundo si faciant quod mandat etiamsi essent millies plures quam sunt itae liberare potest omnes qui sunt in purgatorio si quis pro ets facial quod iubet As the Pope can deliuer all in this world from paine due for sinne in this world if they doe what hee commaundeth though they were thousandes more then they bee euen so can hee deliuer all that are in Purgatorie if any doe that for them which he commaundeth And least any man should thinke that impossible which the Pope requireth to be done the same learned Writer telleth vs in an other place that it is a thing very easily done these be his wordes Indulgentiae simpliciter tantum valent quantum praedicantur modo ex parte dantis sit authoritas ex parte recipientis charitas et ex parte causae piet as Pardones are simply worth so much as they are payed so there be authoritie in the giuer charitie in the receiuer and pietie in the cause or motiue But so it is no Papist dare or can deny the same that the soules in Purgatorie be in charitie by popish fayth doctrine for otherwise they could not be out of Hell And doubtlesse that the Pope hath authoritie to giue Pardons as also that he graunteth them for good godly causes viz. for saying Masses Trentals Diriges for murdering of noble Princes for blowing vp with Gunpowder Townes Cities Common-weales and the like I suppose no Papist will denie If they do my argument is the stronger and my selfe shall very willingly agree thereunto Bartholomaus Fumus hath these expresse wordes Papa posset liberare omnes animas purgatorij etiamsi plures essent si quis faceret pro eis quod iuberet peccaret tamen indiscretè concedendo The Pope could set at libertie all the soules in Purgatorie though neuer so many if any would doe that for them which hee commaundeth mary hee should sinne by his vndiscreet pardoning But Viguerius proceedeth further and is bold to tell vs that it is neither inconuenient nor against the iustice of God these are his expresse wordes Nec est inconueniens quod Papa purgatoriuÌ„ posset euacuare non enim per hoc aliquid detraheretur diuinae iustitiae Neither is it inconuenient that the Pope can harrow Hell for that doth derogate nothing from the iustice of God Antoninus that famous popish Arch-byshop iumpeth with the rest in these expresse wordes Quia Ecclesia hoc facit et seruat credencuÌ„ est it a esse Because the Church this doth and obserueth we must beleeue it to be so Now to say that the Pope can deliuer al soules out of Purgatorie but doth it not to keepe himselfe from sinne is altogeather vaine friuolous For first hee should no more sinne in deliuering
all then hee doth in setting one onely at libertie as it is already prooued by Syluester and Viguerius Secondly Plenarie Pardons are so common at the houre of death as none that either haue friendes or money are or can be destitute thereof which notwithstanding is a more vndiscreet poynt then the other Thirdly the three conditions required for the legitimation of Popish pardoning concurre as sweetly in deliuering all togeather ioyntly as in deliuering one by one seuerally The Popes inordinate affection of lucre is hereby conuinced in that albeit hee can with one onely Pardon set open the gates of Purgatorie and set all the prisoners there at libertie yet will hee not extende that compassion to them but taketh this course with them that they shall appoynt Ptalegata by their last Willes and Testamentes for Masses Diriges and Trentals to be sayd yearely or rather perpetually if their abilitie will extend so farre with which Masses Diriges Trentals his Pardons shal concur so deliuer theÌ„ by policie discretion By reasoÌ„ of which couetously deuised policie we may this day behold in Spaine Rome Italy so many Alters erected so many Churches sumptuously decked so many Priestes richly maintayned especially in S. Gregories Church at Rome for which Masses Diriges Trentals huge summes of money are giuen dayly yearely perpetually not for the Masses formally concedo but yet formally for the Priestes panis and materially for the Masses constanter assero The fourth Conclusion The Pope hath often by his most wicked and execrable Dispensations taken vpon him to dissolue that Matrimonie which is firme stable by Christes owne institution The former part is prooued by the popish learned Canonist and great Diuine Martinus Nauarrus in these expresse wordes Diuiditur MatrimoniuÌ„ ante consummationem per dispensationem Papae iusta de causa sactam Matrimonie is dissolued before Consummation by the Popes Dispensation vpon iust cause graunted Now to prooue that the Pope may this doe Nauarre taketh it for a good ground that the same hath been often practised by the Pope Thus doth he write Quorum opinio adeo obseruatur quod etiam ter vel quater ad petitiones meo consilio antequaÌ„ in vrbem venissem oblatas Paulus 3. et Pius 4. per suas dispensationes dissoluerunt quaedam matrimonia omnino clandestina nondum consummata in remedium animarum alioquin probabiliter periturarum Whose opinion he speaketh of the Canonistes is so obserued that three or foure times before my comming to Rome vpon petitions made by mine aduise Paulus the third and Pius the fourth with their Dispensations dissolued certaine secret Matrimonies not yet consummate for the sauegard of soules which by likelyhood would otherwise haue perished Couarruuias an other very learned and most famous popist Canonist doth confirme the same while he telleth vs constantly that Pope Paulus the fourth and Pope Julius the third dispensed in like maner Now for proofe of the latter viz. that holy Matrimonie before consummation or copulation is firme and perfect and cannot be dissolued by the power of man our Sauiour himselfe teacheth vs when he sayth Quod Deus coniunxit homo non separet That which God hath conioyned let not man put asunder Againe in an other place thus Omnis qui dimittit vxorem suam et alteram ducit maechatur Euery one that putteth away his Wife and marryeth an other committeth adulterie Yea S. Paul sayth plainely That if the Wife depart from her Husband she must either remaine vnmarried or else be reconciled to him againe But our holy Father the Pope in his Decretals doth answere this matter very lustily though nothing clerkely in these words Non enim homo sed Deus separat quos Romanus pontifex qui non puri hominis sed veri Dei vicem gerit in terris ecclesiarum necessitate vel vtilitate pensata non humana sed diuina potius authoritate dissoluit For not man but God doth separate those whom the Byshop of Rome who beareth the person not of pure man but of the true God heere on earth dissolueth not by humane but rather diuine authoritie as the necessitie or vtilitie of the Church requireth The popish Saint and angelicall Doctor Aquinas proceedeth further vttering these expresse wordes Christus poterat relaxare ergo et Paulus potuit ergo et Papa poâ—est qui non est minoris potestatis in Ecclesia quâ—m Paulus suit Christ could pardon or dissolue Matrimonie therefore Paul could pardon therefore the Pope also can pardon as who is of as great authoritie in the Church as Paul himselfe was So then a primo ad vltimum by Aquinas his doctrine the Pope can doe as much as Christ. Hee can no doubt make the deafe to heare the dumbe to speake the lame to walke the blind to see and the dead to rise againe to life But our holy Father must pardon mee if I beleeue not these thinges before I see them done And yet doe these thinges follow by an ineuitable and irrefragable consequence of that Doctrine which the Pope and his angelicall Doctor haue taught vs. The Fift Conclusion The Pope can Dispense with a Monke already professed that he may become a married man Nauarrus that famous popist Canonist is and may be a witnesse sufficient of this popish Theame these are his expresse wordes Papa potest dispensare cum Monacho iam professo vt contrahat matrimoniuÌ„ imo de facto multi Papae dispensarunt The Pope can dispense with a Monke already professed that he may be a married man yea many Popes haue de facto dispensed so indeed Hereof see more at large in the 3. Chapter and the eleuenth Proposition The Sixt Conclusion The Pope can Dispense with the full Brother to marry his owne naturall and full Sister of the same Father the same Mother This may seeme very strange to the Christian reader But I haue prooued it plentifully in the Popes Funerall Pope Martin the fift of that name did Dispense as is already sayd but for the better contentation of the Reader let him ponder seriously the 14. Chapter following Where God willing Pope Martins Dispensation shal be examined to the bottome The Seuenth Conclusion The Pope may doe whatsoeuer pleaseth his Holinesse as whose bare will is a sufficient warrant so to doe The Popes owne deare glose vpon his Decretals telleth vs peremptorily without blushing that this Conclusion is true these are the expresse wordes Quia in his quâ— vult et est pro ratione voluntaâ— For in those thinges which the Pope will doe his will is a reason sufficient And it followeth in the same place Nec est qui eâ— dicat cur ita facis Neither may any say to him Why doest thou so Pope Boniface in his Decrees yeeldeth the reason hereof if wee will beleeue him pleading for himselfe these are his wordes Quia cunctos
possibly I could find the workes of S. Hierome who was a most diligent searcher out of Antiquities of Augustine of Ambrose and of other most learned Writers I haue reuolued the Actes of the sacred Councels which were after the councell of Nice and I finde nothing agreeable to those thinges which are read in the Popes Decrees of that Donation Holy Damasus the Pope at the request of S. Hierome gathered the Actes and doinges of his predecessours in whose worke those thinges can not be found which commonly are fathered vpon Pope Siluester Thus writeth Cardinall Cusanus affirming the supposed Donation of Constantine to be counterfeit He addeth withall in the same place many long Periodes to the same effect viz. That Constantine gaue neither the West Empire to the Pope nor yet Rauennas no nor the Citie of Rome Yea he plainely auoucheth that the Byshops of Rome acknowledged the Emperours for their Lordes that Pope Agatho graunted the Citie of Rome to belong to the Emperour Constantine who summoned the sixt generall Synode and liued more then 340. yeares after Constantine the great who is falsely reported to haue giuen away Rome Italie and the whole Westerne Empire to the Byshops of Rome Hee also affirmeth constantly that Pope Bonifacius acknowledged the Citie of Rome to pertaine to the Emperour Honorius To bee briefe Cardinall Cusanus addeth these expresse wordes Et vt breuiter dicam nullibi contrarium legi quin vsque ad illa prefata Pipini tempora Imperator remanserit in possessione locorum pretactorum nec vnquam legi aliquē Romanorum pontificum vsque ad tempora Stephani secundi in illis locis nomine sancti Petri aliquid iuris praesumpsisse habere haec credo vera esse non obstante famigera opinione de contrario quae Palea habetur quoniam absque dubio si non fuisset illud dictamen apocryphum Gratianus in veteribus codicibus et Canonum collectionibus inuenisset et quia non inuenit non posuit And to be briefe I haue no where read the contrary but that the Emperour was still in the possession of the aforenamed places vntill the dayes of Pipinus Neither did I euer read that any Byshop of Rome presumed to challenge any right in those places in the name of S. Peter vntill the time of Pope Stephanus the second This I beleeue is the trueth notwithstanding the opinion to the contrary in the Popes Decrees For without doubt if that report were not apocryphall Gratianus would haue found it in the old Bookes and collections of Canons but because he did not finde it he did not set downe the same Yea the sayd Cardinall addeth yet further that he found the same report of Constantines Donation in an other Booke in farre larger manner then it is set downe in the Popes Decrees which when he examined diligently he found by the very words thereof many argumentes of falsehood and deceitfull dealing too long to be rehearsed Much more hath the sayd Cardinall touching this feigned Donation which in regard of breuitie I omit Antonius that famous Arch-byshop and popish canonized Saint confirmeth the opinion of Cardinall de Cusa in these wordes Tertium dubium est de donatione facta ecclesiae a Constantino de qua habetur in decretis dict 96. Constantinus Sed illud cap. non habetur in antiquis decretis quid ergo et quantum donauerit non est bene certum The third doubt is of the Donation which Constantine made to the Church of which mention is made in the Decrees in the 96. Distinction and chapter Constantinus But that Chapter can not this day be found in the old Decrees What therefore and how much he gaue it is not very certaine But this is certaine by S. R. that learned Iesuites confession that the Pope was neuer personally in any Councell of the East least he being then the Emperours temporall subiect should be placed vnder the Emperour O humble Pope Raphael Volateranus a famous and graue Historiographer iumpeth with Cardinall Cusanus and Antonius in these wordes De dono Constantini aut concessione apud nullos extat authores praeter quam in libro decretorum Concerning the gyft or graunt of Constantine it can be found no where in any Writer saue onely in the booke of Decrees Paulus Cathalanus vtriusque iuris doctor and Chamberlaine to Pope Alexander the sixt who was as likely as any to know what possessions the Pope had and helde doth affirme the supposed Donation of Constantine to be a forged false and counterfeit thing of which no approoued Historiographer maketh any mention Not Eusebius sayth he who was a most diligent searcher out of Christian Antiquities He addeth that neither Hieronymus nor Augustinus nor Ambrosius nor Basilius nor Chrysostomus nor Ammianus nor the tripartite Historie nor yet Pope Damasus in his Chronicle nor Beda nor Orosius haue made any mention of the same After which large pithy and constant Narration hee addeth these expresse wordes Et constat per plures quam tercentum annos post Constantinum Imperatores tenuisse gubernacula vrbis et Italiae per duces praesides et exarchos et vrbis Romanae vsque ad tempora Innocentij secundi Sequitur et in vita Phocae Imperatoris legitur impetrasse Pantheon Bonifacium Papam ab eo Vnde ergo habuerit terras Ecclesia vide gesta Caroli magni et Pipini et Pium Papā in dicto dialogo And it is euident sayth this great learned Writer highly deuoted to the Pope that the Emperours for more then 300. yeares after Constantine kept in their handes the gouernment of the Citie and of Italie by their Chieftaines Presidentes and Exarchates and of the Citie of Rome vntill the time of Jnnocentius the second And in the life of the Emperour Phocas Pope Boniface as we read got Pantheon of him by request From whence therefore the Church of Rome had her possessions we must gather out of the Actes of Charles the great and of Pippin and of the Dialogue of Pope Pius To which I adde that Pope Pius wrote a Dialogue against the pretensed Donation For in the margent I finde these wordes Papa Pius dialogum scripsit contra donationem Constantini Pope Pius wrote a Dialogue against Constantines Donatiō Againe an other Margent following hath these wordes Argumentū forte Ca. M. Et Pipinus spoliatis veris Imperatoribus ecclesiam Romanam ditarunt Charles the great and Pipine spoyling the true Emperours enriched the Citie of Rome Marke well this is wonderfull The Popes were enriched by the robberie and spoyle of the true Emperours A thing incredible if a Papist had not reported it Laurentius Valla a very learned Writer and Citizen of Rome hath published a large Booke in print in which hee onely zealously and learnedly declameth against the falsely pretended Donation of Constantine the great His declamation touched the
Pope so narrowly that he did it not without the daunger of his life How be it he choose rather to hazard his life for the good of Christes Church then with his silence to bewray and betray the trueth The whole subiect of his Booke the argument which he there handleth is nothing else but this in very deed viz. to lay open to the eyes of all christiaÌ„ readers the false reportes miserable shiftes and plaine coozening trickes which the Byshops of Rome set abroach by false Bookes and fabulous Decrees to aduaunce them selues aboue all Royall and Imperiall power and to be thought equall with Christ the Sonne of God Hee soundly confuteth euery Period Sentence Clause Word of the fabulous and lying Decree published vnder the name of Constantine the great Yea hee prooueth and plainely conuinceth out of the very wordes of the Decree that it is nothing else but a false lying and counterfeit imagination inuented to aduance the Byshops of Rome aboue the Emperours of Rome and all Power vpon Earth To recite his large and manifolde authoritie proofes argumentes and reasons would both be tedious to the Reader and needlesse in the thing it selfe It may suffice to lay open to the gentle and thankfull Reader some speciall poynts conteyned in the said learned and worthy Declamation The first poynt is this viz. That Melchiades who was the next Byshop before Siluester confuteth the sayd Donation falsely fathered vpon Constantine the great For Melchiades affirmeth plainely sayth Laurentius Valla two thinges of great consequence Th' one that Constantine was a very zealous Christian in his time gaue licence throughout the whole world to all within his dominions not onely to become Christians but also to builde Churches euery where Th' other that the Emperour Constantine gaue Melchiades the Pallace of Lateran and those Grounds of which Gregorie maketh often mention in his register And this great learned Roman confirmeth the same in his wordes immediately afore-going which are these Omnis ferè Historia quae nomen Historiae meretur Constantinum a puâ—ro cum patre Constantio Christianum refert multo etiam ante Pontificatum Siluestri Euery Historie almost which is worthy the name of an Historie telleth vs that Constantine of a child was a Christian with his father Constantius euen long before Siluester was the Byshop of Rome This Valla affirmeth constantly as wee see And consequently the Donation pretended to be giuen to Siluester and the curing of Constantines supposed Leprie can not stand togeather with the same The Second poynt is this viz. That the words of the Decree do plainely conuince that Constantine neuer gaue any such gyft to Siluester These are his expresse words O furcifer Ecclesiaene id est templa Roma erant Petro et Paulo dicatae quis eas extruxerat quis aedisicare ausus fuisset quum nusquam foret vt Historia ait Christianis locus nisi secreta et latebrae O verlet were Churches that is Temples dedicated to Peter and Paul at Rome Who built them Nay who durst be so bold as to builde them seeing as Histories doe relate there was no place for Christians any where but Caues Dennes Groues to hide them in The third poynt is this viz. that the Decree fathered vpoÌ„ Constaâ—tine calleth the Bishop of Rome Pope which name for all that was not yet peculiarly ascribed to the Byshoppes of Rome These are Valla his expresse words O tuam singularem stultitiam Constantine modo dicebas coronam super-caput Papae ad honorem facere beati Petri nunc ais non facere quia Siluester illam recusat et quum factum recusantis probes tamen iubes eum aurea vti corona et quod hic non debere se agere existimat id tu ipsius successores dicis agere debere transeo quod rasuram coronam vocas et Papam pontificem Romanum qui nondum peculiariter sic appellari erat caeptus O Constantine great is thy follie afore thou sayd'st that the Crowne of Gold vpon the Popes head made for the honour of S. Peter now thou sayes it doth nor because Siluester refuseth it and thou approouing the fact of Siluester refusing it doest for all that commaunde to weare it and what he thinkes he may not doe that thou commaundes his successours for to doe I let passe that thou calles his Shauing a Crowne and the Byshop of Rome Pope who had not yet peculiarly gotten that name The fourth poynt is this viz. That the most Christian and worthy Emperour became the Popes Footman and helde his Stirroppe These are the wordes Tenentes fraenuÌ„ equi pro reuerentia beati Petri Apostoli dextratoris officium illi exhibuimus Wee held the Bridle of his Horse and for the reuerence of S. Peter the Apostle wee became his Foot-man or waighter at his Stirroppe Thus writeth Valla and thus is the counterfeite Decree which Valla very sharpely reprooueth and learnedly confuteth So that this counterfeite Donation with Constantines departure was the first steppe of the Popes Ladder of which I haue disputed at large in the Downe-fall of Popery The fift poynt is this viz. That what so euer the Emperours of latter time gaue to the Byshops of Rome concerning the Romane Empire the dominion and territories thereof they were induced to doe the same by the coozening trickes and deceitfull reportes of the Byshops of Rome which they falsely fathered vpon the most Christian and worthy Emperour Constantine the great Let vs heare attentiuely what Laurentius Valla deliuereth from his Penne. His first place which I meane to stande vpon is this Haec dicta sint vt nemo miretur si donationem Constantini coÌ„mentitiam fuisse Papae multi non potuerunt deprehendere tametsi ab aliquo eorum ortam esse hanc fallaciam reor at dicitis cur Imperatores quorum detrimento res ista redebat donationem Constantini non negant sed fatentur affirmant conseruant Ingens argumentuÌ„ mirifica defensio nam de quo tu loqueris Imperatore Si de Graeco qui verus fuit Imperator negabo confessioneÌ„ fin de Latino libenter etiam confitebor etenim quis nescit Imperatorem Latinum gratis esse factum a summo Pontifice vt opinor Stephano qui Graecum Imperatorem quod auxilium non ferret Italiae priuauit latinumque fecit ita vt plura Imperator a Papa quam Papa ab Imperatore acciperet These thinges are written to this end that no man thinke it strange if many Popes could not perceiue Constantines supposed Donation to be counterfeit although I thinke that some of them inuented this coozening tricke But yee will say Why doe not the Emperours who sustayned the losse deny the gyft of Constantine but rather graunt and support the same A great argument a marueylous defence For of what Emperour doest thou speake If of the Greeke who was the true Emperour in deed
Thalassius the reuerend Byshoppe of Caesaria did the like in these expresse wordes His quae per consensum ordinata sunt inter amantissimâ—s Episcopos Maximum et Iuuenalâ—m et nos consentimus To these thinges which are ordered by consent betweene the most beloued Byshops Maximus and Juuenalis wee also giue our consent Diogenes the reuerend Byshop of Cyzice did the like in these expresse wordes Consentio his quae a Paetrebus factae sunt I giue my consent to that which the Fathers haue decreed Sixtly all the Fathers of the Councell did the same these being their expresse wordes Omnes reuerendissimj Episcopj clamauerunt nos ita dicimus et consentimus his quae a Patribus dicta sunt All the most reuerend Byshoppes showted Wee say so and wee giue our consentes to those things which the Fathers haue decreed By these manifold testimonies it is cleare and euident that the Fathers who were assembled in Councell at the Emperours commaund decreed and confirmed peace betweene Maximus and Iuuenalis as also that they sought to the Emperour not to the Pope for the decision of their controuersies Neither is Pope Leo so much as once named in that action of the holy Councell What therefore shall wee or what can wee say to our lying Iesuite but that as hee began with lying and deceitfull dealing so he meaneth to continue his falsehood his lying his falsifications and his conny-catching trickes vnto the end Secondly that our Jesuite seemeth not to haue read Sâ—zomenus himselfe but to haue mistaken the Chapter by some note sent him from his best aduisors for to heare that Poperie is prooued the New religion doth so gall and trouble them that they can not sleepe quietly in their beddes for thinking how to withstand the same Many of their deepest heades haue conspired against the trueth and Robert Parsons that brazen-faced Fryer was put in trust to gather their instructions and to publish the same in the English tongue Leonem ex vnguibus I know the Lyon by his pawes The Narration of Sozomenus is in the eight not in the seuenth Chapter No no Sozomenus in the 7. Chapter cutteth the Popes throate and striketh the Jesuite starke dead these are the expresse wordes Romanae vero Ecclesiae Episcopus et sacerdotes per occidentem haec in suaÌ„ contumeliaÌ„ vergere duxerunt etenim sententiaÌ„ eoruÌ„ qui Nicaeae conuenerant quaÌ„ inde ab initio per omnia approbabant nec dum reliquerant sed ad illius normaÌ„ sentiebant et AthanasiuÌ„ ad se venientem amicè susceperunâ— causamqueillius ad se traxerunt But the Byshop of the Church of Rome and the Priestes throughout the West iudged the things to tende to their reproch for they had not yet forsaken their Sentence and Decree who were assembled at Nice which from the beginning they approoued in all thinges but followed it in their iudgements as the rule and friendly receiued Athanasius when he came to them and tooke his cause into their handes Thus writeth Sozomenus by whose relation it is euident that not the Pope alone but all the Byshoppes assembled togeather in a lawfull Synode effected that which our lying Jesuite would deceitfully father vpon the Pope Athanasius of Alexandria Paulus of Constantinople and Marcellus of Ancyra being vniustly molested by the Easterne Arrianizing Bishops sought to Julius then Byshop of Rome for his helpe and countenance as to the chiefest Patriarch who by reason of his place was of great authority and highly esteemed Pope â—ulius willing to afforde the sayd Byshops the best helpe he could called together the Byshops of the West and with their Decrees in a lawfull Synode declared the Easterne Byshops to haue offended against the Councell of Nice whose Canons all the faythfull in the Christian world were bound to reuerence and obey And thus the holy Byshoppes vniustly deposed from their seates were againe restored to their places by force in deed of the Nicene Canons For neither could the Pope alone nor yet the whole Synode of Westerne Byshops haue restored them but that their definitions were firmely grounded vpon the holy Nicene Canons For as we see by Sozomenus his Narration the Byshoppe of Rome with the Byshoppes of the West followed the Nicene Canons as their rule in all their Decrees resolutions and proceedinges whatsoeuer B. C. In his argumentes against the Superioritie of the Byshop of Rome this is one Seuenthly the famous Councell of Chalcedon gaue the Byshoppe of Constantinople equall authoritie with the Byshoppe of Rome in all Ecclesiasticall affayres In which wordes is one vntrueth cunningly couched For he calleth that heere the decree of the Councell which was by the ambition of Anatolius Byshoppe of Constantinople effected in the absence of the Romane Legates If Bell can prooue that this surreptitious Decree of the Easterne Byshoppes was euer confirmed then were it some thing which he bringeth But the Byshoppe of Rome his Legates withstood that their indirect proceeding pronouncing it to be contrary to the Decrees of the Nicene Councell T. B. Though it be the meere trueth that the Romish fayth and doctrine this day taught beleeued and violently with Fire Faggot obtruded vpon many thousands of people is the New religion yet doth that trueth so gall pierce and wound the Pope and his Iesuited Popelings that they can not endure the noyse or sound thereof For which respect our Jesuite turning himselfe this way that way and euery way but to the trueth omitteth sixe truethes by me briefely touched in my Triall but prooued at large in my Suruay and beginneth to cauill and scornefully to bicker with the seuenth thinking by meanes of confusion and disordered proceeding to couer and hide the nakednesse and newnesse of rotten Poperie and to dazell the eyes of his Readers that they shall not behold and discerne the trueth But it will in time preuaile maugre the malice of the Pope of his Iesuited vassals and of the greatest Diuell of Hell Two thinges the Iesuite heere toucheth in which the maine poynt and issue euen prora et puppis of the controuersie of the Popes falsely pretended Soueraigntie doth consist Th' one concerneth the Councell of Nice th' other the Councell of Chalcedon For the exact examination of which difficulties I put downe certaine Aphorismes hoping by Gods holy assistaunce to hit the nayle on the head and to make the heartes of the Pope and his Popish crew as heauie as any Lead Aphorisme first The most famous generall Councell of Nice did confine and limit the iurisdiction of the Byshop of Rome as well as of other Byshoppes euery where Behold the proofe and marke it well First the Nicene Councell in the first Canon hath these expresse wordes De his qui communione priuantur seu ex clero seu ex laico ordine ab Episcopis per vnamquamque Prouinciam sententia regularis obtineat vt hi qui abijciuntur ab alijs non recipiantur
of Italy to appeale vnto him as to the chiefe Patriarch and Metropolitane of the citie of Rome but not as to the Vniuersall Byshop of the whole Christian world For no such thing is decreed by any Synode as these Fathers doe affirme Aphorisme fourth All that can be sayd for the Popes falsely pretended Primacie is fetched and deriued from the authoritie of Man I prooue it two wayes First because the Byshop of Rome to aduaunce himselfe aboue his breathren and fellow-Byshoppes inuented by the helpe of his flattering Parasites a forged and counterfeit Donation of Constantine that famous Emperour Which certes hee would neuer haue done if he could by the holy Scriptures haue exalted himselfe or otherwise haue magnified his estate Of which counterfeit Donation I haue discoursed at large in the tenth Conclusion Secondly because whensoeuer his proud attempt and falsely challenged Primacie was withstood he neuer alleadged holy Writte for the proofe thereof for that he knew he could not so preuaile but falsified the Canons of Nicene Councell thinking so in time to attaine his heartes desire which in these last worst dayes came so to passe in deed But the famous Councelles of Constantinople and Chalcedon made no reckoning of such falsifications and proud attempts And the Fathers of the Affrican Synode albeit for a time they answered very modestly that they could find no such prerogatiue in the Nicene Canons and yet were content to expect true Copies from the East and in the interim for charitie sake to admit Appellations to Rome did for all that in the end come roundly vpon the Pope and told him flatly that no Synode had so decreed and that they could no longer endure such smoakie statelinesse and so foorth as in the third and second Aphorisme is alreadie prooued in the 30. Chapter of this Booke all now lyuing Papistes are prooued flat Heretiques Aphorisme fift The reasons which the Pope and his Pope-lings vse to prooue that the Nicene Councell made more Canons in which the Popes falsely pretended Primacie is stablished albeit they be with Papistes reputed as inuincible Bulworkes will for all that after due and full examination thereof be found as strong as a Copwebbe and as heauie as a Feather obiection 1 They say first that Isidore being requested by 80. Byshoppes to gather the Nicene Canons togeather found out many more euen fourescore in all But I answere first that the varietie found in Isidore in the Epistle of the Byshoppes of Aegypt to Pope Marcus and in the answere of Marcus to them doe euidently conuince the same writinges to be false forged and counterfeit Jsidorus telleth vs forsooth that they are more but how many he knoweth not Mary hee addeth withall that by the Decrees of Pope Julius they must be Seauentie Athanasius and the rest of the Byshoppes of Egipt affirme constantly to Pope Marcus that the Councell of Nice had foure-score Canons Yet Pope Marcus in his rescript to the said Byshops clippeth off Tenne from that number Now what Horse would not breake his Halter to come to this pleasant harmonie Secondly that the very wordes of the Preface fathered vpon Jsidorus doe prooue it to be forged and counterfeit for there I finde mention made of the generall Councell of Constantinople which was holden in the time of the Emperour Constantine and Pope Agatho against Macarius Stephanus and other Byshoppes But so it is that the said Councell was celebrated sixe hundred seuentie and eight yeares after Christ True it is likewise that Isidorus died in the yeare 637. after Christ and consequently true it must be thirdly that Jsidorus was dead at the least 40. yeares before that generall Councell and so he could not possibly tell those foure-score Byshoppes of it vnlesse perhappes he rose againe after he was dead To which I must needes adde that though Jsidorus be feigned in that Preface to haue interlaced all the decretall Epistles of the Byshops of Rome which he could any where find viz. of Clemens Anacletus Euaristus and the rest vnto Pope Siluester yea vnto Pope Gregorie the great yet doth not Isidores authoritie though he were an holy Byshop winne or bring any credite to the same Epistles And why I pray you Because forsooth it is a bastard and counterfeit Preface begotten in the Popes forge of falsifications euen like to Constantines Donation and many other Popish coozening trickes as is already prooued obiection 2 They say secondly that Athanasius and other Bishops of Egypt did send to Pope Marcus for the true Copies of the Nicene Canons as also that the same Pope sent 70. Canons Nicene to the sayd Byshoppes of Egypt But I answere first that though Pope Marcus affirmed them to be onely seauentie yet did Athanasius and the other holy so supposed Byshoppes constantly auouch them to be foure-score Secondly that though the Byshoppes of Rome boast and babble much of their Prerogatiues and extraordinarie Graces yet can small credite be giuen vnto them seeing they haue made away by their owne confessions no lesse then 50. Canons of the holy Nicene Councell Thirdly that the forgerie is discouered both by the writinges of Marcus and of Athanasius for Athanasius and the Byshoppes of Egypt sent not to Pope Marcus for the Copies vntill the Arrians had burnt them at Alexandria Yet so it is that they were burnt in the time of Constantine the Emperour as it doth and may appeare to euery indifferent reader by the complaint of Athanasius when he was driuen from Alexandria into exile And true it is likewise that Pope Marcus was dead in the time of Constantine many yeares before the Copies were burnt at Alexandria And consequently true it is thirdly that both the rescript of Pope Marcus and the Epistle of Athanasius with the other Fathers of Egypt are like to the forged Donation of Constantine viz. false and counterfeit obiection 3 They say thirdly that the Popes Supremacie is prooued by the Appeales of many Fathers viz. of Athanasius of Alexandria Paul of Constantinople Asclepas of Gaza Marcâ—llus of Ancyra Lucina of Adrianople and of many others who all being dryuen out of their Churches by the Arians were restored by Pope Julius to the same But I answere that the Dignitie and Prerogatiue of the Sea of Rome in restoring them was onely of credite and honour not of power and iurisdiction This is alreadie prooued so soundly and plentifully as more can not be wished Peruse the first second and third Aphorismes and marke them well Which being truely performed all that possibly can be said for Appeales to the Church of Rome will be as light as a Feather and passe away as Smoake from the fire The iurisdiction force efficacie and power of hearing restoring and iudging the causes of the Appellantes rested wholly in the Councell then at Rome assembled This both Athanasius and Iulius himselfe doe plainely testifie Athanasius discoursing thereof doth most
manifestly ascribe it to the Councell Julius when the Arrians reprooued him for ouerth warting that which they had done in their Councell answered roundly that the doinges in one Councell may lawfully be sifted examined and discussed in an other that themselues had offered to haue the cause debated so in iust iudgement and for that ende had requested a Councell to be called that Athanasius and the rest appeared at the Councell and that they who should also haue appeared made default and that therevpon the Councell finding their iniquitie relieued the parties wrongfully oppressed In briefe that whatsoeuer hee dealt or wrote therein hee did it not on his owne head but on the Councels iudgement and consent For these are the expresse wordes of Julius Visum est nobis ac vniuerso Conciâ—â—â— It seemed good to vs and to the whole Councell So then it was not the Pope but the Councell that heard and determined the causes of Byshoppes Such power of iurisdiction neither did Julius claime neither did Athanasius giue it him To which I adde that whatsoeuer Julius and the Councell did was by vertue and power deriued from the Nicene Canons So doth Sozomenus write on the behalfe of Athanasius and the rest I adde likewise that this Epistle of Iulius as it is in the first Tome of Councels is a bastard impe and a plaine counterfeit The legitimate Epistle is truely set downe in the workes of Athanasius obiection 4 They say fourthly that the Canons of the Nicene Councell commaund that no Decrees of Councels be of force without the consent of the Byshoppe of Rome But I answere first that Socrates and Sozomenus haue no other ground wherevpon to build that their Narration but the bare testimonie of Pope Julius himselfe in that Epistle which he wrote to the Arrians which Epistle is a counterfeite as I haue alreadie prooued Secondly that the Commandement of the Nicene Councell was that Councels should be kept yearely twise in euery Prouince But doubtlesse it were ridiculous to say or thinke that the Pope must be called twise euery yeare into euery Prouince in the Christian world Nay it is a thing impossible to be done obiection 5 They say fiftly that Flauianus Arch-byshop of Constantinople appealed to Pope Leo from the Councell of Ephesus deposing him vniustly And that Theodorete Byshoppe of Cyrus did likewise appeale to the same Leo being vniustly vexed by the same Synode But I answere first that Flauianus indeede appealed from the Councell of Ephesus yet not to Pope Leo but to a greater and a more lawfull Councell Secondly that Theodoretes cause was iudged determined by the same Councell of Chalcedon The former is prooued by Leos owne Epistle to the Emperour Augustus in which Epistle he complayneth to the Emperour of the fewnes and oppression of the Byshoppes assembled at the second prophane Synode in Ephesus and withall humbly beseecheth the Emperour that seeing Plauianus had appealed it would please his Maiestie to haue a Councell kept in Italy These are the expresse wordes of Leo himselfe Omnes partium nostrarum Ecclesiae omnes mansuetudini vestrae cum gemitibus et lachrymis supplicant sacerdotes vt quia et nostri fideliter reclamarunt et eisdem libellum appellationis Flauianus Episcopus dedit generalem Synodum iubeatis intra Italiam celebrari quae omnes offensiones ita aut repellat aut mitiget ne aliquid vltra sit vel in side dubium vel in charitate diuisum All the Churches with vs all Priestes with sighes and teares beseech your clemencie that seeing such as are ours haue faythfully disclaymed and Flauianus Byshoppe hath appealed you would commaund a generall Councell to be called and kept within Italy that so all contentions and offences may either be taken away or at the least so mittigated that hence-foorth nothing be either doubtfull in fayth or deuided in charitie Loe the Emperour not the Pope called Councelles euen within Jtaly and that for more then 450. yeares after Christ. obiection 6 They say sixtly that the Fathers of the Nicâ—ne Councell sent their Epistle to Pope Siluester beseeching him to confirme and ratifie with his consent the thinges which they at Nice had ordayned To which I answere first that the Epistle is forged and a plaine counterfeite as which is flatly against sundry Canons of the same Councell as is already prooued Againe because there were 318. Byshoppes at the Councell and yet onely two Osius of Corduba in Spaine and Macarius of Constantinople with Victor and Vincentius Priests of the citie of Rome were the authors of that Epistle as the tenor thereof doth specifie Thirdly because Macarius was not then the Byshoppe of Constantinople but Alexander so writeth Nicephorus a famous Historiographer and a great friend of the Pope and Church of Rome Yea Genebrarde the Popes owne deare vassall doth plainely confesse the same Fourthly because that famous Citie had not then the name of Constantinople but was called Bizantium so witnesseth the same Nicephorus in these expresse wordes Idem postea Alexandro Episcopo Constantinopolitano accidisse dicunt vix dum post Synodum Constantinus ByzantiuÌ„ venerat The like Miracle did Alexander Byshoppe of Constantinople when the Emperour Constantinus was scarce come from the Councell to Byzantium The former Miracle of which Nicephorus speaketh was wrought by Spiridion a verie simple Byshoppe but an holy man The latter by Alexander of Constantinople then called Byzantium either of which twaine conuerted a great learned Philosopher to the fayth of Christ Iesus miraculously Fiftly because the said Epistle seemeth to be made by some franticke or fond fellow But how doe I prooue it Forsooth because it desireth the Pope to call togeather all the Byshoppes of his citie of Rome all which could but be his owne sweete selfe seeing there was but at once one Byshoppe of one Citie Sixtly because Julius not Syluester was then Bishoppe of Rome This to be so Cassiodorus doth plainely testifie in these wordes Communicabant igitur Nicaeno concilio ex Apostolicis quidem sedibus Macarius Hierosolymitamos Eustathius iam praesidens Antiochenae apud Orontem et Alexander Alexandriae quae est apud stagnuÌ„ Marinum Iulius ante Romanus Episcopus propter senectutem defuit erantque pro eo praesentes Vitus et Vincentius Presbyteri eiusdeÌ„ Ecclesiae There came therefore to the Councell of Nice from the Apostolicall seas Macarius of Hierusalem Eustathius of Antioch President and Alexander of Alexandria but Julius the Byshoppe of Rome was absent by reason of his old yeares and Vitus and Vincentius Priestes of the same Church were there in his roome Nicephorus is consonant to Cassiodorus in these expresse words â—taque Imperator malum id ad summum excrescere cernens decentatissimam illam in Bithynia Nicaenam Synodum promulgat et literis locorum omnium Episcopos ad constitutam diem eò euocat Sequitur Hierosolymis EpiscopatuÌ„ gessit Macarius Romae Iulius
Ethnickes Publicanes vntill they giue true signes of vnfeyned repentance But withall this must euer be remembred and most loyalty obserued of all Byshoppes in Christes Church viz. That the Prince though full of manifest vices most notorious crimes in the world may neuer be shunned neither of the people nor yet of the Byshoppes The reason is at hand Because God hath appoynted him to be their Gouernour Much lesse may the people forsake their obedience to his sacred prerogatiue Royall and supereminent Power And least of all for it is most execrable damnable and plaine diabolicall may either the people alone or the Byshoppes alone or both ioyntly togeather depose their vndoubted Soueraigne though a Tyrant Heretique or Apostatate for euen in that case all loyall obedience and faythfull seruice in all ciuill affayres and whatsoeuer else is lawfull must of duetie be yeeled vnto them Hee may be admonished by Gods true Ministers in the pulpit court of Conscience if his vices be publike scandalous to the Church but he may neuer be iudged in the court of their Consistorie touching his power Royall and Princely prerogatiue Their power is onely to admonish and rebuke him and to pray to God to amende what is amisse Hee hath no Iudge that can punish him but the great Iudge of all euen the God of Heauen The popish Cardinall Hugo deliuereth this most Christian doctrine though to the vtter confusion of the Pope Tibi soli quia non est super me alius quam tu qui possit punire ego N. sum Rex et non est aliquis preter te super me To thee onely sayth Cardinall Hugo because there is not any aboue mee but thy selfe alone that hath power to punish mee for I am a King and so besides thee there is none aboue mee And the popish Glosse doth giue this sense meaning of the Prophets words Rex omnibus superior tantum a Deo puniendus est The King is aboue all and he can be punished of none but of God alone But for a larger Discourse of this Subiect I referre the Reader to the Downefall of Poperie Thirdly that no Minister may admit any impenitent Person knowne to be such no not him that weareth the Golden Crowne vnto the Holy mysteries for otherwise that Minister should sinne damnably as partaker of his sinne yea the holy Canons of our English Church doe flatly prohibit the same Fourthly that our Iesuite doth shew himselfe to be a sillie disputer while he argueth the defect of power Royall for that the King in some respect is as it were subiect to the Minister For I pray your worship good sir Fryer doth not your Pope himselfe fall downe prostrate before the feete of a silly Minister or Priest when he confesseth his sinnes vnto him Doth he not humbly submitte himselfe vnto the same sillie Priest Is not the sillie Priestes power aboue the Popes while he absolueth the Pope from his sinnes Is not the sillie Priestes Power aboue the Popes while he inioyneth Penance to the Pope I wote he is though not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and absolutely yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in some respect or sort If any Papist shall this deny I can prooue by his Popish denyall all their Popes to perish euerlastingly B. C. S. Cyprian opposing himselfe against the Pope doth nothing preiudice the Authoritie of the Pope For albeit the Pope commaunded Rebaptization not to be practised yet did he not define the question or pronounce any censure against Cyprian or others of his opinion much lesse was it condemned by a generall Councell with reason S. Augustine bringeth in his defence and so it was free for him without daunger of Heresie to persist in his owne opinion T. B. I answere first that though Cornelius then Byshoppe of Rome togeather with the whole nationall Synode of all the Byshops of Jtaly had made a flatte decree touching Rebaptization and though also Pope Stephanus had confirmed the same Decree straightly commaunding to obserue the same and though thirdly our Papistes of late dayes doe obstinately affirme that their Pope can not erre when he defineth iudicially yet this notwithstanding S. Cyprian teacheth and telleth vs plainely that in his dayes the Byshoppe of Rome had no such Power or preheminent prerogatiues as hee this day proudly and Antichristianly taketh vpon him For hee roundly withstood the Decree of Pope Stephanus who then was Byshoppe of Rome and both sharply reprooued him and contemned his falsely pretended Primacie And for all that S. Cyprian was euer reputed an Holy Byshoppe in his life time and a glorious Martir being dead But if the Byshoppe of Rome had been Christes Vicar and so priuiledged as our Papistes beare the world in hand hee is then doubtlesse S. Cyprian must needes haue been an Heretike and so reputed and esteemed in the Church of God Yea if any Christian shall this day doe or affirme as S. Cyprian did or publikely deny the Popes falsely pretended Primacie in any place countrey territories or dominions where Poperie beareth the sway then without all peraduenture hee must be burnt at a Stake with Fire and Faggot for his paines Of which Subiect the Reader may find a larger Discourse in my Christian Dialogue Secondly that while S. Austen sayth that S. Cyprian would haue yeelded to the Decree of a generall Councell albeit he made no reckoning of the Popes Decree euen ioyned with the nationall Synode of all the Bishoppes of Jtaly hee giueth vs to vnderstande two memorable poyntes of Doctrine which I wish the Reader to obserue attentiuely Th' one that the Definitiue sentence of the Byshoppe of Rome is not infallible although he define ioyntly with an whole nationall Synode And consequently that his Definitiue sentence may much more be false and erroneous when he decreeth and defineth without a Councell For if S. Augustine had been of that minde that the Byshoppe of Rome could not haue erred in his Iudiciall and Definitiue sentence either apart or with a nationall Councell hee neither would nor could haue excused S. Cyprian who scorned and constantly refused to yeeld to the same Yea S. Cyprian himselfe would for his great pietie haue humbly yeelded to the Popes sentence if he had knowne him to haue receiued such a Priuiledge and Prerogatiue from Heauen But neither did the Byshoppe of Rome in those dayes stand vpon any such Prerogatiue of not erring neither did any learned Father of that age euer dreame of any such extraordinarie Priuiledge No no the most that the Byshoppes of Rome could say and alleadge for their falsely pretended Soueraigntie when S. Augustine and the other Fathers of the Aphrican Councell reiected and condemned appeales to Rome was onely this and no other thing viz. that the Fathers of the Nicene Councell had graunted such Priuiledge Primacie to the Church of Rome And therefore did S. Austen both grauely and prudently excuse S. Cyprian for
that he would haue yeelded to a lawfull generall Councell As if he had sayd S. Cyprian was no more bound to follow the Opinion and Decree of the Byshoppe of Rome then the Byshoppe of Rome to follow his Thirdly that our Iesuite saith truly though vnawares against himselfe that it was free for S. Cyprian without the danger of Heresie to persist in his owne opinion For it was not in the power of the Byshoppe of Rome to make that Heresie which was not Heresie afore B. C. That it was lawfull and vsuall before the time of this Councell to appeale to Rome is euident out of S. Cyprian who reporteth how Fortunatus and Felix deposed by himselfe appealed to Cornelius Byshoppe of Rome And one Basilides deposed in Spaine appealed to Pope Stephen as the same Cyprian recounteth Not to speake of Marcion that auncient Hereticke who excommunicated of his Byshoppe in Pontus came to Rome for absolution as Epiphanius relateth And therefore Pope Leo calleth it an auncient custome to appeale to Rome T. B. I answere First that many distressed persons in their distressed and desperate causes haue many times indeede sought to Rome for helpe and succour But wee must not so much regard and consider what hath beene done especially by naughty and disobedient persons as what ought of right to be done and according to the Law of God Persons driuen to the brincke of desperation by reason of their bad and wicked dealing will soone attempt any thing which may any way seeme to better their dolefull and miserable estate Euen so men desirous of Honour will easily hearken vnto that which seemeth any way to further their intended purpose But that such Appeales were neuer approued by the holy Fathers and auncient Councels I haue copiously prooued in the Aphorismes of this Chapter and S. Ciprians opposition against the Byshoppe of Rome doth euidently confirme the same What Pope Leo sayth is of no force B. C. That many Canons are wanting in the Nicene Councell is most certaine For one Canon of that Councell was about the obseruation of Easter day as testifieth Constantine in his Epistle and also Epiphanius and Athanasius but this Canon is in none of those twentie which be now extant and of which onely so many yeares since Ruffinus maketh mention in his Historie T. B. I answere first that I will not deny but some thinges might be decreed in the Nicene Councell which are not this day to be found in the Canons now extant But withall I constantly auouch that there is a great disparitie betweene Canons and Decrees as the late popysh Synode of Trent playnely telleth vs. And consequently that there were but twentie Canons howsoeuer some other things besides were decreed at that time To which I adde that all Decrees are not alwayes thought necessarie to be put in print Whereof we haue an euident example in our English Parliament-statutes for it is often thought conuenient not to put them all in print Secondly that Epiphanius distinguisheth Canons from Decrees these are his expresse wordes In eadem Synodo Canones quosaaÌ„ posuerunt Ecclesiasticos simulque de paschate decreuerunt vnam vnitatem ac consensum In the same Synode they put downe certaine Canons Ecclesiasticall and withall they decreed one vnitie and consent touching the Keeping of Easter Loe this auncient and holy Father maketh a cleere difference betweene the Canons of the Nicene Synode and the Decrees thereof Thirdly that though wee should graunt some of the Nicene Canons to haue perished which we constantly deny yet would it not follow thereupon that such Canons conteyned the Popes falsely pretended Primacie especially seeing both the holy Fathers and most renowned Councels doe stoutly impugne the same This is prooued at large throughout the Aphorismes aforegoing Fourthly that 217. holy Fathers assembled in the Aphrican Councell told the Pope roundly that they had vsed all exquisite diligence to find out the true Copies and to that end had sent Messengers into sundry partes of the East howbeit such Canons as the Pope pretended for his falsely challenged Soueraigntie none could any where be found And therefore they aduised him to surcease and to giue ouer his claime for they could no longer endure such Fumosum typhum seculi such smoakie statelinesse of the world I vse the very wordes of the holy Synode as I haue already prooued Fiftly that Pope Julius swore solemnely that he had locked them vp in a Coffer of his Church These are his expresse words Si quis auteÌ„ de his ampliora atque abundantiora scâ—re voluerit in sacro nostrae Ecclesiae sedis 〈◊〉 et ea quae praeâ—â—ximus inuenire poterit If any shall desire a larger Discourse hereof he may find these Canons much more like stuffe in the Holy Arke or Coffer of the seate of our Church Thus writeth Pope Julius nay rather thus sweareth that holy Pope For these wordes follow immediatly Verum me dixisse testis est Diuinitas The Diuinitie is a witnesse that I haue spoken the truth Heere I wish the gentle and honest Reader to ponder duely these poyntes with mee First that this Epistle of Julius is a counterfeite as I haue already prooued for if the Pope had so layde them vp as heere hee sweareth solemnely Sozimus and the other Popes who made such adoe with the Byshoppes of Africke about those Canons would roundly haue shewed the same Yea doubtlesse if they had once had them in their Coffer vnder a Locke they would rather haue lost all the rest then them Secondly that the world hath been too long abused with this kind of coozenage trickes of legierdemaine Thirdly that if the Byshoppes of Rome can not keepe those Canons which make so much for the aduauncement of their stately Soueraigntie how can we safely credite them in keeping pure and free from errours such Bookes Councels and Canons as make greatly for vs and wholly against them selues Wee can not doe it Fourthly that if counterfeite Bookes Histories and Canons were wholly layde away Poperie beleeue mee would soone fall of it selfe For in this supposed rescript of Pope Iulius directed to the Byshoppes of the East there is such aboundance of matter for the Popes Super-lordly Soueraigntie as would certainly serue his turne if it could so be admitted But Gods holy name be blessed the forgerie is so palpable as euery one may with all facilitie discouer the same Fiftly that S. Augustine Alipius Possidius Marinus and all the other Byshoppes 217. in number assembled in the famous Aphricane Synode doe plainely auouch and constantly affirme that the true Copies of the Canons of the Nicene Councell were at Antioch Alexandria and Constantinople and that they were content for charitie-sake to obserue such proceedinges touching Appeales as the Popes Messengers did alleadge out of their commonitorie from Rome vntill true triall should be made thereof out of the true Copies from the East which were to
Sozimus had vnderstood and meant the Canons of Sardica when he named the Canons of Nice about which there was so much adoe as we haue already seene then doubtlesse it had been his part to haue named them though for no other end but onely for vnitie peace and charitie-sake Secondly that I willingly agree to our Jesuite when he auoucheth no new thing touching Fayth to haue been enacted in the supposed Synode of Sardica And my reason is this for that Appeales to the Church of Rome are no matters of Fayth indeed thirdly that it is a matter of Fayth with the Papistes to beleeue that the Fathers of Nice could not erre either in defining matters of Fayth or Manners And consequently seeing the Synode of Sardica in the fourth and seuenth Canons hath decreed flat contrary to the Synode of Nice in the fourth fift sixt and seuenth Canons it can not be deemed a legittimate and lawfull Synode but a bastard and plaine counterfeite as I haue already prooued in the third Aphorisme of this present Chapter To which place I referre the Reader as where he may find whatsoeuer his heart can desire This onely will I heere say for the present that not onely the other first three generall Councels after Nice viz. of Constantinople Ephesus and Chalcedon being all three after it decreed contrary to it but which is more to be admired 217. Byshoppes of which S. Austen was one assembled in the famous Councell Aphrican affirmed constantly with one vniforme assent to Pope Celestine that no Synode had made such Canons as the Byshoppes of Rome alleadged for their owne pompe and statelynesse These are the expresse words of the holy Synode Nam vt aliqui tanquam a tuae sanctitatis latere mittantur nulla inuenimus patrum Synodo constitutum For that any should be sent from your Holynesse we find it not defined by the Fathers in any Synode Now notwithstanding this vniforme assertion of so many so learned so holy and so auncient Fathers yet is that falsely supposed prerogatiue of Appeales to Rome plainely decreed in the fourth and seuenth Canons of Sardica And consequently either the Synode of Sardice was a bastard and counterfeite Conuenticle or else the two hundred and seuenteene Fathers of the Aphrican Councell auouched to the Pope a most notorious vntrueth But doubtlesse neither could so many holy Fathers for their great reading and learning haue been ignoraunt of the sayd Councell if any such lawfull Synode had been extant neither for their rare pietie would they haue gainesayd or withstood the same Fourthly that the affirmance of the Nicene Fathers to haue been also at Sardice is like to the counterfeite Donation of Constantine the rescript of Pope Julius and such like of which I haue discoursed at large in the conclusions and Aphorismes of this present Chapter Fiftly that it greatly stood the Popes in hand Sozimus Bonifacius and Celestinus during whose times the controuersie did continue to haue vrged the Canons of Sardica if any such lawfull generall Synode had been extant And consequently seeing they neuer once related them it followeth that in their dayes there was no such Councell extant in very deed Sixtly that Pope Gregorie reuerenced the foure first generall Councels as the foure holy Ghospels but for all that he neuer made mention of the Synode of Sardica which if it had been extant no counterfeite ought to haue had the second place Seuenthly that the fourth and seuenth Canons of Sardice are flat contrary to the fourth fifth sixth and seuenth Canons of Nice And yet without all peraduenture no Synode especially comming within a few yeares after Nice which Councell all the Christian world did highly reuerence at all times either would or durst haue decreed against the same To that which is here and else where sayd of the Centuristes and M. Perkins this may in generall yeeld sufficient contentation to the honest Reader viz. that albeit they doe not in euery poynt iumpe precisely with Bell yet doe they not speake any thing in defence of Poperie nor any where plead for the supposed antiquitie thereof No no they vtterly reiect Poperie and euery where condemne the same To that of Policarpus I answere that his comming to Rome was not to insinuate any soueraigntie of Anicetus ouer him as the very end did declare but to visit that famous imperiall Citie the Queene of the world and Caput mundi and to see the old Monumentes in that place euen as the Queene of the South came from farre to heare Salomons Wisedome and to beholde his glory To that of Jrenaeus I haue said sufficiently in many places of this Chapter as also to that of Policrates and the other Byshoppes of Asia That which I haue sayd of S. Cyprian doth euidently confirme the same And the testimonie of Eusebius is consonant while he writeth in this maner Sed hoc non omnibus placabat Episcopis quin potius è contrario scribentes ei iubebant vt magis qua sunt pacis ageret et concordia atque vnanimitati studeret denique extant etiam ipsorum literae quibus asperius obiurgant Victorem All Byshoppes liked not his dealing but by their Letters directed to him they commaunded marke well the word that he should rather doe those thinges which belong to peace and should indeuour himselfe to establish concord and vnitie To be briefe their Letters are extant in which they reprooue Victor the Byshoppe of Rome very sharpely Thus writeth the auntient and learned Father Eusebius cleering two thinges vnto vs. Th' one that Irenaeus and the other holy Byshoppes did chide and reproue the Pope Th' other that they did not onely rebuke him but which is much more freely in their Letters to him commaund him Marke well the word Iubebant they commaunded him For sayth our Jesuite the other Apostles sent not Peter by any authoritie of commaund but onely by request and petition as Princes and Superiours without any touch of their high Office or Dignitie may be sent by their inferiours their sending proceeding from petition nothing empeacheth their high Soueraigntie But our sir Fryer either desireth to deceiue others or knoweth not what he sayth For without all peraduenture in proper phrase of speach whosoeuer is sent by an other or others marke well my wordes the same person or persons as they be sent are inferiours For this reduplication sent as sent implyeth intrinsecally a duetie and subiection euen in him or them who otherwise may be superiours Whensoeuer one goeth to a place vpon request he is not properly sent thyther by him that made the request but freely taketh that iourney in hand of his owne accord Hee doth it willingly not by compulsion of charitie not of duetie To which I adde that it is a disloyall speach of a Subiect to affirme that the King may be sent of his Subiectes Howbeit I will not deny but the King in some matters of
great consequence may be perswaded by the aduise of his graue Councellours that his corporall presence were necessarie and therevpon resolue with himselfe to goe in proper person Yet in such a case it can neither truly nor properly be sayd That the King was sent of his Subiectes but that hee tooke the iourney in hand freely and of his owne accord though perhappes the rather by their aduise To that of our Iesuite where he sayth That S. Paul being inferiour to S. Peter reprehended him and that Bell if he were a Byshoppe would looke as the Diuell looked ouer Lincolne and none might admonish him of any fault I answere in this manner First that our Fryer doth too much iniurie to S. Paul while he maketh him inferiour to S. Peter and withall doth no little dishonour to his Popes who in all their Pardons Dispensations and such like trumperie doe euer rely vpon the ioynt authoritie of S. Peter and S. Paul grounding their power and soueraigntie in them both For S. Paul receiued not his Authoritie from any mortall man but from God himselfe immediately Yea himselfe sayth of himselfe that hee had as great Power as Peter th' one ouer the Iewes th' other ouer the Gentiles Secondly that euery Apostle receiued from Christ himselfe equall Power ouer the whole World euery one of the eleuen hauing the same Commission that Peter had Thirdly that our Jesuite seemeth better acquainted with the Diuell then he is with God as who beareth his Reader in hand that he knoweth how the Diuell looked ouer Lincolne Fourthly that not Bell but the Pope is the man who may carry thousandes of soules into Hell and yet no man may say vnto him Why doest thou so This is alreadie prooued in the Conclusions aforegoing Heere I deeme it not amisse for the complement of the Popes falsely pretended Soueraigntie to adioyne a testimonie of one of his holy Martyrs by way of digression The Digression THe Secular popish Priestes aswell French as English haue published in print may Bookes in which they haue most liuely pourtrayed and paynted out the Iesuites in their best beseeming colours They affirme constantly in their sayd Bookes of the Iesuites in generall that they be Proud men Tyrantes Coozeners Thieues Gypsies Murderours and men of no Religion Of Robert Parsons that trayterous and foule-mouthed Jesuite in particular that hee is a Bastard a notorious Drunkard a Deceiuer a Traytor a prouoker of others to Treason the Monster of mankind a Farie-brat begotten of some Incubus and what not All which are plainely and truly related in my Booke intituled The Anatomie of Popish tyrannie Which Booke hee that hath not seene and read may seeme to be ignorant of the deepest poyntes of Iesuiticall Theologie These Bookes do so gall wound the Jesuites at the very heart as they know not in the world what to say or answere in that behalfe Clerke and Watson lately executed for their most notorious treasons wrote sundry Bookes against the sayd Jesuites This Iesuite B. C. is so mightily assayled and turmoyled with that which I cite out of Watson that in one place to weete in his Epistle about the 27. page hee hath these wordes The Author he alleadgeth is some Quodlibetarian Minister though poore Watson beareth the name But in an other place to weete in the eight Chapter of this present Pamphlet he writeth thus Bell sheweth smal conscience in belying the dead and laying more faultes vpon him vniustly when alasse hee had otherwise too many Againe Watson speaketh of matters of fact In which twaine the Iesuite flatly contradicteth himselfe In the former hee would gladly finde out an other Author But in the latter hee vnawares fathereth the Booke vpon Watson telling Bell that hee belyeth the dead To which I adde that Watson vpon his death did acknowledge himselfe to be the Author The Iesuites third Chapter of the Marriage of Priestes and Ministers of the Church THe Jesuite greatly lamenting that the prohibition of the Marriage of Priestes can not be iustified not daring to deale with my Suruey where the same is most largly handled all Obiections and difficulties which possibly can be imagined distinctly soundly answered complayneth grieuously that I seeke to deceiue my reader in not proouing in my Tryall what I say for the same but referring the Reader to my Suruey The truth is this that in the Tryall I meant onely to shew to all simply seduced Papistes that late Popish Faith and Doctrine was not the old as they ignorantly beleeue but the new Religion in verie deede And my purpose was to effect the matter with such breuitie as euery one might buy the Treatise for a small peece of money and carry it in his Bosome about with him and so be able to poynt as it were with his Finger against all such as boast of Poperie as of the old Religion when and by whom euery maine poynt of late Papistrie first began Our Jesuite seeing their Pope confounded and their Fayth and Doctrine prooued to be the New religion can not tell in the world what to doe say or thinke for and in the defence thereof Let vs heare his owne wordes thus doth he write It serueth not the turne saith he to tell vs that he hath done it in his Suruay I therefore to content our Fryer Jesuite if it will be am heere resolued to set downe such speciall kindes of proofe deriued and taken out of my Suruay as are able to perswade all indifferent Readers that the Marriage of Priestes euer was and this day is both honest lawfull by Gods law and onely prohibited by the wicked and cursed Lawes of men the Byshops of Rome I meane The first Proposition All Ministers which are not Papistes nor subiect to the lawes and rules of Poperie may lawfully Marry euen by the doctrine of the Church of Rome I prooue it because all such Ministers are meere Lay-men by the iudgement of the Church of Rome which Church for all that and none other debarreth Priestes and other Ministers of the Church from the freedome of honourable Wedlocke This Assertion is plaine and euident it needeth no proofe at all The 2. Proposition Marriage was euer lawfull for all Priestes and other Ministers of the Church during all the time of the Old Testament This Proposition is cleare to all such as shall duely reuolue the holy Bibles For the holy Prophet Jeremie was the sonne of Helkiah who was one of the Priestes that were at Anathoth Hophni and Phinehaâ— were the sonnes of Helj the Priest Sephora was the daughter of Jethro the Priest of Midian S. John the Baptist who was the precursor of our Lord Iesus was the sonne of Zacharias the Priest Yea the High Priest was appoynted by God himselfe to marry a Mayde of his owne people so honourable was the mariage of Priestes in his most holy sight The 3. Proposition Marriage is lawfull for Priestes and
other Ministers of the Church euen now in the time of the New Testament Where by the word Priestes I vnderstande all such as are admitted to preach Gods word and to administer the holy Sacramentes This Proposition is prooued very copiously in my Suruay of Poperie aswell by the Textes of holy Writte as by the flatte testimonie of S. Chrysostome S. Clement S. Eusebius S. Theophilactus and many others To which place for breuitie sake I referre the Reader especially because this trueth will be prooued againe and againe in the Propositions following The 4. Proposition The Marriage of Priestes is onely by the law of man prohibited and not by any positiue constitution either of Christ or his Apostles I prooue it many wayes First by the Popes owne Decrees where I find these expresse wordes Copula namque Sacerdotalis vel consanguineorum nec Legali nec Euangelica vel Apostolica auctoritate prohibetur Ecclesiastica tamen lege penitus interdicitur For the Marriage of Priestes is neither forbidden by the Law of Moses nor by the Law of the Ghospell nor by the Law of the Apostles yet is it altogeather and wholly forbidden by the Law of the Church of Rome Marke well these wordes gentle Reader for Christes sake for they are able to confound all Jesuites Iesuited Popelinges in the world Obserue with mee first that Gratianus who hath taught vs out of the Popes owne Decrees this godly and memorable lesson was a very famous Popish Canonist brother to Petrus Lombardus surnamed The Maister of Sentences and of such renowne in the Popish Church that his Bookes are this day read publiquely in their Diuinitie-schooles Secondly obserue that this Gratianus so learned and so famous in the Romish Church liued with his brother Lombardus euen then when the Pope was in his greatest pompe and tyrannie Obserue thirdly that this Gratian so learned and so renowned amongst the Papistes did euen in the altitude of Poperie commit that to the open view of the world which vtterly ouerthroweth all Papistrie and turneth it vpside downe Obserue fourthly that the Pope and his Popish vassals being iustly infatuated for their sinnes had no power to hinder and keepe backe from the print such Bookes as doe vtterly disclose their tyrannie falsehood and paltry dealing For our Lord God euen that mightie God Jehouah which caused the Red-sea to giue place to the Israelites who caused Balaams Asse to speake who caused the Fire to suspend it force in the burning Furnace who caused Yron to swimme vpon the Water who caused Yron-lockes and Brasen Gates to open voluntarily that mighty God I say enforced Gratian that learned famous and zealous Papist to confesse openly for the battering downe of Poperie that the marriage of Priestes which the Pope forbiddeth vpon paine of eternall damnation is neither forbidden by the Law of Moyses nor by Christ or his Apostles I prooue it secondly by the testimonie of Caietanus that learned and famous Cardinall of Rome whose words are these Nec ratione nec authoritate probari potest quod absolutè loquendo Sacerdos peccet contrahendo matrimonium nam nec ordo in quantum ordo nec ordo in quantum sacer est impeditiuus matrimonij siquidem Sacerdotium non dirimit matrimonium contractum siue ante siue post seclusis omnibus Legibus Ecclesiasticis stando tantum ijs quae habemus a Christo et Apostolis It can neuer be prooued neither by Authoritie nor by Reason if we speake absolutely that a Priest sinneth by marrying a Wife For neither the order of Priesthood in that it is order neither order as it is holy is any hinderaunce vnto Matrimonie For Priesthood breaketh not Marriage whether it be contracted before Priesthood or afterward if wee set all Ecclesiasticall Lawes apart and stand onely to those thinges which we haue of Christ and his Apostles Thus writeth this great learned man whose testimonie is so cleare and euident that no deniall no euasion no tricke of legierdemaine can haue any place For he sayth first that a Priest sinneth not in marrying a Wife Secondly that Priesthood doth not disanul Wedlocke whether a Priest be married before or after it This is a poynt of great consequence let it be well remembred Thirdly that Priestes Marriage is neither forbidden by Christ nor by his Apostles Panormitanus that famous Papist teacheh the selfe same doctrine his wordes are set downe in the 12. Proposition see them there I prooue it thirdly by the verdict of the famous Papist Viguerius as also of their Saint Antoninus sometime Arch-byshoppe of Florence These are the expresse wordes of Antoninus Episcopatus ex natura sua non habet opponi ad matrimonium The office of a Byshoppe of it owne nature is not opposite or against Marriage The case we see is most cleare and perspicuous to euery child viz. that the Marriage of Priestes is very lawfull as which is neither forbidden by Christ nor by his Apostles No no the Byshoppes of Rome onely haue prohibited it as I haue at large discoursed and prooued in my Suruay of Popery Marke well the eleuenth Proposition following as which is a confirmation hereof The 5. Proposition It was euer lawfull for the Byshoppes Priestes and Deacons of the East-church to be Married and to beget children in the time of their Priesthood This PropositioÌ„ is prooued by the flat testimonie of the sixt generall Councell holden at Constantinople in the yeare of our Lord God 677. where 289. Byshoppes were assembled In the 13. Canon of this famous Councell three speciall thinges are decreed First that Priestes Deacons and Sub-deacons may haue the lawfull vse of Wedlocke at such times as they doe not execute the Ministerie Secondly this famous Councell excommunicateth all those Priestes and Deacons that after their orders put away their former wiues vnder pretence of Religion Thirdly it excoÌ„municateth all such as labour to separate Priestes and Deacons from the vse and company of their Wiues And after all this this great and learned Synode addeth this worthy and memorable Obseruation viz. that they haue thus decreed albeit they know the Lawes of Rome to be otherwise Where I note by the way that so many learned Byshoppes did 677. yeares after Christ vtterly contemne the falsely challenged Primacie of the Church of Rome This Decree of the famous Councell is confirmed sundry wayes confirmation 1 First by the flat Canon of Christes blessed Apostles in these expresse wordes Episcopus aut Praesbyter aut Diaconus Vxorem suâ—m praetextu religionis non abijcito si abijcit segregator a communione si perseuerat deponator Let neither Byshoppe nor Priest nor Deacon put away his Wife vnder pretence of Religion if he so do let him be excommunicate if he continue let him be deposed Out of these wordes I obserue these golden Lessons First that in the dayes of the Apostles it was lawfull for Byshoppes Priestes and Deacons to haue Wiues
Clergie reputed Pope Hildebrand an Heretique for withstanding the same Fiftly that the Popes so supposed Soueraigntie ouer the whole Church was in those dayes vtterly condemned of the whole Church of Germanie For Lambertus telleth vs freely and truely that all the Clergie withstood the cursed Decree of the Pope proclaimed him an Heretique and this they did euen by the flat testimonie of Christ and his Apostles Sixtly that by the verdict of al the Learned in Germanie that great goodly Country the Pope did not only enforce theÌ„ violently against their ancient Customes but withal made the way to all filthy liuing This my Doctrine is confirmed by a double argument First because Pope Pelagius the second of that name who was Byshop 200. yeares after Siricius did willingly admitte the Byshoppe of Syracusa albeit he were a married man and had a Wife and Children neither was that Byshoppe then vrged to forsake the vse of holy Wedlocke Gratianus a man of great reputation among the Papistes doth in the fore-named Distinction referre out of Pope Pelagius his wordes in this manner Siue ergo Presbyter siue Diaconus siue Subdiaconus fuerit quod praefaâ—is ordinibus constitutj licitè matrimonio vtj possunt Whether therefore he be Priest Deacon or Sub-deacon it is euident that such as are within the aforenamed Orders may lawfully haue the vse of holy Wedlocke Out of these words of Gratianus that learned and zealous Papist I inferre against the Doctrine of the Pope that Priestes Deacons and Sub-deacons may not onely be Married but withall while they be Married haue the vse of holy Wedlocke Secondly because Pope Nicholas who liued aboue three hundred yeares after Pelagius was so farre from disquieting Married Priestes for their Marriages that when the Bulgarians complayned of that fault so supposed he perswaded them to be content and not to dishonour their married Priestes This is that Doctrine which the Popes owne Canon-law affoordeth vs wee heartily thanke him foâ— it Let vs adde herevnto that the Constitution of Pelagius was not of force in Sicilia saue onely three yeares before the Popedome of Gregory the great which doubtlesse was more then two hundred yeares after the Popedome of Siricius For thus doth Pope Gregory write Ante triennium omnium Ecclesiarum Subdiaconi Siciliae prohibiti fuerunt vt more Romanae Ecclesiae suis vxoribus nullatenus misceantur Quod mihi durum atque incompetens videtur vt qui vsum continentiae non inuenit neque castitatem promisit compellatur a suo Vxore separari Three yeares ago all Sub-deacons of Sicilia were charged to forbeare the vse of holy Wedlocke according to the custome of the Romane Church Which seemeth to mee a very hard and vnconuenient thing that hee who neither hath the gift of Continencie neither yet hath vowed Chastitie should be forcibly secluded from his Wife Out of these wordes I obserue these Instructions First that the Lawes of single life tooke onely place in Sicilia about three yeares before the time of Gregory the first Secondly that it is a diabolicall thing to compell such to Marriage as neither haue the gift of Continencie neither yet haue vowed Chastitie Thirdly that the Marriage of all Byshoppes and Ministers in our Churches as also of all secular Popish Priestes euerie where is lawfull and true Wedlocke by the doctrine of Pope Gregorie the reason is at hand because none of them are Votaries For to the Vow which they call Annexed they are no more bound in the West Church then they are in the East Marke well the next Proposition The 8. Proposition All secular Priestes are so free from the solemne Vow which by the Church of Rome is annexed to Ecclesiasticall orders that their Marriages are true perfect and of force the supposed dissoluing impediment thereof not withstanding I prooue it by a triple argument First because Scotus Nauarrus Iosephus Angles Durandus and the rest doe all freely graunt that this Vow is onely annexed by the ordinaunce of the Church and by the power of man Secondly because if the secular Priestes be Votaries their Vow must either be by the word spoken or by the deed done Not the former because no such word can be prooued Neither the latter because if the act it selfe in taking orders should be the Vow annexed or essentially include the same it would follow therevpon necessarily that the Greekes likewise should become Votaries seeing they doe the selfe same thing Who for all that were neuer Votaries nor yet so reputed by the Learned Papistes as we haue already seene in the fourth Proposition Thirdly because when two thinges are essentially and really distinguished the graunt of the one doth not necessarily include the grant of the other and yet is the solemne Vow of Chastitie essentially and really distinct from sacred Orders as Nauarrus Iosephus Gratianus Sectus Durandus Antoninus and all learned Papistes willingly do graunt Marke the next Proposition well The 9. Proposition Albeit by Popish fayth and doctrine all such as Marrie after the single Vow of Continencie doe sinne mortally yet doth their Marriage holde and is of force Thus teach all Learned popish Doctors with vniforme assent no exception can be made Angelus Rosella Calderinus Couarruvias Paludanus Maior Siluester Nauarrus Fumus Scotus Aquinas and the rest do constantly affirme it It shall suffice to alleadge the wordes of Fumus in the name of all the rest Thus doth he write Secundum impedimentum est votum simplex nam qui vouet castitatem simpliciter si contrahat mortaliter peccat violans fidem Deo datam tamen tenet matrimonium The second impediment is a single Vow for he that voweth Chastitie simply if he afterward marrie committeth a mortall sinne in breaking his promise made to God but yet the Matrimonie holdeth and is of force Marke the next Proposition againe and againe The 10. Proposition The Vow single is of one the same nature with the Vow solemne not distinguished by any essentiall but meere accidentall difference I prooue it by the plaine affirmance of Josephus Angles a very learned Fryer and a famous popish Byshoppe these are his expresse wordes Votum solenne et simplex ex parte subiecti specie accidentali differunt propterea quod voti simplicis subiectuÌ„ est ad contrahendum matrimonium habile licet contrahendo peccet at vero subiectum voti solennis est ad contractum matrimonialem inhabile transgressiones voti simplicis et solennis eiusdem speciei sunt etiamsi qui solenniter vouet grauius peccet ratio est quia specifica differentia actuuÌ„ est penes obiecta et cum idem sit vtriusque voti obiectum nempe seruare continentiam erunt actus eiusdem speciei erit tamen voti solennis transgressio grauior ratione perfectioris status The Vow solemne and single differ accidentally in respect of the subiect because the subiect of the
naturae vitio turpificarent Yet this I will say that this forced coacted Chastitie of Priests was so farre from excelling Chastitie in Wedlocke as no crime whatsoeuer hath brought greater shame to Priesthood more harme to Religion more griefe to all good men then the vnchast life of Priestes Therefore it were perhaps no lesse necessarie for the publique weale of Christendome then for the order of Priesthood that once againe Priestes might marrie publikely and so liue honestly and without shame and not pollute themselues so filthyly This is the doctrine of Polydorus well worthy to be written in Golden letters Yea the Marriage of Priestes is so honourable and so lawfull by Gods law and the prohibition thereof so dishonourable and dolefull that Pope Pius the second of that name who afore his Popedome was named Aeneas Syluius a very learned and famous writer did deliuer his minde opinion concerning this subiect in this manner as his owne deare Platina hath published the same Indoctum Episcopum Asine comparandum corpora malos medicos animas imperitos sacerdotes occiacre vagum Monachum diaboli esse mancipium virtutes Clerum ditasse vitia pauperem facere Sacerdotibus magna ratione sublatas nuptias maiori restituendas videri Pope Pius vsed to say as writeth his owne deuoted vassall Platina that a Bishop without learning was like vnto an Asse consequently that there are many Asses in popish Churches that euill Phisitians did kill mens bodyes and ignorant Priestes their soules that a vagrant Monke was the Diuels slaue that Vertues had enriched the Clergie in times past but that Vices of late dayes doe make it poore that there was great reason to debarre Priestes of Marriage but greater reason to restore Marriage againe vnto them Thus writeth Platina of Pope Pius Now for the benefite of the Christian reader I obserue these godly necessarie Lessons out of these three learned and famous Papistes First that the coacted Chastitie of Priests is neither of the substance of the Ministerie nor grounded vpon the law of God Secondly that the annexed Vow so tearmed is coacted and not free not voluntarie but compelled And consequently that secular Priestes are not Votaries properly but by a cursed and lawlesse Vow violently imposed vpon them Thirdly that the Prohibition of the Marriage of Priestes is against their soules health and causeth them to sinne damnably Fourthly that Priestes marriage would be honourable and honest chastitie if the law of man did not prohibite the same Fiftly that it was once lawfull for Priestes to Marrie Sixtly that it is in mans power to make their Marriages once lawful againe Seuenthly that it is expedient to restore Priestes to their right againe that is to say to referre Marriage to their free choyce and election Marke this poynt well for Christes sake gentle Reader Vt ius publicj matrimonij Sacerdotibus restitueretur That the right of publique Wedlocke might be restored to Priestes againe O sweete Iesus how impudent are our Jesuites and Iesuited Papistes who inueigh so bitterly against Priestes Marriage which is their proper right Nay how tyrannicall is the Pope who violently debarreth and keepeth them from their right Let these two wordes neuer be forgotten viz. Ius and Restitueretur for the former word Ius right doth argue Priestes Marriage to be their proper right And the latter word restitueretur might be restored doth argue the tyrannie of the late Byshops of Rome The reason is euident because Restitution can neuer be truely exacted but where iniustice went before and consequently seeing by the ioynt testimonie of these three famous popish Writers that the Marriage of Priestes ought to be restored to them it followeth of necessitie that the taking away of Marriage from Priestes was sauage brutish cruell tyrannicall and odious to God and all godly men For it was flatte iniustice and violently imposed vpon them Neither hath any good come to the Church of God thereby but filthy life and vncleannesse abounded euery where Which is not mine Assertion but the flatte and plaine Accusation of three learned zealous and famous Papistes Pope Pius him selfe being one of the three The 13. Proposition When the Fathers of the first famous Councell of Nice intended and meant to haue brought a New law into the Church and to haue abandoned the marriage of Priestes then our mercifull Father the mighty God Johouah who neuer hath been is or will be wanting to his Church in necessarie poyntes of Fayth and Doctrine raysed vp his faythfull seruant Paphuntius a man very famous by manifold myracles in his life time to withstand gainesay that cursed and neuer enough detested Law which the Father 's assembled at Nice were about to bring into the Church This Paphuntius the man of God excited by the spirit of God stood vp in the midst of the Councell and constantly affirmed before them all that to forbid Marriage to Priestes was too seuere a Law seeing by the testimonie of Christes blessed Apostle Marriage was honourable in all sortes of men wherevpon the Councell made no Decree in that behalfe This Proposition is prooued by the vniforme assent of three learned and famous Historiographers Cassiodorus Socrates Sozomâ—nus Socrates hath these expresse wordes Visum erat Episcopis legem nouam in Ecclesiam introducere The Byshops meant and intended to bring a new law into the Church But Paphuntius so perswaded the Councell by the power of the Holy ghost that they referred the whole matter to euery Priestes free choyce and election making no Law in that behalfe For Cassiodorus hath these expresse wordes Synodusque laudaâ—it sententiam eius et nihil ex hac parte sanciuit sed hoc in vniuscuiusque voluntate non in necessitate reliquit And the Synode commended Paphuntius his opinion and decreed nothing in the matter but left it in euery ones election to doe what he thought good without compulsion Sozomenus is consonant and confirmeth the same trueth The case is euident it cannot be denied The Corollarie of these 13. Propositions First therefore seeing all Ministers which are not subiect to the lawes of Poperie may lawfully Marrie euen by the doctrine of the Church of Rome as is prooued in the first Proposition Secondly seeing Marriage was euer lawfull for all Priestes and other Ministers of the Church during all the time of the old Testament as is prooued in the second Proposition Thirdly seeing Marriage is lawfull for Priestes and other Ministers of the Church euen now in the time of the new Testament as is prooued in the third Proposition Fourthly seeing the Marriage of Priestes is onely prohibited by the law of Man and not by any positiue constitution either of Christ of his Apostles as is prooued in the fourth Proposition Fiftly seeing it was euer lawfull for the Byshoppes Priestes and Deacons of the East Church to take Wiues and to beget Children in the time of their Priesthood as is prooued
in the fift Proposition Sixtly seeing the Marriage of Priestes was euer lawfull also in the West Church vntill the cursed and vntimely inuented Prohibition of Pope Siricius almost 400. yeares after Christ as is prooued in the sixt Proposition Seuenthly seeing Siricius his Prohibition notwithstanding Priestes were still Married in many places a long time and in Germanie aboue a thousand yeares after Christ without restraint euen vntill the dayes of the vngratious Pope Hildebrand as is prooued in the 7. Proposition Eightly seeing all secular Priestes are so free from the Vow which is annexed to Ecclesiasticall orders by the Church of Rome that the supposed dissoluing impediment thereof notwithstanding their Marriages are true perfect and of force Ninthly seeing that by Popish Fayth and Doctrine the single Vow of Chastitie neither doth nor can dissolue Matrimonie as is prooued in the ninth Proposition Tenthly seeing the Vow single is of one and the same nature with the Vow solemne not distinguished by any essentiall but meere accidentall difference as is prooued in the tenth Proposition Eleuenthly seeing Matrimonie of Monkes Fryers and Nonnes euen after their solemne Vow of Religion is with the Pope his Iesuites and Iesuited Popelinges very lawfull and of force so it be done by and with the Popes Dispensation as is prooued in the eleuenth Proposition Twelfthly seeing the forced and coacted Chastitie of popish Priestes hath been such and so intollerable euen by the best learned Papistes their free confessions as nothing in the whole world hath brought more shame to Priesthood more harme to Religion more griefe to godly men as is prooued in the 12. Proposition Thirteenthly seeing the Fathers of the famous Councell of Nice thought it not agreeable to Gods word to make any Law against the Marriage of Priestes as is prooued in the 13. Proposition I can not I may not but must of necessitie conclude with this ineuitable and irrefragable illation ergo the Prohibition of Priestes Marriage is but a rotten ragge of the new Religion The Refutation of the Friers third Chapter In these 13. Propositions if due application be made thereof all the vntruethes lyes miserable shiftes and colourable euasions of our Fryer Jesuite will easily appeare and vanish away as doth the smoake of a Fire especially if my Discourse in the Suruay of Poperie bee duely pondered with these 13. Propositions For all that our Fryer hath sayd in this Chapter and whatsoeuer else any other Iesuite or Iesuited Papist in the world is able to say against the Marriage of Priestes is verie largely distinctly and soundly resuted in my Suruay of Poperie The Jesuite full of nothing but Winde Vanitie Rayling and lying would dazell the eyes of his Reader with crying out against Vntruethes when indeed all vntruethes proceed onely from his owne lying lippes Two thinges onely may seeme to the vulgar Reader to carry some shew or colour of trueth which both are soundly confuted in my Suruay Howbeit for the better satisfaction of the indifferent Reader especially of such as perhappes haue not read my Suruay I am content once againe to examine the same The former colour of trueth pretended by our Frier is this in very deed viz. That Saint Paphuntius in the Councell of Nice perswaded the Fathers onely vnto this to weete That they which were called to the Priesthood beeing Married should not be separated from their Wiues which they had for it was the old Tradition of the Church sayth our Fryer That those which were made Priestes beeing not yet Married should not afterward marrie Wiues Thus pleadeth our Jesuite out of Sozomenus and Socrates Marke now my Answere to the same The Answere I answere first that the Marriage of Priestes is onely prohibited by the Law of man and not by any positiue Constitution either of Christ or his Apostles This I haue prooued in the 4. Proposition by the flat testimonie of many famous Popish Writers yea out of the Popes owne Decrees Read the Proposition to the end and marke it seriously Secondly that it was euer lawfull for Priestes in the East Church to be Married and to beget children in time of their Priesthood This trueth is cleared in the fift Proposition euen out of the Popes owne Decrees Thirdly that it was lawfull in the West Church for Priestes to be Married for the space of one thousand yeares after Christ This is made euident in the sixt and seuenth Propositions Fourthly that Secular Priestes are not Votaries and that therefore their Marriage is lawfull This trueth is soundly prooued in the 8. and 9. Propositions Let them be well marked Fiftly that the Marriage of Priestes is their owne proper right and that therefore restitution must be made for taking the same away This trueth is prooued in the 12. Proposition and it striketh dead Now seeing first that no positiue Constitution against Priestes Marriage can truely be deriued either from Christ or his Apostles seeing secondly that it was euer lawfull for Priestes in the East Church to be Married seeing thirdly that it was lawfull for Priestes euen in the West Church to Marrie euery where for the space almost of 400. yeares and in Germanie aboue a thousand yeares after Christ seeing fourthly that Secular Priestes are no Votaries seeing fiftly that the Pope is bound to Restitution for taking away of Priestes Marriage I must perforce conclude against our Iesuite that the Tradition which Socrates and Sozomenus speake of was neither Generall nor Diuine howsoeuer Paphuntius alleadged it so to mittigate the rigorous and seuere Lawes intended by the Councell I prooue it by a double argument First because if there had been any such Tradition generall or diuine the Greekes could not be excused who neuer yeelded therevnto Secondly because so many Learned Papistes doe constantly affirme and teach that neither Christ nor his Apostles made any Law against Priestes Marriage To which I must needes adde that if there had been any such Tradition receiued either from Christ or his Apostles neither would holy Paphuntius haue pleaded against it neither yet the famous Councell haue yeelded to him in that behalfe But the Councell of Carthage will some say maketh mention of Apostolicall tradition to the same effect I answere with the Popes owne deare Glosse vpon his Decrees in these expresse wordes Ergo Apostoli dâ—cuerunt exemplo et admonitione non institutione vel constitutione Therefore the Apostles taught it by example and admonition and not by any Law or Constitution But how by Admonition and Example did the Apostles teach the single life of Priestes S. Paul albeit he were some time a marryed-man as S. Clement very probably deduceth out of the holy Scriptures yet did he after that liue a single life and withall exhorted others that had the gift to liue as he did But here three things must seriously be obserued First that th' Apostle wished Lay-men aswell as he did Ecclesiasticall persons
will take the paines to lay open to the Reader the expresse wordes of the Byshop their glorious Martyr Thus doth hee write I will not alter adde or take away one word vpon my saluation to answere it Sed et Graecis ad hunc vsque diem non est creditum Purgatorium esse Legat qui velit Graecorum veterum commentarios et nullum quantum opinor aut quam rarissimum de Purgatorio sermonem inueniet Sed neque Latini simul omnes at sensim huius rei veritatem conceperunt Et Paulo post non absque maxima sancti spiritus dispensatione factum est quod post tot annorum curricula Purgatorij fines et Indulgentiarum vsus ab orthodoxiâ— generatim sit receptus Quamdiu nulla fuerat de Purgatorio cura nemo quaesiuit Indulgentias nam ex illo pendet omnis Indulgentiarum existimatio Si tollas Purgatorium quorsum Indulgentijs opus erit His. N. si nullum fuerit Purgatorium nihil Indigebimus Contemplantes igitur aliquandiu Purgatorium incognitum fuisse deinde quibusdam pedetentim partim ex reuelationibus partim ex Scripturis fuisse creditum atque ita tandem generatim eius fidem ab orthodoxa Ecclesia fuisse receptissimam facillime rationem aliquam Indulgentiarum intelligimus Quum itaque Purgatorium tam sero cognitum ac receptum Ecclesiae fuerit vniversae quis iam de Indulgentijs mirari potest quod in principio nascentis Ecclesiae nullus fuerat earum vsus Caeperunt igitur Indulgentiae postquam ad Purgatorij cruciatus aliquandiu trepidatum erat The Greekes to this day doe not beleeue there is a Purgatorie Read who will the Commentaries of the auncient Greeke Writers and he shall either find very seldome mention of Purgatorie or none at all But neither did the Latine Church conceiue the veritie of this matter all at one time but by litle and litle Neither was it done without the woonderfull dispensation of the Holy Ghost that after so many pluralities of yeares Catholikes both beleeued Purgatorie and receiued the vse of Pardons generally So long as there was no care of Purgatorie no man sought for Pardons for of it dependeth all the estimation that wee haue of Pardons If thou take away Purgatorie to what end shall wee need Pardons For if there be no Purgatorie wee shall neede no Pardons Considering therefore how long Purgatorie was vnknowne then that it was beleeued of some by litle and litle partly by Reuelations and partly by Scriptures and so at the last beleeued generally of the whole Church wee doe easily vnderstand the cause of Pardons Since therefore Purgatorie was so lately knowne and receiued of the Vniuersall Church Who can now admire Pardons that there was no vse of them in the primatiue Church Pardon 's therefore began after the people stood in some feare of Purgatorie These are the wordes of M. Fisher sometime our Byshoppe of Rochester a Popish so supposed glorious Martyr and a man for his great Learning renowned throughout the Christian world who writing against M. Luther in defence of Poperie to which he was woonderfully addicted spared not so say and to plead what possibly he could inuent for the free passage and credite of the same Whose best pleading which hee possibly was able to affoorde the Pope and Poperie doth roundly and clearely turne it vp-side downe I desire the Reader right heartily euen in the bowels of our Lord Iesus to marke attentiuely and then to iudge and giue his censure Christianly betweene the Jesuite and my selfe Which if he shall indeed performe all partialitie set apart hee can not but euidently perceiue my life I gage for the tryall that Poperie is the New Religion He can not but see that the trueth is that which I defend He can not but behold as clearely as the noone day that the Fryer is condemned in his owne conscience and can not tell what to say For first their most Learned Byshoppe and glorious Martyr telleth vs constantly and plainely that the famous Fathers and Writers of the Greeke Church neuer beleeued Purgatorie And who were those Greeke Writers S. Basill for his great skill surnamed the great S. Gregorie Nazianzene for his surpassing knowledge in Diuinitie surnamed Theologus S. Chrysostome for his Learning and Eloquence surnamed the Golden mouth to say nothing of all the rest If these auncient Fathers these Holy men these so learned and so famous Writers with all the rest of the Greeke Church did not beleeue there was a Popish Purgatorie for the space of 1517. yeares for so long after Christ was this Byshoppe lyuing who for all that as we haue seene affirmeth vnawares against himselfe the Pope and Poperie that they beleeued it not in his time What noddies what fooles how voyd of all feeling of all sense of all reason may they iustly be censured Who to the eternall perill of their soules and saluation will needs beleeue such erroneous hereticall and most execrable Doctrine such diabolicall Fayth and plaine Heathenish Religion Secondly that the Latine Church and consequently the Church of Rome did not beleeue the aforenamed Purgatorie for many hundreds of yeares after S. Peters death whose successor the Pope boasteth himselfe to be Thirdly that this Purgatorie was not beleeued of the Latine Church at one and the same time but by litle and litle Fourthly that Purgatorie was beleeued in the latter age by speciall Reuelation of the Holy Ghost Fiftly that Pardons came not vp vntill Purgatorie was found out as which without Purgatorie can haue no vse Sixtly that Purgatorie was a long time vnknowne Seuently that Purgatorie could not be found in the Scriptures of a long time Eightly that it was not wholly found out by the Scriptures but partly by Reuelations Ninthly that Pardons were not heard of or knowne to the primatiue Church Tenthly that then Pardons began when men began to feare the paines of Purgatorie Behold heere gentle Reader what a worthy Fisher was my Popish Lord of Rochester hee hath caught with his Net at one draught tenne goodly Fishes that is to say tenne golden and worthy Lessons for Christian edification Which effect will appeare more euidently before the end of this Chapter B. C. Secondly that the Church of Rome beleeued it not that is Purgatorie for the space of 250. yeares after which time it increased by litle and litle This either hee meaneth is gathered out of the testimonie of Roffensis and that is not true for nothing doth Roffensis speake of 250. yeares or deny that Purgatorie was alwayes beleeued in the Church although hee confesseth that the Doctrine thereof was not so well knowen as now it is which is farre different from this Proposition Purgatorie was not beleeued of the Church of Rome for the space of 250. yeares after Christ. Or else he affirmeth of himselfe that Purgatorie was not beleeued vntill that time and then must I be so bold to tell him that it
is also a manifest vntrueth T. B. I answere first that as our Fryer is bold vntruely to charge me with vntruethes so I must be bold to returne the same vntruethes vnto himselfe and for his iust demerites reward him with the Whetstone Secondly that while our Fryer Jesuite would very gladly impose vpon me two vntruethes so to hide the nakednesse of Poperie he hath committed no fewer then three notorious Lyes First he saith roundly though vntruely that Roffensis the Byshoppe of Rochester speaketh nothing of 250. yeares This is his first notorious Lye I prooue it sundry wayes First because he telleth vs resolutely that the Greeke Fathers beleeued not Purgatorie for the space of 1517. yeares consequently not for the space of 250. yeares Secondly that after many pluralities of yeares Purgatorie and Pardons were receiued Thirdly that Purgatorie was a long time vnknowen Fourthly that afterward some beleeued it by litle and litle How sayest thou now sir Fryer doth your Popish Byshoppe say nothing of 250. yeares Are not 250. contayned in 1517. yeares Doe not many pluralities of yeares something touch 250. yeares Doest not thou ô Fryer extend the age of the Primatiue Church how truely shortly will be seene vnto 250. yeares And yet doth the Byshoppe tell thee that both Pardons and Purgatorie were vnknowne to the primatiue Church Ergo I must score this vp for a flatte and knowne Lye Secondly he sayth impudently that the Byshop doth not denie that Purgatorie was alwayes beleeued in the Church This is his second notorious and shamelesse Lye I prooue it by a three-fold argument For first the Byshop sayth plainely in expresse wordes that the Greeke Fathers S. Chrysostome S. Basill S. Gregorie S. Epiphanius and the rest of those great Learned men and stout Champions of the Church beleeued not Purgatorie for the space of 1517. yeares Secondly that the Fathers of the Latine Church beleeued it not for many yeares Thirdly that afterward some beleeued it by litle and litle Where I wish the Reader to obserue seriously this word deinde afterward for it striketh dead confoundeth the Iesuite and prooueth manifestly that Poperie is the New Religion The case is so cleare and euident as euery Child may easily perceiue the same For that which was beleeued afterward must perforce be vnbeleeued at the first Againe that which was sometime vnknowne must needes be sometime vnbeleeued or else our Fryer must needs say which for his Lugs he dareth not say that the Pope forsooth and his Iesuited Popelinges beleeued they know not what His third notorious Lye is this viz. that I vntruely charge their Byshoppe of Rochester in fathering vpon him that the Church of Rome beleeued not Purgatorie for the space of 250. yeares after Christ. For I haue euidently and irrefragably deduced out of the Byshoppes expresse wordes that the Church of Rome beleeued not Purgatorie for more then 250. yeares thrise told yea not for the space of more then one thousand yeares I prooue it once againe to the Iesuites and the Popes euerlasting shame Marke well my Discourse for Christes sake gentle Reader for in so doing thou canst not but abhorre and detest Poperie as a fond and new Religion I protest vpon my saluation that I beleeue as I write as also that the late Bishoppe of Rochester whom our Fryer nameth Roffensis which word onely connotateth the place where he was Byshoppe but is not his name prooueth the same effectually this is the proofe First the Byshoppe telleth vs constantly that the Greeke Church neuer beleeued Purgatorie Secondly that the Latine Church did not beleeue it of a long time Thirdly that afterward some few beleeued it by litle and litle Fourthly that it was generally beleeued not but of late yeares Fiftly that Pardons began to be sought for and to be graunted when the people stood a while in feare of Purgatorie paines To which I adde that Pardons beganne not vntill Bonifacius the eight 1300. yeares after Christ as I haue alreadie prooued out of Platina the Popes deuoted vassall and sometime his Abbreuiator Apostolicus And consequently that seeing such Pardons as I speake of in this place were not knowen for the space of 1300. yeares after Christ and seeing withall that they were in vse shortly after Purgatorie began to be feared it followeth by a necessarie and ineuitable illation that Purgatorie was not knowen and beleeued for the space of 1200. yeares at the least And so I trow nay am well assured not for the space of 250. yeares after Christ euen by the flatte testimonie of their great learned Popish Byshop my late Lord of Rochester B. C. As I haue prooued against him in the Dolefull Knell out of S. Denis S. Pauls scholler and Tertullian yea and to his vtter confusion conuinced out of himselfe T. B. I answere first that when our Fryer is at a non plus then would hee be thought to haue done that els where which he is not able to performe in deed and therefore doth he many times send me to this inuisible Booke of which more at large God willing before the end of this Discourse Secondly that if euer I can see the Booke as I hope to doe if any such Booke be extant in rerū natura I shall with speed conuenient frame mine answere to the same not doubting but the Confusion will be his owne after due examination of the same And in the interim let him this know by the way and before hand that his Booke is a sillie and dolefull thing indeed as which by his owne confession heere hath no better Authors to relie vpon then a counterfeite Denis and a Montanizing Tertullian Thirdly that what hee can possibly gather out of all my Bookes the same hath hee in this present pretensed Refutation set downe at large whether to his owne shame and confusion or to mine let the indifferent Reader iudge B. C. In this place I will adde the Testimonie of his brother Perkins who in his Probleme confesseth That Purgatorie was first receiued by Tertullian the Montanist wherein is one open vntrueth to weete that Hee was the first for hee onely affirmeth it but prooueth it not and no maruell when hee can not seeing most certaine it is that it came from the Apostles Non temerè c. Not without cause sayth S. Chrisostome these thinges were ordayned of the Apostles that in the dreadfull mysteries commemoration should be made of the dead for they know that thereby much gaine doth come vnto them much profite T. B. I answere first that our Fryer in one place calleth M. Perkins The Puritane of England and in an other place obiecteth my Booke penned against them Howbeit heere hee must needes be my Brother and I oppressed with his Authoritie Secondly that our Fryer hath no sooner obiected M. Perkins against mee but foorthwith hee oppugneth his Assertion Thirdly that he affirmeth it for a most certaine
Suruay and The Tryall I meane out of which our Fryer Jesuite who may seeme to be begotten of some Fayrie Bratte as the Secular popish Priestes write of the Iesuite Robert Parsons the Author of this scurrilous shamelesse impudent and lying Libell would seeme to conclude and finde out against mee a strange Contradiction viz. that in the one Booke I make the seede of Purgatory not to haue been sowen before the yeare 250. And afterward to haue increased till it came to perfection And that this notwithstanding in my other Booke I make the seede sowen before and to haue increased by litle and litle vntill it became ripe and perfect Poperie which was in the yeare 250. And therevpon he inferreth that Purgatorie was sowen and not sowen growen and not growen an Article of Fayth and not an Article of Fayth in one and the same yeare Now to this lusty Gallant a poore begging Fryer by profession though as the Secular Priestes their brethren in Poperie tell them they shame with that occupation as who must haue their Chambers Perfumed Gentlewomen to pull off their Bootes them-selues to trowle vp and downe from good cheare to good cheare at their owne good pleasures I returne this Answere which if nothing else would is able to strike him dead First that hee hath vttered as many Lyes as hee hath done lines His first Lye is this viz. That I say in my Suruay of Poperie that the seed of Purgatorie was sowen before the yeare 250. His second Lye is this viz. That I affirme in my sayd Suruay that Poperie was ripe and perfect in the yeare 250. His third Lye is this viz. That I make Poperie sowen and not sowen in one and the same yeare His fourth Lye is this viz. That I make Purgatorie growen and not growen in one the same yeare His fift Lye is this viz. That I make Poperie an Article of Fayth and not an Article of Fayth in one and the same yeare that is to say in the 250. yeare after Christ. Secondly that albeit hee charge mee with sundry vntruethes and more then a litle please himselfe therewith yet is there no vntrueth at all but those false accusations which proceed from his owne lying lippes No other proofe need be made thereof but the bare recitall of my wordes For doubtles the Jesuite either speaketh against his owne knowledge or else he is so besotted blinded with malice that he can not see Wood for Trees Thirdly that our Fryer sheweth himselfe to be a right Iesuite that is to say a shamelesse and impudent Lyer For the Letters and Figures in the Margent A.D. 250. doe not connotate the wordes following but the wordes immediatly afore-going Which no man of iudgement and reason can for shame denie For first I say plainely that Origen fayned many odde thinges touching Purgatorie Againe I say expressely that after Origen others began to call it into question Where I wish the indifferent Reader to obserue seriously these two poyntes with mee First that Purgatorie could not be ripe and perfect when it began but to be called into question Then that this calling into question was after Origen who was lyuing about 250. yeares after Christ And consequently that the 250. yeares must needes haue relation to the time of Origen and his immediate followers as who all approoued Chronographers testifying the same lyued about that time And this is confirmed because I do not speake of the Byshoppes of Rome barely and absolutely but with a restriction implyed in this word late I in all my Bookes doe euer repute S. Austen S. Chrysostome and others that lyued 400. yeares after Christ not late Writers but old and auncient Fathers which is an euident argument that I applyed my Marginall note to the time of Origen of his immediate followers and not to the late Byshoppes of Rome whom I contend to be men not of the Old but of the late and New Religion So as euery child may see that our Iesuite not able to defend Poperie nor to withstand the trueth and yet vnwilling to yeeld to the trueth and to condemne Poperie in which and by which he liueth in wealth pompe and glorie imployeth himselfe and his wittes with might and maine heaping Lyes vpon Lyes furnished with notorious coozening trickes euery where so to dazell the eyes of his Reader least he behold the trueth and so condemne the rotten Ragges of Poperie for the New Religion He is at a non plus his Backe is at the Wall all his pleading for late start-vp Poperie is fraughted with nothing else but coozening trickes notorious cauils impudent calumnies and false dealing B. C. In the same place he writeth thus Fiftly that the primatiue Church was neuer acquainted with the Popes Pardons nor yet with his counterfeit and forged Purgatorie A notable vntrueth for not to speake of Pardons but of Purgatorie was it not the primatiue Church which beleeued Purgatorie when as himselfe confesseth that it was made an Article of Popish Fayth in the yeare 250. at what time all the Popes were martyred for Christ and in his Funerall he acknowledgeth the first thirtie for godly men saying that both they and diuers others taught the same doctrine which S. Peter had done before them and most certaine that one of these thirtie lyued in the yeare 250. and so I trow they were of the primatiue Church The Minister is full of distinctions his braine a shoppe of solutions hauing many I-sayes for the answere of any Obiection Yet it is to be feared that no deuise will free him from a grosse vntrueth affirming heere that the primatiue Church was not acquainted with Purgatorie and yet teaching in his Suruay that Purgatorie was made an Article of Fayth by the late Popes of Rome in the yeare 250. T. B. I answere first that our Fryer is willing heere as afore to passe ouer in deepe silence the Popes Pardons as a thing not possible to be defended Secondly that our Jesuite seemeth more impudent then Impudencie it selfe as who is not ashamed againe and againe to iterate most grosse palpable and shamelesse Lyes I haue already refuted him plentifully and honestly discharged my selfe of that vntrueth which he would gladly impose vpon mee concerning the making of Purgatorie an Article of Popish Fayth Thirdly that I doe not in any one of all my Bookes impute the inuention of Purgatorie to any one of the first thirtie Byshops of Rome as whom all I honour in mine heart haue euer spoken and written reuerently of them Fourthly that I doe not onely trow but am well assured that our Iesuites trowing is a meere leasing while he auoucheth 250. yeares to be within the compasse of the primatiue Church I prooue it because all Christes Apostles who were the primatiue Church were dead long before that time of which our Fryer speaketh Fiftly that our Fryers feare is a flatte Lye
whole care industrie and diligence to see what helpe might be had in that behalfe his best resolution is to say with the old doting man of Carlton That it is either one thing or other For first he freely confesseth that it is not in the Old law Secondly that it is not in the Scripture of th'Apostles Thirdly that we must either hold this or that but he can not tell whether Fourthly that how soeuer we thinke or say of this Popish Auricular confessioÌ„ this perforce we must resolue to be the trueth viz. that it is grounded vpon Vnwritten tradition without all maner of Scripture This is it which our Papistes must euer flie vnto as to their best and last trumpe For which respect their learned and canonized Martyr the late Byshoppe of Rochester confessed plainely that the holy Scriptures will not serue their turne these are his expresse wordes Contendentibus itaque nobiscum Hareticis nos also subsidio nostram oportet tueri causam quam scriptura sacra Therefore when Heretiques contende with vs we must defend our cause by other meanes then by the holy Scripture Thus writeth Byshoppe Fisher the Popes canonized Saint and glorious Martyr a Learned man indeed who as we see for all his Learning was not able to defend Poperie by Gods word and therefore he fled from the holy Scriptures to vnwritten Traditions as Scotus did afore him And for the same respect Couarruuias a famous Popish Bishoppe and a great learned man confessed and published to the whole world that howsoeuer the trueth was that which their Pope did must of necessitie be defended These are his expresse words Nec mâ—latet c. Neither am I ignorant that S. Thomas affirmeth after great deliberation that the Byshoppe of Rome can not with his Dispensation take away from Monkes their solemne Vow of Chastitie This notwithstanding wee must defend the first opinion least those thinges which are practised euery where be vtterly ouerthrowne Behold here gentle Reader that howsoeuer the Popes opinion be whether true or false that skilleth not the same wee must defende of necissitie And why I pray you must this be done Because forsooth sayth Couarruutas otherwise Poperie will be turned vpside downe Sixtly because their famous Cardinall Caietanus affirmeth roundly that Auricular and Secret confession is against Christes institution as also the Precept that vrgeth vs to the same For albeit hee approoue Confession as instituted by Christ yet doth he adde a double restriction First that it was Voluntarie then that it was neither Secret nor of All sinnes Which twaine for all that the late Byshoppes of Rome affirme and vrge as necessarie to Saluation Marke well the next Conclusion out of the Popes owne Decrees The Seuenth Conclusion Popish Auricular Confession was not an Article of Popish Fayth for the space of 1215. yeares I prooue it because their famous Fryer and reuerend Popish Byshop Iosephus Angles affirmeth peremptorily and without all And 's or Ifs that none were Heretikes for the deniall of the necessitie of Popish confession vntill the Decree of their late Councell of Latheran which was holden 1215. yeares after Christ. And the Fryer Byshoppe yeeldeth this reason for the same viz. Quia nondum erat ab Ecclesia declaratum Because the Church of Rome had not before that time declared it to be so To which I adde for the complement of this controuersie that the Holy Auncient Fathers those stout Champions and mighty Pillers of Christes Church were neuer acquainted with Popish Auricular confession I prooue this by a double argument First by the fact of the holy Byshop Nectarius then by the ioynt-testimonies of Nicephorus and Rhenanus Concerning Nectarius that holy and worthy Byshoppe of Constantinople hee abolished the Law made for Confession so to auoyde the great Vices which ensued therevpon Where the Reader must obserue two thinges with mee th' one that in the Auncient church Publike Penaunce was inioyned to those who publikely denyed the Fayth in time of Persecution And that some were so zelous and so highly esteemed the sacred Ministerie that although they did not denie the Fayth publikely yet for that they had some doubtes therein and were troubled in their mindes they voluntarily disclosed their secret griefes to Gods Ministers humbly desired their Godly aduise submitted themselues to doe what was thought expedient by those Ministers whom the Church had placed to inioyne Penance for publike sinnes Th' other that notwithstanding the whoredome of the Deacon and other vices neither would that holy Byshop Nectarius euer haue attempted to abolish Confession if it had been Gods ordinance neither would so many famous Byshops haue imitated his fact And yet is it most certaine as shal be seene by and by that all for the most part Easterne-Byshops did follow his opinion Yea euen S. Chrysostome who succeeded Nectarius at Constantinople that goodly Patriarchall seate of the World Concerning Nicephorus and Rhenanus their owne expresse wordes shall heere be layde open to the Reader Nicephorus after he hath told vs what Nectarius did immediatly addeth these wordes Quem etiam ferè Orientales Episcopi omnes sequuti sunt Whom almost all the Byshoppes of the East did follow and imitate Againe he addeth toward the end of that Chapter these wordes Itaque de quorundam maximè vero Eudaemonis Ecclesiae eius Presbyteri patria Alexandrini Consilio ne postea in Ecclesia Presbyter paenitentiarius esset Nectarius statuit suadentibus illis vt cuique permitteretur pro conscientia et fiducia sua communicare et de immaculatis mysterijs participare Therefore Nectarius being aduised by sundry especially by Eudaemon an Elder of that Church borne in Alexandria made a Decree through their perswasion that from that day no Priest should heare the Confessions of the penitentes but that euery one should be permitted to communicate and to be partaker of the holy Mysteries as his owne Conscience and Fayth did mooue him Beatus Rhenanus after he had discoursed at large how the Auncient Church appoynted Priestes ouer the penitent that they might giue them counsaile how to make satisfaction according to the Canons which themselues did not vnderstande and withall had prooued out of S. Cyprian S. Chrysostome S. Basill S. Ambrose S. Hierome S. Bede Tertullian Hesychius Theodulphus Theodorus Bertramus Rabanus and Nectarius all which he alleadged for his opinion he deliuered his owne iudgement in these wordes Non aliam ob causam complurimi hic testimonijs vsi sâ—mus quam ne quis admiretur TertullianuÌ„ de clancularia illa admissoruÌ„ confessione nihil loquutum quae quantum coijcimus penitus id temporis ignorabatur For no other cause haue I heere vsed the testimonies of so many Writers but least any should maruell that Tertullian spake nothing of that secret Confession which as I thinke was vtterly vnknowen at that time Loe Tertullian spake not one word of Auricular confessioÌ„
teach and with Fire and Faggot violently vrge the same but is a thing in deed indifferent For if it had been necessarie vnto mans saluation all the holy and learned Fathers of the Greeke Church should haue perished euerlastingly But some will here demaund how that can be prooued To whom I answere that the same is plainely and expressely prooued in the Popes owne Decrees Which is such a testimonie against the Pope and his Popelings as none greater can be had The expresse wordes of the Popish Decrees haue already sounded in our eares This mine Obseruation is confirmed by the plaine wordes of the same Decrees where it is freely confessed that that opinion which holdeth sinnes onely to be confessed vnto God of necessitie is true lawfull and honest Let the wordes of the Decree be well marked because it sheweth all the holy Fathers of the Greeke Church to confound the Pope and all his Jesuited Popelings But let vs heare the verdict of a famous popish Cardinall of Rome Cardinall Caietanus as we haue seene already auoucheth constantly that Auricular and Secret confession is against Christes holy Institution as is also the Precept that compelleth vs to frequent the same For the better explication of this famous Cardinals Assertion because the Pope and his Jesuites can not endure to heare the same I will heere lay open before the eyes of the indifferent Reader the best answere that the Papistes haue or can inuent against the same Iosephus Angles that famous Popish Byshoppe not well pleased with the Popish Cardinall as it may seeme writeth of his Doctrine in this manner Hinc intelliges cauendum esse Caietanum super Ioan. cap. 20. vbi duos errores affirmauit vnum est institutam fuisse â— Christo Confessionem voluntariam cum sit ab Ecclesia definitum necessariam esse ad salutem Nam quod est voluntarium vt religionis ingressus non est ad salutem necessarium Alterum scilicet modum confitendi ad aurem non esse a Christo institutum Et hic error est in Conc. Trident. damnatus Hence mayest thou vnderstand that wee ought to take heede of Caietane vpon the 20. of John where hee affirmeth two errours the one is that Christ instituted Confession voluntary albeit the Church defined the same to be necessarie to saluation The other is that Christ did not institute Confession Auricular which is made in the Priestes eare And in the next page the same Angles telleth vs that the Councell of Trent did of purpose condemne Caietans opinion By the doctrine of this great Learned Papist who was a Cardinall of Rome and a Frier Dominican we see clearely these three poyntes First that the best learned Popish Doctors condemne Poperie and iustifie the doctrine of the Church of England Secondly that Auricular Confession was voluntarie in the dayes of Cardinall Caietane who liued aboue a thousand yeares after Christ. Thirdly that this Cardinall gaue such a deadly wound to Popish Confession a Ragge of the New religion that the Councell of Trent could find no better remedie but to condemne his Opinion as Hereticall Wisely therefore doth the Popish Byshoppe Angles exhort his Readers to beware of Caietane Bonauenture Hugo Panormitane and the Popish Glosse because they all with the Popes deare Canonistes tell vs constantly that Popish Confession hath no better ground then pure Mans inuention And consequently all such may iustly be deemed as blind as Beetles that do not see Popish Auricular Confession to be a rotten Ragge of the New religion The Iesuites Seuenth Chapter Of Popish Veniall sinnes COncerning Popish Veniall sinnes I will first set downe and lay open to the Reader the state and trueth of the Controuersie now in hand and that done refute refell the Iesuites counterfeite and pretensed Answere to the same The 1. Conclusion Euery Sinne is mortall of it owne nature I prooue it sundry wayes First because the Prophet in the spirit of God pronounceth Death to be due to euery Sinne Anima quae peccauerit ipsa morietur The soule that sinneth it shall die Secondly because S. Paul teacheth vs that The reward of sinne is death Thirdly because S. Iohn affirmeth euery Sinne to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say The transgression of Gods Law for so doth Ben. Arias Montanus that famous Popish Linguist translate the Greeke word and therefore no deniall can be made thereof Fourthly because the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vsed in the Scripture for Sinne and signifying a declining or swaruing from the right way doth emphatically and plainely confirme the same Fiftly because S. Bede Dionisius Carthusianus and Nicolaus Lyranus doe all three with vniforme assent expound S. John of Mortall sinne S. Bede who for his Learning and Vertue was renowned throughout the Christian world and therevpon surnamed Venerabilis hath these expresse wordes Virtus huius sententiae facilius in lingua Graecorum qua edita est Epistola compraehenditur Siquidem apud eos iniquitas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vocatur quod significat quasi contra legem vel sine lege factum Siquidem lex graecè 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appellatur Sequitur sed et Latinum nomen eidem rationi congruit quod iniquitas quasi aequitati aduersa nuÌ„cupatur Quia quicunque peccat contrarius nimirum aequitati diuinae legis peccando existit The force and efficacie of this sentence is more easily perceiued in the Greeke tongue in which the Epistle was written for Iniquitie with them is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth As done against Law or without Law for the Law is called in Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Latine word also agreeth to the same reason because it is called Iniquitie as being against Equitie For euery one that sinneth is by reason of sinne contrary to the equitie of Gods Law Dionysius Carthusianus a famous and learned Papist hath these expresse wordes Lex autem diuina est aequitas ipsa sicque mortale peccatum est iniquitas id est non aequitas vtpote violatio aequitatis The Law of God is Equitie it selfe and consequently Iniquitie that is not Equitie as the trangression of Equitie is a mortall sinne Lyranus an other famous Popish Writer hath these wordes Peccatum est transgressio legis diuinae Lex autem diuina est ipsa aequitas et ideo in omni peccato mortali est aequitatis corruptio et per consequens iniquitas Sinne is the transgression of Gods Law and the Law of God is Equitie it selfe And therefore in euery mortall sinne there is corruption of Equitie and consequently there is Iniquitie Sixtly because holy Moses pronounceth euery one accursed that keepeth not the whole Law Seuenthly because fiue famous and great learned Papistes Iacobus Almaâ—nus Durandus Jo. Gersonus Michael Baius and Byshop Fisher not able to answere the reasons against Veniall sinnes doe freely and constantly affirme without all And 's or
Byshoppe which hee was bold to present to the Popes Holynesse where it found kind acceptation and therefore is and must be authenticall though it giue our Holy Father a deadly blow Out of which learned Discourse I obserue these worthy Lessons First that euery Veniall sinne is against right reason Secondly that euery Veniall sinne is the transgression of some Law Thirdly that to doe any thing against right reason is to doe against the law of Nature Fourthly that the law of Nature commaundeth not to decline from the rule of right reason Fiftly that the temporall rule with which the goodnesse of our actions is measured is the right reason of our vnderstanding which is giuen to euery one in his creation birth or natiuitie Sixtly that the eternal rule with which the goodnesse of our actions ought to be measured is the Will of God Seuenthly that therefore our thoughtes wordes and workes are against right reason because they are against the Will of God which is the law Eternall Which Obseruations if they be duely pondered doe euidently prooue and plainely conuince that euery Sinne is Mortall of it owne nature Fiftly because euery one is accursed which keepeth not euery iote of the Law Sixtly because Christes blessed Apostle S. Iames telleth vs plainely That whosoeuer shall keepe the whole Law and but offende in any one precept is guiltie of all Seuenthly because God will destroy all manner of Liers and all workers of Iniquitie Odisti omnes qui operantur iniquitatem perdes omnes qui loquuntur Mendacium Thou hatest all workers of Iniquitie thou wilt destroy euery one that is a Lyer Thus saith the holy Prophet of God in the spirit and person of God Out of which wordes I obserue two poyntes of great consequence First that where all are comprised there not one among all is excepted and consequently the sacred Text is to be vnderstood euen of euery least Sinner and of euery least Lyer Secondly that where Destruction is for Punishment inflicted there Gods Law doubtles is transgressed and so is euery Popish Veniall sinne against the Law Eightly because Christ himselfe teacheth vs That besides the Law against the Law is all one in rei veritate in the trueth of the matter Qui non est mecum contramâ— est et qui non congregat mecuÌ„ spargit He saith our Maister Christ that is not with mee is against mee and hee that gathereth not with mee scattereth Ninthly because Durandus a famous and learned Popish Writer confuteth the fondly inuented distinction of their Popish Canonized Saint Aquinas which the Pope and his Jesuites hold for the maintenaunce of late start-vp Poperie to weete that Veniall sinnes are praeter Legem non contra Besides the Law but not against the Law These are the expresse wordes of Durandus Ad argumentum dicendum quod omne peccatum est contra Legem Dei naturalem vel inspiratam vel ab eis deriuatam To the Argument answere must be made that euery Sinne is against the Law of God either naturall or inspired or deriued from them And this opinion of M. Durand is this day commonly defended in the Schooles So doth Fryer Ioseph tell our holy Father the Pope these are his wordes D. Thomas et eius sectatores tenent peccatum Veniale non tem esse contra Legem quaÌ„ praeter Legem Sequitur Durandus tamen et alij permulti hanc sententiaÌ„ impugnant affirmantes peccata venialia esse contra mandata Et haec opinio modo in scholis videtur coÌ„munion S. Thomas and his followers hold that a Veniall sinne is not so much against the Law as besides the Law But Durand and very many others impugne this opinion auouching Veniall sinnes to be against the commaundementes And this opinion seemeth now adayes to be more common in the Schooles Heere I wish the reader to note by the way out of the word modo now adayes the mutabilitie of late start-vp Romish religion as also the dissentioÌ„ of popish Schoole-doctors in the misteries of their fayth and Doctrine For in that their Byshoppe the Fryer sayth modo now adayes he giueth vs to vnderstand that their Romish Doctrine is now otherwise then it was of old time and in former ages And in that he telleth vs of the great dissension amongest their Doctors he very emphatically layeth open to the Reader the vncertainty of Romish fayth and Religion For doubtlesse if their tyrannicall Inquisition and the dayly feare of Fire and Faggot were taken out of the way the Popes ridiculous and plaine Heathenish Excommunications with his Decrees and Definitions in matters of Fayth would be of small account and troden vnder foote This is a most worthy Note and must be well remembred For the Old Romane religion was Catholique pure and found and with it doe not I contend I onely impugne the late start-vp Romish Fayth and Doctrine which the Pope and his Romish Schoolemen haue brought into the Church Tenthly because Vega a great Learned Papist very famous in the Church of Rome doth not onely teach euery Veniall sinne to be against the Law but withall he constantly affirmeth that therefore none lyuing can possibly keepe the whole Law at once For albeit hee hold that euery part of the Law may be kept at some time yet doth he constantly denie that the whole 〈◊〉 kept at once because one partiâ—â—â—â—â— broken with Popish Venials against the Law while an other is kept The third Conclusion Albeit euery Sinne be Mortall of it owne nature yet are not all sinnes equall and alike but one greater then an other I prooue it first because our Lord Iesus doth distinguish the degrees of Sinnes while he affirmeth him that is angrie with his brother to be guiltie of Iudgement him that sayth to his brother Raca to be guiltie of a Councell him that calleth his brother Foole to be guiltie of Hel-fire Secondly because the holy Ghospell telleth vs that the Sinnes of the Sodomites and of the Gomorrhaeans shal be punished more remissely in the day of Iudgement then the sinnes of those Citizens who would not receiue the Apostles nor hearken to their preaching Thirdly because Tyrus and Sidon shall be more remissely dealt withall in iudgement then Corozain and Bethsaida The case is cleare I need not stand about it For euery Child can tell vs that it is a greater Mortall sinne to steale a goodly Gelding or a great fatte Oxe then it is to steale a fatte Calfe or a fatte Hogge Yea a greater sinne to kill a Man then to eate an Egge in Lent though Popish inflicted punishment doth not euer so insinuate But hereof more at large when I come to speake of Popish Lent The fourth Conclusion Veniall sinnes of their owne nature are against Charitie and doe breake friendshippe and amitie with God I prooue this Conclusion against the Pope his Iesuites and all Jesuiâ—ed Popelinges whether in England
Gods most Holy most Wise and most Pure Decrees For which respect God telleth vs by the mouth of his Prophet that his wayes are not as ours For My thoughtes sayth Esay are not your thoughtes neither are your wayes my wayes saith the Lord. Gods Will is the Rule by which all mans thoughtes wordes and workes must be measured But Mans Will is no Rule or Law to measure Gods actions or to direct his most Iust most Holy and most Pure Purposes Ordinaunces and Decrees Secondly Man can but punish the body temporally but God can punish both body and soule eternally Man can but punish the outward actions of man but God can punish both the outward actes and the inward thoughtes Man can but punish the temporall iniurie done to man but God can punish both that and the eternall iniurie done to his most sacred Maiestie surpassing Omnipotencie and ineffable Deitie Offence done to Man is finite and limitted but offence done to God is infinite and illimited Thirdly Sinnes which are but small in respect of man are exceeding great in respect of God For example sake a reprochfull word spoken against a Meane priuate person is respectiuely a small offence the same word spoken against a Great personage of high place in Church or Common-weale is a farre greater Offence the same spoken against our Soueraigne Lord the King is the greatest of all three And consequently when we offende God whose person is of infinite Worthinesse of infinite Maiestie of infinite Power our offence obiectiuely must needes be infinite howsoeuer our Iesuites and Jesuited Papistes flatter themselues in their Venials Fourthly the thinges which are trifles in our Iesuites iudgement are great and heynous Sinnes in the tribunall of our Lord Iesus Adams eating of the Apple was one of our Iesuites trifles The looking backe of Lots wife was an other The sinne of Infantes in their natiuitie was an other For which respect sundry of their best learned Doctors haue inuented a third place beside Heauen and Hell for those Infantes which die without Baptisme Superfluous idle Wordes an other All which for all that are heynous and grieuous Sinnes with God And no maruayle seeing the Least sinne that can be named is against the infinite Maiestie of God and consequently of infinite deformitie And our Iesuite S. R. sheweth himselfe to be a very noddie while he publisheth these wordes For who will say that a little superfluous Laughter breaketh the order of Nature Marke well gentle Reader and thou shalt see Poperie stricken dead When our Jesuite S. R. was not able to answere the Authorities of the holy Fathers layd open by T. B. in the Downe-fall of Poperie which did euidently conuince that the Breaking of the order of Nature was against the eternall Law and Will of God hee was enforced to say as there is to be seene in the Page noted in this Margent that the Fathers S. Austen and S. Ambrose defined such Sinne as breaketh the order of Nature which also is Mortall Sinne not Veniall In which wordes he vnawares confoundeth himselfe For he truely sayth against himselfe That the Sinne which is against the Order of Nature is a Mortall sinne indeed But withall hee sayth vntruly That a litle superfluous Laughter breaketh not the order of Nature For if it be true as it is most true which Christ himselfe hath told vs viz. That euery idle and superfluous word breaketh the order of Nature in that it is against the Law eternall it followeth by a necessarie consequence that euery superfluous and idle Laughter breaketh the order of Nature in that it is against the Law eternall to which the Law and Order of Nature is subordinate To which I adde to second my former proofe that the order of Nature as Nature to weete of Nature afore not after Adams fall was pure free and voyde of euery spot bleamish excesse defect or other fault whatsoeuer and consequently of euery vaine idle and superfluous Laughter But perhaps our Fryer will say that idle and superfluous Laughter is besides the order of Nature not against the same as he before affirmed his Venials to be besides the Law but not against the Law of God If he so doe the confutation is at hand First because Christ sayth plainely that Hee is against hâ—m whosoeuer is not with hâ—m Againe because Vega Durandus Almaynus Baius Gersorus and all the Popish Schoole-doctors of best esteeme do auouch plainely and resolutely That euery Sinne euen the least that can be named is against the Law Whereupon Vega that great Learned Papist a man of high esteeme in the late Councell of â—rent concluded egregiously and learnedly That the whole Law is impossible to be kept at once For albeit he graunt that euery part of the Law may be kept yet doth he withall confesse that while we keepe one part thereof we can not but breake an other Ninthly because our Fryer S. R. that Learned man as his brother Jesuite B. C. stileth him confesseth lustily though vnawares against himselfe that involuntarie Concupiscence is naught euill disorderly because it is against the rule of Reason and much more doubtlesse is superfluous voluntarie Laughter against the order of Nature rule of Reason and consequently it breaketh friendshippe with God as being quite opposite to the eternall Law which is his diuine Will and Reason Tenthly because the same Jesuite freely confesseth in an other place That the Least Sinnes want equitie and conformitie to Gods Law and consequently he must volens nolens confesse withall That his falsely supposed Venials are truely Mortals against Gods friendship and his eternall Law Now let vs heare our Jesuite speake for the honour of the Pope B. C. The common opinion most receiued and most sound is that some Sinnes of their owne nature be small or Veniall others great and Mortall Byshoppe Fisher and some foure other alleadged by Bell thinke that all Sinnes of their owne nature be Mortall and that it proceedeth from the Mercie of God that some be Veniall because he would not vpon diuers smaller Sinnes impose so great a punishment But notwithstanding this small difference neither B. Fisher nor any of the others denie Veniall Sinnes as Bell and his consorts doth T. B. I answere first that the Papistes themselues doe not agree in their Popish Fayth and Doctrine as the Jesuite heere confesseth to their confusion For he freely graunteth that the great Learned Papistes whom I named viz. Jacobus Almaynus Durandus Gersonus Michael Baius and Byshoppe Fisher doe all fiue constantly hold and defend that all Sinnes are Mortall of their owne nature And withall he telleth vs that the Pope and Church of Rome hold the contrary opinion Secondly that Small sinnes and Veniall sinnes are all one as our Iesuite heere teacheth vs. And my selfe will not deny that some sinnes respectiuely are small of their owne nature as
causing the M. of the Musicke to sound the Organges and all the Studentes to singe Te Deum as also the Arch-priest the Prouinciall the Jesuites and Jesuited Papistes euerie where doe after their best manner canonize Sherewin Nelson Ballard and the Gun-powder Iesuited Popelinges by praying vnto them and by reseruing their Blood Bones Haire and whatsoeuer once touched them as the Reliques of Gods holy Martirs Other like impertinent Vanities he vseth in this Chapter but he euer fleeth from my Reasons and slylie passeth ouer the chiefest matters I haue soundly refuted the Fryers Answere not omitting any thing of moment See and note well the Triall The Eight Chapter Of the Popes Fayth I Haue discoursed of this Subiect so largely both in my Golden Ballance in the Anatomie of Popish tyrannie in the Iesuites Antepast and lastly in my Christian Dialogue as more can not be wished for the full decision of the trueth in that behalfe Howbeit for the better contentation of the Christian Reader I am willing to answere euerie poynt of any moment through out the whole Chapter B. C. Bell collecteth out of Watsons Bookes in this formall manner First therefore if we meane to wring any trueth out of the Popes Nose we must haue recourse to his Holynesse at such time as hee is sober and not when hee is furious least he become starke madde and forget the knowledge of the trueth As though Watson had sayd that the Pope is sometime sober and sometime furious He doth much wronge him for his wordes reported by Bell himselfe in this very Chapter containe no such thing Onely he sayth That as the prudent Greeke appealed from Alexander furious to Alexander sober so may the Seculars notwithstanding any Decree set downe by his Holynesse by wrong information appeale euen from the Pope as Clemens vnto his Holynesse as Peter He speaketh of Alexander Furious and Sober and not of the Pope T. B. Bels Collection is truely deducted of Watsons wordes For Watson compareth the appealing of the prudent Greeke from Alexander furious to the appealing of the Seculars from Pope Clemens Neither can it be thought strange if Warson deemed the Popes to be sometimes furious For first Pope Iohn was rather furious then sober when he kept Women openly to the notorious scandall of the Church insomuch as some of the Cardinals writte to Otto then King of the Saxons to come and besiedge Rome so to afflict him for his sinnes The same Pope was rather furious then sober when he caused the Cardinals Nose to be cut off that gaue the counsell and his hand that wrote the Letter Pope Siluester the second was furious rather then sober I weene when by couenant he did homage to the Deuill to be preferred to the Popedome Pope Formosus was not sober when wittingly and willingly he committed flat Periurie Pope Martin was not sober when he absolued Formosus of his Oath Pope Stephanus the 6. was not very sober when he caused the dead body of Pope Formosus to be brought foorth into his Consistorie the ornaments Papall to be taken away two fingers of his right hand to be cut off a Laicall habit to be put on the dead corps and all this being solemnely done the body to be put into the Graue againe Pope Sergius the 3. was not very sober trow I when he commaunded Pope Formosus who now had bin dead almost tenne yeares to be taken out of his Tombe and to be set in a Chaire with pontificall Attyre vpon his backe and then his head to be cut off and cast into Tyber Pope Vrbanus the second was not sober doubtlesse when he absolued Subiectes from alleageance due vnto their Soueraignes condemning those that obeyed the King and absoluing such as tooke part against the King from the crime of Periurie and iniustice Pope Boniface the eight was nothing sober when he challenged the right of both Swordes when he depriued Philippe the French King and gaue his Kingdome to him that could get it But what need many wordes this poynt is most plentifully handled in my Christian Dialogue lately published to which I referre the reader for his full satisfaction concerning the Popes double person Read more of Watson in the end of the Second Chapter and ponder the same seriously B. C. His rusticall immodestie and childish scoffing at the Popes Nose litle becommeth the grauitie of his Ministershippe but he that is ledde vp and downe by the Nose like a Buffalo by the Prince of this world must to gratifie his Maister imploy his rayling talent according to his blacke inspiration T. B. I answere first that our Fryers blacke inspiration may better beseeme Pope Benedict the eight who as Petrus Damascenus affirmeth was seene riding corporally after his death vpon a blacke Horse the Deuil and who freely confessed that afore-time hee was much addicted to robberie and extortion It may also better be bestowed on Pope Siluester the second who as we haue seene did homage to the blacke Deuill and so aspired to the Popedome Secondly that the declamation our Fryer maketh against the leading vp and downe by the nose like a Buffal will litle content either our Jesuites or their Pope after the due recitall of the same This is a true Narration of the cruell furious and raging Buffaloes My selfe being student in the English Colledge at Rome not long afore my arriuall in this Kingdome and on a time walking abroad to take the ayre with many others of the same Colledge when we came without one of the Posterne gates of the Citie we espied certaine Buffaloes with their keeper at the Riuer side Which spectacle as vnpleasant to the eyes so also most terrible to the heart my fellowes and deare Countrey-men no sooner beheld but they betooke them selues to their best speed My selfe more bold therein then wise for the trust I reposed in the Keeper would not at that time amende my pace and so remained behind alone Sodainely the furious raging and cruell Buffaloes brake from their Keeper and with great violence came vpon me My Countrey-men standing a farre off vpon the toppe of an high Mountaine durst not for their liues aproach to offer me any comfort helpe or succour they neither did nor could expect any other thing saue onely present and most cruell death Howbeit the wilde cruell raging and most furious Buffaloes a thing very strange rare and wonderfull if a miracle let the prudent and Christian Reader iudge did no hurt to me at all but as it were sported with mee euen as one childe playeth with another after awhile the furious and raging Buffaloes left me and in peaceable maner departed from me at the length my fellowes beholding the departure of the Buffaloes and perswading themselues that I was most pitifully and cruelly slaine came with conuenient speed to visite my dead corps but finding mee aliue yea as liue-like as I was afore
euery whit God make mee this day and euer thankefull for it and for all other his manifold mercies and fauours towards me we all returned to the Colledge with great ioy and speed The Rector of the Colledge could no way be perswaded but that I had receiued some secret and inward mortall wound albeit neither my self felt any neither could their eyes or wits discerne any hurt at all saue onely that my face was something bloody by reason of the fall I got while perceiuing the imminent danger which afore I feared not I made haste to haue escaped from the same for it had neuer bin knowne or heard in Rome that any man woman or child euer escaped with life being once in that kinde of danger to wit in the curtesie of the furious and raging Buffaloes Many gaue their censures concerning the wonderfull fact and rare euent the generall resolution was this Viz. That J might fight with Buffaloes in England and haue the vpper hand My selfe did deeme their censure to be probable and this day me thinketh the same is brought to passe though Gods name bee blessed for it in the farre different sense and meaning from that which either they or my selfe did then imagine I sought God then but found him not because I sought him not in trueth and according to his holy will I thought then being blinded with late start-vp Poperie that I should fight against the true professours of Christes Ghospell whom I then reputed Heretiques and spirituall Buffaloes But our most mercifull God whose wisedome reacheth from end to end mightily and disposeth all thinges sweetly ordayned me in his eternall purpose a vosteriori hoc fa â—lè infertur to a farre more honorable and sacred Warfare viz. to encounter the trayterous Jesuâ—tes and â—esuited Gunpowder Popelinges valiantly to fight the battaile of Christes Church against those most furious brainelesse cruell Buffaloes of mens soules Whose legierdemaine coozenage periurie pride malice theft murders fraud feigned miracles and infinite cunnicatching trickes the gentle Reader may finde at large soundly prooued out of the Bookes which the Seminâ—rie-priestes haue published to the World in my Booke intituled The Anatomie of Popish tyrannie Which Booke whosoeuer shall with iudgement and a single eye peruse can not but perceiue the Jesuites to be Firebrands of all mischiefe and most vgly monsters of the World B. C. Not long after he hath these wordes For first it is a constant Maxime quoth he that the Pope and none but the Pope must iudge in all Controuersies of fayth and doctrine Nay it is rather a most constant Maxime that Bell seldome writeth any thing that is true False it is that the Pope and none but the Pope is the Iudge in all matters of Fayth and Doctrine For a generall Councell also is Iudge yea and by the opinion of many learned Diuines the Pope iudging alone without a generall Councell may erre T. B. I answere first that the Iesuite not able to answere the trueth by me soundly defended seeketh to get the victorie by crying out against the trueth This is cleare to euery iudicious Reader Secondly that our Fryer sayth truely That by the iudgement of many learned Papistes the Pope may erre without a generall Councell To this Doctrine I willingly subscribe as which is the very trueth that I defend For mine vsuall manner euer is in all my Bookes to confound Poperie with the best Lerned Popish Writers I hold and defende no point of doctrine but such onely as great learned Papistes hold and defend with me This my ioy this is my credite this the honour of the cause in hand that I constantly hold with the now Church of England euery Article of the old Romane Religion onely condemning and reiecting erroneous superstitious childish and ridiculous additamentes of late yeares by litle and litle crept into the Church Thirdly that I haue prooued so largely in the Downe-fall of Poperie that the Pope onely is the Iudge of all controuersies in Religion as to say more in that behalfe may be thought actum agere and a thing altogether needlesse Three thinges onely will I now poynt at referring the indifferent Reader for the proofe to the Downe-fall of Poperie The first is this viz that the Pope staying at home himselfe sendeth his Legates to the Councels to supply his place to whom for all that O monstrum horrendum he can not commit his Authoritie The second is this viz. that no Byshoppe in these our dayes can haue voyces in Councels but such as will sweare obedience to the Pope before their admittaunce and promise to defend his Canon Law The third is this viz. that it is not in Popish Councels as in humaine affayres and assemblies where moe voyces euer doe preuaile But all the force power strength and authoritie of Councels doe and must depend vpon the Popes will and pleasure For after the Fathers there haue fasted long prayed much consulted grauely deliberated maturely decreed constantly commaunded strictly and accursed seuerely neither can others nor yet them selues tell what shall be of force therein For all must be as shall best content the Popes humour sitting right stately in his pontificall Chaire at Rome To which I adde that the Pope abuseth the World shamefully when he taketh vpon him to call togeather all Byshoppes in the Christian world to decide and determine controuersies in Religion and for all that will approue nothing that they decree vnlesse the same be agreeable to that which himselfe decreeth alone in his pontificall Chaire at home As also in that he condemneth and reiecteth all Councels which doe not consent in all poyntes to his Legates who for all that must not yeeld to any thing which swarueth from their Charge and Commission receiued from the Popes mouth In which Charge this is euer the principall and maine poynt that they suffer not the Popes Superroyall power and falsely pretended Prerogatiues of the Church of Rome to be any way abased or gainesayd This Addition hath a double Confirmation at hand th' one from the Rhemistes th' other from S. R. that great learned Iesuite The Rhemistes tell vs roundly blush neuer a whit thereat that generall Councels are not needfull saue onely for the better contentation of the weake people and their onely ground which they stand vpon is this viz. that the Pope is so diuinely priuileadged and assisted by the Holy Ghost as he can neuer erre iudicially in any matter of Fayth Which assertion if it were true as it is most false for which let the Christian reader duly peruse my Christian Dialogue there were no great need of Councels in very deed The Iesuiticall Fryer S. R. Robert Parsons is the man telleth vs peremptorily that the Popes Sentence is the Decree of the Catholique Church These are his expresse wordes True it is that B. Fisher and Gerson were in that errour
but that was both before it was condemned in the Church as it was since by Pius the fift and Gregorius the thirteenth Loe our Jesuite in the name of all Papistes for all Papistes must so beleeue blusheth not to publish to the World in print in perpetuam rei memoriam that Pope Pius was the Church in his time Pope Gregorie in his time and consequently euery Pope in his time For what he affirmeth of those two in this kind of subiect the same perforce he must approue in all other Popes successiuely So then this is a constant maxime in the Church of Rome that whensoeuer our Papistes say or write That the Church can not erre or The Church hath thus and thus defined they euer meane of the Pope and Church of Rome I therefore cannot but conclude with this ineuitable illation viz. that in true Popish sense and meaning the Pope is the onely Iudge in all controuersies of Religion B. C. That their Popes sayth Bell can not erre in Fayth iudicially is this day with Papistes an Article of their Fayth An vntrueth I say it is for though the more common and better opinion be That the Pope in his iudiciall and definitiue sentence can not erre in Fayth yet false it is that this is an Article of Fayth when as many Diuines both haue and doe hold the contrarie T. B. I answere first that I willingly acknowledge one trueth here vnawares vttered by our Iesuite viz. that there is great dissention amongest the Popish Doctors concerning matters of Fayth and Doctrine Of which dissention I haue discoursed at large in my Motiues Secondly that the best opinion in the Romish Church doth not make an Article of Romish Fayth Thirdly that he might be deemed a right wise man that could soundly discouer the Articles of Popish fayth For the Fryer heere telleth vs lustily that which is the common and better opinion euen the opinion of the Pope himselfe for his doubtlesse is the best prooueth not an Article of Popish fayth Fourthly that our Jesuite doth heere giue vs a generall rule how to discerne the Articles of Popish fayth For thus disputeth our Learned Fryer Although it be the more common and better opinion yet seeing many Diuines hold the contrarie it can not be an Article of Popish fayth This is a golden and most excellent Rule in deed for which I thanke our Jesuite with all my heart For no stronger reasons and proofes can be had in controuersies then the plaine confession of the aduerse part Hence are fitly deduced sundry golden and very memorable Corollaries The first whereof is this viz. that the Papistes this day haue either very few or flat none at all Articles of their Fayth The second Corollarie is this viz. that it is not against Popish fayth to beleeue and defend that the Pope may erre Iudicially that Christes naturall body is not in the holy Eucharist really that the Marriage of Priests is lawfull that the Pope is a Tyrant and Heretique a Firebrand of all mischiefe that a great number of zealous and faythfull Martirs of Iesus Christ were burnt in Queene Maries daies by force of the Popes tyrannicall Law who for all that held no Article against Popish fayth Out vpon late hatched Poperie Euerie child may see that it is the New religion The Jesuite with the helpe of his best Learned breathren for to defende Poperie froÌ„ the note suspition of the New religion the most Learned Iesuites put to their helping hands gaue their best aduise is not able in truth to say any thing for the antiquitie of the same How be it rather theÌ„ his proud heart shall yeeld to the trueth retract his former ignorance malice he wholly consecrates himselfe to very childish shiftes and most foolish ridiculous cauils B. C. Hee runneth vpon the Doctrine taught by Soto and generally holden of Catholikes viz. that the Pope can not erre in Fayth and confidently auoucheth that it was neuer heard of till of late dayes his wordes be these This onely will I say that this Popist Article the Pope can not erre in Fayth was neuer heard of in Christes Church for the space of a thousand and fiue hundred yeares A gallant vntrueth worthy of the reformed Minister Thomas Waldensis was long before that time as also Turrecremata who both hold that the Pope can not erre in Fayth And not onely late Writers but the auncient Fathers haue taught the same Doctrine relying them selues vpon the Promise of Christ in the Ghospell The wordes of Soto prooue very well that the Pope as Pope can not erre which the most and best Diuines doe also maintaine But no word hath he or syllable that this is an Article of Fayth which was the poynt that Bell should haue prooued and for which he pretended to cite his wordes T. B. I answere first that one Popish trueth here vnawares confessed by our Fryer Jesuite doth comfort my heart more then a litle viz. that the Pope as Pope can not erre For albeit it be most absurd and false in rei veritato as I haue plentifully prooued in my Christian Dialogue yet is it a Popish trueth or a flat lye which is the same and turneth Poperie vpside downe Secondly that though the Pope with his most and best Diuines doe hold that the Pope as Pope can not erre yet is it not an Article of Popish Fayth This Confession I likewise approoue and out of this double Graunt I inferre a double Corollarie corollary 1 First that seeing it is no Article of Popish Fayth to beleeue that the Pope can not erre a shame of all shames it is to the Pope and his deuoted Vassals to hold affirme and beleeue that the Councels can not erre which the Pope confirmeth nor those Councels decree a trueth which he reiecteth and condemneth For most absurde and execrable it is to burne with Fire and Faggot zealous Men and zealous Women because forsooth they will not beleeue that which the Pope himselfe doth not beleeue O tempora O mores The Pope himselfe doth not beleeue that hee can not erre as this sweete Doctrine of our sweete Sir Fryer teacheth vs. And yet must all be burnt with Fire and Fagot that say hee may erre in decreeing matters of Fayth corollary 2 Secondly that all the late Popes and Papistes are flat Heretiques The reason is euident because they beleeue not Christes promise made to Peter and the Byshops of Rome his successors as both the Pope and all his deuoted Vassals do beleeue For which respect the Fryer in this very place telleth vs peremptorily and blusheth neuer a whit thereat that not onely Walâ—ensis and Cardinall Turrecremata but Late Writers and the auncient Fathers also haue taught the same Doctrine For which respect the Iesuites and all Iesuited Papistes haue euer in their mouthes and continually obiect as an argument vnanswerable that
Christ prayed for the Fayth of S. Peter and his successours that it should neuer fayle that Hel-gates should neuer preuaile against it Yet heere God be thanked for it their pride is somewhat abated Christ is now either distrusted of them which they dare not say or at least suspected not to haue promised to the Byshops of Rome that their Fayth should not fayle For if they beleeue not that Christ is faythfull in all his Promises they are flat Heretiques If they beleeue him to performe what hee hath promised then it must perforce either be with them an Article of popish Fayth that the Pope as Pope can not erre or else doubtlesse that Christ made no such Promise to the Byshops of Rome Vtrum â—orum manis accipe good sir Fryer for the better of them is able to giue the Pope his dinner For which respect S. R. that learned Iesuite as his deare brother B. C. calleth him telleth vs roundly that false Fayth can haue no accesse to S. Peters Chaire For which respect the same Jesuite telleth vs in an other place That wee must obey what hee decreeth or defineth iudicially as sitting in S. Peters Chaire though in heart he were an Heretique For which respect the same Iesuite telleth vs in his wordes following That Byshops must not examine the Doctrine which the Pope deliuereth iudicially out of S. Peters Chaire as supreame Pastor of Gods Church but onely that wherein he vttereth his owne priuate opinion Thus writeth S. R. that great Learned Jesuite truly telling vs the Popish Fayth Which Doctrine if any but a Papist had deliuered it few or none would haue giuen credite thereunto O sweete Iesus I woonder how any Papist hearing such Doctrine published in print by the Jesuites so deare and so neare to the Pope himselfe and duely pondering the vanitie thereof and the blasphemie therein conteyned can still be a Papist and not defie the Pope and his damnable Doctrine What shall we doe with the holy Scripture Is it the infallible rule of Fayth Is it superiour to the Popes Iudiciall sentence Must the Papistes depend vpon it rather then vpon the Popes Decree No no if the Pope define against it his Decree must be obeyed neither may any Byshop as our Fryer heere teacheth vs much lesse may euery Priuate man examine the same or once call it into question Of which more at large when I come to the Oath which Byshops make to the Pope Thirdly that when I say this Popish Article of Fayth was neuer heard of in the Church for the space of a thousand and fiue hundred yeares I meane not of bare vocall hearing but of hearing with approbation of which hearing this Text of the holy Ghospell is emphaticall Scimus quia peccatores Deus non audit Wee know that God heareth not sinners that is Approoueth not sinners in graunting their requestes For God knoweth seeth and heareth all Petitions vocally but theirs onely with approbation Which aske according to his will The Psalmograph vseth the like phrase in these wordes They shall cry but there shall be none to helpe them yea euen vnto the Lord shall they cry but he shall not heare them The Prophet Micheas doth second the Psalmograph in these wordes Then shall they cry vnto the Lord and he shall not heare them The Prophet Zacharie is consonant in these wordes Sic clamabunt et non exaudiam dicit Dominus exercituum So shall they cry and I will not heare them sayth the Lord of Hostes. All which places and the like must perforce be vnderstood not of bare vocall hearing but of hearing with approbation Which kind of hearing my selfe did plainly insinuate to the Reader when in my words following I excepted the Iesuites and Iesuited Papistes For if I had meant of bare vocall hearing I neither would nor truely could haue excepted the Iesuites whom I graunt to haue heard it both vocally with approbatioÌ„ Fourthly wheÌ„ our Fryer obiecteth ridiculously that Aquinas Antoninus Waldensis and Turrecremata taught the same Doctrine within 1500. yeares I answere thus first that Canus denieth Waldensis to hold that opinion Secondly that the vse of holy Writ is to speake of many as all and of few as none Which synecdochicall speach very frequent in the holy Scriptures were sufficient if need required as it doth not to iustifie my manner of speaking in this behalfe Thirdly that if I should admit so much as our sir Fryer desireth yet would it follow of necessitie that Poperie is the New Religion For we see heere as clearely as the Sunne shyning at noone day that this Popish Article the Pope as Pope can not erre was hatched a thousand two hundred and fourtie yeares after Christ. For the most auncient Father thereof which our Iesuite possibly is able to name is Aquinas as we haue seene who for al that liued more then 1240. yeares after Christ. To which I adde that the Church as the famous Papistes Panormitanus and Gersonus teach vs is either the Congregation of the faythfull or a generall Councell sufficiently representing the same This being so and my reasons duely pondered it is very cleare and euident that this Popish Article of Fayth was neuer heard of in the Church that is approoued of the Church for the space of 1240. yeares after Christ. For doubtlesse the approbation of Aquinas Antoninus and Turrecremata the Popes flattering Parasites can not establish the Religion and Fayth of the Church of Rome If our Iesuite dare say it let him publish it in print and then expect my Commentarie vpon the same See and note well the 29. and the 30. Chapters as also the Christian Dialogue page 24.27.30.38.41.60.63.65 B. C. One maine Lye with a prettie tricke of lieger-demaine For he is to prooue out of Alphonsus that the Pope might erre in Fayth iudicially for that is the question as appeareth in the Premisses and that this Article was neuer heard of 1500. yeares and yet in the foresayd wordes of Alphonsus no such thing is conteyned seeing he speaketh in them not of his iudiciall Decrees but of priuate Errours which may befall him in the exposition of the Scriptures and that Alphonsus must needes meane of his priuate opinions in writing or otherwise and not of his definitiue sentence is certaine For otherwise there be and were in his time that held the Pope could not be an Heretique iudicially or erre as Pope Much lesse doth Alphonsus say that it was neuer heard of for the space of 1500. yeares that the Pope could not erre in Fayth iudicially for of this poynt he hath not one word or syllable T. B. I answere thus first that I beleeue our Jesuite viz. while he telleth vs that his Pope may erre in expounding the holy Scriptures But withall I must needes tell him that his Pope may as truely erre in his iudiciall sentence The reason is euident
because Christes Prayer freed S. Peter from both And consequently if Christes Prayer were as effectuall and powerable for the Byshoppes of Rome as it was for Peter which the late Byshoppes of Rome Jesuites and Iesuiteâ— Papistes would enforce vs to beleeue they could no more erre in the one then in the other no more in their priuate opinions published to the world then in their definitiue sentences and iudiciall Decrees Nay it is in the Popes owne power to be as free from the one as from the other For when he expoundeth the Scriptures when he writeth Letters when he vttereth his opinion any way if he doe the same sitting in Peters Chaire he can not erre it is the vndoubted trueth Againe whatsoeuer he say or write as wee haue heard alreadie when he sitteth in Peters Chaire that we must obey and beleeue though in heart hee be an Heretique For no Byshoppe or Byshoppes in the Christian world how wise vertuous or learned soeuer they be may take vpon them to examine that which the Pope deliuereth out of Peters Chaire Thus S. R. that great learned Jesuite constantly auoucheth as wee haue alreadie seene Who doubtlesse could not be permitted to publish such Doctrine if it were not the Fayth and Doctrine of the Church of Rome Yea if any denie it where Poperie beareth the sway that person must feele the smart of Fire and Fagot for his reward He may be thought to know nothing who lyuing in Rome or Spaâ—ne knoweth not this to be so Secondly that Alphonsus that famous and learned Fryer spake not of the Popes priuate opinions as our Jesuite B. C. more impudently then Clerkly auoucheth who chooseth rather to say any thing then to graunt Poperie to be the New religion No no Alphonsus vtterly detested that Popish Article as a most prophane sottish and ridiculous Position though this day of Fayth with the Pope and with all his Iesuites and their Jesuited crew I prooue it by sundry testimonies layde open to the Readers by Alphonsus his owne penne First therefore these in one place are his expresse wordes Nouissimè fertur de Iohanne 22. quod publicè docuit declarauit et ab omnibus teneri mandauit quod animae purgata ante finale indicium non habent stolam quae est clara et faâ—ialis vâ—sio Det et vniuersitatem Parisiensem ad hoc induxisse diâ—itur quod nemo in ea poterat gradum in theologia adipisci nisi primitus hunc errorâ—m iurasset se defensurum et perpetiò eâ— adhaesurum Last of all it is reported of John the 22 of that name that hee publiquely taught declared and commaunded all Diuines to hold that the soules of the iust before the day of Iudgement haue not the stole which is the cleare and faciall vision of God And hee is reported to haue induced the Vniuersitie of Paris to this that none should take degree in Theologie there but he that did first sweare to defend this Errour and to adhere to it for euer Thus writeth Adrianus who himselfe was Byshoppe of Rome And Alphonsus a man of high esteeme in the Church of Rome after he had reckoned vp fiue Heresies setteth downe this for the sixt that the soules of the iust doe not see God till the day of Doome ascribing the sayd Heresie to the Armenians as to the authors thereof and to the Greekes togeather with Pope Iohn as to the patrons and defenders of the same Where the gentle Reader must obserue with mee seriously least he be seduced with the colourable glosse of the Jesuiticall Cardinall Bellarminus who seeing the force of this Testimonie and well perceiuing that it was able to ouerthrow the highest poynt in Poperie bestirreth himselfe mightily in defence thereof Hee telleth vs forsooth we may beleeue him if we lift that Pope Iohn erred indeed as Adrian and Alphonsus write But he did that as a priuate man sayth our Jesuite not as Pope of Rome This is that neuer enough detested Popish fallacie of the Popes double person wherewith the Pope his Jesuites and Iesuited Popelinges haue a long time seduced vs euen since that cursed Sect was first hatched and brought into the world the Sect of Fryers called Jesuites I meane But it is a most friuolous childish and ridiculous cauill a very fillie shift so sottish and so absurde as the Pope and all his Popelinges may be ashamed thereof The reason is euident euen to euery childe First because it is sayd Docuit Hee taught Secondly because it is sayd Publicè Publiquely Thirdly because it is sayd Mandauit Hee commaunded all Diuines to hold it Fourthly because none could be made Graduates in the Schooles of Theologie which held not this opinion Fiftly because euery Graduate was sworne to defend it and to sticke to it for euer perpetuò So then the Pope may erre and dè facto hath erred and that not only in his priuate opinion as a priuate man but euen in his iudiciall and publique sentence as a publique person and Pope of Rome This argument is insoluble it will neuer be truely answered while the world standes This is enough doubtles to euery indifferent Reader yet in way of congratulation to our Iesuite I am content to say a litle more These in an other place are Alphonsus his expresse wordes Celestinum Papam errasse circa matrimonium fidelium quorâ—m alter labitur in haeresim res est omnibus manifesta neque hic Celestini error talis fuit qui soli negligentiae imputari debuit ita vt illum errasse dicamus velut priuatam personam et non vt Papam qui in qualibet re seria definienda consulere debet viros dectos Quoniam huiusmodi Celestini definitio habebatur in antiquis decretalibus in cap. laudabilem titulo de conuersione infidelium quam ego ipse vidi et legi That Pope Celestine erred about Matrimonie of the faythfull whereof the one falleth into heresie it is a thing so manifest as all men know the same Neither was this errour of Pope Celestine such as it may be imputed to sole negligence so as wee may thinke him to haue erred as a priuate man and not as Pope who ought in the decree of euery serious matter to aske counsell of Learned men For that Definition and Decree of Celestine was in the old Decretals in the Chapter Laudabilem which I my selfe haue seene and read Out of these Golden words of the famous and great learned Fryer Alphonsus I obserue many very worthy lessons for the great good of the thankfull Reader First that Pope Celestine erred Secondly that he erred not as a priuate man but euen as Pope and publique person Marke gentle Reader for Christes sake I desire thee and for the saluation of thine owne soule For doubtlesse if thou ponder seriously this onely Testimonie of this great learned Papist all affection and partialitie set aside thou canst not
and place be correspondent thereunto I prooue it first because Christ himselfe saith That euery Tree which bringeth not foorth Good fruite shal be cut downe and cast into the fire Secondly because Christ sayth in an other place That whosoeuer loue him will keepe his Commaundementes Thirdly because S. Paul telleth vs in one place That God chose vs in Christ before the world was made that we should be holy in his sight And in an other place That we are Gods workmanship created in Christ Jesu vnto good workes which he hath prepared that we may walke in them The 5. Conclusion Good workes are the effectes of Predestination depending vpon it not it vpon them S. Paul prooueth it in these plaine golden and pithy wordes Whom he hath Predestinate them hath he Called and whom he hath Called them hath he Iustified and whom he hath Iustified those hath he also Glorified By this golden Chaine we may euidently perceiue that Glorification Iustification Vocation and consequently Good workes are the effectes of Predestination especially if we ioyne this with the other Conclusions afore going For if it be true as it is most true else th'Apostle should be a lyer that we were elected to be Holy and to doe Good workes it is also true it can not be denyed that Holy life and Good workes are the effectes of our Election and Predestination in Christ Iesus For this cause sayth that famous Papist Nicholaus de Lyra in this manner Dicendum quod predestinatio diuina est preparatio gratiae in presenti et gloriae in futuro Et ideo cum sit aeterna sicut ab aeterno predestinauit aliquem ad beatitudinem ita praeordinauit modum quo daret sibi illam beatitudinem I answere sayth this great learned Popish Doctor that Gods Predestination is the preparation of Grace in this world and of Glory in the world to come And therefore seeing it is Eternall as he hath predestinated any one from eternitie to endlesse Blisse or Beatitude so hath he also fore-ordayned the meane by which he would bring him to the same For this cause sayth the Popish Angelicall Doctor Aquinas whose doctrine sundry Popes haue confirmed for Authenticall that Predestination includeth Gods will of bestowing both Grace and Glorie And this Doctor so famous and authenticall addeth these wordes Nam predestinatio est causa et eius quod expectatur in futura vita a predestinatis scz gloriae et eius quod percipitur in presenti scz gratiae For Predestination is the cause both of that which is expected in the life to come that is to say of Glorie and also of that which the predestinate receiue in this life that is to say of Grace For this cause saith our Jesuiticall Cardinall Bellarminus that Good workes follow Predestination as effectes follow their causes These are his expresse wordes Itaque sunt opera bona effectus Predestinationis Therefore Good workes are the effect of Predestination Againe in other place the same Jesuite hath these wordes Itaque illa propositio Deus ab aeterno predestinauit hominibus dare regnum per opera bona praeuisa potest et vera esse et falsa Nam si illud per opera praeuisa referatur ad verbum predestinauit falsa erit Significabit enim Deum predestinasse homines quia opera illorum bona praeuiderat si referatur ad verbum dare vera erit Quia significabit executionem futuram esse per opera bona siue quod est idem glorificationem effectum esse iustificationis et operum bonorum sicut ipsa iustificatio effectus est vocationis et vocatio praedestinationis Therefore that proposition God fore-ordayned from eternitie to giue to men the Kingdome of heauen by their fore-seene Workes may both be true and false For if those wordes by their workes fore-seene be referred to the word Predestinauâ—t hee predestinated or fore-ordayned the sense and meaning is false For it will signifie God to haue Predestinated Men because he fore-saw their Good workes but if the same wordes be referred to the worde Dare to giue and bestow the sense and meaning will be true For it will signifie that the execution must be done by Good works or which is all one that Glorification is the effect of Iustification and Good workes euen as Iustification is the effect of Vocation and Vocation the effect of Predestination Againe in an othor place hee hath these wordes Non ideo pendet praedestinatio ab operibus sed opera a praedestinatione Therefore Predestination doth not depend of Workes but Workes depend of Predestination Againe in an other place he sayth thus Alia ratio est pradestinationis alia executionis Constituit N. in praedestinatione regnum caelorum dare certis hominihus quos absque vlla operum praeuisione dilexit tamen simul constituit vt quo ad executionem via perueniendi ad regnum essent bona opera There is one reason of Predestination an other of Execution For in Predestination God decreed to giue the Kingdome of Heauen to certaine men whom he loued without any fore-sight of Workes howbeit he decreed withall that in respect of the execution Good workes should be the way to come vnto the same For this cause doe our Râ—emistes tell vs that our first Iustification is of Gods Grace and not of our deseruinges because none of all our actions that were before our Iustification could merit or iustly procure the Grace of iustification Thus discourse these famous and great learned Popish Writers to whose Doctrine I subscribe with all my heart For as I haue often sayd else where I highly reuerence the Old Romane religion and to the vttermost of my small talent skill I both haue done doe and will defende the same Yea and iustifie the Doctrine of the Church of England to be the Old Romane Catholike and Apostolike religion which S Peter and S. Paul deliuered to the auncient and first Church of Rome Out of the Doctrine heere deliuered by these famous Papistes Lyranus Aquinas and Bellarminus I gather many excellent Notes First that the Grace Fayth and Good workes which we haue in this world and the Glory which we expect in the world to come doe all wholly proceed from Gods Predestination euen without all desertes of Man Secondly that as God prepared the Kingdome of heauen for his Elect euen before they were borne or had done any Good workes so did he also prepare the way and meanes by which he would bring them to the same Thirdly that no Workes done or fore-seene to be done did mooue God to predestinate any man to the ioyes of Heauen Fourthly that Good workes are not the Cause but the Effect of Predestination Fiftly that Good workes are the way and meanes which God ordayned for the execution of Predestination and for the accomplishment of Glorification Sixtly that not onely Predestination but also Iustification proceedes of
Gods meere fauour grace and good pleasure without all desertes of Man Seuenthly that our Vocation our Iustification and our Glorification are the effectes of Predestination I therefore conclude that Good workes are not the cause why Gods children possesse Heauen as their inheritaunce seeing it is the effect of Predestination yet that they are the ordinarie way and meanes by which God decreed in his eternall purpose to bring his Elect to Heauen For as he ordayned the end that is to say the Kingdome of Heauen or Eternall life so also ordayned he the way and meanes to attaine the same that is to say Vocation Iustification Fayth and Good workes Yea euen among Men whosoeuer intendeth the Ende intendeth also the Meanes The 6. Conclusion Good workes in a godly sense very vsuall frequent in the holy Fathers may truly be sayd to be meritorious that is to say they please God and are so acceptable in Gods sight that of mercie he rewardeth them farre aboue their desertes This Conclusion is sufficiently prooued by the reasons alleadged in the first Conclusion I will here onely annexe the testimonie of Bernard that famous and learned Popish Abbot In one place he hath these wordes Sic non est quod iam quaeras quibus meritis speremus bona praesertim cum audias apud Prophetam non propter vos sed propter me ego faciam dicit Dominus sufficit ad meritum scire quod non sufficiant merita So there is no cause that thou shouldest now aske by what merites we hope for Glorie especially since thou hearest the Prophet say I will doe it sayth the Lord not for your sake but for mine owne selfe It is enough to merite to know that our merites are not sufficient Againe in an other place the same Bernard hath these wordes Deest gratiae quicquid meritis deputas Noâ—â— meritum quod gratiam excludat Horreo quicquid de meo est vt sim meus nisi quod illud magis sorsitan meum est quod me meum facit Gratia reddit me mihi iustificatum gratis et sic liberatum a seruitute peccati It degenerateth from Grace whatsoeuer thou ascribest to Merit I will no Merite that excludeth Grace I abhorre whatsoeuer is of mine owne that I may be mine owne vnlesse perhappes that is more mine owne which maketh me mine owne Grace iustifieth me freely to my selfe and so deliuereth me from the bondage of sinne In an other place the same Bernard hath these wordes Iam vero de vita aeterna scimus quia non sunt condignae passiones huius temporis ad futuram gloriam nec si vnus omnes sustineat Neque N. talia sunt hominum merita vt propter ea vita aeterna debeatur ex iure aut Deus iniuriam aliquam faceret nisi cam donaret Nam vt taceam quod merita omnia Dei dona sunt et ita homo magis propter ipsa Deo debitor est quam Deus homini quid sunt merita omnia ad tantam gloriaÌ„ denique quis melior est Propheta cui Dominus ipse tam insigne testimonium perhibet dicens Virum inueni secundum cor meum Veruntamen et ipse necesse habuit dicere Deo non intres in iudicium cum seruo tuo Domine Now touching eternall life we know that the sufferinges of this time are not worthy of the glory to come no not if one endure all For the Merites of men are not such that for them eternall life is due by right or that God should do some iniurie if he gaue it not For to let passe that all Merites are the giftes of God and so man is rather debter to God for them then God to man What are all Merites to so great Glorie In fine who is better then the Prophet to whom our Lord giueth so worthy a testimonie saying J haue found a man according to my heart howbeit hee had need to say to God Enter not into iudgement with thy seruant O Lord. Thus writeth the deuote and religious Abbot Bernard who though he liued in the greatest mist of Poperie and so was carried away with some errours of his time yet did he teach most Christian doctrine almost in all his workes And because he was reputed a great Papist and of high esteeme in the Church of Rome his testimonie is euer most forcible against Papistes the Pope and Church of Rome Out of this his most learned and Christian Discourse I obserue many godly memorable Lessons First that our best workes doe merite nothing Secondly that our greatest and best merit is this viz. to know that our supposed merites are not sufficient Thirdly that how much soeuer be it more be it lesse We ascribe to Merites so much doe we derogate from Gods grace And consequently seeing we may not derogate from the Grace of God in any respect it followeth of necessitie that we cannot challenge any thing of Merite Fourthly that Grace doth iustifie vs freely and consequently that our Workes doe not iustifie at all Fiftly that though one man could suffer as much as all men doe yet could not that man condignely Merite heauen Sixtly that eternall life is not due to mans Merites Ex iure that is to say Condignely and of right Seuently that God should doe no man wrong if he gaue it not But doubtlesse if Good workes did merite Heauen God should doe wrong to many a man in not giuing it For to withhold and keepe a mans right from him is a notorious and knowen wrong Eightly that a Man is more indebted to God then God to Man And this reason my L. Abbot Bernard yeeldeth for the same viz. Because Heauen or Eternall life is the free gift of God The 7. Conclusion Good workes euen by Popish doctrine without the mercie and promise of God in his Sonne and our onely sauiour Christ Iesus doe not condignely merite Heauen This is soundly prooued by all the reasons of the third Conclusion But I will prooue it by other euident meanes S. Augustine hath these expresse wordes Vae eâ—iam laudabili vitae homiâ—â—m si remotu misericordia â—iscautias â—am Woe euen to the best liuers on earth if thou extend not thy Mercie to them For this cause doth the holy Prophet desire God Not to enter into iudgement with him And he addeth this reason Because 〈◊〉 mâ—n liuing can 〈◊〉 iustified in his sight Againe the same Prophet confesseth in an other place That if God deale extreamely in punishing what is done amisse none lyuing no not the best of all iâ— abâ—e to endure his iustice Abbot Bernard hath these expresse wordes Peccatum separans inter nos et Deum penitus auferri non poterit donec liberemur a corpore The sinne that separateth vs from God can not wholly be taken away while we remaine in this world He speaketh of Concupiscence euill desires Loe originall
can possibly be alleadged or produced out of the holy Fathers concerning this Subiect now in hand To this Booke in the third part and tenth Chapter I referre the Reader for his full satisfaction in this behalfe Secondly that aswell the thing it selfe as the name was first hatched in the Councell of Lateran For no Text in the Law of Moses no Sentence in the Prophets no Word in the Psalmes no Affirmation out of the Ghospell no Testimonie out of the Epistles of the Apostles no Verdict out of the holy Fathers no specialtie out of the auncient Councels can now or euer be found extant which once maketh mention either of Transubstantiation or of accidentes without subiectes Thirdly that this Popish fondly imagined Transubstantiation is farre different from that Reall presence with which the Pope and his Romish Synode most cruelly assayled Berengarius That Reall presence though most absurd as I haue prooued demonstratiuely in the Iesuites Antepast may well stand with Consubstantiation and nothing at all change the substaunce of Bread For it is a Popish foundation though foolish and ridiculous as is prooued in my Suruey that two Bodyes may be in one place at once This Transubstantiation sendeth the substance of Bread neither my selfe nor yet the Papistes can tell whither That Reall presence altereth not Christes Body but this Transubstantiation changeth the substaunce of Bread into Christes Body That Reall presence causeth not accidentes without subiectes but this Transubstantiation inferreth Miracles vpon Miracles aboue ten thousand times a day Popish Reall presence is one thing of which I dispute not in my Tryall Popish Transubstantiation is an other thing which is the subiect now in hand Fourthly that the Papistes them-selues doe not know what to thinke or say of their lately inuented Transubstantiation Durand as I haue prooued in the Downefall of Poperie affirmeth constantly that onely the forme of Bread is changed and that the matter of Bread remaineth still in the Eucharist Rupertus the Popish Abbot holdeth that the Bread is vnited Hypostatically to the Sonne of God Cardinall Caietanus Henricus and Capreolus are of an other different opinion Iohannes Parisionsis held also that the Bread was assumpted but in a different manner from the opinion of Rupertus An other opinion yet remaineth which affirmeth the Annihilation of the Bread Yet Cardinall Bellarmine holdeth with the Councell of Trent for hee that at Rome holdeth otherwise must be burnt that the Bread is transubstantiated into the Body of Christ. What Childe in the fyre would not come foorth to heare this harmonie Will yee heare what the learned Fryer S.R. sayth to this discordant melodie these are his expresse wordes in his pretensed Answere to the Downefall of Poperie The first Contradiction which this contradictions fellow findeth in the Masse is that Durand Caietan and foure Catholiques more before the Councell of Trent did otherwise explicate the manner of Christes Reall presence in the Eucharist then was trueth and since the Church hath defined and explicated in the sayd Councell Thus answereth S.R. that Learned man as B.C. his brother calleth him By whose learned Assertion we are giuen to vnderstand that Transubstantiation was not an Article of Popish sayth vndoubtedly vntill the late Popish Councell of Trent that is 1547. yeares after Christ. The Eleuenth Chapter of Popish Inuocation of Sainctes B. C. TV per Thomae sanguinem c. By the blood of Thomas which hee for thee did spend bring vs thyther ô Christ whyther Thomas did ascend I vtterly deny that any of these wordes or altogeather make Thomas a Mediator of Redemption or doe prooue that wee inuocate him as the Sonne of the liuing God and the onely Sauiour of the World T. B. I answere that this Popish manner of Praying prooueth euidently that Thomas Becket is to the Papistes a Mediator not onely of Intercession but also of Redemption I prooue it by sundry meanes and irrefragable reasons First because there is no Saluation in any but in Iesus Christ neither any other Name vnder Heauen whereby we must be saued Secondly for that the auncient Catholique Church hath euer desired Remission of sinnes of God the Father for and through Iesus Christ his onely Sonne and our onely Sauiour Thirdly because onely the Blood of Iesus Christ not the Blood of any other is able to bring vs to Heauen Fourthly because Iesus Christ with his owne Blood not the Blood of others hath perfectly accomplished the saluation of his Elect and that hath he done once for all Fiftly because an Angell came downe from Heauen and imposed the name Iesus vpon the Sonne of God yeelding this reason thereof for that he should saue Gods people from their sinnes Sixtly because all the workes of God are perfect Which for all that could not be so if Beckets Blood be a cause of our going to Heauen Seuenthly because all Gods Children are rewarded farre aboue their condigne desertes as I haue foundly and plentifully prooued in the Conclusions of the ninth Chapter immediately aforegoing Eightly because S. Austen affirmeth constantly that the best liuer vpon earth shall perish euerlastingly if he find not Mercie farre aboue his Desertes But doubtlesse hee that is rewarded aboue his Desertes and standeth in need of Mercie for his owne Sinnes that mans Blood is not a fit cause or meane to bring others vnto Heauen B. C. The Pope and many thousandes more vse the Romane Breuiarie Missall in neither of which any such Prayer is conteyned and as I suppose it is not found but in those of Sarum vse which be now antiquated and out of date T. B. I answere first that our Jesuite now beginneth to tell vs wonders euen the mutabilitie of Romish Fayth and Religion of which I disputed in the Chapter of Veniall sinnes Secondly that as the Pope hath reformed the Romish Fayth and Religion in this and some other poyntes euen so hath our English Church abolished all Popish errours and superstition whereby wee are the true Reformed Catholiques in very deed For as your Capuchones are the true reformed Franciscanes at Rome so are wee the true reformed Catholiques in England B. C. An vntrueth it is that Saintes merites are ioynt purchasers of saluation with Christes blood if he meane that the Merites of Christ and his Saintes doe alike availe to saluation T. B. I answere first that our Jesuite not able to defend Poperie nor to answere the reasons by mee produced doth highly blaspheame Christ and the sacred Merites of his most precious Blood For as we see hee absurdly and most impiously auoucheth that the Merites of Saintes may be ioynt purchasers of saluation with Christes most sacred Blood so it be not in the same degree Let his wordes be well marked for they import as much as I do say O monstrum horrendum What blasphemie what impietie what crueltie what infidelitie is diabolically implyed in rotten Poperie You were not saith
egregious and notorious lye the Fryer set abroach so to maintaine if it were possible the falsely pretended Antiquitie of rotten Poperie The Fryer durst not cite the wordes of his Authors though my selfe neuer fayle therein least his cogging forgerie and false dealing should haue been discouered by that meanes These are the expresse wordes of Sezomenus Vir quidam è Macedoniana haeresi vxorem eiusdem opinionis habebat Hic cum Johannem quomodo de Deo sentiendum esset docentem andisset dogma illius laudabat et vxorem quoque vt secum sentiret hortabatur Cum vero illa magis nobilium mulierum sermonibus quam illius consuetudini obtemperaret et post frequentes admonitiones vir illius nihil effecisset nisi inquit in diuinis mihi consors fueris neque in vitae communione posthac eris Mulier hoc audito et consensum pollicita rem eam famulae cuidam communicat quam sibi fidam esse iudicabat illiusque opera ad fallendum viruÌ„ vtitur Circa tempus autem mysteriorum illa quod accepit continens quasi oratura procuÌ„bit famula astans clauculum illi dat quod secum in manu attulerat Hoc cum dentibus admoueretur in lapidem congelascit A certaine man infected with the Heresie of Macedonius had a wife of the same opinion hee hearing the doctrine of S. Iohn Chrysostome how he ought to thinke and beleeue of God commended his Doctrine and exhorted his wife to beleeue as he did But when she hearkened rather to the Tales of Noble women then to his admonition so as her husband preuayled nothing by his exhortations vnlesse sayth he thou wilt ioyne with mee in matters diuine I will not hencefoorth ioyne with thee in secular affayres His wife hearing this and promising her consent imparteth the matter to one of her Maydes in whom she reposed great confidence and vseth her helpe to defraude her Husband While the mysteries were in hand she keeping that which she had receiued looketh downe as if she would pray Her Mayde standing by giueth her priuily that which she brought with her in her hand Which when she began to eate it was chaunged into a Stone Nicephorus reciteth the same Storie in the selfe same manner I haue cited the wordes at large that the indifferent Reader may behold the false dealing of the Fryer and be an indifferent iudge betweene him and mee Sozomenus and Nicephorus do both ioyntly and constantly affirme that the Woman receiued the Sacramentall bread which she did not eate so to defraud and deceiue her Husband The Jesuite impudently auoucheth that she being a Macedonian Heretique did so the better to conceale her Religion Which notorious lying of the shamelesse Jesuite not onely the Historie it selfe doth confute but also the due consideration of the Heresie which the woman held For neither the eating neither the not eating of the Sacramentall bread did either further or hinder the Macedonian Heresie If she had been an Arian the Fryers assertion might haue had some colour of truth but seeing she was a Macedonian it is too too foolish and ridiculous For the Heresie of Macedonius consisted in this that the Holy Ghost was not God Secondly that neither Sozomenus nor Nicephorus sayth as the Jesuite beareth his Readers in hand viz. that the Sacrament of our Lords Body and Blood was then ministred vnder one kind but onely this and nothing else viz. that the Woman deceiued her Husband in taking the Bread which she did not eate Thirdly that our Iesuite falsely sayth that the Cuppe was not then giuen into the handes of the Communicantes his Authors affirme nothing lesse Fourthly that whatsoeuer our Fryer saith howsoeuer he imagine that the Woman could not haue had the same euasion in taking the Cuppe which she had in taking the Bread yet doe I constantly affirme and experience will prooue the same that she might haue seemed to drinke of the Cuppe yet haue tasted no Wine at all Fiftly that Pope Gelasius doth contest with me that the Lay people did in his time which was 492. yeares after Christ at the least receiue the holy Eucharist vnder both the kinds yea he affirmeth it to be Sacriledge to receiue but the one kind alone These are his expresse wordes Comperimus autem quod quidam sumpta tantummodo corporis sacriportione a Caâ—ice sacratiâ—ruoris abstineant Qui procul dubio quoniam nescio qua superstitione docentur astringi aut integra sacramenta percipiant aut ab integris arceantur Quia diuisio vnius eiusdemque mysterij sine grandi sacrilegio non potest peruenire We vnderstand that some receiue onely the portion of the sacred Body and abstaine from the Cuppe of the holy Blood Who for that we know not how they are taught to be superstitious shall either receiue the whole Sacramentes or else be excluded from the whole Thus writeth Pope Geâ—asius the first whom Genebrard truly calleth the most learned Pope That some odde persons in his time did not receiue the Eucharist in both kindes whom hee therefore condemneth of flat Sacriledge because the one kind may not be taken without the other But I will yet touch and tickle our Jesuite more strictly and tell him that which will make his eares to tingle Gabriel Biel a very learned Schoole-doctor and a religious Popish Fryer in his Commentaries vpon the Canon of popish Masse telleth vs very constantly that it was a right generally vsed in the primatiue Church to receiue the holy Eucharist vnder both kindes But withall he affirmeth very resolutely that the Church of Rome in processe of time brought into the Church an other Custome of receiuing in one kind onely In the end he determineth decideth the controuersie in these expresse wordes Olim quaestio illa poterat esse dubia sed nunc post determinationeÌ„ concilij Constantiensis veritateÌ„ catholica determinantis dicere coÌ„munionem sub vtraque specie esse de necessitate salutis omni fideli est haeresis ibidem publice condemnata In former times it was lawfull to doubt of that QuestioÌ„ But in these latter dayes after the Councell of Constance which hath determined the Catholique veritie therein to say that all the faythfull must vpon necessitie of saluation Communicate vnder both kindes is a flatte Heresie publiquely condemned in the sayd Councell Thus disputeth this great Learned Papist out of whose words I gather these worthy obseruations First that the Church of Rome can make Heresies at her good will and pleasure I prooue it because that which was Catholique doctrine in the Primatiue Church is now made a flatte Heresie by Popish constitutioÌ„ Secondly that the Laicall Communion vnder one kind was consonant to the Catholique fayth vntill the late Councell of Constance that is to say for the space of one thousand foure hundred and foureteene yeares For so long was that Councell holden after Christ. Thirdly that no mortall man no pure
creature no Angell in heauen or Saint vpon earth hath any power at any time to alter or change the least iote of the Catholique fayth This Obseruation all learned Papistes willingly imbrace acknowledging the same for an vndoubted truth And Biel my Doctor now in hand approoueth the same in these expresse wordes Quaedam sunt de necessitate sacramentorum et de iure diuino sic quod nulla authoritate vel consuetudine oppositum induci possit Some thinges are of the necessitie of Sacramentes and of the Law diuine so that whatsoeuer is opposite or repugnant to the same can neuer be established by any Custome or Authoritie To which I adde fourthly that the Church hath no new reuelations in matters of Fayth So writeth the famous Byshoppe and great learned popish Doctor Melchior Canus in these expresse wordes Nec vllas in fide nouas reuelationes Ecclesia habet The Church hath no new Reuelations in matters of Fayth This is true Catholique doctrine in very deed no denyall may be made thereof For once a matter of Fayth is and must euer be a matter of Fayth And in like maner once no Article of Fayth neither is nor euer can be an Article of true Fayth indeed B. C. S. Thomas of Aquine doth not say That this was in some few places onely as Bell maketh him to speake but that in some Churches it was so obserued which might be very many as well as some few T. B. I Answere that in my Suruey of Poperie I set downe Aquinas his expresse wordes as mine accustomed manner euer hath been though our Iesuite dare not performe so much In my Tryall I onely gaue the true sense and meaning for breuitie sake His wordes are these Ex parte quidem ipsius sacramenti conuenit quod vtramque sumatur sez et corpus et sanguis quia in vtroque consistit perfectio sacramenti Sequitur ideo prouidè in quibusdam ecclesijs obseruatur vt populo sanguis sumendus non detur sed solum a sacerdote sumatur On the behalfe of the Sacrament it is meete and conuenient that both be receiued to weet both the Body the Blood because in both consisteth the perfection of the Sacrament Therefore it is prouidently obserued in some Churches that the Blood be not giuen to the Lay people but be onely receiued of the Priest Thus writeth Aquinas out of whose wordes I note two speciall Documentes Thâ—one that the perfection of the Sacrament consisteth in both kindes and consequently that the Communion of the Lay people is this day vnperfect in the Church of Rome This is a note of great consequence let it be well remembred Th' other that both kindes were vsually receiued euen of the Lay people in the dayes of Aquinas both in the Church of Rome and in all other Churches some few excepted For if Aquinas should meane by some Churches very many Churches as our Fryer would perswade his readers he should not haue sayd in some Churches but in very many or in all Churches for the most part For two which are a few not very many may determine some Churches very sufficiently But to extend some Churches to very many is to offer no small violence to the Text. For example sake If our Jesuite should promise to giue me some Money for my paines as I thinke he will not if then I did challenge very much Money vpon his Promise hee perperhaps would deny the same and my selfe for any helpe the wordes would affoord me should by Law recouer the great summe ad Calendâ—â— Graetaâ— In my Suruey this Lay call Communion vnder both kindes is prooued at large out of Origen S. Cyprian S. Hierome S. Chrysostome S. Jgnatius S. Justinus S. Ambrose S. Austen S. Gregorie and Haymo It shall now suffice to cite the testimonies of Iustinus and Haymo Iustinus hath these expresse wordes Qui apud nos vocaÌ„tur Diaconi atque Ministri distribuunt vnicuique praesentium vt participet eum in quo gratiae actae sunt Panem Vinum et Aquam Sequitur Nam Apostoli in commentarijs a se scriptis quae Euangelia vocantur ita tradiderunt praecepisse sibi Iesum They that we call Deacons and Ministers doe distribute to euerie one that is present the sanctified Bread Wine Water to be made partaker thereof For the Apostles in their Commentaries that is in the Ghospels haue taught vs that Iesus so commaunded them to minister the holy Communion Haymo an auncient Father and learned Byshoppe hath these expresse wordes Ego N. accepi â— Domino quod et tradidi vobis id est mysterium corporis et sanguinis Domini quomodo debeatis sumere sicut mihi reuelauit ita tradidi vobis For I haue receiued of the Lord that which I deliuered to you that is the mysterie of our Lords Body Blood in what maner yee ought to receiue it Euen as he reuealed it to mee so haue I deliuered it to you Thus write these holy auncient learned Fathers very resolutely and plainely teaching vs that Christ commaunded all sortes of people to Communicate vnder both kindes I therefore must conclude with this ineuitable illation That seeing the Communion vnder one kind was not an Article of popish Fayth for the space of 1414. yeares after Christ as is already prooued it both is and must perforce be so reputed a very rotten ragge of the New religion The .13 Chapter of Popish priuate Masse B. C. THE Minister speaketh of the dreadfull Mysteries as homely as though he were talking of the English Communion which is had in such high reuerence that the fragmentes remayning are appoynted for the Ministers priuate vses and leaue giuen him to feed with them his Chickens or to soppe his Pottage T. B. I answere first that our cogging Iesuite is as vnreuerent in speaking as he is impudent and shamelesse in lying Secondly that all wise discreete and zelous Christians in our Churches doe come with more true reuerence to our holy Communion which we acknowledge to be sacramentally Christes true Body and pretious Blood then Papistes doe in the Romish Church to their transubstantiated Bread-god Thirdly that the Papistes giue leaue to Dogges Mice and Rattes to eate the remainder of their Bread-gods in so much that Petrus Lombardus their reuerend Maister of Sentences not able to expresse what the Mouse doth eate answereth to the great mysticall difficultie in these wordes Deus noâ—u God knoweth what the Mouse doth eate Fourthly that God by the mouth of holy Moses pronounced to the Isâ—â—eâ—uâ— that the remnant of the Meat-offering should be Aaron and his Sonnes And the reason is added immediately in these expresse wordes For it is most Holy of the Lordes Offeringes made by Fire Againe in an other place thus The Priest that offereth any mans Burnt offering shall haue the Skinne of the Burnt offering which he hath offered And all the Meate offering that
can not but thinke that it is hid vnder a Pipkin so to be kept from Sun-burning euen as the other Fiue Bookes are prepared so many yeares agoe Howbeit if either it or any other Booke shall happen to come to my handes while God shall of his great mercie graunt me life health and sight the two last whereof doe in an hie degree begin to fayle me it shall God willing receiue a speedy Answere Let this Jesuite and all the rest so perswade them-selues as also that God giueth me comfort more then a litle in all my conflictes against them The 15. Chapter of Popish worshiping of Images B. C. SAint Gregorie sayth Bell sharply reprooued the Worship done to Images True it is But what kinde of Worshippe was it The Minister would haue the Reader to thinke that it was the same which the Catholique Church alloweth and teacheth which is nothing so For it was passing farre different for as much as S. Gregorie allowed conuenient Adoration as shall straight be sayd T. B. I answere first that I approoue our Iesuites Answere while he confesseth truely that Gregorie sharpely reprooued the Worshippe done to Images Secondly that I can not but withall condemne his fond interpretation of S. Gregories wordes For it is most cleare and euident that Gregorie neuer approoued religious Worship giuen to Images Thirdly that our Fryer falsely imagineth the Church of Rome to be the Catholique Church Of which Subiect I haue disputed at large in my Christian Dialogue B. C. Cardinall Bellarmine thinketh that this erroneous Worshippe was giuen by certaine new Christians 〈◊〉 surely such were most likely to fall into that grosse sinne of whom it is not so much to be marueyled if accustomed before to Idols they behaved themselues in like manner towardes sacred Images and adored them for Gods as in Pagain sinne they were taught and practised T. B. I answere first that woe is to those silly and simply seduced Christians who are enforced to beleeue and receiue as Catholique Doctrine whatsoeuer Bellarmine and his Iesuited complices shall coniecture imagine to be the trueth Yet is is true that all must be burnt with Fire and Faggot in Rome Spaine and Portingale that will not beleeue as the Pope and his Cardinals teach them Secondly that the Worship which the Papistes this day giue to Images is of like nature qualitie semblance and condition in euery respect with that which was giuen to Idols euen in the time of Paganisme I prooue it out of your popish Reformed Portesse or Breuiarie where I find this Prayer made to the Crosse. O Crux aue spe vnica hoc passionis tempore auge pijs iustitiam reisque dona veniam All hayle ô Crosse our only hope in this time of the Passiō increase Iustice to the Godly and eke to sinners Pardon giue To which I adde the manner of Worship which the Papistes doe to the Crosse on Good-fry day to say nothing of other times Vpon that day the Crosse is couered and in time of popish Prayers the Priest by degrees doth vncouer the same first on the right side with low reuerence done vnto it Then on the left side with the like reuerence exhibited Lastly the whole Crosse is reuealed and made manifest to the people And the like superstitious dotage is vsed in the Songe made to the Crosse. For in euery of the three degrees the tune is eleuated and made higher then afore Which being thus done the Priest putteth off his Shooes and prostrate vpon the ground adoreth and kisseth the Crosse. After the Priest follow the rest aswell of the Temporaltie as of the Clergie euery one in his order and degree And because none may come empty to the Lordes House many rich Oblations are made euen with the good liking of the Priest But if any refuse to adore and worshippe the Crosse he shall be burnt as an Heretique If any desire to know the mysteries of Popish worshippe done to the Wooden Crosse with the profound significations thereof he may find the same in Byshoppe Durand who hath bestowed great labour in that behalfe But say on sir Fryer it is not yet time to goe to dinner B. C. Bell quoteth Biel where nothing is handled of any such Subiect A small fault especially in Bell being one of such knowen trueth that he neuer vseth any such sleightes vnlesse it be for the better passage of the Ghospell To let that passe Why hath he not cited his Wordes He may pretend what reason he please but he must giue me leaue to thinke that there is none other saue onely that he knew not truely where to find them T. B. I answere first that our Iesuite is so addicted to lying as the Diuell may seeme to haue begotten him If I should stand to examine and refute all the Lyes which our Iesuite poureth out in his Pamphlets time doubtlesse would sooner fayle me then matter whereof to speake Secondly that our Jesuite is condemned in his owne Conscience as who accuseth me of that which is proper to himselfe and whereof he knoweth me to be innocent Is this possible to be prooued It is not onely possible but so easie a thing for me to prooue it that if I fayle herein I will desire no credite to be giuen me in other matters For the manifestation of the trueth herein I desire the honest and indifferent Reader to obserue two thinges with mee Th' one that the Iesuite hath seene read and taken note or notes out of my little Booke intituled The wofull cry of Rome For so much himselfe confesseth in his Preface to the Reader Th' other that in the selfe-same Wofull cry I haue both truly quoted the place and sincerely cited the expresse wordes of Biel there I write in this manner Yea Gabriel Biel a religious Popish Fryer and a very learned Schoole-doctor who liued long after Gregorie and Serenus euen one thousand foure hundred eightie and foure yeares after Christ doth sharply inueigh and reprooue the Worshippe giuen to Images Hee hath a large Discourse of this Subiect in which the Reader may finde these expresse wordes Quod vero Christiana religio Imagines sustinet in Ecclesia et oratorijs non permittit eo fine vt ipsae adorentur Sequitur Neque adoro Imaginem Christi quia lignum nec quia Imago sed adoro Christum coram imagine Christi quia scilicet imago Christi excitat me ad amandum Christum Whereas Christian religion tolerateth Images in the Church and in Oratories it doth not permit them for this end that they may be adored Neither doe I adore the Image of Christ because it is Wood neither for that it is an Image but I adore Christ before the Image of Christ because the Image of Christ doth allure me to loue Christ. Thus much and plentifull other matter against popish Worshippe of Images the Reader may find in that Booke And therefore I must not giue the Fryer that leaue
ex itinere venit ad eum quibus diebus consueuer at cum suis continuare ieiunia et die certo comedore medios dies sine cibo consistens Videns itaque peregrinum valde defectum perge inquit suae filiae laua peregrini pedes et cibos appone Cumque virgo dixisset nec panem esse nec 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quarum rerū solebat nihil habere reconditum propter ieiunium orans primū veniamque petens filiae iussit vt porcinas carnes quas domi salitas habebat coqueret Quibus coctis sedens cum peregrino positis carnibus comedebat et rogabat vt vna cum eo ederet peregrinus Quo resutante Christianumque se profitente propterea magis inquit resutare non debes Omnia enim munda mundis sicut sermo diuinus edocuit A certaine friend of S. Spiridion came to him in time of Lent at what time hee with his familie were wont to continue their Fast and to eate at a day appoynted absteyning all the meane dayes from the first day of their Fast to the last not eating any meate at all Hee therefore perceiuing the Stranger to be very weary willed his Daughter to wash his Feete and to set meate on the Table And when the Virgin answered that they wanted both Bred and Meale which thinges they vsed not to keepe in time of their Fast hee first prayed and then commaunded his Daughter to boyle the Swines flesh or salt Bacon which she had in the house which being made readie and set on the Table S. Spiridion sate downe with the Stranger and eating thereof desired the Stranger to eate and take part with him When the Stranger refused saying hee was a Christian S. Spiridion answered that therfore he ought not to refuse to eate with him because hee was a Christian adding this reason that Gods word taught all thinges to be pure to the pure Nicephorus a famous Historiographer of high esteeme in the Church of Rome reporteth the same Historie in the same sense and meaning vsing more plaine and euident wordes in the last periods which are these Ex amicis quidam ad eum ex itinere longinquo venit et quidem eo tempore quo ipse ieiunaret Certis enim quibusdam diebus a cibo omni abstinens postea vescebatur A ceraine friend came from farre euen at that time when he kept this Fast For he absteyned some certaine dayes from all maner of Meate and after his Fast did eate Thus writeth Cassiodorus thus Nicephorus Out of whose Narrations I obserue these very memorable instructions First that after these graue Historiographers had made mention of Lent-fast they by and by added these words At which time S. Spiridions custome was to Fast. Whereby they giue vs to vnderstand that he Fasted of his owne free accord not by compulsion of any setled Law For if Lent-fast had been vnder commaundement and not left free to euery ones arbitrement in vaine should these graue Writers haue made mention of S. Spiridions custome in that behalfe But as I haue already prooued some fasted a longer time some a shorter some after one maner some after an other And for that end is it that these famous Historiographers doe so distinctly relate both the time and the manner of S. Spiridions Fasting Secondly that these Writers affirme S. Spiridion to haue fasted but some certaine daies as if they had said the Stranger came not onely in Lent but euen at that time of Lent when S. Spiridion kept his Fast. For though the time of euery ones abstinence were tearmed Lent yet was there such difference therein that some ended when others began the same in so much that Nicephorus and other graue Writers doe more then a litle admire how they all in such and so great varietie could call their abstinence Lenton-fast Thirdly that S. Spiridion with his whole Familie marke the wordes Cum suis absteine from all kind of Meate during the whole time of their Fast And consequently that S. Spiridions Lent was not the Fast of fourtie dayes For neither himselfe and much lesse his whole familie some being of young and tender yeares was able to endure so many dayes without all kind of Meate Marke well these wordes A cibo omni abstinens This is so cleare and euident by vsuall Popish practise that whereas in former times the Papistes did not dine in Lent vntill the ninth houre which is with vs three a clocke in the after noone they are this day dispenced withall to shuffle vp their Prayers so to dine at noone And why I pray you must this be done Because forsooth their bodyes are not able to endure one dayes fast vntill three a clocke in the after noone Ergo S. Spiridions Lent continued not the space of fourtie dayes Our Fryer Iesuite volens nolens must this confesse Fourthly that neither S. Spiridion nor any one of his familie did eate any Meate vntill the end of the Fast And consequently that Popish Lent-fast is nothing correspondent to that Lent-fast which S. Spiridion vsed in his time Fiftly that seeing S. Spiridion did not interteine the Stanger without Bread albeit he had none in his owne house for doubtlesse he had Bread to his Flesh it followeth of necessitie that he got Bread of some of his Neighbours and consequently that all his Neighbours did not keepe Lent after his maner and at his time Which yet they ought and would haue done if Lent had been commaunded by any setled Law Sixtly that S. Spiridion brake off his Fast that he might eate and be merrie with the Stranger Whereby we may learne that his Fast was voluntarie not by compulsion of any Law Seuenthly that S. Spiridion vrged the Stranger euen to eate Flesh in Lent who doubtlesse would neuer haue once mooued him to transgresse any Apostolicall Law Ergo Lent-fast was voluntarie not commaunded by any Law Eightly that S. Spiridion when he vrged the Stranger to eate flesh in Lent did not alleadge necessitie or want of Meate but taught him plainely out of Gods word that all Meates as well Flesh as Fish were pure vnto the pure Lastly that S. Spiridion told the Stranger plainely and constantly that he ought rather to eate Flesh in Lent then to refuse it because hee was a Christian. As if he had said It is the badge of an Infidell not of a Christian to thinke he may rather eate Fish then Flesh. For the complement of doctrine concerning Lent-fast let vs heare attentiuely I pray you what Iosephus Angles that famous popish Byshop and Fryer telleth vs. Two memorable Doctrines doth he teach vs Th' one that Lent-fast is satisfactorie for our sinnes Th' other that Christ did not institute Lent-fast as the Romish Church obserueth it In one place he hath these expresse wordes Tale ieiunium est propriè et realiter et sacramentaliter satisfactorium Ratio est
Church while euery one of them sought with might and maine to be the Pope of Rome For the Councell lamenting the Schisme and greatly desiring to stablish vnitie peace in the Church vsed the chiefest and last remedie in that behalfe that is they deposed the three contentious Popes Iohn Gregory and Benedict and chosing Martin made him Pope by their supereminent power And to take away al Schisme dissentions difficulties doubtes suspitions and future garboyles which might perhappes haue insued therevpon the Councell decreed and constantly defined that a generall Councell in causes Ecclesiasticall had the greatest power vpon earth and consequently power and authoritie ouer the Pope euen to cite him to excommunicate him and to depose him And therefore De facto they deposed the three aforenamed Popes and placed Martin in their stead Maister Doctor Gerson a famous and great learned Papist maketh this case so plaine in many places of his workes as none that with iudgement and indifferencie shall peruse the same can stagger or stand in doubt thereof these are his expresse wordes Ecclesia vel generale Concilium eam reprasentans est regula a spiritu sancto directa tradita a Christo vt quilibet cuiuscunque status etiam Papalis existat cam audire ac eidem obedire teneatur alioquin habendus est vt Ethnicus et Publicanus The Church or generall Councell representing it is a rule directed of the holy Ghost and giuen vs of Christ that euery one of what state soeuer euen Papall must heare and obey the same or else be reputed as an Ethnicke and Publican Againe in another place the same Doctor hath these words Iohannes Papa non est accusatus vel conuictus de Heretica prauitate et tamen concilium vocauit et iudicauit ipsum tanquaÌ„ suuÌ„ subditum vnde et in toto processu vsque post sententiam definitiuam suae depositionis reputatus est ab eodem concilio verus Papa Pope John was neither accused nor conuicted of Heresie and for all that the Councell both called and iudged him as their Subiect Wherevpon the Councell reputed him the true Pope in all the time of their proceeding against him vntill after the definitiue sentence of his Deposition In an other place the same Learned Writer hath these wordes In causis fidei non habetur in terra Index infallibilis vel qui non sit deuiabilis a fide de lege communi praeter ipsum Ecclesiam vniuersalem vel ConciliuÌ„ generale eam sufficienter repraesentans In matters of Fayth there is no infallible Iudge vpon earth or which can not swarue from the Fayth by the common course of Gods proceedinge sauing the Church vniuersall or a generall Councell representing the same sufficiently In an other place he hath these wordes Ecclesia vel generale Concilium potuit et potest congregari sine expresso consensu vel mandato Papae etiam ritè electi et viuentis in multis câ—sibus The Church or a generall Councell both might and may be called togeather without the expresse consent or mandate of the Pope euen when the Pope is lawfully elected liuing Thus disputeth this famous Papist and great learned Doctor Out of whose wordes I gather many very excellent documentes well worthy to be written in Golden letters First that the Pope is subiect to a generall Councell and may be controlled by the same Secondly that the Pope may erre both priuately and publiquely in resolutions of Fayth aswell as other Byshopps and Ministers of the Church Thirdly that a generall Councell is aboue the Pope and hath power to depose the Pope for any notorious Crime whatsoeuer Fourthly that the contrary opinion is flatte Heresie condemned in the Councell of Constance Fiftly that a generall Councell hath full power to compell a Pope lawfully elected to renounce and forsake the Popedome and to giue place to him whom the Councell shall appoynt and choose Sixtly that if the Pope shall withstand the Councell and refuse to obey the Decrees and Constitutions thereof he ought and must be excommunicated and reputed as an Ethnicke and Publican Seuenthly that a generall Councell may be summoned and kept without the consent of the Pope euen of that Pope who is both lawfully chosen and at time liuing Eightly that all people are subiect to a lawfull generall Councell euen by Christes owne rule and designement Ninthly that neither the Pope nor any one man vpon earth is or can be an infallible Iudge in matters of Fayth Tenthly that the iudgement which we must finally rest vpon in all controuersies of Fayth and Religion is either the iudgement of the vniuersall Church or else of a generall Councell sufficiently representing the same This is found and very Catholike doctrine though proceeding from the Penne of a great Papist Which Doctrine as the Councell of Constience first and after it the Councell of Basill did approoue by their flat decrees so doe I reuerently embrace the same with all my heart humbly thanking God that by the mighty power of his trueth our aduersaries are compelled to confesse the trueth against them-selues This Doctrine is confirmed more at large both in my Anatomie and in my Golden Ballance to say nothing of my Christian Dialogue which woundeth the Pope at the very heart From hence proceedeth that which will seeme to many a woonderment of the world But what is that will some say This forsooth that all Papistes this day liuing are flat Heretiques Is it so in deede Is that possible to be prooued It is so possible that I haue euen now prooued the same most euidently And thus the most simple Reader in the world shall easily perceiue the same The generall Councell of Constance decreed plainely that the Popes Iudgement is fallible that the Pope is subiect to a generall Synode and by the authoritie thereof may be depriued of the Popedome as also that the contrary opinion is flatte Heresie This is alreadie prooued Now so it is that all Papistes this day liuing vpon earth doe hold the Popes Iudgement to be infallible and himselfe to be aboue a generall Councell So say the Rhemistes so sayth our Iesuite euen in the end of his Chapter next afore-going being the 29. in number Ergo seeing all Iesuites and Iesuited Papistes doe this day hold and defende that opinion which a generall Councell hath defined to be flatte Heresie it followeth by a most necessarie consequence and ineuitable illation that they all are flat Heretiques it can not be denyed Deo gratias dixi B. C. And before we prooued how Pope Leo irritated and made of no force a Decree enacted in the Councell of Chalcedon which argueth his Superioritie ouer the Councell T. B. I answere first that this assertion and opinion of our Fryer is a flatte Heresie as it is euen now prooued and that most euidently Secondly that this sottish allegation is confuted againe and againe in the
second Chapter of this present Volume To this let vs adde a most notable testimonie of our Rhemistes which is comprised in these very wordes Notorious is the saying of S. Augustine concerning S. Cyprian who being a blessed Catholique Byshop and Martyr yet erred about the rebaptizing of such as were Christined by Heretiques If he had liued sayth S. Augustine to haue seene the determination of a plenarie Councell which he saw not in his life time he would for his great humilitie and charitie straight way haue yeelded preferred the generall Councell before his owne Iudgement and his fellow Byshops in a prouinciall Councell onely Thus dispute our Rhemistes confounding them-selues and their Pope vnawares For first they tell vs marke well my wordes that S. Cyprian was a blessed Byshop and Martyr and therefore would haue yeelded to the Decree of a generall Councell They tell vs secondly that S. Augustine was of the same opinion In which double Narration the Rhemistes confound them-selues with their Pope and all his deuoted Popelinges For they giue vs to vnderstand very plainely that neither the Pope is aboue a generall Councell neither yet his Iudgement infallible But how prooue I that This forsooth is a plaine demonstration thereof S. Cyprian and S. Augustine being both of them very Holy very Learned Fathers could not but know right well for their great Learning what Authoritie Power Priuiledges and Prerogatiues Christ had giuen to the Byshops of Rome And without all question it is it can not be denyed that for their great pietie and humilitie they would humbly haue acknowledged and highly reuerenced all Power giuen them by our Lord Iesus Yet true it is sir Fryer marke well my wordes that Pope Cornelius togeather with a nationall Synode of the Byshoppes of Jtaly had made a flatte decree concerning Rebaptization True it is likewise that Pope Stephanus had confirmed the same Decree and commaunded it to be obserued True it is thirdly that all Papistes of late dayes doe obstinately affirme as our Rhemistes in the name of all Papistes tell vs that the Pope is aboue a generall Councell that the Pope can not erre Iudicially that the Popes Iudgement is infallible Now this Decree made by Pope Cornelius and confirmed by Pope Stephanus S. Cyprian knew right well neither was S. Austen ignorant thereof Howbeit this notwithstanding S. Cyprian roundly withstood the Decree of Pope Stephanus and both sharpely reprooued him and vtterly contemned his falsely pretended Authoritie S. Austen in like manner held the same opinion with S. Cyprian concerning the Popes falsely pretended Prerogatiues infallibilitie of Iudgement neuer excusing any such thing in S. Cyprian as a fault neither once saying that the Pope was Christes Vicar or that Christ had prayed that his Fayth should not fayle but constantly telling the Reader for his full satisfaction on S. Cyprians behalfe that he would humbly haue yeelded to the Decree of a plenarie Councell if any such had been in his time In which wordes S. Austen giueth the Reader to vnderstand that though S. Cyprian did contemne both the definitiue Sentence of the Pope and the Decree of his prouinciall Councell because neither of their Iudgements was infallible yet would he haue yeelded to the Decree of a plenarie Councell as which he acknowledged to be infallible and to haue the assistannce of the holy Ghost Let vs adde further that the two hundred seauenteene Fathers in the Aphrican Councell whereof S. Augustine was one were so farre from acknowledging the Byshop of Rome to be Christes Vicar generall vpon earth to be aboue a plenarie Councell and his Iudgement to be infallible that they all with one assent refused vtterly to graunt any such Prerogatiue or Priuiledge vnto him constantly affirming that he was bound as well as they to obey the Decrees of the Nicene Councell For which cause neither would the said Fathers graunt greater Power and Prerogatiues to the Byshoppes of Rome neither did the Byshoppes of Rome them-selues challenge greater Power then the Canons of the Nicene Synode would affoorde them Of which poynt I haue disputed at large in the second Chapter afore-going Whosoeuer shall seriously peruse that whole Chapter from the beginning to the end thereof will vndoubtedly rest satisfied in this behalfe Ioyne this with my Tryall and Poperie will prooue it selfe the New religion The 31. Chapter conteyning according to my promise an Answere to the Iesuites short admonition in the 16. Chapter aforegoing as also to some other patches elsewhere dispearsed to the same effect T. B. HAuing euidently prooued and plainely conuinced by the power of God and the assistance of his holy Spirit that Poperie is the New religion it followeth consequently that I prooue the Fayth Doctrine this day professed and by Authoritie established in the Church of England to be the Old Religion I therefore heartily craue the gentle Readers attentiue hearing vnto the end of my Discourse I haue not hitherto in any of my former Bookes oppugned the Old Romane Religion which S. Peter and S. Paul deliuered to the Church of Rome while they liued heere on earth Neither doe I at this present or euer intend hereafter in any future worke to oppugne the same It is the late Fayth and late Romish Doctrine which I contend to be the New Religion euery maine poynt whereof I haue clearely conuinced when and by whom it first began Our Church of noble England constantly reteyneth euery Article and iote of the old Romane Religion onely reiecting and abolishing of the essentiall partes of late Romish Fayth and Doctrine so much as was Hereticall erroneous or superstitious and repugnant to the eternall trueth of Gods most sacred word And concerning late Romish ceremonies such so many as were either superstitious or ridiculous or vnprofitable to the Church of God So that wee are this day the true reformed Catholiques euen as the Fryers at Rome commonly called Capuchoâ—nes are indeed the true reformed Franciscans The Church of England doth not this day hold any Article of Fayth or Doctrine or vse any Ceremonie saue such onely as we are able to iustifie either by the expresse wordes of the holy Scripture and by the approbation of best approoued Antiquitie or else to deduce the same from thence by a necessarie ineuitable consequence Let vs now in Gods name heare attentiuely what our Iesuite in the name of all Papistes is able to obiect against the Fayth and Doctrine of the Church of England B. C. COncerning Ceremonies and such like Bell in his Regiment of the Church graunteth freely that the Church hath Authoritie to ordaine and abrogate to make or repeale Lawes as shall seeme most meete for the honour of God and the edification of Christian people T. B. Bell admitteth all this Say on good Fryer if happily thou haue any better Bread in thy Bagge seeing this is not worth a silly Ragge Howbeit our Fryer for want of matter
dayes the Byshoppes of England now so called haue had and kept a continuall and vninterrupted succession of Byshoppes successiuely so sound firme and inuiolable as the Church of Rome is not able to shew the like This succession is so clearely prooued in my Christian Dialogue as none with right reasoÌ„ can deny the same Fourthly that the Church of England now so called hath euer since the time of King Ethelbert constantly kept all and euery Article of the old Romane Religion which she receiued from the auncient and purer Church of Rome No Papist liuing is able to giue any true instance against this irrefragable assertion Fiftly that as in processe of time many superstitious grosse and palpable errours yea flatte Heresies haue by litle and litle crept into the Church of Rome euen so hath our Church of England through the sway of the time been deeply stayned polluted with the same Sixtly that our Church in the time of King Henry the eight began to be reformed in some Articles of Fayth and Doctrine but the reformation was not perfect vntill the raigne of King Edward the sixt In which Reformation no New Article of Fayth or Religion is added to the former but the former Fayth and Religion is onely refyned purged purified and such Superstition Errours and Heresies abolished as were by litle and litle brought into the Church All and euery iote of the old Romane Religion remayneth still in our Church permanent and inuiolable But some perhappes will heere demaunde of me how the Church of Rome did so degenerate from the auncient Fayth and so foulely corrupt the old Romane Religion To whom I answere in this manner First with Egesippus that auncient and learned Father that during the life of Christes blessed Apostles the visible Church remayned a Virgin free from all Heresies and corruptions but after their death Errours by litle and litle crept into the Church as into a voyde and desart House Secondly with Franciscus a Victoria that famous popish Fryer and great learned Schooleman that by litle litle the Papistes were in his time brought to such inordinate dispensations and to so miserable a state that they were neither able to endure their owne griefes nor remydies assigned by the Pope for the same That Clemens Lâ—nus and Syluester were very good Byshoppes of Rome but that the latter Byshoppes comming after them successiuely were wicked men and nothing comparable to the olde Byshoppes there Thirdly with Iosephus Angles that famous Popish Byshoppe euen in that Booke which hee dedicated to the Pope himselfe that the Romish Religion changeth euery day Fourthly with the fiue famous Popish Doctors Iohannes Roffensis Jacobus Almaâ—nus Gersonus Durandus and Michael Baius that euery sinne is mortall of it owne nature and that the old Romane Church did so beleeue vntill the time of Pope Pius the fift that is about 1560 yeares after Christ at which time Veniall sinnes werâ— hatched in the Church of Rome This is such a constant knowen trueth as neither the Jesuite S. R. nor yet the Iesuite B. C. his deare brother can tell in the world what answere to frame to the same Fourthly with Polidorus Virgilius that famous Popish Writer that the Popish Legistes and Canonistes of latter dayes haue so wrested the holy Scriptures to their owne sense and liking as Coblers doe gnaw with their teeth and stretch out their filthy skinnes Fiftly with Platina the Popes deare Vassall and trustie Friend that in his dayes the Popedome was brought to that passe that who so could goe before others in Bribes and Ambition hee onely should haue the place Sixtly with Couarruuias that worthy popish Arch-byshoppe and learned Canonist that in these dayes either the Popes opinion must be defended or else Poperie can not stand Lastly with Iosephus Angles writing to the Popes deare Holynesse that albeit the old Church of Rome did by the commaundement of the Apostles excommunicate all non communicants in the time of the Masse or Liturgie yet hath the late Church decreed that it shall be lawfull for all Lay persons to receiue the Eucharist onely at Easter Much more I might and could say if I thought not this sufficient So then the Fayth and Doctrine this day professed and authorized in this our Church of England is indeed the old Romane religion purged refined and restored to the primatiue and most auncient puritie in King Edwardes dayes in whose happy raigne was the perfect and complete Reformation But the Fayth and Religion it selfe came from S. Peter and S. Paul yea euen from Christ himselfe their Jesus and our Jesus world without end To whom with the Father and the holy Ghost three in the distinction of persons and one in the vnitie of diuine essence be all Honour Maiestie Power Glory and Dominion now and euermore Amen A Caueat to the Christian Reader THE masked Jesuite in his Preface to the Reader laboureth with might and maine to perswade his Readers that I dare not performe that challenge which I made to the Fore-runner his wordes are these I the meanest of many millions doe accept of his Challenge and doe vndertake to defend not onely these two poynes of Iosephus Doctrine and Pope Martins Dispensation which he hath singled out as matters important but also all the rest so it may be with that equitie and fauour which was graunted to the Protestantes in France And vpon the same conditions doe prouoke him with a counter-challenge to the defence of his Bookes And a litle after he telleth his Reader That hee sendes me as many Challenges as will stand betweene Charing-crosse Chester and as many Dares as will reach from Darby to Darington To which I answere in this manner First that the Jesuites are accused and charged by their deare Breathren the popish Secular Priestes with Pride Ambition Couetousnesse Coozenage Theft Crueltie Murther Treason and all wickednesse that can be named Yea of Fryer Parsons that trayterous Iesuite they giue this testimonie in particular viz. by Parsons platformes Secular Priestes must depend vpon Blackwell and Blackwell vpon Garnet and Garnet vpon Parsons and Parsons the Priestes Bastard vpon the Deuill Peruse my Anatomy of popish Tyrannie and there thou shalt finde this trueth with great varietie of like matter Secondly that in all my Challenges I require but one onely Condition which the Iesuite passeth ouer in silence because he meaneth not to performe the same The Condition is this viz. That the Iesuite which shall accept the Challenge must put downe his name with his addition in print and send it to me Which if it be once performed during my life I promised vpon my saluation to doe what in me lyeth to procure a false conduct for the safe comming safe abyding and safe departure of him whosoeuer he be that shall accept and vndertake the true performance of the Challenge in maner aforesayd Thirdly that the Jesuite
not daring indeed to accept the Challenge and to encounter me seeketh by fond cauils and shamelesse euasions to instill into the eares and heartes of their silly deuoted Vassals that I will not because I dare not performe my promise And for the better effecting of their purpose they require of me that which I neuer promised yea that whereof my selfe am altogeather ignoraunt and no way able to performe For how can I performe that which I doe not know I must forsooth procure him a safe conduct to dispute with that equitie and fauour which was graunted to the Protestantes in France Marke for Christes sake how feard our Iesuite is to accept the Challenge First hee dareth not put downe in print his name and addition A tricke of Iesuiticall or rather Diabolicall pollicie I must procure a safe conduct for B. C. Some bloody cut-throate I thinke hee be Yet I must not know whether hee be a Man or a Monster whether Pope Iohn the Woman or some Deuill incarnate of a Popish Nunne Besides this I must accept of such slye conditions as he addeth to my Challenge so as he may be at libertie to slippe the Halter when and as he list Whereby who seeth not that by all meanes he auoydeth to dispute or bicker with mee Fourthly that the Iesuite and his Jesuited complices haue a long time intended and still labour by vngodly and indirect meanes to take away my life from me and so to stoppe me from further writing against their rotten Poperie Yea in his Preface he protesteth lustily that hee hath prouided a Winding-sheete for the shrowding of my Carcase and that he will with all speed make ready my blacke Funerall And it seemeth so in very deed For vpon the 13. of Iune instant 1609. euen immediately after I had finished this Catholique Triumph there came a friendly Letter but without name vnto my handes and a Packet with Siluer in it which the man namelesse pretended he had borrowed of me c. The circumstaunces were such quae nunc non est narrandi locus that neither my selfe nor others durst open the Packet as hauing apparant inducementes to suspect Poyson Pestilence or other like infection Diabolicall Thus much I thought good in briefe to insinuate to the Readers that they may thereby see and perceiue how vnable the Papistes are to defende their late vpstart Poperie as who know no better meanes but by seeking most cruelly to murder all such as stand in their way God make me firme and constant in the trueth and God defend me and all professors of his holy trueth from Popish sauage crueltie and in the end bring vs to endlesse felicitie Amen Amen FINIS Fiue Bookes were printed but hid vnder a Pipkin least they should be seene or burnt with the Sunne My Booke of Motyues and Booke of Suruey Forerunner pag 15. To what end were they written but to be published This Church of Rome hath foulely corrupted the old Romane Religion which our Church hath reformed A.D. 527. A.D. 1084. The Papistes ascribe saluation to popish Monkry Bruno the author of a new popish sect Hence Poperie is conuinced to be the new Religion A.D. 1335. A.D. 1119. A.D. 1170. A.D. 1198. A.D. 1206. A.D. 1371. A.D. 1540. Ignatius Loyola was the father of Iesuites these proud lordly Fryers Behold the Iesuites liuelie purtrayed in their best beseeming colours Note well my Anatomy The Fathers of the African Councell did stoutly controule the Byshops of Rome for their forgerie of false Canons The Byshop of Romes authoritie limitted by the Councell of Nice Hence sprang the Byshop of Romes falsely pretended Primacie The Emperours were deceiued and so gaue away their royall prerogatiues A.D. 528. Vniuersall Byshop A.D. 607. A.D. 1550. A.D. 1418. A.D. 1566. A.D. 1161. Chap. 4. Of the Popes Pardons Chapt. 5. Of popish Purgatorie Chap. 6. Of Auricular confession Chap. 7. Of Veniall sinnes Chap. 8. Of the Popes fayth Chap. 9. Of the condigne Merite of Workes Chap. 10. Of Transubstantiation Chap. 11. Of popish inuocation of Saintes The Iesuite only snatcheth at such peeces as he thinketh he may best deale withal B.C. pag. 2. 〈…〉 apud 〈…〉 3 cap. 32. O the most monstrous lye in the world God of his mercy either conuert or confound the lyer Secundo principaliter Ioh 12. ver 41. Euseb. hist. lib. 3. cap. 32. Vpon my saluation the Iesuite hath most impudently belyed mee The Iesuite is as honest as he that hath no trueth at all in him Nomb. 16. vers 24.30 Out vpon all lying trayterous Iesuits Poperie can not in trueth be defended it is the new Religion The Iesuite beginneth continueth and endeth with lying Epiphan haer 68. p. 213. Apud Aug. epist. â—1 13.14.17.18.25.30 Aug. ep 76. Aug. ep 77. Apud CypriaÌ„ pag. 11.46.61.66 Valla. de don Constant. â—ol 34. B. Act. 16. In breuiario cap. â—1 Act. 16. Pag. 10. The Iesuite is full of notorious lyes Act. 16. pag. 21â— Liberatus cap. 13. pag. 621. in Breâ—iar Cap. 12. pag. 620. Cap. 23. pag. 630. Cap. 12. Pag. 20. A.D. 457. A.D. 327. Quinto principaliter Theod. hist. lib. 5. cap. 10. Theod. hist. lib. 5. cap. 9. A.D. 371. Sixto principaliter Notetur cap. 2 in conclus â—0 valde Fuerunt 630. episcopi in Chalcedone A.D. 457. Act. 16. pag. 212. The Byshop of Rome the chiefest Patriarke but yet vnder the Emperour as other Byshops else where Act. 16. pag. 208. Concil 1. Constant. A.D. 383. Celebratum Marke this The Byshop of Rome was made the chiefe Patriarcke because Rome was the head of the Empire Concil prim Constantinop Can. 5. et habetur dist 22. cap. Constantinop ciuitatis Honoris primatum Marke this poynt well Concil primum Constantinop A D. 383. celebratum Epist. ad Damasum The Iesuite prooueth himselfe a noddy Euery Arch-byshop is Byshop of Byshops in a godly sense meaning Marke well the next Chapter Dist. 99. cap. primae sedis Dist. 99. cap. Nullus Let these decrees of the Popes be neuer forgotten Gratian Dist 99. cap. ecce Floruit Greg. A.D. 591. The Byshop of Rome is confounded Concil Chalc. A. D 455. celebratum Our Fryer slaundreth the primitiue Church Our Fryer confuteth himselfe See the tryall and marke it well It is new for that it coÌ„meth short by more then 400. yeares of the time of S. Peters doctrine The newnesse of Religion may be considered two wayes The word or name Pope is a ragge of the new religion The name was old as coÌ„mon to al Byshops but not as proper to one O Fryer great is thy malice against the truth Ioh. 10. v. 28.29.30 Mat. 9.6 Ioh. 1. v 14. B.C. pag. 12. Let the Fryers confession be well remembred pag. 12. The protestation of the Duke of Saxonie and of the rest Read and marke well the antepast Gratian. Dist. 40. cap. si papa The Pope may not be iudged though he carry many thousands of men into Hell fire Vict. relect 4. depotest Papae
aeadeÌ„ propos 16. We may not dispute of the Popes power The Pope can saue others but not himselfe Syluest do indulg par 7. Syluest vbi sop par 7. The Pope can bring all the Soules out of Purgatory Sanders Stukely Parry and others had such Pardons Fumus de Papa par 11. Viguerius de sacram ordinis in fine Antonius part 1. tit 10. cap. 3. Loe we must beleeue the Pope and Church of Rome The Pope is a merciles man Behold popish ptalegata Great suÌ„mes of Money giuen for saying popish Masses Nauar. in enchâ—r cap. 22. par 28. Nauar. vbi super What cannot the Pope doe The Pope can saue Soules Couar to 1. cap. 7. par 4 N. 13. col 1. Mat. 19.7 Luke 16. v. 18. 1. Cor. 7. v. 10. Greg. lib. 1. tit 7. cap. 3. Aquinas in supl. mento q. 25. art 1. The Pope hath as great authoritie as S. Paul had Nauar. de iudiciis notab 3 See the â— chapter in the 11. propositioÌ„ What will not the Pope doe Gloss. lib. 1. decretal tit 7. cap. 3. Gratian. dist 40. cap. si Papa Aug. de Ancoua in suÌ„ma P. 152. Loe the Pope is the vniuersall Lord of the whole world Dist. 22. cap. omnes The Pope is an other God Appendix Fuldensis The Pope would be King of the whole world The Pope was wel rewarded Gers. de potest eccles consid 12. part 3. Out vpon filthy Poperie Greg. 9. libr. 1. decretal tit â—3 cap. 6. Glossa vbi super The Emperour not thought comparable to the Pope Dist. 96. cap. duo sunt Marke this The Emperour is compared to Lead and the Pope to Gold Libr. 1. decretal tit 7. Cap. â— in glossa Antonius 3. part tit 22. cap. 5. §. 8. Marke well for Christs sake and detest late start-up Poperie for it is the new religion as euery child may see The Pope chalengeth equalitie with God Gratianus dist 96. cap. Constantinus This kind of coozenage aduanced the Pope Marke the words well This is a ridiculous motiue The Popes learned disputation A.D. 607. Phocas did not approue the donation Cusanus de coÌ„cord cathol lib. 3. cap. 2. ad conc Basil. Behold how this learned popish Cardinall confoundeth the supposed maiestie of the Pope A.D. 681. Vide dist 96. cap. ecclesiae Dist. 96. cap. Constantinus The Pope is an vsurper Constantines Donation is not in the old decrees Anton. p. 1. tit 8. c. 2. §. 8. Dist. 96. Constantinus S. R. pag. 411. Marke this poynt well Volateran in vita Constantini magni Cathalon in practic Cancellar Apostolicae Loe no approued history maketh mention of Constantines donation Cathalan vbi super A. D 1130. The Emperors kept Rome Italy in their hands for the space of more then 300. years after Constantine Cathal vbi super in marg Vbi super in marg Marke this wonderfull narration Laurentius valla eraâ— patricius Romanus Lying and Coozenage the originall of Popish royaltie See and note well the christian dialogue chapter 4. page 90.91.92.93.94 The. 1. point Fol. 19. A. Valla in declamat pag. 18. B. De donat et curat Leprae Constantini Lege Râ—num episc Paduan in hist. de vitis pontific The 2. poynt fol. 26. B. The Popes decree confuteth it selfe The 3. poynt fol. 34. B. A very fond popish assertion concerning Constantine Marke this well both for the name and the crowne The 4. poynt fol. 34. B. The Emperor must hold the Popes Stirrop See the 8. steps of the Popes ladder in the downefall of Poperie The 5. point fol. 45.46.47 A.B. Marke for Christs sake This is wonderfull Fol. 45. A. The Pope vseth coozening trickes See the downfall of poperie page 13. and note it well Fol. 46. A. Dist. 63. cap. ego Ludouicus A.D. 817. Marke these words well Fol. 47. B. Loe the people of Rome ought to crowne the Emperour Loe the Popes supeâ—â—oyall power is gotten by coozenage Behold the folly of all follies in the world Loe the people of Rome not the Pope ought to crowne the Emperour Fol. 48. A. Loe the Emperour cannot giue away the Empire O most holy Popes O coozeners O deceiuers One Pope is ashamed of that which an other doth Fol. 51. B. Fol. 52. A. Fol. 53. A. Fol. 54. A. Fol. 54. B. Fol. 55. A. O wicked Byshops of Rome The Pope boasteth of his naughty dealing Marke well these Golden obseruations Out vpon the new Popish religion O rare woonderment of the world Constantinus A.D. 607. Let all these obseruations be euer well remembred This Cardinal woundeth his Pope Vixit Stephanus A.D. 741. Vixit Pipinus A.D. 750. Marke this poynt well The originall cause of kissing the Popes foote The Byshops of Rome deceyued the Emperours The Byshops of Rome are the fyrebrands of all mischiefe Victor de potest Papae et concil relect 4. pag. 139. Out vpon rotten popish dispensations The Popes owne learned Doctors can not endure them Loe the late Byshops of Rome do degenerate from the old are very naughtie men Act. 7. Lib. 3 cap. 7. Chalc. concil Act. 7. prope initiuÌ„ Loe the Emperour commaunded the Byshoppes to examine the controuersies and they called him their Lord. The Iesuite began with lying and meaneth so to continue to the end Secundo principaliter Sozom. lib. 3. hist. cap. 7. All Christians are subiect to the Canons of the Nicene Synode See and note well the 30. chapter of this Booke For there all now liuing Papists are prooued flat Heretikes The maine point of the difficultie The Byshop of Rome is confyned CoÌ„c Nicen. can 5. No appeales to the Byshop of Rome Marke this well The remedy against vniust excomunications Can. 4. Firmâ—tas eoruÌ„ quae gerantur per vnaÌ„quaÌ„que prouinciam Metropolitano tribuatur Episcopo Can. 6. Ruffin hist. libr. 1. cap. 6. Cusan de concord cath lib. 2. c. 13. Conc. Nicen. can 4. apud Ruffin Nota valde 30. cap. â—uius operis Super in hoc ipâ—o cap. CoÌ„cil Aphric cap. 105. Aug. coÌ„tr Crâ—scon libr. 3. c. 34. De concor cath lib. 2. cap. 25. Can. 105. ad Caelest vrbiâ— Romae episcopum A.D. 425. Hic omnes Pontificij illoqueantur Vide inferius 30. cap. vbi omnes Papistae planè probantur haeretici Loâ— appeales must be to the Metropolitanes not to the Pope Marke well not one word of appeales to the Pope These wordes wound the Pope to death A.D. 425. Episcopi fuerunt 217. Marke well the word Iustissimè Note the cause maner of appealing Marke well for Christs sake Peruse the 10. Concluâ— and marke it well Epist. ad Bonifac cap. 101. Fumosum typhum seculi Prefat Isidor Conc. to 1. Prefat Isido in fine A.D. 678. 637. The Popes forgeries can make dead men to liue The Popes Decretall Epistles are forged Recript Marci to 1. concil They were 70. say they and now but twentie Epist. ad Ortho. in perseq Hierony in Chron. A.D. 335. et 342. Hist. trip lib. 4. cap. 15. Socâ— lib. 2. cap. 15.
Soz. lib. 3. cap. 8. Marke wel the Aphorismes forget them not Athanas. Apolog. 2. Iul. in Ep. ad Episcop Antioch congregatos et apud Athanas. apolog 2. Tom. 1. CoÌ„cil P. 391. Soz. lib. 3. cap. 8. Socr. lib. 2. cap. 17. Sozom. liâ— 3. cap. 10. Conc. Nic. can 5. Leo ad Theodos August Epist. 23. The Emperour calleth all Councels Noâ— qui conuenimus Episcopi ex diuersis Prouincijs in Sedensia Isauriae ad maÌ„datum pietatis pientissimi regis nostri Constantii haec colloquuti sumus iuxta regiam voluntatem Epiphan haer â—3 pag. 259 A.D. 456. Alexander was Byshop of Constantinople not Macarius Nicephorus lib. 8 cap. 7. Genebr lib. 3. pag. 563. Niceph. lib 8. cap. 15. Cassiodor hist. â—rip lib. 2. cap. 4. Two myracles were done by Spiridion Alexander Hist. trip lib. 2. cap. 1. A.D. 327. Nicephor hist. lâ—b 8. cap. 14. Marke well Julius not Syluester was Byshop of Rome in time of the Nicene Councell Soz. lib. 1. cap 17. Apud Genebr lib. 3. p. 561. Nicephor lib. 8. cap. 26. Socrates lib. 1. cap. 16 Geneb p. 561. Nic. concil Can. 6. Antiqua consuetudo seruetur Con. Nicen. can 6. The Popes falsly pretended primacie is quite ouerthrowne Conc. Nicen. can 7. Habet dist 65. cap. quoniaÌ„ mos. Euery Byshop hath his proper dignitie Addition first Epi. ad LeoneÌ„ imperat To. 2. concil P. 270. Addition 2. Gratian. dist 15. cap. sicut Corn. ad Cyprian To. 1. coÌ„cil pag. 226. Ep. 11. apud Cyprian The Church of Rome how it is Catholike Com. Epist. ad Fabium habetur To 1. coÌ„cil pag. 222 circa med Note well the 30. chapter following Marke the wordes in this Euseb. hist. lib. 6. cap. 33. et To. 1. concil p. 221. ex Ruffino Habetur To. 1. conc p. 222. inter decreta Cornelij Episcopi temulenti et exaturati erant Conc. Nicen. can 8. contra Nouatians Cypr. Ep. 55. ad Cornel. Note well the tenth Obiection in the end thereof Notetur Genebr lib. 3. in Chron. p. 528. Genebr vbi supra p. 527. Cyprian ad Florent Ep. 69 Ambrose in 1. Tim. 3. Prefat in lib. excus Antuarp a Plant. Rector must be a Ruler not the Ruler Cyprian de vnit Eccles. prope initiuÌ„ pag. 297. nota comment ibid. p. 306. This reason can neuer be truly answered They spake more boldly then wisely Fumosum typhuÌ„ seculi Act. 19. vers 24 27. A.D. 1294. Loe the whole Clergie with the King condemned the Pope A.D. 1408. Lib. 3. c 17. fol. 182. 4. Personae accusator reus testes index Conc. Chalced Act. 16. pag. 211. col 1. There was no compulsion vsed as the Popes parasites falsely pretended Relat. Synod Act. 3. in fine Aphorisme 5. In relatione Synodi Act. 3. in fine Canus lib. 5. c. 5 p. 164. Esa. cap. 55. v. 8. Marke well the precedent conclusions and aphorismes this is very cleere Bell would gladly haue the Popes fauour if ioyned with the fauour of God Bell dare prooue the Iesuite a lyer Lib. 2. cap. 6. concl 1.2.3 2 Par. 19. V. 8.9 2. Par. 17. V. 7.8.9 2. Par. 14 4. 2 Par. 15.13 Deut. 13.5 2. Par. 34.33 2. Par. 30. V. 1.2.5 See the Golden Ballance and marke it well Super ex Cypr. Obiect 10 A.D. 327. Episcopi erunt 318. Socrat. Hist. lib. 1. cap. 9. et cap. 8. idem apertissime asseritur Euseb. de vita Const. lib. 3. prope initium nota valde quib digestis ad sua redire quemque permisit Lib. 8. Hist. cap. 14. The Byshop of Rome commaunded by the Emperour to be at the Councell Super in 6. Obiectione Soz. Hist. lib. 1. cap. 17. Lib. 8. Hist. cap. 14. Epiph. haeres 69. rex de Ecclesia sollicitus vniuersalem conuo cauit Synodum trecentoruÌ„ deceÌ„ et octo Episcoporum Lib. 1. hist. cap. 7. The Byshop of Rome was reputed as a comâ—on Preâ—â—e Socrates lib. 5. â—ist cap. 8. et cap. 7. in fine A.D. 384. Soz hist. lib. 7. cap. 7. et cap. 12. Vbi super cap. 9. Sigeb in chron 386. Theod. hist. lib. 5. cap. 6.7.9 A.D. 433. Euagr. lib. 1. cap. 3. Nicephor lib. 14 hist. cap. 34. et hab 1. to coÌ„c pag. 600. Euag. hist. lib. 1. cap. 10. Bellar. de conc ib. 1. cap. 19. The Emperour euer had the highest place in Councels Behold the Popes humility Sozom. hist. lib. 1. cap. 19. Cassiod in hist. tripart libr. 12. cap 5. Nicephor libr. 14. hist. cap. 34. Sigebert in Chron. An. 433 A.D. 454. Lib. 15. hist. cap. 2. Sigebert in Chron. et An. 452. The Pope requested but the Emperour coÌ„maunded the thing to be done Leo Ep. 33. ad Theod. Vide Aphor. 5. in obiect 5. et nota valde Conc. Coact A.D. 585. Episc. 72. Edict regis de coÌ„firmat concilij in 2. to concil in concil 3 toletano Conc. Tolet. 3. in 2. tom concil Ex Concil cap 18. Aug. Epist. 50. prope med ad Bonifac. 4. Reg. 18. 4. Reg. 12. Iona. 3. Dan. 1â— Dan. 3. Neglecta disciplina impunita saeuiâ— nequitia Kinges haue charge of mens Soules Ios 18. Num. 27.17 2. Par. 23. v. 11. Marke well for Christs sake This assertion is wonderfull marke it well Marke well my wordes Peruse the Aphorismes marke them well Let the Aphorismes be well marked Conc. Chalc. act 16 pag. 208. Tom. 2. Note well the tenth Conclusion Conc. Nicen. Can. 6. Can. 4.5.7 Dist. 8. cap. quicontempta Ioh. 14. â— Dist. 8. cap. frustra Dist. 8. cap. si tolus Dist. 8. cap. consuetudo Dist 8. cap. si coÌ„suetudinem Dist. 1. cap. consuetudo Nota Glossam Nota valde Glossam Conc. Nicen. can 4.7 Hom. 83. in Matth. 2. Par. 29. v. 5.11.15 4. Reg. 23. v. 1.2.3.4 How wicked Kings ought to be dealt withall Hugo Card. in Psa. 50. Gloss. Ord. in Psa. 50. The Pope is subiect to a silly Priest Lib. 1. de Bapâ— C. 18. Euseb. Libr 7. Hist. cap. 2.3 4. This killeth the Pope For this point reade and note well my Christian dialogue Such as Marcion are fittest for you your Pope Marke well the Aphorismes Const. Epist. Apud Euseb. Lib. 3. de vita Const. in initio Haeres 69. Ep. de Synod Ari. et Selenc Haeres 69. pag. 217. True Copies were sent from Alexandria Constantinople Conc. Aphric Epist ad Celest. cap. 105. in fine Rescript Iulij ad orient pag. 393. cap. 29. to 1. conc A straunge and vnvsuall maner of swearing Poperie aboundeth with trickes of legierdemain Conc. Aphric Epis. ad Bonifacium cap. 101. Fumosum typhum seculi Marke well for Christs sake Suruey Part. 3. cap. 3. Pag. 232. Vbi Super Pag. 235. Vbi super Pag. 233. Socr. Hist. lib. 1. cap. 8. Hist. Tripart Libr. 2. cap. 14. Loe the Councell made no Law or Canon in this matter Our Fryer belyeth Bell. Marke well the wordes in my Suruey A Mil-horse is one thing a Hors-mill an other thing Marke that Appeales to Rome are
Hood Litle Iohn In his Detection published Anno. 1602. This is a great wonderment of the world let it be remembred Lib. 2. cap. 17. The Franke Discourse pag. 98. A.D. 1602. Marke how the Iesuites confute themselues Forerunner page 15. cap. 3. Iudic. 15. v. 4. A Iesuites Miracle See my Anatomie Loe a great number euen of the best haue consulted to answere my Bookes See my Counterblast for Garnetes Letter Loe the Iesuites write many Bookes against Bell which they dare not publish In Breuiar Rom. hebd 4. quadr in sabb Nadis pedibus adoratur crux Durand in rationale diuiâ— offic libr. 6. cap. 77. In the Preface to the Reader pag. 7. Biel in Can. miss lect 49. in fine Gabriel Biel in can miss â—ect 49. prope finem Suruey part 2. lib. r. 1. cap. 6. concl 2. Gregor Sereno episcopo lib. 7. ep 109. cap. 109. 2. Reg. 18. v. 4. Epiphan ep ad lo. Hierosol in fine In villa Anablatha Epiphan haeres 79. pag. 313. The Iesuite knoweth not in the world how or what to write See the .14 Chapter aforegoing A.D. 414. Theodor. de Graecar affect curat lib. 5. pag. 521. to .2 Amb. lib. 3. hexam cap. 5. tom 4. Iustin. apol 2. prope â—â—nom Apud Euseb. libr. 2. hist. cap. 17. Chrysost. in 2. Cor. hom 18. in morab. What can be more plainely told What more euident to the reader nothing in the whole world Cyprian in orat dom pag. 316. Vide Origen cont Celsu lib. 8.9.13 Sozom. hist. trip lib. 4. cap. 35. A.D. 424. Hier. in prefat lib. 2. in ep ad Galat. Lyer in 1. cor cap. 14. Basil. ep ad cler Neocaesar epist. 6 a. See my answere to this in the last Chapter of this Booke Psal. 115.1 1. Cor. 1.27 Mat. 21.16 Mat. 4.18 Mat. 9.9 Act. 8.3 act 9.1 1. tim 1 v. 13. Rom. 11.33 1. Sam. 17. v. 4.10 Note well the word as Mat. 26. v 27. Marke well the word as Ioh. 21. v. 15. Cap. 13. of priuate Masse Out vpon rotten Popery Ephes. 6. v. 16. Marke well the Tryall of the new Religion for this present case Epist. ad Marcellam Primo principaliter Argmentum ad hominem Supra cap. 12. 1. Cor. 11. v. 23. The Iesuite woundeth himselfe with his owne weapon Antoninus de potest Papae part 4. tit 22. cap. 3. part 1. Victor relect 4. de poâ—est papae propos 1. Pag. 126. Aquin. in lib. 3. sentent dist 37. art 4. The answere to the Iesuites consequent Euseb. hist. lib. 5. cap. 26. Nicephor ecclesi hist. lib. 12. cap. 34. They fast fifteene dayes by interuall Trip. hist. lib. 9. cap. 38. Sozom. lib. 7. cap. 19. Pope Gregory corrected the popish Lent-fast De Consecra dist 5. cap. quadragesima 36. dayes in Lent besides the Sundayes Socrates hist. lib. 5. cap. 22. Epiphan haeres 80. libr. 3. in fine Socrat. hist. lib. 5. cap. 22. A.D. 427. That is vsque ad nonam Hist. trip lib. 9. cap. 38. Niceph. lib. 12. cap. 34. A.D. 373. EpiphaÌ„ haeres 80. lib. 3. in fine This reason can neuer be truely answered Hist. tripart libr. 9. cap. 38. Nicephor lib. 12 cap. 34. The ninth houre with vs is three a clocke in the after noone Socrates hist. libr. 5. cap. 22. S. Austen turneth Popish Lent vpside downe August ad Catulanum epist. 86. The Apostles made no Law for fasting Lent Euseb. hist. lib. 5. cap. 18. ex Apollonio Secundo principaliter Gratian. dist 16. cap. Apostolorum Apostolor Con. 8. const Apostol lib. 5. cap. 16. eâ— cap. 21. lib. 7. cap. 24. Clemens lib. 7. c. 24. const Apost Tertiò principaliter 1. Tim. 4. v. 3. Dur. in rat dium offic lib. 6. cap. 7. prope finem 1. Cor. 15. v. 39. Loe Fish is Flesh. Constit. Apost lib. 5. cap. 13. in fine Durandus lib. 6. cap. 7. in initio et nota cap. 6. Dur. lib. 6. cap. 7.9.10 O wonderfull compassion O wily Popish faction See Anatomy Booke 3. Advise 9. 3500. Pounds 1000. Pounds 1000. Pounds Act. 19. v. 24. Quarto Principaliter Rom. 10.3 Mat. 15.9 Rom. 14. v. 23. Hebr. 11.6 Tit. 1. v. 15. Rom. 14. v. 5.14.17.20 1. Cor. 8. v. 8. Gal. 1. v. 10. Mar. 7. v. 15. Deut. 12.8 1. Cor. 10.31 Rom. 14.23 Hebr. 11.6 Gal. 2. v. 4 5. Cor. 7.23 Act. 16.3 Gal. 2. v. 3.4.5 A generall rule against the Papists Quintò Principaliter Durand lib. 6. cap. 10. §. 3. Durand lib. 6. cap. 30. §. 1. Esa. 58.5 Beleth in ration diu offic cap. 8. Tit. 2.12 Pietas est cultus Deo exhibitus De consecrat dist 5. cap. non dico De consecrat dist 5. cap. nihil De consecrat dist 5. cap. ieiunium De consecrat dist â— cap. non mediocriter Esa. 61.8 Aug. ad Casulan epist. 86. The Church may appoynt Fastes for speciall causes which Aerius denyed The Church may appoynt Fasting dayes Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 8. Plenitidine potestatis Super cap. 2. peâ— omnes conclusiones See my Anatomie in the preamble Hist Tripart libr. 1. cap. 10. Vide Eseb. hist. libr. 5. cap. 24. Marke this Story well neuer forget the same for it proueth Lent fast to haue bin free and voluntary in the auncient Church Nicephor lib. 8. cap. 42. Popish Lent-fast is both superstitious ridiculous Certis quibusdam diebus Note this poynt well for it is emphaticall Cum suis. S. Spiridion destroyeth popish Lent A cibo omni abstinens Vsque ad horam nonaÌ„ that is vntill three a clocke in the after noone S. Spiridion was the Byshoppe of Cyprus Ios. Angl. in 4. S. part 1. pag. 379. The Church of Rome hath indeed deceiued many a man Ios. Angl. vbi supra pag. 382. Marke that popish Lent-fast 〈◊〉 but an Apish imitation of Christes fast One may keepe the Popish Lent and be drunke euery day Forget not this poynt Ios. Angl. vbi supra pag. 394. The Pope is equall to the Apostles The Iesuite fleeth from the matter Couarru to 1. cap. 20. par 11. in med col 1. Marke this poynt well For the marriage of Priestes and Monkes see my Suruey Anton. par 1. tit 10. cap. 3. Sylu. de indulg S. R. pag. 417. See marke the eight Chapter Aquinas in supplem quaest 25. art 1. See the ChristiaÌ„ Dialogue pag. 17.19 Ioh. 14.6 Ioh. 17.17 See and note well the Rhemists vpon the New Testament Mat. 16.17 Luk. 22.31 A.D. 1540. Note well the next Chapter touching the infallibilitie of the Popes fayth A.D. 1415· Rhem. test in Act. 15. v. 28. in marg But if this be done then must Poperie be ouerthrowen See and note well the Rhem. annot vpon Mat. 16.17 and Luke 22. v. 31. Loe not the iudgement of the Pope but of a generall Councell is infallible So say the Rhemistes note the places Math. 16.17 Luk. 22.31 The learned Papistes hold all poyntes of doctrine which I defende which is and wil be my comfort to the worldes end A formall and materiall confutation See the
Councels and of the whole World but hee calleth not other Byshoppes Popes or Fathers but his Breathren or Sonnes as is apparant out of an Epistle of Pope Damasus to the Easterne Byshops recited by Theodoretus and in the Epistle of the Councell of Chalcedon to Pope Leo. T. B. I answere first that as our Jesuite began with notorious lying so hee continueth heere and in euery place to the end of his Pamphlet For the Councell of Chalcedon sayth not as our Jesuite with lying lippes auoucheth no no not the Councell but Bonifacius a Priest of Rome sent by Leo to the Councell a sworne vassall to the Pope and such a one as durst not but say what the Pope had enioyned him sayth so These are the expresse wordes Bonifacius presbyter sedis apostolicae vicarius dixit beatâ—ssimus et apostolicus vir Papa inter caetera hoc nobis mandauit Bonifacius Priest the Popes deputie sayd the most blessed and apostolicke man the Pope among other things gaue vs this commandement Secondly that our Jesuite sayth truly though meaning nothing lesse when he telleth vs that it is sayd out of the Councell For most true it it that it is so out of the Councell that it neuer came into the same The Popes Vicar indeed would gladly haue aduanced the Pope but the Councell made no reckoning of his proud and arrogant words Thirdly that the Iesuite still lyeth when hee impudently auoucheth as his wonted manner is that the Councell called Leo Pope of the whole Church For the wordes which our Fryer fathereth vpon the Councell are onely the wordes of Lucentius the Popes deputie but not the wordes of the Councell The Fathers of the Councell contemned the arrogant speaches of this Lucentius as they did the other of Bonifacius afore Fourthly that our Jesuite impudently most shamefully belyeth Liberatus as who hath no such loftie wordes in the behalfe of Leo but barely and nakedly calleth him Pope and who is so farre from tearming him Pope ouer the Church of the whole world that hee flatly affirmeth the contrarie in sundry other Chapters In one place hee hath these wordes Lectus est tomus papae Leonis ad memoratum flauianum contra dogma Eutychis directus The Tombe of Pope Leo was read which he directed to Flauianus against the opinion of Eutyches In an other place thus Legati sedis apostolicae ab ipso concilio fugientes retulerunt Papae Leoni iniquitates Dioscori The Messengers of the apostolicke Sea fleeing from the Councell shewed Pope Leo the wickednesse of Dioscorus In an other place thus Seâ—â—rus Antiochenus iam fuerat condemnatus et Anthinus Constantinopolitanus ab Agapeto Papa Romano et Menna Constantinopolitano et libellis datis aduersus â—os Imperatori Iustiniano Seuerus of Antioch was condemned and Anthinus of Constantinople of Agapetus the Pope of Rome and Menna of Constantinople and Libels were presented to the Emperour Iustinian against them Many like places I could easily alleadge out of the Breuiarie of Liberatus but one for many may suffice which cutteth the Popes head and necke from the shoulders These are the expresse wordes Sed fortissimus Leo anciens legatoruÌ„ suoruÌ„ suggestioneÌ„ et Theodoritâ— quaerelas suscipiens litteris suis TheodosiuÌ„ Imperatorem et Pulcheriam Augustam petit vt fieret intra Itaham generale conciliuÌ„ et aboleretur error fidei per violentiam dioscorj factus But couragious Leo hearing the suggestion of his Messengers and receiuing the complaintes of Theodoritus directing his Letters to the Emperour Theodosius and Pulcheria the Empresse desireth them that a generall Councell might be gathered within Italy and the errour of fayth abolished which Dioscorus by violence had set abroach Thus writeth Liberatus whom our Fryer relyeth vpon as one of his chiefest Patrons Out of whole wordes I obserue first that the Pope is tearmed plaine Leo without eyther welt or gard Secondly that the Pope could not gather a Councell in Italy but onely requested the Emperour to doe it Thirdly that the Emperour of the East had still the chiefe soueraigntie of Rome all Italy euen 457. yeares after Christ. And consequently that the late Byshops of Rome do most shamefully abuse the world when they impudently auouch that the Emperour Constantine the great gaue to Syluester the Byshop of Rome his golden Crowne dignitie title and interest both of Rome Italy the whole Western partes For the Councell of Chalcedon was holden in the yeare 457. after Christ which was about 130. yeares after the falsely pretended donation of Constantine and his departure to Constantinople from the citie of Rome But hereof more at large in the next Chapter now following Fiftly that the Iesuite egregiously belyeth both Damasus that good Byshop of Rome and Theodoretus that graue and learned writer for no such thing can be found in Theodorete in the place quoted by the Jesuite These wordes are all that the Jesuite can truly father vpon Theodorete which how farre they are from his notorious lye let the indifferent Reader iudge Confessio catholicae fidej quaÌ„ Papa Damasus misiâ— Paulino episcopo Thessalonicae in Macedonia The confession of the Catholicke fayth which Pope Damasus sent to Paulinus the Byshop of Thessalonica in Macedonia Heere is not one word of any Supremacie of the Byshop of Rome Nay the same Theodorete euen in the Epistle next and immediately aforegoing confoundeth the Jesuite and striketh him starke dead these are the expresse wordes Dominis reuerendissimis et pijssimis fratribus ac collegis Damaso Ambrosio Brittonj Valeriano Acholio Auemiâ— Basilio et caeteris sanctis episcopis in magna vrbe Roma coactis synodus sancta episcoporuÌ„ orthodoxoruÌ„ qui conuenere in magna vrbe Constantinopolj in domino salutem To the most reuerend Fathers our most holy breathren and fellowes Damasus Ambrosius Britto Valerianus Acholius Auemius Basiâ—ius and to all the rest of the holy Byshops assembled in the great Cittie of Rome the holy Synode of Catholique Byshoppes assembled in the great Citie of Constantinople send greeting in our Lord. Thus writeth Theodoretus Out of whose narration I obserue first that a whole Synode of Catholique Byshops assembled in the famous Cittie of Constantinople wrote to an other Synode of holy Byshops assembled in the great citie of Rome Secondly that the Byshops of Constantinople Synode called the Byshops at Rome assembled their Fellowes and did not ascribe any other name or title to Damasus then the Byshop of Rome Thirdly that if any such soueraigntie as our Jesuite fondly imagineth had been due to the Byshop of Rome then doubtles so many so learned and so holy Fathers assembled at Constantinople would haue giuen the Byshop of Rome his due title and not haue called him barely their Fellow as they did the rest Sixtly that the Epistle our Jesuite fathereth vpon the Councell of Chalcedon is cousen germaine to the counterfait Donation of Constantine of which