hath bestowed almost one whole Leafe of Paper in the recitall of my wordes Transeat It is impertinent B. C. If he inferre against our Ceremonies as he doth because they were instituted since Christ though very auncient That they be rotten rags of the New religion What shall become of their Ceremonies which either be borrowed from vs or of farre latter date What can they be else but pil◠patches of Protestanisme rusty Ragges of the Reformed congregation Nay what must their Communion Booke it selfe be neuer heard of in the whole world till the late dayes of King Edward the sixt and drawen from our Portesse and Masse-bookes as the thing it selfe speaketh and their Geneua Ghospellers often cast in their teeth T. B. I answere first that our Jesuite vnawares giueth Poperie a deadly wound while he maketh popish Masse and the Oath which popish Byshoppes make to the Pope to be no weighty poyntes of Religion For they are within the compasse of the eleuen Chapters of which he writeth in this manner These Chapters I shall soone dispatch seeing they concerne not any weighty poyntes of Religion but Ceremonies and such like Secondly that seeing by Popish free graunt neither popish Masse nor the popish Oath be matters of any weight to which I for my part willingly agree it followeth of necessitie that the Pope is a most cruell Tyrant while he suffereth no Byshoppes to haue voyces in Councels but such as take that wofull Oath As also while he burneth with Fire and Faggot all such as will not adore the popish Bread-god in the Idolatrous popish Masse Thirdly that our Fryer Jesuite is still like himselfe that is a most notorious lyer while he chargeth me to tearme all Ceremonies instituted since Christ though very auncient to be rotten Ragges of the New religion For I am so farre and so free from this false and plaine Diabolicall accusation as I approoue all Ceremonies consonant to Gods word at what time soeuer the Church did institute the same None that shall duely peruse my Regiment of the Church can be ignorant hereof Nay I say further that the Jesuite is not able to bring any one sentence out of any one of all my Bookes which denyeth Authoritie to the Church to institute new Ceremonies at any time so the same be consonant to Gods word and profitable for the circumstaunces of time place and persons Yea the Iesuite confesseth within twentie lines before this false and heynous slaunder that this is the very doctrine which I teach But his witte is so besotted in fighting and bickering against the manifest trueth that he forgetteth what he writeth so soone as a new reason pricketh him for he had rather heape lyes vpon lyes and slaunders vpon slaunders then forsake and condemne their gainefull Poperie which is to him and his fellowes as was the Temple of Diana to Demetrius and the other Craftes-men Fourthly that we vse no Ceremonies in our English Church but such as are both agreeable to the holy Scriptures and of farre greater antiquitie then the time of Poperie which I oppugne Albeit I doe not absolutely condemne all Ceremonies this day vsed in the Romish Church but respectiuely as they are superstitiously vsed and too vnlawfull or at least ridiculous or vnprofitable endes For I willingly graunt that sundry Ceremonies now vsed in the Romish Church are thinges indifferent of their owne nature and that the same were not to be condemned if the superstitious abuse and wicked intentes for which they are done were wholly remooued from them Where I wish the Reader to marke attentiuely these my words Absolutely Respectiuely Fiftly that in our Communion Booke two thinges must distinctly be obserued and Christianly distinguished viz. the Essentiall and the Accidentall partes thereof Touching the partes Essentiall they are all and euery of them as old as is the written Word of God it selfe The Aduersaries are not able to giue any true instance against the same Touching the partes Accidentall they are all in like manner old in the thing it selfe though of later date in the modification of the thing Thus in playner tearmes All the accidentall partes of our English Communion booke if we respect the matter it selfe conteined therein are as old as the holy Scripture it selfe though of farre latter date if we respect the order and disposition of the same This my Answere is grounded vpon this doctrine of S. Paul Omnia ad aedificationem fiant Omnia honestè et secundum ordinem fiant in vobis Let all thinges be done to edifying Let all thinges be done decently and according to order Sixtly that our Communion booke is drawne from the holy Scriptures as is already prooued and from the old Romane Missals or Communion-bookes in the Purer age of the Church long before the time of idolatrous and superstitious Poperie which I in all my Bookes oppugne B. C. More then foure hundred yeares before the time of S. Gregorie the auncient Brytaines receiued the same manner of seruing God from the blessed Pope and Martyr S. Eleutherius that is in the Latin tongue Which appeareth first because venerable Bede reporteth that there was not any materiall difference betwixt S. Austen sent by S. Gregorie and the Brytaine Byshops saue onely in Baptisme and the obseruation of Easter Secondly for that certaine it is that they had also since S. Austens time the Masse in the Latin tongue But to thinke that if they had been once in possession of the seruice in their owne vulgar Language that they could haue been brought from that without infinite garboyles especially the opposition betwixt them and the English Saxons in auncient time considered or that if any such contention had fallen out that it could haue been omitted by the curious Pennes of our Historiographers it were great simplicitie once to surmise Wherefore what followeth but that they receiued that custome at their first conuersion which was within lesse then two hundred yeares after Christ And consequently that by Bels allowance and the common Computation of others it is sound Catholique and Apostolicall and not any Rotten ragge of a New religion as this Ragge-maister gableth And that on the contrary to haue the publique Seruice in the vulgar tongue is a New patch of Protestanisme fetched from Wittenberge or that Mart of Martinistes the holy City of Geneua T. B. I answere first that I haue prooued already in the sixteene Chapter aforegoing that in the primatiue and auncient Church the publique Prayers and diuine Seruice were euery where in the vulgar Tongue Secondly that the Latin tongue was then vulgar to all the Nations of Italy Spaine Germanie France Africa and other Countries of the West For in those dayes the Latin tongue was commonly spoken and vnderstood wheresoeuer the diuine Seruice was in Latine Which is plaine and euident by S. Austens Doctrine in many places of his workes Thirdly that if the
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
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
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
to liue a single life Secondly that he wished of both sortes and sexes men and women those onely to abstaine who had the gift Thirdly that he made no Law for single life but left it free to euery ones choyce and election professing constantly that he had no commaundement from God concerning Virgins And doubtlesse if S. Paul had no warrant to inioyne Single life much lesse had the Councell of Nice such a warrant and least of all had the late Byshoppes of Rome men of dissolute life and scandalous behauiour such power and authoritie The second colour of trueth pretended by our Fryer Iesuite is of S. Epiphanius S. Hierome Eusebius and Pope Zacharie Let vs therefore heare his owne wordes and his scholasticall dispute B. C. The holy Priesthood saith Epiphanius is for the most part of Virgins or Vnmarryed folke or if those be not sufficient for the Ministerie of those which containe themselues from their owne Wikes And in an other place But the Church quoth be doth not admit the Husband of one Wife yet lyuing and begetting Children T. B. I answere first that Epiphanius speaketh not of any Law that was made in his time against Priestes Marriage but of a voluntarie vsage of some few in some few places Which mine answere is virtually implyed in these wordes for the most part Secondly that I haue prooued in the fift Proposition very plentifully euen by the Popes owne Decrees besides many other waightie important proofes that it was euer lawfull for Byshops Priestes and Deacons of the East Church to haue Wiues and to beget Children as others did To which I now adde for the complement thereof this liuely testimonie of the Councell of Agatha in these expresse wordes Presbyterj Dinconj Subdiaconj vel deinceps quibus ducendi vxores licentia modo non est etiam aliarum nuptiarum euitent conuiuia Priestes Deacons and Subdeacons and the rest who now haue not Licence to Marrie must not be present at the Feastes of other Marriages Out of these wordes of this Councell I obserue first that this Councell was celebrated about 439. yeares after Christ. Secondly that it plainely conuinceth against all cursed Iesuites and Antichristian Byshoppes of Rome that it was sometime lawfull for Priestes to Marrie Thirdly that this Councell alludeth to the time of Siricius which was about 51. yeares before it For when the Councell saith who are now debarred from Mariage it implicitely affirmeth that before they might freely haue Married If therefore Epiphanius meane not as is already sayd his bare word may not be admitted against the Canon of th'Apostles against the famous generall Councell of Constantinople against the Councell of Agatha against the Popes owne Decrees Yea S. Epiphanius graunteth that some Priestes were Married in his time And Polydorus sayth that S. Paul called his Wife Sister and reiecteth S. Hieromâ—â— exposition See and note well the fift Proposition B. C. S. Hierome likewise writing against Vigilantius sayth What shall the Church of the East doe What the Church of Egipt and the Apostolike Sea which take Virgins for their Clerkes or Continent or if they be Married giue ouer to be Husbandes Will Bell for all this tell vs that Priestes were euer Marryed in the East-Church and without all respect giue S. Epiphanius and S. Hirome the word of disgrace T. B. I answere first that this Testimonie being the same in substaunce with the former may with all congruitie receiue the same answere For it doth not relate any Law Decree or Constitution made against Priestes Marriage but barely and onely insinuateth that zeale and feruour which was wonderfull in the primatiue and auncient Church Howbeit therevpon will it neuer follow in true forme of argument that because some hauing the gift of Continencie absteyned from Marriage so to auoyde the incumbrances of which th'Apostle speaketh therefore all others must be compelled Lege lata to doe the same For as the vnmarryed Byshoppes and other inferiour Ministers in our Church of noble England doe not make a Law to the rest whose Marriages they honour and approoue so neither did the single life of some few make a generall Law for the rest in the primatiue and auncient Church We honour reuerence and highly commende the Single life of our Clerkes who haue the gift of Continencie wee onely and solely condemne that coacted and forced Chastitie which brought such filth shame and confusion to the Church that three most famous zealous and learned Papistes Polydorus Panormitanus and Pope Pius were mooued and as it were enforced with zeale vnto the trueth to write as sharply against the same as my selfe haue done Secondly that if this answere be not according to S. Hieromes true meaning then not Bell good M. Fryer but holy Paphuntius but the Apostolike CanoÌ„ but the Councell of Constantinople but the Councell of Agatha but Sozomâ—nus but Socrates but Gratianus but the Popish canonized Saint Antoninus and the Popes owne Decrees doe giue to Epiphanius Hierome the word of disgrace Marke well the â— 4.7 and 13. Propositions Thirdly that though the Councell of Agatha approue the Decree of Siriâ—ius to which it alludeth by adding an other absurd constitution to the same yet doth it freely and plainely tell vs that Priestes were lawfully Marryed before that time Which is a testimonie so cleare and apparant for Priestes Marriage as all the world may iustly abhorre mans Law made against the same Let the words of the Councell of Agatha neuer be forgotten because they strike the matter dead For in that the Councell saith which are now debarred from Marriage it plainely giueth vs to vnderstand it may not for shame be denied that it was sometime lawfull for Priestes to Marrie that is as I haue already prooued vntill the time of Siritius To which I must needes adde that which I haue soundly concluded in the eleuenth Proposition viz. that the Pope by popish Fayth and Doctrine can make lawfull the Marriage not onely of Secular Priestes but also of Fryers Monkes Iesuites and Nunnes And consequently that God neuer did prohibite or forbid the same But what an absurd Decree is that which the Councell of Agatha added to Pope Siritius his cursed and execrable Law this is it The Councell of Agatha chargeth all vnmarried Priestes that they be not present at the Banckets and Feastes of other Marriages Is not this absurd Our Lord Iesus himselfe vouchsafed to honour Marriage with his sacred presence Hee and his Disciples were togeather at a Wedding in Cana of Galilee where he wrought his first Miracle in changing Water into Wine and yet I trow our Papistes will not say that Christ and his Disciples were Married men Whether the Pope be Antichrist or noe viderint ipsi But that these and the like Decrees be pregnant coniectures and more then probable signes that he is the forerunner of Antichrist I constantly here
be so plainely deliuered by our Aduersaries may seeme a woonderment to the Christian world For it clearely turneth vpside-downe the chiefest Bulworke of Popish vnwritten Traditions and in effect all Popish Fayth and Religion The common good which commeth to the Church of God by writing against the Aduersaries of his Trueth is hence apparant to all the World For after the swaggering Iesuite S.R. with the aduise of Bellarmine and others had bickered so long with the Downefall of Poperie that the fall had almost broken their neckes then ouercome with the dint of Argumentes and force of the Trueth he was as it were violently compelled to write as we here see in defence behalfe of the Trueth To which for the better manifestation of this trueth so necessarie to be knowen I will adde yet an other Testimonie of our Jesuite in these wordes Truly sayd S. Epiphanius that we may tell the inuention of euery question out of the consequence of Scripture He sayd not Out of the Scripture For all cannot be taken thence as him selfe writeth but of the consequence of them Because all questions are resolued out of the Scriptures or out of that which followeth of them as the effect of the cause Thus the Iesuite approoueth vnawares the selfe same Doctrine which I in the Downefall doe defend And consequently the very weapons which our Aduersaries put into our handes are sufficient God be blessed for it to defend vs and our cause against them The Fourth Conclusion Popish Auricular Confession is not necessarie for mans saluation For first seeing all thinges necessarie for saluation are conteyned in the holy Scriptures as in the third Conclusion Secondly seeing all Preceptes and Promises of God in the New are contayned in the Old Testament as in the first Conclusion Thirdly seeing Popish Auricular Confession is not contayned in the Old Testament as in the second Conclusion it followeth by a necessarie and ineuitable consequution that Popish Auricular Confession is not necessarie for mans saluation This trueth will yet better appeare in the Conclusions following The Fift Conclusion Popish Auricular Confession is neither commaunded by Christ nor yet by his Apostles I prooue it because it is not contayned in the Old Testament as in the second Conclusion Which Testament for all that contayneth all the Preceptes of the New as may doth appeare to the indifferent reader in the first Conclusion The Sixt Conclusion Popish Auricular Confession was instituted and established by the meere Law of man grounded onely vpon a falsely imagined Apostolicall vnwritten Tradition I prooue it many wayes First because the Popes owne Decrees referre the matter to the iudgement of the Reader viz. Whether one be bound to Confession Auricular by Gods law or by Mans law These are the expresse wordes as Gratianus hath published the same Quibus authoritatibus vel quibus rationum firmamentis vtraque sententia satisfactionis et confessionis nitatur in medium breuiter exposuimus Cuj autem harum potius adhaerendum sit lectoris iudicio reseruatur Viraque N. fautores habet sapientes et religiosos viros Vpon what Authorities or foundations of Reasons either opinion is grounded I haue briefly shewed But to whether of them it is better to adhere that I leaue to the iudgement of the Reader for either opinion hath Wise and Religious men for the Patrons of the same Behold heere gentle Reader that not onely the Popes Doctors but his owne Canon-law and the Commenters vpon the same doe all confesse that Confession after Popish manner is onely solely grounded vpon Mans law Yea the Popish Glosse addeth That both Wise and Religious men doe so thinke though some others hold the contrary Secondly because the great Thomist who for his rare skill in Theologie was surnamed Absolutus Theologus Syluester Prieras doth deliuer his opinion in these wordes Quarto vtrum ad confessionem teneamur diuino iure vel humano Et dicâ— quod Canonistae videntur tenere quod sit de iure positiuo Et ad hoc est Glossa de paenit Dist. 5. In summa quae vult quod instituta sit a quadam vniuersali traditione Ecclesiae Ideo infert quam confiteri non tenentur infideles nec similiter Graeci ex quo non acceptauerunt huiusmodi constitutionem sicut nec votâ—â— castitatis It is demaunded fourthly sayth the great Learned Papist Syluester whether we be bound to Popish Confession by the law of God or by the positiue Law of man And I say the Canonistes hold that we are bound by the Law of man And of this opinion is the Glosse which is of this minde that Confession was instituted by a certaine vniuersall tradition of the Church Wherevpon the sayd Glosse inferreth that Infidels are not bound to Confession neither the Greekes in like maner seeing they did neuer approoue such Constitution as neither the vow of Chastitie Thirdly because the highly renowned Papist Martinus Nauarrus confesseth constantly and plainely that their solemne Glosse commonly receiued and approoued of all Canonistes holdeth Confession to be commaunded by the Church Fourthly because the famous Canonist most reuerend Arch-byshop and honourable Cardinall Panormitanus was of the same opinion with the Glosse For Couarruvâ—as a very learned Popish Arch-byshoppe deliuereth his minde in these wordes Quam ex nostris plerique sequuti sunt maximè Panormitanus ex ea asserentes confessionem sacramentalem quae Sacerdotibus fit iure humano institutam esse Which Glosse many of our Canonistes haue followed especially Panormitanus affirming out of that Glosse that Sacramentall confession made to Priestes was ordayned by the law of Man Fiftly because Scotus the Popish subtile schoole Doctor surnamed for his great skill Doctor subtilis after hee had largely disputed pro et contra of Popish Auricular confession concludeth in these wordes Apparet ergo istud non esse de iure diuino promulgato per scripturam Apostolicam Vel ergo tenendum est primum membrum scilicet quod sit de iure diuino promulgato per EuangeliuÌ„ vel si illud non sufficiat dicendum est tertium scilicet quod est de iure diuino positiuo promulgato a Christo Apostolis sed Ecclesiae promulgato per Apostolos absque omni scriptura It therefore appeareth that it is not of the law of God published by Apostolicall Scripture We must therfore either hold the first member to weeâ—e that it is of the law of God published by the Ghospell or if that will not suffice we must say the third that is to say that it commeth from the positiue law of God published by Christ to his Apostles but published by the Apostles to the Church without all Scripture Thus writeth the Popish Doctor subtilis who with all his subtiltie can not tell in the world what to say in defence of their Popish Auricular confession For after he hath discoursed to the vttermost of his wittes and imployed his
as the great learned Papist Rhenanus telleth vs And hee yeeldeth this reason thereof viz. because Auricular or Secret Confession was wholly vnknowen in those dayes I further adde for the accomplishment of this Conclusion that which the sayd Rhenanus citeth out of a famous and learned Papist Geilerius These are the wordes Thomas Aquinas et Scotus homines nimium arguti confessionem hodie talem reddiderunt vt Iohannes ille Geilerius grauis ac sanctus Theologus qui tot annis argentorati concionatus est apud amicos suos saepe testatus sit iuxta eorum denteroseis impossibile esse confiteri But Tho. Aquinas and Scotus men too much delighted with subtilties haue brought Confession this day to such a passe that Iohannes Geilerius a graue and reuerend Diuine and a Preacher a long time at Argentâ—ratuÌ„ said many a time vnto his friends that it was impossible for a man to make his Confession according to their Traditions Out of these words I note first that the vaine curious distinctions of the Schoole-Doctors haue brought much mischiefe into the Church of God Which if a Papist had not spoken it would seeme incredible to the world Secondly that it is impossible for a Papist to make his Confession according to the Popish Law And consequently that all Papistes by Popish Doctrine must perish euerlastingly Marke well my wordes gentle Reader as thou art carefull of thine owne saluation The Papistes teach vs to hold for an Article of our Beleefe that wee are bound to make our Confessions as the Popes Law prescribeth that is as Aquinas whose Doctrine two Popes haue confirmed for Authenticall and Scotus the Popes Doctor subtilis haue set downe the same And for all that Geilertus a Papist himselfe a great learned man complained often to his friends that none could possibly performe the same Now then since on the one side Popish Confession must be made and that vnder paine of damnation and since on the other side none possibly can make the same as it is coÌ„maunded it followeth of necessitie by Popish doctrine that Papistes must be damned eternally Thirdly that many lyuing among the Papistes doe externally seeme to obey the Popes Law who in their heartes detest a great part of their late hatched Romish Religion This is euident by the secret complaint of the learned Papist Geilerius who told that to his trustie friendes which he durst not disclose to others Yea God hath euen among the Papistes in Italie and Rome many thousandes which haue not or doe not this day bow their knee to Baal Read my Suruay and it will satisfie thee in this behalfe Let vs now heare our Jesuite and confute his fond cauils and ridiculous sophistications B. C. Scotus enquireth by what Law a man is bound to Confession and determineth first in generall that the precept must grow from one of these Lawes either from the Law of Nature or the Law positiue of God or the Law of the Church And descending to particulars hee resolueth first that wee are not bound by the Law of Nature Nextly hee disputeth whether it groweth from the precept of the Church and not liking that opinion he proceedeth to the next member and sayth To be short it seemeth more reasonable to hold the second member that Confession falleth vnder the positiue Precept of God But then wee must consider sayth Scotus whether it be found explicitely in the Ghospell immediately from Christ because it is manifest quoth hee that it is not in the old Law or whether it be from him expressely in some of the Apostles doctrine or if neither so nor so whether then it was giuen of Christ by word only published to the Church by the Apostles And hauing made this triple Diuision how Confession might come by the Precept of God that is either first commaunded by him in the Ghospell or else secondly to be found in some of the Apostles writinges or lastly instituted of Christ by word of mouth onely And hauing disputed of the first two members with dislike of the second he concludeth that we must either hold the first member to weete that it commeth from the Law of God published by the Ghospell or if that be not sufficient we must say the third that it is of the positiue Law of God published by Christ to the Apostles but published by the Apostles to the Church without all Scripture T. B. I answere first that albeit our Jesuite vseth much babling turning himselfe this way that way and euery way to anoyde and cassire if it were possible the verdict censure of their subtile Doctor Scotus yet is all that hee sayth in this Chapter as also all that any other Iesuite or Papist in the world is able to say in the same subiect soundly and most euidently refuted in the sixt Conclusion aforegoing For the last and best Resolution that Scotus could inuent after he had disputed the Question pro et contra so profoundly as his wittes could conceiue was euen this and no other viz. that Popish Auricular Confession is not grounded vpon Christes Ghospell or Apostolicall writing but onely and solely vpon vnwritten Tradition which is an huge and deepe Gulfe without any bottome If the sixt Conclusion be duely pondered and vnderstood aright the Jesuites backe is at the wall Yet I will adde thereto one other Confirmation which is deduced and plainely related in the Popes owne Decrees these are the expresse wordes Quidam Deo solummodo confiteri debere peccata dicunt vt Graeci Quidam vero Sacerdotibus confitenda esse percensent vt tota ferè Ecclesia sancta Quod vtrumque non sine magno fructu intra sanctam fit Ecclesiam ita dumtaxat vt Deo qui remissor est peccatoruÌ„ peccata nostra confiteamur Some say we must Confesse our sinnes onely to God as the Greekes doe Other some say wee must Confesse them vnto Priests as doth almost the whole Church Either of which is done with great good within the holy Church so onely that we Confesse our sinnes to God who is the forgiuer of sinnes Thus are wee taught by the Popes owne sweete deare Decrees published in print to the view of the whole world Out of which Decree I obserue these memorable documentes for the helpe of the Reader First that the Greeke Church neuer confessed their sinnes vnto Priests but vnto God alone Of which Church for all that the Presidentes Gouernours were most holy learned Fathers viz. S. Epiphanius S. Chrysostome S. Basill surnamed the great S. Gregorie Nazianzene S. Damascene and many other most excellent and holy Byshoppes Secondly that others hold the contrarie saying that wee must Confesse our sinnes to Priestes Thirdly that both these opinions are profitably practised in the Church so wee Confesse our sinnes to God Fourthly that Popish Auricular confession euen by the Popes owne Decrees is not necessarie to saluation as the Papistes this day
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
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
And the Apostles doubted not to say It hath seâ—med good to the holy Ghost and to vs. If in these and such like speaches God and his Creatures be ioyned togeather without being made ioynt purchasers but as the Creator and the secondarie cause in like manner may the Merites of Christ and his Saintes be conioyned as hath been sayd T. B. I answere first that the more our sillie Iesuite striueth against the trueth the more he still woundeth rotten Poperie Fiue examples he heere produceth and neuer one to the purpose as by by God willing shall appeare Secondly that if Poperie were not the New religion in very deed such paultry and beggerly shiftes would neuer be vsed in defence thereof Thirdly that the question is not of those actes which Gods Saintes doe alone and of them-selues but of those effectes in producing whereof Gods Saintes are sayd to concurre and to be ioyned with Christ our Sauiour And therefore of the fiue Examples three are altogeather impertinent viz. the first the third the fourth For in the first place the Angel doth not connotate a Creature but God himselfe which I prooue by a double argument First because the Text speaketh of that Angel which deliuered Israel or Jacob from all euill which effect can not possibly be ascribed to any Creature but To God alone the fountaine of all Grace and giuer of euery good guift And it is confirmed because the same God which in the 15 verse is said To haue fed Israel all his life long is likewise sayd in the verse following To haue deliuered him from all euill Secondly because two other places of Scripture doe interpret the Angel to be God himselfe The God of Bethel the God that did keepe Jsrael whither soeuer he went In the third place as also in the fourth the actes are onely ascribed to the Israelites and to S. Paul but neither the Apostle nor the Jsraelites are sayd to concurre with Christ in producing the same effect Let the wordes be well marked and the case is cleare The second and fift or last Examples doe prooue indeed that Gods Saints are ioyned with Christ in producing the same effectes but for all that are as far from concluding the Iesuites purpose as Rome is distant from Roan or the East from the West For albeit I willingly graunt that Gods Saintes may concurre and be conioyned with Christ in producing al those effectes to which they are deputed of God as instrumentes meanes and inferiour causes vnder him hauing to that end receiued of him actiue power in some measure yet doe I constantly denie and vtterly defie that most vnchristian blasphemous and hereticall Popish assertion which brutishly and more then cruelly auoucheth that Beckets Blood and Christes most pretious Blood concurre in working mans Saluation For as the Israelites truely sayd that the Sword of God and Gideon destroyed their enimies so may it truely be sayd in like manner that God and the Phisition cure inward sores God and the Surgion externall woundes that God and Masons builde Churches God and Taylors make Garmentes God and Meate nourish men and so foorth But we can neuer truly say that Christes Blood and Beckets Blood doe worke mans Saluation The Sword of Gideon Masons Surgions Phisitions Meate and Taylors haue a certaine actiue power inherent in them to produce such effectes but mans Saluation is such a diuine supernaturall supereminent effect as Beckets Blood hath no actiue power at all neither more nor lesse to produce the same For this respect grauely writeth S. Augustine That if the best liuer on earth should be rewarded according to his best desertes yet could he not but perish euerlastingly For this respect wisely sayth the learned and religious Fryer Ferus That our Saluation consisteth onely and solely in the Merite of Christ not in our owne Workes He addeth the reason because we are not able to make satisfaction no not for the least sinne we commit For this respect sayth Abbot Bernard That the sinne which maketh deuision betweene God and vs can not be wholly taken away in this life This Subiect is handled at large in the ninth Chapter afore-going in the eleuenth Conclusion to which place I referre the Reader for his better satisfaction herein B. C. Bell else-where telleth vs That popish Inuocation and Adoration was not knowen vntill the yeare three hundred and seauentie Yet is it no thing comparable to thâ—s heere vttered making that Article a thousand yeares younger then in his former Booke T. B. I answere first that in my Suruey I haue disputed at large how Inuocation of Saints increased by degrees For the better cleering of which difficultie I there put downe many Canons and Conclusions In one Canon I affirmed the Church of God to haue liued vnacquainted with the Merites Intercession of the Saints in heauen for the space of two hundred thirtie yeares after Christ. In an other Canon I prooued soundly that the first seed of Popish inuocation of Saintes began not to besowen till about the yeare 233. after Christ. In an other Canon that about the yeare 250. after Christ some of the Fathers held constantly that the Saintes in heauen did pray for the lyuing vpon earth In an other Canon that some of the Fathers about the yeare 350. after Christ did by Rhetoricall Apostrophes apply their Orations to the dead Many other thinges concerning the Inuocation of Saintes I disputed in that Booke at large To which Booke though published about thirteene yeares agoe neither this Jesuite nor any other euer had any courage to this day to frame any answere at all In my Tryall of the new Religion which this Jesuite hath taken in hand to confute I constantly affirme that to Pray to be saued by the Blood of Thomas Becket is flat blasphemy against the Sonne of God And as I affirmed afore in my Suruey that Poperie sprang vp by degrees in such and such yeares so now I constantly auouch that to be saued by the Blood of Becket was vnknowen to the Church for the space of a thousand yeares and odde In the Margent the Printer hath negligently set downe 1407 for 1047. yeares after Christ. I would that were the least of many schores of faultes which haue escaped in my Bookes partly of ignoraunce and partly through the negligence of careles Printers Now where I assigne diuers times and yeares precisely and distinctly to the birth of seuerall degrees of Poperie our Iesuite being at a flat non-plus what to answere fleeth malitiously to ridiculous cauils and most foolish and false imputations Yea the Fryer Iesuite B.C. bloody cut-throate if his name so be doth bewray his owne malice vnawares For these are his expresse words Let him be vrged with that which he teacheth else where and then his refuge will be that he speaketh not of the Inuocation of Saints in
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
is baken in the Ouen and that is dressed in the Panne and in the frying Panne shall be the Priestes that offereth it And euery Meate offering mingled with Oyle and that is dry shall pertaine to all the sonnes of Aaron to all alike B. C. To the matter An vntrueth it is that priuate Masses were not before the time he mentioneth The twelft Councell of Toledo almost nine hundred yeares agoe reprehendeth those Priestes which offering Sacrifice did not communicate Quale illud Sacrificium c. What manner of Sacrifice is that sayth the Councell of which neither he that sacrificeth is knowen to be partaker Which wordes doe shew that none was present to communicate and yet the Councell requireth onely that the Priest himselfe doe Communicate S. Austen also recordeth how a Priest offered Sacrifice in a priuate forme for the freeing of that place from the molestation of wicked spirites In so particular and extraordinarie a place and for so particular a businesse no probabilitie that there were any other Communicantes T. B. I answere first that it is high time for our Jesuiticall Fryer to come once to the matter whose custome is seldome or neuer to be occupied in that honest kind of dealing Secondly that the Councell doth not so much as once name Priuat Masse much lesse doth it approoue the same Thirdly that if priuate Masse had then been vsed in some odde Churches yet would not that serue the Fryers turne The reason is at hand because that which commeth almost 700. yeares after Christ must needes be the New religion To that of S. Austen the same answere is correspondent and our Iesuite sheweth himselfe a very silly and ridiculous disputer while hee seeketh to stablish an Article of Fayth vpon iciune and barren probabilities Fourthly that all approoued antiquitie condemneth our Iesuite with his priuate Masse In the Canons of the Apostles I find these expresse wordes Si quis Episcopus Presbyter vel Diaconus vel ex Sacerdotali catalogo facta Oblatione non coÌ„municauerit causam dicat et si probabilis fuerit veniam consequatur sin verò minus segregetur vt qui populo â—ffensionis causa sit et suspicionâ—â— dedetit aduersus eum qui obtulit tanquam non dignâ— obtulerit If any Byshop Priest or Deacon or other of the Clergie shall not Communicate in time of the Oblation let him shew the cause or if it be found reasonable let him be pardoned but if otherwise let him be excommunicate as one that hath giuen scandall and brought him into suspition which offered as if he had done amisse The Popes owne Decrees are so cleare and manifest at nothing can be more One Canon commaundeth all such to be put out of the Church as do not receiue the holy Communion these are the expresse wordes Paracta Consecratione omnes comunicent qui noluerint Ecclesiaâ—ticiâ— câ—reâ—â—liminibus Sir N. Apostoli slatuerum et suncta Romaâ—â— tinet Ecclesia Whâ—â—â— Consecration is accomplished â—â—t all that will not Communicate be put out of the Church For so the Apostles haue ordeyned and so the holy Romane Church obserueth An other Canon hath these wordes Si quis 〈◊〉 Ecclesiam Dei 〈…〉 sua auertit se a Communione sacramenti et in obseruandis ministerijs declinat constitutam regulam disciplinae istum talem proijciendum de Ecclesia Catholica esse decernimus donec panitentiam agat If any come into Gods Church and heare the holy Scriptures and superstitiously auert himselfe from the Communion of the Sacrament and in obseruing the ministeries swarue from the set Rule of discipline wee decree such a one to be excommunicate vntill he repent An other Canon hath these wordes Omnes fideles qui conueniunt in solennitatibus sacris ad Ecclesiam et scripturas Apostolorum et Euangelium audiant Qui autem non perseuerant in oratione vsque dum missa peragatur nec sanctam Communionem percipiunt velut inquietudines Ecclesiae commouenies conuenit communione priuari All the faythfull which come to the Church in the time of sacred Solemnities must heare the Scriptures of the Apostles and the Ghospell But they that doe not continue in Prayer vntill Masse be done nor receiue the holy Communion ought to be excommunicate as disquieters of the congregation S. Chrysostome is so farre from approouing priuate Masse that he calleth them impudent and wicked that beeing present doe not communicate these are his wordes Ista videlicet et nunc ad omnes nos dicit qui impudenter hic et improbè astamus Quisquis Nâ—mysteriorum consâ—rs non est impudens et improbus astat These thinges verily he now sayth to vs all which stand by impudently and wickedly For whosoeuer standeth by and doth not communicate is impudent and wicked Oh what would this holy Father say if he were this day in Rome and should see many hundredes standing by gazing and the Priest onely deuowring all He would doubtlesse tearme them most impudent and vngratious people This Subiect is plentifully disputed in my Suruey to which place I referre the Reader The 14. Chapter of Pope Martins Dispensation for the Brother to marrie his naturall Sister ALL that our Jesuite sayth in defence of Pope Martins Dispensation is plaine silence in very deed For albeit I soundly confuted the forerunner in my Booke intituled The Popes Funeraâ—l there answering to euery sentence word and syllable which B.C. in his forerunner possibly could deuise yet S. R that Learned Iesuite in his pretensed Answere to the Downefull of Poperie not able to withstand or gainesay the dint of my Authorities Argumentes and Reasons passed ouer all the same being many and of great consequence in deepe silence In like manner this Jesuite fearing to suffer shipwracke vpon the same Rocke is afraid now either to reply vpon mine Answere in the Funerall or to answer my Authors plainely named in the Triall I prooued the Question soundly and clearely in the Popes Funerall by the Authorities and plaine Testimonies of Siluester Prieras sometime Maister of the Popes sacred Pallace and a Fryer so learned that he was surnamed Absolutus Theologus of Bartholomaeus Fumus a religious dominican Fryer a famous Popish summist and a man of great Authoritie in the Holy house of popish Inquisition of Angelus de Clauasio a Papist of great learning and reputation as who was Vicar generall of the Cismontani-Minors of Cardinall Caietain the most learned Papist of that crew and of Martinus Nauarrus a singular Writer and a most famous popish Canonist This notwithstanding all the answere that can any way be extorted from the Jesuites Penne is this and no other viz. that he hath answered me in the Dolefull Knell Which answere if it be pondered seriously with all the circumstaunces thereto apperteyning is able of it selfe if nothing els could be said to ouerthrow Poperie to turne it vpside downe Marke therefore gentle Reader very attentiuely what I
a Vaile hanging in the Doores of the same Church dyed and painted which had the Image as it were of Christ or some Saint for I doe not well remember whose Image it was Therefore when I saw in the Church of Christ a mans Image against the authoritie of the Scriptures I tore it in peeces and aduised the Keepers of that place of the Church in Anablatha to burie some poore body with it I pray you commaund that hencefoorth such Vailes which make against our Religion be not hanged vp in the Church of Christ. The same Epiphanius in an other place hath these expresse wordes Re vera sanctuÌ„ erat corpus Mariae non tamen Deus Re vera virgo erat ipsa virgo et honorata sed non ad adorationem nobis data sed ipsa adorâ—ns eum qui ex ipsa carne genitus est de caelis vero ex finibus paternis accessit Sequitur Neque Helias adorandus est etiamst in viuis sit Neque lohannes adorandus neque Thecla neque quisquam Sanctus adoratur Non. N. dominabitur nobis antiquus error vt relinquamus viuentem et adoremus ea quae ab ipso sacta sunt Sequitur Sit in honore Maria Pater et Filius ei Spiritus sanctus adoretur Muriam nemo adoret non dico mulierem imò neque virum Deo debetur hoc mysterium Neque Angeli capiunt talem glorificationem Sequitur Etsi pulcherrima est Maria et sancta et honorata a non ad adorationeÌ„ The body of Mary was holy indeed but she was not God The Virgin was a Virgin indeed and honorable but not giuen to vs to be adored But she adoreth him who being borne of her according to the flesh came downe from Heauen euen from his Fathers Throne Helias ought not to be Worshipped if he were this day liuing amongst vs. Neither is John to be Adored neither Thecla neither any other Saint For the old Errour may not so farre ouerrule vs that we forsake the liuing God and Adore the Workmanshippe of his handes Let Mary be had in honour let the Father the Sonne and the Holy Ghost be Adored Let none Adore Mary I say not the Woman but neither the Man this mysterie is due to GOD alone The Angels are not capable of such glorification Though Mary be most beautifull and holy and honourable yet is she not to be Adored Thus discourseth S. Epiphanius affirming resolutely that onely GOD ought to be Worshipped and Adored not any Saintes in Heauen or on Earth much lesse their Images The 16. Chapter of Church seruice in the Vulgar tongue B. C. TO prooue that the Publique Seruice of the Church ought to be in the Vulgar tongue he citeth the names of many Authors without euer setting downe their Sentences thinking it sufcient to referre the Reader 〈◊〉 his Suruey where he hath layd out their wordes at large T. B. I answere first that our Jesuite is so troubled with my Bookes as he seemeth to haue lost his wittes For in his Preface of this present Pamphlet hee obiecteth against me as a fault that I iterate some thinges in one Booke which I haue published in an other Neuerthelesse heere he chargeth me of insufficiencie for that I referre the Reader to my Suruey where I haue handled the controuersie at large What a fellow is this Jesuisicall Fryer If I iterate that which afore I vttered in an other Booke hee is like a madde man and cryeth out that I trouble him with often repetitions If I referre him to that which I haue written else where he accuseth me as in this place that it is not sufficient so to deale Secondly that himselfe in the .14 Chapter of this Pamphlet yeeldeth no other Answere touching Pope Mâ—rtins Dispensation saue onely that he referreth me to an vnknowen and as yet inuisible Booke which he calleth The dolefull Knell B. C. This prooueth not that the Publique Seruice of the Church was in any other Language then in the sacreâ— Tongues of the Greeke Latine c. For the Grecians might vnderstand the Priest though their Seruice were in Greeke because that Tongue was to them the vulgar and common T. B. I answere first that our Iesuite confesseth plainely that his purpose is not to examine my whole Tryall and I beleeue him in this point albeit this Chapter consisteth onely of sixteene lines But those few lines containe such sound and pithy Doctrine as all the Jesuitees in Christendome are not able truely to answere the same Secondly that I am heere content to iterate part of that which I haue else where set downe at large and yet I can hardly thinke that the same will be to our Fryers contentation Howbeit volens nolens he must put it vp seeing he hath prouoked me thereunto Theodoretus a great Learned man and a very famous Historiographer who liued almost one thousand and two hundred yeares agoe affirmeth constantly that in his time the Scriptures were translated into all maner of Languages and that they were not onely vnderstood of Doctors and Maisters of the Church but euen of the Lay people and common Artificers also These are his expresse wordes Hebraici verò Libri non modo in Graecum idioma conuersi sunt sed in Romanam quoque linguam Aegyptiam Persicam Indicam Armenicamque et Scythicam atque adeo Sanromaticam semelque vt dicam in linguas omnes quibus ad hanc diem nationes vtuntur Sequitur Fossoresque adeo ac bubuleos inuenias plantarumque consitores de diuina Trinitate rerumque omnium creatione discertantes The Hebrew Bookes are turned not onely into the Greeke tongue but also into the Romane language into the Egyptian Persian Indian Armenian and Scythian as also into the Sanromaticall tongue and to speake all in a word into all tongues which this day are in vse amongst Nations We may find Ditchers Deluers Neatheards and Gardiners disputing euen of the blessed Trinitie and of the Creation of all thinges Thus discourseth this auncient Father and great learned Writer shewing most clearely vnto his Readers that in the auncient Church and old time euery Nation had the holy Scriptures in their Vulgar language and that in those dayes all Christians did read the holy Scriptures so seriously that both men and women of all trades and conditions were able to dispute of the holy Trinitie and of the Creation of the world Which two poyntes for all that are the most difficult obscure hard and intricate Articles in the whole course of Theologie S. Ambrose hath these expresse wordes In oratione totius plebis tanquam vndis refluentibus stridet tum responsorijs Psalmorum cantu virorum mulierum Virginum parvulorum censonus vndarum sragor resultat When all the people pray togeather there is a noyse as if the Waues of the Sea did beate one against an other then with the answering of Psalmes with the singing togeather of men women maydes and
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
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
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
nor their Missals nor their Absolutions no nor yet the wordes of Baptisme Hence sprang this curious question euen among the Popish Schoole-men viz. If the Child were truely Baptized when the ignoraunt Baptizer did vtter the words in this manner Ego to baptizo in nomine Patria et Filia et Spiritui Sancta In briefe the Popish Councell of Lateran vnder Pope Innocentius the third decreed flatly strictly commaunded all Byshoppes who within their iurisdictions had Nations of diuers Tongues Rites and Manners vnder one Fayth to prouide meete men to celebrate diuine Seruice vnto them according to the diuersitie of their Rites and Languages By which Popish Decree it is cleare and euident that foure hundred yeares are not yet expired since the Pope approoued publique Seruice in all vulgar Languages B. C. The Minister very profoundly scoffeth both at other partes of the Masse and also at these following writing thus Gregorie added the Kyrie eleyson Telesphorus Gloria in excelsis Deo Gelasius the Collectes Hieronymus the Epistle and Ghospell The Creede was receiued of the Nicene Councell Pope Sergius the Agnus Dei. After this he concludeth both of these and others which he there mentioneth as the Introite Halleluia the Commemoration of the Dead Incense and the Pax in this maner This being so I can not but conclude that euery patch peece of the Romish Fayth is but a Rotten ragge of the New religion So earnest he is to make euery peece of the Masse a Rotten ragge that he hath also made many partes of their owne Communion-booke Patches and Peeces and Rotten ragges In which Kyrie eleyson Gloria in excelsis the Collectes Epistle and Ghospell Nicene Creede and Agnus Dei be found no lesse then in our Masse-bookes T. B. I answere first that some of the Patches of the Popish Masse heeâ—e recited are Hereticall some Superstitious some Ridiculous as I haue else-where prooued at large Secondly that the Kyrie eleyson the Epistle and Gholpell Gloria in excelsis Nicene Creede Agnus Dei and the Collects which our Church vseth are all wholly conteyned in the holy Scriptures and consequently they are damnable in the Popish Church though commendable in ours For we finding them in holy Writte vse them according to S. Paules rule in that behalfe But the Papists prophane them many wayes First because they prohibite their vse in all vulgar Tongues Secondly because they teach the people erroneous Doctrine labouring to perswade them euery where that they may not haue their publique Prayers and Seruice in their knowne vulgar Tongues Thirdly because they abuse them superstitiously many wayes For they must say the Epistle in one corner of the Alter the Ghospell in the other the Creed in the middest and so foorth The rest they may learne of Byshoppe Durand the Patrone of all Popish Superstition To which I adde for a superstitious merriment That neither the Layicall people nor yet their Popish Deacons in their deuout Prayers may for ten thousand pounds once say and pronounce these words Dominus vobiscuÌ„ The words doe signifie The Lord be with you And for al that the Pope being as Superstitious as Superstition it selfe doth strictly forbid all Deacons to pronouÌ„ce the said words vntil they be made popish Priests This in briefe is my answere viz. that Kyrie eleyson Gloria in excelsis Agnus Dei the Epistles and Ghospels with the Nicene Creede and Collectes are all lawfully vsed in our Church but most shamefully abused in the Popish Church They are most Christian and commendable as they are in them selues absolutely considered but yet most damnable while they are superstitiously abused and against Gods Commaundement by his Apostle giuen vs which strictly requireth all thinges in the Church-seruice to be done to the peoples edification B. C. I omit heere how falsely and blaspheamously he 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 I haue alreadie concluded not falsely but truely not blaspheamously but Christianly that euery patch and peece of Popish Masse as Popish Masse marke well this reduplication is a Rotten ragge of the New Religion Secondly that the wordes of Popish Consecration are but onely fiue in number one of which for all that came from pure Man or rather from the impure Deuill of Hell For who but the Deuill himselfe durst insert among Christes most sacred wordes a word of his owne inuention especially in a matter of so great weight consequence It is a common maxiome receiued of all Diuines generally aswell of Papistes as of others that no inferiour hath power ouer the Law of his superiour And consequently that the Pope hath no power to adde diminish choppe or change any word of Christes sacred Institution vnlesse he either be God or at least equall with him Thirdly that the holy words This is my body came not from Christ as they are a part of the late Romish Masse I proue it soundly Because our Sauiour Christ did not vtter them vntill he had blessed and consecrated the Bread For doubtlesse if it be true as it is most true because the Trueth it selfe hath spoken it that Christ had blessed and consecrated the Bread before he vttered the same wordes it followeth of necessitie it cannot be denied that they are not the wordes of Consecration as the Papistes grossely and fondly doe imagine For in Christes holy Institution many thinges went before the wordes of Popish supposed Consecration First he tooke the Bread Secondly he blessed it Thirdly he brake it Fourthly he gaue it to his Disciples Fiftly he commaunded them to take and to eate it All which being done in order he vttered the Popish so supposed Consecration wordes So then seeing in that Masse which Christ instituted for I receyue aswell the word Masse with the Latine Fathers as the word Liturgie with the Greeke Doctors in their true sense and meaning these wordes Hoc est corpus meum were not the wordes of Consecration it followeth by a consequence ineuitable that the popish Masse in which they are made the wordes of Consecration is a false forged Masse and the New religion in very deed This Doctrine thus deliuered may be confirmed many wayes First because the best learned Papists are at their wittes end and put to their best last trumpe what they shal thinke say or write of the effectiue words of popish Consecration For the famous popish Byshop and great learned Doctor Josephus Angles euen in that Booke which he dedicated to the Pope him selfe relateth foure seuerall popish opinions concerning this present Subiect These are his wordes borrowed of Alexander and Aquinas Prima est Innocentij asserentis per
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
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