our Fryers liking viz. that the name Pope was giuen to other Byshops in the auncient Church as I haue prooued in my Tryall euen hundreds of yeares after the Primitiue Church To which addition this to cheere vp our Fryer is consectarie to weet that the Clergie of Rome writing to the Clergie of Carthage called S. Cyprian the most blessed Pope Which verily as is already sayd they neither would nor yet durst haue done if the name in such a peculiar manner as the Fryer would make vs beleeue had been due to the Byshop of Rome For if the sayd name had been peculiar to him and his supposed soueraignetie implied therein other Byshops could neuer haue enioyed the same in the puritie of the Church Nay other Byshops would neuer haue improperly accepted of that name and title which none but the Byshop of Rome could properly ascribe vnto himselfe B. C. With the former he hath coupled an other saying thus And so in processe of time the Byshoppes of Rome were solely and onely called Popes and of Late yeares our Holy Father and his Holynesse is his vsuall name A grosse vntrueth T. B. This assertion hath two partes The former our Fryer hath freely graunted in his immediately aforegoing words The latter he must likewise yeeld vnto against his will or else be condemned of the whole world For besides that the Iesuiticall Cardinall Bellarmine and the popish Byshop Iosephus Angles in their Books of Late yeares dedicated to the Byshoppes of Rome haue giuen them the title of Holinesse euen in the abstract it is so euident that his Holinesse is of Late yeares the vsuall name of the Byshop of Rome that if any man either in Rome or in Jâ—ahe shall deny the same he may iustly be censured worthy of the Whetstone That which he sayth of Theodoretus the Councell of Chalcedon S. Cyprian and S. Austin is very friuolous and nothing to the purpose For first I say of Late yeares and yet the youngest of our Fryer named lyued aboue a thousand yeares agoe Secondly there is great disparitie betweene a peculiar and an vsuall name A peculiar name perteineth solely and onely vnto one but that an vsuall name may agree to many at once it cannot be denyed Thirdly as our Fryer hath confessed that the name Pope was of old time giuen to many and yet afterward remayned to the Byshop of Rome alone so must he volens nolens confesse of the name Holynesse B. C. Prosecuting his former matter he sayth But this Emperour that is Iustinian lyued after Christ his birth about 528. yeares ergo this poynt of poperie is a rotten ragge of the New religion In which wordes he venteth out an vntrueth For be it that it was then appropriated to the Pope as he sayth yet how can it be New which by his owne confession was vsed xi hundred yeares agoe That is so many ages before the foundations of his Religion were laide or the name of a Protestant heard of in the whole world T. B. Our Iesuite desiring to discharge the Pope and Poperie of Newnesse would prooue it by my graunt viz. because I confesse the name Pope to haue been appropriated to the Byshops of Rome a thousand yeares agoe But our Fryer in thus disputing doth prooue him selfe a very Daw. For he must learne to know that the newnesse of a thing may be considered two wayes absolutely and respectiuely And consequently that though the name Pope be Old absolutely considered yet it is New respectiuely when it is compared with the time of the Apostles Now so it is that you Papistes beare the world in hand that your Poperie is the Old religion and that selfe-same Doctrine which S. Peter and S. Paul deliuered to the Church of Rome This is the Doctrine which I oppugne euen in the beginning of this present Chapter But our Fryer is so besotted with malice that he cannot discerne the trueth my reason standeth thus You Iesuites and Iesuited Papistes affirme desperatly and damnably that your Late start-vp Poperie is the Old religion deliuered by S. Peter and S. Paul to the Church of Rome But that is so farre from being true that the very name Pope is New as wanting aboue 500. yeares of that age or time whereof you bragge and boast ergo seeing the Apostolicke and first Religion is onely the Old religion and that which commeth after as Tertullian truly writeth the false and New religion it followeth of necessitie that the name Pope comming 500. yeares after the Old religion is but a rotten Ragge of the New Where I wish the Reader to remember that I speake of the name Pope in that sense in which the Byshoppes of Rome vsurpe the same That which our Jesuite addeth of Protestantes how absurd it is shall God willing by and by appeare B. C. I omit heere how many Ecclesiasticall names haue been brought into the Church as Consubstantiall against the Arrians Incarnation against other Heretikes the better by a new name to declare an auncient article of Fayth Will Bell for all that call these Wordes rotten Ragges of a New religion Hee never dare offer it and yet with no lesse reason may be doe it then he doth heere the name of the Pope T. B. Who seeth not to what shiftes our Iesuiticall Fryer is driuen He affirmeth desperately that I may with no lesse reason call the holy names appropriated to the sonne of God rotten ragges of a New religion then the name of the Pope But out vpon such Rotten diuinitie out vpon such paltry Fryers The sacred names Consubstantiall and Incarnation are equiualently according to the substance and true nature of the thinges signified by the same set downe in many places of the holy Scriptures Which was made most apparant against the Arrians by the Fathers of the first famous Councell of Nice but the name Pope as it is of Late yeares challenged by the Byshops of Rome and heere auouched by the impudent Fryer is so farre from being either expressely or virtually conteyned in the holy Scriptures that all sacred Writ vtterly condemneth the same as a Rotten ragge of a New religion inuented at Rome aboue fiue hundred yeares after the death of S. Peter S. Paul Againe the Holy names of Consubstantiall and Incarnation were not first common to others and afterward attributed to the sonne of God But the name Pope as I haue prooued and as the Frier hath plainely confessed was first and that more then 500-yeares common to all Byshops and in processe of time appropriated to the Byshops of Rome Thirdly the thing truly signified by the holy wordes Consubstantiall and Incarnation neuer could agree to any creature in the world but the thing truely signified by the word Pope did in the primatiue and purest age of the Church doth at this present and may in time to come truely agree to all true Byshops in Christs Church Now touching the name of Protestant I answere
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
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
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
will take the paines to lay open to the Reader the expresse wordes of the Byshop their glorious Martyr Thus doth hee write I will not alter adde or take away one word vpon my saluation to answere it Sed et Graecis ad hunc vsque diem non est creditum Purgatorium esse Legat qui velit Graecorum veterum commentarios et nullum quantum opinor aut quam rarissimum de Purgatorio sermonem inueniet Sed neque Latini simul omnes at sensim huius rei veritatem conceperunt Et Paulo post non absque maxima sancti spiritus dispensatione factum est quod post tot annorum curricula Purgatorij fines et Indulgentiarum vsus ab orthodoxiâ— generatim sit receptus Quamdiu nulla fuerat de Purgatorio cura nemo quaesiuit Indulgentias nam ex illo pendet omnis Indulgentiarum existimatio Si tollas Purgatorium quorsum Indulgentijs opus erit His. N. si nullum fuerit Purgatorium nihil Indigebimus Contemplantes igitur aliquandiu Purgatorium incognitum fuisse deinde quibusdam pedetentim partim ex reuelationibus partim ex Scripturis fuisse creditum atque ita tandem generatim eius fidem ab orthodoxa Ecclesia fuisse receptissimam facillime rationem aliquam Indulgentiarum intelligimus Quum itaque Purgatorium tam sero cognitum ac receptum Ecclesiae fuerit vniversae quis iam de Indulgentijs mirari potest quod in principio nascentis Ecclesiae nullus fuerat earum vsus Caeperunt igitur Indulgentiae postquam ad Purgatorij cruciatus aliquandiu trepidatum erat The Greekes to this day doe not beleeue there is a Purgatorie Read who will the Commentaries of the auncient Greeke Writers and he shall either find very seldome mention of Purgatorie or none at all But neither did the Latine Church conceiue the veritie of this matter all at one time but by litle and litle Neither was it done without the woonderfull dispensation of the Holy Ghost that after so many pluralities of yeares Catholikes both beleeued Purgatorie and receiued the vse of Pardons generally So long as there was no care of Purgatorie no man sought for Pardons for of it dependeth all the estimation that wee haue of Pardons If thou take away Purgatorie to what end shall wee need Pardons For if there be no Purgatorie wee shall neede no Pardons Considering therefore how long Purgatorie was vnknowne then that it was beleeued of some by litle and litle partly by Reuelations and partly by Scriptures and so at the last beleeued generally of the whole Church wee doe easily vnderstand the cause of Pardons Since therefore Purgatorie was so lately knowne and receiued of the Vniuersall Church Who can now admire Pardons that there was no vse of them in the primatiue Church Pardon 's therefore began after the people stood in some feare of Purgatorie These are the wordes of M. Fisher sometime our Byshoppe of Rochester a Popish so supposed glorious Martyr and a man for his great Learning renowned throughout the Christian world who writing against M. Luther in defence of Poperie to which he was woonderfully addicted spared not so say and to plead what possibly he could inuent for the free passage and credite of the same Whose best pleading which hee possibly was able to affoorde the Pope and Poperie doth roundly and clearely turne it vp-side downe I desire the Reader right heartily euen in the bowels of our Lord Iesus to marke attentiuely and then to iudge and giue his censure Christianly betweene the Jesuite and my selfe Which if he shall indeed performe all partialitie set apart hee can not but euidently perceiue my life I gage for the tryall that Poperie is the New Religion He can not but see that the trueth is that which I defend He can not but behold as clearely as the noone day that the Fryer is condemned in his owne conscience and can not tell what to say For first their most Learned Byshoppe and glorious Martyr telleth vs constantly and plainely that the famous Fathers and Writers of the Greeke Church neuer beleeued Purgatorie And who were those Greeke Writers S. Basill for his great skill surnamed the great S. Gregorie Nazianzene for his surpassing knowledge in Diuinitie surnamed Theologus S. Chrysostome for his Learning and Eloquence surnamed the Golden mouth to say nothing of all the rest If these auncient Fathers these Holy men these so learned and so famous Writers with all the rest of the Greeke Church did not beleeue there was a Popish Purgatorie for the space of 1517. yeares for so long after Christ was this Byshoppe lyuing who for all that as we haue seene affirmeth vnawares against himselfe the Pope and Poperie that they beleeued it not in his time What noddies what fooles how voyd of all feeling of all sense of all reason may they iustly be censured Who to the eternall perill of their soules and saluation will needs beleeue such erroneous hereticall and most execrable Doctrine such diabolicall Fayth and plaine Heathenish Religion Secondly that the Latine Church and consequently the Church of Rome did not beleeue the aforenamed Purgatorie for many hundreds of yeares after S. Peters death whose successor the Pope boasteth himselfe to be Thirdly that this Purgatorie was not beleeued of the Latine Church at one and the same time but by litle and litle Fourthly that Purgatorie was beleeued in the latter age by speciall Reuelation of the Holy Ghost Fiftly that Pardons came not vp vntill Purgatorie was found out as which without Purgatorie can haue no vse Sixtly that Purgatorie was a long time vnknowne Seuently that Purgatorie could not be found in the Scriptures of a long time Eightly that it was not wholly found out by the Scriptures but partly by Reuelations Ninthly that Pardons were not heard of or knowne to the primatiue Church Tenthly that then Pardons began when men began to feare the paines of Purgatorie Behold heere gentle Reader what a worthy Fisher was my Popish Lord of Rochester hee hath caught with his Net at one draught tenne goodly Fishes that is to say tenne golden and worthy Lessons for Christian edification Which effect will appeare more euidently before the end of this Chapter B. C. Secondly that the Church of Rome beleeued it not that is Purgatorie for the space of 250. yeares after which time it increased by litle and litle This either hee meaneth is gathered out of the testimonie of Roffensis and that is not true for nothing doth Roffensis speake of 250. yeares or deny that Purgatorie was alwayes beleeued in the Church although hee confesseth that the Doctrine thereof was not so well knowen as now it is which is farre different from this Proposition Purgatorie was not beleeued of the Church of Rome for the space of 250. yeares after Christ. Or else he affirmeth of himselfe that Purgatorie was not beleeued vntill that time and then must I be so bold to tell him that it
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
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
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
THE Catholique Triumph Conteyning A Reply to the pretensed Answere of B. C. a masked Iesuite lately published against the Tryall of the New Religion Wherein is euidently prooued that Poperie and the Doctrine now professed in the Romish Church is the New Religion And that the Fayth which the Church of England now mayntaineth is the ancient Romane Religion Psal. 22. v. 16. Dogges are come about mee and the councell of the wicked layeth siege against me Psal. 120. v. 3. What reward shall be giuen to thee thou false tongue euen mighty and sharpe arrowes with hot burning coales AT LONDON Printed for the companie of Stationers 1610. To the most reuerend Father my very good Lord TOBY the L. Archbyshop of Yorke his Grace Primate of England Fifteene yeares most reuerend Father are now fully expired since I first began to write against the professed aduersaries of the auncient Christian Catholike Apostolique and old Romane religion I meane the late Byshops of Rome the Romish Cardinals the Iesuites Iesuited Papistes and Gunpowder-popish-vassals In which space of time I haue published so many Bookes in defence of the Catholique Fayth as are in number correspondent to the yeares A very long time it was the argument in hand considered before I could any way extort any Answere to any of my Bookes Howbeit when the Iesuites after mature deliberation had seriously pondered with them-selues that through their long silence many Papistes did vtterly renounce Poperie and ioyfully embrace the Catholique Fayth this day sinceerely professed in our Church then they became so ashamed of their silence in that behalfe that in the yeare 1605. they published a litle Pamphlet tearming it The forerunner of Bels downefall wherein they auouched with brasen faces that they had written fiue Bookes fiue yeares afore that time against my Motiues and my Suruey of Poperie And least it should be obiected against them that it cannot be so seeing we can neither see them nor heare of them the Fore-runner telleth vs very grauely but to their endlesse shame that the Answere is suppressed and vpon iust occasion stayed from the publication Alasse alasse how are silly Papistes bewitched with the iugling and deceitfull dealing of these seducers They haue been buzzing about the answering of my two first Bookes as they them selues tell vs almost the space of sixe whole yeares and when after their great paines and labours of so many yeares they had framed the answere in the best manner they could deuise then they suppressed the same vpon iust occasiō as their Forerunner in their name telleth vs. What haue they bestowed fiue yeares in wryting fiue Bookes against two of my Bookes and dare not to this day publish any one of them Out vpon lying lippes Out vpon trayterous Iesuites and Iesuiticall deceyuers of the world The trueth is that there is no trueth in these men And it is an euident testimonie that they are not indeed able to answere for otherwise they would not for very shame haue protested so much in print and haue performed nothing lesse I am verily perswaded that they will neuer during my life which they wish to be short and therefore haue they prouided my Winding sheete and other indirect meanes to take away my life frame any full and direct Answere to the said Bookes because in trueth all the Iesuites in the Christian world are not able to performe it the trueth being so cleare forcible against them After the Fore-runner a pretensed Answere was published in the yeare 1606. against the Downe fall of Poperie For refutation of which silly Pamphlet I addressed my Booke intituled The Iesuites Antepast which seemeth to their daintie mouthes so vntouthsome that I deeme it will serue also for their Post-past as I had formerly published an other Reply intituled The Popes Funerall to the Fore-runner of the Downefall Now lately in the end of the yeare 1608. an other pretensed Answere a silly thing God wote was published against my Booke intituled The Tryall of the new religion This Pamphlet came to my handes in Nouember last at which time I was very ill in body and also distant aboue one hundred Myles from mine owne Librarie the want whereof at that time was farre more grieuous to me then were all my painefull infirmities of body In the midst of which whiles I am writing for the trueth I find no litle comfort The case so standing albeit your Grace was then aboue fourtie Myles from me yet did I presume to bemone my selfe vnto your Grace for the supply of my present want of Bookes with whom my suite found such intertainement as I neither did nor euer could expect Bookes indeed I expected but that your Grace should also send them to me vpon your owne charges most freely and Christianly offering to send me your whole Librarie which is indeed a Librarie most excellent if I shouldst and in need thereof it seemed to mee such an honorable sauour as that I could not now in duetie omit to make this publique acknowledgement thereof The Iesuites and Iesuited Gunpowder Papistes not able to endure the sound of my Tryall wherein Poperie was tearmed and prooued the New Religion haue suborned as it seemeth Robert Parsons that lewd companion and trayterous Fryer to publish that supposed Refutation the summe and substaunce whereof they had no doubt collected and framed to his handes His name he dareth not disclose least the great disgrace which can not but insue vpon that silly Answere should eternally cleaue vnto him as being one who not able to defend Poperie by honest and Christian-like proceeding bestirreth himselfe to effect the same by continuall forgerie by lying by coozenage and deceitfull dealing as in this Booke I shall make apparant Wherein what my selfe haue effected or rather God in mee let the iuditious and honest Reader iudge and for that which he findeth well done giue God the glorie Such as it is I dedicate vnto your Grace as vnto him who hath deserued my vttermost service The Almighty blesse your Grace with many happy yeares in this life and with eternall glory in the life to come Amen Iunij 3. 1609. Your Graces most bounden Thomas Bell. Briefe Instructions for the better vnderstanding of the Discourse following Instruction 1. THE Pope Cardinals Iesuites and all Papistes generally do beare the world in hand that the Church of Rome this day keepeth inuiolably that Fayth and Religion which S. Peter and S. Paul in their time planted there I hold and defende the negatiue proouing the same soundly and euidently throughout this whole Discourse Wee all agree in this that the Church of Rome had once the true auncient Christian catholique and apostolique Fayth which she receiued from S. Peter and S. Paul my selfe most willingly subscribing thereunto I neither impugne the old Romane religion nor reprooue the auncient Byshops there it is the Late vp-start-religion of the Romish Church that now is which I detest and write against in all
and a good man in deed did admit the foure first generall Councels of Nice Constantinople Ephesus and Châ—lcedon and did reuerence the same as the foure Gospels These are his expresse wordes as Gratianus hath related the same in the Popes owne Decrees Sicut sancti Euangelij quatuor libros sic quatuor Concilia suscipere et venerarie me fateor Nicenum scilicet in quo peruersum Arij dogma destruitur Constantinopolitanum quoque in quo Eunomij et Macedonij error conuincitur Ephesinum etiam primum in quo Nestorij impietas iudicatur Chalcedonense vero in quo Euticetis et Dioscori prauitas est reprobata Haec tota deuotione amplector integerrima approbatione custodio As I professe my selfe to receiue and reuerence the foure Books of the holy Gospell so also the foure Councels in like maner to weete the Councell of Nice in which the peruerse opinion of Arius is confounded the Councell of Constantinople also in which the errour of Eunomius and Macedonius is conuinced the Councell of Ephâ—sus also the first in which the impietie of Nestorius was censured the Councell of Chalcedon in like maner in which Eutiches Dioscorus were condemned These Councels I imbrace with great deuotion and keepe them with most holy approbation obiection 8 They say eightly that Pope Cornelius was Byshoppe of the Catholike Church of the whole world not of the Citie of Rome onely and they prooue it by these words of Cornelius in his Epistle to S. Cyprian Nec ignoramus vnum Dâ—um esse et vnum Christum esse Dominum quem confessj sumus vnum spiritum sanctum vnum Episcopum in Catholica Eccesia esse debere We are not ignorant that there is one God one Christ one holy Ghost and that there ought to be one Byshop in the Catholike Church But I answere that Cornelius meaneth the Catholike Church of the citie of Rome calling it rightly the Catholike Church yet not as it signifieth Vniuersall but as it connotateth a Church constantly holding the Catholike Fayth I prooue it because Cornelius himselfe in whose Epistle that is written sayth in an other Epistle directed to Fabius where he entreateth of the same matter that there ought to be one Byshoppe in that Catholike Church wherein there are â—ixe and fourtie Elders and seauen Deacons with seauen Sub-deacons so foorth These are the expresse wordes Ita igitur lepidum Euangelij patronuÌ„ Nouatum omnino praeâ—erijâ— scilicet vnum solum Episcopum oportere esse in hac Eccesia catholica in qua tamen non ignorabat quomodo enim poterat Presbyteros esse quadraginta sex Diaconos septem Subdiaconos septeÌ„ Acolythos quadraginta duos Exorcistas et Lectores vnacum ostiarijs quinquaginta duos viduas et alios morbo atque egestate afflictatos mille et quingentos quos omnes Domini gratia et benignitas abunde sustentat Hee therefore omitted altogeather this pleasant defender of the Gospell Nouatus because there ought but to be one onely Byshop in this Catholike Church in which for all that he was not ignoraunt for how could that be that there was fourtie sixe Elders or Priestes seauen Deacons seauen Subdeacons fourtie two Acolythes Exorcistes and Readers togeather with Sextenes fiftie two Widowes and others needie and sicke persons a thousand and fiue hundred All which the grace and liberalitie of our Lord doth aboundantly relieue And towards the beginning of the Epistle I find these words as Eusebius relateth theÌ„ Epistolae quidem Cornelij Episcopi Romani scriptae ad Fabium Episcopum ecclesiae Antiochenae ad nos peruenerunt quae tum acta concilij Romae habiti ab omnibus in Italia in Africa inque alijs in locis de eo errore decreta erant euidenter declarant The Epistles of Cornelius Byshoppe of Rome written to Fabius Byshoppe of Antioch came to our handes which did euidently declare the thinges which were then decreed touching that errour in a Councell then holden at Rome of all the Byshoppes in Jtaly Africa and other places This was the case the Church being troubled at that time with the Schismes and Heresies of Nouatus the Nouatians refused the communion of the Catholikes therevpon ordayned new Byshops for their Schismaticall conuenticles whereby it came to passe that in one Citie there were two Byshoppes at once a Catholike and an Heretike In Rome Cornelius and Nouatianus in Carthage Cyprian and Fortunatus Nouatus being very desirous to be a Byshoppe ioyned to himselfe two desperate companions and by that meanes three Byshoppes who were very rude and simple men These Byshoppes hee deceiued with faire speaches promises and coozening trickes Hee told them constantly that they must goe to Rome with all speed that by their sentence and iudgement all controuersies might be decided and fully ended The Byshops giuing credite to the report by reason of their simplicitie came to Rome with all conuenient speede Nouatus with a companie of odde companions like vnvnto himselfe found meanes to get them into an odde corner prepared for that end and purpose where so soone as the Byshoppes were made merry with Wine and delicate cheere hee violently compelled them to make him Byshoppe by a vaine and imaginarie imposition of handes Which being effected hee challenged the Byshopricke of Rome ioyntly with Cornelius Cornelius being lawfully possessed thereof and relying vpon the Decree of the Nicene Councell in that behalfe affirmed constantly that there could be but one Byshoppe in that Catholike Church of Rome The Catholikes therefore communicating in fayth and Christian loue with Cornelius tearmed him the Byshoppe of the Catholike Church obiection 9 They say ninthly out of S. Cyprian that all Heresies and Schismes haue sprong out of this onely fountaine and no other viz. that one Priest for the time in the Church and one Iudge for the time in stead of Christ is not regarded To whom if the whole brotherhoode would be obedient according to Gods ordinaunce no man would make any thing adoe against the companie of Gods Priestes Where by one Priest he meaneth one Byshoppe and by one Byshoppe Cornelius the Pope to whom hee writeth those thinges and consequently he argueth the Pope to be the Byshoppe of the whole Church and one Iudge for the time in Christes stead But I answere first that this in effect is the same with the former of Cornelius and consequently it ought to admit the same answere For he speaketh it vpon occasion of iniurie which the Nouatians offered himselfe in Carthage for the Nouatians there had ordeyned a new Byshoppe against him as their fellowes did in Rome against the good Byshoppe Cornelius Secondly because the wordes both precedent and subsequent doe clearely insinuate that he meaneth it of all Catholike Byshoppes each in his owne charge yea that he applyeth it to himselfe not to Cornelius Thirdly because he speaketh of a Byshoppe who hath been approoued in the Byshopricke foure yeares
the 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
neque N. hominis consuetudinem sequi oportet sed Dei veritatem Wee must not regard what any before vs thought should be done but what Christ first did who is more to be respected then all others Againe in an other place thus Nam Consuetudo sine Veritate vetustas erroris est propter quod relicto errore sequamur Veritatem Custome without Trueth is the antiquitie ef Errour wherefore let vs leaue Errour and follow the Trueth Pope Gregorie is consonant and plainely auoucheth the same Trueth Vsus qui Veritati est contrarius est abolendus Vse contrary to Trueth must be abolished Sixtly that where there is Law Custome can haue no place For Custome I finde thus defined in the Popes owne Decrees Consuetudo est ius quoddam moribus institutuÌ„ Custome is a certaine Law instituted by the frequent actions of men It followeth in the same Decrees Quod pro Lâ—ge suscipitur cum deficit Lex Which is receiued as Law when Law can not be had And in the Glosse I finde this exposition Hic videtur quod tunc demum recurrendum est ad Consuetudinem cum Lex deficit et sic est argumentum quod nunquam secundum Consuetudinem est iudicandum si ius contrarium praecipiat Heere it seemeth that then we must haue recourse vnto Custome when Law is wanting and so we haue an argument that we must neuer iudge according to Custome if Law commaunde the contrary Sequitur in Glossa resp quod non secundum consuetudinâ—m sed secundum iura est iudicandum I answere that Iudgement must not be giuen according to Custome but according to Law And consequently I conclude against Pope Nicholas and against all Jâ—suites and Iesuited Papistes that seeing the sacred Councels of Nice Constantinople Ephesus Chalcedon and Aphrican yeelded no prerogatiue to the Byshoppes of Rome saue onely in respect of Custome and seeing withall that Pope Sozimus Celestinus and Bonifacius did challenge their falsely pretended Primacie and Prerogatiues onely by the Canons of the Nicene Councell as I haue alreadie soundly prooued and for that end Pope Sozimus falsified the same Canons and the other Popes vrged the same for the furtheraunce of their falsely pretended Title Primacie and Prerogatiues but were therefore in the ende roundly controlled and vtterly reiected of the Fathers of the Aphrican Councell the Popes or Byshoppes of Rome must hold them selues contented and satisfied with that iurisdiction which the holy Synodes haue allotted them B. C. The true meaning therefore of the Canon is that the Byshoppe of Rome before the definition of any Councell vsed to commit the gouernment of Egypt Libia and Pentapolis to the Byshoppe of Alexandria as Pope Nicholas the first doth expound T. B. The Iesuite should haue named the Pope that first gaue such gouernment to the Byshoppe of Alexandria and in what yeare it first beganne Which doubtlesse hee would haue done if possibly hee had been able to performe the same The trueth therefore is as I haue prooued euidently and Pope Nicholas is like to Sozimus and others of that vngodly 〈◊〉 They 〈◊〉 neither tell where when or by what Pope such gouernement was first committed to the Byshoppe of Alexandria and yet doe they neuer cease to demaunde the like of vs but I hope this Catholike Triumph will stop all their mouthes Yea two other Canons of the Nicene Councell are flatte contrary to Pope Nicholas his expositioÌ„ for the seuenth Canon giueth honour to the Byshop of Hierusalem yet not by reason of any Commission from the Byshop of Rome but for an old Custome Tradition The same seuenth Canon in like maner ascribeth a proper dignity to euery Metropolitane And the fourth Canon auoucheth constantly that nothing done in any Prouince is of any force or strength vnlesse the same be confirmed by the Metropolitane As for the Popes Vniuersall soueraigntie no Canon yet extant in rerum natura neither of the Councell of Nice Constantinople Ephesus Chalcedon or Aphrican maketh any mention thereof B. C. The word Superroyall I suppose slyly mocketh at that which venerable antiquitie confesseth I will content my selfe with the testimonie of S. Chrysostome who speaking not onely of Byshoppes but inferiour Clergie-men instructeth them how to deale with secular Potentates comming vnworthily to the Sacramentes in this manner If a Duke quoth he if a Consull if hee that weareth a Crowne come vnworthily stoppe and hinder him thou hast greater power then hee And the Minister denieth that the late Queene might preach the Ghospell or administer the Sacramentes Which functions notwithstanding other of their Clergie might execute whereof it ensueth that in these Spirituall poyntes their power was aboue that of the Queenes and so truely in a good sense may be called Superroyall which so much his superscoffing grauitie seemeth to deride and taunt T. B. I answere first that the Superroyall counterfeite Power which I deride in your Pope is the deposing of Kinges the translating of Empires the making of some thing of nothing the applying of the substantiall partes of one thing to an other the aduauncing of himselfe aboue euery thing that hath beeing and such like whereof I haue spoken and intreated very plentifully in the Conclusions of this present Chapter Secondly that albeit in the preaching of the Word and administration of the Sacramentes the chosen Minister hath onely the charge and authoritie to execute them yet hath Gods annoynted Prince the supreame charge and soueraigne authoritie to commaunde the execution thereof as also to correct and to punish the Minister for the neglect of his duetie in that behalfe For though the execution perteyne to the Ministers yet the prouision direction appoyntment care ouersight which is the Supreme gouernement indeed perteyneth onely solely wholly to the Prince For which cause King Ezechias highly renowned in holy Writ though he were but very young in yeares did for all that in regard of his prerogatiue Royall Supreame authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall call the Priestes Leuites his Sonnes charging them to heare him and to follow his Commaundement for so are the wordes of the Text. Yea Josias that famous King did sundry times commaund the Hie Priest But of this subiect I haue intreated so copiously in other Bookes as it is heere a thing needlesse to stand longer vpon the same Thirdly that I graunt freely willingly that Ministers in the action of their Ecclesiasticall function Church-ministerie are aboue all Christians aboue Queenes Kinges and Monarches representing the person of God teaching admonishing rebuking them as others following the godly example therein of S. Iohn the Baptist. Yea I further graunt that if the vices of Princes Kinges and Monarches be notorious scandalous to the whole Church then the Byshops may denounce such Potentates to be enemies to the trueth aduersaries to God and no true members of the Church but to be holden for forlorne people and as
Clergie reputed Pope Hildebrand an Heretique for withstanding the same Fiftly that the Popes so supposed Soueraigntie ouer the whole Church was in those dayes vtterly condemned of the whole Church of Germanie For Lambertus telleth vs freely and truely that all the Clergie withstood the cursed Decree of the Pope proclaimed him an Heretique and this they did euen by the flat testimonie of Christ and his Apostles Sixtly that by the verdict of al the Learned in Germanie that great goodly Country the Pope did not only enforce theÌ„ violently against their ancient Customes but withal made the way to all filthy liuing This my Doctrine is confirmed by a double argument First because Pope Pelagius the second of that name who was Byshop 200. yeares after Siricius did willingly admitte the Byshoppe of Syracusa albeit he were a married man and had a Wife and Children neither was that Byshoppe then vrged to forsake the vse of holy Wedlocke Gratianus a man of great reputation among the Papistes doth in the fore-named Distinction referre out of Pope Pelagius his wordes in this manner Siue ergo Presbyter siue Diaconus siue Subdiaconus fuerit quod praefaâ—is ordinibus constitutj licitè matrimonio vtj possunt Whether therefore he be Priest Deacon or Sub-deacon it is euident that such as are within the aforenamed Orders may lawfully haue the vse of holy Wedlocke Out of these words of Gratianus that learned and zealous Papist I inferre against the Doctrine of the Pope that Priestes Deacons and Sub-deacons may not onely be Married but withall while they be Married haue the vse of holy Wedlocke Secondly because Pope Nicholas who liued aboue three hundred yeares after Pelagius was so farre from disquieting Married Priestes for their Marriages that when the Bulgarians complayned of that fault so supposed he perswaded them to be content and not to dishonour their married Priestes This is that Doctrine which the Popes owne Canon-law affoordeth vs wee heartily thanke him foâ— it Let vs adde herevnto that the Constitution of Pelagius was not of force in Sicilia saue onely three yeares before the Popedome of Gregory the great which doubtlesse was more then two hundred yeares after the Popedome of Siricius For thus doth Pope Gregory write Ante triennium omnium Ecclesiarum Subdiaconi Siciliae prohibiti fuerunt vt more Romanae Ecclesiae suis vxoribus nullatenus misceantur Quod mihi durum atque incompetens videtur vt qui vsum continentiae non inuenit neque castitatem promisit compellatur a suo Vxore separari Three yeares ago all Sub-deacons of Sicilia were charged to forbeare the vse of holy Wedlocke according to the custome of the Romane Church Which seemeth to mee a very hard and vnconuenient thing that hee who neither hath the gift of Continencie neither yet hath vowed Chastitie should be forcibly secluded from his Wife Out of these wordes I obserue these Instructions First that the Lawes of single life tooke onely place in Sicilia about three yeares before the time of Gregory the first Secondly that it is a diabolicall thing to compell such to Marriage as neither haue the gift of Continencie neither yet haue vowed Chastitie Thirdly that the Marriage of all Byshoppes and Ministers in our Churches as also of all secular Popish Priestes euerie where is lawfull and true Wedlocke by the doctrine of Pope Gregorie the reason is at hand because none of them are Votaries For to the Vow which they call Annexed they are no more bound in the West Church then they are in the East Marke well the next Proposition The 8. Proposition All secular Priestes are so free from the solemne Vow which by the Church of Rome is annexed to Ecclesiasticall orders that their Marriages are true perfect and of force the supposed dissoluing impediment thereof not withstanding I prooue it by a triple argument First because Scotus Nauarrus Iosephus Angles Durandus and the rest doe all freely graunt that this Vow is onely annexed by the ordinaunce of the Church and by the power of man Secondly because if the secular Priestes be Votaries their Vow must either be by the word spoken or by the deed done Not the former because no such word can be prooued Neither the latter because if the act it selfe in taking orders should be the Vow annexed or essentially include the same it would follow therevpon necessarily that the Greekes likewise should become Votaries seeing they doe the selfe same thing Who for all that were neuer Votaries nor yet so reputed by the Learned Papistes as we haue already seene in the fourth Proposition Thirdly because when two thinges are essentially and really distinguished the graunt of the one doth not necessarily include the grant of the other and yet is the solemne Vow of Chastitie essentially and really distinct from sacred Orders as Nauarrus Iosephus Gratianus Sectus Durandus Antoninus and all learned Papistes willingly do graunt Marke the next Proposition well The 9. Proposition Albeit by Popish fayth and doctrine all such as Marrie after the single Vow of Continencie doe sinne mortally yet doth their Marriage holde and is of force Thus teach all Learned popish Doctors with vniforme assent no exception can be made Angelus Rosella Calderinus Couarruvias Paludanus Maior Siluester Nauarrus Fumus Scotus Aquinas and the rest do constantly affirme it It shall suffice to alleadge the wordes of Fumus in the name of all the rest Thus doth he write Secundum impedimentum est votum simplex nam qui vouet castitatem simpliciter si contrahat mortaliter peccat violans fidem Deo datam tamen tenet matrimonium The second impediment is a single Vow for he that voweth Chastitie simply if he afterward marrie committeth a mortall sinne in breaking his promise made to God but yet the Matrimonie holdeth and is of force Marke the next Proposition againe and againe The 10. Proposition The Vow single is of one the same nature with the Vow solemne not distinguished by any essentiall but meere accidentall difference I prooue it by the plaine affirmance of Josephus Angles a very learned Fryer and a famous popish Byshoppe these are his expresse wordes Votum solenne et simplex ex parte subiecti specie accidentali differunt propterea quod voti simplicis subiectuÌ„ est ad contrahendum matrimonium habile licet contrahendo peccet at vero subiectum voti solennis est ad contractum matrimonialem inhabile transgressiones voti simplicis et solennis eiusdem speciei sunt etiamsi qui solenniter vouet grauius peccet ratio est quia specifica differentia actuuÌ„ est penes obiecta et cum idem sit vtriusque voti obiectum nempe seruare continentiam erunt actus eiusdem speciei erit tamen voti solennis transgressio grauior ratione perfectioris status The Vow solemne and single differ accidentally in respect of the subiect because the subiect of the
in the fift Proposition Sixtly seeing the Marriage of Priestes was euer lawfull also in the West Church vntill the cursed and vntimely inuented Prohibition of Pope Siricius almost 400. yeares after Christ as is prooued in the sixt Proposition Seuenthly seeing Siricius his Prohibition notwithstanding Priestes were still Married in many places a long time and in Germanie aboue a thousand yeares after Christ without restraint euen vntill the dayes of the vngratious Pope Hildebrand as is prooued in the 7. Proposition Eightly seeing all secular Priestes are so free from the Vow which is annexed to Ecclesiasticall orders by the Church of Rome that the supposed dissoluing impediment thereof notwithstanding their Marriages are true perfect and of force Ninthly seeing that by Popish Fayth and Doctrine the single Vow of Chastitie neither doth nor can dissolue Matrimonie as is prooued in the ninth Proposition Tenthly seeing the Vow single is of one and the same nature with the Vow solemne not distinguished by any essentiall but meere accidentall difference as is prooued in the tenth Proposition Eleuenthly seeing Matrimonie of Monkes Fryers and Nonnes euen after their solemne Vow of Religion is with the Pope his Iesuites and Iesuited Popelinges very lawfull and of force so it be done by and with the Popes Dispensation as is prooued in the eleuenth Proposition Twelfthly seeing the forced and coacted Chastitie of popish Priestes hath been such and so intollerable euen by the best learned Papistes their free confessions as nothing in the whole world hath brought more shame to Priesthood more harme to Religion more griefe to godly men as is prooued in the 12. Proposition Thirteenthly seeing the Fathers of the famous Councell of Nice thought it not agreeable to Gods word to make any Law against the Marriage of Priestes as is prooued in the 13. Proposition I can not I may not but must of necessitie conclude with this ineuitable and irrefragable illation ergo the Prohibition of Priestes Marriage is but a rotten ragge of the new Religion The Refutation of the Friers third Chapter In these 13. Propositions if due application be made thereof all the vntruethes lyes miserable shiftes and colourable euasions of our Fryer Jesuite will easily appeare and vanish away as doth the smoake of a Fire especially if my Discourse in the Suruay of Poperie bee duely pondered with these 13. Propositions For all that our Fryer hath sayd in this Chapter and whatsoeuer else any other Iesuite or Iesuited Papist in the world is able to say against the Marriage of Priestes is verie largely distinctly and soundly resuted in my Suruay of Poperie The Jesuite full of nothing but Winde Vanitie Rayling and lying would dazell the eyes of his Reader with crying out against Vntruethes when indeed all vntruethes proceed onely from his owne lying lippes Two thinges onely may seeme to the vulgar Reader to carry some shew or colour of trueth which both are soundly confuted in my Suruay Howbeit for the better satisfaction of the indifferent Reader especially of such as perhappes haue not read my Suruay I am content once againe to examine the same The former colour of trueth pretended by our Frier is this in very deed viz. That Saint Paphuntius in the Councell of Nice perswaded the Fathers onely vnto this to weete That they which were called to the Priesthood beeing Married should not be separated from their Wiues which they had for it was the old Tradition of the Church sayth our Fryer That those which were made Priestes beeing not yet Married should not afterward marrie Wiues Thus pleadeth our Jesuite out of Sozomenus and Socrates Marke now my Answere to the same The Answere I answere first that the Marriage of Priestes is onely prohibited by the Law of man and not by any positiue Constitution either of Christ or his Apostles This I haue prooued in the 4. Proposition by the flat testimonie of many famous Popish Writers yea out of the Popes owne Decrees Read the Proposition to the end and marke it seriously Secondly that it was euer lawfull for Priestes in the East Church to be Married and to beget children in time of their Priesthood This trueth is cleared in the fift Proposition euen out of the Popes owne Decrees Thirdly that it was lawfull in the West Church for Priestes to be Married for the space of one thousand yeares after Christ This is made euident in the sixt and seuenth Propositions Fourthly that Secular Priestes are not Votaries and that therefore their Marriage is lawfull This trueth is soundly prooued in the 8. and 9. Propositions Let them be well marked Fiftly that the Marriage of Priestes is their owne proper right and that therefore restitution must be made for taking the same away This trueth is prooued in the 12. Proposition and it striketh dead Now seeing first that no positiue Constitution against Priestes Marriage can truely be deriued either from Christ or his Apostles seeing secondly that it was euer lawfull for Priestes in the East Church to be Married seeing thirdly that it was lawfull for Priestes euen in the West Church to Marrie euery where for the space almost of 400. yeares and in Germanie aboue a thousand yeares after Christ seeing fourthly that Secular Priestes are no Votaries seeing fiftly that the Pope is bound to Restitution for taking away of Priestes Marriage I must perforce conclude against our Iesuite that the Tradition which Socrates and Sozomenus speake of was neither Generall nor Diuine howsoeuer Paphuntius alleadged it so to mittigate the rigorous and seuere Lawes intended by the Councell I prooue it by a double argument First because if there had been any such Tradition generall or diuine the Greekes could not be excused who neuer yeelded therevnto Secondly because so many Learned Papistes doe constantly affirme and teach that neither Christ nor his Apostles made any Law against Priestes Marriage To which I must needes adde that if there had been any such Tradition receiued either from Christ or his Apostles neither would holy Paphuntius haue pleaded against it neither yet the famous Councell haue yeelded to him in that behalfe But the Councell of Carthage will some say maketh mention of Apostolicall tradition to the same effect I answere with the Popes owne deare Glosse vpon his Decrees in these expresse wordes Ergo Apostoli dâ—cuerunt exemplo et admonitione non institutione vel constitutione Therefore the Apostles taught it by example and admonition and not by any Law or Constitution But how by Admonition and Example did the Apostles teach the single life of Priestes S. Paul albeit he were some time a marryed-man as S. Clement very probably deduceth out of the holy Scriptures yet did he after that liue a single life and withall exhorted others that had the gift to liue as he did But here three things must seriously be obserued First that th' Apostle wished Lay-men aswell as he did Ecclesiasticall persons
the matter Yet such a Booke I neuer saw to this day neither can I learne that any other hath seene the same But more hereof to speake fitter occasion will be offered hereafter And if I liue to see such a Booke extant it shall not God willing be long vnanswered Thirdly that I prooued it in the Tryall euen in this very Chapter to be a very rotten Ragge of the New religion And this I did performe in that place many wayes First by the expresse wordes of Syluester Pryeras a man so profound and learned that hee was by the Papistes surnamed Absolutus Theologus who constantly affirmeth that the Popes Pardons were neuer knowne to vs neither by the Scriptures nor yet by the auncient Fathers but onely by the late Writers Loe the Popes Pardons are so new that neither the Holy Scriptures nor yet the old Fathers knew them but the late Writers onely Ergo they must needes be Ragges of a New Religion How can the Fryer denie this withoutblushing His owne conscience accuseth him Hee can not tell doubtles what in the world to say or thinke Hee seeth euidently that Poperie is prooued the New Religion Hee perceiueth right well that hee is not able with all the helpe of his best friendes to defend the Pope from vtter shame Secondly by the flat testimonie of the Popish canonized Saint Antoninus sometime Archbyshop of the famous Citie of Florence who deliuereth the selfe same Doctrine that Syluester did Thirdly by the Doctrine of Petrus Lombardus their famous Maister of Sentences who though he with great diligence collected into one Volume all the worthy Sentences of the old Fathers could neuer for all that find the Popes Pardons or any mention thereof in any of their Writinges For as Syluester and Antoninus truely write the Old Writers were not acquainted with any such thing Fourthly by the free confession of M. Fisher that famous Popish so supposed Martir sometime Byshop of Rochester in noble England who in his Answere to M. Luthers Articles was enforced to admit the Newnes of the Popes Pardons To all which and much more plainely set downe in the Tryall our Iesuite sayth not one word Hee was so frighted forsooth with the Conclusion that hee durst not once touch the Premisses but passing them ouer in deepe silence hee curâ—alleth the Ergo and seuereth it from the Consequent because it did connotate plainely lay open to the Reader that the Premisses went before I wish the Reader to peruse the Tryall that so hee may see the coozening trickes of the proud Fryer Marke the Complement following The Complement of this Chapter FOr the better instruction of the Christian Reader and the vtter confusion of our Fryer and of all other Fryers Jesuites and Iesuited Popelinges let vs seriously ponder and constantly remember that there be two kindes of Pardons Th' one De pamtentijs iniunctis th' other Dâ—remissione peccatorum Concerning the former kinde which were onely relaxations or mittigations of Discipline and Canonicall Penance inioyned by the Church I graunt very willingly that in the primatiue and auncient succeding Churches they were very frequent and vsuall For in those dayes and ages such as were notorious offendours and had giuen publike scandall to the Church were enioyned by the Church to doe publique penaunce for their publique faultes before they could be admitted into the Church againe Which godly Discipline is this day obserued God be thanked for it in all particular Churches throughout this Realme of noble England Yea in the auncient Churches many yeares of penaunce or publique exercises of humiliation were ordained for euery publique grieuous Offence Wherevpon it came that when many penitent persons gaue euident signes of true internall remorse for their former scandalous conuersation then the Church thought good to giue to such penitent persons some relaxation of their so inioyned publique penaunce Which kind of Pardons the famous Councell of Nice of Arles of Ancyra and others did vsually giue to penitent persons Of which manner of pardoning the auncient Fathers Tertullianus Cyprianus Jrenaeus Eusebius Sozomenus and others doe often make relation But concerning the latter kind of late Popish Pardons that is of applying to whom they list and when they list aswell to the liuing as to the dead the Merites of Christ and of his Saintes as condigne satisfaction for their Sinnes no Scripture no Councell no Father no auncient approoued Historiographer maketh any mention at all Which trueth I haue so plainely prooued in my Booke of Motiues as no Papist in Europe is able to answere the same The Booke hath been extant in print now 15. whole yeares and to this day no answere though often promised will appeare But let our Iesuite proceed in his wonted maner B. C. I will adde one testimonie more of our Enemies the Waldenses who appeared to the world about the yeare 1270. as testifieth Claudius Cussordius and Guido one of whose Hereâ—â—es was against the Popes Pardons as is most certaine and Kemnitius confesseth which argueth that Parâ—ons were long in vse before the yeare 1300. And therefore be it knowen to Bell that he hath runge out a notorious vntrueth T. B. I answeare first that Waldenses appeared to the world one hundred yeares before the time our Fryer nameth viz. about the yeare 1169. and so hath hee in this poynt runge one notorious vntrueth though but a very small one in respect of his other manifold and most impudent lyes Secondly that Chemnitius doth not confesse as our Fryer impudently affirmeth But wisemen may and will beleeue him at leasure seeing hee referreth them for the proofe to his inuisible Booke The dolefull Knell For I protest to all the world that I can neither see it nor find out any man who hath seene that same Booke And therefore I haue great reason to thinke that no such Booke is extant in deed especially because the Iesuites haue long sithence and many times affirmed both in wordes and writinges that my Motiues and Suruay were answered which for all that was such a notorious lye as the sayd Bookes remayne to this day vnanswered insomuch as some of their dearest and most deuoted vassals are ashamed of their sylence in that behalfe and beginne to stagger and to doubt of the Popish Fayth and Religion My Motiues were printed in the yeare 1593. And my Suruay of Poperie in the yeare 1596. So as the Jesuites haue had the former in their handes now 15. yeares fully compleate and the latter 12. yeares with the vantage of a large assisse But more of this subiect in the 9. Chapter following God willing toward the end of the same Thirdly that our Fryers two Witnesses Guide and Cussordius are in honestie and credite comparable to himselfe base fellowes men of no reputation Knightes of the Post who will say or sweare any thing for the Popes pleasure Fourthly that where our Fryer sayth without
it is alreadie prooued in the third Conclusion To which I adde that the holy Fathers when they speake of Venial sinnes doe euer vnderstand Small sinnes respectiuely In which sense my selfe do willingly admit Veniall sinnes as also sinnes Veniall by the mercie of God But withall I wish the Reader euer to remember what Gersonus Almaynus Baius Durandus and Roffensis teach vs viz. that euery least Sinne is Mortall of it owne nature which is the flat Doctrine I heere defend Thirdly that the difference amongst the Learned Popish Doctors concerning Veniall sinnes is a matter of small importance which I exhort the Christian reader in the bowels of our sweete Redeemer neuer to forget For it doth plainely conuince if nothing else could be sayd in that behalfe that Poperie is the New religion What is Popish fayth a matter of Small moment Is it not necessarie to saluation If the Pope will say it I am ready to confirme it Roffensis Baius Almaynus Durandus and Gersonus all being both learned and zealous Papistes affirme constantly the force of trueth compelling them that euery Sinne is Mortall of it owne nature Contrariwise the Pope his Jesuites and Jesuited vassals affirme teach and beleeue as an Article of Popish Fayth that many Sinnes are Veniall euen of their owne nature This notwithstanding our Jesuite telleth vs roundly though nothing Clerkly that the difference is but small So then Articles of Popish fayth are small or great as it pleaseth the Pope His bare Will as we haue heard and seene is a warrant sufficient in euery thing as who can change the nature of thinges if we will beleeue him and of nothing make some thing Fourthly that my selfe hold no Opinion teach no Article of Fayth defend no Position but such Opinions Positions and Articles as the best learned Papistes haue holden taught and defended before mee For my woonted maner euer hath been is and shall be to wound the Papistes with their owne Weapons and to conâ—ound the Pope with his best Learned Proctors B. C. This being so let vs consider what a notable vntrueth the Minister offereth to the view of his Readers when he sayth Almaynus Durandus Gerson Baius and other famous Papistes not able to answere the reasons against Veniall sinnes confesse the trueth with the Byshop that euery Sinne is Mortall Hee doth cunningly abuse them in leauing out those wordes of it owne nature which ought to be added after their opinion and himselfe likewise doth adde in citing of Roffensis immediately before T. B. I answere first that the vntrueth our Fryer speaketh of proceedeth from his owne lying lippes as by and by it will appeare Secondly that our Fryer doth falsely peeuishly vnchristianly and impudently abuse both his Reader and mee when he chargeth me to abuse my Authors in leauing out their wordes What wordes sir Fryer haue I left out These wordes forsooth of it owne nature sayth our Iesuiticall Fryer O malitious Jesuite Where is thine Honestie where is thy Christianitie where is thy Fayth where is thy Conscience Art thou become a flat Atheist art thou at defiance with true dealing Thou seemes to make thy soule saleable for the Popes pleasure Doth not thine owne Penne condemne thee when thou grauntes that I added the same wordes in citing of Roffensis immediatly before Let the indifferent Reader be an indifferent Iudge betweene vs. I added the wordes immediatly before as our Fryer truely sayth it therefore had been an irkesome tantologie to cite them againe in the next wordes following especially seeing I affirme the Popish Doctors Almaynus Durandus Gersonus and Baius to hold and defend the selfe same opinion that Byshoppe Fisher affirmeth to be the trueth Againe the Controuersie consisteth precisely in this speciall poynt viz. Whether euery sinne be Mortall of it owne nature or no. I defende the affirmatiue the Iesuite the negatiue And consequently I must perforce speake of Sinnes as they are in their owne nature O worthy defender of late start-vp Poperie Thou perceiuest right well that Poperie is the New religion indeed and not able to withstand the truth nor to answere mine inuincible reasons and groundes Thou fleest from that which is in question to impertinent extrauagant and friuolous cauils so to dazell the eyes of thy Readers least they behold the newnesse of late Romish Religion Out vpon such beggerly Religion as which can not be defended but by cauils coozenage lying and deceitfull dealing B. C. After this vntrueth immediatly followeth another Yea the Jesuite S. R. quoth hee with the aduice of his best Learned friendes in his answere to the Downefall of Poperie confesseth plainely and blusheth not thereat that the Church of Rome had not defined some sinnes to be Veniall vntill the dayes of Pius the fift and Gregorie the 13. which was not fiftie yeares agoe In which wordes he blusheth neuer a whit to slaunder that Learned man and wholly to corrupt his meaning Hee sayth not that the Church of Rome had not defined some sinnes to be Venial vntill the dayes of Pius the fift and Gregorie the 13. as this licentious cast-away corruptly fathereth vpon him For he knew well that to beleeue Veniall sinnes was an Article long receiued before the times of those Popes But he affirmeth onely that to hold Veniall sinnes onely to be such by the mercie of God was censured and condemned by those Popes Why did Sir Thomas his sinceritie cut away these wordes by the mercie of God Forsooth because that without lying and corruption he can obiect nothing against Catholike doctrine T. B. I answere first that our impudent Fryer lyeth egregiously when he chargeth mee to slaunder S. R. his learned Brother For vpon my saluation I auerre it I deale christianly honestly and sincerely I neuer change adde or take away any one iote of that which I finde in mine Authors Would to God our Iesuites did so deale with mee Secondly our Fryer lyeth impudently when he vttereth these wordes Hee sayth not that the Church of Rome had not defined some sinnes to be Veniall vntill the dayes of Pius the fift and Gregorie the thirteenth For these are S. R. his expresse wordes True it is that Byshoppe Fisher and Gerson were in that errour but that was both before it was condemned in the Church as it was since by Pius the fift and Gregorie the thirteenth In which wordes the Jesuite S. R. telleth vs two memorable poyntes of Doctrine Th' one that Fisher and Gerson were in an Errour Th' other that the Errour was before the Church had condemned it So it onely remaineth duely to examine what the supposed Errour was The Iesuite B. C. heere telleth vs plainely if wee may beleeue him that the Popes Pius and Gregorius condemned that opinion onely which holdeth Venial sinnes to be onely such by the mercie of God I admit the Assertion I like the Narration I onely reiect the Popes friuolous vnchristian and
euery whit God make mee this day and euer thankefull for it and for all other his manifold mercies and fauours towards me we all returned to the Colledge with great ioy and speed The Rector of the Colledge could no way be perswaded but that I had receiued some secret and inward mortall wound albeit neither my self felt any neither could their eyes or wits discerne any hurt at all saue onely that my face was something bloody by reason of the fall I got while perceiuing the imminent danger which afore I feared not I made haste to haue escaped from the same for it had neuer bin knowne or heard in Rome that any man woman or child euer escaped with life being once in that kinde of danger to wit in the curtesie of the furious and raging Buffaloes Many gaue their censures concerning the wonderfull fact and rare euent the generall resolution was this Viz. That J might fight with Buffaloes in England and haue the vpper hand My selfe did deeme their censure to be probable and this day me thinketh the same is brought to passe though Gods name bee blessed for it in the farre different sense and meaning from that which either they or my selfe did then imagine I sought God then but found him not because I sought him not in trueth and according to his holy will I thought then being blinded with late start-vp Poperie that I should fight against the true professours of Christes Ghospell whom I then reputed Heretiques and spirituall Buffaloes But our most mercifull God whose wisedome reacheth from end to end mightily and disposeth all thinges sweetly ordayned me in his eternall purpose a vosteriori hoc fa â—lè infertur to a farre more honorable and sacred Warfare viz. to encounter the trayterous Jesuâ—tes and â—esuited Gunpowder Popelinges valiantly to fight the battaile of Christes Church against those most furious brainelesse cruell Buffaloes of mens soules Whose legierdemaine coozenage periurie pride malice theft murders fraud feigned miracles and infinite cunnicatching trickes the gentle Reader may finde at large soundly prooued out of the Bookes which the Seminâ—rie-priestes haue published to the World in my Booke intituled The Anatomie of Popish tyrannie Which Booke whosoeuer shall with iudgement and a single eye peruse can not but perceiue the Jesuites to be Firebrands of all mischiefe and most vgly monsters of the World B. C. Not long after he hath these wordes For first it is a constant Maxime quoth he that the Pope and none but the Pope must iudge in all Controuersies of fayth and doctrine Nay it is rather a most constant Maxime that Bell seldome writeth any thing that is true False it is that the Pope and none but the Pope is the Iudge in all matters of Fayth and Doctrine For a generall Councell also is Iudge yea and by the opinion of many learned Diuines the Pope iudging alone without a generall Councell may erre T. B. I answere first that the Iesuite not able to answere the trueth by me soundly defended seeketh to get the victorie by crying out against the trueth This is cleare to euery iudicious Reader Secondly that our Fryer sayth truely That by the iudgement of many learned Papistes the Pope may erre without a generall Councell To this Doctrine I willingly subscribe as which is the very trueth that I defend For mine vsuall manner euer is in all my Bookes to confound Poperie with the best Lerned Popish Writers I hold and defende no point of doctrine but such onely as great learned Papistes hold and defend with me This my ioy this is my credite this the honour of the cause in hand that I constantly hold with the now Church of England euery Article of the old Romane Religion onely condemning and reiecting erroneous superstitious childish and ridiculous additamentes of late yeares by litle and litle crept into the Church Thirdly that I haue prooued so largely in the Downe-fall of Poperie that the Pope onely is the Iudge of all controuersies in Religion as to say more in that behalfe may be thought actum agere and a thing altogether needlesse Three thinges onely will I now poynt at referring the indifferent Reader for the proofe to the Downe-fall of Poperie The first is this viz that the Pope staying at home himselfe sendeth his Legates to the Councels to supply his place to whom for all that O monstrum horrendum he can not commit his Authoritie The second is this viz. that no Byshoppe in these our dayes can haue voyces in Councels but such as will sweare obedience to the Pope before their admittaunce and promise to defend his Canon Law The third is this viz. that it is not in Popish Councels as in humaine affayres and assemblies where moe voyces euer doe preuaile But all the force power strength and authoritie of Councels doe and must depend vpon the Popes will and pleasure For after the Fathers there haue fasted long prayed much consulted grauely deliberated maturely decreed constantly commaunded strictly and accursed seuerely neither can others nor yet them selues tell what shall be of force therein For all must be as shall best content the Popes humour sitting right stately in his pontificall Chaire at Rome To which I adde that the Pope abuseth the World shamefully when he taketh vpon him to call togeather all Byshoppes in the Christian world to decide and determine controuersies in Religion and for all that will approue nothing that they decree vnlesse the same be agreeable to that which himselfe decreeth alone in his pontificall Chaire at home As also in that he condemneth and reiecteth all Councels which doe not consent in all poyntes to his Legates who for all that must not yeeld to any thing which swarueth from their Charge and Commission receiued from the Popes mouth In which Charge this is euer the principall and maine poynt that they suffer not the Popes Superroyall power and falsely pretended Prerogatiues of the Church of Rome to be any way abased or gainesayd This Addition hath a double Confirmation at hand th' one from the Rhemistes th' other from S. R. that great learned Iesuite The Rhemistes tell vs roundly blush neuer a whit thereat that generall Councels are not needfull saue onely for the better contentation of the weake people and their onely ground which they stand vpon is this viz. that the Pope is so diuinely priuileadged and assisted by the Holy Ghost as he can neuer erre iudicially in any matter of Fayth Which assertion if it were true as it is most false for which let the Christian reader duly peruse my Christian Dialogue there were no great need of Councels in very deed The Iesuiticall Fryer S. R. Robert Parsons is the man telleth vs peremptorily that the Popes Sentence is the Decree of the Catholique Church These are his expresse wordes True it is that B. Fisher and Gerson were in that errour
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
which he would enforce me to giue howsoeuer he thinke to deceiue others with his palpable and grosse lying True it is that through the negligence of the Printer Compositor or Corrector whom in this kind of businesse I repute as one man the place out of Biel is quoted amisse Whereat the Fryer for want of other better matter thought it his best course to wrangle and cauill albeit he knew right well as is already prooued that in The wofull cry of Rome the wordes are sincerely cited and the place truly quoted Which is an insoluble argument that our Iesuite hath a cauterized Conscience and is in semblance much like to Knightes of the Post. B. C. An other thing heere accurreth worth the noting Bell citeth in the Pamphlet of his Wofull cry as Gabriels wordes those which be not his but rather Holcots though alleadged by Gabriel which also he doth interpret to a good sense as before was sayd T. B. I answere first that as the wordes are Holcots by inuention so are they Gabriels by approbation And consequently that Holcot an other learned Papist doth oppose himselfe against the Worshippe done to Images Secondly that Gabriel hath affirmed very resolutely that Images are neither to be worshipped as Wood nor yet as they be Images that is no way at all as we haue alreadie heard A litle after that same Gabriel propoundeth the Question if that act by which one is carried to the Image ought to be called Adoration To which he answereth in these wordes Dicitur quod est adoratio analogicè et impropriè non auteÌ„ propriè quoniam est respectu creaturae I answere that it is called Adoration analogically and improperly but not properly because it is in respect of a creature And certes seeing he will haue all proper and true Worshippe to pertaine to God alone hee consequently auoucheth that no true Worshippe is or can be giuen to any Image whatsoeuer Thirdly that Gabriel citeth Damascenus for the same end and purpose These are his expresse wordes Quia non omnes noscunt literas neque lectioni vacant patres excogitauerunt velut quosdam triumphos in imaginibus hoc describere ad velocem memoriam Quapropter multoties non secundum montem habentes Domini passionem imaginem crucifixtionis Christi videntes et in salutaris passionis memoriam venientes procidentes adoramus Christum Ecce dicit Christum adorari ad inspectionem imaginum ducentium in notitiam rememoratinam Christi Because all can not read neither haue all leasure to read the Fathers haue inuented as it were certaine triumphes to describe this in Images for the speedy helpe of Memorie Wherefore not hauing often times in minde our Lordes Passion when we behold the Image of Christ crucified remembring his healthfull Passion we falling prostrate doe adore Christ. Behold Damascene sayth that wee adore Christ when we behold his Image bringing him to our remembrance Thus writeth Biel out of Damascene So then albeit the best learned Papistes do not denie Christ to be adored before his Image yet will they by no meanes graunt or allow the Image itselfe to be adored B. C. What hath Bell got by vouching the authoritie of S. Gregorie About the retayning of Images in Churches he is directly against him as he can not deny Concerning their Adoration also he nothing helpeth him but teacheth that which nothing pleaseth his reformed spirit and therefore true it is not that he reprooued the Worshippe done to Images as Bell affirmeth T. B. I answere first that notorious lying is our Jesuites vsuall occupation For I am so farre from condemning simply and absolutely the making and retayning of Images for ciuill vse that I haue plainely expressely written in defence thereof constantly affirming the same not to be prohibited by the word of God Hee that shall duely peruse my Suruey of Poperie can not stand in doubt thereof And consequently our Fryer knowing that Booke right well to his griefe and sorrow prooueth himselfe to haue deserued the Whetstone to be hanged about his necke for lying Secondly that our Fryer belyeth both S. Gregorie and my selfe while he impudently denyeth that Gregorie reprooued the Worshipping of Images These are his expresse wordes Et quidem zelum vâ—s ne quid manu factum adorari possit habuisse laudauimus sed frangere casdem Imagines non debuisse iudicamus Sequitur tua ergo fraternitas et illas scruare et ab earum cultu populum prohibere debuit Wee truely commende you as hauing had zeale therein least any thing made with handes should be adored yet doe I iudge that you shouâ—d not haue broken the same Images Therefore your brotherhood should both haue kept them whole and also haue forbidden the people to adore them Thus discourseth Pope Gregorie Out of whose wordes I obserue these golden Lessons First that Images may not be worshipped Secondly that it is the duety of Byshoppes to forbid the people to worshippe them Thirdly that Gregorie commended the zeale of the good Byshoppe Serenus who breaketh Images in peeces which the people worshipped Fourthly that though Images were in those dayes permitted for instruction sake yet were the people neuer permitted to Worshippe them but euer sharpely reprooued in that behalfe This is the trueth concerning Gregorie and Serenus Serenus thought it time to breake the Images when the people began to adore them Gregorie thought they might still remaine in the Church so the people were instructed how to vse them and prohibited to Worshippe them And of his opinion are some reformed Churches in this age who still retaine Images in their Temples I neither dare condemne those who still keepe them in their Churches or Temples nor yet those who haue abolished the same But this I boldly auouch that Serenus had for his example both the fact of the good King Ezechias who brake in peeces the Brazen Serpent when the people began to adore it albeit God himselfe had commaunded to set it vp and also the practise of S. Epiphanius who seeing the Image of a Saint hanging in the Church tore the same asunder and aduised the Wardens to bury some poore body with the Vaile and to see that thencefoorth no such Vailes should be hanged vp in the Church These are the expresse wordes of S. Epiphanius translated by S. Hierome out of Greeke into the Latine tongue Inueni ibi velum pendens in foribus ciusdem Ecclesia tinctum atque depictum et habens Imaginem quasi Christi vel sancti cuiusdam Non. N. satis memini cuius Imago fuerit Cum ergo hoc vidissem in Ecclesia Christi contra authoritatem scripturarum hominis pendere imaginem scidi illud et magis dedi consilium custodibus eiusdem loci vt pauperem mortuum eo obuoluerent et efferrent Sequitur Et precor deinceps praecipere in Ecclesia Christi istiusmodi vela quae contra religionem nostram veniunt non appendi I found there
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
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
ChristiaÌ„ Dialogue pag. 17.19 A.D. 1415. The Fryer killeth himselfe with his owne sword Note well the answere This is veriâ—â—ed in the Gun-powder Iesuited vassals Marke well this answere See my Anatomie where this is plainely prooued A.D. 1415. O new borne Popery where is thy mother where is thy Godfather where is thy christianitie None euer heard of thee for the space of 1414. yeares after Christ. A generall Councell is aboue the Pope Gers. in Serm. coram concil Const. V prim part Gers. prim part in tract de appellat a Papa circa med Gers. vbi supr in 2. propos Gers. in serm coram Concil Const. K. prim part To this doctrine I willingly agree See my Anatomy pag. 137. All Papistes are Heretikes Rhem. in 16. Mat. 22. Luk. 15. Act. 18. All Papistes are Heretikes Rhem. in 15. Act. v. 28. ex Aug. libr. 2. de baptis cap. 4. Florint Cypriauâ—â— A.D. 250. Aug. A.D. 419. Marke well this poynt Supr cap. 2. prope finem The old Romane religion was the true Catholique Church The Papistes are the deformed and wee the reformed Catholiques in very deed B.C. pag. 136. All this is true but nothing to the purpose B.C. page 138. The Iesuite is full of vanitie and lying Marke well the answere B·C. page 136. See the Regiment cap. 14. page 183 184.185.187 170.166.200 128.125.155.119 Act. 19. v. 24.25 Marke well this poynt The right end is edification 1. Cor. 14 v. 14. v. 26.16 See and note my Regiment pag. 183.185.200.198.199 1. Cor. 14. v. 27.40 Marke well gentle reader B.C. pag. 135. Beda lib. 2. hist. cap. 2. Super cap. 16. note the chapter well Aug. confess lib. 1 cap. 14. de doctr Christ. lib. 2. cap. 13. de Catechi rud cap. 9. et in Psal. 123.128 Foolish zeale doth much hurt to the Church 1. Cor. 14. v. 26 1. Cor. 14. per totum V. 8. V. 9. V. 11. V. 13. V. 14. Chrysost. in 1. Cor. hom 35. Theodoretus in 1. Cor. 14. Phoâ—ius ibideÌ„ V. 16. V. 19. V. 26. Suruey part 3. cap. 10. pag. 477. Lyran. in 1. Cor. 14. Basill in ep ad cler Neocaesar ep 62. Rhem. in 1 Cor. 14. v. 14. Marke well this answere V. 15. Mat. 15. v. 8. V. 13. et V. 28. Chrysost. in 1. Cor. hem 35. Loe S. Chrysostome doth very sharply reprooue them that haue the diuine Seruice in a tongue vnknowne Conc. Later sub Innoc. 3. cap 9. A.D. 1215. See Suruey et supra cap. 23. 1. Cor. 14. v. 26.40 Things good in their owne nature are prophaned in the popish Masse None but popish Priestes may say Dominus vobiscuÌ„ Popish Deacons may not say The Lord be with you 1. Cor. 14. v. 16.40 B.C. page 140. Marke well this reduplication Mat. 26.27 Mar. 14.22 Luke 22.19 1. Cor. 11.24 Math. 26.27 Luk. 22.19 Masse and Communion are all one in the true sense and meaning Confirmatio prima Ioseph Angles in 4. sentent part 1 p. 102. Marke the vncertaintie of popish Consecration Confirm 2. Sot apud Angels in 4. s. p. 102. Ios. Angl. in 4. s. p. 103. Apud 10. Angl. in 4. s. p. 144. Iosep. Angles vbi supra Angl. vbi supra p. 105. Mat. 26.27 Mar. 14.22 Luk. 22.19 1. Cor. 11.24 Quartò prinâ—ipaliter Deut. 4.2 Deut. 5.32 Deut. 12.32 Reuel 22.18 1. Cor. 14. v. 27. 1. Sam. 5.2 See my Suruey the Downefall the Iesuites Antepast 1. Cor. 10.31 Rom. 16.27 Ier. 9.24 Psal. 115.1 Gal. 1.5 Ephes. 1.12 B.C. pag. 140. Accidens potest adesse et abesse citra subiecti interitum Apud Ioseph Angles in 4 â— part 1. pag. 151. Act. 3.11 Chistes be dyâ— flesh blood bones in the popish Masse Ios. Angl. in 4. s. part 1. pag. 104. concl 1. Loe Popish Masse is the New religion Ios. Angles vbi supra pag. 104. Ios. Angles vbisupra pag. 104. B.C. pag. 141. Our Church was stayned with many errors vntill the time of King Edward when it was restored to the auncienâ— puritie of Fayth and Doctrine Rom. 1.8 A.D. 179. Tertio principaliter See the ChristiaÌ„ Dialogue chap. 4. pag. 66 The Papistes can name no â—ote of the old Romane religion which is not still kept in our Church of England See marke well my Dialogue chapter 4. pag. 92. Apud Euseb. hist. lib. 3. cap. 32. Victor de potest Papae et coÌ„c rel 4. pag. 151. et paulaâ—â—m c. Io. Angles in 2. sent pag. 275. part 2. See S. R. pag. 281. et B.C. pag. 76. Polyd. lib. 4. cap. 9. pag. 39. Couaâ—ruu to 1. c. 20. part 11. in med col 1. Angl. in 4. s. p. 1. pag. 133. Conc. Later Sic enim Apostoli statuerunt et sancta Romana tenet Ecclesia Preface pag. 15. Chalenges doe occupie no place they are adiectiues which can not stand without subiectes The Author still so protesteth that he will performe his promise The Iesuite dareth not dispute and therefore requireth new conditions Preface pag. 18.
Ethnickes Publicanes vntill they giue true signes of vnfeyned repentance But withall this must euer be remembred and most loyalty obserued of all Byshoppes in Christes Church viz. That the Prince though full of manifest vices most notorious crimes in the world may neuer be shunned neither of the people nor yet of the Byshoppes The reason is at hand Because God hath appoynted him to be their Gouernour Much lesse may the people forsake their obedience to his sacred prerogatiue Royall and supereminent Power And least of all for it is most execrable damnable and plaine diabolicall may either the people alone or the Byshoppes alone or both ioyntly togeather depose their vndoubted Soueraigne though a Tyrant Heretique or Apostatate for euen in that case all loyall obedience and faythfull seruice in all ciuill affayres and whatsoeuer else is lawfull must of duetie be yeeled vnto them Hee may be admonished by Gods true Ministers in the pulpit court of Conscience if his vices be publike scandalous to the Church but he may neuer be iudged in the court of their Consistorie touching his power Royall and Princely prerogatiue Their power is onely to admonish and rebuke him and to pray to God to amende what is amisse Hee hath no Iudge that can punish him but the great Iudge of all euen the God of Heauen The popish Cardinall Hugo deliuereth this most Christian doctrine though to the vtter confusion of the Pope Tibi soli quia non est super me alius quam tu qui possit punire ego N. sum Rex et non est aliquis preter te super me To thee onely sayth Cardinall Hugo because there is not any aboue mee but thy selfe alone that hath power to punish mee for I am a King and so besides thee there is none aboue mee And the popish Glosse doth giue this sense meaning of the Prophets words Rex omnibus superior tantum a Deo puniendus est The King is aboue all and he can be punished of none but of God alone But for a larger Discourse of this Subiect I referre the Reader to the Downefall of Poperie Thirdly that no Minister may admit any impenitent Person knowne to be such no not him that weareth the Golden Crowne vnto the Holy mysteries for otherwise that Minister should sinne damnably as partaker of his sinne yea the holy Canons of our English Church doe flatly prohibit the same Fourthly that our Iesuite doth shew himselfe to be a sillie disputer while he argueth the defect of power Royall for that the King in some respect is as it were subiect to the Minister For I pray your worship good sir Fryer doth not your Pope himselfe fall downe prostrate before the feete of a silly Minister or Priest when he confesseth his sinnes vnto him Doth he not humbly submitte himselfe vnto the same sillie Priest Is not the sillie Priestes power aboue the Popes while he absolueth the Pope from his sinnes Is not the sillie Priestes Power aboue the Popes while he inioyneth Penance to the Pope I wote he is though not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and absolutely yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in some respect or sort If any Papist shall this deny I can prooue by his Popish denyall all their Popes to perish euerlastingly B. C. S. Cyprian opposing himselfe against the Pope doth nothing preiudice the Authoritie of the Pope For albeit the Pope commaunded Rebaptization not to be practised yet did he not define the question or pronounce any censure against Cyprian or others of his opinion much lesse was it condemned by a generall Councell with reason S. Augustine bringeth in his defence and so it was free for him without daunger of Heresie to persist in his owne opinion T. B. I answere first that though Cornelius then Byshoppe of Rome togeather with the whole nationall Synode of all the Byshops of Jtaly had made a flatte decree touching Rebaptization and though also Pope Stephanus had confirmed the same Decree straightly commaunding to obserue the same and though thirdly our Papistes of late dayes doe obstinately affirme that their Pope can not erre when he defineth iudicially yet this notwithstanding S. Cyprian teacheth and telleth vs plainely that in his dayes the Byshoppe of Rome had no such Power or preheminent prerogatiues as hee this day proudly and Antichristianly taketh vpon him For hee roundly withstood the Decree of Pope Stephanus who then was Byshoppe of Rome and both sharply reprooued him and contemned his falsely pretended Primacie And for all that S. Cyprian was euer reputed an Holy Byshoppe in his life time and a glorious Martir being dead But if the Byshoppe of Rome had been Christes Vicar and so priuiledged as our Papistes beare the world in hand hee is then doubtlesse S. Cyprian must needes haue been an Heretike and so reputed and esteemed in the Church of God Yea if any Christian shall this day doe or affirme as S. Cyprian did or publikely deny the Popes falsely pretended Primacie in any place countrey territories or dominions where Poperie beareth the sway then without all peraduenture hee must be burnt at a Stake with Fire and Faggot for his paines Of which Subiect the Reader may find a larger Discourse in my Christian Dialogue Secondly that while S. Austen sayth that S. Cyprian would haue yeelded to the Decree of a generall Councell albeit he made no reckoning of the Popes Decree euen ioyned with the nationall Synode of all the Bishoppes of Jtaly hee giueth vs to vnderstande two memorable poyntes of Doctrine which I wish the Reader to obserue attentiuely Th' one that the Definitiue sentence of the Byshoppe of Rome is not infallible although he define ioyntly with an whole nationall Synode And consequently that his Definitiue sentence may much more be false and erroneous when he decreeth and defineth without a Councell For if S. Augustine had been of that minde that the Byshoppe of Rome could not haue erred in his Iudiciall and Definitiue sentence either apart or with a nationall Councell hee neither would nor could haue excused S. Cyprian who scorned and constantly refused to yeeld to the same Yea S. Cyprian himselfe would for his great pietie haue humbly yeelded to the Popes sentence if he had knowne him to haue receiued such a Priuiledge and Prerogatiue from Heauen But neither did the Byshoppe of Rome in those dayes stand vpon any such Prerogatiue of not erring neither did any learned Father of that age euer dreame of any such extraordinarie Priuiledge No no the most that the Byshoppes of Rome could say and alleadge for their falsely pretended Soueraigntie when S. Augustine and the other Fathers of the Aphrican Councell reiected and condemned appeales to Rome was onely this and no other thing viz. that the Fathers of the Nicene Councell had graunted such Priuiledge Primacie to the Church of Rome And therefore did S. Austen both grauely and prudently excuse S. Cyprian for