quoniam est pars satisfactionis aliter enim Ecclesia deciperet paenitenies Such a Fast he speaketh of the Fastes which Priestes enioyne is sacramentally really and properly satisfactorie The reason is because it is a part of satisfaction for otherwise the Church should deceiue the Penitentes In an other place the same Iosephus Angles hath these expresse wordes Ieiunium quadragesimale eo modo quo ab Ecclesia seruatur nes suit a Christo institutum neque ab eo iussum sed ab hominibus atque ita non est de iure diuino sed humano duntaxat Christus enim nec tempus talis ieiunij nec modum neque cibos instituit Statim enim post Baptismum in desertum secessit et illic ieiunauit Christus nullum diem a ieiunio excepit in illo quadragenario numero Ecclesia vero dies dominicos excipit Christus tunc semel nec pluries commedit neque bibit In Ecclesia vero vna refectio tantum est concessa et in potatione nulla est limitatio Quare cum nec verbo neque facto hoc ieiunium instituerit ab Ecclesia institutum erit The Lent-fast as the Church obserueth it was neither instituted of Christ nor of him commaunded but of men so as it is not stablished by Gods Law but by mans onely for Christ neither instituted the time of such a Fast nor the manner nor the Meates for so soone as he was Baptized he went into the Desart and fasted there Christ excepted no day from fasting in his Fast of Fourtie dayes but the Romish Church excepteth the Sundayes Christ neither eate nor dranke more then once but the Church graunteth Meate once a day and for drinking maketh no restraint Wherefore seeing Christ neither appoynted Lent-fast by word nor by deed it must be ordayned of the Church Where I may not forget to adde that the same Byshoppe Angles telleth vs in an other place that albeit the Apostles ordeyned Lent-fast yet may the Pope free deliuer whom he will from the keeping thereof And he yeeldeth this reason for the same Because forsooth the Pope hath as great Power in the gouernement of the Church as the Apostles had Thus disputeth our Popish Byshop telling vs plainely that Christ did not ordaine Lent-fast which he prooueth by many reasons As also that none are bound to Fast in Lent who haue gotten the Popes Dispensation to free them from it no not if the Apostles appoynted it Thirdly he graunteth freely that the Papistes Fast to satisfie God for their sinnes I therefore must perforce conclude that the Popish Lent-fast is a rotten ragge of the New religion The 29. Chapter of the annulling of Popish Wedlocke B. C. WHatsoeuer sayth Bell the Byshoppe of Rome holdeth and defineth that must euery Papist hold beleeue and maintaine as an Article of his Fayth Though generally all Catholiques doe hold the Popes Definitions to be infallible and the contrarie opinion to be erroneous ye is it not an Article of Fayth T. B. Whosoeuer shall seriously peruse my Tryall this Answere of the Jesuite to the same and this my Reply in defence of my Tryall can not but vnderstand that Poperie is meere foolerie and flatly opposite to the sacred Word of God This in briefe is my Answere First that albeit this Chapter being the 29. of my Tryall arguing against the annulling of Popish Wedlocke conteyne not fully 26. lynes yet is the Jesuite so afrayde with the plentifull matter soundly handled therein yet in briefe manner as he dareth not once touch or name the same for feare of burning him For proofe whereof I wish the indifferent Reader to peruse my Tryall of the New religion Secondly that it is most true that what the Pope defyneth that must euery Papist hold and beleeue as an Article of his Fayth I prooue it by many inuincible reasons Couarrunias a very famous popish Byshop and renowned Canonist hath these expresse wordes Nec me later D. Thomam praeuia maxima deliberatione asserere Rom. Pontificem non posse propria dispensatione continentiae solemne Monactiorum votum tollere Et Paulo Post. oportet tamen primam opinionem defendere ne quae passim fiant euertantur omnino Neither am I ignorant that S. Thomas the popish Angelicall Doctor whose Doctrine sundry Popes haue confirmed affirmeth after great deliberation that the Byshop of Rome can not with his Dispensation take away from Monkes their solemne Vow of Chastitie This notwithstanding we must defend the first opinion least those thinges which are practised euery where be vtterly ouerthrowë The Popish canonized Saint Antoninus and Syluester Prieras some time maister of the Popes sacred Pallace and for his great Learning surnamed Absolutus Theologus tell vs plainely and constantly that whatsoeuer the Pope doth whether we can prooue the same or no◠yet must we beleeue it to be so And which passeth all the rest yea which is woonderfull if not incredible to proceed from a Papistes mouth S. R. that Learned man as our Fryer B. C. tearmeth him hath these expresse wordes in his pretensed Answere to the Downe-fall of Poperie Because Byshoppes must not examine the Doctrine which the Pope deliuereth iudicially out of S. Peters Chaire as supreame Pastor of Gods Churth but onely that wherein he vttereth his owne priuate opinion Aquinas himselfe shall giue the vpshot of this game these are his expresse wordes Christus poterat relaxare ergo et Paulus potuit ergo et Papa potest qui non est minoris potestatis in Ecclesia quam Paulus fuit Christ could pardone therefore Paul could pardone therefore the Pope also can pardone as who is of no lesse or meaner Authoritie in the Church then Paul himselfe was Thirdly that seeing our Fryer graunteth all Papistes generally to hold the Popes Definitions to be infallible and the contrary Opinion to be erroneous he sheweth himselfe to be a very noddie and at a flat non-plus in denying the same to be an Article of Popish fayth I prooue it marke well my wordes by a triple Argument First because the Pope his Cardinals Iesuites and all popish Diuines can not but abound with falsehood deceite coozenage and fraudulent trickes of Legierdemaine if they teach the people to hold and receiue that as true Doctrine which themselues beleeue not to be so Secondly because the Pope his Cardinals Iesuites and all Papistes generally are bound to beleeue euery trueth agreeable to Gods word And consequently that either all Papistes beleeue the Popes Definitions to be infallible and the contrary opinion to be erroneous or else that the same is not a trueth agreeable to Gods word Thirdly that Poperie must perforce be a most miserable dangerous wretched damnable Religion if all Papistes generally hold that for an vndoubted Doctrine which is no part of their Fayth and Religion For all Iesuites and Iesuited Papistes hold that the Church is built vpon Peter
deteyned from them For while they gaue away their owne they vnawares and fondly deemed that they onely restored that which was not their owne in deed Instruction 8. The word Pope was not the proper and peculiar name to the Byshop of Rome for the space of 528. yeares after Christ. The Church of Rome was made the Head of all other Churches and the Byshops there the heads of all other Byshops by the imperiall constitution of Phocas 607. yeares after Christ. That the Pope could not erre iudicially was not authenticall in the Romish Church for 1500. yeares after Christ. That the Pope could vnmarrie persons lawfully married by Christes institution was neuer heard of in the Christian world vntill the yeare 1550. after Christ at which time Pope Iulius presumed to dissolue lawfull Matrimonie by his vnlawfull Dispensation It was neuer thought lawfull for the naturall Brother to marry his naturall Sister vntill the time of Pope Martin who by the instigation of the Diuell set the same abroach in the yeare 1418. after Christ. Popish Veniall sinnes were first hatched by Pope Pius 1566. yeares after Christ. That the Blood of popish Saints could worke mans redemptiō was neuer heard of for the space of 1161. yeares after Christ. The like may be sayd of many other Popish Articles for which I referre the Reader to my Tryall of the New Religion I deeme it enough for the present to insinuate to the Christian Reader that our Church hath onely abolished Superstition Errours and Heresies by litle and litle crept into the Church and doth still keepe all and euery iot of the Old Romane Fayth and Religion The Capucheenes at Rome did the like when they euen with the Popes good liking reformed the dissolute Franciscans Yea Pope Pius himselfe of late dayes did the like while he reformed the popish deformed missals and breuiaries in his late Councell gathered at Trent If hee that now is Byshop of Rome would reforme all the rest by abolishing all Nouelties by litle and litle brought into the Church as we haue done he should finde the remnant to be the Old Romane religion in verie deed Marke well the whole Discourse following where all this is soundly prooued as more cannot be wished The Contentes of the Chapters Chapter 1. Proouing THat the name and worde Pope was in the primatiue Church common to all Byshops aswell of Rome as else where That the Byshop of Rome neither is nor ought to be nor euer was called The vniuersall Byshop of the whole Church That the name Pope was not peculiar to the Bishops of Rome for more then 528. yeares after Christ. That the Iesuite volens nolens is enforced to graunt the same Chapter 2. Proouing That the Pope may not be controulled though he carry with him thousands vpon thousands into Hell That it is Sacriledge to dispute of the Popes power That the Pope with his Pardons can deliuer all soules out of Purgatory-fire That the Pope can dissolue that Matrimonie which is firme and stable by Christes institution That the Pope can dispense with the Brother to marrie his owne naturall Sister That the Pope hath as great power as Christ himselfe had on earth That the Pope may doe whatsoeuer pleaseth him That the Pope can make of nothing something That the counterfeit Donation of Constantine was the originall of all Popish superroyall power That whatsoeuer the Emperours of latter time gaue to the Church of Rome they were induced to do the same by the coozening trickes of the Byshops of Rome That the Popes Sozimus Bonefacius and Celestine falsified the Canons of the Nicene Councell so to aduance them-selues aboue all other Byshops That no Byshops nor Priestes ought to appeale to the Church of Rome That the Councell of Nice gaue the primacie of honour to the Church of Rome because it was the Seat of the Emperour and Caput Mundi That all Christians euen the Byshops of Rome are subiect to the Canons of the Nicene Councell That the Nicene Synode did confine and knit the iurisdiction of the Byshop of Rome Chapter 3. Proouing That Marriage of Priestes was euer lawfull during the time of the old Testament That the Marriage of Priestes is prohibited onely by the law of Man and not by any positiue constitution either of Christ or his Apostles That it was euer lawfull for the Byshops and Priestes of the east-East-church to marry and to beget children in time of their Priesthood That the Marriage of Priestes was euer lawfull also in the West-church vntill the time of Pope Siricius and in Germanie for the space of 1074. yeares after Christ. That all secular Priestes may Marry notwithstanding the Popish solemne Vow annexed That by Popish fayth and doctrine Marriage is of force after the single Vow of chastitie That the Vow single is of one and the same nature with the Vow solemne That the Marriage of Priestes is lawfull after the solemne Vow so it be done by the Popes Dispensation That the forced and coacted Chastitie of Priestes hath been so intollerable as nothing hath brought more shame to Priesthood more shame to Religion more griefe to godly men Chapter 4. Proouing That popish Pardons are neither found in the holy Scripture nor in the auncient Fathers That the popish Maister of sentences could finde no mention of them in the writinges of the holy Fathers That Byshoppe Fisher graunted the young age of late popish Pardons That the best learned Papistes are not able to defend the same Chapter 5. Proouing That the Greeke Church neuer beleeued Purgatorie That the Church of Rome beleeued it not for the space of 250. yeares That the Church of Rome beleeued it not all at once but by litle and litle That the inuention of Purgatorie was the birth of popish Pardons That the primatiue Church was neuer acquainted with the Popes Pardons nor yet with popish Purgatorie Chapter 6. Proouing That popish Auricular confession cannot be prooued out of the Old Testament That the New Testament doth not impose an heauier yoake vpon vs then did the Old That popish Auricular confession is not necessarie for mans saluation That it is neither commaunded by Christ nor yet by his Apostles That it is established by the meere law of man grounded only vpon a falsely imagined Apostolicall vnwritten tradition That it was not an Article of popish Fayth for the space of 1215. yeares after Christ. Chapter 7. Proouing That euery Sinne is Mortall of it owne nature That fiue famous popish Writers Roffensis Almaynus Bains Durandus Gersonus doe all confesse the same That the Jesuite S. R. graunteth freely that the Church of Rome had not defined some Sinnes to be Veniall vntill the dayes of Pius the fift which was not fiftie yeares agoe Chapter 8. Proouing That the Pope may erre both in Fayth and Doctrine iudicially That many Popes haue erred De facto That great learned Papistes did constantly confesse so
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
praecedenteÌ„ SynoduÌ„ Episcopos earuÌ„ haeresum conuocauit sequitur cum autem conuenissent accersito ad se Nectario Imperator cuÌ„ eo de futura Synodo coÌ„municat iubetque vt quaestiones ex quibus natae fuerant haereses in disputationeÌ„ proponat quo vna fieret in ChristuÌ„ credentiuÌ„ Ecclesia et constitueretur dogma consonuÌ„ ad quaÌ„ religio conformaretur The Emperour not long after the precedent Synode calleth the Byshops of those Heresies togeather When they were assembled the Emperour calleth Nectarius the Byshop of Constantinople to him and consulteth with him concerning the future Synode and coÌ„maundeth him to propound in disputation those questions from whence the Heresies did spring to the ende that there might be one Church of the faythfull a consonant rule of fayth which might be as a paterne of religion Sigâ—bertus a famous Popish Monke writeth in this manner Secunda Synodus vniuersalis 150. PatruÌ„ congregatur Constantinopoli iubente Theodosio et annuente Damaso Papa quae MacedoniuÌ„ neganteÌ„ spirituÌ„ sanctuÌ„ DeuÌ„ esse coÌ„demnans consubstantialeÌ„ patri et filio spirituÌ„ sanctuÌ„ esse docuit The second generall Councell of an hundred fiftie Byshops is assembled at Constantinople by the commaundement of Theodosius Damasus the Pope agreeing thereunto in which Synodâ— Macedonius who denied the Holy Ghost to be God was condemned and the consubstantiabilitie of the Holy Ghost with the Father and the Sonne was confirmed in the same Theodoretus is consonant and vttereth many worthy periods The fourth Section of the Councell of Ephesus The third generall Councell being the first Ephesiue of two hundred Byshoppes was proclaymed by the commaundement of the Emperour Theodosius the younger against Nestorius denying the virgin Mary to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and affirming Christ to haue persons twaine proouing that two natures did subsist in one onely person of Christ Jâ—sus in the yeare of our Lord God 433. Euagrius hath these wordes Cum ista Cyrillus venerandae memoriae Alexandrinorum Episcopus literis suis reprehendisset Nestorius vero reprehensioni illius restitisset et neque illius neque Celestini veteris Romae Episcopi monitis acquiauisset sed temulentiam suam aduersus vniuersam Ecclesiam nihil veritus effudisset haud praeter rationem a Theodosio iuniore Orientis Imperatore petijt vt ipsius nutu Synodus colligeretur Imperialibus itaque literis cum ad ipsum Cyrillum tum ad omnium vbique Ecclesiarum Episcopos missis ad sacrum Penticostes diem in quo venit ad nos spiritus S. Conuentus indicitur When Cyrillus the venerable Byshoppe of Alexandria had by his Letters reproued the wicked blasphemie of Nestorius and Nestorius had withstood the same neither yeelding to his admonition nor to Celestines the Byshop of old Rome but still malepertly powred out his drunken conceites against the whole Church then Cyrill not without cause requested the Emperour Theodosius the younger that by his authoritie a Synode might be called by the Letters therefore of the Emperour directed to Cyrill and to all other Byshops euery where the Synode is appoynted vpon the sacred day of Penticost at what time the Holy Ghost came downe vpon vs. Thus writeth this famous Historiographer Out of whose wordes I gather many worthy instructions First that neither Cyâ—illus the Byshoppe of Alexandria nor Celestinus the Byshoppe of Rome could by any meanes reclaime or diswade Nâ—storius from his cursed and blasphemous opinions Secondly that Cyrillus lamenting the harme that thereby did redound to the Church sought to the Emperour for redresse thereof humbly requesting him that a generall Councell might be gathered for the peace of the Church and for the condemnation of the Heresie of Nestorius Thirdly that Cyrillus that holy and learned Byshoppe who was reputed a Saint in his life-time did not make suite to the Byshoppe of Rome for calling of the Councell which doubtlesse he would haue done if the gathering of Councels had belonged vnto him Fourthly that S. Cyrill sought immediatly to the Emperour not once acquainting the Byshop of Rome therewith Fiftly that the Byshoppe of Rome himselfe was commaunded to come to the Synode euen in such sort as other Byshoppes were Which I prooue by a double meane First because the Storie sayth That the Emperour called omnium vbique Ecclesiarum Episcopos the Byshoppes of all Churches euery where Secondly because Nicephorus sayth that Celestinus the Byshoppe of Rome was absent but appoynted Cyrillus in his stead These are the words Celestinus autem Roma Episcopus propter nauigationis pericula Synodo adesse detrectauit ad Cyrillum tamen vt locum suum ibj obtineret scripsit But Celestine the Byshoppe of Rome was absent from the Synode by reason of the danger of Nauigation yet he wrote to Cyrillus that he might supply his place Touching the Popes absence from Councelles the Iesuiticall Cardinall Bellarmine giueth better and sounder reasons though vnawares both against the Pope himselfe which I willingly admit wishing the Reader to obserue and marke them seriously with mee as which are both memorable and of great consequence This Cardinall yeeldeth two reasons why the Pope was neuer present at Councels in the East-churches by himselfe and in his owne person the one forsooth because it was not conuenient that the Head should follow the members the other because the Emperour would euer sit in the highest place Out of whose wordes I must needes note two important poyntes by the way The one that in the auncient Church the highest place in Councels was euer reserued to the Emperour The other that the East-churches did neuer acknowledge the Popes Primacie which he this day arrogantly challengeth ouer all Kingdomes and Regalities To which twaine this pleasant adiunct must of necessitie be annexed viz. that our humble Father the Pope who hypocritically calleth himselfe seruus seruorum Dej would neuer come to Councels in the East partes because forsooth his charitie was so great that he could not endure to see the Emperour sitting in the highest place And it is not amisse for the benefite of the Reader if I heere adioyne the maner how the Emperour Constantine sate in the Councell of Nice Sozomenus that graue Historiographer who liued more then a thousand one hundred seuentie yeares agoe hath these wordes Congregatis itaque in vnum locum per medium sacerdotuÌ„ ad caput conuentus transeundo in throno quodam qui ipsi paratus erat confedit ac Synodus sedere iussa est Erant N. vtrinque ad parietes Palatij multa posita subsellia hic vero thronus maximus erat et reliquas sedes excellebat Therefore when the Byshoppes were come togeather the Emperour passing through the midst of them to the head of the assembly sate downe in a Throne prepared for him and willed the Byshops to sit downe There were many Seates on both sides to the walles of the Pallace but the Emperours
was the chiefe and surmounted all the rest Cassiodorus hath these wordes Non multo post tempore iussio principis Episcopos vndique Ephesum conuenire praecepit No long time after the commaundement of the Emperour charged the Byshops to come from euery place to Ephesus Nicephorus writeth thus Theodosius Imperialibus literis in metropoli Epheso locorum omnium Episcopos conuenire iussit sacram Pentecostes diem qua conuenirent constituens Theodosius by vertue of his Emperiall Letters commaunded the Byshops in all places to come to the Metropolitane Church of Ephesus designing the holy Feast of Pentecost for the day In which assertion two thinges are to be marked Th' one that the Byshops come togeather at the Emperours commaundement Th' other that the Emperour appoynted both the place and the time of their meeting Sigebertus hath these wordes Tertia Synodus vniuersalis Ephesina prima ducentorum Episcoporum iussu Theodosij iunioris Augusti aedita est The third vniuersall Synode of two hundred Byshoppes was celebrated at Ephesus by the commaundement of the Emperour Theodosius the younger Loe euery Historiographer relateth the Emperours Commaundement but no mention is made of the Pope at all The fift Section of the Councell of Chalcedon The fourth generall Councell of Chalcedon of sixe hundred and thirtie Byshops against Eutyches for denying two natures in Christ after his humane assumption although he graunted him to haue had two Natures before the hypostaticall vnion was celebrated by the commaundement of the Emperour Martianus in the yeare 454 after Christ. Nuephorus hath these expresse wordes Earum rerum gratia Imperatorum literis locorum omnium Episcopis conuocatis Synodus Chalcedone est coacta quae quidem primum Nicaeae conuenerat quo etiam Romanae vrbis Episcopus Leo per Pascasini et Lucentij et aliorum Ministerium liter as miserat sed ea Chalcedonem Bythyniae est translata quod Imperator ipse Synodo ei adesse vellet magnum Constantinum imitatus In regard of these matters a Councell was gathered at Chalâ—edon and all Byshoppes sent for thither by force of the Emperours Letters which Synode at the first was assembled at Nice whither Leo the Byshoppe of the Citie of Rome sent Letters by Pascasinus Lucentius and others but it was remooued thence to Chalcedon in Bithyniae that the Emperour might be present at the Synode after the example of Constantine the great Thus writeth Nicephorus a man greatly deuoted to the Pope Out of whose wordes I note these memorable poyntes First that the Councell was assembled by the commandement of the Emperour Secondly that the Emperour appoynted where the Synode should be kept Thirdly that the Emperour translated it to Chalcedon at his owne good pleasure Fourthly that Leo is barely tearmed the Bishop of the Citie of Rome neither the Vniuersall Patriarch nor Byshopp of the Whole World Sigebertus is consonant to Nicephorus his wordes are these Instantia Leonis Papae iubente Jmperatore Martiano congregata et habita est quarta vniuersalis Synodus sexcentorum et triginta Episcoporum apud Chalcedonem The fourth generall Councell of sixe hundreth and thirtie Byshoppes was holden at Chalcedon by the commaundement of the Emperour Martian at the request of Pope Leo. Thus writeth Sigebertus the Popes owne deare Monke who was willing euery way to aduance the Pope so farre as might stand with the trueth And yet he telleth vs plainely concerning the assemblies of Byshoppes in Councelles that the Pope could onely request and that to commaund the same was in the Emperours power Euagrius in his Historie in the second Chapter and second Booke teacheth the selfe same veritie To be briefe Pope Leo in his Epistle to the Emperour Theodosius togeather with the whole Synode make humble suite vnto him to commaunde a Generall Councell within Italy his wordes and the whole Synodes are verbatim set downe in the first Aphorisme aforegoing But doubtlesse if the gathering and confirming of Councels belonged to the Byshoppe of Rome neither would the Pope nor the Romish Synode haue made suite to the Emperour in that behalfe especially for a Councell to be kept in Italy where the Popes now a dayes challenge all power both Ecclesiasticall and Secular To which I adde that the Emperours for the space of more then 450. yeares after Christ confirmed the Councels with their royall edicts This is so liuely set downe before our eyes in the most honourable fact of the Noble Spanish King Reccaredus as it is able to penetrate the very heart and throughly to perswade euery one that shall seriously ponder the same and in the feare of God This religious King Reccaredus in the yeare of our Lord God 585. commaunded all the Byshoppes within his dominions of Spaine and Gallicia being 72. in all to come togeather in his royall Citie of Toledo there to confute and condemne the Arian heresie When they were come thither the King sate downe in the middest of them and declared the cause that moued him to sende for them After that he enacted a publike Edict for the inuiolable obseruation of all the Decrees of the Councell straightly charging as well the Clergie as the Laytie to obey and keepe the same Lastly he subscribed his owne name and that before all the Byshoppes who in their due places subscribed after the King These are the expresse wordes of the Kinges subscription set downe in the end of the sayd Edict Flauius Reccaredus rex hanc deliberationem quaÌ„ cum sancta definiuimus Synodo confirmans subscripsi I Flamus Reccaredus the King confirming this Consultation which we haue defined with the holy Synode haue subscribed thereunto The next that subscribed after the King was Mausona the Metropolitane in the Prouince of Lusitania after him subscribed Euphemius the Arch-byshop of Toledo The residue followed in order as in the second Tome of Councels is to be seene These particular subscriptions I note as a matter of great moment against the Papists who will graunt no Prerogatiue or Royall place to Kinges in time of Ecclesiasticall Synodes Out of the wordes contayned in the Kinges subscription I obserue sundry golden Lessons First that the King confirmed the Councell Secondly that the King subscribed to the decrees of the Councell Thirdly that the King subscribed before all the Byshops Fourthly that the King decreed and defined the controuersies and other necessary matters togeather with the Byshops Which last Obseruation is prooued two wayes First by these words of the Councell in the 18. Canon Ex decreto Domini nostri Reccaredi regis simul cuÌ„ Sacerdotali concilio by the Decree of our soueraigne Lord Reccaredus the King togeather with the Councell of the Byshoppes Secondly by these wordes of the Kinges subscription Quam cum sancta definiuimus Synodo Which we defined with the holy Synode To all which I thinke it not amisse to adde these golden wordes of S. Augustine Quomodo ergo
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
other Ministers of the Church euen now in the time of the New Testament Where by the word Priestes I vnderstande all such as are admitted to preach Gods word and to administer the holy Sacramentes This Proposition is prooued very copiously in my Suruay of Poperie aswell by the Textes of holy Writte as by the flatte testimonie of S. Chrysostome S. Clement S. Eusebius S. Theophilactus and many others To which place for breuitie sake I referre the Reader especially because this trueth will be prooued againe and againe in the Propositions following The 4. Proposition The Marriage of Priestes is onely by the law of man prohibited and not by any positiue constitution either of Christ or his Apostles I prooue it many wayes First by the Popes owne Decrees where I find these expresse wordes Copula namque Sacerdotalis vel consanguineorum nec Legali nec Euangelica vel Apostolica auctoritate prohibetur Ecclesiastica tamen lege penitus interdicitur For the Marriage of Priestes is neither forbidden by the Law of Moses nor by the Law of the Ghospell nor by the Law of the Apostles yet is it altogeather and wholly forbidden by the Law of the Church of Rome Marke well these wordes gentle Reader for Christes sake for they are able to confound all Jesuites Iesuited Popelinges in the world Obserue with mee first that Gratianus who hath taught vs out of the Popes owne Decrees this godly and memorable lesson was a very famous Popish Canonist brother to Petrus Lombardus surnamed The Maister of Sentences and of such renowne in the Popish Church that his Bookes are this day read publiquely in their Diuinitie-schooles Secondly obserue that this Gratianus so learned and so famous in the Romish Church liued with his brother Lombardus euen then when the Pope was in his greatest pompe and tyrannie Obserue thirdly that this Gratian so learned and so renowned amongst the Papistes did euen in the altitude of Poperie commit that to the open view of the world which vtterly ouerthroweth all Papistrie and turneth it vpside downe Obserue fourthly that the Pope and his Popish vassals being iustly infatuated for their sinnes had no power to hinder and keepe backe from the print such Bookes as doe vtterly disclose their tyrannie falsehood and paltry dealing For our Lord God euen that mightie God Jehouah which caused the Red-sea to giue place to the Israelites who caused Balaams Asse to speake who caused the Fire to suspend it force in the burning Furnace who caused Yron to swimme vpon the Water who caused Yron-lockes and Brasen Gates to open voluntarily that mighty God I say enforced Gratian that learned famous and zealous Papist to confesse openly for the battering downe of Poperie that the marriage of Priestes which the Pope forbiddeth vpon paine of eternall damnation is neither forbidden by the Law of Moyses nor by Christ or his Apostles I prooue it secondly by the testimonie of Caietanus that learned and famous Cardinall of Rome whose words are these Nec ratione nec authoritate probari potest quod absolutè loquendo Sacerdos peccet contrahendo matrimonium nam nec ordo in quantum ordo nec ordo in quantum sacer est impeditiuus matrimonij siquidem Sacerdotium non dirimit matrimonium contractum siue ante siue post seclusis omnibus Legibus Ecclesiasticis stando tantum ijs quae habemus a Christo et Apostolis It can neuer be prooued neither by Authoritie nor by Reason if we speake absolutely that a Priest sinneth by marrying a Wife For neither the order of Priesthood in that it is order neither order as it is holy is any hinderaunce vnto Matrimonie For Priesthood breaketh not Marriage whether it be contracted before Priesthood or afterward if wee set all Ecclesiasticall Lawes apart and stand onely to those thinges which we haue of Christ and his Apostles Thus writeth this great learned man whose testimonie is so cleare and euident that no deniall no euasion no tricke of legierdemaine can haue any place For he sayth first that a Priest sinneth not in marrying a Wife Secondly that Priesthood doth not disanul Wedlocke whether a Priest be married before or after it This is a poynt of great consequence let it be well remembred Thirdly that Priestes Marriage is neither forbidden by Christ nor by his Apostles Panormitanus that famous Papist teacheh the selfe same doctrine his wordes are set downe in the 12. Proposition see them there I prooue it thirdly by the verdict of the famous Papist Viguerius as also of their Saint Antoninus sometime Arch-byshoppe of Florence These are the expresse wordes of Antoninus Episcopatus ex natura sua non habet opponi ad matrimonium The office of a Byshoppe of it owne nature is not opposite or against Marriage The case we see is most cleare and perspicuous to euery child viz. that the Marriage of Priestes is very lawfull as which is neither forbidden by Christ nor by his Apostles No no the Byshoppes of Rome onely haue prohibited it as I haue at large discoursed and prooued in my Suruay of Popery Marke well the eleuenth Proposition following as which is a confirmation hereof The 5. Proposition It was euer lawfull for the Byshoppes Priestes and Deacons of the east-East-church to be Married and to beget children in the time of their Priesthood This PropositioÌ„ is prooued by the flat testimonie of the sixt generall Councell holden at Constantinople in the yeare of our Lord God 677. where 289. Byshoppes were assembled In the 13. Canon of this famous Councell three speciall thinges are decreed First that Priestes Deacons and Sub-deacons may haue the lawfull vse of Wedlocke at such times as they doe not execute the Ministerie Secondly this famous Councell excommunicateth all those Priestes and Deacons that after their orders put away their former wiues vnder pretence of Religion Thirdly it excoÌ„municateth all such as labour to separate Priestes and Deacons from the vse and company of their Wiues And after all this this great and learned Synode addeth this worthy and memorable Obseruation viz. that they haue thus decreed albeit they know the Lawes of Rome to be otherwise Where I note by the way that so many learned Byshoppes did 677. yeares after Christ vtterly contemne the falsely challenged Primacie of the Church of Rome This Decree of the famous Councell is confirmed sundry wayes confirmation 1 First by the flat Canon of Christes blessed Apostles in these expresse wordes Episcopus aut Praesbyter aut Diaconus Vxorem suâ—m praetextu religionis non abijcito si abijcit segregator a communione si perseuerat deponator Let neither Byshoppe nor Priest nor Deacon put away his Wife vnder pretence of Religion if he so do let him be excommunicate if he continue let him be deposed Out of these wordes I obserue these golden Lessons First that in the dayes of the Apostles it was lawfull for Byshoppes Priestes and Deacons to haue Wiues
trueth that Purgatorie came from the Apostles Which more bold then wise affirmance I returne vnto our Fryer for a most certaine and shamelesse Lye for a most notorious Slaunder and for an intollerable Blasphemie against the blessed Apostles of our Lord Iesus I prooue it sundry wayes First because S. Chrysostome was one of the chiefest and best Learned Fathers of the Greeke Church who as my Lord of Rochester hath told vs very plainely and resolutely neuer beleeued there was any Popish Purgatorie while they were lyuing heere on earth and consequently that Purgatorie can neuer be truely fathered vpon that great learned holy man Secondly because those Homilies from whence our Fryer would gladly fetch Purgatorie-fire are counterfeite not S. Chrysostomes indeed Whereof this is an argument insoluble that the Greeke Fathers did neuer beleeue Purgatorie For if S. Chrysostome had taught Purgatorie in his Bookes Byshoppe Fisher that glorious so supposed Popish Martyr could not truely haue written and constantly auouched to the whole world as he did that the Greekes neuer beleeued Purgatorie Thirdly that if the Apostles had taught Purgatorie then could not so many so Learned so holy Fathers of the Greeke Church haue been so long time euen till their death ignoraunt thereof Nay if the Latine Church in their dayes had receiued Purgatorie as a tradition Apostolicall they would neuer haue withstood it but most reuerently haue admitted and most Christianly beleeued the same Fourthly that if we suppose and graunt our Fryer thus much to cheare vp his spirits a while viz. that they are S. Chrysostomes wordes which he citeth in his name yet will it not serue his turne to build Popish Purgatorie therevpon For the words do onely prooue this and no more to weete that th'Apostles taught Commemoration of the dead Which my selfe am so farre from disliking that I haue many yeares agoe approoued it in my Suruay of Poperie Yea the Papistes in their publike Prayers make frequent and vsuall Commemoration of their Martyrs whom they for all that deny to be in Purgatorie-fire and freely graunt to be in Heauen And so they can not inferre Purgatorie out of the Commemoration of the dead To this I adde that Prayer for the dead which is more then Commemoration may in a godly sort be vsed as I haue shewed at large first in my Motiues and afterward in my Suruay More then which the Iesuite can not inferre out of his Author as his Marginall note doth declare I therefore conclude that our â—esuite hath runge out a notorious vntrueth when he telleth his Reader that Purgatorie came from the Apostles B. C. Heere the iudicious Reader may also note how the Minister contradicteth himselfe In his Suruay intreating of Purgatorie he sayth Thus by litle and litle it increased till the late Byshoppes of Rome made it an Article of Popish Fayth Where in the Margent he noteth the time thus In the yeare of our Lord 250. Heere he sayth that the Church of Rome beleeued it not for the space of 250. yeares After which as he telleth vs it increased by litle and litle And so in this place he maketh the seed of Purgatorie not to haue been sowen before the yeare 250. and afterward to haue increased till it came to perfection There he affirmeth that the seed was sowen before and increased by litle and litle vntill it became ripe and perfect Poperie which was in the yeare 250. And so Purgatorie was sowen and not sowen growen and not growen an article of Fayth and not an article of Fayth in the same one yeare 250. I will not deny but the Minister hath some skill in botching togeather of old endes of Diuinitie gathered out of the Ragge market of Caluin and such like Geneua-Merchants yet I feare mee it will be hard for him so to cobble the sayinges togeather that the flaw of a contradiction appeare not T. B. I answere first that where our Fryer pretendeth some feare that I can not defend by any cobling my contradiction by him so supposed I am so free from it that I weene his heart will pant so soone as he shal peruse my answere to the same For so God helpe me I woonder he is not ashamed so to write O tempora O mores I would not haue imagined that the Maister Deuill of Hell had so possessed him as to make him the instrument of such notorious execrable and plaine diabolicall Lyes Neuer did any man heare know or read such shamelesse palpable and grosse vntruethes Who will not exclaime and cry out of Poperie that shall read this Fryers Answere and this my Reply ioyned with my Tryall and my Suruay in which hee would seeme to ground his deuillish and abhominable Lyes Fie fie how can he thinke that any of witte and iudgemet will beleeue him Hee perceiueth right well that the trueth published in my Bookes can neuer be truly answered and therefore sillie Papistes who dare not for feare of Popish tyrannicall censures read my Bookes must perforce receiue and beleeue his most execrable Lyes for the trueth Oh that they would once read my Bookes nay but this one Reply with a single eye and indifferent iudgement all parcialitie set apart Hee knoweth that hee falsely accuseth mee his owne conscience though neuer so badde can not but condemne him Euery child may easily discerne that the trueth is on my side The case is so cleare my wordes so plaine and the trueth thereof so apparant as euery iudicious and honest Reader must needes thinke him worthy to haue a Whetstone tyed at his Girdle a Foxe-tayle in his necke and a Fooles-bable in his hand If Poperie through mortall wounds receiued were not past recouerie if the trueth published in my Bookes were not vnanswereable if the Iesuite were not at a Non plus not able to defend the Pope and his late start-vp Romish Fayth he would neuer thus delude the world with his most notorious Lyes and deceitfull dealing In my Suruay marke wel for Christs sake these are my expresse words in the third part and sixt Chapter Afterward Origen being too much addicted to his allegoricall speculation fayned many odde things touching Purgatorie as the Ethnicke Plato whom he much imitateth had done before him After Origen others began to call the matter into question others rashly to beleeue it others to adde many thinges to Origens conceit Thus by litle and litle it increased till the late Byshops of Rome made it an Article of Popish Fayth In my Booke intituled The Tryall of the new Religion these are my expresse words First we see that the Greeke Church neuer beleeued Purgatorie to his dayes I speake there of Iohn Fisher late Byshoppe of Rochester and so it was vnkowen to them 1517. yeares Secondly that the Church of Rome beleeued it not for the space of 250. yeares after which time it increased by litle and litle These are my very wordes in both my Bookes The
as the great learned Papist Rhenanus telleth vs And hee yeeldeth this reason thereof viz. because Auricular or Secret Confession was wholly vnknowen in those dayes I further adde for the accomplishment of this Conclusion that which the sayd Rhenanus citeth out of a famous and learned Papist Geilerius These are the wordes Thomas Aquinas et Scotus homines nimium arguti confessionem hodie talem reddiderunt vt Iohannes ille Geilerius grauis ac sanctus Theologus qui tot annis argentorati concionatus est apud amicos suos saepe testatus sit iuxta eorum denteroseis impossibile esse confiteri But Tho. Aquinas and Scotus men too much delighted with subtilties haue brought Confession this day to such a passe that Iohannes Geilerius a graue and reuerend Diuine and a Preacher a long time at Argentâ—ratuÌ„ said many a time vnto his friends that it was impossible for a man to make his Confession according to their Traditions Out of these words I note first that the vaine curious distinctions of the Schoole-Doctors haue brought much mischiefe into the Church of God Which if a Papist had not spoken it would seeme incredible to the world Secondly that it is impossible for a Papist to make his Confession according to the Popish Law And consequently that all Papistes by Popish Doctrine must perish euerlastingly Marke well my wordes gentle Reader as thou art carefull of thine owne saluation The Papistes teach vs to hold for an Article of our Beleefe that wee are bound to make our Confessions as the Popes Law prescribeth that is as Aquinas whose Doctrine two Popes haue confirmed for Authenticall and Scotus the Popes Doctor subtilis haue set downe the same And for all that Geilertus a Papist himselfe a great learned man complained often to his friends that none could possibly performe the same Now then since on the one side Popish Confession must be made and that vnder paine of damnation and since on the other side none possibly can make the same as it is coÌ„maunded it followeth of necessitie by Popish doctrine that Papistes must be damned eternally Thirdly that many lyuing among the Papistes doe externally seeme to obey the Popes Law who in their heartes detest a great part of their late hatched Romish Religion This is euident by the secret complaint of the learned Papist Geilerius who told that to his trustie friendes which he durst not disclose to others Yea God hath euen among the Papistes in Italie and Rome many thousandes which haue not or doe not this day bow their knee to Baal Read my Suruay and it will satisfie thee in this behalfe Let vs now heare our Jesuite and confute his fond cauils and ridiculous sophistications B. C. Scotus enquireth by what Law a man is bound to Confession and determineth first in generall that the precept must grow from one of these Lawes either from the Law of Nature or the Law positiue of God or the Law of the Church And descending to particulars hee resolueth first that wee are not bound by the Law of Nature Nextly hee disputeth whether it groweth from the precept of the Church and not liking that opinion he proceedeth to the next member and sayth To be short it seemeth more reasonable to hold the second member that Confession falleth vnder the positiue Precept of God But then wee must consider sayth Scotus whether it be found explicitely in the Ghospell immediately from Christ because it is manifest quoth hee that it is not in the old Law or whether it be from him expressely in some of the Apostles doctrine or if neither so nor so whether then it was giuen of Christ by word only published to the Church by the Apostles And hauing made this triple Diuision how Confession might come by the Precept of God that is either first commaunded by him in the Ghospell or else secondly to be found in some of the Apostles writinges or lastly instituted of Christ by word of mouth onely And hauing disputed of the first two members with dislike of the second he concludeth that we must either hold the first member to weete that it commeth from the Law of God published by the Ghospell or if that be not sufficient we must say the third that it is of the positiue Law of God published by Christ to the Apostles but published by the Apostles to the Church without all Scripture T. B. I answere first that albeit our Jesuite vseth much babling turning himselfe this way that way and euery way to anoyde and cassire if it were possible the verdict censure of their subtile Doctor Scotus yet is all that hee sayth in this Chapter as also all that any other Iesuite or Papist in the world is able to say in the same subiect soundly and most euidently refuted in the sixt Conclusion aforegoing For the last and best Resolution that Scotus could inuent after he had disputed the Question pro et contra so profoundly as his wittes could conceiue was euen this and no other viz. that Popish Auricular Confession is not grounded vpon Christes Ghospell or Apostolicall writing but onely and solely vpon vnwritten Tradition which is an huge and deepe Gulfe without any bottome If the sixt Conclusion be duely pondered and vnderstood aright the Jesuites backe is at the wall Yet I will adde thereto one other Confirmation which is deduced and plainely related in the Popes owne Decrees these are the expresse wordes Quidam Deo solummodo confiteri debere peccata dicunt vt Graeci Quidam vero Sacerdotibus confitenda esse percensent vt tota ferè Ecclesia sancta Quod vtrumque non sine magno fructu intra sanctam fit Ecclesiam ita dumtaxat vt Deo qui remissor est peccatoruÌ„ peccata nostra confiteamur Some say we must Confesse our sinnes onely to God as the Greekes doe Other some say wee must Confesse them vnto Priests as doth almost the whole Church Either of which is done with great good within the holy Church so onely that we Confesse our sinnes to God who is the forgiuer of sinnes Thus are wee taught by the Popes owne sweete deare Decrees published in print to the view of the whole world Out of which Decree I obserue these memorable documentes for the helpe of the Reader First that the Greeke Church neuer confessed their sinnes vnto Priests but vnto God alone Of which Church for all that the Presidentes Gouernours were most holy learned Fathers viz. S. Epiphanius S. Chrysostome S. Basill surnamed the great S. Gregorie Nazianzene S. Damascene and many other most excellent and holy Byshoppes Secondly that others hold the contrarie saying that wee must Confesse our sinnes to Priestes Thirdly that both these opinions are profitably practised in the Church so wee Confesse our sinnes to God Fourthly that Popish Auricular confession euen by the Popes owne Decrees is not necessarie to saluation as the Papistes this day
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
THE Catholique Triumph Conteyning A Reply to the pretensed Answere of B. C. a masked Iesuite lately published against the Tryall of the New Religion Wherein is euidently prooued that Poperie and the Doctrine now professed in the Romish Church is the New Religion And that the Fayth which the Church of England now mayntaineth is the ancient Romane Religion Psal. 22. v. 16. Dogges are come about mee and the councell of the wicked layeth siege against me Psal. 120. v. 3. What reward shall be giuen to thee thou false tongue euen mighty and sharpe arrowes with hot burning coales AT LONDON Printed for the companie of Stationers 1610. To the most reuerend Father my very good Lord TOBY the L. Archbyshop of Yorke his Grace Primate of England Fifteene yeares most reuerend Father are now fully expired since I first began to write against the professed aduersaries of the auncient Christian Catholike Apostolique and old Romane religion I meane the late Byshops of Rome the Romish Cardinals the Iesuites Iesuited Papistes and Gunpowder-popish-vassals In which space of time I haue published so many Bookes in defence of the Catholique Fayth as are in number correspondent to the yeares A very long time it was the argument in hand considered before I could any way extort any Answere to any of my Bookes Howbeit when the Iesuites after mature deliberation had seriously pondered with them-selues that through their long silence many Papistes did vtterly renounce Poperie and ioyfully embrace the Catholique Fayth this day sinceerely professed in our Church then they became so ashamed of their silence in that behalfe that in the yeare 1605. they published a litle Pamphlet tearming it The forerunner of Bels downefall wherein they auouched with brasen faces that they had written fiue Bookes fiue yeares afore that time against my Motiues and my Suruey of Poperie And least it should be obiected against them that it cannot be so seeing we can neither see them nor heare of them the Fore-runner telleth vs very grauely but to their endlesse shame that the Answere is suppressed and vpon iust occasion stayed from the publication Alasse alasse how are silly Papistes bewitched with the iugling and deceitfull dealing of these seducers They haue been buzzing about the answering of my two first Bookes as they them selues tell vs almost the space of sixe whole yeares and when after their great paines and labours of so many yeares they had framed the answere in the best manner they could deuise then they suppressed the same vpon iust occasiō as their Forerunner in their name telleth vs. What haue they bestowed fiue yeares in wryting fiue Bookes against two of my Bookes and dare not to this day publish any one of them Out vpon lying lippes Out vpon trayterous Iesuites and Iesuiticall deceyuers of the world The trueth is that there is no trueth in these men And it is an euident testimonie that they are not indeed able to answere for otherwise they would not for very shame haue protested so much in print and haue performed nothing lesse I am verily perswaded that they will neuer during my life which they wish to be short and therefore haue they prouided my Winding sheete and other indirect meanes to take away my life frame any full and direct Answere to the said Bookes because in trueth all the Iesuites in the Christian world are not able to performe it the trueth being so cleare forcible against them After the Fore-runner a pretensed Answere was published in the yeare 1606. against the Downe fall of Poperie For refutation of which silly Pamphlet I addressed my Booke intituled The Iesuites Antepast which seemeth to their daintie mouthes so vntouthsome that I deeme it will serue also for their Post-past as I had formerly published an other Reply intituled The Popes Funerall to the Fore-runner of the Downefall Now lately in the end of the yeare 1608. an other pretensed Answere a silly thing God wote was published against my Booke intituled The Tryall of the new religion This Pamphlet came to my handes in Nouember last at which time I was very ill in body and also distant aboue one hundred Myles from mine owne Librarie the want whereof at that time was farre more grieuous to me then were all my painefull infirmities of body In the midst of which whiles I am writing for the trueth I find no litle comfort The case so standing albeit your Grace was then aboue fourtie Myles from me yet did I presume to bemone my selfe vnto your Grace for the supply of my present want of Bookes with whom my suite found such intertainement as I neither did nor euer could expect Bookes indeed I expected but that your Grace should also send them to me vpon your owne charges most freely and Christianly offering to send me your whole Librarie which is indeed a Librarie most excellent if I shouldst and in need thereof it seemed to mee such an honorable sauour as that I could not now in duetie omit to make this publique acknowledgement thereof The Iesuites and Iesuited Gunpowder Papistes not able to endure the sound of my Tryall wherein Poperie was tearmed and prooued the New Religion haue suborned as it seemeth Robert Parsons that lewd companion and trayterous Fryer to publish that supposed Refutation the summe and substaunce whereof they had no doubt collected and framed to his handes His name he dareth not disclose least the great disgrace which can not but insue vpon that silly Answere should eternally cleaue vnto him as being one who not able to defend Poperie by honest and Christian-like proceeding bestirreth himselfe to effect the same by continuall forgerie by lying by coozenage and deceitfull dealing as in this Booke I shall make apparant Wherein what my selfe haue effected or rather God in mee let the iuditious and honest Reader iudge and for that which he findeth well done giue God the glorie Such as it is I dedicate vnto your Grace as vnto him who hath deserued my vttermost service The Almighty blesse your Grace with many happy yeares in this life and with eternall glory in the life to come Amen Iunij 3. 1609. Your Graces most bounden Thomas Bell. Briefe Instructions for the better vnderstanding of the Discourse following Instruction 1. THE Pope Cardinals Iesuites and all Papistes generally do beare the world in hand that the Church of Rome this day keepeth inuiolably that Fayth and Religion which S. Peter and S. Paul in their time planted there I hold and defende the negatiue proouing the same soundly and euidently throughout this whole Discourse Wee all agree in this that the Church of Rome had once the true auncient Christian catholique and apostolique Fayth which she receiued from S. Peter and S. Paul my selfe most willingly subscribing thereunto I neither impugne the old Romane religion nor reprooue the auncient Byshops there it is the Late vp-start-religion of the Romish Church that now is which I detest and write against in all
my Bookes as against that Church which so aboundeth with Errours Heresies and Superstitions as I know not when and where to finde the like no not among Ethnicks Publicans Turkes Iewes or Saracens Instruction 2. There are many sectes of Fryers this day in the Church of Rome the Benedictiues began in the yeare 527-after Christ. The Carthusians began in the yeare 1084. after Christ. How this Sect had the first originall it is worthy the Reader should yeeld his due attention this is the trueth of the Storie While one Bruno was the reader of Philosophy at Paris that famous Citie in France a friend of his being a man of good carriage honest externall conuersation departed out of this life this friend lying dead vpon the Coffin in the Church soundeth out these wordes in the eares of the sayd Bruno I am damned by the iust iudgement of God With this wonderment the sayd Bruno was so terrified that hee knew no way how to be saued but by inuenting the sect of the Carthusians Behold heere the subtiltie of the Diuell who neuer wanteth meanes how to set vp Superstition and Idolatrie for if the Story be true as it is most true if many famous Popish Historiographers be not notorious lyers then doubles the Diuell was the author of the voyce as which brought foorth the spirit of Pride not the spirit of Humilitie I prooue it because this Bruno who had vowed perpetuall obedience to his superiour could not now be content to continue a Monke amongst the Benedictiues but hee must be the Lord Abbot of a new Sect For since the Sect of the Benedictes was the ready way to Heauen as late vp-start Poperie taught him it followeth of necessitie that either he condemned his owne Religion and consequently his owne if not the Diuels inuention or else my consequence perforce must be admitted And heere I note by the way the formall deformitie of all the Sectes in Poperie to weet that the Papistes ascribe Merite and saluation to the same and so Poperie is the New religion Instruction 3. The aforenamed Benedictiue-Monkes in a short time began to be dissolute and so to be deuided into many new Sectes Some were called Cluniacenses some Camaldnenses some Vallisumbrenses some Montoliuotenses some Grandimontenses some Cistertienses some Syluestrenses All which beeing most variable in life manners and obseruations will for all that be reputed right Benedictiues Euen so forsooth as our late Popes or Byshops of Rome must needes be S. Peters successors though as like to him as Yorke is like foule Sutton This sect of the Benedictiues farre altered from the first institution was reformed in the yeare 1335. for as Polydorus that famous Popish writer reporteth Monkes doe not long continue in the due obseruation of their Monasticall institution Instruction 4. The Sect called Pramonstratensis began in the yeare 1119. the first Author thereof was one Norbertus by name Who doubles either condemned the former Sectes at the least of imperfection or else was puffed vp with the spirit of Pride as were his fraterculi before him Instruction 5. The Sect of the Carmelites began in the yeare 1170. It was inuented by one Almericus the Byshop of Antioch The Sect of the Dominicans began in the yeare 1198. The sect of the Franciscans began in the yeare 1206. The Sect of the Iesuates began in the yeare 1371. The Sect of the Iesuites that cursed crew began in the yeare 1540. after Christ the Author of this Sect was one Ignatius Loyola a Souldier and a Spaniard borne This Sect as it was the last hatched so doth it in pontificall Pride surpasse all the rest It is by them selues tearmed Ordo sodalitatis Iesu the very name expressing their proud and hautie mindes For no name of so manie Sectes afore them nor any other appellation could content them vnlesse they were tearmed the Fellowes and Companions of our Lord Iesus Their deare breathren the Seminarie-Priestes tell them roundly euen in printed Bookes published to the view of the whole world that they are notorious Lyars cruell Tyrantes arrant Traytours mercilesse Murtherers right Machiuels Scribes and Pharises Gypsees Firebrands of sedition that they ride like Earles in Coaches with many Seruants attending on them that they must haue their Chambers perfumed that Gentlewomen must pull off their Bootes that they trowle vp and downe from good cheere to good cheere that they are Thieues that they threatē a conquest of noble England that they promise to restore men to their Liuinges that will take part with them against their naturall Soueraigne in briefe that they are the wickedst men vpon earth All which much other like stuffe the Reader may finde at large in the Anatomie of Popish tyranny Instruction 6. The name Pope was common to all Byshops euery where for more then 528. yeares after Christ. The Byshops of Rome Sozimus Bonifacius and Celestinus more then 417. yeares after Christ could alleadge no better groundes or reasons for their now falsely vsurped Primacie then that only which the Nicene Councell had allotted to them For which cause the aforenamed Popes falsified the Canons of that most famous Synode as S. Augustine and hundreds of Byshops with him in the Africane Councell assembled freely and roundly told Pope Celestine in their Epistle directed to him exhorting him to surcease from such proud challenges and calling his falsely pretended soueraigntie Fumosum typhū seculi smokely statelines of the world The aforenamed Popes feigned certaine false Canons to haue been made by the Fathers of the famous Nicene Councell by the which as they reported a supereminent power and iurisdiction was graunted to the Byshops of Rome ouer and aboue all other Byshops in the Christian world Whereas the true Canons of that holy Synode did confine allot and limit the iurisdiction of the Byshops of Rome euen as it did allot limit and confine the iurisdiction of other Byshops else where The Fathers of the African Councell sent this way that way and euery way to search and finde out the true copies of the Canons of the Councell of Nice yea to the Churches of the East to the Byshops of Antioch of Alexandria But when all was done that possibly they could performe the Byshops of Rome could no where ground stablish their fondly imagined prerogatiues saue onely vpon false and counterfeit Canons vntruly fathered vpon the Nicene Synode Instruction 7. The Emperours successiuely following Constantine worthily surnamed the Great graunted great priuiledges to the Church and Byshops of Rome which excellencie priuiledges prerogatiues the Bishops of Rome cunningly procured by a counterfait and falsely forged donation of Constantine the great for the late Emperours giuing credite to the counterfeit donation yeelded vp their lawfull Segnories royall Soueraignties and regall Prerogatiues to the Byshops of Rome supposing they had only restored to them that which was wrongfully
much Chapter 9. Proouing That true Merite and condigne Merite is all one That the regenerate doe Good works and receiue reward aboue their desertes That Good workes doe follow Iustification but goe not before the same That the best Workes of the regenerate are stayned with sinne and in rigour of Iustice deserue eternall death That Good workes are so necessarie to attaine eternall life as the way and meanes by which God hath decreed to bring his chosen to it but not as the cause thereof as without them it can not be had That Good workes are the effectes of Predestination depending vpon it not it vpon them That Good workes in a godly sense may be called Meritorious that is they so please God that of mercie he rewardeth them That without the mercie and promise of God they doe not merite Heauen That Charitie is not the forme of Fayth That Fayth as a worker doth not iustifie but respectiuely as an instrument apprehending Christes merites and applying them vnto vs. That Good workes though they be neither the efficient nor the formall nor the finall cause of Iustification which euer goeth before them yet are they the materiall cause and cause sine qua non as the Schooles tearme it the cause or condition without which Iustification shall not haue effect That Good workes must be done for three respectes That Gods Promise doth not make Good workes to be condignely worthy of the reward That condigne merite of Workes was not an Article of Popish fayth for more then 1540. yeares after Christ. Chapter 10. Proouing That Transubstantiation is a Monster lately begotten in Germanie and borne in Rome Chapter 11. Proouing That popish Inuocation doth not onely make Saintes the mediatours of Intercession but also of Redemption That it maketh Saintes ioynt purchasers of saluation with Christes most sacred blood so it be not in the same degree That it was not hatched for more then 1160 yeares after Christ. Chapter 12. Of the popish Communion vnder one kind Chapter 13. Of popish priuate Masse Chapter 14. Of Pope Martins Dispensation Chapter 15 Of worshipping of Images Chapter 16. Of Church-seruice in the vulgar tongue Chapter 17. Of the peeces of popish Masse Chapter 18. Of the mysteries of the popish Masse Chapter 19. Of kissing the Popes feete Chapter 20. Of praying vpon Beedes Chapter 21. Of changing the Popes name Chapter 22. Of the Paschal Torch Chapter 23. Of the popish Pax and the mysterie thereof Chapter 24. Of the Popes Bulles Chapter 25. Of the popish Agnus-dei Chapter 26. Of Candelmas-day Chapter 27. Of the dolefull Oath which popish Byshops make to the Pope Chapter 28. Of the popish Lent-fast Chapter 29. Of the annulling of popish Wedlocke Chapter 30. Of the Popes falsely pretended Superioritie ouer and aboue a generall Councell Chapter 31. Proouing That the Fayth and Doctrine of the Church of England is the old Romane Religion The Iesuites Proeme B. C. INtending to note the principall vntruethes of Bels Pamphlet I haue thought good first to salute his Epistle and see what holsome stuffe hee presenteth in that to his Patrons T. B. I Answere First that If I should stand vpon euery falsehood slaunder and coozening tricke which the Iesuite hath published and handsomely paint him out in his best beseeming colours time would sooner fayle me then matter whereof to speake Howbeit as I meane for the most part to let passe his slaunders his rayling wordes his fooleries his absurdities his contradictions and his impertinent trifles so will I by Gods holy assistance confute all the partes and parcels of his foolish and ridiculous Pamphlet not omitting any thing of any moment in the same Secondly that our Iesuite hath passed ouer in deepe silence my principall and chiefest groundes argumentes authorities reasons as not able to say any thing against them which the iuditious and honest Reader will soone perceiue with all facilitie Thirdly that our Fryer doth but snatch at peeces heere there with the which he thought he might best deale at the least in some colourable shew of wordes But let vs hearken I pray you to that attentiuely which he saith he found in my dedicatorie Epistle B. C. The Minister falleth roundly to the matter presenting his Patrons with a tricke of his occupation in his very first entraunce his wordes be these The visible Church sayth Bell as writeth Egesippus remayned a Virgin free from all heresies and corruptions during the life of the Apostles that is to say about one hundred yeares after Christ to which time S. Iohn the Euangelist was liuing but after the death of the Apostles sayth hee errours by litle and litle crept into the Church as into a voyde and desart House This Collection which Bell hath made is powdred with lies and iugling trickes thicke and threefold Bell belyeth both Egesippus and also Eusebius whom be quoteth in the third Booke of his Historie in the two and thirtie Chapter as the relator of those wordes of Egesippus Read the place he that please no such thing shall there be found nor the name of Egesippus so much as once mentioned The Minister both abuseth his Patrons and others with a notorious vntrueth of his owne fathering that vpon Eusebius which is not there to be found Neither can this dealing of his proceed from other roote then meere malice as whose braines are employed about nothing more then the hammering of lyes cauils and corruptions against the Catholicke fayth T. B. I answere First that the Jesuites accusation which here he maketh against mee is too too grieuous and more then intollerable vnto godly eares For he chargeth mee first to haue powdred mine assertion with lyes and iugling trickes Then to haue done the same thicke and threefold Thirdly to haue belyed both Egesippus Eusebius Fourthly he impudently affirmeth that no such thing can possibly be found as I haue alleadged out of Eusebius Fiftly that my position is so false and so farre from the trueth that the name of Egesippus is not so much as once mentioned Sixtly that I haue of meere malice slaundered Egesippus and Eusebius being men of great learning Secondly that seeing the Diuell is the Father of Lyers the Jesuite may very well be thought to be his only Sonne But how shal this be prooued All that shal read his booke must needes thinke he sayth the trueth because he affirmeth it so impudently confidently I would say This text of Christes holy Ghospell may well be verified in the Jesuites their accursed Iesuited crew They loued the prayâ—e of men more then the glory of God The truth is neuer ashamed she will shew her selfe to the confusion of the newly hatched sect of Jesuites of the late start-vp Romish fayth and religion These are the expresse wordes of Eusebius as Ruffinus a very learned Father who liued aboue 1200. yeares agoe hath translated them Post haec idem scriptor
addidit etiam hoc quod vsque ad illa tempora virgo munda et immaculata permanset ecclesia sequitur Vt vero et apostolorum chorus et omnis illa aetas quae a domino susceperat viuae vocis auditum de hac luce discessit tum velut in vacuam domum falsae doctrinae impius se error immersit After these things the same writer Egesippus added this also That vnto those dayes the Church continued a pure immaculate virgin but after the death of the Apostles and all that age which had heard our Lord speake in liue voyce vnto them false and erronious doctrine began to intrude her selfe as into a voyde house or desart place Thus writeth Eusebius in that very Booke and Chapter where our Jesuite impudently auoucheth that no such thing can be found no not so much as Egesippus once named albeit both the whole matter and the wordes be in very deed as I haue heere truely put them downe yea Egesippus is named in the very beginning of the sayd Chapter as the relator of the Storie and in these words the same writer eftsoones insinuated to the reader Is it now true sir Frier Jesuite that I haue powdred mine assertion with lyes Is it true sir lyer that I vsed Iugling trickes therein Is it true that I haue done the same thicke and threefold Haue I belyed both Egesippus and Eusebius Can no such thing be found in Eusebius Is not Egesippus once named in that Chapter Is he not once named expressely and twise virtually If all this be true as it is must true in deed what shall I say or what can I say to this shamelesse and impudent Fryer Apagè apagè Out vpon rotten Poperie out vpon lying Jesuites out vpon the new Romish Religion which can be defended by no better meanes then by impudencie falsehood and flat lying What shall or what can the Reader expect at the handes of this shamlesse impudent and lying Jesuite in the rest of his Pamphlet who intertayneth him in the very beginning with such leasings such iugling trickes and such diabolicall accusations What hath this shamelesse and impudent Jesuite deserued the Whetstone nay rather with Chore Dathan and Abyram to goe downe quick into Hell This doubtlesse if nothing els should be said were enough to proue Poperie to be the new Religion I woonder how the Jesuite durst publish such notorious slaunders but on the one side being at a non-plus and not able in truth to say any thing for the antiquitie of Poperie and on the other side choosing rather to consecrate his soule to the Diuell by lying slaundering and deceitfull dealing then to graunt Poperie to be the new Religion He thought to face out the matter by imputing that to mee which most iustly and properly pertayneth to him-selfe And withall he very politikely considered the maister Diuell of Hell suggesting it vnto him that his best course was to doe the same in the beginning These thinges thus standing all wise Papistes I trow will looke more carefully into the matter and from hence foorth not giue credite to such lying Doctors such false Teachers such notorious slaunderers of the innocent If all Jesuites in England all Dominicans in Spaine all Franciscans in France and all Cardinals in Rome should conspire togeather how to accuse the innocent I know not it is aboue my reach and capacitie how they could surpasse this impudent lying Jesuite in such kind of treacherie This one thing I will now say which will appeare before the end of this Discourse that as he here beginneth so he continueth vnto the end For if his lyes slaunders cauils coozening trickes false dealing ridiculous sophistications be once taken away very litle or rather nothing at all will remaine in this his pretenced answere to the triall of the new Religion It woundeth the Pope and his Jesuites to heare Poperie tearmed the New Religion they are not able to endure the sound thereof The Iesuites first Chapter of this name and word Pope B. C. ALbeit the name Pope was attributed also to other Byshoppes yet was it in such speciall maner giuen to him that it sufficiently declared his Supreame authoritie ouer all other T. B. I answere First that S. Epiphanius called Athanasius Pope in these expresse wordes Eusebius praedictus Nicomedia episcopus erat totius ipsorū collectionis administrator ac concinnator detrimenti in ecclesia et aduersus papam Athanasiū Eusebius the forenamed Byshop of Nicomedia was the administrator of their whole collection and the contriuer of the detriment in the Church and against Pope Athanasius Secondly that S. Hierome called S. Augustine Pope in sundry Epistles written to him in these wordes Domino verê sancto et beatissimo Papae Augustino Hieronimus in domino salutem Hierom to the truly holy and most blessed Pope Augustyne sendeth salutations in our Lord. Thirdly that S. Austyn called Aurelius Pope who was but his fellow-Byshop in many things far inferiour to him Fourthly that not onely S. Austyn but Alipius also called the same Aurelius Pope Fiftly that S. Hierom callen not onely S. Austyn Pope but also S. Epiphanius Pope in like manner Sixtly that the Priestes Moses and Maximus with the Deacons Nicostratus and Ruffinus and sundry confessours did all with one vniforme assent call S. Cyprian most blessed Pope Seuenthly that the Clergie of Rome writing to the Clergie of Carthage called the same Cyprian Pope But doubtles neither would neither durst the Clergie of Rome haue called Cyprian the Byshop of Carthage Pope if the name had then been proper or any way peculiar to the Byshop of Rome Eightly that Laurentius Valla a very learned and famous Writer yea and a Romane borne is Consonant to the Clergie of Rome in that most excellent and learned Declamation which hee published against the counterfeit Donation of Constantine these are the expresse wordes of that great Learned Roman Transeo quod rasuram coronam vocas et Papam pontificem Romanū qui nondū peculiariter sic appellari erat captus I let passe that thou calles his shauing a Crowne and the Byshop of Rome Pope who began not yet to haue that name peculiarly Loe for more then 330. yeares the Byshop of Rome did not begin to chalenge that name B. C. Which appeareth first because when any was called Pope without further addition it was vnderstood onely of the Bpshops of Rome as is euident out of the Councell of Chalcedon where it is sayd The most blessed and apostolicke man the Pope doth commaunde vs this thing Secondly because the Byshop of Rome was called Pope of the whole Church as we read in the same Councell where Leo is called Pope of the vniuersall Church And Liberatus affirmeth that there is no Pope ouer the Church of the whole world but the Byshop of Rome Thirdly because he is called the Pope or Father of generall
forgerie and more then ridiculous foolerie the Reader God willing shall finde sound and large proofes in the next Chapter The reason is euident because sixe hundred and thirtie learned and holy Byshops assembled in councell at Chalcedon decreed the Byshop there to be equall to the Byshop of Rome in all Ecclesiasticall affayres I will alleadge the expresse words of that famous Synode which our Jesuite vseth not to do least it should discouer his lyes falsehood and cunny catching trickes These are the wordes of the Councell Gloriosissimi iudices dixerunt ex his quae gesta sunt perpendimus omnem quidem primatum et honorem praecipium secundum canones antiquae Romae deo amantissimo Archiepiscopo conseruari oportere autem sanctissimū Archiepiscopū regiae Constantinopolis nouae Romae eisdem primatibus honoris et ipsum dignū esse et potestatē habere ordinare metropolitas in Asiana et Pontica et Thracia diacesibus Sequitur Reuerendi Episcopi dixerunt haec iusta sententia haec omnes dicimus haec omnibus placent hoc iustū decretū quae constituta sunt valeant haec iusta sententia omnia ordinatè decreta sunt The most glorious Iudges sayd Wee perceiue by these thinges which are defined that all Primacie and chiefe Honour according to the Canons is reserued to the most holy Arch-byshop of old Rome but the most holy Arch-byshop of the royall citie of new Rome must haue the same primacie of Honour and power to ordaine Metropolitans in the Dioceses of Asia and Pontus and Thracia The reuerend Byshoppes answered This is a iust sentence this wee all say this pleaseth all this is a iust decree The thinges which are decreed let them be of force This is a iust sentence all thinges are orderly decreed Thus teacheth vs this most famous Councell of 630. Byshops very learned and holy Fathers Out of which Decree I obserue first that the Primacie which the most auncient and best Councels gaue to the Byshop of Rome was not of Power but of Honour Secondly that this holy learned and famous Councell gaue no other name or title to Leo then Byshop of Rome but Arch-byshop of old Rome Thirdly that the same Fathers gaue the same title or name to Anatolius then Byshop of Constantinople calling him Arch-byshop of new Rome Fourthly that this famous Councell made the Byshop of Constantinople equall with the Byshop of Rome in all things the primacie of Honour onely excepted in which preheminence of Honour the sayd 630. Fathers decreed constantly that the Byshoppe of Constantinople or new Rome should be the next to the Byshop of old Rome And this doubtles is that very doctrine which I defend For I willingly graunt both in this and in all my other Bookes that the Byshoppe of Rome is the principall and chiefest Patriarke and ought according to the auncient Canons of the famous and holy Councell of Nice to haue the chiefest place in all Ecclesiasticall meetinges councels and Assemblies before all other Byshoppes in the Christian world This assertion is yet more plainely confirmed in an other place of this famous Councell of Chalcedon these are the expresse wordes Definitiones sanctorū patrum sequentes vbique et regulam et quae nunc relecta sunt centum quinquaginta deo amantissimorum episcoporum qui congregati sunt sub piae memoriae Imperatore maiore Theodosio in regia ciuitate Constantinopoli noua Roma cognoscentes et nos eadem definiuimus de priuilegijs eiusdem sanctissimae Constantinopolitanae ecclesiae Romae nouae etenim sedi senioris Romae propter imperium ciuitatis illius patres consequenter priuilegia reddiderunt et eadem intentione permoti centum quinquaginta deo amantissimi episcopi aequa sanctissimae sedi nouae Romae priuilegia tribuerunt rationabiliter iudicantes imperio et senatu vrbem ornatam aequis senioris regiae Romae priuilegijs frui et in ecclesiasticis sicut illa maiestatem habere negotijs et secundam post illam existere Wee following the definitions of the holy Fathers euery where and knowing the Canons and the Decrees of the 150. holy Byshoppes assembled vnder the Emperour Theodosius the elder of holy memorie in the royall citie Constantinople new Rome haue defined the very same touching the Priuiledges of the same most holy Church of Constantinople new Rome For the Fathers gaue Priuiledges consequently to the seate of old Rome for the Empire and dominion of that Citie And the 150. most holy Byshops hauing the same intention gaue equall Priuiledges to the most holy seat of new Rome iudging according to reason that the Citie which was honored with the Empire and the Senate should enioy equall Priuiledges with the old royall Rome and excell in Ecclesiasticall affaires as it and be the second after it In these wordes of these 630. holy and learned Fathers it is very cleare and euident that the Byshop of new Rome was equall to the Byshoppe of old Rome in all thinges the primacie of Honour onely excepted Which illation is soundly confirmed by the decree of the famous Councell of Constantinople in these expresse wordes Constantinopolitana ciuitatis Episcopum habere oportet primatus honorē post Romanum Episcopum propteria quod sit noua Roma The Byshop of the citie of Constantinople must haue the honour of Primacie after the Byshop of Rom◠because it is new Rome Loe all that wherein the Byshop of Rome excelleth the Byshop of Constantinople and consequently all other Byshops is nothing else in deed but the sole and onely Primacie of honour Which Primacie wee are so farre from denying it that wee giue the same to our Arch-byshoppes and Metropolitans in the Church of England To which I adde and it is very emphataicall that the principall and chiefe cause of making the Byshop of Rome the chiefe Patriarke and of giuing him the Primacie of honour was this and no other viz. because the citie of Rome was the Imperiall seate of the Emperour So affirme two most famous Councels of Constantinople and Chalcedon And these Councels are consonant to the most famous Councell of all Councels since the death of the Apostles to weet the Councell of Nice in Bithyni◠although that sacred Councell did not produce the reason for the aforenamed Primacie of the Byshop of Rome B. C. To this may be added that seeing Pope signifieth Father as Bell according to the truth confesseth it followeth that the Byshop of Rome was in old time reputed Superiour to all in that he was called the Father of Fathers For Steuen Byshop of Carthage writing to Pope Damasus in the name of three Councelles celebrated in Africke giueth him this title To Pope Damasus our most blessed Lord exalted with Apostolicall dignity the Father of Fathers T. B. I answere that while our Jesuite laboureth to stablish the Popes falsesly pretended soueraigntie he prooueth himselfe a very Noddie for I haue already graunted that
the Byshop of Rome for the excellencie of that Citie is the chiefest Patriarke and so may be called the Father of Fathers that is the chiefest Father or Byshop of all Fathers or Byshops in Christes Church It is one thing to call the Byshop of Rome Father of Fathers an other thing to call him vniuersall Byshop or vniuersall Father The former our Church of noble England admitteth while shee approoueth two Primates th' one of England th' other of all England Euen so doe wee repute our two Arch-byshops of Canterbury and Yorke to be the Byshops of Byshops or Fathers of Fathers which is all one for either of them is Byshop of Byshops within his prouince that is the Chiefest of all the rest But this is nothing to that superroyall power of which wee are to intreate in the next Chapter which I wish the reader to marke with such attention as apperteyneth thereunto But the latter both we and great learned Popish writers doe vtterly disclaime In the Popes owne decrees I finde these expresse wordes Primae sedis Episcopus non appelletur princeps sacerdotuÌ„ vel suÌ„mus sacerdos aut aliquid huiusmodj sed tantuÌ„ primae sedis Episcopus Vniuersalis auteÌ„ nec etiaÌ„ Romanus pontifex appelletur Let not the Byshoppe of the chiefe Seate be called the Prince of Priestes or the Hie Priest or haue any such like name but onely the Byshop of the first Seate And Vniuersall Byshop none may be called no not the Byshop of Rome himselfe What doth Gratianus that famous Champion of the Romish Church tell vs soe We haue read the Popes Decree which was taken out of the Affrican Councell the wordes of Gratianus haue sounded in our eares Nay you shall heare a greater wonder Pope Pelagius doth constantly deliuer the selfe same doctrine and defineth it for the trueth to be receiued and beleeued these are his expresse wordes Nullus Patriarcharum vniuersalitatis vocabulo vnquam vtatur quia si summus Patriarcha vniuersalis dicit Patriarcarum nomen caeteris derogatur Sed absit hoc a fidelibus hoc sibi velle queÌ„piam arripere vnde honorem fratrum suorum imminuere ex quantulaecunque parte videatur Quapropter charitas vestra neminem vnquam etiam suis in epistolis vniuersalem nominet ne sibi debitum subtrahat cum alteri honorem infert indebitum Let no Patriarke euer vse the word of Vniuersalitie because if the chiefest Patriarke be called Vniuersall the name of Patriarkes is derogated from the rest But be this farre from the faythfull that any should willingly snatch that to himselfe which may any way seeme to diminish the honour of this breathren though in neuer so small a degree Wherefore let not your charitie in your Epistles name any Patriarcke at any time Vniuersall least while ye giue to an other that honour which is not due yee take from your selues that which is due To which I adde this Epigramme set downe as the contentes of the Decree in the beginning thereof Nec etiam Romanus pontifex vniuersaâ—is est appellandus Neither may the Byshoppe of Rome be called Vniuersall Pope Gregorie is consonant to Pope Pelagius in these expresse wordes Ecce in presatione Epistolae quam ad meipsum qui prohibui direxistis superbae appellationis verbum vniuersalem me Papam dicens imprimere curastis Quod peto mihi dulcissima sanctitas vestra vltra non faciat quia vobis subtrahitur quod alteri plus quam ratio exigit praebetur Sequitur sin me vniuersaleÌ„ PapaÌ„ vestra sanctitas dicit negat se hoc esse quod me fatetur vniuersum sed absit hoc recedant verba quae veritateÌ„ inflant et charitateÌ„ vulnerant Behold in the Preface of your Epistle which you addressed to mee forbidding it you laboured to impose vpon me a word of proud appellatioÌ„ calling me Vniuersall Pope which I pray your sweet holynesse not to do to me any more because that is taken from you which is giuen to an other more then reason doth require For if your Holynesse call mee Vniuersall Pope you denie your selfe to be so seeing you call mee Vniuersall But God forbid away with wordes that puffe vp the trueth and wound charitie Thus writeth Gratianus the compiler of the Decrees thus Pope Pelagius thus Pope Gregorius Out of those Positions thus constantly deliuered I obserue sundry very profitable and necessarie documentes First that none no not the Byshop of Rome may be called Vniuersall Pope Secondly that the giuing of Vniuersall to one taketh away that which is due to all the rest Thirdly that Gregorie who lyued more then 590. yeares after Christ vtterly refused the name of Vniuersall Byshop or Pope calling it a proude name and sharply reprooued Enlagius the Patriarke of Alexandria for ascribing the same vnto him Fourthly that Pope Pelagius the predecessour of Gregorie detested and abhorred the same proud arrogant name So then I may lawfully conclude that the name Pope in popish sense and meaning was not proper and peculiar to any Byshop of Rome for the space of 591. yeares after Christ. How impudent therfore is our Fryer when he auoucheth the Councell of Chalcedon to haue called Leo the Vniuersall Pope Liberatus to haue tearmed him Pope ouer the Church of the whole world Pope Damasus and Theodoretus to haue done the same All which are meere lyes notorious slaunders and irksome falsifications inuented by the Father of lyes and his deare children the Iesuiticall crew to defend late vp-start Poperie if it were possible from the imputation of the New religion B. C. And this may be the reason that albeit sometime in the primatiue Church the name was also giuen to other Byshops yet seeing in foresayd manner it agreed peculiarly to the Byshop of Rome as declaring his sone raigne authoritie ouer others the former custome ceased and so it remayned alone to him T. B. Three things our Fryer freely graunteth in these words all which such is the force of trueth are altogeather against him selfe First he confesseth the trueth vnawares that the name Pope was giuen to other Byshoppes in the primitiue Church and consequently he must graunt volens nolens that to chalenge that name as the Byshop of Rome this day doth is a rotten ragge of the New religion Secondly he sayth it peculiarly agreed to the Byshop of Rome as declaring his Soueraigne authoritie ouer others In which his assertion a notable absurdity is implyed viz. that the name Pope was aralogon and consequently was giuen to other Byshops but improperly analogically and by way of similitude as euery meane Logician can tell or Iesuâ—te Thirdly he graunteth that the name Pope did in processe of time cease to be giuen to other Bishops and so remayned to the Byshop of Rome alone Which doubtlesse is that very doctrine which I in the tryall doe defend To which I must needes adde this one thing though litle to
ipse iudicaturus a nemine est iudicandus For the Pope is to iudge all others but none may iudge him God saue our holy Father the Pope The Eight Conclusion The Pope hath Vniuersall Iurisdiction ouer all Kingdomes Empires and fulnesse of Power in as ample and large maner as Christ himselfe had The popish famous Frier Augustinus de Ancoua hath these expresse words Papa tanquam vicarius Dej filij caelestis Imperatoris iurisdictionem habet vniuersalem super omnia Regna et Imperia The Pope as he that is the Vicar of the Sonne of God the heauenly Emperour hath vniuersall iurisdiction ouer all Kingdomes and Empires Pope Nicholas after hee hath told vs many fables of the Church of Rome doth at length tell vs that S. Peter and the Byshops of Rome his successours haue all Power both earthly and heauenly these are his wordes in the Booke of Popish decrees Christus Beato Petro aeternae vitae clauâ—gero terreni simul et caeâ—estis imperij iura commisit Christ committed to S. Peter the Porter of heauen gates the rightes both of earthly and heauenly regalitie And the popish glosse annexed to this Decree of Pope Nicholas deliuereth the matter in more gallant tearmes these are the wordes ArgumentuÌ„ quod Papa habet vtrumque gladium viz. spiritualem et temporalem This is an argument that the Pope hath both Swordes to weet the Spirituall and the temporall And in the Margent it confirmeth the same in these plaine tearmes Papa habens vtrumque gladium transtulit Imperiâ—m The Pope hauing both the Swordes translated the Empire Yea the Pope Boniface the eight made a flat Decree for the confirmation of his pretended right to both Swords as is to be seene in his extrauagant Vnam sanctam de maioritate et obedientia set downe in the sixt Booke annexed to the Decretals Appendix Fuldensis vnfouldeth this arrogant and brutish Decree in these plaine tearmes Hic Papa Bonifacius 8. constitutionem fecerat in qua se dominum spiritualem et temporalem in vniuerso mundo asserebat Vnde requisiuit Philippum regem Franciae vt a se regnum suum cognosceret quod rex facere contempsit The Pope he speaketh of Boniface the eight made a constitution in which he affirmed himselfe to be both spirituall and temporall Lord in the whole world Whereupon hee would haue had Phillip king of France to haue acknowledged his Kingdome from him but the King laughed him to scorne for his paines Johannes Gersonus a very learned Papist sometime Chancellor of the famous Vniuersitie of Paris affirmeth wonderfull power to be ascribed to the Pope thus doth hee write Sicut non est potestas nisi a Deo sic nec aliqua Temporalis vel Ecclesiastica Imperialis vel Regalis nisi a Papa in cuius faemore scripsit Christus Rex reguÌ„ Dominus Dominantium Like as there is no Power but of God so is there neither any Temporall nor Eccesiasticall neither Imperiall nor Regall but of the Pope in whose thigh Christ hath written the King of Kings the Lord of Lords Loe heere gentle Reader two thinges are proper to God alone the one to be King of Kinges and Lord of Lordes the other to be the author of all Power both which the Papistes ascribe vnto their Pope Thus writeth M. Gerson of the Popes Superroyall power which his flattering Parasites haue with his good liking giuen him although the same Gerson being otherwise a very zelous Papist did vtterly dislike and deride the same The Pope himselfe from his owne penne Gregorie the ninth deliuereth vs this doctrine Ad firmamentum caeli hoc est vniuersalis Ecclesiae fecit Deus duo magna Luminaria id est duas instituit dignitates quae sunt pontificalis authoritas et regalis potestas Sequitur vt quanta est inter Solem et LunaÌ„ tanta inter Pontifices et Reges differentia cognoscatur To the firmament of Heauen that is of the vniuersall Church God made two Lightes that is Pontificall authoritie and power Royall that we may know there is as much difference betweene Popes and Kinges as there is betweene the Sunne and the Moone The Popes glose vpon this goodly Text setteth downe precisely how farre a King is inferiour to a Pope that is to any Byshop of Rome in these wordes Restat vt Pontificalis dignitas quadragesies septies sit maior regali dignitate It remayneth that the dignitie of the Pope is fourtie times seauen times greater then is the power of the King Thus writeth the glose disputing out of Ptolomaeus that the Pope must be infinitely greater then any King in the whole world Well let vs heare the Clerkely sentence of Pope Gelasius in his owne behalfe these are his wordes Honor et sublimitas episcopalis nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari si regum fulgori compares et principum diademati longe erit inferius quam si plumbi metallum ad auri fulgorem compares The honour dignitie of a Byshop can not be equalized by any comparison If it be compared to the excellencie of Kinges and to the Diademes of Princes it shall be found farre more inferiour then if thou compare a peece of Lead with bright shyning Gold So then the Popes owne Decrees make it cleere and euident that the Lordly and more then Royall titles ascribed to them doe sound well in their eares The Ninth Conclusion The Pope can by his supereminent excellencie and fulnesse of Power change the nature of things apply the substantiall partes of one thing to another and of nothing make some thing The Popes deare glose vpon his Decretals doth plainely deliuer the truth of this Conclusion in these most golden wordes Papa naturam rerum immutat substantialia vnius rei applicando alij et de nihilo potest aliquid facere quia in his quae vult ei est pro ratione voluntas et plenitudinem obtinet potestatis The Pope changeth the nature of thinges by applying the substantiall partes of one thing to another and he can make of nothing some thing for in those thinges which he hath a minde to doe his bare Will is to him a sufficient warrant and he hath the fulnesse of Power Antonius that famous popish Arch-byshop and canonized Saint comming as Ambassadour from the Pope telleth vs if we may beleeue him that the Pope is Christes Vicar vpon earth and of equall power with God omnipotent these are his expresse wordes Cum autem vicarius Christi sit Papa nullus potest seipsum subtrahere ab obedientia eius de iure sicut nullus de iure potest se subtrahere ab obedientia Dei. et sicut recepit Christus a patre ducatum et sceptrum ecclesiae gentiuÌ„ ex Israel egrediens super omnem principatuÌ„ et potestatem et super omne quodcuÌ„que est vt ei genua cuncta curuentur sic ipse Petro
et successoribus eius plenissimaÌ„ potestatem commisit For seeing the Pope is the Vicar of Christ none can lawfully withdraw himselfe from his obedience as none can lawfully withdraw himselfe from Gods obedience And as Christ receiued of his Father the Dukedome and Scepter of the Church of the Gentiles ouer all Principalitie and power and aboue euery thing that hath beeing that to him euery knee may bend euen so Christ hath committed most full Power to Peter and to his successours the Byshops of Rome Out of these Popish authorities I obserue to the confusion of the Pope and Poperie these golden Lessons First that the Pope hath Fulnesse of power euen as largely as Christ himselfe hath it Secondly that the Pope may doe whatsoeuer pleaseth him his bare Will being a law so to doe Thirdly that he can change the nature of thinges Fourthly that he can apply the essentiall partes of one thing to another and consequently of a Pigge make an Oxe of a Gosling a Lyon and so foorth yea of a Peece of Bread the Body of our Sauiour accidents remayning without subiectes Fiftly and this surpasseth all the rest that the Pope is aboue GOD himselfe Which Collection or Obseruation though it be very strange and woonderfull is truly deduced out of these wordes Super omne quodcunque est vt ei genua cunctae curuentur forasmuch as it must needes be graunted euen of the Pope himselfe that God hath not onely a beeing but such a supereminent beeing as of which all other beeings depend and from thence receiue their beeings Sixtly that the Pope can make of nothing some thing and so create new creatures in the world as also new worldes to receiue them Which Obseruations being true as they are most true I can not but needes I must conclude that the Pope at the least is the fore-runner of Antichrist it can not with any reason be denied The Tenth Conclusion The first occasion and Popish falsely pretended foundation of all the forenamed Arrogant Lordly Superroyal and plaine diuine tytles ascribed to the late Byshoppes of Rome was a counterfeite and falsely pretended Donation of the Emperour Constantinus surnamed the great at his departure from the West into the East about 327. yeares after Christ that is to Constantinople from the citie of Rome Behold the proofe The Popes Decrees compiled and gathered togeather by his deuoted vassall Gratianus beare the world in hand and tell the Readers that the Emperour Constantine the great gaue great Power royall Excellencie and imperiall Maiestie euen the royall Crowne of pure Gold from off his head with all his tytle right prerogatiues royall authoritie power and dignitie whatsoeuer not only in Rome but also in Italie in all the West parts to the Byshop of Rome and his successours for euer And the rather to perswade all people that Constantine gaue to the Byshops of Rome as is already sayd the sayd popish Decree setteth downe the worthy motiue by which the Emperour was induced to translate the Westerne Empire with all his royall right there and to bestow the same vpon the Byshoppes of Rome These amongst many other long periods doe plainely intimate his motiue Vnde congruuÌ„ perspeximus nostruÌ„ imperiuÌ„ et regni potestatem orientalibus transferri regionibus et in Bizantiae prouinciae optimo loco nomini nostro ciuitateÌ„ aedificari et nostruÌ„ illiâ— imperium constitui quoniaÌ„ vbi principatus SacerdotuÌ„ et Christianae religionis caput ab Imperatore caelesti constitutuÌ„ est iustuÌ„ non est vt Imperator terrenus habeat potestatem Wherevpon we haue thought it meete that our Empire power of our kingdome should be remooued to the Easterne regions and that a Cittie should be built for our name at Bâ—zantiuÌ„ a place most fit for vs and that our Empire should be appointed there Because where the Prince of Priest-hood and the head of christian religion was appointed by the Heauenly Emperour it is not meete that an earthly Emperour should haue power Thus disputeth the Pope for his Primacie and Golden Crowne insinuating himselfe if we will beleeue his Antichristian pleading to be the Emperour of the westerne World This falsely pretended Donation of which I haue written more at large in the Downefall of Poperie the latter Popes did euer obiect and violently obtrude it vpon the Church neuer ceasing with importunitie to sollicite the succeeding Emperours to confirme the sayd supposed Donation and to make Rome the head of all Churches vntill such time as Pope Boniface the third of that name did with much adoe obtaine of the cruell and bloody tyrant Phocas then the Emperour who rauished many vertuous Matrones and murdered the good Emperour Mauritius with his wife and children that Rome should be the Head of all Churches This was effected about 607. yeares after Christ. So then the Maiestie of the Byshops of Rome was not heard of in Christes Church for the space of 327. yeares after Christ at which time a counterfeit and false Donation was fetched from Hell in the name of the Emperour Constantine the great Neither could the Byshops of Rome perswade any one of the Emperours for the space almost of three hundred yeares after that supposed Donation either to confirme the same or to make Rome the Head of all Churches One onely Phocas that wicked Emperour gaue some credite to it and made Rome Head of all Churches Of which subiect I haue else where disputed more at large both in the Downe-fall of Poperie and in my Suruay Now that it is a counterfeit and falsely pretended Donation albeit the Byshops of Rome haue with many coozening trickes made vse thereof for their aduancement I will euidently prooue and plainely conuince by the cleere testimonies of many learned and famous Writers who all are of high esteeme in the Church of Rome Nicolaus de Cusa a famous and learned Cardinall wrote to to the Councell of Basill his opinion concerning the falsely supposed Donation of Constantine these are his expresse wordes Sed in veritate super modum admiror sires ita est eo quâ—d in autenticis libris et in historijs approbatis non inuenitur Relegi omnia quae potui gesta Imperialâ—a ac RomanoruÌ„ pontificuÌ„ historias sancti Hier onymj qui ad cuncta colligendum diligentissimus fuit Augustinj Ambrosij ac alioruÌ„ opuscula peritissimoruÌ„ Reuelui gesta sacroruÌ„ conciliorum quae post Niconumfuere et nullam inuenio concordantiam ad ea quae de illa donatione leguÌ„tur Sanctus Damasus Papa ad instantiam beati Hieronymj actus et gesta praedecessorum dicitur annotasse in cuius opere de Siluestro Papa non ea inueniuntur quae vulgo dicuntur But in truth I greatly admire if it be so seeing it can not be found in any authenticall Bookes and approoued Histories I haue read all the Actes of the Emperours and the Histories of the Byshops of Rome which
Kingdome as one that would execute Constantinet gyft both to haue been and this day to be subiect to the Church of Rome which his successours Benedict and Clement foorthwith reuoked as a thing wicked and vniust But what meaneth this your sollicitude O yee Byshoppes of Rome that ye doe exact of euery Emperour to confirme Constantines gyft if ye doe not distrust your owne right But all in vaine as the prouerbe sayth for it neuer was at any time and what is not can not be confirmed Yea whatsoeuer the Caesars doe they doe the same being deceyued by Constantines example or supposed gyft and they cannot giue away the Empire His fourth place is comprised in these wordes Praescipsit Romana ecclesia O Imperiti O diuini iuris ignari nullus quantuÌ„uis annorum numerus verum abolere titulum potest Sequitur parum ante me natum testor eorum memoriam qui interfuerunt per inaudituÌ„ genus fraudis Roma papale accepit Imperium seu tyrannidem potius cum diu libera fuisset Is fuit Bonifacius nonus octauo in fraude et nomine par si modo Bonifacij dicendi sunt qui pessime faciunt Sequitur sed quid plura opus est in re apertissima dicere Ego non modo Constantinum non donasse tanta non modo non potuisse Romanum Pontificem in eisdem praescribere sed etiamsi vtrumque esset tamen vtrumque ius sceleribus possessorum extinctum esse contendo cum videamus totius Italiae multarumque prouinciarum cladem ac vastitatem ex hoc vno fonte fluxisse Sequitur Papa non modo remp quod non Verres non Catilina non quispiam peculator auderet sed etiam rem Ecclesiasticam et spiritum sanctum quaestui habet quod Simon ille Magus detestatur et cum horum admonetur et a quibusdam bonis viris reprehenditur non negat sed palam fatetur atque gloriatur licere ei quauis ratione patrimonium Ecclesiae a Constantino donatum ab occupantibus extorquere Sequitur Nulla itaque vnquam religio nulla sanctitas nullus Dei timor et quod referens quoque horresco omnium scelerum impij homines a Papa sumunt excusationem in illo enim comitibusque eius est omnis facinoris exempluÌ„ vt cuÌ„ Esaia et Paulo in Papam et Papae proximos dicere possumus Nomen Dei per vos blasphematur inter Gentes qui alios docetis vosipsos non docetis qui praedicatis non surandum latrocinamini qui abhominamini idola sacrilegiuÌ„ facitis qui in Lege et in Pontificatu gloriamini per praeuaricationem legis Deum veruÌ„ PontificeÌ„ inhonoratis The Church of Rome pleadeth Prescription O foolish men O men that know not the law of God! None though neuer so great number of yeares can abolish the title of trueth Not long before my birth I call to witnesse the memorie of them that were present by such fraud as was neuer heard of Rome receiued the Papall Empire or tyranny rather when it had a long time remayned free Boniface the ninth was the man equall to the eight in fraude and name if wee may call them Bonifaces who liue most abhominably But what need more be sayd in a matter most euident to all the world I contend not onely that Constantine gaue not such great giftes not only that the Byshop of Rome could not prescribe in such thinges but although they both had been so yet that the tytles of both were extinct with the wickednesse of the possessours when we may see that the dectruction and desolation of all Jtaly and many Prouinces sprange onely out of this Fountaine The Pope selleth for gaine not onely the Common-weale which neither Verres nor Catiline nor any notorious robber durst doe but also the Treasure of the Church and the holy Ghost which Simon the Magician doth detest And when he is admonished of these thinges and good men reprooue him for the same he denieth not but openly confesseth and glorieth therein that he may extort and by what meanes soeuer take from the possessours that Patrimonie which Constantine gaue to the Church Therefore he had neuer any Religion sanctimonie or feare of God And I tremble while I speake it men polluted with sinnes of all sortes alledge the Pope for their excuse For hee and his retinue are the example of all kind of mischiefe so as wee may iustly exclaime with â—say and with Paul against the Pope and his deuoted Pope-lings You are the cause that Gods name is blaspheamed among the Gentiles You that teach others doe not teach your selues you that preach against Stealing commit Robberie by the hie-way side you that abhorre Idolatrie practise Sacriledge yee that glorie in the Law boast of the Popedome by transgression of the Law dishonour the true Byshop which is GOD. Out of these plaine and euident testimonies of these famous zealous and great learned Papistes Gratianus Victoria Syluester Viguerius Fumus Nauarrus Couarruuias Gregorius Aquinas Augustinus de Anchona Glossator decretalium Gersonus Cardinalis Cusanus Antoninus Volateranus Paulus Cathalanus and Laurentius Valla I obserue these manifold Christian golden and worthy Lessons First that though the Pope be a most wicked man and carry thousands vpon thousandes to Hell yet may no man reprooue him for such his detestable cursed dealing Secondly that it is sacriledge to dispute of the Popes power and authoritie Thirdly that the Pope can not only pardon all punishment due to sinnes in this world but also bring all soules out of popish Purgatorie at his good will and pleasure Fourthly that the Pope hath often taken vpon him by his most wicked and execrable Dispensations to dissolue Matrimonie against Christes sacred Institution Fiftly that the Pope can dispense with a popish Monke already professed that he may marry vse coniugall actes with his lawfull Wife Sixtly that the Pope hath de facto dispensed with the full Brother to marry his naturall and full Sister of the same Father and the same Mother Seuenthly that the Pope may doe whatsoeuer pleaseth his maiesticall Holynesse his bare and onely Will being a sufficient warrant so to doe Eightly that the Pope hath vniuersall iurisdiction ouer all Kingdomes and Empires and not that onely but also the Fulnesse of Power in as large and ample manner as Christ him selfe had it Ninthly that the Pope can by his supereminent excellencie and fulnesse of Power change the nature of thinges apply the substantiall partes of one thing to another and of nothing make something in so much as all knees must bow and bende vnto him and consequently that he is not pure Man but God also Tenthly that the first occasion and originall of Popish Superroyall falsely pretended Primacie was a counterfeit and falsely pretended Donation of the Emperour Constantinus surnamed the great Eleuenthly that the Late Byshop of Rome solliciting the Emperour Phocas with great
importunitie to confirme the supposed Donation of Constantine obtayned with much a doe vnderpretence of the sayd Donation not the confirmation of the pretended gyft but that the Church of Rome should be the Head of all Churches Twelfely that the Byshoppes of Rome now called Popes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neither did nor could perswade any one of the Emperours for the space almost of three hundred yeares after that supposed Donation either to confirme the same or to make Rome the Head of all Churches Thirteenthly that neither S. Hierome nor S. Augustine nor S. Ambrose nor any approoued Historie doth make any mention of the sayd Donation Foureteenthly that of right the People of Rome not the Pope should set the Crowne vpon the Emperours head Fifteenthly that the Emperour had euer in his possessioÌ„ both Rome Italy the whole Westerne Empire vntill the dayes of King Pippine as also that Pope Boniface acknowledged the Citie of Rome to pertaine to the Emperour Honorius Sixteenthly that Cardinall Cusanus a great learned man a zealous Papist auoucheth constantly that he neuer read of any Bishop of Rome vntill the time of Stephanus the second who durst in the name of S. Peter presume to challenge any right in the aforenamed places Seauenteenthly that the Decree vpon which the Popes would ground their Superroyall pretended Prerogatiues is a false and counterfeit Narration and can not be found in the old Decrees Eighteenthly that Charles and Pippine spoyled the true Emperours so enriched the Citie of Rome Nineteenthly that Melchiades who was the next Byshop of Rome before Syluester doth roundly confute the sayd Donation as a thing falsely fathered vpon Constantine the great Twentethly that the Byshops of Rome were not peculiarly called Popes for the space of many hundred yeares after Christ. Furthermore that the Emperour is reported by the Popes counterfeit Decree to haue holden the Bridle of his Horse and to haue wayted at his Stirrope Where I wish the Reader to obserue seriously with me that the late Byshoppes of Rome haue vsed many coozening trickes especially the false Donation of Constantine and his pretensed seruice to the Pope so to aduance their state and superroyall Pompe and to cause Kinges and Emperours to kisse their feete Yet further that what so euer the Emperours of latter time gaue to the Church and Byshoppes of Rome that wholy proceeded from a sandy and rotten foundation with which the said Byshoppes and their flattering parasites seduced them viz. from a counterfeite and falsely supposed Donation of Constantinus surnamed the great Lastly that the late Popes or Byshoppes of Rome with their deuoted Popelinges are the cause of all kind of mischiefe and naughtinesse To all which so to cheere vp the Pope and his Popelinges I will adde a fine and graue testimonie of the Popes deare Fryer learned Schoole-doctor Franciscus a Victoria his wordes are these Et paulatim ad hanc intemperantiam dispensationuÌ„ deuentum est et hunc talem statum vbj nec mala nostra nec remedia pati possumus et ideo necesse est aliam rationem excogitare ad conseruandas leges Da mihi Clementes Lines Syluestros et omnia permittem arburio eorâ—m sea vt nihil grauius dicatur in recentiores Pontâ—fices certè multis partibus sunt prisâ—is illis inferiores By little and little we are brought to these inordinate Dispensations and to this so miserable state where we are neither able to endure our owne griefes nor the remedies assigned by Popes for the same And therefore we must perforce inuent some other way for conseruation of the Lawes Giue me Clements Lines Syluesters and I will commit all thinges to their charge But to say nothing grieuously against latter Popes they are doubtlesse inferiours to the old Byshoppes of Rome and that by many degrees Thus writeth this learned Fryer who if hee durst haue spoken his minde freely would haue told vs mirabilia First he exclaymeth against popish Dispensations Secondly he pitifully lamenteth the state of the Church Thirdly he cryeth out that the Popes doe lay such intollerable burthens vpoÌ„ them as they are no way able to endure the same Lastly he commendeth the old Byshoppes of Rome but vtterly so farre foorth as hee dareth condemneth the latter Popes or Byshoppes of Rome Whose assertion in very deed iumpeth with the doctrine which I defend and plainely conuinceth late Romish fayth and superstition to be but a rotten Ragge of the New religion Now let vs heare what the Iesuite is able to say for him selfe for the sauegard of the life of late start-vp Poperie B. C. To season the beginning of his Chapter with a litle of his mendatious powder he writeth thus Bonifacius Byshop of Rome and third of that name aboue sixe hundred yeares after Christ obtained of Phocas then Emperour of Rome that Rome should be the Head of all Churches Before which time no authenticall Writer can be named who euer ascribed the Headship vniuersall Gouernement of all Churches to the Church of Rome This is a manifest vntrueth In the Councell of Chalcedon Maximus Byshop of Antioch was confirmed by Leo the first Pope Iulius the first restored Athanasius Patriarch of Alexandria to his seate Paulus Patriarch of Constantinople and Marcellus Byshop of Ancyra deposed vniustly by an Easterne Synode as writeth Sozomenus whose wordes be these For as much as the care of all did belong to him for the dignitie of his Seate hee restored to euery of them their Church T. B. I answere first that is lying slaundering and false dealing were once set apart our Jesuites irkesome fond disputation would soone haue an end For first the famous Councell of Chalcedon was conuented holden by the commandement of Martianus the Emperour and not of Pope Leo as is euident and manifest to euery child in the very beginning of the 7. Action quoted by our Jesuite Againe the Fathers of that famous Councell acknowledge them-selues to haue come thither at the Emperours commaundement to make peace betweene Maximus byshop of Antioch and Juuenalis Byshop of Hierusalem These are the expresse wordes of the Iudges themselues Gloriosissimj Iudices dixerunt diuiniss et pijss noster Dominus Jmperator rogatus a Maximo et Juuenale sanctissimis Episcopis praecopit nos agnoscere de motis inter eos capitulis The most glorious Iudges said The most holy and religious Emperour our Lord being intreated of the most holy Byshops Maximus and Juuenalis commaunded vs to examine the coÌ„trouersies betweene them Thirdly it was the Councell not Pope Leo that confirmed Maximus and concluded a peaceable vnitie betweene him and Iuuenalis Fourthly no mention is made at all of Pope Leo who is not so much as once named in the said action of the holy and famous Councell Fiftly Anatolius the most reuerend Arch-byshop of New Rome confirmed by expresse wordes the aforenamed Vnitie
requiratur autem ne pusillanimitate aut contentione aeut alio quolibet Episcopi vitio videatur a congregatione seclusus Vt hoc ergo decentius inquiratur bene placuit annis singulis per vnamquamque Prouinciam bis in anno concilia celebrari vt cōmuniter simul omnibus Episcopis congregatis Prouinciae discutiantur huiusmodi quaestiones et sic qui suo peccauerunt Episcopo euidenter excommunicati rationabiliter ab omnibus extimentur vsquequo vel in communi vel Episcopo placeat humaniorem pro talibus ferre sententiam Concilia vero celebrentur vnum quidem ante quadragesimam Paschae vt omni dissensione sublata munus offeratur Deo purissimum Secundum vero circa tempus Autumni Concerning those who are put from the Communion whether they be of the Clericall or Laicall order let the sentence of Byshoppes throughout euery Prouince giuen according to the Canon be of force that they who are reiected be not receiued of others Let examination be had least any be secluded through pusillanimitie or contention or other fault of the Byshop That this therefore may be duly examined it hath pleased the Councell well that yearely in euery Prouince Councels should be kept twise in the yeare that when all the Byshops of the Prouince shall meete togeather in one place then such questions may be duely examined And so they that haue offended their Byshop manifestly may be iudged by all to be excomunicated not without a cause vntill it please the Byshop of the place or all in the Prouince to shew them fauour Let the Councels be kept one before Lent that all dissention being taken away a most pure Oblation may be presented vnto God The second about Autumne Thus this holy and most famous Councell out of whose definition two thinges are cleered th' one that the Byshops of the Prouince should end and determine all appeales no mention at all made or any regard had of or to the Byshop of Rome Th' other that the auncient Canon ought to be kept which commaundeth that none should receiue them to the Communion who were excomunicated and condemned by others So then the Councell of Nice did curbe the Pope and kept him vnder in his former state And withall the holy Councell prouided a very Christian remedie that none should be vniustly oppressed by his Byshoppe Which remedie was this viz. That hee who found himselfe grieued might appeale from his Byshop yet to the Byshops of the Prouince but to none else Secondly the same Councell ordayned in an other Canon that none should be created Byshoppes but by the Byshoppes of their owne Prouince as also that the Metropolitane of the Prouince not the Byshop of Rome should haue authoritie and power to confirme those who were made Byshoppes within the Prouince Thirdly that the Byshoppe of Rome had no prerogatiue of power but onely within his owne Diocesse is constantly auouched by the sayd Councell in the sixt Canon thereof These are the wordes of the Councell as Ruffinus an auncient and learned Writer about 1200. yeares agoe so within eightie yeares of the time of the Nicene Councell hath interpreted the same Et vt apud Alexandriam et in Vrbe Romae vetusta consuetudo seruetur vt vel ille Aegypti vel hic suburbicariarum Ecclesiarum sollicitudinem gerat And that in Alexandria and in the citie of Rome the old custome be kept that the one haue the sollicitude of Egypt the other of the Churches adioyning and about Rome Thus writeth Ruffinus shewing very plainely that the Byshop of Alexandria had as great iurisdiction or rather more as the Byshop of Rome Yea Cusanus a popish Cardinall vnderstandeth the Canon after the same manner with Ruffinus And it is confirmed by the fourth Canon of the same Councell as Ruffinus citeth it these are the wordes Absque quo ordinationē irritam esse voluerunt Without whose authoritie he meaneth the Metropolitane the Councell decreed the ordination to be voyde and of none effect But this sacred Decree of a Councell so holy and so famous the Pope this day contemneth and challengeth the right of all Metropolitanes to himselfe Fourthly the famous Councelles both of Constantinople and of Chalcedon did make the Byshop of Constantinople equall with the Byshoppe of Rome in all Ecclesiasticall affaires excepting onely the Primacie of honour as we haue already seene See and note well the 30. Chapter of this present Booke Aphorisme second The Canons of the holy Nicene Councell are but only twentie though the Pope and his Jesuites would haue them to be foure-score For first onely twentie are this day extant in the common Volumes of Councels Secondly no approoued Councell did euer admit or receiue any more This is very cleere and euident by the testimonie of the famous Affrican Councell as by and by God willing I shall vnfold Thirdly the famous Councels of Constantinople and Chalcedon haue flatly decreed against the falsely pretended Primacie of the Byshoppe of Rome which Councels for all that did in euery respect highly reuerence the Decrees and Canons of the Nicene Councell and consequently the sayd Councels did not acknowledge any Canon of the Nicene Synode which made for the pretended Primacie of the Byshoppe of Rome But this Aphorisme shall be further prooued by an euident demonstration in the Aphorismes immediatly following and therefore there is no need now to stand longer about the same Aphorisme third The Councell of Sardica is not a legitimate and lawfull Synode but a bastard and counterfeite conuenticle I prooue it first because S. Augustine doth acknowledge no Councell of Sardica saue one onely which was Hereticall Secondly because Cardinall Cusanus who was a great Champion of the Romish Church is of the same opinion Thirdly because the Councell of Sardica is against the Councell of Nice concerning Appellations to the Pope Fourthly because the Fathers of the famous Affricane Councell in their Epistle to Caelestine then Byshop of Rome doe most constantly affirme with vniforme assent that the Councell of Nice forbiddeth Appeales to the Church of Rome these are their expresse wordes Praefato itaque debitae salutationis officio impendiò deprecamur vt deinceps ad vestras aures hinc venientes non facilius admittatis nec a nobis excommunicatos in communionem vltra velitis excipere Quia hoc etiam Niceno Concilio definitum facilè aduertet venerabilitas tua Nam etsi de inferioribus Clericis vel Laicis videtur ibi praecaueri quanto magis hoc de Episcopis voluit obseruari ne in sua prouincia communione suspensi a tua sanctitate vel festinatò vel praeproperè vel indebitè videantur cōmunioni restitui Presbyterorum quoque et sequentium clericorum improba refugia sicuti te dignum est repellat sanctitas tua quia et nulla patrum definitione hoc Ecclesiae derogatum est Aphricanae et decreta Nicaena siue
inferioris gradus Clericos siue ipsos Episcopos suis Metropolitanis apertissimè commiserunt Prudentissimè N. iustissimèque prouiderunt quaecūque negocia in suis locis vbi orta sunt finienda nec vnicuique Prouinciae gratiam sancti spiritus defuturam qua aequitas a Christi sacerdotibus et prudenter videatur et constantissimè teneatur maximè quia vnicuique concessum est si iudicio offensus fuerit cognitorum ad concilia suae Prouinciae vel etiam vniuersale prouocare Nisi forte quisquam est qui credat vnicuilibet posse Deum nostrum examinis inspirare iustitiā et innumerabilibus congregatis in concilium sacerdotibus denegare Aut quomodo ipsum transmarinū iudicium ratum erit ad quod testiū necessariae personae vel propter sexus vel propter senectutis infirmitatem vel multis alijs intercurrentibus impedimentis adduci non poterunt Nam vt aliqui tanquam a tuae sanctitatis latere mittantur nulla inuenimus patrum Synodo constitutum Quia illud quod pridem per eundem Coepiscopum nostrum Faustinum tanquam ex parte Niceni concilij ex inde transmisistis in verioribus concilijs quae accipiuntur Nicena a sancto Cyrillo Coepiscopo nostro Alexandrinae Ecclesiae et a venerabili Attico Constantinopolitano antistite ex authentico missis quae etiam ante hoc per Innocentium Presbyterem et Marcellum subdiaconum per quos ad nos ab eis directa sunt venerabilis memoriae Bonifacio Episcopo praedecessori vestro a nobis trāsmissa sūt in quibus tale aliquid nō potuimus reperire Therefore due salutation premised wee heartily desire that hencefoorth you doe not easily receiue those that come from hence vnto your eares neither hereafter receiue into your communion such as be excomunicated by vs For this also is decreed by the Nicene Councell as your reuerence will easily perceiue For although it seeme there to be decreed onely of the Lay people or Clerkes of the inferiour order how much more doth the holy Councell intend it of the Byshops themselues least such as be suspended in their owne Prouince from the Communion should hastily abruptly or vnduely be by you restored to the same Let your holynes reiect the impious refuges of Priestes other inferiour Clarkes as it becommeth you because no Decree of the Fathers doth spoyle the Aphrican Church of this libertie and the Decrees of the Nicene Councell haue most plainely referred not onely Clarkes of inferiour degree but also the Byshops them-selues to their Metropolitanes For they haue most prudently and most iustly prouided that all businesses whatsoeuer shall be there ended where they began neither the grace of the holy spirit to be wanting to euery Prouince by which equitie among Christes Priestes may both prudently be foreseene and most constantly obserued especially because euery one hath freedome if iudgement giuen offende him to appeale either to a prouinciall or generall Councell vnlesse perhappes any be of this minde that God will inspire the iustice of examination to euery one at his pleasure and deny the same to a multitude of Priestes assembled togeather in Councell Or how shall iudgement beyonde the Sea be approoued where meete and necessarie witnesses can not be present either by reason of the sexe or through the infirmitie of old age or by many other intercurring impedimentes For that any should be sent from your Holynesse we finde it not defined by the Fathers in any Synode at all For that which you lately sent by Faustinus our fellow-Byshop as on the behalfe of the Nicene Councell in the true Councelles receiued from Nice sent authentically from S. Cyrill our fellow-Byshoppe of the Church of Alexandria and from venerable Atticus the Prelate of Constantinople which also we sent formerly to Byshop Boniface of venerable memorie your predecessour by Jnnocentius Priest and Marcellus Subdeacon by whom they were directed from them to vs we can not find any such thing Thus wrote these learned auncient and holy Fathers to Celestinus the Byshop of the citie of Rome Their narration and attestation though very long and plentifull I thought good to lay open to the Reader in their expresse wordes at large because they doe so liuely discouer Popysh forgerie Iesuiticall treacherie in the best beseeming colours and declare so euidently Poperie to be the New religion as nothing can be more Which most constant assertion of so many so auncient so holy so graue so learned Byshoppes whosoeuer shall prudently and duely ponder that man doubtlesse can not but detest and abhorre Poperie as a newly coyned Fayth and Religion For first these holy Fathers does not call Pope Celestine The vniuersall Byshoppe but simply and plainely Vrbis Romae Episcopum The Byshop of the citie of Rome Secondly they tell him constantly that hee may not receiue them whom they doe excomunicate and they yeeld this reason Because the Nicene Councell hath so defined it Thirdly they affirme resolutely that the Nicene Councell committed both inferiour Clerkes and Byshoppes them-selues to be censured and taxed by their Metropolitanes Fourthly they tell Celestine then Byshop of Rome that the Nicene Fathers prouided most prudently and most iustly that Dissentions all Controuersies whatsoeuer should be decided finished where they began Where I admonish the Reader to obserue seriously this word Iustissimè most iustly for doubtlesse if Iustice require to finish and determine causes where they began then doth the Pope vniustly when he seeketh to draw the hearing thereof to the Court of Rome Fiftly when any one findeth himselfe iustly grieued the Nicene Councell say they giueth him this freedome to appeale from his Byshoppe to the Metropolitane and from the Metropolitane vnto a generall Councell but neuer a word of appealing to the Pope Sixtly they tell the Pope roundly that it is a meere folly to thinke that God will better inspire him with the examination of Iustice then a multitude of Priestes assembled for that end Seuenthly they tell their brother Celestine for so they tearme him but not Vniuersall Byshoppe that if his proud and greedy desire were put in execution many mischiefes would insue therevpon Eightly they constantly auouch with one consent that no Fathers did euer decree in any Synode that the Pope should send any Deputie or Messenger to their Councels This would be duely pondered as a matter of great consequence For out of it doe follow two necessarie and ineuitable Corollaries corollary 1 The first Corollarie is this viz. That the Councell of Sardica is a falsely pretended and counterfeite Synode as which hath decreed that in fauour of the Pope which these Fathers of the Affrican Councell deny any Synode to haue done corollary 2 The second Corollarie is this viz. That neither the Councell of Nice nor yet any other lawfull Synode did euer decree transmarine Appeales to the Byshoppe of Rome I say transmarine because I willingly admit the Priestes and Byshoppes
manifestly ascribe it to the Councell Julius when the Arrians reprooued him for ouerth warting that which they had done in their Councell answered roundly that the doinges in one Councell may lawfully be sifted examined and discussed in an other that themselues had offered to haue the cause debated so in iust iudgement and for that ende had requested a Councell to be called that Athanasius and the rest appeared at the Councell and that they who should also haue appeared made default and that therevpon the Councell finding their iniquitie relieued the parties wrongfully oppressed In briefe that whatsoeuer hee dealt or wrote therein hee did it not on his owne head but on the Councels iudgement and consent For these are the expresse wordes of Julius Visum est nobis ac vniuerso Conciâ—â—â— It seemed good to vs and to the whole Councell So then it was not the Pope but the Councell that heard and determined the causes of Byshoppes Such power of iurisdiction neither did Julius claime neither did Athanasius giue it him To which I adde that whatsoeuer Julius and the Councell did was by vertue and power deriued from the Nicene Canons So doth Sozomenus write on the behalfe of Athanasius and the rest I adde likewise that this Epistle of Iulius as it is in the first Tome of Councels is a bastard impe and a plaine counterfeit The legitimate Epistle is truely set downe in the workes of Athanasius obiection 4 They say fourthly that the Canons of the Nicene Councell commaund that no Decrees of Councels be of force without the consent of the Byshoppe of Rome But I answere first that Socrates and Sozomenus haue no other ground wherevpon to build that their Narration but the bare testimonie of Pope Julius himselfe in that Epistle which he wrote to the Arrians which Epistle is a counterfeite as I haue alreadie prooued Secondly that the Commandement of the Nicene Councell was that Councels should be kept yearely twise in euery Prouince But doubtlesse it were ridiculous to say or thinke that the Pope must be called twise euery yeare into euery Prouince in the Christian world Nay it is a thing impossible to be done obiection 5 They say fiftly that Flauianus Arch-byshop of Constantinople appealed to Pope Leo from the Councell of Ephesus deposing him vniustly And that Theodorete Byshoppe of Cyrus did likewise appeale to the same Leo being vniustly vexed by the same Synode But I answere first that Flauianus indeede appealed from the Councell of Ephesus yet not to Pope Leo but to a greater and a more lawfull Councell Secondly that Theodoretes cause was iudged determined by the same Councell of Chalcedon The former is prooued by Leos owne Epistle to the Emperour Augustus in which Epistle he complayneth to the Emperour of the fewnes and oppression of the Byshoppes assembled at the second prophane Synode in Ephesus and withall humbly beseecheth the Emperour that seeing Plauianus had appealed it would please his Maiestie to haue a Councell kept in Italy These are the expresse wordes of Leo himselfe Omnes partium nostrarum Ecclesiae omnes mansuetudini vestrae cum gemitibus et lachrymis supplicant sacerdotes vt quia et nostri fideliter reclamarunt et eisdem libellum appellationis Flauianus Episcopus dedit generalem Synodum iubeatis intra Italiam celebrari quae omnes offensiones ita aut repellat aut mitiget ne aliquid vltra sit vel in side dubium vel in charitate diuisum All the Churches with vs all Priestes with sighes and teares beseech your clemencie that seeing such as are ours haue faythfully disclaymed and Flauianus Byshoppe hath appealed you would commaund a generall Councell to be called and kept within Italy that so all contentions and offences may either be taken away or at the least so mittigated that hence-foorth nothing be either doubtfull in fayth or deuided in charitie Loe the Emperour not the Pope called Councelles euen within Jtaly and that for more then 450. yeares after Christ. obiection 6 They say sixtly that the Fathers of the Nicâ—ne Councell sent their Epistle to Pope Siluester beseeching him to confirme and ratifie with his consent the thinges which they at Nice had ordayned To which I answere first that the Epistle is forged and a plaine counterfeite as which is flatly against sundry Canons of the same Councell as is already prooued Againe because there were 318. Byshoppes at the Councell and yet onely two Osius of Corduba in Spaine and Macarius of Constantinople with Victor and Vincentius Priests of the citie of Rome were the authors of that Epistle as the tenor thereof doth specifie Thirdly because Macarius was not then the Byshoppe of Constantinople but Alexander so writeth Nicephorus a famous Historiographer and a great friend of the Pope and Church of Rome Yea Genebrarde the Popes owne deare vassall doth plainely confesse the same Fourthly because that famous Citie had not then the name of Constantinople but was called Bizantium so witnesseth the same Nicephorus in these expresse wordes Idem postea Alexandro Episcopo Constantinopolitano accidisse dicunt vix dum post Synodum Constantinus ByzantiuÌ„ venerat The like Miracle did Alexander Byshoppe of Constantinople when the Emperour Constantinus was scarce come from the Councell to Byzantium The former Miracle of which Nicephorus speaketh was wrought by Spiridion a verie simple Byshoppe but an holy man The latter by Alexander of Constantinople then called Byzantium either of which twaine conuerted a great learned Philosopher to the fayth of Christ Iesus miraculously Fiftly because the said Epistle seemeth to be made by some franticke or fond fellow But how doe I prooue it Forsooth because it desireth the Pope to call togeather all the Byshoppes of his citie of Rome all which could but be his owne sweete selfe seeing there was but at once one Byshoppe of one Citie Sixtly because Julius not Syluester was then Bishoppe of Rome This to be so Cassiodorus doth plainely testifie in these wordes Communicabant igitur Nicaeno concilio ex Apostolicis quidem sedibus Macarius Hierosolymitamos Eustathius iam praesidens Antiochenae apud Orontem et Alexander Alexandriae quae est apud stagnuÌ„ Marinum Iulius ante Romanus Episcopus propter senectutem defuit erantque pro eo praesentes Vitus et Vincentius Presbyteri eiusdeÌ„ Ecclesiae There came therefore to the Councell of Nice from the Apostolicall seas Macarius of Hierusalem Eustathius of Antioch President and Alexander of Alexandria but Julius the Byshoppe of Rome was absent by reason of his old yeares and Vitus and Vincentius Priestes of the same Church were there in his roome Nicephorus is consonant to Cassiodorus in these expresse words â—taque Imperator malum id ad summum excrescere cernens decentatissimam illam in Bithynia Nicaenam Synodum promulgat et literis locorum omnium Episcopos ad constitutam diem eò euocat Sequitur Hierosolymis EpiscopatuÌ„ gessit Macarius Romae Iulius
Constantinopoli Alexander et Romanus antistes propter aetatem decrepitam Constantinopolitanus vero propter multam imbecillitatem in sedibus suis remansere Sed eorum nomine bini Presbyteri missi sunt a Iulio quidem Vitus et Vincentius ab Alexandro autem duo alij et vita et eruditione plurimum excellentes Therefore the Emperour perceiuing that the euill did grow to an head did proclaime the most famous Nicene Synode in Bithynia and by his Letters did call the Byshoppes euery where to come thither at the day by him appoynted Macarius was then Byshoppe at Hierusalem Iulius at Rome Alexander at Constantiâ—ople The Byshoppe of Rome by reason of his old age and the Byshoppe of Constantinople by reason of infirmitie did stay at home in their owne Seas But in their names two Priestes were sent from either of them Vitus and Vincentius from Julius and from Alexander other two very excellent both in learning and conuersation Sozomenus iumpeth with Nicephorus yea so doe also Pâ—atina in Agathone and Beda in his Chronologie as Genebrardus the Popes deare darling freely graunteth Where I wish the Reader to obserue seriously with mee that the Councell of Nice was holden in Bithynia in the twenteth yeare of the raigne of Constantine the great in the thirteenth yeare after his comming to Byzantium and that it continued three yeares and something more This Obseruation is profitable to the Reader for diuers good respectes Seuenthly because if this Epistle were admitted for good yet would it nothing helpe the Pope or his Iesu tea Popelinges the reason is at hand because it requires not the Pope alone but togeather withall the Byshoppes in his Citie or if ye will in Jtaly to confirme the decrees thereof So then this helpeth not to discharge Poperie of the New religion obiection 7 They say seauenthly that the Church of Rome in the Decrees of the Nicene Councell had not her preheminence and power limitted but was followed as a paterne in aduancing others for as Pope Nicolas sayth the Nicene Councell durst not make any Decree of that Church as knowing that nothing could be giuen her aboue her desert But I answere first that seeing that Example is allowed therein and made a patterne of the rest it followeth by an ineuitable consequence that the Councell did thereby decree that the Byshoppe of Rome should keepe himselfe within those limits For he must perforce confesse that as the Byshoppe of Alexandria had but the preheminence of all thereabout euen no more had the Byshoppe of Rome This is confirmed because it followeth immediately in the same Canon likewise also in Antioch and in other Prouinces let the Churches enioy their Priuiledges and Prerogatiues For the wordes of the Councell being grounded vpon the custome of the Byshoppe of Rome that as he had had preheminence of all the Byshoppes about him so Alexandria and Antioch should haue of all about them and likewise other Churches each in their owne Prouinces doe euidently conuince marke well my wordes that the Pope neither had formerly preheminence of all through the world neither this day ought to haue the same The old custome is it that the holy Councell doth respect not any prerogatiue of the Church of Rome Secondly because both Ruffinus and Cardinall Cusanus as I haue already prooued doe confirme this mine exposition Thirdly because the wordes next following in the selfe-same Canon doe vtterly ouerthrow and as it were cut the throate of the Popes falsely pretended Primacie These are the wordes Illud autem generaliter clarum est quod si quis praeter sententiam Metropolitani fuerit factus Episcopus hunc magna definiuit Episcopum esse non oportere But that is generally cleare that if any be made Byshoppe without the consent or iudgement of the Metropolitane the famous Synode hath decreed that such a one ought not to be a Byshoppe Now sir Jesuite if this be true as it is most true for all the Christian world doth and must obey the Decrees of the holy and famous Councell of Nice then doubtlesse your Popes pretended Supremacie lieth in the dust is by vertue thereof troden vnder foote For he challengeth a prerogatiue ouer all christian Nations to make Bishops euery where at his owne good pleasure as also to discarde displace them whosoeuer are made without his consent Fourthly because the next Canon hath no regard of the Church of Rome or of any prerogatiue of the Byshop thereof these are the words Quia consuetudo obtinuit et antiqua traditio vt Aeliae Episcopus honoretur habeat honoris consequentiam salua Metropâ—lis propria dignitate Because Custome and old Tradition hath obtayned that the Byshoppe of Jerusalem or Elia be honoured let him consequently haue honour the proper dignitie of the Metropolitane citie euer being safe Out of these wordes I obserue first that the preheminence and honour of particular Churches dependeth of an auncient Custome and not of any Supreame power or Prerogatiue of the Church of Rome Secondly that the Canon plainely teacheth vs that euery Metropolitane Byshoppe hath a proper Dignitie and consequently that such Dignitie resteth not in the Pope or Byshop of Rome Thirdly because the Fathers of the famous Councell of Chalcedon haue as is already prooued graunted equal Priuiledges to the Bishop of Constantinople with the Byshop of Rome in all Ecclesiasticall affaires To which I adde first that the Councell of Chalcedon decreed nothing saue that onely which the three first and most famous Councels of Nice Constantinople and Ephesus decreed before them This to be so Petrus the Metropolitane of Corinthus Athanasius Alexander and many other Byshoppes in their ioynt-Epistle to the Emperour Leo constantly affirme in these expresse wordes Vnde verò dignata est nobis scribere vestra transquillitas et apertè iussit nostram manifestare sententiam haec pietatis vestrae potentiae declaramus quia ea quae a Chalcedonensi sancto et vniuersali concilio definita sunt tanquam sanctis Synodis praecedentibus consona et in nullo contraria aut sanctorum trecentorum decem et octo patrum Niceno concilio aut Constantinopolitano 150. aut Ephesio sub beatae memoriae Cyrillo celebrato omnibus sententijs manere immutilata decreuimus Whereas your tranquilitie hath vouchsafed to write vnto vs and withall hath commaunded vs plainely to declare our sentence this we signifie to the power of your pietie that those thinges which the holy and vniuersall Councell of Chalcedon hath defined as consonant and no way contrarie to the holy precedent Synodes either to the Nicene Councell of the 318. holy Fathers or to the Councell of Constantinople of 150. holy Fathers or to the Councell of Ephesus celebrated vnder Cyrill of blessed memorie we haue decreed the same with all our sentences so to continue without maime or diminution I adde secondly that Gregorie the great who was Byshoppe of Rome himselfe
and a good man in deed did admit the foure first generall Councels of Nice Constantinople Ephesus and Châ—lcedon and did reuerence the same as the foure Gospels These are his expresse wordes as Gratianus hath related the same in the Popes owne Decrees Sicut sancti Euangelij quatuor libros sic quatuor Concilia suscipere et venerarie me fateor Nicenum scilicet in quo peruersum Arij dogma destruitur Constantinopolitanum quoque in quo Eunomij et Macedonij error conuincitur Ephesinum etiam primum in quo Nestorij impietas iudicatur Chalcedonense vero in quo Euticetis et Dioscori prauitas est reprobata Haec tota deuotione amplector integerrima approbatione custodio As I professe my selfe to receiue and reuerence the foure Books of the holy Gospell so also the foure Councels in like maner to weete the Councell of Nice in which the peruerse opinion of Arius is confounded the Councell of Constantinople also in which the errour of Eunomius and Macedonius is conuinced the Councell of Ephâ—sus also the first in which the impietie of Nestorius was censured the Councell of Chalcedon in like maner in which Eutiches Dioscorus were condemned These Councels I imbrace with great deuotion and keepe them with most holy approbation obiection 8 They say eightly that Pope Cornelius was Byshoppe of the Catholike Church of the whole world not of the Citie of Rome onely and they prooue it by these words of Cornelius in his Epistle to S. Cyprian Nec ignoramus vnum Dâ—um esse et vnum Christum esse Dominum quem confessj sumus vnum spiritum sanctum vnum Episcopum in Catholica Eccesia esse debere We are not ignorant that there is one God one Christ one holy Ghost and that there ought to be one Byshop in the Catholike Church But I answere that Cornelius meaneth the Catholike Church of the citie of Rome calling it rightly the Catholike Church yet not as it signifieth Vniuersall but as it connotateth a Church constantly holding the Catholike Fayth I prooue it because Cornelius himselfe in whose Epistle that is written sayth in an other Epistle directed to Fabius where he entreateth of the same matter that there ought to be one Byshoppe in that Catholike Church wherein there are â—ixe and fourtie Elders and seauen Deacons with seauen Sub-deacons so foorth These are the expresse wordes Ita igitur lepidum Euangelij patronuÌ„ Nouatum omnino praeâ—erijâ— scilicet vnum solum Episcopum oportere esse in hac Eccesia catholica in qua tamen non ignorabat quomodo enim poterat Presbyteros esse quadraginta sex Diaconos septem Subdiaconos septeÌ„ Acolythos quadraginta duos Exorcistas et Lectores vnacum ostiarijs quinquaginta duos viduas et alios morbo atque egestate afflictatos mille et quingentos quos omnes Domini gratia et benignitas abunde sustentat Hee therefore omitted altogeather this pleasant defender of the Gospell Nouatus because there ought but to be one onely Byshop in this Catholike Church in which for all that he was not ignoraunt for how could that be that there was fourtie sixe Elders or Priestes seauen Deacons seauen Subdeacons fourtie two Acolythes Exorcistes and Readers togeather with Sextenes fiftie two Widowes and others needie and sicke persons a thousand and fiue hundred All which the grace and liberalitie of our Lord doth aboundantly relieue And towards the beginning of the Epistle I find these words as Eusebius relateth theÌ„ Epistolae quidem Cornelij Episcopi Romani scriptae ad Fabium Episcopum ecclesiae Antiochenae ad nos peruenerunt quae tum acta concilij Romae habiti ab omnibus in Italia in Africa inque alijs in locis de eo errore decreta erant euidenter declarant The Epistles of Cornelius Byshoppe of Rome written to Fabius Byshoppe of Antioch came to our handes which did euidently declare the thinges which were then decreed touching that errour in a Councell then holden at Rome of all the Byshoppes in Jtaly Africa and other places This was the case the Church being troubled at that time with the Schismes and Heresies of Nouatus the Nouatians refused the communion of the Catholikes therevpon ordayned new Byshops for their Schismaticall conuenticles whereby it came to passe that in one Citie there were two Byshoppes at once a Catholike and an Heretike In Rome Cornelius and Nouatianus in Carthage Cyprian and Fortunatus Nouatus being very desirous to be a Byshoppe ioyned to himselfe two desperate companions and by that meanes three Byshoppes who were very rude and simple men These Byshoppes hee deceiued with faire speaches promises and coozening trickes Hee told them constantly that they must goe to Rome with all speed that by their sentence and iudgement all controuersies might be decided and fully ended The Byshops giuing credite to the report by reason of their simplicitie came to Rome with all conuenient speede Nouatus with a companie of odde companions like vnvnto himselfe found meanes to get them into an odde corner prepared for that end and purpose where so soone as the Byshoppes were made merry with Wine and delicate cheere hee violently compelled them to make him Byshoppe by a vaine and imaginarie imposition of handes Which being effected hee challenged the Byshopricke of Rome ioyntly with Cornelius Cornelius being lawfully possessed thereof and relying vpon the Decree of the Nicene Councell in that behalfe affirmed constantly that there could be but one Byshoppe in that Catholike Church of Rome The Catholikes therefore communicating in fayth and Christian loue with Cornelius tearmed him the Byshoppe of the Catholike Church obiection 9 They say ninthly out of S. Cyprian that all Heresies and Schismes haue sprong out of this onely fountaine and no other viz. that one Priest for the time in the Church and one Iudge for the time in stead of Christ is not regarded To whom if the whole brotherhoode would be obedient according to Gods ordinaunce no man would make any thing adoe against the companie of Gods Priestes Where by one Priest he meaneth one Byshoppe and by one Byshoppe Cornelius the Pope to whom hee writeth those thinges and consequently he argueth the Pope to be the Byshoppe of the whole Church and one Iudge for the time in Christes stead But I answere first that this in effect is the same with the former of Cornelius and consequently it ought to admit the same answere For he speaketh it vpon occasion of iniurie which the Nouatians offered himselfe in Carthage for the Nouatians there had ordeyned a new Byshoppe against him as their fellowes did in Rome against the good Byshoppe Cornelius Secondly because the wordes both precedent and subsequent doe clearely insinuate that he meaneth it of all Catholike Byshoppes each in his owne charge yea that he applyeth it to himselfe not to Cornelius Thirdly because he speaketh of a Byshoppe who hath been approoued in the Byshopricke foure yeares
Which circumstaunce can by no meanes agree to Cornelius seeing he was not three yeares Byshoppe there Fourthly because he writeth the same to an other expressely of himselfe Thence sayth hee haue Heresies and Schismes sproung and yet do spring because the Byshop which is one and ruleth the Church is despised by the proud presumption of certaine men obiection 10 They say tenthly that S. Ambrose calleth Damasus the Ruler of the Catholike Church But I answere first that those Commentaries are falsely fathered vpon S. Ambrose that holy and famous Byshoppe of Millan The Diuines of Louan haue well obserued and freely testified the same Secondly that these wordes Cuius hodie rector est Damasus can inferre or conclude no more saue this onely that Damasus was not the Ruler but a Ruler of the Church Damasus might rightly be called a Ruler of the Church in that he was Byshoppe of the Church of Rome though not the Ruler of the Vniuersall Church The word Rector may fitly be englished a Ruler but not the Ruler Thirdly that these wordes at this day haue a semblance and relation to the dayes of Timothee viz that as Timothee did gouerne the Church in S. Pauls time so was Damasus in his time Ruler of the same So then this is the true sense and meaning thereof to weete that as Timothee was placed at Ephesus to set that Church in order and to rule it not to rule the whole so was Damasus appoynted to rule the Church of Rome but not all other Churches in the world For as S. Cyprian truely sayth Episcopatus vnus est cuius in solidum a singulis pars tenetur There is one Byshopricke part whereof euery Byshoppe holdeth wholly in solidum This word in solidum must be well marked and faythfully remembred For doubtlesse if there be but one onely Byshopricke whereof euery Byshoppe hath one part wholly to himselfe it followeth by a necessarie an ineuitable illation that there can be but one onely part thereof remaine to the Byshoppe of Rome For he can not possibly haue that whole of which euery other Byshoppe hath a part wholly Let this be well marked and neuer forgotten For if these Aphorismes and the Conclusions aforegoing be seriously pondered throughly vnderstood all that the Iesuite heere sayth or possibly can be said by the Jesuiticall seditious crew will soone appeare very childish and of no force at all Howbeit for the better helpe of the simple Reader I will answere in particular to all such poyntes as shall but seeme to haue any colour of the trueth Proceede therefore sir Fryer and plead couragiously for the Pope B. C. If Bell can prooue that this surreptitious Decree of the Easterne Byshoppes was euer confirmed then were it something which he bringeth But the Byshoppe of Rome his Legates withstood that their indirect proceeding pronouncing it to be contrary to the Decrees of the Nicene Councell And Lucentius in particular spake confidently saying That the Apostolicke Sea ought not to be abased in their presence And Pope Leo himselfe did bitterly inueigh against Anatolius for this his presumption and going against the Nicene Canons T. B. I answere first that the Popes Sozimus Bonifacius and Celestinus falsified and vrged the Canons of the Nicene Councell for the falsely pretended Primacie of the Church and Byshoppe of Rome But the holy learned and famous Byshoppes of the Aphrican Councell whereof S. Austin that rare light of the Christian world was one did roundly controll that their forgerie and naughtie dealing calling it Fumosum typhum seculi the smoakie statelinesse of the world This is already prooued very copiously in all the precedent Aphorismes especially in the third and fourth Secondly that no maruell it is if the Popes Messengers to the vttermost of their power pleaded ridiculously for their owne gaine For so did Demetrius the Siluer-smith for the like end plead for the Temple of the Goddesse Diana Yea so pleaded Pope Boniface the eight about three hundred yeares agoe against Philippe the faire then King of France The Pope challenging Superroyall power would needes excomunicate Philippe the French King but there was neuer excomunication which cost Pope so deare as that did him for his Messengers were committed prisoners his Bulles burnt and Boniface himselfe being taken by Naueret Chauncellour of France presently after dyed for very sorrow Wherein King Philippe did nothing but by the Councell and consent of the whole Clergie of France So Bennet the 13. otherwise called Petrus de Luna interdicted Charles the sixt and his Realme but the King sitting in his Throne of Iustice in the Parliament or high Court of Paris the 21. of May 1408. gaue sentence openly that the Bull should be rent in peeces and that Gonsalue and Conseleux the bearers thereof should be set vpon a Pillorie and publikely notified and traduced in the Pulpit Which Decree was accordingly put in execution in the moneth of August with the greatest scorne that could be deuised the two Messengers hauing this inscription vpon their Miters These men are disloyall to the Church and to the King These wordes are put downe by the French Papistes in their Booke called The Jesuites Catechisme translated into English by the Secular Priestes Thirdly that Pope Leo is a partie and so can not be a competent Witnesse in his owne cause For as one of your owne Popes truely said in euery triall there must be foure distinct persons the accuser the accused the witnesses and the Iudge Fourthly that the holy wise and graue Fathers of that famous Councell which S. Gregorie reuerenced as one of the foure Gospelles laughed the Popes Messengers to scorne and concluded with all their seuerall subscriptions against the Pope yea they protested publikely and zealously that no Byshoppe was compelled to any thing but that they all decreed as they beleeued These are the expresse wordes of the Holy Synode Gloriosissimj Iudices dixerunt Hj quj relecto tomo subscripserunt Asianj et Pontj sanctiss Epispopj dicant si voluntate propria vel imposita sibj aliqua necessitate coactj subscripserunt Let the most holy Byshops of Asia and Pontus which haue subscribed to the Articles openly read declare vnto the Councell whether they subscribed of their owne free accord or by compulsion of Anatolius or any other The holy and most reuerende Fathers answered seuerally protesting before God that they subscribed voluntarily according to their knowledge and as they constantly beleeued no one or other any way constrayning them therevnto It would be a thing tedious to the Reader and laborious to my selfe otherwise I would set downe the seuerall subscriptions of the Byshops For though they be long yet do they conteyne such Christian varietie of wordes as are able to touch the heart of euery honest Reader This may suffice to confound our Iesuite and to cleare Anatolius that blessed Patriarch of the immodest
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
naturae vitio turpificarent Yet this I will say that this forced coacted Chastitie of Priests was so farre from excelling Chastitie in Wedlocke as no crime whatsoeuer hath brought greater shame to Priesthood more harme to Religion more griefe to all good men then the vnchast life of Priestes Therefore it were perhaps no lesse necessarie for the publique weale of Christendome then for the order of Priesthood that once againe Priestes might marrie publikely and so liue honestly and without shame and not pollute themselues so filthyly This is the doctrine of Polydorus well worthy to be written in Golden letters Yea the Marriage of Priestes is so honourable and so lawfull by Gods law and the prohibition thereof so dishonourable and dolefull that Pope Pius the second of that name who afore his Popedome was named Aeneas Syluius a very learned and famous writer did deliuer his minde opinion concerning this subiect in this manner as his owne deare Platina hath published the same Indoctum Episcopum Asine comparandum corpora malos medicos animas imperitos sacerdotes occiacre vagum Monachum diaboli esse mancipium virtutes Clerum ditasse vitia pauperem facere Sacerdotibus magna ratione sublatas nuptias maiori restituendas videri Pope Pius vsed to say as writeth his owne deuoted vassall Platina that a Bishop without learning was like vnto an Asse consequently that there are many Asses in popish Churches that euill Phisitians did kill mens bodyes and ignorant Priestes their soules that a vagrant Monke was the Diuels slaue that Vertues had enriched the Clergie in times past but that Vices of late dayes doe make it poore that there was great reason to debarre Priestes of Marriage but greater reason to restore Marriage againe vnto them Thus writeth Platina of Pope Pius Now for the benefite of the Christian reader I obserue these godly necessarie Lessons out of these three learned and famous Papistes First that the coacted Chastitie of Priests is neither of the substance of the Ministerie nor grounded vpon the law of God Secondly that the annexed Vow so tearmed is coacted and not free not voluntarie but compelled And consequently that secular Priestes are not Votaries properly but by a cursed and lawlesse Vow violently imposed vpon them Thirdly that the Prohibition of the Marriage of Priestes is against their soules health and causeth them to sinne damnably Fourthly that Priestes marriage would be honourable and honest chastitie if the law of man did not prohibite the same Fiftly that it was once lawfull for Priestes to Marrie Sixtly that it is in mans power to make their Marriages once lawful againe Seuenthly that it is expedient to restore Priestes to their right againe that is to say to referre Marriage to their free choyce and election Marke this poynt well for Christes sake gentle Reader Vt ius publicj matrimonij Sacerdotibus restitueretur That the right of publique Wedlocke might be restored to Priestes againe O sweete Iesus how impudent are our Jesuites and Iesuited Papistes who inueigh so bitterly against Priestes Marriage which is their proper right Nay how tyrannicall is the Pope who violently debarreth and keepeth them from their right Let these two wordes neuer be forgotten viz. Ius and Restitueretur for the former word Ius right doth argue Priestes Marriage to be their proper right And the latter word restitueretur might be restored doth argue the tyrannie of the late Byshops of Rome The reason is euident because Restitution can neuer be truely exacted but where iniustice went before and consequently seeing by the ioynt testimonie of these three famous popish Writers that the Marriage of Priestes ought to be restored to them it followeth of necessitie that the taking away of Marriage from Priestes was sauage brutish cruell tyrannicall and odious to God and all godly men For it was flatte iniustice and violently imposed vpon them Neither hath any good come to the Church of God thereby but filthy life and vncleannesse abounded euery where Which is not mine Assertion but the flatte and plaine Accusation of three learned zealous and famous Papistes Pope Pius him selfe being one of the three The 13. Proposition When the Fathers of the first famous Councell of Nice intended and meant to haue brought a New law into the Church and to haue abandoned the marriage of Priestes then our mercifull Father the mighty God Johouah who neuer hath been is or will be wanting to his Church in necessarie poyntes of Fayth and Doctrine raysed vp his faythfull seruant Paphuntius a man very famous by manifold myracles in his life time to withstand gainesay that cursed and neuer enough detested Law which the Father 's assembled at Nice were about to bring into the Church This Paphuntius the man of God excited by the spirit of God stood vp in the midst of the Councell and constantly affirmed before them all that to forbid Marriage to Priestes was too seuere a Law seeing by the testimonie of Christes blessed Apostle Marriage was honourable in all sortes of men wherevpon the Councell made no Decree in that behalfe This Proposition is prooued by the vniforme assent of three learned and famous Historiographers Cassiodorus Socrates Sozomâ—nus Socrates hath these expresse wordes Visum erat Episcopis legem nouam in Ecclesiam introducere The Byshops meant and intended to bring a new law into the Church But Paphuntius so perswaded the Councell by the power of the Holy ghost that they referred the whole matter to euery Priestes free choyce and election making no Law in that behalfe For Cassiodorus hath these expresse wordes Synodusque laudaâ—it sententiam eius et nihil ex hac parte sanciuit sed hoc in vniuscuiusque voluntate non in necessitate reliquit And the Synode commended Paphuntius his opinion and decreed nothing in the matter but left it in euery ones election to doe what he thought good without compulsion Sozomenus is consonant and confirmeth the same trueth The case is euident it cannot be denied The Corollarie of these 13. Propositions First therefore seeing all Ministers which are not subiect to the lawes of Poperie may lawfully Marrie euen by the doctrine of the Church of Rome as is prooued in the first Proposition Secondly seeing Marriage was euer lawfull for all Priestes and other Ministers of the Church during all the time of the old Testament as is prooued in the second Proposition Thirdly seeing Marriage is lawfull for Priestes and other Ministers of the Church euen now in the time of the new Testament as is prooued in the third Proposition Fourthly seeing the Marriage of Priestes is onely prohibited by the law of Man and not by any positiue constitution either of Christ of his Apostles as is prooued in the fourth Proposition Fiftly seeing it was euer lawfull for the Byshoppes Priestes and Deacons of the East Church to take Wiues and to beget Children in the time of their Priesthood as is prooued
in the fift Proposition Sixtly seeing the Marriage of Priestes was euer lawfull also in the West Church vntill the cursed and vntimely inuented Prohibition of Pope Siricius almost 400. yeares after Christ as is prooued in the sixt Proposition Seuenthly seeing Siricius his Prohibition notwithstanding Priestes were still Married in many places a long time and in Germanie aboue a thousand yeares after Christ without restraint euen vntill the dayes of the vngratious Pope Hildebrand as is prooued in the 7. Proposition Eightly seeing all secular Priestes are so free from the Vow which is annexed to Ecclesiasticall orders by the Church of Rome that the supposed dissoluing impediment thereof notwithstanding their Marriages are true perfect and of force Ninthly seeing that by Popish Fayth and Doctrine the single Vow of Chastitie neither doth nor can dissolue Matrimonie as is prooued in the ninth Proposition Tenthly seeing the Vow single is of one and the same nature with the Vow solemne not distinguished by any essentiall but meere accidentall difference as is prooued in the tenth Proposition Eleuenthly seeing Matrimonie of Monkes Fryers and Nonnes euen after their solemne Vow of Religion is with the Pope his Iesuites and Iesuited Popelinges very lawfull and of force so it be done by and with the Popes Dispensation as is prooued in the eleuenth Proposition Twelfthly seeing the forced and coacted Chastitie of popish Priestes hath been such and so intollerable euen by the best learned Papistes their free confessions as nothing in the whole world hath brought more shame to Priesthood more harme to Religion more griefe to godly men as is prooued in the 12. Proposition Thirteenthly seeing the Fathers of the famous Councell of Nice thought it not agreeable to Gods word to make any Law against the Marriage of Priestes as is prooued in the 13. Proposition I can not I may not but must of necessitie conclude with this ineuitable and irrefragable illation ergo the Prohibition of Priestes Marriage is but a rotten ragge of the new Religion The Refutation of the Friers third Chapter In these 13. Propositions if due application be made thereof all the vntruethes lyes miserable shiftes and colourable euasions of our Fryer Jesuite will easily appeare and vanish away as doth the smoake of a Fire especially if my Discourse in the Suruay of Poperie bee duely pondered with these 13. Propositions For all that our Fryer hath sayd in this Chapter and whatsoeuer else any other Iesuite or Iesuited Papist in the world is able to say against the Marriage of Priestes is verie largely distinctly and soundly resuted in my Suruay of Poperie The Jesuite full of nothing but Winde Vanitie Rayling and lying would dazell the eyes of his Reader with crying out against Vntruethes when indeed all vntruethes proceed onely from his owne lying lippes Two thinges onely may seeme to the vulgar Reader to carry some shew or colour of trueth which both are soundly confuted in my Suruay Howbeit for the better satisfaction of the indifferent Reader especially of such as perhappes haue not read my Suruay I am content once againe to examine the same The former colour of trueth pretended by our Frier is this in very deed viz. That Saint Paphuntius in the Councell of Nice perswaded the Fathers onely vnto this to weete That they which were called to the Priesthood beeing Married should not be separated from their Wiues which they had for it was the old Tradition of the Church sayth our Fryer That those which were made Priestes beeing not yet Married should not afterward marrie Wiues Thus pleadeth our Jesuite out of Sozomenus and Socrates Marke now my Answere to the same The Answere I answere first that the Marriage of Priestes is onely prohibited by the Law of man and not by any positiue Constitution either of Christ or his Apostles This I haue prooued in the 4. Proposition by the flat testimonie of many famous Popish Writers yea out of the Popes owne Decrees Read the Proposition to the end and marke it seriously Secondly that it was euer lawfull for Priestes in the East Church to be Married and to beget children in time of their Priesthood This trueth is cleared in the fift Proposition euen out of the Popes owne Decrees Thirdly that it was lawfull in the West Church for Priestes to be Married for the space of one thousand yeares after Christ This is made euident in the sixt and seuenth Propositions Fourthly that Secular Priestes are not Votaries and that therefore their Marriage is lawfull This trueth is soundly prooued in the 8. and 9. Propositions Let them be well marked Fiftly that the Marriage of Priestes is their owne proper right and that therefore restitution must be made for taking the same away This trueth is prooued in the 12. Proposition and it striketh dead Now seeing first that no positiue Constitution against Priestes Marriage can truely be deriued either from Christ or his Apostles seeing secondly that it was euer lawfull for Priestes in the East Church to be Married seeing thirdly that it was lawfull for Priestes euen in the West Church to Marrie euery where for the space almost of 400. yeares and in Germanie aboue a thousand yeares after Christ seeing fourthly that Secular Priestes are no Votaries seeing fiftly that the Pope is bound to Restitution for taking away of Priestes Marriage I must perforce conclude against our Iesuite that the Tradition which Socrates and Sozomenus speake of was neither Generall nor Diuine howsoeuer Paphuntius alleadged it so to mittigate the rigorous and seuere Lawes intended by the Councell I prooue it by a double argument First because if there had been any such Tradition generall or diuine the Greekes could not be excused who neuer yeelded therevnto Secondly because so many Learned Papistes doe constantly affirme and teach that neither Christ nor his Apostles made any Law against Priestes Marriage To which I must needes adde that if there had been any such Tradition receiued either from Christ or his Apostles neither would holy Paphuntius haue pleaded against it neither yet the famous Councell haue yeelded to him in that behalfe But the Councell of Carthage will some say maketh mention of Apostolicall tradition to the same effect I answere with the Popes owne deare Glosse vpon his Decrees in these expresse wordes Ergo Apostoli dâ—cuerunt exemplo et admonitione non institutione vel constitutione Therefore the Apostles taught it by example and admonition and not by any Law or Constitution But how by Admonition and Example did the Apostles teach the single life of Priestes S. Paul albeit he were some time a marryed-man as S. Clement very probably deduceth out of the holy Scriptures yet did he after that liue a single life and withall exhorted others that had the gift to liue as he did But here three things must seriously be obserued First that th' Apostle wished Lay-men aswell as he did Ecclesiasticall persons
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
affirme and am readie to gage my life for the tryall of the same B. C. Notwithstanding it is meete that they shoud refraine themselues from the companie of their Wiues who are consecrated and busied in the Ministerie seruice of God T. B. This Testimonie with the other already answered doe tickle the Minister and fetch blood as our Fryer Jesuite prateth to the comfort of his deuoted Popelinges I answere first that the first word veruntamen notwithstanding or but hath relation to that which went before and so rather maketh against the Fryer then for him selfe Secondly that Eusebius the Author by him alleadged sayth not that any Law made either by God or man did prohibite the marriage of Priestes but onely that in his iudgement it is conuenient for Priestes to refraine from the companie of their Wiues Thirdly that if Eusebius were lyuing in these our backslyding dayes and should behold the filth and execrable fruites of coacted Single life in the Popish Clergie hee would doubtlesse change his opinion with the famous learned and zelous Papistes Polydorus Panormitanus and Pope Pâ—us and cry out aloud that coacted and forced Chastitie in the Romish Clergie was so farre from excelling chastitie in Wedlocke as no crime whatsoeuer hath brought greater shame to Priesthood more harme to Religion more griefe to Good Men then the vnchast filthy life of the vnmarried Romish Priestes And that therefore it were meete expedient to restore to Priestes the free vse of Marriage as it was in the beginning and primatiue age of the Church Now how this Assertion of Eusebius doth tickle mee and fetch blood from mee let the Reader iudge B. C. Pope Zacharie writing to Bonifacius our worthy Countriman then Byshop and the Apostle of Germanie hath these wordes speaking of Priestes From the day of taking Priesthood they are to be forbidding yea euen from their owne Wiues Of this Decree the Magdeburgians make mention True it is that they score it up for one of his errours But it giueth vs a sufficient warrant to score vp that also for a notorious vntrueth which Bell speaketh of the long lawfull libertie of Ecclesiasticall Wiuing in Germanie T. B. I answere First that this Pope Zacharie absolued the French men from their loyall obedience to Childerich their Soueraigne and confirmed Pipine the traytor in his rome and Kingdome Whereof more at large is to be seene in The Downefall of Poperie Secondly that I desire to know who gaue the Byshops of Rome authoritie to make Apostles and that I may see their Commission before I be vrged to beleeue the same Thirdly that the bare word of Pope Zacharie to his Apostle Boniface is not sufficient to debarre Husbands from their Wiues Fourthly that notwithstanding the wicked commaunde of Pope Zacharie Priestes were still Marryed in Germanie for the space of three hundred yeares and Pope Zacharies charge contemned as a most wicked and vnlawfull thing For Pope Hildebrand found them Marryed in his time in the yeare of our Lord God 1074. who labouring to separate Priestes from their Wiues was for his paines reputed a madde man and an Heretique as I haue prooued at large in the Seuenth Proposition which I wish the Reader to ponder seriously Fiftly that in euery legall tryall foure distinct persons must concurre as euery learned Diuine euery skilfull Canonist euery approoued Summonist and euery meane Legist will confesse viz. the Person accused the Accuser the Witnesse and the Iudge And consequently the Byshoppes of Rome can not be Iudges when and where they are the parties accused This is a poynt of great consequence which the Reader must euer haue in remembrance I end with the testimonie of Nicephorus that in the East Churches Byshoppes did beget children of their lawfull Wiues euen in the time of their Episcopall charge and dignitie The Iesuites fourth Chapter of the Popish execrable Pardons B. C. THis Chapter though it be but short yet it lacketh not the seale of his occupation for his conclusion is adorned with this notable vntrueth The Popes Pardon quoth hee is a rotten Ragge of the New Religion brought into the Church after a 1300. yeares by Bonifacius the eight This tale he hath told vs diuers times before and therefore the more reason I haue to challenge it for a rotten Lie of the Ragge-maister of Rascall T. B. I answere first that though this Chapter be short in wordes yet is it so full of waightie and vnanswerable matter that where it conteyneth fourtie lynes saue one our Fryer Iesuite for feare of burning durst scarcely touch three of the same Secondly that in his shortnesse hee hath heaped lye vpon lye His first lye is this viz. That I haue told this tale of the Popes Pardon that it is a rotten Ragge of the New Religion diuers times before For I told not this tale at all saue onely in this present Chapter let the Reader peruse all three Chapters aforegoing and if he doe not finde this tale once told as in trueth he can not then in charitie let him bestow the Whetstone vpon our Fryer as vpon the man who hath the best deserued it His second lye is this viz. That my saying is a rotten lye For I haue prooued it to be the meere trueth euen in this Chapter as it will better appeare God willing by this my present Answere His third lye is this viz. That I am the Rag-maister of Rascall For albeit both in the very Title of his Booke and in sundry other places he tearmes mee in that scornefull manner yet is it so farre from the trueth that the name of the Towne where I was borne is not Rascall as hee would haue it but Raskell with k and e not with c and a as his lying lippes affirme it But what if the name were as the Jesuite scornefully affirmeth must I be a Rascall because I was borne in a Towne so called Is euery Pope Holy because his name is Holinesse Was Pope Sergius an Hogge because his name was Hog-snoute Is an humble man proud because his name is Proud Is a valiant man a Coward because his name is so Is a man all good because his name is so no wise man will say so Yet must I forsooth be a Rascall because I was borne in a Towne called not Rascall but Raskell where I neuer continued saue onely during my minoritie and non-age Doth not euery child see perceiue that our Frier wanteth matter and that he is at a non plus If he were able to defend Poperie with Trueth Scriptures Councels Fathers or good Argumentes hee would neuer vse such miserable shiftes and silly euasions His third lye is this viz. That he hath prooued mine assertion to be a Lie For I haue with inuincible reasons and authorities prooued the contrarie to be the knowne Trueth Hee nameth an vnknowne Booke The dolefull Knell where hee would seeme to haue prooued
proofe that it is most certaine that one of the Heresies of the Waldenses was against the Popes Pardons let him know from mee that therein he is a fowle mouthed lying Fryer For Platina their deare friend the Popes Abbreuiator Apostolâ—â—us hath these expresse words Iubilaeum idem retulit anno millesimo trecentesimo quo plenam delictorum omnium remissionem his praestabat qui limina Apostolorum visitassent ad exemplum veteris testamentj Pope Boniface brought againe the Iubilee after 1300. yeares and gaue full Pardon of all sinnes to such as did visite S. Peters Church and S. Pauls in Vaticano at Rome after the example of the old Law Out of these wordes I obserue these golden Lessons First that the old Iubilee was neuer heard of in Christes Church till the time of Boniface the Iewish Pope I prooue it by the word retulit hee brought againe from the Iewes Secondly that the Church was free from Popish Pardons 1300. yeares Thirdly that this Pope pardoned not onely the paine but euen the sinne it selfe yea all sinnes whatsoeuer Fourthly that this Pope brought againe the Iewish ceremoniall Law Fiftly that the remission of the old Law which our Papistes pretend apishly to imitate was not of Sinnes but of Debts Landes Bondage and such like which the Pope vseth not to pardon and yet forsooth hee would be thought to bring the Iubilee againe Of this Iubilee see woonderfull Popish coozening trickes liuely discouered in their colours in my Suruay of Popery The Perioch of the Chapter First therefore seeing the Popes Pardons can not be found in the Holy Scriptures Secondly seeing the holy Fathers in old time were not acquainted with them Thirdly seeing they depend intrinsecally vpon Purgatorie which the Greeke Fathers neuer beleeued as God willing shall be made euident in the next Chapter Fourthly seeing Pope Boniface was the first that gaue generall Pardons for all Sinnes in the yeare 1300. after Christ I must perforce conclude against the Pope and Poperie that the Popish Pardons are a Rotten Ragge not of the Old but of the New Religion This Chapter connotateth an intrinsecall order to the next following and so must be coupled togeather with the same The Iesuites 5. Chapter of Popish Purgatorie B. C. IN this Chapter after he hath disputed against Purgatorie with the authoritie of Roffensis hee commeth to his recapitulation and sayth Secondly that the Church of Rome beleeued it not for the space of 250. yeares after which time it increased by litle and litle T. B. Whosoeuer shall but with an indifferent iudgement peruse my Tryall of the new Religion togeather with this Answere of the Jesuite which is not of one man alone but of many togeather as will appeare before the end of this my Reply God willing that man doubtles can not but see as clearely as the noone day that Poperie is the New Religion This is mine Answere let it be well marked For my life and soule I dare gage that the Iesuites Answere sheweth euidently to all iudicious and indifferent Readers that it is the trueth which I defend and that all the Papistes in the world are not able in trueth to confute the same His miserable shiftes his silly euasions and coozening trickes doe euery where and in euery Chapter declare that the Jesuite is at a Non plus and knoweth not for his life how to defend the Pope For first he neuer setteth downe my wordes truely Secondly he doth but snatch at some of them which seeme to be of the least force and strength which for all that haue more force in them then he is able to deale withall His first coozening tricke in this present Chapter is this viz. That hee not daring to alleadge all mine Assertion which truly containeth the true meaning of their famous Martyr so supposed late Byshop of Rochester as which are his owne wordes in deed hee at the first leapeth ouer 40. lynes almost in which the force of my Disputation resteth and onely toucheth my Recapitulation This coozening tricke being after his maner performed hee combineth an other with it implying a greater coozening by many degrees This coozenage is contayned in these wordes Secondly that the Church of Rome I prooue it first because euery Child knoweth that the first goeth before the second Secondly because the first which the Fryer would not because he durst not touch at all contayneth nay prooueth the maine poynt in this controuersie the poynt is this This Byshop was a Learned man a great Papist and said for Poperie what possibly he could yet doth he graunt many thinges of such force is the trueth which quite ouerthrow Poperie and turne it vpside-downe First wee see by his free assertion that the Greeke Church neuer beleeued Purgatorie to his dayes and so it was to them vnknowne 1517. yeares All this the Iesuite passeth ouer in deepe silence and beginneth at Secondly Loe M. Fisher that Learned Byshoppe for so I graunt hee was telleth vs plainely and resolutely that the Holy Fathers and Learned men of the Greeke Church neuer beleeued Purgatorie vntill his time that is for the space of 1517. yeares after Christ. But our Iesuite is so blind that hee could not see these wordes Nay rather hee durst not acknowledge them because hee can not frame any colourable answere to them This is the trueth in very deed His third coozening tricke is in the omission and not speaking of these wordes Thirdly that the Church of Rome did not beleeue Purgatorie all at once but by litle and litle These wordes our Fryer Jâ—suite durst not once name least they should haue giuen him a mortall wound For in deed to speake the trueth they strike dead They shew plainely that as the holy Fathers of the Greeke Church neuer beleeued Purgatorie so neither did the Fathers of the Latine Church beleeue it all and wholly at one and the same time but by litle and litle Ah poore Purgatorie thy birth by peece-meale maketh thee the New Religion Thou art a Monster among the Iesuited Papistes Thou wast neither begotten nor borne at once but by litle and litle O sillie Poperie O new Religion His fourth coozening tricke is implyed in omitting these wordes Fourthly that the inuention of Purgatorie was the birth â—f Popish Pardons as which could haue no place till Purgatorie was found out by feigned reuelations Marke how gallantly our Jesuite confuteth Bell. You see hee is not able to endure the sound of the Bell Of fiue poyntes of great consequence he durst name onely two the Second forsooth and the Fift Of the fiue three seemed euery way vnanswerable To the second and the fift he thought he could say something in shew of wordes albeit very nothing in the trueth of the matter Which God willing shall soone appeare after the due examination of his wordes But first because the controuersie is a maine poynt of Popish Religion and the ground of Popish Pardons I
will take the paines to lay open to the Reader the expresse wordes of the Byshop their glorious Martyr Thus doth hee write I will not alter adde or take away one word vpon my saluation to answere it Sed et Graecis ad hunc vsque diem non est creditum Purgatorium esse Legat qui velit Graecorum veterum commentarios et nullum quantum opinor aut quam rarissimum de Purgatorio sermonem inueniet Sed neque Latini simul omnes at sensim huius rei veritatem conceperunt Et Paulo post non absque maxima sancti spiritus dispensatione factum est quod post tot annorum curricula Purgatorij fines et Indulgentiarum vsus ab orthodoxiâ— generatim sit receptus Quamdiu nulla fuerat de Purgatorio cura nemo quaesiuit Indulgentias nam ex illo pendet omnis Indulgentiarum existimatio Si tollas Purgatorium quorsum Indulgentijs opus erit His. N. si nullum fuerit Purgatorium nihil Indigebimus Contemplantes igitur aliquandiu Purgatorium incognitum fuisse deinde quibusdam pedetentim partim ex reuelationibus partim ex Scripturis fuisse creditum atque ita tandem generatim eius fidem ab orthodoxa Ecclesia fuisse receptissimam facillime rationem aliquam Indulgentiarum intelligimus Quum itaque Purgatorium tam sero cognitum ac receptum Ecclesiae fuerit vniversae quis iam de Indulgentijs mirari potest quod in principio nascentis Ecclesiae nullus fuerat earum vsus Caeperunt igitur Indulgentiae postquam ad Purgatorij cruciatus aliquandiu trepidatum erat The Greekes to this day doe not beleeue there is a Purgatorie Read who will the Commentaries of the auncient Greeke Writers and he shall either find very seldome mention of Purgatorie or none at all But neither did the Latine Church conceiue the veritie of this matter all at one time but by litle and litle Neither was it done without the woonderfull dispensation of the Holy Ghost that after so many pluralities of yeares Catholikes both beleeued Purgatorie and receiued the vse of Pardons generally So long as there was no care of Purgatorie no man sought for Pardons for of it dependeth all the estimation that wee haue of Pardons If thou take away Purgatorie to what end shall wee need Pardons For if there be no Purgatorie wee shall neede no Pardons Considering therefore how long Purgatorie was vnknowne then that it was beleeued of some by litle and litle partly by Reuelations and partly by Scriptures and so at the last beleeued generally of the whole Church wee doe easily vnderstand the cause of Pardons Since therefore Purgatorie was so lately knowne and receiued of the Vniuersall Church Who can now admire Pardons that there was no vse of them in the primatiue Church Pardon 's therefore began after the people stood in some feare of Purgatorie These are the wordes of M. Fisher sometime our Byshoppe of Rochester a Popish so supposed glorious Martyr and a man for his great Learning renowned throughout the Christian world who writing against M. Luther in defence of Poperie to which he was woonderfully addicted spared not so say and to plead what possibly he could inuent for the free passage and credite of the same Whose best pleading which hee possibly was able to affoorde the Pope and Poperie doth roundly and clearely turne it vp-side downe I desire the Reader right heartily euen in the bowels of our Lord Iesus to marke attentiuely and then to iudge and giue his censure Christianly betweene the Jesuite and my selfe Which if he shall indeed performe all partialitie set apart hee can not but euidently perceiue my life I gage for the tryall that Poperie is the New Religion He can not but see that the trueth is that which I defend He can not but behold as clearely as the noone day that the Fryer is condemned in his owne conscience and can not tell what to say For first their most Learned Byshoppe and glorious Martyr telleth vs constantly and plainely that the famous Fathers and Writers of the Greeke Church neuer beleeued Purgatorie And who were those Greeke Writers S. Basill for his great skill surnamed the great S. Gregorie Nazianzene for his surpassing knowledge in Diuinitie surnamed Theologus S. Chrysostome for his Learning and Eloquence surnamed the Golden mouth to say nothing of all the rest If these auncient Fathers these Holy men these so learned and so famous Writers with all the rest of the Greeke Church did not beleeue there was a Popish Purgatorie for the space of 1517. yeares for so long after Christ was this Byshoppe lyuing who for all that as we haue seene affirmeth vnawares against himselfe the Pope and Poperie that they beleeued it not in his time What noddies what fooles how voyd of all feeling of all sense of all reason may they iustly be censured Who to the eternall perill of their soules and saluation will needs beleeue such erroneous hereticall and most execrable Doctrine such diabolicall Fayth and plaine Heathenish Religion Secondly that the Latine Church and consequently the Church of Rome did not beleeue the aforenamed Purgatorie for many hundreds of yeares after S. Peters death whose successor the Pope boasteth himselfe to be Thirdly that this Purgatorie was not beleeued of the Latine Church at one and the same time but by litle and litle Fourthly that Purgatorie was beleeued in the latter age by speciall Reuelation of the Holy Ghost Fiftly that Pardons came not vp vntill Purgatorie was found out as which without Purgatorie can haue no vse Sixtly that Purgatorie was a long time vnknowne Seuently that Purgatorie could not be found in the Scriptures of a long time Eightly that it was not wholly found out by the Scriptures but partly by Reuelations Ninthly that Pardons were not heard of or knowne to the primatiue Church Tenthly that then Pardons began when men began to feare the paines of Purgatorie Behold heere gentle Reader what a worthy Fisher was my Popish Lord of Rochester hee hath caught with his Net at one draught tenne goodly Fishes that is to say tenne golden and worthy Lessons for Christian edification Which effect will appeare more euidently before the end of this Chapter B. C. Secondly that the Church of Rome beleeued it not that is Purgatorie for the space of 250. yeares after which time it increased by litle and litle This either hee meaneth is gathered out of the testimonie of Roffensis and that is not true for nothing doth Roffensis speake of 250. yeares or deny that Purgatorie was alwayes beleeued in the Church although hee confesseth that the Doctrine thereof was not so well knowen as now it is which is farre different from this Proposition Purgatorie was not beleeued of the Church of Rome for the space of 250. yeares after Christ. Or else he affirmeth of himselfe that Purgatorie was not beleeued vntill that time and then must I be so bold to tell him that it
is also a manifest vntrueth T. B. I answere first that as our Fryer is bold vntruely to charge me with vntruethes so I must be bold to returne the same vntruethes vnto himselfe and for his iust demerites reward him with the Whetstone Secondly that while our Fryer Jesuite would very gladly impose vpon me two vntruethes so to hide the nakednesse of Poperie he hath committed no fewer then three notorious Lyes First he saith roundly though vntruely that Roffensis the Byshoppe of Rochester speaketh nothing of 250. yeares This is his first notorious Lye I prooue it sundry wayes First because he telleth vs resolutely that the Greeke Fathers beleeued not Purgatorie for the space of 1517. yeares consequently not for the space of 250. yeares Secondly that after many pluralities of yeares Purgatorie and Pardons were receiued Thirdly that Purgatorie was a long time vnknowen Fourthly that afterward some beleeued it by litle and litle How sayest thou now sir Fryer doth your Popish Byshoppe say nothing of 250. yeares Are not 250. contayned in 1517. yeares Doe not many pluralities of yeares something touch 250. yeares Doest not thou ô Fryer extend the age of the Primatiue Church how truely shortly will be seene vnto 250. yeares And yet doth the Byshoppe tell thee that both Pardons and Purgatorie were vnknowne to the primatiue Church Ergo I must score this vp for a flatte and knowne Lye Secondly he sayth impudently that the Byshop doth not denie that Purgatorie was alwayes beleeued in the Church This is his second notorious and shamelesse Lye I prooue it by a three-fold argument For first the Byshop sayth plainely in expresse wordes that the Greeke Fathers S. Chrysostome S. Basill S. Gregorie S. Epiphanius and the rest of those great Learned men and stout Champions of the Church beleeued not Purgatorie for the space of 1517. yeares Secondly that the Fathers of the Latine Church beleeued it not for many yeares Thirdly that afterward some beleeued it by litle and litle Where I wish the Reader to obserue seriously this word deinde afterward for it striketh dead confoundeth the Iesuite and prooueth manifestly that Poperie is the New Religion The case is so cleare and euident as euery Child may easily perceiue the same For that which was beleeued afterward must perforce be vnbeleeued at the first Againe that which was sometime vnknowne must needes be sometime vnbeleeued or else our Fryer must needs say which for his Lugs he dareth not say that the Pope forsooth and his Iesuited Popelinges beleeued they know not what His third notorious Lye is this viz. that I vntruely charge their Byshoppe of Rochester in fathering vpon him that the Church of Rome beleeued not Purgatorie for the space of 250. yeares after Christ. For I haue euidently and irrefragably deduced out of the Byshoppes expresse wordes that the Church of Rome beleeued not Purgatorie for more then 250. yeares thrise told yea not for the space of more then one thousand yeares I prooue it once againe to the Iesuites and the Popes euerlasting shame Marke well my Discourse for Christes sake gentle Reader for in so doing thou canst not but abhorre and detest Poperie as a fond and new Religion I protest vpon my saluation that I beleeue as I write as also that the late Bishoppe of Rochester whom our Fryer nameth Roffensis which word onely connotateth the place where he was Byshoppe but is not his name prooueth the same effectually this is the proofe First the Byshoppe telleth vs constantly that the Greeke Church neuer beleeued Purgatorie Secondly that the Latine Church did not beleeue it of a long time Thirdly that afterward some few beleeued it by litle and litle Fourthly that it was generally beleeued not but of late yeares Fiftly that Pardons began to be sought for and to be graunted when the people stood a while in feare of Purgatorie paines To which I adde that Pardons beganne not vntill Bonifacius the eight 1300. yeares after Christ as I haue alreadie prooued out of Platina the Popes deuoted vassall and sometime his Abbreuiator Apostolicus And consequently that seeing such Pardons as I speake of in this place were not knowen for the space of 1300. yeares after Christ and seeing withall that they were in vse shortly after Purgatorie began to be feared it followeth by a necessarie and ineuitable illation that Purgatorie was not knowen and beleeued for the space of 1200. yeares at the least And so I trow nay am well assured not for the space of 250. yeares after Christ euen by the flatte testimonie of their great learned Popish Byshop my late Lord of Rochester B. C. As I haue prooued against him in the Dolefull Knell out of S. Denis S. Pauls scholler and Tertullian yea and to his vtter confusion conuinced out of himselfe T. B. I answere first that when our Fryer is at a non plus then would hee be thought to haue done that els where which he is not able to performe in deed and therefore doth he many times send me to this inuisible Booke of which more at large God willing before the end of this Discourse Secondly that if euer I can see the Booke as I hope to doe if any such Booke be extant in rerū natura I shall with speed conuenient frame mine answere to the same not doubting but the Confusion will be his owne after due examination of the same And in the interim let him this know by the way and before hand that his Booke is a sillie and dolefull thing indeed as which by his owne confession heere hath no better Authors to relie vpon then a counterfeite Denis and a Montanizing Tertullian Thirdly that what hee can possibly gather out of all my Bookes the same hath hee in this present pretensed Refutation set downe at large whether to his owne shame and confusion or to mine let the indifferent Reader iudge B. C. In this place I will adde the Testimonie of his brother Perkins who in his Probleme confesseth That Purgatorie was first receiued by Tertullian the Montanist wherein is one open vntrueth to weete that Hee was the first for hee onely affirmeth it but prooueth it not and no maruell when hee can not seeing most certaine it is that it came from the Apostles Non temerè c. Not without cause sayth S. Chrisostome these thinges were ordayned of the Apostles that in the dreadfull mysteries commemoration should be made of the dead for they know that thereby much gaine doth come vnto them much profite T. B. I answere first that our Fryer in one place calleth M. Perkins The Puritane of England and in an other place obiecteth my Booke penned against them Howbeit heere hee must needes be my Brother and I oppressed with his Authoritie Secondly that our Fryer hath no sooner obiected M. Perkins against mee but foorthwith hee oppugneth his Assertion Thirdly that he affirmeth it for a most certaine
Suruay and The Tryall I meane out of which our Fryer Jesuite who may seeme to be begotten of some Fayrie Bratte as the Secular popish Priestes write of the Iesuite Robert Parsons the Author of this scurrilous shamelesse impudent and lying Libell would seeme to conclude and finde out against mee a strange Contradiction viz. that in the one Booke I make the seede of Purgatory not to haue been sowen before the yeare 250. And afterward to haue increased till it came to perfection And that this notwithstanding in my other Booke I make the seede sowen before and to haue increased by litle and litle vntill it became ripe and perfect Poperie which was in the yeare 250. And therevpon he inferreth that Purgatorie was sowen and not sowen growen and not growen an Article of Fayth and not an Article of Fayth in one and the same yeare Now to this lusty Gallant a poore begging Fryer by profession though as the Secular Priestes their brethren in Poperie tell them they shame with that occupation as who must haue their Chambers Perfumed Gentlewomen to pull off their Bootes them-selues to trowle vp and downe from good cheare to good cheare at their owne good pleasures I returne this Answere which if nothing else would is able to strike him dead First that hee hath vttered as many Lyes as hee hath done lines His first Lye is this viz. That I say in my Suruay of Poperie that the seed of Purgatorie was sowen before the yeare 250. His second Lye is this viz. That I affirme in my sayd Suruay that Poperie was ripe and perfect in the yeare 250. His third Lye is this viz. That I make Poperie sowen and not sowen in one and the same yeare His fourth Lye is this viz. That I make Purgatorie growen and not growen in one the same yeare His fift Lye is this viz. That I make Poperie an Article of Fayth and not an Article of Fayth in one and the same yeare that is to say in the 250. yeare after Christ. Secondly that albeit hee charge mee with sundry vntruethes and more then a litle please himselfe therewith yet is there no vntrueth at all but those false accusations which proceed from his owne lying lippes No other proofe need be made thereof but the bare recitall of my wordes For doubtles the Jesuite either speaketh against his owne knowledge or else he is so besotted blinded with malice that he can not see Wood for Trees Thirdly that our Fryer sheweth himselfe to be a right Iesuite that is to say a shamelesse and impudent Lyer For the Letters and Figures in the Margent A.D. 250. doe not connotate the wordes following but the wordes immediatly afore-going Which no man of iudgement and reason can for shame denie For first I say plainely that Origen fayned many odde thinges touching Purgatorie Againe I say expressely that after Origen others began to call it into question Where I wish the indifferent Reader to obserue seriously these two poyntes with mee First that Purgatorie could not be ripe and perfect when it began but to be called into question Then that this calling into question was after Origen who was lyuing about 250. yeares after Christ And consequently that the 250. yeares must needes haue relation to the time of Origen and his immediate followers as who all approoued Chronographers testifying the same lyued about that time And this is confirmed because I do not speake of the Byshoppes of Rome barely and absolutely but with a restriction implyed in this word late I in all my Bookes doe euer repute S. Austen S. Chrysostome and others that lyued 400. yeares after Christ not late Writers but old and auncient Fathers which is an euident argument that I applyed my Marginall note to the time of Origen of his immediate followers and not to the late Byshoppes of Rome whom I contend to be men not of the Old but of the late and New Religion So as euery child may see that our Iesuite not able to defend Poperie nor to withstand the trueth and yet vnwilling to yeeld to the trueth and to condemne Poperie in which and by which he liueth in wealth pompe and glorie imployeth himselfe and his wittes with might and maine heaping Lyes vpon Lyes furnished with notorious coozening trickes euery where so to dazell the eyes of his Reader least he behold the trueth and so condemne the rotten Ragges of Poperie for the New Religion He is at a non plus his Backe is at the Wall all his pleading for late start-vp Poperie is fraughted with nothing else but coozening trickes notorious cauils impudent calumnies and false dealing B. C. In the same place he writeth thus Fiftly that the primatiue Church was neuer acquainted with the Popes Pardons nor yet with his counterfeit and forged Purgatorie A notable vntrueth for not to speake of Pardons but of Purgatorie was it not the primatiue Church which beleeued Purgatorie when as himselfe confesseth that it was made an Article of Popish Fayth in the yeare 250. at what time all the Popes were martyred for Christ and in his Funerall he acknowledgeth the first thirtie for godly men saying that both they and diuers others taught the same doctrine which S. Peter had done before them and most certaine that one of these thirtie lyued in the yeare 250. and so I trow they were of the primatiue Church The Minister is full of distinctions his braine a shoppe of solutions hauing many I-sayes for the answere of any Obiection Yet it is to be feared that no deuise will free him from a grosse vntrueth affirming heere that the primatiue Church was not acquainted with Purgatorie and yet teaching in his Suruay that Purgatorie was made an Article of Fayth by the late Popes of Rome in the yeare 250. T. B. I answere first that our Fryer is willing heere as afore to passe ouer in deepe silence the Popes Pardons as a thing not possible to be defended Secondly that our Jesuite seemeth more impudent then Impudencie it selfe as who is not ashamed againe and againe to iterate most grosse palpable and shamelesse Lyes I haue already refuted him plentifully and honestly discharged my selfe of that vntrueth which he would gladly impose vpon mee concerning the making of Purgatorie an Article of Popish Fayth Thirdly that I doe not in any one of all my Bookes impute the inuention of Purgatorie to any one of the first thirtie Byshops of Rome as whom all I honour in mine heart haue euer spoken and written reuerently of them Fourthly that I doe not onely trow but am well assured that our Iesuites trowing is a meere leasing while he auoucheth 250. yeares to be within the compasse of the primatiue Church I prooue it because all Christes Apostles who were the primatiue Church were dead long before that time of which our Fryer speaketh Fiftly that our Fryers feare is a flatte Lye
be so plainely deliuered by our Aduersaries may seeme a woonderment to the Christian world For it clearely turneth vpside-downe the chiefest Bulworke of Popish vnwritten Traditions and in effect all Popish Fayth and Religion The common good which commeth to the Church of God by writing against the Aduersaries of his Trueth is hence apparant to all the World For after the swaggering Iesuite S.R. with the aduise of Bellarmine and others had bickered so long with the Downefall of Poperie that the fall had almost broken their neckes then ouercome with the dint of Argumentes and force of the Trueth he was as it were violently compelled to write as we here see in defence behalfe of the Trueth To which for the better manifestation of this trueth so necessarie to be knowen I will adde yet an other Testimonie of our Jesuite in these wordes Truly sayd S. Epiphanius that we may tell the inuention of euery question out of the consequence of Scripture He sayd not Out of the Scripture For all cannot be taken thence as him selfe writeth but of the consequence of them Because all questions are resolued out of the Scriptures or out of that which followeth of them as the effect of the cause Thus the Iesuite approoueth vnawares the selfe same Doctrine which I in the Downefall doe defend And consequently the very weapons which our Aduersaries put into our handes are sufficient God be blessed for it to defend vs and our cause against them The Fourth Conclusion Popish Auricular Confession is not necessarie for mans saluation For first seeing all thinges necessarie for saluation are conteyned in the holy Scriptures as in the third Conclusion Secondly seeing all Preceptes and Promises of God in the New are contayned in the Old Testament as in the first Conclusion Thirdly seeing Popish Auricular Confession is not contayned in the Old Testament as in the second Conclusion it followeth by a necessarie and ineuitable consequution that Popish Auricular Confession is not necessarie for mans saluation This trueth will yet better appeare in the Conclusions following The Fift Conclusion Popish Auricular Confession is neither commaunded by Christ nor yet by his Apostles I prooue it because it is not contayned in the Old Testament as in the second Conclusion Which Testament for all that contayneth all the Preceptes of the New as may doth appeare to the indifferent reader in the first Conclusion The Sixt Conclusion Popish Auricular Confession was instituted and established by the meere Law of man grounded onely vpon a falsely imagined Apostolicall vnwritten Tradition I prooue it many wayes First because the Popes owne Decrees referre the matter to the iudgement of the Reader viz. Whether one be bound to Confession Auricular by Gods law or by Mans law These are the expresse wordes as Gratianus hath published the same Quibus authoritatibus vel quibus rationum firmamentis vtraque sententia satisfactionis et confessionis nitatur in medium breuiter exposuimus Cuj autem harum potius adhaerendum sit lectoris iudicio reseruatur Viraque N. fautores habet sapientes et religiosos viros Vpon what Authorities or foundations of Reasons either opinion is grounded I haue briefly shewed But to whether of them it is better to adhere that I leaue to the iudgement of the Reader for either opinion hath Wise and Religious men for the Patrons of the same Behold heere gentle Reader that not onely the Popes Doctors but his owne Canon-law and the Commenters vpon the same doe all confesse that Confession after Popish manner is onely solely grounded vpon Mans law Yea the Popish Glosse addeth That both Wise and Religious men doe so thinke though some others hold the contrary Secondly because the great Thomist who for his rare skill in Theologie was surnamed Absolutus Theologus Syluester Prieras doth deliuer his opinion in these wordes Quarto vtrum ad confessionem teneamur diuino iure vel humano Et dicâ— quod Canonistae videntur tenere quod sit de iure positiuo Et ad hoc est Glossa de paenit Dist. 5. In summa quae vult quod instituta sit a quadam vniuersali traditione Ecclesiae Ideo infert quam confiteri non tenentur infideles nec similiter Graeci ex quo non acceptauerunt huiusmodi constitutionem sicut nec votâ—â— castitatis It is demaunded fourthly sayth the great Learned Papist Syluester whether we be bound to Popish Confession by the law of God or by the positiue Law of man And I say the Canonistes hold that we are bound by the Law of man And of this opinion is the Glosse which is of this minde that Confession was instituted by a certaine vniuersall tradition of the Church Wherevpon the sayd Glosse inferreth that Infidels are not bound to Confession neither the Greekes in like maner seeing they did neuer approoue such Constitution as neither the vow of Chastitie Thirdly because the highly renowned Papist Martinus Nauarrus confesseth constantly and plainely that their solemne Glosse commonly receiued and approoued of all Canonistes holdeth Confession to be commaunded by the Church Fourthly because the famous Canonist most reuerend Arch-byshop and honourable Cardinall Panormitanus was of the same opinion with the Glosse For Couarruvâ—as a very learned Popish Arch-byshoppe deliuereth his minde in these wordes Quam ex nostris plerique sequuti sunt maximè Panormitanus ex ea asserentes confessionem sacramentalem quae Sacerdotibus fit iure humano institutam esse Which Glosse many of our Canonistes haue followed especially Panormitanus affirming out of that Glosse that Sacramentall confession made to Priestes was ordayned by the law of Man Fiftly because Scotus the Popish subtile schoole Doctor surnamed for his great skill Doctor subtilis after hee had largely disputed pro et contra of Popish Auricular confession concludeth in these wordes Apparet ergo istud non esse de iure diuino promulgato per scripturam Apostolicam Vel ergo tenendum est primum membrum scilicet quod sit de iure diuino promulgato per EuangeliuÌ„ vel si illud non sufficiat dicendum est tertium scilicet quod est de iure diuino positiuo promulgato a Christo Apostolis sed Ecclesiae promulgato per Apostolos absque omni scriptura It therefore appeareth that it is not of the law of God published by Apostolicall Scripture We must therfore either hold the first member to weeâ—e that it is of the law of God published by the Ghospell or if that will not suffice we must say the third that is to say that it commeth from the positiue law of God published by Christ to his Apostles but published by the Apostles to the Church without all Scripture Thus writeth the Popish Doctor subtilis who with all his subtiltie can not tell in the world what to say in defence of their Popish Auricular confession For after he hath discoursed to the vttermost of his wittes and imployed his
whole care industrie and diligence to see what helpe might be had in that behalfe his best resolution is to say with the old doting man of Carlton That it is either one thing or other For first he freely confesseth that it is not in the Old law Secondly that it is not in the Scripture of th'Apostles Thirdly that we must either hold this or that but he can not tell whether Fourthly that how soeuer we thinke or say of this Popish Auricular confessioÌ„ this perforce we must resolue to be the trueth viz. that it is grounded vpon Vnwritten tradition without all maner of Scripture This is it which our Papistes must euer flie vnto as to their best and last trumpe For which respect their learned and canonized Martyr the late Byshoppe of Rochester confessed plainely that the holy Scriptures will not serue their turne these are his expresse wordes Contendentibus itaque nobiscum Hareticis nos also subsidio nostram oportet tueri causam quam scriptura sacra Therefore when Heretiques contende with vs we must defend our cause by other meanes then by the holy Scripture Thus writeth Byshoppe Fisher the Popes canonized Saint and glorious Martyr a Learned man indeed who as we see for all his Learning was not able to defend Poperie by Gods word and therefore he fled from the holy Scriptures to vnwritten Traditions as Scotus did afore him And for the same respect Couarruuias a famous Popish Bishoppe and a great learned man confessed and published to the whole world that howsoeuer the trueth was that which their Pope did must of necessitie be defended These are his expresse words Nec mâ—latet c. Neither am I ignorant that S. Thomas affirmeth after great deliberation that the Byshoppe of Rome can not with his Dispensation take away from Monkes their solemne Vow of Chastitie This notwithstanding wee must defend the first opinion least those thinges which are practised euery where be vtterly ouerthrowne Behold here gentle Reader that howsoeuer the Popes opinion be whether true or false that skilleth not the same wee must defende of necissitie And why I pray you must this be done Because forsooth sayth Couarruutas otherwise Poperie will be turned vpside downe Sixtly because their famous Cardinall Caietanus affirmeth roundly that Auricular and Secret confession is against Christes institution as also the Precept that vrgeth vs to the same For albeit hee approoue Confession as instituted by Christ yet doth he adde a double restriction First that it was Voluntarie then that it was neither Secret nor of All sinnes Which twaine for all that the late Byshoppes of Rome affirme and vrge as necessarie to Saluation Marke well the next Conclusion out of the Popes owne Decrees The Seuenth Conclusion Popish Auricular Confession was not an Article of Popish Fayth for the space of 1215. yeares I prooue it because their famous Fryer and reuerend Popish Byshop Iosephus Angles affirmeth peremptorily and without all And 's or Ifs that none were Heretikes for the deniall of the necessitie of Popish confession vntill the Decree of their late Councell of Latheran which was holden 1215. yeares after Christ. And the Fryer Byshoppe yeeldeth this reason for the same viz. Quia nondum erat ab Ecclesia declaratum Because the Church of Rome had not before that time declared it to be so To which I adde for the complement of this controuersie that the Holy Auncient Fathers those stout Champions and mighty Pillers of Christes Church were neuer acquainted with Popish Auricular confession I prooue this by a double argument First by the fact of the holy Byshop Nectarius then by the ioynt-testimonies of Nicephorus and Rhenanus Concerning Nectarius that holy and worthy Byshoppe of Constantinople hee abolished the Law made for Confession so to auoyde the great Vices which ensued therevpon Where the Reader must obserue two thinges with mee th' one that in the Auncient church Publike Penaunce was inioyned to those who publikely denyed the Fayth in time of Persecution And that some were so zelous and so highly esteemed the sacred Ministerie that although they did not denie the Fayth publikely yet for that they had some doubtes therein and were troubled in their mindes they voluntarily disclosed their secret griefes to Gods Ministers humbly desired their Godly aduise submitted themselues to doe what was thought expedient by those Ministers whom the Church had placed to inioyne Penance for publike sinnes Th' other that notwithstanding the whoredome of the Deacon and other vices neither would that holy Byshop Nectarius euer haue attempted to abolish Confession if it had been Gods ordinance neither would so many famous Byshops haue imitated his fact And yet is it most certaine as shal be seene by and by that all for the most part Easterne-Byshops did follow his opinion Yea euen S. Chrysostome who succeeded Nectarius at Constantinople that goodly Patriarchall seate of the World Concerning Nicephorus and Rhenanus their owne expresse wordes shall heere be layde open to the Reader Nicephorus after he hath told vs what Nectarius did immediatly addeth these wordes Quem etiam ferè Orientales Episcopi omnes sequuti sunt Whom almost all the Byshoppes of the East did follow and imitate Againe he addeth toward the end of that Chapter these wordes Itaque de quorundam maximè vero Eudaemonis Ecclesiae eius Presbyteri patria Alexandrini Consilio ne postea in Ecclesia Presbyter paenitentiarius esset Nectarius statuit suadentibus illis vt cuique permitteretur pro conscientia et fiducia sua communicare et de immaculatis mysterijs participare Therefore Nectarius being aduised by sundry especially by Eudaemon an Elder of that Church borne in Alexandria made a Decree through their perswasion that from that day no Priest should heare the Confessions of the penitentes but that euery one should be permitted to communicate and to be partaker of the holy Mysteries as his owne Conscience and Fayth did mooue him Beatus Rhenanus after he had discoursed at large how the Auncient Church appoynted Priestes ouer the penitent that they might giue them counsaile how to make satisfaction according to the Canons which themselues did not vnderstande and withall had prooued out of S. Cyprian S. Chrysostome S. Basill S. Ambrose S. Hierome S. Bede Tertullian Hesychius Theodulphus Theodorus Bertramus Rabanus and Nectarius all which he alleadged for his opinion he deliuered his owne iudgement in these wordes Non aliam ob causam complurimi hic testimonijs vsi sâ—mus quam ne quis admiretur TertullianuÌ„ de clancularia illa admissoruÌ„ confessione nihil loquutum quae quantum coijcimus penitus id temporis ignorabatur For no other cause haue I heere vsed the testimonies of so many Writers but least any should maruell that Tertullian spake nothing of that secret Confession which as I thinke was vtterly vnknowen at that time Loe Tertullian spake not one word of Auricular confessioÌ„
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
creature no Angell in heauen or Saint vpon earth hath any power at any time to alter or change the least iote of the Catholique fayth This Obseruation all learned Papistes willingly imbrace acknowledging the same for an vndoubted truth And Biel my Doctor now in hand approoueth the same in these expresse wordes Quaedam sunt de necessitate sacramentorum et de iure diuino sic quod nulla authoritate vel consuetudine oppositum induci possit Some thinges are of the necessitie of Sacramentes and of the Law diuine so that whatsoeuer is opposite or repugnant to the same can neuer be established by any Custome or Authoritie To which I adde fourthly that the Church hath no new reuelations in matters of Fayth So writeth the famous Byshoppe and great learned popish Doctor Melchior Canus in these expresse wordes Nec vllas in fide nouas reuelationes Ecclesia habet The Church hath no new Reuelations in matters of Fayth This is true Catholique doctrine in very deed no denyall may be made thereof For once a matter of Fayth is and must euer be a matter of Fayth And in like maner once no Article of Fayth neither is nor euer can be an Article of true Fayth indeed B. C. S. Thomas of Aquine doth not say That this was in some few places onely as Bell maketh him to speake but that in some Churches it was so obserued which might be very many as well as some few T. B. I Answere that in my Suruey of Poperie I set downe Aquinas his expresse wordes as mine accustomed manner euer hath been though our Iesuite dare not performe so much In my Tryall I onely gaue the true sense and meaning for breuitie sake His wordes are these Ex parte quidem ipsius sacramenti conuenit quod vtramque sumatur sez et corpus et sanguis quia in vtroque consistit perfectio sacramenti Sequitur ideo prouidè in quibusdam ecclesijs obseruatur vt populo sanguis sumendus non detur sed solum a sacerdote sumatur On the behalfe of the Sacrament it is meete and conuenient that both be receiued to weet both the Body the Blood because in both consisteth the perfection of the Sacrament Therefore it is prouidently obserued in some Churches that the Blood be not giuen to the Lay people but be onely receiued of the Priest Thus writeth Aquinas out of whose wordes I note two speciall Documentes Thâ—one that the perfection of the Sacrament consisteth in both kindes and consequently that the Communion of the Lay people is this day vnperfect in the Church of Rome This is a note of great consequence let it be well remembred Th' other that both kindes were vsually receiued euen of the Lay people in the dayes of Aquinas both in the Church of Rome and in all other Churches some few excepted For if Aquinas should meane by some Churches very many Churches as our Fryer would perswade his readers he should not haue sayd in some Churches but in very many or in all Churches for the most part For two which are a few not very many may determine some Churches very sufficiently But to extend some Churches to very many is to offer no small violence to the Text. For example sake If our Jesuite should promise to giue me some Money for my paines as I thinke he will not if then I did challenge very much Money vpon his Promise hee perperhaps would deny the same and my selfe for any helpe the wordes would affoord me should by Law recouer the great summe ad Calendâ—â— Graetaâ— In my Suruey this Lay call Communion vnder both kindes is prooued at large out of Origen S. Cyprian S. Hierome S. Chrysostome S. Jgnatius S. Justinus S. Ambrose S. Austen S. Gregorie and Haymo It shall now suffice to cite the testimonies of Iustinus and Haymo Iustinus hath these expresse wordes Qui apud nos vocaÌ„tur Diaconi atque Ministri distribuunt vnicuique praesentium vt participet eum in quo gratiae actae sunt Panem Vinum et Aquam Sequitur Nam Apostoli in commentarijs a se scriptis quae Euangelia vocantur ita tradiderunt praecepisse sibi Iesum They that we call Deacons and Ministers doe distribute to euerie one that is present the sanctified Bread Wine Water to be made partaker thereof For the Apostles in their Commentaries that is in the Ghospels haue taught vs that Iesus so commaunded them to minister the holy Communion Haymo an auncient Father and learned Byshoppe hath these expresse wordes Ego N. accepi â— Domino quod et tradidi vobis id est mysterium corporis et sanguinis Domini quomodo debeatis sumere sicut mihi reuelauit ita tradidi vobis For I haue receiued of the Lord that which I deliuered to you that is the mysterie of our Lords Body Blood in what maner yee ought to receiue it Euen as he reuealed it to mee so haue I deliuered it to you Thus write these holy auncient learned Fathers very resolutely and plainely teaching vs that Christ commaunded all sortes of people to Communicate vnder both kindes I therefore must conclude with this ineuitable illation That seeing the Communion vnder one kind was not an Article of popish Fayth for the space of 1414. yeares after Christ as is already prooued it both is and must perforce be so reputed a very rotten ragge of the New religion The .13 Chapter of Popish priuate Masse B. C. THE Minister speaketh of the dreadfull Mysteries as homely as though he were talking of the English Communion which is had in such high reuerence that the fragmentes remayning are appoynted for the Ministers priuate vses and leaue giuen him to feed with them his Chickens or to soppe his Pottage T. B. I answere first that our cogging Iesuite is as vnreuerent in speaking as he is impudent and shamelesse in lying Secondly that all wise discreete and zelous Christians in our Churches doe come with more true reuerence to our holy Communion which we acknowledge to be sacramentally Christes true Body and pretious Blood then Papistes doe in the Romish Church to their transubstantiated Bread-god Thirdly that the Papistes giue leaue to Dogges Mice and Rattes to eate the remainder of their Bread-gods in so much that Petrus Lombardus their reuerend Maister of Sentences not able to expresse what the Mouse doth eate answereth to the great mysticall difficultie in these wordes Deus noâ—u God knoweth what the Mouse doth eate Fourthly that God by the mouth of holy Moses pronounced to the Isâ—â—eâ—uâ— that the remnant of the Meat-offering should be Aaron and his Sonnes And the reason is added immediately in these expresse wordes For it is most Holy of the Lordes Offeringes made by Fire Againe in an other place thus The Priest that offereth any mans Burnt offering shall haue the Skinne of the Burnt offering which he hath offered And all the Meate offering that
is baken in the Ouen and that is dressed in the Panne and in the frying Panne shall be the Priestes that offereth it And euery Meate offering mingled with Oyle and that is dry shall pertaine to all the sonnes of Aaron to all alike B. C. To the matter An vntrueth it is that priuate Masses were not before the time he mentioneth The twelft Councell of Toledo almost nine hundred yeares agoe reprehendeth those Priestes which offering Sacrifice did not communicate Quale illud Sacrificium c. What manner of Sacrifice is that sayth the Councell of which neither he that sacrificeth is knowen to be partaker Which wordes doe shew that none was present to communicate and yet the Councell requireth onely that the Priest himselfe doe Communicate S. Austen also recordeth how a Priest offered Sacrifice in a priuate forme for the freeing of that place from the molestation of wicked spirites In so particular and extraordinarie a place and for so particular a businesse no probabilitie that there were any other Communicantes T. B. I answere first that it is high time for our Jesuiticall Fryer to come once to the matter whose custome is seldome or neuer to be occupied in that honest kind of dealing Secondly that the Councell doth not so much as once name Priuat Masse much lesse doth it approoue the same Thirdly that if priuate Masse had then been vsed in some odde Churches yet would not that serue the Fryers turne The reason is at hand because that which commeth almost 700. yeares after Christ must needes be the New religion To that of S. Austen the same answere is correspondent and our Iesuite sheweth himselfe a very silly and ridiculous disputer while hee seeketh to stablish an Article of Fayth vpon iciune and barren probabilities Fourthly that all approoued antiquitie condemneth our Iesuite with his priuate Masse In the Canons of the Apostles I find these expresse wordes Si quis Episcopus Presbyter vel Diaconus vel ex Sacerdotali catalogo facta Oblatione non coÌ„municauerit causam dicat et si probabilis fuerit veniam consequatur sin verò minus segregetur vt qui populo â—ffensionis causa sit et suspicionâ—â— dedetit aduersus eum qui obtulit tanquam non dignâ— obtulerit If any Byshop Priest or Deacon or other of the Clergie shall not Communicate in time of the Oblation let him shew the cause or if it be found reasonable let him be pardoned but if otherwise let him be excommunicate as one that hath giuen scandall and brought him into suspition which offered as if he had done amisse The Popes owne Decrees are so cleare and manifest at nothing can be more One Canon commaundeth all such to be put out of the Church as do not receiue the holy Communion these are the expresse wordes Paracta Consecratione omnes comunicent qui noluerint Ecclesiaâ—ticiâ— câ—reâ—â—liminibus Sir N. Apostoli slatuerum et suncta Romaâ—â— tinet Ecclesia Whâ—â—â— Consecration is accomplished â—â—t all that will not Communicate be put out of the Church For so the Apostles haue ordeyned and so the holy Romane Church obserueth An other Canon hath these wordes Si quis 〈◊〉 Ecclesiam Dei 〈…〉 sua auertit se a Communione sacramenti et in obseruandis ministerijs declinat constitutam regulam disciplinae istum talem proijciendum de Ecclesia Catholica esse decernimus donec panitentiam agat If any come into Gods Church and heare the holy Scriptures and superstitiously auert himselfe from the Communion of the Sacrament and in obseruing the ministeries swarue from the set Rule of discipline wee decree such a one to be excommunicate vntill he repent An other Canon hath these wordes Omnes fideles qui conueniunt in solennitatibus sacris ad Ecclesiam et scripturas Apostolorum et Euangelium audiant Qui autem non perseuerant in oratione vsque dum missa peragatur nec sanctam Communionem percipiunt velut inquietudines Ecclesiae commouenies conuenit communione priuari All the faythfull which come to the Church in the time of sacred Solemnities must heare the Scriptures of the Apostles and the Ghospell But they that doe not continue in Prayer vntill Masse be done nor receiue the holy Communion ought to be excommunicate as disquieters of the congregation S. Chrysostome is so farre from approouing priuate Masse that he calleth them impudent and wicked that beeing present doe not communicate these are his wordes Ista videlicet et nunc ad omnes nos dicit qui impudenter hic et improbè astamus Quisquis Nâ—mysteriorum consâ—rs non est impudens et improbus astat These thinges verily he now sayth to vs all which stand by impudently and wickedly For whosoeuer standeth by and doth not communicate is impudent and wicked Oh what would this holy Father say if he were this day in Rome and should see many hundredes standing by gazing and the Priest onely deuowring all He would doubtlesse tearme them most impudent and vngratious people This Subiect is plentifully disputed in my Suruey to which place I referre the Reader The 14. Chapter of Pope Martins Dispensation for the Brother to marrie his naturall Sister ALL that our Jesuite sayth in defence of Pope Martins Dispensation is plaine silence in very deed For albeit I soundly confuted the forerunner in my Booke intituled The Popes Funeraâ—l there answering to euery sentence word and syllable which B.C. in his forerunner possibly could deuise yet S. R that Learned Iesuite in his pretensed Answere to the Downefull of Poperie not able to withstand or gainesay the dint of my Authorities Argumentes and Reasons passed ouer all the same being many and of great consequence in deepe silence In like manner this Jesuite fearing to suffer shipwracke vpon the same Rocke is afraid now either to reply vpon mine Answere in the Funerall or to answer my Authors plainely named in the Triall I prooued the Question soundly and clearely in the Popes Funerall by the Authorities and plaine Testimonies of Siluester Prieras sometime Maister of the Popes sacred Pallace and a Fryer so learned that he was surnamed Absolutus Theologus of Bartholomaeus Fumus a religious dominican Fryer a famous Popish summist and a man of great Authoritie in the Holy house of popish Inquisition of Angelus de Clauasio a Papist of great learning and reputation as who was Vicar generall of the Cismontani-Minors of Cardinall Caietain the most learned Papist of that crew and of Martinus Nauarrus a singular Writer and a most famous popish Canonist This notwithstanding all the answere that can any way be extorted from the Jesuites Penne is this and no other viz. that he hath answered me in the Dolefull Knell Which answere if it be pondered seriously with all the circumstaunces thereto apperteyning is able of it selfe if nothing els could be said to ouerthrow Poperie to turne it vpside downe Marke therefore gentle Reader very attentiuely what I
litle children the consonant sound reboundeth as it were an eccho with the surges of the Sea Iustinus Martyr hath these wordes Sub haec consurgimus communiter omnes et praecationes profundimus et sicuti retulimus praecibus peractis panis offertur et vinum et aqua Et praepositus itidem quantum pro virili sua potest praeces et gratiarum actiones fundit et populus faustè acclamat dicens Amen These thinges being done wee all arise togeather and make our Prayers and after our Prayers the Bread is offered with Wine and Water and the Minister as he is able prayeth and giueth thankes and the people with ioyfull acclamation say Amen Philo a very auncient and learned Writer awong the Iewes sheweth this old practise of our Christian Church in these wordes Quae omnia supra dictus vir eo ordine eademque consequentia qua apud nos geruntur expressit Et vt vnus ex omnibus consurgens in medio Psalmū honestis modulis concinat vtque praecinenti ei vnum versiculum omnis multitudo respondeat All which the aforenamed man he speaketh of Philo the Jew related in the same order and consequence in which our selues doe them And that one among all rising vp in the middest sing a Psalme with tunable voyce and that so soone as he hath sung one Verse all the people answere him S. Chrysostome speaketh so plainely of the peoples praying togeather with the Priest that euē in the time of the Liturgis or Masse as none doubtlesse that either read or heare his wordes can stand any longer in doubt thereof These are his expresse wordes In eisdem iterum horrendis mysterijs bene precatur Sacerdos populo et bene precatur populus Sacerdoti Nam cum spiritu tuo nihil aliud est quam hoc Ea quae sunt Eucharistiae id est gratiarum actionis communiae sunt omnia neque ille solus gratias agit sed etiam omnis populus prius N. accepta illorum voce deinde congregatis illis vt dignè et iustè hoc faciat incipit Eucharistiā Et quid miraris si populus cum Sacerdote loquitur In these dreadfull mysteries the Priest wisheth well to the people and the people desire Gods mercie to the Priest For these wordes with thy spirit haue no other meaning The thinges that pertaine to the Eucharist that is to the giuing of thankes are common to them all for he onely giueth not thankes but all the people also with him For he first receiueth their voyce after that they being gathered togeather that he may doe this reuerently and well he beginneth the Communion And what maruell is it to thee if the people pray with the Priest S. Cyprian testifieth the same practise to haue been vsuall in his time alleadging the very wordes that the common people answered to the Priest Thus doth he write in expresse tearmes Ideo et Sacerdos ante orationem praefatione praemissa parat fratrum mentes dicendo sursum corda vt dum respondet plebs habemus ad Dominum admoneatur nihil aliud se quam Dominum cogitare debere Therefore the Priest after the Preface before the Prayer prepareth the mindes of the brethren saying Lift vp your heartes that while the common people answere wee lift them vp vnto the Lord they may be instructed to thinke vpon no other thing but the Lord. What need is there to stand vpon this poynt any longer Sozomenus sheweth plainely in his Historie that in his time which was more then 400. yeares after Christ the people and the Clergie did sing Psalmes in the Church togeather So S. Hierome testifieth of the Church of Rome that in his time the people sounded out Amen with such an eccho as if it had been with an heauenly Thunder Nicolaus Lyranus that great learned popish Doctor in his Commentaries vpon S. Paul to the Corinthians affirmeth to his Readers very constantly that in the Primatiue Church both the Prayers and all other thinges were in the Vulgar tongue Yea S. Basil sayth that in his time all the people sang Psalmes togeather in the Church And he addeth therevnto that it was the custome of all Churches so to doe By these Testimonies it is cleare and euident that in the Primatiue Church and many yeares after the Church seruice was euerywhere in the Vulgar tongue S. Gregorie sometime Byshoppe of Rome himselfe reporteth the vsuall practise of the Greeke Church which he approoueth to haue been as we haue already heard out of S. Chrysostome and other famous Greeke Writers And that which our Fryer sayth of the same Gregorie is too too childish ridiculous as it is euident by that which is already said shall God willing be yet more euident before the end of this discourse Our Iesuite heere by way of a digression more then extrauagant giueth a very short but too too sweete an admonition In which he pleaseth himselfe more then a litle with his old doting foolerie and rusty rotten Poperie He telleth his Readers whom he would gladly perswade to giue credite to his wordes that our Ceremonies are pild patches of Protestanisme rusty ragges of the Reformed Congregation and withall forsooth that our Communion Booke it selfe was neuer heard of in the whole world till the late dayes of King Edward the sixt My answere to this extrauagant and foolish admonition I purpose in God to set downe in the last Chapter of this Discourse My reason hereof is this My scope intent and purpose in this present Booke is bipartite or two folde viz. to prooue soundly and plainely to lay open to all iudicious honest and indifferent Readers that the Religion Fayth and Doctrine of the late Byshoppes Church of Rome is indeed the New religion by litle and litle crept into the Church and distinctly to name the time when and the Authors by whom euery materiall poynt Article of the new Romish Fayth and Religion did first begin as also to prooue soundly and clearely that the Fayth and Doctrine this day established in the Church of England is Catholique Apostolicall and the Old Romane religion For which respect I haue thought it meete and conuenient first to accomplish and finish the former member in proouing Poperie the New Religion And that done to prooue the Doctrine and Fayth of our English Church to be the Old Religion Which to performe as is sayd I haue steadfast confidence in my mercifull GOD all sufficient who woonderfully preseruing me from many dangers almost ineffable seemeth to haue reserued me to that end and purpose God make me thankfull and euer to referre all that I well doe to his most holy name Non nobis Domine non nobis sed nomini tuo da gloriam Thou ô God who hast chosen the foolish things of this world to confound the wise and the weake thinges to confound the mightie things thou who by
Holy Water Agnus Dei c. though nothing comparable to Sacramentes may also in a good sense be sayd to helpe vs to obtaine Saluation by the Merites of Christ for as much as all Holy thinges haue force to produce supernaturall effectes as namely to chase away wicked Spirits to extinguish the fierie Dartes of the Enemie Thus pratleth the Iesuiticall Fryer the recitall of whose wordes being naked without all proofes is a sufficient confutation of the same The holy Apostle of our Lord Iesus teacheth vs plainely that it is The Shield of Fayth wherewith we may quench al the Firie Dartes of the wicked He willeth vs not to take Holy water Holy bread Crosses Medales Agnus Deis the Bones of Champian Sherwin Ballard Watson and such like popish trumperie No Scripture of the old or new Testament no holy Father no approoued Councell no authenticall Historie can be named which exhorteth vs to put any confidence in such beggerly dotage of late Popish foolerie For the rest peruse the Tryall and it is enough The 27. Chapter of the dolefull Oath which popish Byshops make to the Pope B. C. AS for the Oathes of Byshops made to the Pope the lawfulnesse thereof appeareth because it is made with all Catholique Princes consent and meant onely in iust and lawfull thinges which are according to Gods Law and holy Canons and it hath been vsed aboue a thousand yeares agoe as it is euident by the like Oath made by a Byshoppe vnto S. Gregorie the great and S. Boniface the Apostle of Germanie and worthyest man that euer England bredde did sweare when he was consecrated Byshop to concurre with the Pope and commodities of his Church T. B. I answere first that all this which the Fryer B. C. heere telleth vs was obiected afore by S. R. in his pretensed Answere to the Downefall of Poperie Secondly that I haue confuted the same so soundly in the Jesuites Antepast as whosoeuer shal with indifferencie peruse the same can not but see the Iesuite wounded vnto death Heere by the way I must tell our Fryer that the words of S. R. are by him quoted in the thirtieth Article and the fourtenth Chapter and yet are they in the seuenth Article This I deeme to be the Printers fault and therefore doe not vse to reprooue him for the like escapes howbeit hee for want of better matter rayleth and brawleth like a madde man if he finde neuer so litle amisse in my Bookes through the Printers fault who vsually am almost 2â—0 myles from the Presse when any one of my Books is a printing All the rest of this Chapter is soundly refuted in the Iesuites Antepast Downefall of Popery The 28. Chapter of the popish Fast of fourtie dayes commonly called Lent B. C. MAny mad gambols doth the Minister fetch in this Chapter and among other hee will needs prooue that the Lenten-fast is hurtfull both to the soule and body and disputeth out of Hippocrates like a pretty Pettifogger in Phisicke to shew That it is hurtfull to our health This albeit I doe not doubt but it is a notorious vntrueth yet because it is not my profession to argue of any such Subiect I leaue him to the mercie of the Phisitions who I thinke vpoÌ„ the feeling of his Pulse are like enough for the curing of such an extrauagant conceit to condemne him to Hyppocrates bands T. B. I answere first that our Fryer by his owne confession reprooueth that as a notorious vntrueth wherein hee hath no skill and withall taketh vpon him to censure my condemnation vpon the feeling of my Pulse which to iudge is a very hard poynt in the noble art of Phisicke Secondly that it is the Jesuites profession to shew himselfe a notorious lyer which is prooued againe and againe throughout this whole discourse Thirdly that if my Disputation were not truely grounded vpon the art of Phisicke the Jesuite could not haue wanted helpe to haue confuted the same Peruse the Tryall and marke it well for it woundeth the Fryer euen vnto death B. C. Omitting this let vs see what followeth The Fast of the auncient Church quoth hee was free voluntary and not commaunded by any Law An vntrueth for it was a Tradition of the Apostles to Fast in Lent and so not free Wee sayth S. Hierome in the whole yeare do Fast one Lent according to the tradition of the Apostles And S. Austen sayth It is sinne to breake Lent-fast T. B. I answere first that I graunt the Iesuites antecedent and yet doe I deny both his consequent his consequence His consequent because Lent was free voluntarie and not commaunded by any Law as I shall by by God willing prooue by an euident demonstration His consequence because Lent may be an Aposticall Tradition and withall remaine free and voluntarie still I prooue it by the Iesuites owne free graunt and his best manner of disputing For when I in the 12. Chapter of my Tryall had prooued by Apostolicall and plaine Diuine tradition euen expressed in the holy Scripture that the Lay people ought to receiue the holy Communion vnder both kindes the holy Apostle affirming that he deliuered what he receiued from our Lord Iesus the Jesuite answered roundly in these expresse wordes The most that can be gathered out of S. Paules wordes is this That in his time the Eucharist was ministred to Lay-people vnder both kinds which we deny not but they prooue not that it neither was nor might be giuen vnder one kind Thus disputeth our Iesuite affirming resolutely that the tradition receiued from Christ and deliuered by S. Paul may be altered changed consequently that it is free voluntarie and not commaunded by any Law For doubtlesse no power vpon earth may alter or change Christs holy precept This is already prooued and is also manifest of it selfe For an inferiour hath no power to change the Law of his superiour which the popish Saint Antoninus sometime Archbyshoppe of Florence doth very plainely teach vs in these expresse wordes Quantum verò ad illa quae sunt de iure naturali vel diuino iurisdictio seu potestas Papalis non se extendit sic verò quod ista possit mutare vel etiam dare eis vim obligandi Et ratio est quia inferior non potest mutare leges superioris Deus autem superior est ad Papam Concerning those thinges which are of the law of Nature or of the law Diuine the Popes Iurisdiction or Power doth not extend it selfe vnto them so to weete that the Pope can either change them or giue power obligatorie vnto them And the reason thereof is because an inferiour can not change the Lawes of his superiour Franciscus a victoria that famous Popish Schoole-doctor who first brought Scholasticall Theologie into Spaine is consonant to Antoninus that famous popish Saint in these expresse wordes In hoc genere Decretorum aut Canonum Papa nihil
excessiue eating Vse dayly abstinence refection without gluttonie or excesse for it profiteth thee nothing to haue an emptie Belly two or three dayes and after to fill the Panch while it may hold Thus the Popes owne Decrees teach vs and it is to be well obserued For doubtlesse Popish Fastes haue this effect most vsually the richer sort stuffe their bellies and fill their panches at Dinner with great varietie of Wines and delicate Meates Yea at all times they drinke Wines and eate Peares Apples Rasinges Figges and Simnels especially in their Collations at night they eate conserues of Quinces Cheries Wardens and like dainties which farre exceed the best Dinners of the poorer sort And this I protest for edification-sake I heere disclose the same that my selfe heard one Recusant once say at dinner that he did eate the more at dinner on the Fasting day that so he might put away Hunger vntill the next day What I haue heard touching this Subiect if I should here relate the same would seeme strange to many a one I speake of thinges heard by report the other I speake of my owne hearing this by the report of others An other Decree of Pope Pius doth yeeld vs this instructioÌ„ These are the words Nihil enim prodest homini ieiunare et orare et alia religionis bona agere nisi mens ab iniquitate et ab obtrectationibus lingua cohibeatur To Fast and Pray doth not profit a man any thing neither yet to do other dueties of Religion vnlesse he keepe his Minde from iniquitie his Tongue froÌ„ euill speaking An other Decree borrowed from S. Austen hath these wordes Ieiunium autem magnum et generale est abstinere ab iniquitatibus et ab illicitis voluptatibus seculi quod est perfectum ieiunium in hoc seculo Quasi QuadragesimaÌ„ S. abstinentiae celebramus cum bene viuimus cum ab iniquitatibus et ab illicitis voluptatibus abstinemus The great and generall Fast is to absteine from iniquitie and vnlawfull pleasures of this world and this is the perfect Fast in this world We keepe as it were a Quadragesima or Lent of abstinence while we liue well and Christianly while we absteine from sinne and from vnlawfull pleasures But an other Decree borrowed of S. Hierome shall be the vpshot of this game These are the very wordes Audiant itaque qui ea quae necessaria sunt corpori subtrahunt illud quod per Prophetam Dominus loquitur Ego Dominus odio habens rapinam holocanstorum De rapina vero holocanstum offert qui temporalium bonorum siue ciborum nimia egestate vel manducandi vel somni penuria corpus suum immoderatè affligit Let them therefore who withhold or take from the body thinges necessarie for it heare what our Lord sayth by his Prophet I the Lord hate the robbery of burnt Offeringes Now he offereth burnt Offeringes of Rapine or Roberie who afflicteth his body immoderately either with too much want of temporall good thinges or of Meates or with the penurie of eating or of sleepe This Discourse if my Tryall be annexed to it is enough concerning this Subiect To S. Hierome this in briefe is my answere viz. That the Epistle fathered on him is a counterfeit as which agreeth not with the true Hieroms Doctrine else where as is alreadie prooued To which I adde which I haue also prooued that if wee suppose and admit it to be a Tradition of the Apostles yet doth mine assertion stand firme and vntouched viz. That notwithstanding that Tradition yet was Lent-fast free voluntarie and not commaunded by any Law To S. Austen I answere first that the Sermon which our Jesuite citeth is not his but a counterfeit My reason is at hand because S. Austen as is already prooued affirmeth constantly that the Apostles made no Law for Fasting This is already prooued Secondly that in things indifferent such as I haue prooued Lent to be euery one is bound to obey the Law of that Church in which he lyueth And so he that keepeth not Lent-fast may truely be said to sinne Thirdly that S. Epiphanius and S. Austen did not reprooue Aerius for denying popish Lent-fast which was at that time vnhatched but for denying the Churches Authoritie in appoynting Fasting-dayes vpon what cause soeuer Which my selfe doe constantly auouch to be an Heresie indeede For when the Church vpon speciall causes appoynteth Fasting dayes then all that for infirmitie may ought to absteine and not to contemne those Fastes as Aerius taught Howbeit I say withall that the auncient Church condemned it for an Heresie in Montanus to appoynt ordinary times of necessarie and Religious Fasting when there was no speciall cause so to doe B. C. That which he bringeth concerning S. Spiridion his eating of Flesh in Lent all circumstaunces considered hurteth not vs but maketh against himselfe For we deny not but that in some cases Flesh may be eaten without violation of that Fast. T. B. I answere First that S. Spiridions eating of Flesh all circumstances duely considered maketh so much against Popish Lent fast as will make both the Jesuites and the Popes heart to pant when they shall seriously ponder my answere in that behalfe Secondly that our Jesuite truly graunteth that Papists may in some cases eate Flesh in theâ—â— holy Lent For first seeing the Pope can bring all Soules out of Popish Purgatory Secondly seeing he can dissolue that Matrimony which Christ himselfe instituted Thirdly seeing he can make a vowed Popish Monke to become a truly marryed man Fourthly seeing he can authorize the Brother to marrie his owne full and naturall Sister Fiftly seeing his owne will is a reason sufficient to doe whatsoeuer pleaseth him Sixly seeing he may iudge all but none iudge him Seuenthly seeing he can doe as much as Christ him selfe could doe Eightly Seeing none may say vnto him Why doest thou so Although he carry many thousandes of Soules to Hell Nynthly seeing he hath the right of both Swords the Spirituall and the Temporall and by vertue thereof deposeth Kings and translateth their Kingdomes Tenthly seeing he can by the fulnes of his power change the nature of things and of nothing make somthing all which is already prooued it followeth by an ineuitable illation that by the Popes Dispensation all Papistes may eate Flesh aswell in the time of Lent as at other times of the yeare This is confirmed by the vsuall practise aswell of Seminarie Priestes as of Iesuites Iesuited Papistes within this Land For a famous Jesuite made offer to a Gentleman that if he would become a Papist he should haue Licence to eate Flesh in Lent among Lollards that by so doing he might liue without suspition and escape daunger of the Lawes Now let vs duely examine the circumstaunces of S. Spiridions eating of Flesh in Lent Cassiodorus in the Tripartite Historie hath these expresse wordes Instante iam Quadragesima quidam
and his successors and that their fayth can not fayle B. C. What followeth What but that Bell hath abused the good Reader with an vntrueth T. B. I answere that this in very deed followeth and that of meere necessitie that our Iesuiticall Fryer is a most impudent and shamelesse lyer Which thing I haue prooued againe againe in euery Chapter most euidently I therfore must perforce conclude that seeing the late Byshops of Rome Pius Paulus Iulius haue taken in hand roundly and most Antichristianly as I haue prooued in my Tryal and more at large in the Downe-fall of Poperie to dissolue that Matrimonie which the true Church of God durst neuer dissolue for the space of more then fifteene hundred yeares after Christ the same can be nothing else but a very filthy rotten Ragge of the New Religion The 30. Chapter of the Popes pretended Superioritie ouer and aboue a generall Councell B. C. BELL beginning with false asseueration to tell vs of the late opinion of the Popes Superioritie ouer a Generall Councell interlaceth also an other shamelesse vntrueth against the Rhemists T. B. I answere that our Fryer still continueth one and the selfe-same man that is to say an impudent and shamelesse lyar as he first began For within foure lines hee compriseth and coucheth two most notorious Lyes The former is touching the late Opinion of the Popes Superioritie ouer a generall Councell I affirme that the Popish opinion which holdeth the Pope to be aboue a generall Councell is a late vpstart Fayth and Doctrine neuer knowne to the Church of God for the space of more then fourteene hundred yeares after Christ. This our Fryer calleth a False asseueration but prooueth it not at all Hee is an honest man we may if we will beleeue his bare word But I by the power of God shall prooue the contrary to be the trueth and that out of hand The latter is concerning the Rhemistes which shall be cleared God willing by and by B. C. The Rhemists quoth hee that Iesuited brood tell vs plainely if we will beleeue them that there is no necessitie of a Generall or Prouinciall Councell saue onely for the better contentation of the people Thus hee chargeth them yet not noting any particular place But I will helpe him it is in their Annotations vpon the Actes T. B. I answere that our Fryer sheweth himselfe what he is aswell heere as else where He is so full of Charitie forsooth that he will needes helpe me for his owne intended gaine though he be thereby prooued a lying swaine for in the next Page following hee hath these expresse wordes This vntrueth the Minister had set abroach once afore in his Downe-fall and quoteth the place very orderly in this manner Rhemes test in Act. 15. Loe in one page our Fryer chargeth me of purpose to haue omitted the quotation so to delude and deceiue the Reader In an other page he graunteth freely that I haue set it downe very orderly Behold this changeable Camelion who both accuseth and acquitteth me with one breath Concerning the slaundering of the Rhemists wherewith he chargeth me this is mine answere that in very deede the slaunder fitly agreeth to himselfe which he would vntruely impose vpon mee I prooue it First Because the Rhemists plainely declare their meaning in this briefe Marginall note Though the Sea Apostolique it selfe say the Rhemists haue the same assistance yet Councels be also necessarie for many causes In which wordes they graunt as much in effect as I either affirme or require Secondly because the causes which our Rhemists name may easily be reduced to that one of mine viz. For the better contentation of the people for the controuersie is this Whether the Popes Iudgement be infallible in it selfe without a Generall Councell or no. The Rhemists answere that Papistes hold the affirmatiue viz. That the Popes Iudgement is infallible and is assisted of God euen as a generall Councell Thirdly that if the Papistes will stand to the deny all of mine Assertion then must they perforce grant against them-selues which willingly they would not that they haue no infallible trueth in their Church saue onely the Determination of a generall Councell I heare it I receiue it I like it I willingly subscribe vnto it Let the Papistes therefore defend this Doctrine That the Popes Iudgement without a generall Councell is fallible that he may Iudicially erre and be deceiued and let a lawfull generall Councell determine all controuersies and no doubt all Christians in the world will yeeld thereunto But Sir Fryer Hic labor hoc opus est For in these last and worst dayes of ours the Pope will stay at home and whatsoeuer or howsoeuer the Councelles shal decree yet must nothing be of force saue that onely which the Pope liketh to confirme as he sitteth in his Chaire at Rome This I haue prooued at large in the Downe-fall of Poperie and in my Christian Dialogue by euident demonstrations B. C. What can Bell fetch from Alphonsus to iustifie his iniurious charge of the Rhemists Alphonsus was one of those Diuines that thinke the infallibilitie of Iudgement to be in a Councell and not in the Pope alone And hee bringeth this reason Because otherwise it were in vaine with so great labour to assemble so many Byshops togeather This informeth vs very well what Alphonsus his opinion was But where doth hee say that the Rhemistes teach that the Determination of a generall Councell is needlesse saue onely for the better contentation of the people because the Popes Iudgement is infallible Hee speaketh not one word of the Rhemists and no marueile for he could not being dead many a faire day before the Rhemes Testament was published T. B. I answere that I can fetch so much from the famous and learned Papist Alphonsus as is able to kill the Pope with all his Jesuites and Iesuited Popelinges For first the Pope with his Jesuites and Jesuited Popelinges auouch most impudently and would enforce all Christians to beleeue the same that Christ built his Church vpon S. Peter and vpon his successors the Byshops of Rome and also that Christ prayed for Peter and for the Byshops of Rome that their Fayth should neuer fayle But Alphonsus condemneth that opinion for Hereticall while hee affirmeth the infallibilitie of Fayth to rest in a generall Councell not in the Pope alone Secondly Alphonsus confuteth the Rhemists most soundly euidently while he affirmeth generall Councels to be gathered in vaine if the Popes Determination and iudgement were infallible Thirdly Alphoâ—sus is one of those Learned popish Writers euen by the Iesuites free confession in this place which I wish the Reader neuer to forget who defende the trueth with vs against the Pope his Iesuites and all his Iesuiteâ— Popelinges For I doe not hold or defend any Article or poynt of Doctrine as I haue often sayd and heere our Fryer vnawares graunteth the same such is the
Brytaines did at their conuersion receiue the Latine Seruice first by Eleutherius about the yeare 179. after Christ and againe by Gregorie about the 596. yeare yet can no more be truely inferred therevpon if we graunt the Latine tongue to haue been then decayed in Brytaine same onely that the Romanes deliuered their Church-seruice in the Latine tongue which then was their vulgar Language being altogeather ignoraunt of the Brytaine tongue and that the Brytaine for the loue they bore to the publique Prayers and Church-seruice which they receiued at their conuersion to the Christian faith did euer after vse and retaine the same in the Latine tongue in which they first receiued it Fourthly that seeing by Christes commandement deliuered by his Apostle All thinges in the Church ought to be done to edification it followeth of necessitie that the Latine vsage of the Brytaines in diuine Seruice was a Ragge of a New religion as which was about 179. yeares younger then the old and repugnant to Apostolicall doctrine For S. Paul spendeth no lesse then one whole Chapter that only to prooue that euery Nation ought to haue their Church-seruice in their vulgar knowne tongue If the Trumpet sayth he giue an vncertaine sound who shall prepare him selfe to the Warre So likewise you except ye vtter by the tongue manifest speech how shall it be knowne what is spâ—ken for ye shall speake in the ayre Againe thus If I know not the meaning of the voyce I shall be to him that speaketh an Aliant and he that speaketh shall be an Aliant to mee Againe thus Wherefore let him that speaketh with the tongue pray that he may interpret For if I pray with the tongue my spirit prayeth but my vnderstanding is without fruite Where I wish the Reader to obserue with me that the Spirit in this place is taken for the spirituall gift of Tongues as S. Chrysostome vpon this place doth witnesse S. â—heophilact is consonant to S. Chrysostome He calleth the Gift the Spirit sayth Theodorus My Spirit prayeth that is my spirituall Gift to speake with Tongues sayth Phoâ—us Againe thus If thou blesse with the Spirit how shall he that occupieth the roome of the vnlearned say Amen at the giuing of thankes seeing he vnderstandeth not what thou sayeth Againe thus I had rather speake fiue wordes with my vnderstanding in the Church that J may instruct others then ten thousand wordes in an vnknowen tongue Againe thus Let all things be done to edification Fourthly that our Jesuite gableth as a lying pratler while he impudently auoucheth that by Bels allowance the Latine vse in Church-seruice where the people vnderstand it not is found Catholique and Apostolicall For Bell hath plainely prooued it to be vnsound Prophane and Diabolicall as also that the vse of publique Seruice in the vulgar Tongue came neither from Wittenberge nor Geneua But from the Primitiue Apostolicall and succeding Churches for many hundred yeares togeather Whosoeuer shall with a single eye and sound iudgement peruse the Sixteene chapter afore-going and ioyne my Suruey with it can not but cleerely behold as in a Glasse of Christall the trueth to be as I haue written Lyranus a famous and great learned Papist in his learned Commentaries vpon S. Pauls Epistles doth so plainely so constantly affirme that in the Primatiue Church the publique Prayers and all other thinges were in the vulgar Tongue as none that shall read him seriously can possibly stand in doubt thereof Yea S. Basil auoucheth expressely that the Egyptians the Lybians the Thebanes the Palestines the Arabians the Phaenicians the Syrians and generally all Christian Nations of what Language soeuer they were had their common Prayers and Seruice in their vulgar Tongue But our Rhemishes obiect S. Pauls words against S. Paul in this manner Also when a man prayeth in a strange Tongue which himselfe vnderstandeth not it is not so fruitfull for instruction to him as it be knâ—w particularly what he prayed Neuerthelesse the Apostle forbiddeth not such praying neither confessing that his spirit heart and affection prayeth well towardes God though his minde and vnderstanding be not profited to instruction as otherwise it might haue been if he vnderstood the wordes Neither yet doth he appoynt such a one to get his strange Prayers translated into his vulgar Tongue to obtaine thereby the aforesaid instruction To this I answere first that I haue alreadie prooued out of S. Chrysostome and other Fathers Theodoretus Theophilactus and Photius that S. Paul doth not vnderstand by the word Spirit the Heart and Affection but the Spirituall gift to speake with Tongues Secondly that it is cleare by many textes of the Apostle that the word Spirit doth so signifie as I haue sayd Thirdly that if we should graunt the Spirit to signifie Heart and Affection as the Rhemistes absurdly expound it yet could not that serue their turne because S. Paul willeth to pray not onely with Spirit but also with minde and vnderstanding As also for that S. Paul in an other text commaundeth expressely That all thinges â—e done in the Church to edifying Which is no other Doctrine indeed then Christ himselfe teacheth in his holy Ghospell This people saith he draweth neere vnto me with their mouth and honoureth me with the lippes but their heart is farre from me Fourthly that the Apostle commaundeth him that hath the gift of Tongues to pray that he may interpret his strange tongue himselfe or that some other should interpret it or else to keepe silence in the Church For this cause doth S. Chrysostome constantly affirme that Prayers not vnderstood of him that vttereth them are altogeather vnprofitable Thou seest sayth he how by litle and litle he is come to this poynt that he declareth him to be vnprofitable not onely to others but also to him selfe seeing the minde of such a man is voyde of fruite For if a man speake onely in the Persians Language or in any other strange Tongue and doe not vnderstand those things which he speaketh he shall be to himselfe as he that vnderstandeth not the meaning of the voyce This and much more to the like effect sayth S. Chrysostome of those that had the gifts of Tongues and vnderstood not what they spake What thinke you sir Fryer would he haue sayd if he had heard the vnlearned Papistes babling on their Beades and Primers what they did not vnderstand Nay if he had heard that which now adayes is very frequent among the vnlearned Papistes both men and women how they choppe and change clippe and mangle the wordes so as they either haue a contrarie or ridiculous sense or else plaine none at all but stand as Cyphers and Voces non significatiuae For this is a truth so well knowne as it can not without blushing be denied that many popish Priestes haue been so ignoraunt that they neither vnderstood their Portesses
time and who they were that composed the partes thereof When as neither Durandus nor any other make the essentiall and very substantiall part of the Masse that is the wordes of Consecration to haue come from any other then the Sonne of God But they speake of the accidentall partes thereof to weet either deuout Prayers or Ceremonies which we willingly graunt to proceed from the institution of Christes Church T. B. I answere first that our Fryer giueth both the Pope and Poperie a deadly wound while he telleth vs that Durandus and others note at what time and who they were that composed the partes of their popish Masse Secondly that while our Fryer Iesuite maketh one onely essentiall part of their popish Masse that is the wordes of Consecration he graunteth that all the rest be Accidentall and so may be taken away from the same To which Doctrine I very willingly subscribe assuring the Iesuite that they and we shall soone agree if the Pope will thus reforme their Masse in abolishing all the accidentall partes here so named from the same Thirdly that I haue already prooued the word enim in the consecration of the Bread to be either of Mans institution or else the Deuils Fourthly that S. Thomas of â—â—quine Durâ—nâ— and other learned Papistes doe constantly affirme that God can not by his diuine power cause one the same body to be in diuers places at once And consequently that our Iesuites must either deny Christes body to be in Heauen contrary to the expresse wordes of holy Scripture or else that Christes body his flesh blood and bones can not be in their popish Masse or thirdly that the wordes of Popish Consecration came from some greater power then is in God which for all that no Papist dareth to auouch Fiftly that the wordes which are vsed in the popish Consecration of Wine came not from the Sonne of God I prooue it by the testimonie of Iosephus Angles that famous popish Byshoppe and learned Schoole-doctor whose expresse wordes are these Forma consecrationis Calicis qua Romana vtitur Ecclesia est sufficiens traditur enim ab Euangelistis et verba qua ab Ecclesia interpoâ—untur scilicâ—t nouâ— et aâ—erni testaments misterium fidei forma qua Christus consecrauit sensum handmutanâ— The forme of the Consecration of the Chalice or Cuppe which the Church of Rome vseth is sufficient for it is deliuered by the Euangelist and the wordes which the Church interlaceth to weet of the new and eternall Testament the misterie of Fayth doe not change the sense of the forme in which Christ did consecrate Thus writeth Byshop Angles plainely insinuating to his Readers that the Church of Rome vseth an other forme of Consecration then Christ himselfe did vse And consequently that the wordes of Consecration vsed in the Romish Church came not from the Sonne of God Ergo the Romish forme of Consecration is a Ragge of the New religion Sixtly that the Papistes can not tell indeed which be the precise wordes of their popish Consecration although that be the most principall and the very essentiall part of popish Masse and consequently of all popish Fayth and Religion I prooue it most euidently because Byshoppe Angles rehearseth foure seuerall opinions concerning this precise Article of popish Fayth these are his expresse words Quatuor sunt opiniones Prima S. Thomae qui omnia praedicta verba dicit esse de essentiaformae Secunda opinio est Alexandri D. Bonauenturae et Durandâ— qui affirmant de necessitate consecrationis Calicis esse haec sola verba scilicet hic est sanguis meus Tertia opinio dicit haec verba scilicet hic est sanguis meus qui pro â—ultis effundetur in remissionem peccatoruÌ„ esse de necessitate consecrationis praetermissis alijs verbis quae ab Ecclesia Romana adduntur qua forma vturtur Graeci Quarta opinio est Scoti qui ait de haec quastione nihil certitudinalitor esse nobis traditum There be foure opinions S. Thomas holdeth the first who auoucheth all the aforenamed words to be of the essence of the forme The second opinion is Alexanders Bonauentures and Durandus who affirme that these onely wordes are of the necessitie of the consecration of the Chalice or Cuppe to weet This is my blood The third opinion affirmeth these wordes This is my blood which shal be shed for many for remission of sinnes to be of the necessitie of ConsecratioÌ„ not the other wordes which the Church of Rome addeth to them Scotus the popish Doctor Subtilis holdeth the fourth opinion auouching that they know not certainely what to hold or thinke of this matter This is the best popish Diuinitie for the most essentiall part of all Poperie that the best learned Papistes are able to affoord vs so as euery child is well able to discerne that the now Romish Fayth is the New religion B. C. What doth Bell and such like Ministers that deride the Ceremonies and partes of the Masse but mocke and mow at their owne Communion-booke and partes thereof being borrowed from vs or in what they differ can shew no greater antiquitie then the late dayes of Edward the sixt at what time diuers Ministers did hammer them in the forge of their owne inuention T. B. This is that which the Pope and his deuoted Vassals neuer cease to instill into the hearts and eares of silly Papistes that so they may falsely perswade them that the Popish Fayth is the Old and ours the New Religion Wherefore albeit I haue againe and againe prooued most euidently that the Fayth and Doctrine which the Romish Church this day holdeth and teacheth is the New Religion neuerthelesse seeing these wordes heere obiected doe in some sort as it were insinuate to the Reader the most principall and maine poynt of the whole controuersie I am very willing to vndergoe the paines how great soeuer for the better contentment and full satisfaction of all such as desire to know the trueth I answere thus first that the Church of Rome receiued the true Catholique Apostolique Faith in the dayes of S. Peter and S. Paul which S. Paul himselfe testified while he affirmed their Fayth to he renowmed in the whole world Secondly that the Church of England receiued the same Catholique and Apostolique Fayth from the good Byshoppes of Rome at their first conuersion vnto the Fayth of Christ Iesus Explico Brutani now called England first receiued the Christian Fayth by Faganus and Deruvianus sent from Elutherius the good Byshoppe of Rome at the earnest request of Lucius then King of Brutani which was in the yeare 179. after Christ. After that Ethelbert the first Christian King of the Saxons was conuerted to the Fayth of Christ by Augustine Melitus Justus and others sent from Gregorie an other good Byshoppe of Rome in the yeare 596. after Christ. Thirdly that from that time vntill these our
dayes the Byshoppes of England now so called haue had and kept a continuall and vninterrupted succession of Byshoppes successiuely so sound firme and inuiolable as the Church of Rome is not able to shew the like This succession is so clearely prooued in my Christian Dialogue as none with right reasoÌ„ can deny the same Fourthly that the Church of England now so called hath euer since the time of King Ethelbert constantly kept all and euery Article of the old Romane Religion which she receiued from the auncient and purer Church of Rome No Papist liuing is able to giue any true instance against this irrefragable assertion Fiftly that as in processe of time many superstitious grosse and palpable errours yea flatte Heresies haue by litle and litle crept into the Church of Rome euen so hath our Church of England through the sway of the time been deeply stayned polluted with the same Sixtly that our Church in the time of King Henry the eight began to be reformed in some Articles of Fayth and Doctrine but the reformation was not perfect vntill the raigne of King Edward the sixt In which Reformation no New Article of Fayth or Religion is added to the former but the former Fayth and Religion is onely refyned purged purified and such Superstition Errours and Heresies abolished as were by litle and litle brought into the Church All and euery iote of the old Romane Religion remayneth still in our Church permanent and inuiolable But some perhappes will heere demaunde of me how the Church of Rome did so degenerate from the auncient Fayth and so foulely corrupt the old Romane Religion To whom I answere in this manner First with Egesippus that auncient and learned Father that during the life of Christes blessed Apostles the visible Church remayned a Virgin free from all Heresies and corruptions but after their death Errours by litle and litle crept into the Church as into a voyde and desart House Secondly with Franciscus a Victoria that famous popish Fryer and great learned Schooleman that by litle litle the Papistes were in his time brought to such inordinate dispensations and to so miserable a state that they were neither able to endure their owne griefes nor remydies assigned by the Pope for the same That Clemens Lâ—nus and Syluester were very good Byshoppes of Rome but that the latter Byshoppes comming after them successiuely were wicked men and nothing comparable to the olde Byshoppes there Thirdly with Iosephus Angles that famous Popish Byshoppe euen in that Booke which hee dedicated to the Pope himselfe that the Romish Religion changeth euery day Fourthly with the fiue famous Popish Doctors Iohannes Roffensis Jacobus Almaâ—nus Gersonus Durandus and Michael Baius that euery sinne is mortall of it owne nature and that the old Romane Church did so beleeue vntill the time of Pope Pius the fift that is about 1560 yeares after Christ at which time Veniall sinnes werâ— hatched in the Church of Rome This is such a constant knowen trueth as neither the Jesuite S. R. nor yet the Iesuite B. C. his deare brother can tell in the world what answere to frame to the same Fourthly with Polidorus Virgilius that famous Popish Writer that the Popish Legistes and Canonistes of latter dayes haue so wrested the holy Scriptures to their owne sense and liking as Coblers doe gnaw with their teeth and stretch out their filthy skinnes Fiftly with Platina the Popes deare Vassall and trustie Friend that in his dayes the Popedome was brought to that passe that who so could goe before others in Bribes and Ambition hee onely should haue the place Sixtly with Couarruuias that worthy popish Arch-byshoppe and learned Canonist that in these dayes either the Popes opinion must be defended or else Poperie can not stand Lastly with Iosephus Angles writing to the Popes deare Holynesse that albeit the old Church of Rome did by the commaundement of the Apostles excommunicate all non communicants in the time of the Masse or Liturgie yet hath the late Church decreed that it shall be lawfull for all Lay persons to receiue the Eucharist onely at Easter Much more I might and could say if I thought not this sufficient So then the Fayth and Doctrine this day professed and authorized in this our Church of England is indeed the old Romane religion purged refined and restored to the primatiue and most auncient puritie in King Edwardes dayes in whose happy raigne was the perfect and complete Reformation But the Fayth and Religion it selfe came from S. Peter and S. Paul yea euen from Christ himselfe their Jesus and our Jesus world without end To whom with the Father and the holy Ghost three in the distinction of persons and one in the vnitie of diuine essence be all Honour Maiestie Power Glory and Dominion now and euermore Amen A Caueat to the Christian Reader THE masked Jesuite in his Preface to the Reader laboureth with might and maine to perswade his Readers that I dare not performe that challenge which I made to the Fore-runner his wordes are these I the meanest of many millions doe accept of his Challenge and doe vndertake to defend not onely these two poynes of Iosephus Doctrine and Pope Martins Dispensation which he hath singled out as matters important but also all the rest so it may be with that equitie and fauour which was graunted to the Protestantes in France And vpon the same conditions doe prouoke him with a counter-challenge to the defence of his Bookes And a litle after he telleth his Reader That hee sendes me as many Challenges as will stand betweene Charing-crosse Chester and as many Dares as will reach from Darby to Darington To which I answere in this manner First that the Jesuites are accused and charged by their deare Breathren the popish Secular Priestes with Pride Ambition Couetousnesse Coozenage Theft Crueltie Murther Treason and all wickednesse that can be named Yea of Fryer Parsons that trayterous Iesuite they giue this testimonie in particular viz. by Parsons platformes Secular Priestes must depend vpon Blackwell and Blackwell vpon Garnet and Garnet vpon Parsons and Parsons the Priestes Bastard vpon the Deuill Peruse my Anatomy of popish Tyrannie and there thou shalt finde this trueth with great varietie of like matter Secondly that in all my Challenges I require but one onely Condition which the Iesuite passeth ouer in silence because he meaneth not to performe the same The Condition is this viz. That the Iesuite which shall accept the Challenge must put downe his name with his addition in print and send it to me Which if it be once performed during my life I promised vpon my saluation to doe what in me lyeth to procure a false conduct for the safe comming safe abyding and safe departure of him whosoeuer he be that shall accept and vndertake the true performance of the Challenge in maner aforesayd Thirdly that the Jesuite
no matters of faith In the third Aphorisme Epist. Conc. Aphric ad Celest Cap. 105. To. 1. Concil Pag. 591. This Argument can neuer be truly answered Lately Poperie is meere foolerie Gratian. Dist. 15. cap. sicut Matt. 12. v. 42. Euseb. Hist. lib. 5. Cap. 24. The Pope was both reproued and commanded The Reduplication must be well marked Galat. 1. v. 1. Galat. 2. v 8. Mat. 28. v. 19. Dist. 40. cap. fi Papa Robert ParsoÌ„s begot two Bastards Male Female vpon the body of his owne sister Betweene his age of 17. 23. he was an Heretike of the Family of Loue till he became a Iesuite See my Anatomy P. 71. The marriage of Priestes is soundly handled in the Suruey of popery The triall of the new Religion is heere soundly defended Onely the Romish church forbiddeth Priestes marriage Ier. 1. v. 1. 1. Sam. 1. v. 3. Exod. 18. v. 1. 2. Luk. 1. v. 8.9.13 14.18.19 Leu. 21 v. 13.14 Suruay P. 220. Con. 26. Q. 2. Cap. Sors Neither Christ nor his Apostles doe forbid Priestes Mariage Exod. 14.22 Heb. 1â— 29 Num. 22.28 Dan. 3.25 4. Reg. 6.6 Act. 12.7.10 Caiet in Quod lib. â—ontr Luth. This cutteth the Popes throate he can no longer liue Suruay p. 269. Viguer de differ vota §. 5. ver 14. Ant. p. 3. Tit. 1. C. 21. §. 1. A.D. 677. There was smal account of the Church of Rome Can. 6. Apost Either the mariage of Priests is lawfull or many Popes haue beene Bastardes Anton. P. 2. tit 11. cap. 2. §. 9. vide Cassiod lib. 9. cap. 38. idem planè asserit 6. Proposition Niceph. lib. 12. Cap. 34. A.D. 389. In Epist ad Aphrican Tom. 1. Concil Rom. 8.8 Priestes were married both in the East and in the West Church Heb. 13. v. 4. Pope HildbraÌ„d was reputed an Heretike for denying the marriage of Priestes Lamb. Schaf· in Chron. A.D. 1074. Mat. 19. V. 11.13 1. Cor. 7. V. 9.10 Priestes made Votaries against their willes Loe the popish Priestes tell vs that the Pope is an Heretike a madde man A.D. 1074. Vixit Pelag. 2. A.D. 580. Dist. 28. cap. de Syracus vibis Priestes may lawfully marrie euen by the iudgement of learned Popish writers Dist. 28. Cap. vlt. Dist. 31. Cap. primo Pope Gregory confoundeth the late Popes of Rome A.D. 588. This Dilemma girdeth the Pope and his Iesuited Popelinges See the 4. Proposition marke it well Nauat in Euch cap. 22. §. 18. Fumus de matrim §. 55 Io. Angles in 4. s. q. de voto art 6. diffic 2 Marke well that the Vow single and solemne are essentially one and the same The Popes dispensation doth make Priestes marriage lawfull ergo God doth not forbid it Ant. p. 2. 〈◊〉 11 cap. 2 §. â— Nauar. de iudic notab 3. p. 275. Loe the Pope can make the marriage of Friers Iesuitâ—s and Nonnes to be very lawfull Panorm de Cleric coniug Cap. cum Olim. Continencie of secular Priests is neither of the substaunce of Priesthood nor of the law diuine Panormit de cleric coniug cap. cuÌ„ olâ—â— Loe the Popeâ— learned Doctors write against the Pope Polyd. lib. 5. cap. 4. in sine Loe Priestes marriage was once deemed very lawfull Platina in vita Pâ—j 2. p. 342. Loe one Pope condemneth an other The Iesuite is stroken dead The right of Priestes that is their marriage must be restored againe A.D. 327. Hebr. 13. V. 4. Sâ—cra lib. 1. â—ap 8. Cassiodor hist. tripar libr. 2. cap. 14. Vide Gratian. dist 31. Sozo lib. 1. cap. 22. A.D. 1074. Read marke well the Suruay of Poperie The former difficultie 4. PropositioÌ„ 5. PropositioÌ„ 6. Proposition 8. 9. Propos. 12. Propos. Gloss. dist 84. Cap. in Preterito Polydorus saith plainly that S. Paul was married Lib 5. Cap. 4. Lege LocuÌ„ 1. Cor. 7. v. 7 8 9 10.32.3â— 1. Cor. 7. v. 25. The Second Difficultie Pag. 52. See the 5. Proposition Loe Priestes in old time might marry euery where Marke this poynt well for Christs sake Epiphanius Heres 59. A.D. 439. Lib. 5. Cap. 4. 1. Cor. 7. v. 32.33 Many worthy Ministers liue vnmarried in our Church of England See the 12. proposition where this is proued All this is souÌ„dly prooued already The Popes law is flat tiranny Marke well the 11. Proposition Iohn 2. v 2 8. Pag. 54 Note well the 12. proposition Out vpon Romish vnmarried Priestes P. 58. See the Downefall Pag. 10. Marke well the seuenth Proposition Reus accusator testis iudex Nicephor Lib. 12. Cap. 34. P. 61. The first Lie The Iesuite is at a non plus Pope Hog-snoute Raskell is a goodly Countrie Towne and hath euer had in it many tall fellowes very faithfull to the Crowne In the ninth Chapter following Reade the Tryall and marke well the 4. Chapter Syluester de indulg P. â— Tit. 10. Cap. 3. A.D. 1149. The old church knew not late Popish PardoÌ„s Cont. art Lutheri art 18. Our Iesuites maner is to answere my chiefest groundes with deepe silence These two kindes of Pardons must be well remembred distinguâ—shed The auncient Councels did giue one kinde of Pardons but neuer late Popish Pardons Libr. 2. Cap. 2. The Iesuits promise answeres but performe none truly Yea sundry haue vtterly renounced Poperie Marke the â— Chapter well Platina in Bonif. 8. in med Leu. 25. v. 11.12 Suruay part 1. book â— chap. 5. A.D. 1300. The next Chapter must be ioyned with this Poperie is the new Religion it can not be denyed His 1. coozening tricke His 2. coozening tricke The Iesuites vse many coozening tricks His 3. coâ—zening tricke His 4. coozening tricke What trueth is in Poperie we see that our Fryer feareth once to touch my groundes He doth but snatch at odde partes of my Disputation not able to say ought to the râ—st Roffens Cont. art Luth. art 18. A.D. 15â—7 If thou marke well this Doctrine proceeding from the penne of such a famous learned Papist thou canst noâ— but abhorre the Pope and late start-vp Poperie I wonder how any can reade such Popish Doctrine and be a Papist still S. Basill S. Gregorie S. Chrysostome and the rest Late Popâ—sh Pardons prooue Poperie to be the new Religion His first notorious Lye Argumentum ad hominem Pag. 65. His second notorious lye Marke well the word deinde His third notorious lye The Church of Rome beleeued not Purgatorie for the space of 1000. odde Iohn Fisher the Byshop of Rochester A.D. 1300. Marke well this Discourse for it striketh dead O braue defender of Poperie It is a most certaine Lye and a shameles vntrueth Pag. 62. Pag. 391. Perhaps S. Chrysostome and the other holy Greeke Fathers feeling Purgatorie-fire beleeued it when they were dead Part. 3. Chap. 6. Pag. 308. These are most notorious and impudent lyes the Deuiâ—l of Hell hath his part therein Out vpon the impudent lying of Iesuites O holy Frier O worthy councellour of the Popes O noddy Folly hath begotten thee Marke
Platina Carranza Sigeberius Nanclerus Marke well the answere Petr. Dam. Mar. Polonus The Buffaloes are Beastes as terrible as Lyons Many yet liuing know this to be most true The Iesuit Alphonsus was then the Maister of the English Colledge A thing neuer heard nor knowne before Iohn 4 v. 24. 1. Iohn 5. v. 14. Sap. 8.1 Ephes. 1. v. 4.11 Rom. 9. v. 11.15.16 c. Ephes. 6.12 Act. 9. v. 1.2.3 c. Act. 8. v. 1.3 See the Anatomie for this point and note it well Loe the Fryer confoundeth both himselfe and his Pope The Author with the Church of England defendeth euery iote of the old Romane Religion Three very Memorable pointes See the oath Infra Cap. 27. All must be as the Pope will See the Oath which Bishops make to the Pope infra Cap. 27. The Popes pretended prerogatiues must euer be defended Rhemistes in Act. 15. The Pope can not erre The Pope in the Church say the Iesuites S. R. pag. 281. marke this well When Papists speake of the Church they euer meane the pope The Iesuite cuts the Popes throate Marke well the answere See my Booke of Motiues Cap. 8. The Popish Church holdeth no poynts of fayth Marke well for Christes sake this poynt of doctrine The first Corollarie The second Corollarie All this is meere folly Praecedunt ista in B.C. page 86. Marke this confession The Pope as Pope by Popish graunt can not erre Vnderstand this poynt well for Christes sake See and note well my ChristiaÌ„ Dialogue Chap. 2. Pag 14. Argumentum ad hominem See and note well the 29. the 30. Chapters Christ neuer prayed that the Pope should not erre This DileÌ„ma is insoluble S.R. Pag 315. Pag. 417. Loe we must beleeue his doctrine that is an Heretike See and note my Reply to the 29. Chapt. S. R. in the name of the Pope proclaimeth the Popes fayth and doctrine Inferius Cap. 27. Ioh. 9 3â— 1. Ioh. 5. v. 14. Psal. 18. v. 41. Mich. 3.4 Zach. 7. v. 13. Poperie is the new religion Vixit Aquinas A.D. 1243. For the space of 1240. The Fryer dare not do it for his lugges Loe the Pope as Pope by Popish doctrine can not erre The Iesuite how he is beleeued Luke 22. vers 32. Alas alas Poperie is wounded vnto death S. R. pag. 417. Out vpon Poperie who is able to endure it S. R. pag. 417. The Iesuite is shameles and impudent Alphons lib 3. aduers. haereses prope finem This is wonderfull Bellarmine speaketh against his owne knowledge O childish vanitie A.D. 1538. Marke well for Christes sake if thou loue thine owne soule Alphons lib. 1. cap. 4. aduers haeres Marke well this poynt striketh dead The Iesuites are Gypsies Loe the Pope is wounded at the heart hee can no longer liue A note worthy the remembrance The Iesuite hath deserued the whetstone Iob. 1.8 1. Ioh. 3. v. 12. Gen. 6· v. 9. Luke 1.28 Luke 1.6 Heb. 11. Act. 10. v. 2. Mat. 10. v. 42. Heb. 11. v. 27. Rom. 8. v. 18. Io. de Comb. lib. 5. Theol. ver cap. 11. Rhem. Rom. 8. v. 17. in annotae Heb. 11.6 Mat. 7. v. 18. Rom. 14. v. 23. Mat. 7.17 Aug. de fide ex operib cap. 14. tom 4. Esa. 64.6 Bernard de verb. Esa. Serm. 5. p. 405. Phil. 3.12 1. Cor. 1.30 Bernard vbi super D. 2. Ioh. 3.9 Rom. 6.23 Iac. 3.2 Bernard de grat et lib. Arb. p. 1189 Aug. in Ps. 11â— con 2. in fine Bernar. de aduent Dom. Serm. â— To. 1. See my Suruay pag. 389. 2. Cor. 5. v. 19. Vulgaâ—a editio Marke this poynt well Note the Seuenth Conclusion Mat. 7.19 Ioh. 14. v. 23. Ephes. cap. 1. v. 4. et cap. 2. v. 10. Rom. â— v. 30. Esa. 59.2 Ephes. 2. .v. 3.5 Lyr. in Cap. 6 Matt. See the Conclusion and note it Loe Good workâ— are the way which lead vs to heauen Aquin. p. 1. q. 23. art 3. ad 2. Bellar. To. 3. col 627. et col 628. The foresight of workes no cause of predestination Bellarm. To. 3. Col. 628. Bellarm. To. 3. Col 626. et Col. 628. Workes are not the cause of saluation yet the way by which we must come vnto it I defend the old Romane religion God in his eternall purpose prepared both eternall glory for his elect and the way or meanes to attaine the same Bern. super Cant. Ser. 68. Loe the confession of our vnworthines is our best merite Bern in Canâ—â— ser. 67. Bern. ser. 1. in Annunâ— B.M.V. This testimonie is wonderfull Marke it well The Popish Abbot woundeth the Pope at the very heart Vixit Bernardus A.D. 1110. Marke this well Note this ex iure This reason can not be answeared See and note well the 11. Conclusion Aug. lib. 9. Confess cap. 13. Psal. 143. v. 2. Psal. 130. v. 3. Bern. de adu dom serm 6. tom 1. Bernard in annue B.V. serm 1. No Workes can merite Glory Durand in 2 sent dist 27. q 2. in medio Condigne merite is so farre aboue mans capacitie as no man possiblely can haue it Suruey part 3. cap. 9. Soro de nat et gr lib. 3. cap. 6. pag. 138. Popish satisfaction is impossible Arist. in 8. Ethic. cap. 7. Luke 17. v. 20. Iac 3 v. 2. Aquin. 1.2 q. 114. ar 1. in corp Loe man can not merite any thing condignely or properly There is no proper merite in man Marke vnderstand this poynt aright Angles in 2. sent pag. 103. Loe the Papistes graunt as much as we desire Philip. 3.9 Rom. 10.4 Tit. 3.5 1. Cor. 1.30 2. Cor. 5.19 Rom. 8. v. 1 2.3.4 Rom. 5. v. 14. Reu. 7. v. 14. Reu. 3. v. 4. All this is already proued Marke the Cardinals wordes wel vnderstand them soundly Bellar. de iustif tom 3. col 1296. ct col 1298. All the good deedes we can possibly doe are Gods owne and so we can merite nothing of God with them Marke well for Christes sake for Poperie bleedeth vnto death Aug. lib. 9. Confess cap. 13. Marke this well Secundò principaliter Angles in 2. sent pag. 107. The Byshoppe confuteth him selfe he needeth no aduersarie A very fond distinction inuented without rime or reason Tit. 1. v. 2. Heb. 6.10 2. Tim. 4.8 Iac. 1.12 Iac. 2.5 Psal. 130.3 Psal. 143.2 S. R. pag. 257. Note well the eleuenth Conclusion following 1. Cor. 13. v. 13. Heb. 11. v. 6. Aug. in Epist. IohaÌ„ tract 10. in initio Ioh 6. v. 29. Rom. 3 28. Rom. 5.1 Rom. 10. v. 3.4 Act. 13.39 Phil. 3 9. Fides sumitur dupliciter propriè et sinapliciter seu figuratè et re latiuè By Fayth Christes obedience merites are applyed to vs. By Fayth Christes obedience merites are applyed to vs. Ioh. 3. v. 17. Mar 16 v. 7. Hâ—b 11. v. 7 Bona opera sunt medium sine quo non salutis Supâ—rius concl 4. See the 5. Conclusion and note it Rom. 5.1 1. Cor. 1.3 2. Cor. 4.16 Gal. 6.15 Mat. 7.17 Ioh. 15.12 Ioh. 14. v. 1â—
that he would haue yeelded to a lawfull generall Councell As if he had sayd S. Cyprian was no more bound to follow the Opinion and Decree of the Byshoppe of Rome then the Byshoppe of Rome to follow his Thirdly that our Iesuite saith truly though vnawares against himselfe that it was free for S. Cyprian without the danger of Heresie to persist in his owne opinion For it was not in the power of the Byshoppe of Rome to make that Heresie which was not Heresie afore B. C. That it was lawfull and vsuall before the time of this Councell to appeale to Rome is euident out of S. Cyprian who reporteth how Fortunatus and Felix deposed by himselfe appealed to Cornelius Byshoppe of Rome And one Basilides deposed in Spaine appealed to Pope Stephen as the same Cyprian recounteth Not to speake of Marcion that auncient Hereticke who excommunicated of his Byshoppe in Pontus came to Rome for absolution as Epiphanius relateth And therefore Pope Leo calleth it an auncient custome to appeale to Rome T. B. I answere First that many distressed persons in their distressed and desperate causes haue many times indeede sought to Rome for helpe and succour But wee must not so much regard and consider what hath beene done especially by naughty and disobedient persons as what ought of right to be done and according to the Law of God Persons driuen to the brincke of desperation by reason of their bad and wicked dealing will soone attempt any thing which may any way seeme to better their dolefull and miserable estate Euen so men desirous of Honour will easily hearken vnto that which seemeth any way to further their intended purpose But that such Appeales were neuer approued by the holy Fathers and auncient Councels I haue copiously prooued in the Aphorismes of this Chapter and S. Ciprians opposition against the Byshoppe of Rome doth euidently confirme the same What Pope Leo sayth is of no force B. C. That many Canons are wanting in the Nicene Councell is most certaine For one Canon of that Councell was about the obseruation of Easter day as testifieth Constantine in his Epistle and also Epiphanius and Athanasius but this Canon is in none of those twentie which be now extant and of which onely so many yeares since Ruffinus maketh mention in his Historie T. B. I answere first that I will not deny but some thinges might be decreed in the Nicene Councell which are not this day to be found in the Canons now extant But withall I constantly auouch that there is a great disparitie betweene Canons and Decrees as the late popysh Synode of Trent playnely telleth vs. And consequently that there were but twentie Canons howsoeuer some other things besides were decreed at that time To which I adde that all Decrees are not alwayes thought necessarie to be put in print Whereof we haue an euident example in our English Parliament-statutes for it is often thought conuenient not to put them all in print Secondly that Epiphanius distinguisheth Canons from Decrees these are his expresse wordes In eadem Synodo Canones quosaaÌ„ posuerunt Ecclesiasticos simulque de paschate decreuerunt vnam vnitatem ac consensum In the same Synode they put downe certaine Canons Ecclesiasticall and withall they decreed one vnitie and consent touching the Keeping of Easter Loe this auncient and holy Father maketh a cleere difference betweene the Canons of the Nicene Synode and the Decrees thereof Thirdly that though wee should graunt some of the Nicene Canons to haue perished which we constantly deny yet would it not follow thereupon that such Canons conteyned the Popes falsely pretended Primacie especially seeing both the holy Fathers and most renowned Councels doe stoutly impugne the same This is prooued at large throughout the Aphorismes aforegoing Fourthly that 217. holy Fathers assembled in the Aphrican Councell told the Pope roundly that they had vsed all exquisite diligence to find out the true Copies and to that end had sent Messengers into sundry partes of the East howbeit such Canons as the Pope pretended for his falsely challenged Soueraigntie none could any where be found And therefore they aduised him to surcease and to giue ouer his claime for they could no longer endure such Fumosum typhum seculi such smoakie statelinesse of the world I vse the very wordes of the holy Synode as I haue already prooued Fiftly that Pope Julius swore solemnely that he had locked them vp in a Coffer of his Church These are his expresse words Si quis auteÌ„ de his ampliora atque abundantiora scâ—re voluerit in sacro nostrae Ecclesiae sedis 〈◊〉 et ea quae praeâ—â—ximus inuenire poterit If any shall desire a larger Discourse hereof he may find these Canons much more like stuffe in the Holy Arke or Coffer of the seate of our Church Thus writeth Pope Julius nay rather thus sweareth that holy Pope For these wordes follow immediatly Verum me dixisse testis est Diuinitas The Diuinitie is a witnesse that I haue spoken the truth Heere I wish the gentle and honest Reader to ponder duely these poyntes with mee First that this Epistle of Julius is a counterfeite as I haue already prooued for if the Pope had so layde them vp as heere hee sweareth solemnely Sozimus and the other Popes who made such adoe with the Byshoppes of Africke about those Canons would roundly haue shewed the same Yea doubtlesse if they had once had them in their Coffer vnder a Locke they would rather haue lost all the rest then them Secondly that the world hath been too long abused with this kind of coozenage trickes of legierdemaine Thirdly that if the Byshoppes of Rome can not keepe those Canons which make so much for the aduauncement of their stately Soueraigntie how can we safely credite them in keeping pure and free from errours such Bookes Councels and Canons as make greatly for vs and wholly against them selues Wee can not doe it Fourthly that if counterfeite Bookes Histories and Canons were wholly layde away Poperie beleeue mee would soone fall of it selfe For in this supposed rescript of Pope Iulius directed to the Byshoppes of the East there is such aboundance of matter for the Popes Super-lordly Soueraigntie as would certainly serue his turne if it could so be admitted But Gods holy name be blessed the forgerie is so palpable as euery one may with all facilitie discouer the same Fiftly that S. Augustine Alipius Possidius Marinus and all the other Byshoppes 217. in number assembled in the famous Aphricane Synode doe plainely auouch and constantly affirme that the true Copies of the Canons of the Nicene Councell were at Antioch Alexandria and Constantinople and that they were content for charitie-sake to obserue such proceedinges touching Appeales as the Popes Messengers did alleadge out of their commonitorie from Rome vntill true triall should be made thereof out of the true Copies from the East which were to