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
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
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
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
the matter Yet such a Booke I neuer saw to this day neither can I learne that any other hath seene the same But more hereof to speake fitter occasion will be offered hereafter And if I liue to see such a Booke extant it shall not God willing be long vnanswered Thirdly that I prooued it in the Tryall euen in this very Chapter to be a very rotten Ragge of the New religion And this I did performe in that place many wayes First by the expresse wordes of Syluester Pryeras a man so profound and learned that hee was by the Papistes surnamed Absolutus Theologus who constantly affirmeth that the Popes Pardons were neuer knowne to vs neither by the Scriptures nor yet by the auncient Fathers but onely by the late Writers Loe the Popes Pardons are so new that neither the Holy Scriptures nor yet the old Fathers knew them but the late Writers onely Ergo they must needes be Ragges of a New Religion How can the Fryer denie this withoutblushing His owne conscience accuseth him Hee can not tell doubtles what in the world to say or thinke Hee seeth euidently that Poperie is prooued the New Religion Hee perceiueth right well that hee is not able with all the helpe of his best friendes to defend the Pope from vtter shame Secondly by the flat testimonie of the Popish canonized Saint Antoninus sometime Archbyshop of the famous Citie of Florence who deliuereth the selfe same Doctrine that Syluester did Thirdly by the Doctrine of Petrus Lombardus their famous Maister of Sentences who though he with great diligence collected into one Volume all the worthy Sentences of the old Fathers could neuer for all that find the Popes Pardons or any mention thereof in any of their Writinges For as Syluester and Antoninus truely write the Old Writers were not acquainted with any such thing Fourthly by the free confession of M. Fisher that famous Popish so supposed Martir sometime Byshop of Rochester in noble England who in his Answere to M. Luthers Articles was enforced to admit the Newnes of the Popes Pardons To all which and much more plainely set downe in the Tryall our Iesuite sayth not one word Hee was so frighted forsooth with the Conclusion that hee durst not once touch the Premisses but passing them ouer in deepe silence hee curâ—alleth the Ergo and seuereth it from the Consequent because it did connotate plainely lay open to the Reader that the Premisses went before I wish the Reader to peruse the Tryall that so hee may see the coozening trickes of the proud Fryer Marke the Complement following The Complement of this Chapter FOr the better instruction of the Christian Reader and the vtter confusion of our Fryer and of all other Fryers Jesuites and Iesuited Popelinges let vs seriously ponder and constantly remember that there be two kindes of Pardons Th' one De pamtentijs iniunctis th' other Dâ—remissione peccatorum Concerning the former kinde which were onely relaxations or mittigations of Discipline and Canonicall Penance inioyned by the Church I graunt very willingly that in the primatiue and auncient succeding Churches they were very frequent and vsuall For in those dayes and ages such as were notorious offendours and had giuen publike scandall to the Church were enioyned by the Church to doe publique penaunce for their publique faultes before they could be admitted into the Church againe Which godly Discipline is this day obserued God be thanked for it in all particular Churches throughout this Realme of noble England Yea in the auncient Churches many yeares of penaunce or publique exercises of humiliation were ordained for euery publique grieuous Offence Wherevpon it came that when many penitent persons gaue euident signes of true internall remorse for their former scandalous conuersation then the Church thought good to giue to such penitent persons some relaxation of their so inioyned publique penaunce Which kind of Pardons the famous Councell of Nice of Arles of Ancyra and others did vsually giue to penitent persons Of which manner of pardoning the auncient Fathers Tertullianus Cyprianus Jrenaeus Eusebius Sozomenus and others doe often make relation But concerning the latter kind of late Popish Pardons that is of applying to whom they list and when they list aswell to the liuing as to the dead the Merites of Christ and of his Saintes as condigne satisfaction for their Sinnes no Scripture no Councell no Father no auncient approoued Historiographer maketh any mention at all Which trueth I haue so plainely prooued in my Booke of Motiues as no Papist in Europe is able to answere the same The Booke hath been extant in print now 15. whole yeares and to this day no answere though often promised will appeare But let our Iesuite proceed in his wonted maner B. C. I will adde one testimonie more of our Enemies the Waldenses who appeared to the world about the yeare 1270. as testifieth Claudius Cussordius and Guido one of whose Hereâ—â—es was against the Popes Pardons as is most certaine and Kemnitius confesseth which argueth that Parâ—ons were long in vse before the yeare 1300. And therefore be it knowen to Bell that he hath runge out a notorious vntrueth T. B. I answeare first that Waldenses appeared to the world one hundred yeares before the time our Fryer nameth viz. about the yeare 1169. and so hath hee in this poynt runge one notorious vntrueth though but a very small one in respect of his other manifold and most impudent lyes Secondly that Chemnitius doth not confesse as our Fryer impudently affirmeth But wisemen may and will beleeue him at leasure seeing hee referreth them for the proofe to his inuisible Booke The dolefull Knell For I protest to all the world that I can neither see it nor find out any man who hath seene that same Booke And therefore I haue great reason to thinke that no such Booke is extant in deed especially because the Iesuites haue long sithence and many times affirmed both in wordes and writinges that my Motiues and Suruay were answered which for all that was such a notorious lye as the sayd Bookes remayne to this day vnanswered insomuch as some of their dearest and most deuoted vassals are ashamed of their sylence in that behalfe and beginne to stagger and to doubt of the Popish Fayth and Religion My Motiues were printed in the yeare 1593. And my Suruay of Poperie in the yeare 1596. So as the Jesuites haue had the former in their handes now 15. yeares fully compleate and the latter 12. yeares with the vantage of a large assisse But more of this subiect in the 9. Chapter following God willing toward the end of the same Thirdly that our Fryers two Witnesses Guide and Cussordius are in honestie and credite comparable to himselfe base fellowes men of no reputation Knightes of the Post who will say or sweare any thing for the Popes pleasure Fourthly that where our Fryer sayth without
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
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