the Byshop of Rome for the excellencie of that Citie is the chiefest Patriarke and so may be called the Father of Fathers that is the chiefest Father or Byshop of all Fathers or Byshops in Christes Church It is one thing to call the Byshop of Rome Father of Fathers an other thing to call him vniuersall Byshop or vniuersall Father The former our Church of noble England admitteth while shee approoueth two Primates th' one of England th' other of all England Euen so doe wee repute our two Arch-byshops of Canterbury and Yorke to be the Byshops of Byshops or Fathers of Fathers which is all one for either of them is Byshop of Byshops within his prouince that is the Chiefest of all the rest But this is nothing to that superroyall power of which wee are to intreate in the next Chapter which I wish the reader to marke with such attention as apperteyneth thereunto But the latter both we and great learned Popish writers doe vtterly disclaime In the Popes owne decrees I finde these expresse wordes Primae sedis Episcopus non appelletur princeps sacerdotuÌ„ vel suÌ„mus sacerdos aut aliquid huiusmodj sed tantuÌ„ primae sedis Episcopus Vniuersalis auteÌ„ nec etiaÌ„ Romanus pontifex appelletur Let not the Byshoppe of the chiefe Seate be called the Prince of Priestes or the Hie Priest or haue any such like name but onely the Byshop of the first Seate And Vniuersall Byshop none may be called no not the Byshop of Rome himselfe What doth Gratianus that famous Champion of the Romish Church tell vs soe We haue read the Popes Decree which was taken out of the Affrican Councell the wordes of Gratianus haue sounded in our eares Nay you shall heare a greater wonder Pope Pelagius doth constantly deliuer the selfe same doctrine and defineth it for the trueth to be receiued and beleeued these are his expresse wordes Nullus Patriarcharum vniuersalitatis vocabulo vnquam vtatur quia si summus Patriarcha vniuersalis dicit Patriarcarum nomen caeteris derogatur Sed absit hoc a fidelibus hoc sibi velle queÌ„piam arripere vnde honorem fratrum suorum imminuere ex quantulaecunque parte videatur Quapropter charitas vestra neminem vnquam etiam suis in epistolis vniuersalem nominet ne sibi debitum subtrahat cum alteri honorem infert indebitum Let no Patriarke euer vse the word of Vniuersalitie because if the chiefest Patriarke be called Vniuersall the name of Patriarkes is derogated from the rest But be this farre from the faythfull that any should willingly snatch that to himselfe which may any way seeme to diminish the honour of this breathren though in neuer so small a degree Wherefore let not your charitie in your Epistles name any Patriarcke at any time Vniuersall least while ye giue to an other that honour which is not due yee take from your selues that which is due To which I adde this Epigramme set downe as the contentes of the Decree in the beginning thereof Nec etiam Romanus pontifex vniuersaâ—is est appellandus Neither may the Byshoppe of Rome be called Vniuersall Pope Gregorie is consonant to Pope Pelagius in these expresse wordes Ecce in presatione Epistolae quam ad meipsum qui prohibui direxistis superbae appellationis verbum vniuersalem me Papam dicens imprimere curastis Quod peto mihi dulcissima sanctitas vestra vltra non faciat quia vobis subtrahitur quod alteri plus quam ratio exigit praebetur Sequitur sin me vniuersaleÌ„ PapaÌ„ vestra sanctitas dicit negat se hoc esse quod me fatetur vniuersum sed absit hoc recedant verba quae veritateÌ„ inflant et charitateÌ„ vulnerant Behold in the Preface of your Epistle which you addressed to mee forbidding it you laboured to impose vpon me a word of proud appellatioÌ„ calling me Vniuersall Pope which I pray your sweet holynesse not to do to me any more because that is taken from you which is giuen to an other more then reason doth require For if your Holynesse call mee Vniuersall Pope you denie your selfe to be so seeing you call mee Vniuersall But God forbid away with wordes that puffe vp the trueth and wound charitie Thus writeth Gratianus the compiler of the Decrees thus Pope Pelagius thus Pope Gregorius Out of those Positions thus constantly deliuered I obserue sundry very profitable and necessarie documentes First that none no not the Byshop of Rome may be called Vniuersall Pope Secondly that the giuing of Vniuersall to one taketh away that which is due to all the rest Thirdly that Gregorie who lyued more then 590. yeares after Christ vtterly refused the name of Vniuersall Byshop or Pope calling it a proude name and sharply reprooued Enlagius the Patriarke of Alexandria for ascribing the same vnto him Fourthly that Pope Pelagius the predecessour of Gregorie detested and abhorred the same proud arrogant name So then I may lawfully conclude that the name Pope in popish sense and meaning was not proper and peculiar to any Byshop of Rome for the space of 591. yeares after Christ. How impudent therfore is our Fryer when he auoucheth the Councell of Chalcedon to haue called Leo the Vniuersall Pope Liberatus to haue tearmed him Pope ouer the Church of the whole world Pope Damasus and Theodoretus to haue done the same All which are meere lyes notorious slaunders and irksome falsifications inuented by the Father of lyes and his deare children the Iesuiticall crew to defend late vp-start Poperie if it were possible from the imputation of the New religion B. C. And this may be the reason that albeit sometime in the primatiue Church the name was also giuen to other Byshops yet seeing in foresayd manner it agreed peculiarly to the Byshop of Rome as declaring his sone raigne authoritie ouer others the former custome ceased and so it remayned alone to him T. B. Three things our Fryer freely graunteth in these words all which such is the force of trueth are altogeather against him selfe First he confesseth the trueth vnawares that the name Pope was giuen to other Byshoppes in the primitiue Church and consequently he must graunt volens nolens that to chalenge that name as the Byshop of Rome this day doth is a rotten ragge of the New religion Secondly he sayth it peculiarly agreed to the Byshop of Rome as declaring his Soueraigne authoritie ouer others In which his assertion a notable absurdity is implyed viz. that the name Pope was aralogon and consequently was giuen to other Byshops but improperly analogically and by way of similitude as euery meane Logician can tell or Iesuâ—te Thirdly he graunteth that the name Pope did in processe of time cease to be giuen to other Bishops and so remayned to the Byshop of Rome alone Which doubtlesse is that very doctrine which I in the tryall doe defend To which I must needes adde this one thing though litle to
our Fryers liking viz. that the name Pope was giuen to other Byshops in the auncient Church as I haue prooued in my Tryall euen hundreds of yeares after the Primitiue Church To which addition this to cheere vp our Fryer is consectarie to weet that the Clergie of Rome writing to the Clergie of Carthage called S. Cyprian the most blessed Pope Which verily as is already sayd they neither would nor yet durst haue done if the name in such a peculiar manner as the Fryer would make vs beleeue had been due to the Byshop of Rome For if the sayd name had been peculiar to him and his supposed soueraignetie implied therein other Byshops could neuer haue enioyed the same in the puritie of the Church Nay other Byshops would neuer haue improperly accepted of that name and title which none but the Byshop of Rome could properly ascribe vnto himselfe B. C. With the former he hath coupled an other saying thus And so in processe of time the Byshoppes of Rome were solely and onely called Popes and of Late yeares our Holy Father and his Holynesse is his vsuall name A grosse vntrueth T. B. This assertion hath two partes The former our Fryer hath freely graunted in his immediately aforegoing words The latter he must likewise yeeld vnto against his will or else be condemned of the whole world For besides that the Iesuiticall Cardinall Bellarmine and the popish Byshop Iosephus Angles in their Books of Late yeares dedicated to the Byshoppes of Rome haue giuen them the title of Holinesse euen in the abstract it is so euident that his Holinesse is of Late yeares the vsuall name of the Byshop of Rome that if any man either in Rome or in Jâ—ahe shall deny the same he may iustly be censured worthy of the Whetstone That which he sayth of Theodoretus the Councell of Chalcedon S. Cyprian and S. Austin is very friuolous and nothing to the purpose For first I say of Late yeares and yet the youngest of our Fryer named lyued aboue a thousand yeares agoe Secondly there is great disparitie betweene a peculiar and an vsuall name A peculiar name perteineth solely and onely vnto one but that an vsuall name may agree to many at once it cannot be denyed Thirdly as our Fryer hath confessed that the name Pope was of old time giuen to many and yet afterward remayned to the Byshop of Rome alone so must he volens nolens confesse of the name Holynesse B. C. Prosecuting his former matter he sayth But this Emperour that is Iustinian lyued after Christ his birth about 528. yeares ergo this poynt of poperie is a rotten ragge of the New religion In which wordes he venteth out an vntrueth For be it that it was then appropriated to the Pope as he sayth yet how can it be New which by his owne confession was vsed xi hundred yeares agoe That is so many ages before the foundations of his Religion were laide or the name of a Protestant heard of in the whole world T. B. Our Iesuite desiring to discharge the Pope and Poperie of Newnesse would prooue it by my graunt viz. because I confesse the name Pope to haue been appropriated to the Byshops of Rome a thousand yeares agoe But our Fryer in thus disputing doth prooue him selfe a very Daw. For he must learne to know that the newnesse of a thing may be considered two wayes absolutely and respectiuely And consequently that though the name Pope be Old absolutely considered yet it is New respectiuely when it is compared with the time of the Apostles Now so it is that you Papistes beare the world in hand that your Poperie is the Old religion and that selfe-same Doctrine which S. Peter and S. Paul deliuered to the Church of Rome This is the Doctrine which I oppugne euen in the beginning of this present Chapter But our Fryer is so besotted with malice that he cannot discerne the trueth my reason standeth thus You Iesuites and Iesuited Papistes affirme desperatly and damnably that your Late start-vp Poperie is the Old religion deliuered by S. Peter and S. Paul to the Church of Rome But that is so farre from being true that the very name Pope is New as wanting aboue 500. yeares of that age or time whereof you bragge and boast ergo seeing the Apostolicke and first Religion is onely the Old religion and that which commeth after as Tertullian truly writeth the false and New religion it followeth of necessitie that the name Pope comming 500. yeares after the Old religion is but a rotten Ragge of the New Where I wish the Reader to remember that I speake of the name Pope in that sense in which the Byshoppes of Rome vsurpe the same That which our Jesuite addeth of Protestantes how absurd it is shall God willing by and by appeare B. C. I omit heere how many Ecclesiasticall names haue been brought into the Church as Consubstantiall against the Arrians Incarnation against other Heretikes the better by a new name to declare an auncient article of Fayth Will Bell for all that call these Wordes rotten Ragges of a New religion Hee never dare offer it and yet with no lesse reason may be doe it then he doth heere the name of the Pope T. B. Who seeth not to what shiftes our Iesuiticall Fryer is driuen He affirmeth desperately that I may with no lesse reason call the holy names appropriated to the sonne of God rotten ragges of a New religion then the name of the Pope But out vpon such Rotten diuinitie out vpon such paltry Fryers The sacred names Consubstantiall and Incarnation are equiualently according to the substance and true nature of the thinges signified by the same set downe in many places of the holy Scriptures Which was made most apparant against the Arrians by the Fathers of the first famous Councell of Nice but the name Pope as it is of Late yeares challenged by the Byshops of Rome and heere auouched by the impudent Fryer is so farre from being either expressely or virtually conteyned in the holy Scriptures that all sacred Writ vtterly condemneth the same as a Rotten ragge of a New religion inuented at Rome aboue fiue hundred yeares after the death of S. Peter S. Paul Againe the Holy names of Consubstantiall and Incarnation were not first common to others and afterward attributed to the sonne of God But the name Pope as I haue prooued and as the Frier hath plainely confessed was first and that more then 500-yeares common to all Byshops and in processe of time appropriated to the Byshops of Rome Thirdly the thing truly signified by the holy wordes Consubstantiall and Incarnation neuer could agree to any creature in the world but the thing truely signified by the word Pope did in the primatiue and purest age of the Church doth at this present and may in time to come truely agree to all true Byshops in Christs Church Now touching the name of Protestant I answere
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
second Chapter of this present Volume To this let vs adde a most notable testimonie of our Rhemistes which is comprised in these very wordes Notorious is the saying of S. Augustine concerning S. Cyprian who being a blessed Catholique Byshop and Martyr yet erred about the rebaptizing of such as were Christined by Heretiques If he had liued sayth S. Augustine to haue seene the determination of a plenarie Councell which he saw not in his life time he would for his great humilitie and charitie straight way haue yeelded preferred the generall Councell before his owne Iudgement and his fellow Byshops in a prouinciall Councell onely Thus dispute our Rhemistes confounding them-selues and their Pope vnawares For first they tell vs marke well my wordes that S. Cyprian was a blessed Byshop and Martyr and therefore would haue yeelded to the Decree of a generall Councell They tell vs secondly that S. Augustine was of the same opinion In which double Narration the Rhemistes confound them-selues with their Pope and all his deuoted Popelinges For they giue vs to vnderstand very plainely that neither the Pope is aboue a generall Councell neither yet his Iudgement infallible But how prooue I that This forsooth is a plaine demonstration thereof S. Cyprian and S. Augustine being both of them very Holy very Learned Fathers could not but know right well for their great Learning what Authoritie Power Priuiledges and Prerogatiues Christ had giuen to the Byshops of Rome And without all question it is it can not be denyed that for their great pietie and humilitie they would humbly haue acknowledged and highly reuerenced all Power giuen them by our Lord Iesus Yet true it is sir Fryer marke well my wordes that Pope Cornelius togeather with a nationall Synode of the Byshoppes of Jtaly had made a flatte decree concerning Rebaptization True it is likewise that Pope Stephanus had confirmed the same Decree and commaunded it to be obserued True it is thirdly that all Papistes of late dayes doe obstinately affirme as our Rhemistes in the name of all Papistes tell vs that the Pope is aboue a generall Councell that the Pope can not erre Iudicially that the Popes Iudgement is infallible Now this Decree made by Pope Cornelius and confirmed by Pope Stephanus S. Cyprian knew right well neither was S. Austen ignorant thereof Howbeit this notwithstanding S. Cyprian roundly withstood the Decree of Pope Stephanus and both sharpely reprooued him and vtterly contemned his falsely pretended Authoritie S. Austen in like manner held the same opinion with S. Cyprian concerning the Popes falsely pretended Prerogatiues infallibilitie of Iudgement neuer excusing any such thing in S. Cyprian as a fault neither once saying that the Pope was Christes Vicar or that Christ had prayed that his Fayth should not fayle but constantly telling the Reader for his full satisfaction on S. Cyprians behalfe that he would humbly haue yeelded to the Decree of a plenarie Councell if any such had been in his time In which wordes S. Austen giueth the Reader to vnderstand that though S. Cyprian did contemne both the definitiue Sentence of the Pope and the Decree of his prouinciall Councell because neither of their Iudgements was infallible yet would he haue yeelded to the Decree of a plenarie Councell as which he acknowledged to be infallible and to haue the assistannce of the holy Ghost Let vs adde further that the two hundred seauenteene Fathers in the Aphrican Councell whereof S. Augustine was one were so farre from acknowledging the Byshop of Rome to be Christes Vicar generall vpon earth to be aboue a plenarie Councell and his Iudgement to be infallible that they all with one assent refused vtterly to graunt any such Prerogatiue or Priuiledge vnto him constantly affirming that he was bound as well as they to obey the Decrees of the Nicene Councell For which cause neither would the said Fathers graunt greater Power and Prerogatiues to the Byshoppes of Rome neither did the Byshoppes of Rome them-selues challenge greater Power then the Canons of the Nicene Synode would affoorde them Of which poynt I haue disputed at large in the second Chapter afore-going Whosoeuer shall seriously peruse that whole Chapter from the beginning to the end thereof will vndoubtedly rest satisfied in this behalfe Ioyne this with my Tryall and Poperie will prooue it selfe the New religion The 31. Chapter conteyning according to my promise an Answere to the Iesuites short admonition in the 16. Chapter aforegoing as also to some other patches elsewhere dispearsed to the same effect T. B. HAuing euidently prooued and plainely conuinced by the power of God and the assistance of his holy Spirit that Poperie is the New religion it followeth consequently that I prooue the Fayth Doctrine this day professed and by Authoritie established in the Church of England to be the Old Religion I therefore heartily craue the gentle Readers attentiue hearing vnto the end of my Discourse I haue not hitherto in any of my former Bookes oppugned the Old Romane Religion which S. Peter and S. Paul deliuered to the Church of Rome while they liued heere on earth Neither doe I at this present or euer intend hereafter in any future worke to oppugne the same It is the late Fayth and late Romish Doctrine which I contend to be the New Religion euery maine poynt whereof I haue clearely conuinced when and by whom it first began Our Church of noble England constantly reteyneth euery Article and iote of the old Romane Religion onely reiecting and abolishing of the essentiall partes of late Romish Fayth and Doctrine so much as was Hereticall erroneous or superstitious and repugnant to the eternall trueth of Gods most sacred word And concerning late Romish ceremonies such so many as were either superstitious or ridiculous or vnprofitable to the Church of God So that wee are this day the true reformed Catholiques euen as the Fryers at Rome commonly called Capuchoâ—nes are indeed the true reformed Franciscans The Church of England doth not this day hold any Article of Fayth or Doctrine or vse any Ceremonie saue such onely as we are able to iustifie either by the expresse wordes of the holy Scripture and by the approbation of best approoued Antiquitie or else to deduce the same from thence by a necessarie ineuitable consequence Let vs now in Gods name heare attentiuely what our Iesuite in the name of all Papistes is able to obiect against the Fayth and Doctrine of the Church of England B. C. COncerning Ceremonies and such like Bell in his Regiment of the Church graunteth freely that the Church hath Authoritie to ordaine and abrogate to make or repeale Lawes as shall seeme most meete for the honour of God and the edification of Christian people T. B. Bell admitteth all this Say on good Fryer if happily thou haue any better Bread in thy Bagge seeing this is not worth a silly Ragge Howbeit our Fryer for want of matter
Thalassius the reuerend Byshoppe of Caesaria did the like in these expresse wordes His quae per consensum ordinata sunt inter amantissimâ—s Episcopos Maximum et Iuuenalâ—m et nos consentimus To these thinges which are ordered by consent betweene the most beloued Byshops Maximus and Juuenalis wee also giue our consent Diogenes the reuerend Byshop of Cyzice did the like in these expresse wordes Consentio his quae a Paetrebus factae sunt I giue my consent to that which the Fathers haue decreed Sixtly all the Fathers of the Councell did the same these being their expresse wordes Omnes reuerendissimj Episcopj clamauerunt nos ita dicimus et consentimus his quae a Patribus dicta sunt All the most reuerend Byshoppes showted Wee say so and wee giue our consentes to those things which the Fathers haue decreed By these manifold testimonies it is cleare and euident that the Fathers who were assembled in Councell at the Emperours commaund decreed and confirmed peace betweene Maximus and Iuuenalis as also that they sought to the Emperour not to the Pope for the decision of their controuersies Neither is Pope Leo so much as once named in that action of the holy Councell What therefore shall wee or what can wee say to our lying Iesuite but that as hee began with lying and deceitfull dealing so he meaneth to continue his falsehood his lying his falsifications and his conny-catching trickes vnto the end Secondly that our Jesuite seemeth not to haue read Sâ—zomenus himselfe but to haue mistaken the Chapter by some note sent him from his best aduisors for to heare that Poperie is prooued the New religion doth so gall and trouble them that they can not sleepe quietly in their beddes for thinking how to withstand the same Many of their deepest heades haue conspired against the trueth and Robert Parsons that brazen-faced Fryer was put in trust to gather their instructions and to publish the same in the English tongue Leonem ex vnguibus I know the Lyon by his pawes The Narration of Sozomenus is in the eight not in the seuenth Chapter No no Sozomenus in the 7. Chapter cutteth the Popes throate and striketh the Jesuite starke dead these are the expresse wordes Romanae vero Ecclesiae Episcopus et sacerdotes per occidentem haec in suaÌ„ contumeliaÌ„ vergere duxerunt etenim sententiaÌ„ eoruÌ„ qui Nicaeae conuenerant quaÌ„ inde ab initio per omnia approbabant nec dum reliquerant sed ad illius normaÌ„ sentiebant et AthanasiuÌ„ ad se venientem amicè susceperunâ— causamqueillius ad se traxerunt But the Byshop of the Church of Rome and the Priestes throughout the West iudged the things to tende to their reproch for they had not yet forsaken their Sentence and Decree who were assembled at Nice which from the beginning they approoued in all thinges but followed it in their iudgements as the rule and friendly receiued Athanasius when he came to them and tooke his cause into their handes Thus writeth Sozomenus by whose relation it is euident that not the Pope alone but all the Byshoppes assembled togeather in a lawfull Synode effected that which our lying Jesuite would deceitfully father vpon the Pope Athanasius of Alexandria Paulus of Constantinople and Marcellus of Ancyra being vniustly molested by the Easterne Arrianizing Bishops sought to Julius then Byshop of Rome for his helpe and countenance as to the chiefest Patriarch who by reason of his place was of great authority and highly esteemed Pope â—ulius willing to afforde the sayd Byshops the best helpe he could called together the Byshops of the West and with their Decrees in a lawfull Synode declared the Easterne Byshops to haue offended against the Councell of Nice whose Canons all the faythfull in the Christian world were bound to reuerence and obey And thus the holy Byshoppes vniustly deposed from their seates were againe restored to their places by force in deed of the Nicene Canons For neither could the Pope alone nor yet the whole Synode of Westerne Byshops haue restored them but that their definitions were firmely grounded vpon the holy Nicene Canons For as we see by Sozomenus his Narration the Byshoppe of Rome with the Byshoppes of the West followed the Nicene Canons as their rule in all their Decrees resolutions and proceedinges whatsoeuer B. C. In his argumentes against the Superioritie of the Byshop of Rome this is one Seuenthly the famous Councell of Chalcedon gaue the Byshoppe of Constantinople equall authoritie with the Byshoppe of Rome in all Ecclesiasticall affayres In which wordes is one vntrueth cunningly couched For he calleth that heere the decree of the Councell which was by the ambition of Anatolius Byshoppe of Constantinople effected in the absence of the Romane Legates If Bell can prooue that this surreptitious Decree of the Easterne Byshoppes was euer confirmed then were it some thing which he bringeth But the Byshoppe of Rome his Legates withstood that their indirect proceeding pronouncing it to be contrary to the Decrees of the Nicene Councell T. B. Though it be the meere trueth that the Romish fayth and doctrine this day taught beleeued and violently with Fire Faggot obtruded vpon many thousands of people is the New religion yet doth that trueth so gall pierce and wound the Pope and his Iesuited Popelings that they can not endure the noyse or sound thereof For which respect our Jesuite turning himselfe this way that way and euery way but to the trueth omitteth sixe truethes by me briefely touched in my Triall but prooued at large in my Suruay and beginneth to cauill and scornefully to bicker with the seuenth thinking by meanes of confusion and disordered proceeding to couer and hide the nakednesse and newnesse of rotten Poperie and to dazell the eyes of his Readers that they shall not behold and discerne the trueth But it will in time preuaile maugre the malice of the Pope of his Iesuited vassals and of the greatest Diuell of Hell Two thinges the Iesuite heere toucheth in which the maine poynt and issue euen prora et puppis of the controuersie of the Popes falsely pretended Soueraigntie doth consist Th' one concerneth the Councell of Nice th' other the Councell of Chalcedon For the exact examination of which difficulties I put downe certaine Aphorismes hoping by Gods holy assistaunce to hit the nayle on the head and to make the heartes of the Pope and his Popish crew as heauie as any Lead Aphorisme first The most famous generall Councell of Nice did confine and limit the iurisdiction of the Byshop of Rome as well as of other Byshoppes euery where Behold the proofe and marke it well First the Nicene Councell in the first Canon hath these expresse wordes De his qui communione priuantur seu ex clero seu ex laico ordine ab Episcopis per vnamquamque Prouinciam sententia regularis obtineat vt hi qui abijciuntur ab alijs non recipiantur
great consequence may be perswaded by the aduise of his graue Councellours that his corporall presence were necessarie and therevpon resolue with himselfe to goe in proper person Yet in such a case it can neither truly nor properly be sayd That the King was sent of his Subiectes but that hee tooke the iourney in hand freely and of his owne accord though perhappes the rather by their aduise To that of our Iesuite where he sayth That S. Paul being inferiour to S. Peter reprehended him and that Bell if he were a Byshoppe would looke as the Diuell looked ouer Lincolne and none might admonish him of any fault I answere in this manner First that our Fryer doth too much iniurie to S. Paul while he maketh him inferiour to S. Peter and withall doth no little dishonour to his Popes who in all their Pardons Dispensations and such like trumperie doe euer rely vpon the ioynt authoritie of S. Peter and S. Paul grounding their power and soueraigntie in them both For S. Paul receiued not his Authoritie from any mortall man but from God himselfe immediately Yea himselfe sayth of himselfe that hee had as great Power as Peter th' one ouer the Iewes th' other ouer the Gentiles Secondly that euery Apostle receiued from Christ himselfe equall Power ouer the whole World euery one of the eleuen hauing the same Commission that Peter had Thirdly that our Jesuite seemeth better acquainted with the Diuell then he is with God as who beareth his Reader in hand that he knoweth how the Diuell looked ouer Lincolne Fourthly that not Bell but the Pope is the man who may carry thousandes of soules into Hell and yet no man may say vnto him Why doest thou so This is alreadie prooued in the Conclusions aforegoing Heere I deeme it not amisse for the complement of the Popes falsely pretended Soueraigntie to adioyne a testimonie of one of his holy Martyrs by way of digression The Digression THe Secular popish Priestes aswell French as English haue published in print may Bookes in which they haue most liuely pourtrayed and paynted out the Iesuites in their best beseeming colours They affirme constantly in their sayd Bookes of the Iesuites in generall that they be Proud men Tyrantes Coozeners Thieues Gypsies Murderours and men of no Religion Of Robert Parsons that trayterous and foule-mouthed Jesuite in particular that hee is a Bastard a notorious Drunkard a Deceiuer a Traytor a prouoker of others to Treason the Monster of mankind a Farie-brat begotten of some Incubus and what not All which are plainely and truly related in my Booke intituled The Anatomie of Popish tyrannie Which Booke hee that hath not seene and read may seeme to be ignorant of the deepest poyntes of Iesuiticall Theologie These Bookes do so gall wound the Jesuites at the very heart as they know not in the world what to say or answere in that behalfe Clerke and Watson lately executed for their most notorious treasons wrote sundry Bookes against the sayd Jesuites This Iesuite B. C. is so mightily assayled and turmoyled with that which I cite out of Watson that in one place to weete in his Epistle about the 27. page hee hath these wordes The Author he alleadgeth is some Quodlibetarian Minister though poore Watson beareth the name But in an other place to weete in the eight Chapter of this present Pamphlet he writeth thus Bell sheweth smal conscience in belying the dead and laying more faultes vpon him vniustly when alasse hee had otherwise too many Againe Watson speaketh of matters of fact In which twaine the Iesuite flatly contradicteth himselfe In the former hee would gladly finde out an other Author But in the latter hee vnawares fathereth the Booke vpon Watson telling Bell that hee belyeth the dead To which I adde that Watson vpon his death did acknowledge himselfe to be the Author The Iesuites third Chapter of the Marriage of Priestes and Ministers of the Church THe Jesuite greatly lamenting that the prohibition of the Marriage of Priestes can not be iustified not daring to deale with my Suruey where the same is most largly handled all Obiections and difficulties which possibly can be imagined distinctly soundly answered complayneth grieuously that I seeke to deceiue my reader in not proouing in my Tryall what I say for the same but referring the Reader to my Suruey The truth is this that in the Tryall I meant onely to shew to all simply seduced Papistes that late Popish Faith and Doctrine was not the old as they ignorantly beleeue but the new Religion in verie deede And my purpose was to effect the matter with such breuitie as euery one might buy the Treatise for a small peece of money and carry it in his Bosome about with him and so be able to poynt as it were with his Finger against all such as boast of Poperie as of the old Religion when and by whom euery maine poynt of late Papistrie first began Our Jesuite seeing their Pope confounded and their Fayth and Doctrine prooued to be the New religion can not tell in the world what to doe say or thinke for and in the defence thereof Let vs heare his owne wordes thus doth he write It serueth not the turne saith he to tell vs that he hath done it in his Suruay I therefore to content our Fryer Jesuite if it will be am heere resolued to set downe such speciall kindes of proofe deriued and taken out of my Suruay as are able to perswade all indifferent Readers that the Marriage of Priestes euer was and this day is both honest lawfull by Gods law and onely prohibited by the wicked and cursed Lawes of men the Byshops of Rome I meane The first Proposition All Ministers which are not Papistes nor subiect to the lawes and rules of Poperie may lawfully Marry euen by the doctrine of the Church of Rome I prooue it because all such Ministers are meere Lay-men by the iudgement of the Church of Rome which Church for all that and none other debarreth Priestes and other Ministers of the Church from the freedome of honourable Wedlocke This Assertion is plaine and euident it needeth no proofe at all The 2. Proposition Marriage was euer lawfull for all Priestes and other Ministers of the Church during all the time of the Old Testament This Proposition is cleare to all such as shall duely reuolue the holy Bibles For the holy Prophet Jeremie was the sonne of Helkiah who was one of the Priestes that were at Anathoth Hophni and Phinehaâ— were the sonnes of Helj the Priest Sephora was the daughter of Jethro the Priest of Midian S. John the Baptist who was the precursor of our Lord Iesus was the sonne of Zacharias the Priest Yea the High Priest was appoynted by God himselfe to marry a Mayde of his owne people so honourable was the mariage of Priestes in his most holy sight The 3. Proposition Marriage is lawfull for Priestes and
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
euery whit God make mee this day and euer thankefull for it and for all other his manifold mercies and fauours towards me we all returned to the Colledge with great ioy and speed The Rector of the Colledge could no way be perswaded but that I had receiued some secret and inward mortall wound albeit neither my self felt any neither could their eyes or wits discerne any hurt at all saue onely that my face was something bloody by reason of the fall I got while perceiuing the imminent danger which afore I feared not I made haste to haue escaped from the same for it had neuer bin knowne or heard in Rome that any man woman or child euer escaped with life being once in that kinde of danger to wit in the curtesie of the furious and raging Buffaloes Many gaue their censures concerning the wonderfull fact and rare euent the generall resolution was this Viz. That J might fight with Buffaloes in England and haue the vpper hand My selfe did deeme their censure to be probable and this day me thinketh the same is brought to passe though Gods name bee blessed for it in the farre different sense and meaning from that which either they or my selfe did then imagine I sought God then but found him not because I sought him not in trueth and according to his holy will I thought then being blinded with late start-vp Poperie that I should fight against the true professours of Christes Ghospell whom I then reputed Heretiques and spirituall Buffaloes But our most mercifull God whose wisedome reacheth from end to end mightily and disposeth all thinges sweetly ordayned me in his eternall purpose a vosteriori hoc fa â—lè infertur to a farre more honorable and sacred Warfare viz. to encounter the trayterous Jesuâ—tes and â—esuited Gunpowder Popelinges valiantly to fight the battaile of Christes Church against those most furious brainelesse cruell Buffaloes of mens soules Whose legierdemaine coozenage periurie pride malice theft murders fraud feigned miracles and infinite cunnicatching trickes the gentle Reader may finde at large soundly prooued out of the Bookes which the Seminâ—rie-priestes haue published to the World in my Booke intituled The Anatomie of Popish tyrannie Which Booke whosoeuer shall with iudgement and a single eye peruse can not but perceiue the Jesuites to be Firebrands of all mischiefe and most vgly monsters of the World B. C. Not long after he hath these wordes For first it is a constant Maxime quoth he that the Pope and none but the Pope must iudge in all Controuersies of fayth and doctrine Nay it is rather a most constant Maxime that Bell seldome writeth any thing that is true False it is that the Pope and none but the Pope is the Iudge in all matters of Fayth and Doctrine For a generall Councell also is Iudge yea and by the opinion of many learned Diuines the Pope iudging alone without a generall Councell may erre T. B. I answere first that the Iesuite not able to answere the trueth by me soundly defended seeketh to get the victorie by crying out against the trueth This is cleare to euery iudicious Reader Secondly that our Fryer sayth truely That by the iudgement of many learned Papistes the Pope may erre without a generall Councell To this Doctrine I willingly subscribe as which is the very trueth that I defend For mine vsuall manner euer is in all my Bookes to confound Poperie with the best Lerned Popish Writers I hold and defende no point of doctrine but such onely as great learned Papistes hold and defend with me This my ioy this is my credite this the honour of the cause in hand that I constantly hold with the now Church of England euery Article of the old Romane Religion onely condemning and reiecting erroneous superstitious childish and ridiculous additamentes of late yeares by litle and litle crept into the Church Thirdly that I haue prooued so largely in the Downe-fall of Poperie that the Pope onely is the Iudge of all controuersies in Religion as to say more in that behalfe may be thought actum agere and a thing altogether needlesse Three thinges onely will I now poynt at referring the indifferent Reader for the proofe to the Downe-fall of Poperie The first is this viz that the Pope staying at home himselfe sendeth his Legates to the Councels to supply his place to whom for all that O monstrum horrendum he can not commit his Authoritie The second is this viz. that no Byshoppe in these our dayes can haue voyces in Councels but such as will sweare obedience to the Pope before their admittaunce and promise to defend his Canon Law The third is this viz. that it is not in Popish Councels as in humaine affayres and assemblies where moe voyces euer doe preuaile But all the force power strength and authoritie of Councels doe and must depend vpon the Popes will and pleasure For after the Fathers there haue fasted long prayed much consulted grauely deliberated maturely decreed constantly commaunded strictly and accursed seuerely neither can others nor yet them selues tell what shall be of force therein For all must be as shall best content the Popes humour sitting right stately in his pontificall Chaire at Rome To which I adde that the Pope abuseth the World shamefully when he taketh vpon him to call togeather all Byshoppes in the Christian world to decide and determine controuersies in Religion and for all that will approue nothing that they decree vnlesse the same be agreeable to that which himselfe decreeth alone in his pontificall Chaire at home As also in that he condemneth and reiecteth all Councels which doe not consent in all poyntes to his Legates who for all that must not yeeld to any thing which swarueth from their Charge and Commission receiued from the Popes mouth In which Charge this is euer the principall and maine poynt that they suffer not the Popes Superroyall power and falsely pretended Prerogatiues of the Church of Rome to be any way abased or gainesayd This Addition hath a double Confirmation at hand th' one from the Rhemistes th' other from S. R. that great learned Iesuite The Rhemistes tell vs roundly blush neuer a whit thereat that generall Councels are not needfull saue onely for the better contentation of the weake people and their onely ground which they stand vpon is this viz. that the Pope is so diuinely priuileadged and assisted by the Holy Ghost as he can neuer erre iudicially in any matter of Fayth Which assertion if it were true as it is most false for which let the Christian reader duly peruse my Christian Dialogue there were no great need of Councels in very deed The Iesuiticall Fryer S. R. Robert Parsons is the man telleth vs peremptorily that the Popes Sentence is the Decree of the Catholique Church These are his expresse wordes True it is that B. Fisher and Gerson were in that errour
Church while euery one of them sought with might and maine to be the Pope of Rome For the Councell lamenting the Schisme and greatly desiring to stablish vnitie peace in the Church vsed the chiefest and last remedie in that behalfe that is they deposed the three contentious Popes Iohn Gregory and Benedict and chosing Martin made him Pope by their supereminent power And to take away al Schisme dissentions difficulties doubtes suspitions and future garboyles which might perhappes haue insued therevpon the Councell decreed and constantly defined that a generall Councell in causes Ecclesiasticall had the greatest power vpon earth and consequently power and authoritie ouer the Pope euen to cite him to excommunicate him and to depose him And therefore De facto they deposed the three aforenamed Popes and placed Martin in their stead Maister Doctor Gerson a famous and great learned Papist maketh this case so plaine in many places of his workes as none that with iudgement and indifferencie shall peruse the same can stagger or stand in doubt thereof these are his expresse wordes Ecclesia vel generale Concilium eam reprasentans est regula a spiritu sancto directa tradita a Christo vt quilibet cuiuscunque status etiam Papalis existat cam audire ac eidem obedire teneatur alioquin habendus est vt Ethnicus et Publicanus The Church or generall Councell representing it is a rule directed of the holy Ghost and giuen vs of Christ that euery one of what state soeuer euen Papall must heare and obey the same or else be reputed as an Ethnicke and Publican Againe in another place the same Doctor hath these words Iohannes Papa non est accusatus vel conuictus de Heretica prauitate et tamen concilium vocauit et iudicauit ipsum tanquaÌ„ suuÌ„ subditum vnde et in toto processu vsque post sententiam definitiuam suae depositionis reputatus est ab eodem concilio verus Papa Pope John was neither accused nor conuicted of Heresie and for all that the Councell both called and iudged him as their Subiect Wherevpon the Councell reputed him the true Pope in all the time of their proceeding against him vntill after the definitiue sentence of his Deposition In an other place the same Learned Writer hath these wordes In causis fidei non habetur in terra Index infallibilis vel qui non sit deuiabilis a fide de lege communi praeter ipsum Ecclesiam vniuersalem vel ConciliuÌ„ generale eam sufficienter repraesentans In matters of Fayth there is no infallible Iudge vpon earth or which can not swarue from the Fayth by the common course of Gods proceedinge sauing the Church vniuersall or a generall Councell representing the same sufficiently In an other place he hath these wordes Ecclesia vel generale Concilium potuit et potest congregari sine expresso consensu vel mandato Papae etiam ritè electi et viuentis in multis câ—sibus The Church or a generall Councell both might and may be called togeather without the expresse consent or mandate of the Pope euen when the Pope is lawfully elected liuing Thus disputeth this famous Papist and great learned Doctor Out of whose wordes I gather many very excellent documentes well worthy to be written in Golden letters First that the Pope is subiect to a generall Councell and may be controlled by the same Secondly that the Pope may erre both priuately and publiquely in resolutions of Fayth aswell as other Byshopps and Ministers of the Church Thirdly that a generall Councell is aboue the Pope and hath power to depose the Pope for any notorious Crime whatsoeuer Fourthly that the contrary opinion is flatte Heresie condemned in the Councell of Constance Fiftly that a generall Councell hath full power to compell a Pope lawfully elected to renounce and forsake the Popedome and to giue place to him whom the Councell shall appoynt and choose Sixtly that if the Pope shall withstand the Councell and refuse to obey the Decrees and Constitutions thereof he ought and must be excommunicated and reputed as an Ethnicke and Publican Seuenthly that a generall Councell may be summoned and kept without the consent of the Pope euen of that Pope who is both lawfully chosen and at time liuing Eightly that all people are subiect to a lawfull generall Councell euen by Christes owne rule and designement Ninthly that neither the Pope nor any one man vpon earth is or can be an infallible Iudge in matters of Fayth Tenthly that the iudgement which we must finally rest vpon in all controuersies of Fayth and Religion is either the iudgement of the vniuersall Church or else of a generall Councell sufficiently representing the same This is found and very Catholike doctrine though proceeding from the Penne of a great Papist Which Doctrine as the Councell of Constience first and after it the Councell of Basill did approoue by their flat decrees so doe I reuerently embrace the same with all my heart humbly thanking God that by the mighty power of his trueth our aduersaries are compelled to confesse the trueth against them-selues This Doctrine is confirmed more at large both in my Anatomie and in my Golden Ballance to say nothing of my Christian Dialogue which woundeth the Pope at the very heart From hence proceedeth that which will seeme to many a woonderment of the world But what is that will some say This forsooth that all Papistes this day liuing are flat Heretiques Is it so in deede Is that possible to be prooued It is so possible that I haue euen now prooued the same most euidently And thus the most simple Reader in the world shall easily perceiue the same The generall Councell of Constance decreed plainely that the Popes Iudgement is fallible that the Pope is subiect to a generall Synode and by the authoritie thereof may be depriued of the Popedome as also that the contrary opinion is flatte Heresie This is alreadie prooued Now so it is that all Papistes this day liuing vpon earth doe hold the Popes Iudgement to be infallible and himselfe to be aboue a generall Councell So say the Rhemistes so sayth our Iesuite euen in the end of his Chapter next afore-going being the 29. in number Ergo seeing all Iesuites and Iesuited Papistes doe this day hold and defende that opinion which a generall Councell hath defined to be flatte Heresie it followeth by a most necessarie consequence and ineuitable illation that they all are flat Heretiques it can not be denyed Deo gratias dixi B. C. And before we prooued how Pope Leo irritated and made of no force a Decree enacted in the Councell of Chalcedon which argueth his Superioritie ouer the Councell T. B. I answere first that this assertion and opinion of our Fryer is a flatte Heresie as it is euen now prooued and that most euidently Secondly that this sottish allegation is confuted againe and againe in the
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
Pope so narrowly that he did it not without the daunger of his life How be it he choose rather to hazard his life for the good of Christes Church then with his silence to bewray and betray the trueth The whole subiect of his Booke the argument which he there handleth is nothing else but this in very deed viz. to lay open to the eyes of all christiaÌ„ readers the false reportes miserable shiftes and plaine coozening trickes which the Byshops of Rome set abroach by false Bookes and fabulous Decrees to aduaunce them selues aboue all Royall and Imperiall power and to be thought equall with Christ the Sonne of God Hee soundly confuteth euery Period Sentence Clause Word of the fabulous and lying Decree published vnder the name of Constantine the great Yea hee prooueth and plainely conuinceth out of the very wordes of the Decree that it is nothing else but a false lying and counterfeit imagination inuented to aduance the Byshops of Rome aboue the Emperours of Rome and all Power vpon Earth To recite his large and manifolde authoritie proofes argumentes and reasons would both be tedious to the Reader and needlesse in the thing it selfe It may suffice to lay open to the gentle and thankfull Reader some speciall poynts conteyned in the said learned and worthy Declamation The first poynt is this viz. That Melchiades who was the next Byshop before Siluester confuteth the sayd Donation falsely fathered vpon Constantine the great For Melchiades affirmeth plainely sayth Laurentius Valla two thinges of great consequence Th' one that Constantine was a very zealous Christian in his time gaue licence throughout the whole world to all within his dominions not onely to become Christians but also to builde Churches euery where Th' other that the Emperour Constantine gaue Melchiades the Pallace of Lateran and those Grounds of which Gregorie maketh often mention in his register And this great learned Roman confirmeth the same in his wordes immediately afore-going which are these Omnis ferè Historia quae nomen Historiae meretur Constantinum a puâ—ro cum patre Constantio Christianum refert multo etiam ante Pontificatum Siluestri Euery Historie almost which is worthy the name of an Historie telleth vs that Constantine of a child was a Christian with his father Constantius euen long before Siluester was the Byshop of Rome This Valla affirmeth constantly as wee see And consequently the Donation pretended to be giuen to Siluester and the curing of Constantines supposed Leprie can not stand togeather with the same The Second poynt is this viz. That the words of the Decree do plainely conuince that Constantine neuer gaue any such gyft to Siluester These are his expresse words O furcifer Ecclesiaene id est templa Roma erant Petro et Paulo dicatae quis eas extruxerat quis aedisicare ausus fuisset quum nusquam foret vt Historia ait Christianis locus nisi secreta et latebrae O verlet were Churches that is Temples dedicated to Peter and Paul at Rome Who built them Nay who durst be so bold as to builde them seeing as Histories doe relate there was no place for Christians any where but Caues Dennes Groues to hide them in The third poynt is this viz. that the Decree fathered vpoÌ„ Constaâ—tine calleth the Bishop of Rome Pope which name for all that was not yet peculiarly ascribed to the Byshoppes of Rome These are Valla his expresse words O tuam singularem stultitiam Constantine modo dicebas coronam super-caput Papae ad honorem facere beati Petri nunc ais non facere quia Siluester illam recusat et quum factum recusantis probes tamen iubes eum aurea vti corona et quod hic non debere se agere existimat id tu ipsius successores dicis agere debere transeo quod rasuram coronam vocas et Papam pontificem Romanum qui nondum peculiariter sic appellari erat caeptus O Constantine great is thy follie afore thou sayd'st that the Crowne of Gold vpon the Popes head made for the honour of S. Peter now thou sayes it doth nor because Siluester refuseth it and thou approouing the fact of Siluester refusing it doest for all that commaunde to weare it and what he thinkes he may not doe that thou commaundes his successours for to doe I let passe that thou calles his Shauing a Crowne and the Byshop of Rome Pope who had not yet peculiarly gotten that name The fourth poynt is this viz. That the most Christian and worthy Emperour became the Popes Footman and helde his Stirroppe These are the wordes Tenentes fraenuÌ„ equi pro reuerentia beati Petri Apostoli dextratoris officium illi exhibuimus Wee held the Bridle of his Horse and for the reuerence of S. Peter the Apostle wee became his Foot-man or waighter at his Stirroppe Thus writeth Valla and thus is the counterfeite Decree which Valla very sharpely reprooueth and learnedly confuteth So that this counterfeite Donation with Constantines departure was the first steppe of the Popes Ladder of which I haue disputed at large in the Downe-fall of Popery The fift poynt is this viz. That what so euer the Emperours of latter time gaue to the Byshops of Rome concerning the Romane Empire the dominion and territories thereof they were induced to doe the same by the coozening trickes and deceitfull reportes of the Byshops of Rome which they falsely fathered vpon the most Christian and worthy Emperour Constantine the great Let vs heare attentiuely what Laurentius Valla deliuereth from his Penne. His first place which I meane to stande vpon is this Haec dicta sint vt nemo miretur si donationem Constantini coÌ„mentitiam fuisse Papae multi non potuerunt deprehendere tametsi ab aliquo eorum ortam esse hanc fallaciam reor at dicitis cur Imperatores quorum detrimento res ista redebat donationem Constantini non negant sed fatentur affirmant conseruant Ingens argumentuÌ„ mirifica defensio nam de quo tu loqueris Imperatore Si de Graeco qui verus fuit Imperator negabo confessioneÌ„ fin de Latino libenter etiam confitebor etenim quis nescit Imperatorem Latinum gratis esse factum a summo Pontifice vt opinor Stephano qui Graecum Imperatorem quod auxilium non ferret Italiae priuauit latinumque fecit ita vt plura Imperator a Papa quam Papa ab Imperatore acciperet These thinges are written to this end that no man thinke it strange if many Popes could not perceiue Constantines supposed Donation to be counterfeit although I thinke that some of them inuented this coozening tricke But yee will say Why doe not the Emperours who sustayned the losse deny the gyft of Constantine but rather graunt and support the same A great argument a marueylous defence For of what Emperour doest thou speake If of the Greeke who was the true Emperour in deed
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
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
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
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
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
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
but perforce abhorre and detest Poperie as a New Religion by litle litle crept into the Church The Jesuites like Gypsies haue inuented a tricke of fast and loose assigning to their Pope a double person Priuate and Publique As a Priuate man they graunt he may both be deceiued himselfe and also deceiue others But that he can erre as a publique person or as Pope of Rome they vtterly deny For if they should once graunt this poynt which is a manifest and knowne truth Poperie would soone be turned vp-side downe Howbeit my saluation I gage for the tryall Fryer Alphonsus decideth the controuersie so plainely as all the Jesuites and Jesuited Papistes in the world are not in trueth able to withstand or gainesay the same Alphonsus sayth constantly and plainely without all And 's and Ifs that Pope Celestine erred not as a Priuate man but euen as Pope and publique person O sweete Iesus ô mercifull God! ô most louing Father how great is the malice and blasphemie of Iesuites and Jesuited Papistes against thine euerlasting Trueth and holy Name With what face can the Iesuiticall Cardinall Bellarmine tell vs that Pope Celestine erred onely as a Priuate man and not as Pope or Publique person When the Papistes like the Popes Decrees then they say hee defined as Pope and Publique person and that none may withstand his definitiue Sentence or once examine the same as is alreadie prooued to their euerlasting shame But when their Pope is conuinced to haue erred so grossely that they know not possibly how to defende him then they are not ashamed to say that hee erred but as a Priuate man Thirdly that the Pope erred in a poynt of great consequence euen in a matter of Popish Fayth viz. that Matrimonie was so dissolued by reason of Heresie that the faythfull man or woman might marrie againe the Hereticall partie lyuing Which thing sayth Alphonsus was manifest to euery one to be an Heresie and their late Councell of Trent hath defined it to be so Fourthly that this Decree and Definition of Pope Celestine was in those dayes enrolled in the Popes Decretals Fiftly that Alphonsus saw and read the same Sixtly that the sayd Decree can not this day be found amongst the Popes Decretall Epistles Where I note by the way and heartily wish the Reader to obserue the same that the decrees of our holy Fathers the Popes haue bin such so much against lately hatched Poperie as they are this day ashamed to bring the same to light But let this be our comfort herein that God hath at all times stirred vp some learned Papistes otherwise deuoted to the Pope who haue boldly vsed their Pennes and Wittes such is the force of trueth to discouer and lay open to the view of the world the deceit coozenage liegerdemayne and cunnicatching tricks of wicked Popes Jesuites all Iesuited Papistes so farre foorth I euer meane as is necessarie for the common good of his Church Now whether our Jesuite be a most notorious lyer or noe let the Reader iudge For if Alphonsus say that the Pope can not erre as Pope and Publique person I am content to be the lyer But if he constantly hold and defend the contrarie as the vndoubted trueth then iudge and censure our Fryer in this as in many other thinges for a shameles and impudent lyer best worthy of the Whetstone I wish he may haue it weare it about his necke as a testimonie of his condigne desertes The 9. Chapter Of the condigne so supposed merit of Good workes FOR the clearer manifestation and illustration of the trueth of this Controuersie I thinke it not amisse to proceed therein by way of Conclusions Which being soundly effected I purpose in God to answere and confute a thing very easie to be done the childish cauils ridiculous euasions and cunnicatching trickes which our Fryer vseth in pleading for the life of their New Religion The first Conclusion The Regenerate doe Good workes which are acceptable in Gods sight and receiue reward farre aboue their Condigne desertes This Conclusion is prooued by many textes of holy Writ Iob is enrolled among the Godly and those that feared God euen by the testimony of God himselfe Abel was slaine of his brother Cain because he feared God and did Good works The Scripture sayth that Noe was a iust man and perfect who therefore with his Familie found fauour in Gods sight in time of the generall Deluge The Angell of God saluting the blessed virgin Marie pronounced her holy aboue all Women Zacharias and Elizabeth his wife were both iust walked in all the Commaundements of God Abraham Moses Dauid Gedeon Sampson Samuel and many others did Workes acceptable in Gods sight Cornelius is highly commended in holy Writ for the Good workes he did Thus much for the former part And for the latter part the Scripture is likewise plentifull Christ himselfe promiseth to reward Good workes so liberally that he will not suffer so much as a Cuppe of cold Water giuen in his name to passe without reward For which cause Moses is said to haue had respect vnto reward And S. Paul teacheth vs that the passions of this life are not worthy of the glory to come In briefe the Popish Fryer Iohn de Combis a very learned Papist in his Theological Abridgement affirmeth it to be a maxime with God euer to reward vs aboue our well doinges and to punish vs lesse then our euill demerites These are his expresse wordes Et hoc pates quod Deus semper remunerat supra meritum sicut punit citra condignâ—m And this is euident because God euer rewardeth aboue our merites and punisheth vs lesse then we be worthy Where I may not passe ouer in silence the blasphemie of the Rhemistes against the effect of Christes Passion while they affirme Christ not to haue so fully satisfied for our sinnes but that wee are still bound to satisfie each man in particular for his owne sinnes For most true it is as I haue prooued in sundry places of this Discourse that Christ hath so sufficiently satisfied for all his Elect and so answered the iustice of God for punishment of their sinnes as they are freely discharged thereof Yet must they willingly suffer to be made conformable to Christ in Suffering as they looke to be like him in Glorie Their sufferings are indeed a condition required to their Glorification but neither a Cause thereof nor any Satisfaction for their sinnes The case is cleare the Scriptures doe euery where insinuate the same They are onely Conditio sine qua non of our Glorification and the necessarie and infallible effectes of our Predestination which they euer follow as Fruites doe the Tree for the afflictions of Gods children though they be a cause working eternall Glorie in the sense afore touched as they be the way by which God hath appoynted them to passe to Glorie yet neither are
maketh I graunt that Good workes with the Promise of God are Meritorious the Iesuite graunteth the same I graunt that Good workes without the Promise of God are altogeather and wholly vnworthy of eternall life Iosephus Angles graunteth the same yea the Jesuite himselfe graunteth the very same euen while he desireth to impugne the same I say that Good workes are onely one way Meritorious and no way else that is as they are ioyned to and with the Promise of God Josephus and the Jesuite say the very same with me I say that Good workes are not properly of them selues Meritorious seeing they be Meritorious onely for the Promise of God Iosephus sayth the same I say that Good workes of them selues doe not merite Heauen properly as whose Merite dependeth wholly of the Promise of God Iosephus freely grauÌ„teth the same I say that Good workes of them selues are vnworthy of eternall life as which are wholly vnworthy thereof without the free Promise of our mercifull God Josephus willingly sayth the very same Marke euer these words prorsus indigna wholly and altogeather vnworthy They cut the Jesuites throate the Popes throate and the throates of all Jesuites and Iesuited Papistes in the world For that can not haue any Merite properly of it selfe whose Merite dependeth onely solely and wholly of an other And consequently seeing Good workes haue no Merite at all saue onely of from through and for the Promise of God as both Iosephus and our Iesuite freely graunt it followeth of necessitie that they neither doe nor properly can condignely Merite eternall life B. C. The Minister mistaketh the matter the Monster hee speaketh of was borne at Trent in Germany and not at Rome in Italie as the beginning of his wordes doe testifie Besides it was not in the yeare one thousand fiue hundred and fourtie but one thousand fiue hundred fourtie and seauen as appeareth out of the sixt Session of that Councell T. B. I answere first that our Jesuite not able in trueth to defend Poperie from being the New religion fleeth to impertinent digressions ridiculous cauils and most sillie euasions as a franticke man that hath lost his wittes Secondly that the Monster which both my selfe and the Fryer speake of is the non-age of late hatched Poperie The Iesuite vseth two reasons in defence of Poperie but alasse the Popes cares will tingle when he heareth them His former supposed gallant reason is this viz. That the Monster was borne at Trent not at Rome I answeare that this reason pleaseth me well as which graunteth Poperie to be a Monster borne out of time Concerning the place I answere that I doe not mistake the maâ—ter as our Fryer dreameth For although the Monster was begotten at Trent in Germanie yet borne was it at Rome in Iâ—aly The reason hereof is euident because the decreeing of the matter at Trent was of no force or effect vntill the Pope had confirmed the same at Rome His latter and second reason is euery way as strong as his former I keeping my selfe within my boundes and speaking sparingly and fauourably of the newnesse of Poperie affirmed the Condigne merite of Workes not to haue been an Article of Popish fayth for the space of one thousand fiue hundred and fourtie yeares after Christ. Our Iesuite vnawares helpeth me against his will by adding seauen yeares more to the number B. C. Before he came vpon the Councell of Trent for accursing all such as did denie or not beleeue the Condigne merites of mans workes and inueighed against that doctrine as a Monster lately borne at Rome and yet now the same doctrine is against the Pope and the Iesuite S. R. and it euidently prooueth as much as he desireth And so that Doctrine which before was false and monstruous is now become sound and heauenly Was there euer such an other changeable Camelion that as it were with one breath denyeth and affirmeth one and the selfe-same thing Certainely the poore man hath more need of a cunning Surgion to put his braines in ioynt then of Incke and Paper to write such lunaticall Pamphlets T. B. I answere first that our Iesuite seemeth to haue lost both his braines his witte and his honestie and that in such sort as no Surgion is able to remedie the same Secondly that I can not reprooue the Councell of Trent vnlesse I also condemne the Pope the chiefe Author of the same as is already prooued Thirdly that whatsoeuer maketh against the Councell must perforce make also against the Jesuites and all others that approoue the same Fourthly that the doctrine which afore was false monstruous is still as false bad monstruous as euer it was if not rather more Fiftly that the change which the Jesuite speaketh of is in him selfe but not in Bell For Bell doth not affirme that Doctrine to be found heauenly which afore hee tearmed false and monstruous but hee only plainely sheweth that the Jesuite striuing against the trueth doth by the force of trueth vnawares confesse the trueth against himselfe And consequently that hee vnwittingly vnwillingly graunteth the trueth against himselfe which is as much as I desire I prooue it briefly and soundly because the Iesuite hauing in his second Conclusion affirmed Good workes done in Gods grace to be condignely Meritorious of eternall life by and by addeth in the third Conclusion this restriction viz. that the condigne Merite he speaketh of is not absolute but supposeth the condition of Gods Promise made to reward it Which doubtlesse is the flat Doctrine that I defend For if Gods Promise must be supposed there is no condigne Merite without the same Let the indifferent Reader be an indifferent Iudge betweene the Iesuite and mee I willingly admit his third Conclusion and so make an end of this Chapter For all that is heere sayd or possibly can be sayd in defence of Condigne merite of Workes is clearly and foundly refuted in the Conclusions of this present Chapter if due application be made thereof And consequently this Article of Popish fayth neuer knowne for the space of more then 1540. yeares after Christ must of necessitie and without all peradâ—enture be a rotten ragge of the New religion The Tenth Chapter of Transubstantiation in Popish Masse ALL that the Iesuite sayth in this Chapter is pithyly refuted both in the Downefall of Poperie and in the Jesuites Antepast And consequently I haue no need to stand here vpon the same The Fryer freely graunteth that Transubstantiation touching the name was not hatched till their Lateran Councell which was holden 1215. yeares after Christ. But he sayth withall that the poynt of Doctrine it selfe that is the changing of the substaunce of Bread into the Body of Christ by the words of Consecration was taught by the auncient Fathers and came from Christ himselfe his blessed Apostles My answere is this First that I haue very soundly and copiously refuted in my Suruey of Poperie whatsoeuer
And the Apostles doubted not to say It hath seâ—med good to the holy Ghost and to vs. If in these and such like speaches God and his Creatures be ioyned togeather without being made ioynt purchasers but as the Creator and the secondarie cause in like manner may the Merites of Christ and his Saintes be conioyned as hath been sayd T. B. I answere first that the more our sillie Iesuite striueth against the trueth the more he still woundeth rotten Poperie Fiue examples he heere produceth and neuer one to the purpose as by by God willing shall appeare Secondly that if Poperie were not the New religion in very deed such paultry and beggerly shiftes would neuer be vsed in defence thereof Thirdly that the question is not of those actes which Gods Saintes doe alone and of them-selues but of those effectes in producing whereof Gods Saintes are sayd to concurre and to be ioyned with Christ our Sauiour And therefore of the fiue Examples three are altogeather impertinent viz. the first the third the fourth For in the first place the Angel doth not connotate a Creature but God himselfe which I prooue by a double argument First because the Text speaketh of that Angel which deliuered Israel or Jacob from all euill which effect can not possibly be ascribed to any Creature but To God alone the fountaine of all Grace and giuer of euery good guift And it is confirmed because the same God which in the 15 verse is said To haue fed Israel all his life long is likewise sayd in the verse following To haue deliuered him from all euill Secondly because two other places of Scripture doe interpret the Angel to be God himselfe The God of Bethel the God that did keepe Jsrael whither soeuer he went In the third place as also in the fourth the actes are onely ascribed to the Israelites and to S. Paul but neither the Apostle nor the Jsraelites are sayd to concurre with Christ in producing the same effect Let the wordes be well marked and the case is cleare The second and fift or last Examples doe prooue indeed that Gods Saints are ioyned with Christ in producing the same effectes but for all that are as far from concluding the Iesuites purpose as Rome is distant from Roan or the East from the West For albeit I willingly graunt that Gods Saintes may concurre and be conioyned with Christ in producing al those effectes to which they are deputed of God as instrumentes meanes and inferiour causes vnder him hauing to that end receiued of him actiue power in some measure yet doe I constantly denie and vtterly defie that most vnchristian blasphemous and hereticall Popish assertion which brutishly and more then cruelly auoucheth that Beckets Blood and Christes most pretious Blood concurre in working mans Saluation For as the Israelites truely sayd that the Sword of God and Gideon destroyed their enimies so may it truely be sayd in like manner that God and the Phisition cure inward sores God and the Surgion externall woundes that God and Masons builde Churches God and Taylors make Garmentes God and Meate nourish men and so foorth But we can neuer truly say that Christes Blood and Beckets Blood doe worke mans Saluation The Sword of Gideon Masons Surgions Phisitions Meate and Taylors haue a certaine actiue power inherent in them to produce such effectes but mans Saluation is such a diuine supernaturall supereminent effect as Beckets Blood hath no actiue power at all neither more nor lesse to produce the same For this respect grauely writeth S. Augustine That if the best liuer on earth should be rewarded according to his best desertes yet could he not but perish euerlastingly For this respect wisely sayth the learned and religious Fryer Ferus That our Saluation consisteth onely and solely in the Merite of Christ not in our owne Workes He addeth the reason because we are not able to make satisfaction no not for the least sinne we commit For this respect sayth Abbot Bernard That the sinne which maketh deuision betweene God and vs can not be wholly taken away in this life This Subiect is handled at large in the ninth Chapter afore-going in the eleuenth Conclusion to which place I referre the Reader for his better satisfaction herein B. C. Bell else-where telleth vs That popish Inuocation and Adoration was not knowen vntill the yeare three hundred and seauentie Yet is it no thing comparable to thâ—s heere vttered making that Article a thousand yeares younger then in his former Booke T. B. I answere first that in my Suruey I haue disputed at large how Inuocation of Saints increased by degrees For the better cleering of which difficultie I there put downe many Canons and Conclusions In one Canon I affirmed the Church of God to haue liued vnacquainted with the Merites Intercession of the Saints in heauen for the space of two hundred thirtie yeares after Christ. In an other Canon I prooued soundly that the first seed of Popish inuocation of Saintes began not to besowen till about the yeare 233. after Christ. In an other Canon that about the yeare 250. after Christ some of the Fathers held constantly that the Saintes in heauen did pray for the lyuing vpon earth In an other Canon that some of the Fathers about the yeare 350. after Christ did by Rhetoricall Apostrophes apply their Orations to the dead Many other thinges concerning the Inuocation of Saintes I disputed in that Booke at large To which Booke though published about thirteene yeares agoe neither this Jesuite nor any other euer had any courage to this day to frame any answere at all In my Tryall of the new Religion which this Jesuite hath taken in hand to confute I constantly affirme that to Pray to be saued by the Blood of Thomas Becket is flat blasphemy against the Sonne of God And as I affirmed afore in my Suruey that Poperie sprang vp by degrees in such and such yeares so now I constantly auouch that to be saued by the Blood of Becket was vnknowen to the Church for the space of a thousand yeares and odde In the Margent the Printer hath negligently set downe 1407 for 1047. yeares after Christ. I would that were the least of many schores of faultes which haue escaped in my Bookes partly of ignoraunce and partly through the negligence of careles Printers Now where I assigne diuers times and yeares precisely and distinctly to the birth of seuerall degrees of Poperie our Iesuite being at a flat non-plus what to answere fleeth malitiously to ridiculous cauils and most foolish and false imputations Yea the Fryer Iesuite B.C. bloody cut-throate if his name so be doth bewray his owne malice vnawares For these are his expresse words Let him be vrged with that which he teacheth else where and then his refuge will be that he speaketh not of the Inuocation of Saints in
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
dayes the Byshoppes of England now so called haue had and kept a continuall and vninterrupted succession of Byshoppes successiuely so sound firme and inuiolable as the Church of Rome is not able to shew the like This succession is so clearely prooued in my Christian Dialogue as none with right reasoÌ„ can deny the same Fourthly that the Church of England now so called hath euer since the time of King Ethelbert constantly kept all and euery Article of the old Romane Religion which she receiued from the auncient and purer Church of Rome No Papist liuing is able to giue any true instance against this irrefragable assertion Fiftly that as in processe of time many superstitious grosse and palpable errours yea flatte Heresies haue by litle and litle crept into the Church of Rome euen so hath our Church of England through the sway of the time been deeply stayned polluted with the same Sixtly that our Church in the time of King Henry the eight began to be reformed in some Articles of Fayth and Doctrine but the reformation was not perfect vntill the raigne of King Edward the sixt In which Reformation no New Article of Fayth or Religion is added to the former but the former Fayth and Religion is onely refyned purged purified and such Superstition Errours and Heresies abolished as were by litle and litle brought into the Church All and euery iote of the old Romane Religion remayneth still in our Church permanent and inuiolable But some perhappes will heere demaunde of me how the Church of Rome did so degenerate from the auncient Fayth and so foulely corrupt the old Romane Religion To whom I answere in this manner First with Egesippus that auncient and learned Father that during the life of Christes blessed Apostles the visible Church remayned a Virgin free from all Heresies and corruptions but after their death Errours by litle and litle crept into the Church as into a voyde and desart House Secondly with Franciscus a Victoria that famous popish Fryer and great learned Schooleman that by litle litle the Papistes were in his time brought to such inordinate dispensations and to so miserable a state that they were neither able to endure their owne griefes nor remydies assigned by the Pope for the same That Clemens Lâ—nus and Syluester were very good Byshoppes of Rome but that the latter Byshoppes comming after them successiuely were wicked men and nothing comparable to the olde Byshoppes there Thirdly with Iosephus Angles that famous Popish Byshoppe euen in that Booke which hee dedicated to the Pope himselfe that the Romish Religion changeth euery day Fourthly with the fiue famous Popish Doctors Iohannes Roffensis Jacobus Almaâ—nus Gersonus Durandus and Michael Baius that euery sinne is mortall of it owne nature and that the old Romane Church did so beleeue vntill the time of Pope Pius the fift that is about 1560 yeares after Christ at which time Veniall sinnes werâ— hatched in the Church of Rome This is such a constant knowen trueth as neither the Jesuite S. R. nor yet the Iesuite B. C. his deare brother can tell in the world what answere to frame to the same Fourthly with Polidorus Virgilius that famous Popish Writer that the Popish Legistes and Canonistes of latter dayes haue so wrested the holy Scriptures to their owne sense and liking as Coblers doe gnaw with their teeth and stretch out their filthy skinnes Fiftly with Platina the Popes deare Vassall and trustie Friend that in his dayes the Popedome was brought to that passe that who so could goe before others in Bribes and Ambition hee onely should haue the place Sixtly with Couarruuias that worthy popish Arch-byshoppe and learned Canonist that in these dayes either the Popes opinion must be defended or else Poperie can not stand Lastly with Iosephus Angles writing to the Popes deare Holynesse that albeit the old Church of Rome did by the commaundement of the Apostles excommunicate all non communicants in the time of the Masse or Liturgie yet hath the late Church decreed that it shall be lawfull for all Lay persons to receiue the Eucharist onely at Easter Much more I might and could say if I thought not this sufficient So then the Fayth and Doctrine this day professed and authorized in this our Church of England is indeed the old Romane religion purged refined and restored to the primatiue and most auncient puritie in King Edwardes dayes in whose happy raigne was the perfect and complete Reformation But the Fayth and Religion it selfe came from S. Peter and S. Paul yea euen from Christ himselfe their Jesus and our Jesus world without end To whom with the Father and the holy Ghost three in the distinction of persons and one in the vnitie of diuine essence be all Honour Maiestie Power Glory and Dominion now and euermore Amen A Caueat to the Christian Reader THE masked Jesuite in his Preface to the Reader laboureth with might and maine to perswade his Readers that I dare not performe that challenge which I made to the Fore-runner his wordes are these I the meanest of many millions doe accept of his Challenge and doe vndertake to defend not onely these two poynes of Iosephus Doctrine and Pope Martins Dispensation which he hath singled out as matters important but also all the rest so it may be with that equitie and fauour which was graunted to the Protestantes in France And vpon the same conditions doe prouoke him with a counter-challenge to the defence of his Bookes And a litle after he telleth his Reader That hee sendes me as many Challenges as will stand betweene Charing-crosse Chester and as many Dares as will reach from Darby to Darington To which I answere in this manner First that the Jesuites are accused and charged by their deare Breathren the popish Secular Priestes with Pride Ambition Couetousnesse Coozenage Theft Crueltie Murther Treason and all wickednesse that can be named Yea of Fryer Parsons that trayterous Iesuite they giue this testimonie in particular viz. by Parsons platformes Secular Priestes must depend vpon Blackwell and Blackwell vpon Garnet and Garnet vpon Parsons and Parsons the Priestes Bastard vpon the Deuill Peruse my Anatomy of popish Tyrannie and there thou shalt finde this trueth with great varietie of like matter Secondly that in all my Challenges I require but one onely Condition which the Iesuite passeth ouer in silence because he meaneth not to performe the same The Condition is this viz. That the Iesuite which shall accept the Challenge must put downe his name with his addition in print and send it to me Which if it be once performed during my life I promised vpon my saluation to doe what in me lyeth to procure a false conduct for the safe comming safe abyding and safe departure of him whosoeuer he be that shall accept and vndertake the true performance of the Challenge in maner aforesayd Thirdly that the Jesuite
not daring indeed to accept the Challenge and to encounter me seeketh by fond cauils and shamelesse euasions to instill into the eares and heartes of their silly deuoted Vassals that I will not because I dare not performe my promise And for the better effecting of their purpose they require of me that which I neuer promised yea that whereof my selfe am altogeather ignoraunt and no way able to performe For how can I performe that which I doe not know I must forsooth procure him a safe conduct to dispute with that equitie and fauour which was graunted to the Protestantes in France Marke for Christes sake how feard our Iesuite is to accept the Challenge First hee dareth not put downe in print his name and addition A tricke of Iesuiticall or rather Diabolicall pollicie I must procure a safe conduct for B. C. Some bloody cut-throate I thinke hee be Yet I must not know whether hee be a Man or a Monster whether Pope Iohn the Woman or some Deuill incarnate of a Popish Nunne Besides this I must accept of such slye conditions as he addeth to my Challenge so as he may be at libertie to slippe the Halter when and as he list Whereby who seeth not that by all meanes he auoydeth to dispute or bicker with mee Fourthly that the Iesuite and his Jesuited complices haue a long time intended and still labour by vngodly and indirect meanes to take away my life from me and so to stoppe me from further writing against their rotten Poperie Yea in his Preface he protesteth lustily that hee hath prouided a Winding-sheete for the shrowding of my Carcase and that he will with all speed make ready my blacke Funerall And it seemeth so in very deed For vpon the 13. of Iune instant 1609. euen immediately after I had finished this Catholique Triumph there came a friendly Letter but without name vnto my handes and a Packet with Siluer in it which the man namelesse pretended he had borrowed of me c. The circumstaunces were such quae nunc non est narrandi locus that neither my selfe nor others durst open the Packet as hauing apparant inducementes to suspect Poyson Pestilence or other like infection Diabolicall Thus much I thought good in briefe to insinuate to the Readers that they may thereby see and perceiue how vnable the Papistes are to defende their late vpstart Poperie as who know no better meanes but by seeking most cruelly to murder all such as stand in their way God make me firme and constant in the trueth and God defend me and all professors of his holy trueth from Popish sauage crueltie and in the end bring vs to endlesse felicitie Amen Amen FINIS Fiue Bookes were printed but hid vnder a Pipkin least they should be seene or burnt with the Sunne My Booke of Motyues and Booke of Suruey Forerunner pag 15. To what end were they written but to be published This Church of Rome hath foulely corrupted the old Romane Religion which our Church hath reformed A.D. 527. A.D. 1084. The Papistes ascribe saluation to popish Monkry Bruno the author of a new popish sect Hence Poperie is conuinced to be the new Religion A.D. 1335. A.D. 1119. A.D. 1170. A.D. 1198. A.D. 1206. A.D. 1371. A.D. 1540. Ignatius Loyola was the father of Iesuites these proud lordly Fryers Behold the Iesuites liuelie purtrayed in their best beseeming colours Note well my Anatomy The Fathers of the African Councell did stoutly controule the Byshops of Rome for their forgerie of false Canons The Byshop of Romes authoritie limitted by the Councell of Nice Hence sprang the Byshop of Romes falsely pretended Primacie The Emperours were deceiued and so gaue away their royall prerogatiues A.D. 528. Vniuersall Byshop A.D. 607. A.D. 1550. A.D. 1418. A.D. 1566. A.D. 1161. Chap. 4. Of the Popes Pardons Chapt. 5. Of popish Purgatorie Chap. 6. Of Auricular confession Chap. 7. Of Veniall sinnes Chap. 8. Of the Popes fayth Chap. 9. Of the condigne Merite of Workes Chap. 10. Of Transubstantiation Chap. 11. Of popish inuocation of Saintes The Iesuite only snatcheth at such peeces as he thinketh he may best deale withal B.C. pag. 2. 〈…〉 apud 〈…〉 3 cap. 32. O the most monstrous lye in the world God of his mercy either conuert or confound the lyer Secundo principaliter Ioh 12. ver 41. Euseb. hist. lib. 3. cap. 32. Vpon my saluation the Iesuite hath most impudently belyed mee The Iesuite is as honest as he that hath no trueth at all in him Nomb. 16. vers 24.30 Out vpon all lying trayterous Iesuits Poperie can not in trueth be defended it is the new Religion The Iesuite beginneth continueth and endeth with lying Epiphan haer 68. p. 213. Apud Aug. epist. â—1 13.14.17.18.25.30 Aug. ep 76. Aug. ep 77. Apud CypriaÌ„ pag. 11.46.61.66 Valla. de don Constant. â—ol 34. B. Act. 16. In breuiario cap. â—1 Act. 16. Pag. 10. The Iesuite is full of notorious lyes Act. 16. pag. 21â— Liberatus cap. 13. pag. 621. in Breâ—iar Cap. 12. pag. 620. Cap. 23. pag. 630. Cap. 12. Pag. 20. A.D. 457. A.D. 327. Quinto principaliter Theod. hist. lib. 5. cap. 10. Theod. hist. lib. 5. cap. 9. A.D. 371. Sixto principaliter Notetur cap. 2 in conclus â—0 valde Fuerunt 630. episcopi in Chalcedone A.D. 457. Act. 16. pag. 212. The Byshop of Rome the chiefest Patriarke but yet vnder the Emperour as other Byshops else where Act. 16. pag. 208. Concil 1. Constant. A.D. 383. Celebratum Marke this The Byshop of Rome was made the chiefe Patriarcke because Rome was the head of the Empire Concil prim Constantinop Can. 5. et habetur dist 22. cap. Constantinop ciuitatis Honoris primatum Marke this poynt well Concil primum Constantinop A D. 383. celebratum Epist. ad Damasum The Iesuite prooueth himselfe a noddy Euery Arch-byshop is Byshop of Byshops in a godly sense meaning Marke well the next Chapter Dist. 99. cap. primae sedis Dist. 99. cap. Nullus Let these decrees of the Popes be neuer forgotten Gratian Dist 99. cap. ecce Floruit Greg. A.D. 591. The Byshop of Rome is confounded Concil Chalc. A. D 455. celebratum Our Fryer slaundreth the primitiue Church Our Fryer confuteth himselfe See the tryall and marke it well It is new for that it coÌ„meth short by more then 400. yeares of the time of S. Peters doctrine The newnesse of Religion may be considered two wayes The word or name Pope is a ragge of the new religion The name was old as coÌ„mon to al Byshops but not as proper to one O Fryer great is thy malice against the truth Ioh. 10. v. 28.29.30 Mat. 9.6 Ioh. 1. v 14. B.C. pag. 12. Let the Fryers confession be well remembred pag. 12. The protestation of the Duke of Saxonie and of the rest Read and marke well the antepast Gratian. Dist. 40. cap. si papa The Pope may not be iudged though he carry many thousands of men into Hell fire Vict. relect 4. depotest Papae
well for Christes sake See Suruay part 3. chap. 6. and marke it well A.D. 250. See the Tryall chap. 5. and marke it well O braue Purgatorie the Greeke Church neuer beleeued thee The Iesuite hath as many lyes as words For this see the Anatomie of Popish Tyrannie His first lye His second lye His third lye His fourth lye His fift lye No vntrueth but what proceedes froÌ„ the Iesuiâ—es penne A.D. 250. I speake of the late Byshops of Rome O sweete Iesus who seeth not Popery to be the new Religion It is already prooued that the Fryer is a most impudent lyer The Iesuite snatcheth at this peece that peece but toucheth not the principall Act. 20. V. 27. Act 26. V. 22. Lyr. in 20. cap. Act. Apost Carthus ibid. Ioh. 5. V. 47. Aug. contra Adriantum cap. tom â— pag. 121. Polydor. libr. 6. cap. 1. The Iesuite B.C. p. 67. graunteth that Scotus is of the same opinion S. R. pag. 284. S.R. pag. 285. S. Austin tract 49. in Iohan. to 9. S.R. pag 286. S. Cyril lib. 11. in Ioan. cap. 68. Chrysosto 2. Thesâ— ho. 3. Epiphan Haeres 65. nos â—quidem vniusâ—uiusque quaestionis inuentionem non ex proprijs ratiocinationibus dicere poâ—â—imus sed ex scripturaruÌ„ consequentia Popish confession is neither commaunded by Christ nor by his Apostles Ex Leone Papa de paenitent dist 1. cap. quamuis Loe wise and religious Papistes hold that Confession was ordained by the law of man Syluest de Confes. secundò part 4. Couarruv â—om 1. par 1. pag. 155. Scotus in 4. libr. sent dist 17. q. 1. Loe Popish Confession is either one thing or other this or that they can not tell what The Papists cannot endure the written testimonie of Gods trueth Roffensis art 37. adâ— Luth. Pag. 11. Couar to 1. part 2. Cap. 7. Par. 4.11.14 in med what the Pope holdeth that must be defended Caietan cap. 20. in Iohan. Ponder well the next Conclusion A.D. 1215. Ab Innocentio 3 et â—â—is Angles in 4. S. paâ—â— 1. pag. 255. Popish auricular confession was not heard of in old time Nicephor lib. 12. cap. 28. f. Nicepho lib. 12. cap. 28. Auricular Confession is not necessary Rhenan in annot in lib. Tertul. de pae Loe Auricular Confession not heard of in the auncient Church Popish Confession is vnpossible euen by the confession of Papists Marke well for Gods sake Who will not be at defiance with Popery that deepely pondereth these thinges Out vpon Poperie it is flatâ—e Heresie Suruay part 3. cap. 12. pag. 504. Scotus can not tell what to say of their Popish Confession Lay away vnwritten Traditions and Poperie is at an end De Paenit Distinct. 1. cap. quamuis De paenit dist 1. cap. quamuis Ios. Angl. in 4. S. part 1. pag. â—54 Ios. Angles vbi supra pag. 255. The best learned Papistes doe vtterly condemne Popery for the New religion Ezech. cap. 18. vers 4. Rom. 6.23 Ar. Mont. in 1. Ioh. 3. Beda in 1. Ioh. 3. Carthus in 1. Iohn 3. Lyr. in 1. Iohn 3. Deut. 27.25 Gal. 3.10 Roffensis art 32 aduers. Luther p. 32â— Gers. de vit spiâ— lect 1. pag. â— Popish mortall Veniall sinnes are not distinguished essentially Marke this poynt well for it is of great consequence Mat. 12. v. 36. S.R. Pag. 268. O sawcie Fryer thy impudencie is intollerable Aug. de cons. Euang. lib. 2. C. 4. cont faust lib. 22. cap. 27. Ambros. de parad C. 8. Iosephus Angles in 4 S.P. 215. Iose. Angles in 2. sent pag. 249. Marke well this Popish Doctrine for it confoundeth the Pope Deut. 27.25 Gal. 3. v 10. Iacobi 2. v. 10. This Argument striketh dead Mat. 12. v. 30. Durand in 2. sent Dist. 42. q. 6. Ios. Angles in 2. sent pag 275. The Romish religion changeth often See and note well the Iesuites Antepast P. 109. et pag. 119. I highly reuerence the old Romane Religion Away with Popish workes of Supererogation Vide Bellarm. tom 3 â—0 l. 1216. Mat. 5. V. 22. Mat. 10. V. 15. There is great nequalitie in mortall sinnes Luk. 10. V. 14. Note Chap. 28. Esa. 59. V. 2. 2. Cor 6. V. 15. Psal. 5. V. 4.7 S. R. pag. 270. pag. 271. S.R. pag. 271. Ioh. 14. V. 23. Ioh. 15. V. 10.14 Ioh 14 V. 21. S.R. pag. 27â— Ioh. 15. V. 14. Deu. 27. V. 25. Gal. 3. V. 10. Mat. 12. V. 36. In prima Figura et modo Barbara Nauar. in Euchirid Cap. 21. Nu. 34. No sinne so small which breaketh not Gods fauour For we must neither turne to the right hand nor to the left Deut. 5.32 Caiet in 20. cap. Iohan. Mat. 12. V. 36. S.R. pag. 271. God will beatâ— our Iesuites for starting out of the way of his Commaundementes Psal. 5. v. â— Ioh. 15. v. 14. Nullum omâ—ino peccatum potest in Deum referri S.R. Pag. 268. O horrible Blasphemy what will not Iesuites write Marke well my wordes Esa. 55. v. 8. Rom. 9. v. 20.21.22 Rom. 11. v. 33. â—4 55 Mat. 10. v. 28. Genes 3. v. 6. Gen. 19.26 Limbus Puâ—rorum pontifiâ—ius Euery sin is of infinite deformitie â—altâ—m obiectiue S. R. Pag. 277. Euery Child of God will say it seeing it is against gods Law S. R. pag. 276.277 The Iesuite confoundeth himselfe while he graunteth euery sinne against the order of nature to be mortall Mat. 12. V. 36. The order of Nature before Adams fall Mat. 12 V. 30. Euery sinne is against Gods Law Away therefore with Popish works of supererogatioÌ„ No no prinâ—ipaliter S. R. pag. 186. S. R. pag. 278. Loe the Iesuite vnawares graunteth the trueth against his Pope and himselfe Fiue great learned Papistes are of Bels opinion Note well that the Fathers call small sinnes Veniall respectiuely See Chap. 2. Conclus 7. The Popes Fayth is confuted by Popish Doctors Poperiâ— without lying can not be defended O lying Frier there is no trueth in rotten newly inuented Poperie The maine poynt of the Controuersie Poperie is a beggerly Religion O most impudent Iesuite The Authors Protestation S. R. Pag. 281. Marke the falsely supposed errour Sinnes onely Veniall by mercie are mortall of their owne nature Nature and Mercie are farre differens This Ergo girdeth the Pope Vixit Pius A.D. 1565. Vixit Gregor A.D. 1572. Concl. 1. huius cap. ex Gersono et alijs The Romish Church beleeueth it can not tell what S. R. pag. 281. Veniall by Mercie can not be Veniall of it owne nature Tertiò Principaliter S. R. pag. 281. Out vpon rotten Poperie it consisteth of lying and forgerie See and note the tryall The Iesuite truely is at a Non plus A Poke full of Plumbes is the defence of Poperie Egomet tum eram testis oculatus Their Blood Bones Haire and Apparell are reserued honoured as the Reliques of Gods Martirs See and marke well the 29. and the. 30 Chapters The appeale of the Priestes is compared to the appeale of Alexander Martinus Polonus in Chronicho Polonus vbi supra