Reges Domino seruiunt in timore nisi ea quae contra iussa Domini fiunt religiosa seueritate prohibendo atque plectendo Aliter N. seruit quia homo est aliter quia etiam et rex est Quia homo est ei seruit viuendo fideliter quia vero etiam Rex est seruit leges iusta praecipientes et contraria prohibentes conuenienti vigore sanctiendo sicut seruiuit Ezechias Lucos et Templa Idolorū et illa excelsa quae contra praecepta Dei fuerant constructa destruendo sicut seruiuit Iosias talia et ipse faciendo sicut seruiuit rex Niniuitarum vniuersam Ciuitatem ad placandum Dominum compellendo sicut seruiuit Darius Idolum frangendum in potestatem Danieli dando et inimicos eius Leonibus ingerendo sicut seruiuit Nabuchodonosor omnes in regno suo positos a blasphemando Deo lege terribili prohibendo In hoc ergo seruiunt Domino Reges in quantum sunt Keges cum ea faciunt ad seruiendum illi quae non possunt facere nisi Reges How doe Kinges serue God in feare but by punishing with religious seueritie such thinges as are against Gods lawes For the King serueth God one way as he is man an other way as he is King As he is man he serues God in lyuing as becommeth an honest Christian as he is King he serues God in making sharpe Lawes to the furtheraunce of Vertue and to the suppressing of Vice As Ezechias serued God while he destroyed the Groues and Temples of Idols and those Hie places which were erected against Gods lawes As Josias serued God while he performed the same or like dueties As the King of the Niniuites serued God in compelling the whole Citie to serue God As Nabuchodonosor serued God while he with very sharpe Lawes terrified all his subiectes from blaspheming the euerliuing God In this therefore Kings serue God as they are Kinges when they doe that for the seruice of God which none but Kinges can doe Thus writeth S. Austin that auncient Father that holy Writer that learned Doctor that strong Piller that worthy Champion of Christes Church Out of whose Discourse I obserue many thinges well worthy to be engrauen in Marble with Golden letters in perpetuam rei memoriam First that Kinges serue God when they religiously punish sinne Secondly that Kinges serue God as they be men when they liue as it becommeth faythfull and honest Christians Thirdly that Kinges serue God as they be Kinges when they make Godly lawes to aduance Vertue and to suppresse Vice Fourthly that it belongeth to the office dutie and charge of Kings to purge the Church and House of God from Heresies Errours Superstition and Idolatrie Fiftly that it appertaineth to the charge and office of Kinges to punish Blasphemie and to cause their Subiectes to liue religiously and in the feare of God Sixtly that this holy Father and great learned Doctor vtterly condemneth the Popes Fayth and Doctrine while he denyeth all authoritie to Kinges in Church causes and Ecclesiasticall affaires and maketh them onely executors of his Lawes Will and good Pleasure For which respect the same holy Father soone after addeth these expresse wordes Quis mente sobrius Regibus dicat Nolite curare in regno vestro a quo teneatur vel oppugnetur Ecclesia Domini vestri non ad vos pertineat in regno vestro quis velit esse siue religiosus siue sacrilegus Who well in his Wittes will say thus to Kinges Haue no regard neither take any care who within your Kingdome either protect or oppugne the Church of God you haue no charge neither doth it pertaine to your office who in your Kingdome be Religious or who be Sacrilegious Seuenthly that Kinges haue charge not onely of the bodyes of their Subiectes but much more of their soules Which not onely S. Austen fayth but the whole course of Scripture teacheth the same For the godly Kinges as well in time of the Law of Moyses as in the time of the New Testament and law of Grace did manage all matters both of Church and Common-weale For which cause the Ciuill Magistrate was commaunded to read the whole Booke of the Law as well of the first as of the second Table and to studie the same night and day For which cause the Ciuill Magistrate was commaunded to goe out and in before the people and to lead them out and in that the congregation of the Lord should not be as Sheepe without a Shepheard For which cause the Booke of the Law was deliuered into the Kings handes at such time as he receiued the Crowne and was annoynted King Lastly and this striketh dead that Kings as Kings serue God when they doe those things which none but Kinges can doe If this golden Periode were soundly vnderstood and perfectly kept in memorie it alone would be enough to trample Pope and Poperie vnder foote For I pray you sir Frier did not Constantinus surnamed the great Theodesius the elder Theodosius the younger and Martianus gather the foure first generall Councels of Nice Constantinople Ephesus and Chalcedon which Pope Gregorie did reuerence as the foure Ghospels did they not call the same Synodes as they were Emperours Kinges and Monarches I wote they did it is already prooued it can not be denyed What Did not Reccaredus as King commaunde all the Byshops of Spaine and Gallicia to assemble themselues before him at Toledo there to decide and determine causes ecclesiasticall did he not tell them the cause why he sent for them did he not sit downe among them did he not define with them did he not subscribe before all the Byshops did he not confirme the Decrees and Canons of the Councell with his royall edict we haue already seene it wee haue viewed the very wordes it is prooued most manifestly Now let vs duely ponder and throughly vnderstand what of necessitie must be inferred heereupon S. Austin affirmeth constantly that when Kinges serue God as Kings then doe they that which none but Kings can doe But so it is that Reccaredus and the other Kings both called confirmed Councels as they were Kings for it is already prooued ergo Kinges and none but Kings can call and confirme holy Councels and sacred Synodes The reason is S. Austens when he resolutely auoucheth that while Kinges serue God as Kinges they doe that which none but Kinges can doe for if Kinges as Kinges call and confirme Councels none doubtlesse which are no Kinges can doe the same And consequently no Byshop no not the Pope of Rome hath authoritie to gather Councels or to confirme the same Two thinges onely the Pope may in shew of wordes seeme to obiect for himselfe obiection 1 Th' one that Kinges doe not call or confirme Councels as they be Kinges but rather as the Seruantes or Deputies of the Pope obiection 2 Th' other that the Pope is not onely a Byshoppe but a King also To
will take the paines to lay open to the Reader the expresse wordes of the Byshop their glorious Martyr Thus doth hee write I will not alter adde or take away one word vpon my saluation to answere it Sed et Graecis ad hunc vsque diem non est creditum Purgatorium esse Legat qui velit Graecorum veterum commentarios et nullum quantum opinor aut quam rarissimum de Purgatorio sermonem inueniet Sed neque Latini simul omnes at sensim huius rei veritatem conceperunt Et Paulo post non absque maxima sancti spiritus dispensatione factum est quod post tot annorum curricula Purgatorij fines et Indulgentiarum vsus ab orthodoxiâ— generatim sit receptus Quamdiu nulla fuerat de Purgatorio cura nemo quaesiuit Indulgentias nam ex illo pendet omnis Indulgentiarum existimatio Si tollas Purgatorium quorsum Indulgentijs opus erit His. N. si nullum fuerit Purgatorium nihil Indigebimus Contemplantes igitur aliquandiu Purgatorium incognitum fuisse deinde quibusdam pedetentim partim ex reuelationibus partim ex Scripturis fuisse creditum atque ita tandem generatim eius fidem ab orthodoxa Ecclesia fuisse receptissimam facillime rationem aliquam Indulgentiarum intelligimus Quum itaque Purgatorium tam sero cognitum ac receptum Ecclesiae fuerit vniversae quis iam de Indulgentijs mirari potest quod in principio nascentis Ecclesiae nullus fuerat earum vsus Caeperunt igitur Indulgentiae postquam ad Purgatorij cruciatus aliquandiu trepidatum erat The Greekes to this day doe not beleeue there is a Purgatorie Read who will the Commentaries of the auncient Greeke Writers and he shall either find very seldome mention of Purgatorie or none at all But neither did the Latine Church conceiue the veritie of this matter all at one time but by litle and litle Neither was it done without the woonderfull dispensation of the Holy Ghost that after so many pluralities of yeares Catholikes both beleeued Purgatorie and receiued the vse of Pardons generally So long as there was no care of Purgatorie no man sought for Pardons for of it dependeth all the estimation that wee haue of Pardons If thou take away Purgatorie to what end shall wee need Pardons For if there be no Purgatorie wee shall neede no Pardons Considering therefore how long Purgatorie was vnknowne then that it was beleeued of some by litle and litle partly by Reuelations and partly by Scriptures and so at the last beleeued generally of the whole Church wee doe easily vnderstand the cause of Pardons Since therefore Purgatorie was so lately knowne and receiued of the Vniuersall Church Who can now admire Pardons that there was no vse of them in the primatiue Church Pardon 's therefore began after the people stood in some feare of Purgatorie These are the wordes of M. Fisher sometime our Byshoppe of Rochester a Popish so supposed glorious Martyr and a man for his great Learning renowned throughout the Christian world who writing against M. Luther in defence of Poperie to which he was woonderfully addicted spared not so say and to plead what possibly he could inuent for the free passage and credite of the same Whose best pleading which hee possibly was able to affoorde the Pope and Poperie doth roundly and clearely turne it vp-side downe I desire the Reader right heartily euen in the bowels of our Lord Iesus to marke attentiuely and then to iudge and giue his censure Christianly betweene the Jesuite and my selfe Which if he shall indeed performe all partialitie set apart hee can not but euidently perceiue my life I gage for the tryall that Poperie is the New Religion He can not but see that the trueth is that which I defend He can not but behold as clearely as the noone day that the Fryer is condemned in his owne conscience and can not tell what to say For first their most Learned Byshoppe and glorious Martyr telleth vs constantly and plainely that the famous Fathers and Writers of the Greeke Church neuer beleeued Purgatorie And who were those Greeke Writers S. Basill for his great skill surnamed the great S. Gregorie Nazianzene for his surpassing knowledge in Diuinitie surnamed Theologus S. Chrysostome for his Learning and Eloquence surnamed the Golden mouth to say nothing of all the rest If these auncient Fathers these Holy men these so learned and so famous Writers with all the rest of the Greeke Church did not beleeue there was a Popish Purgatorie for the space of 1517. yeares for so long after Christ was this Byshoppe lyuing who for all that as we haue seene affirmeth vnawares against himselfe the Pope and Poperie that they beleeued it not in his time What noddies what fooles how voyd of all feeling of all sense of all reason may they iustly be censured Who to the eternall perill of their soules and saluation will needs beleeue such erroneous hereticall and most execrable Doctrine such diabolicall Fayth and plaine Heathenish Religion Secondly that the Latine Church and consequently the Church of Rome did not beleeue the aforenamed Purgatorie for many hundreds of yeares after S. Peters death whose successor the Pope boasteth himselfe to be Thirdly that this Purgatorie was not beleeued of the Latine Church at one and the same time but by litle and litle Fourthly that Purgatorie was beleeued in the latter age by speciall Reuelation of the Holy Ghost Fiftly that Pardons came not vp vntill Purgatorie was found out as which without Purgatorie can haue no vse Sixtly that Purgatorie was a long time vnknowne Seuently that Purgatorie could not be found in the Scriptures of a long time Eightly that it was not wholly found out by the Scriptures but partly by Reuelations Ninthly that Pardons were not heard of or knowne to the primatiue Church Tenthly that then Pardons began when men began to feare the paines of Purgatorie Behold heere gentle Reader what a worthy Fisher was my Popish Lord of Rochester hee hath caught with his Net at one draught tenne goodly Fishes that is to say tenne golden and worthy Lessons for Christian edification Which effect will appeare more euidently before the end of this Chapter B. C. Secondly that the Church of Rome beleeued it not that is Purgatorie for the space of 250. yeares after which time it increased by litle and litle This either hee meaneth is gathered out of the testimonie of Roffensis and that is not true for nothing doth Roffensis speake of 250. yeares or deny that Purgatorie was alwayes beleeued in the Church although hee confesseth that the Doctrine thereof was not so well knowen as now it is which is farre different from this Proposition Purgatorie was not beleeued of the Church of Rome for the space of 250. yeares after Christ. Or else he affirmeth of himselfe that Purgatorie was not beleeued vntill that time and then must I be so bold to tell him that it
whole care industrie and diligence to see what helpe might be had in that behalfe his best resolution is to say with the old doting man of Carlton That it is either one thing or other For first he freely confesseth that it is not in the Old law Secondly that it is not in the Scripture of th'Apostles Thirdly that we must either hold this or that but he can not tell whether Fourthly that how soeuer we thinke or say of this Popish Auricular confessioÌ„ this perforce we must resolue to be the trueth viz. that it is grounded vpon Vnwritten tradition without all maner of Scripture This is it which our Papistes must euer flie vnto as to their best and last trumpe For which respect their learned and canonized Martyr the late Byshoppe of Rochester confessed plainely that the holy Scriptures will not serue their turne these are his expresse wordes Contendentibus itaque nobiscum Hareticis nos also subsidio nostram oportet tueri causam quam scriptura sacra Therefore when Heretiques contende with vs we must defend our cause by other meanes then by the holy Scripture Thus writeth Byshoppe Fisher the Popes canonized Saint and glorious Martyr a Learned man indeed who as we see for all his Learning was not able to defend Poperie by Gods word and therefore he fled from the holy Scriptures to vnwritten Traditions as Scotus did afore him And for the same respect Couarruuias a famous Popish Bishoppe and a great learned man confessed and published to the whole world that howsoeuer the trueth was that which their Pope did must of necessitie be defended These are his expresse words Nec mâ—latet c. Neither am I ignorant that S. Thomas affirmeth after great deliberation that the Byshoppe of Rome can not with his Dispensation take away from Monkes their solemne Vow of Chastitie This notwithstanding wee must defend the first opinion least those thinges which are practised euery where be vtterly ouerthrowne Behold here gentle Reader that howsoeuer the Popes opinion be whether true or false that skilleth not the same wee must defende of necissitie And why I pray you must this be done Because forsooth sayth Couarruutas otherwise Poperie will be turned vpside downe Sixtly because their famous Cardinall Caietanus affirmeth roundly that Auricular and Secret confession is against Christes institution as also the Precept that vrgeth vs to the same For albeit hee approoue Confession as instituted by Christ yet doth he adde a double restriction First that it was Voluntarie then that it was neither Secret nor of All sinnes Which twaine for all that the late Byshoppes of Rome affirme and vrge as necessarie to Saluation Marke well the next Conclusion out of the Popes owne Decrees The Seuenth Conclusion Popish Auricular Confession was not an Article of Popish Fayth for the space of 1215. yeares I prooue it because their famous Fryer and reuerend Popish Byshop Iosephus Angles affirmeth peremptorily and without all And 's or Ifs that none were Heretikes for the deniall of the necessitie of Popish confession vntill the Decree of their late Councell of Latheran which was holden 1215. yeares after Christ. And the Fryer Byshoppe yeeldeth this reason for the same viz. Quia nondum erat ab Ecclesia declaratum Because the Church of Rome had not before that time declared it to be so To which I adde for the complement of this controuersie that the Holy Auncient Fathers those stout Champions and mighty Pillers of Christes Church were neuer acquainted with Popish Auricular confession I prooue this by a double argument First by the fact of the holy Byshop Nectarius then by the ioynt-testimonies of Nicephorus and Rhenanus Concerning Nectarius that holy and worthy Byshoppe of Constantinople hee abolished the Law made for Confession so to auoyde the great Vices which ensued therevpon Where the Reader must obserue two thinges with mee th' one that in the Auncient church Publike Penaunce was inioyned to those who publikely denyed the Fayth in time of Persecution And that some were so zelous and so highly esteemed the sacred Ministerie that although they did not denie the Fayth publikely yet for that they had some doubtes therein and were troubled in their mindes they voluntarily disclosed their secret griefes to Gods Ministers humbly desired their Godly aduise submitted themselues to doe what was thought expedient by those Ministers whom the Church had placed to inioyne Penance for publike sinnes Th' other that notwithstanding the whoredome of the Deacon and other vices neither would that holy Byshop Nectarius euer haue attempted to abolish Confession if it had been Gods ordinance neither would so many famous Byshops haue imitated his fact And yet is it most certaine as shal be seene by and by that all for the most part Easterne-Byshops did follow his opinion Yea euen S. Chrysostome who succeeded Nectarius at Constantinople that goodly Patriarchall seate of the World Concerning Nicephorus and Rhenanus their owne expresse wordes shall heere be layde open to the Reader Nicephorus after he hath told vs what Nectarius did immediatly addeth these wordes Quem etiam ferè Orientales Episcopi omnes sequuti sunt Whom almost all the Byshoppes of the East did follow and imitate Againe he addeth toward the end of that Chapter these wordes Itaque de quorundam maximè vero Eudaemonis Ecclesiae eius Presbyteri patria Alexandrini Consilio ne postea in Ecclesia Presbyter paenitentiarius esset Nectarius statuit suadentibus illis vt cuique permitteretur pro conscientia et fiducia sua communicare et de immaculatis mysterijs participare Therefore Nectarius being aduised by sundry especially by Eudaemon an Elder of that Church borne in Alexandria made a Decree through their perswasion that from that day no Priest should heare the Confessions of the penitentes but that euery one should be permitted to communicate and to be partaker of the holy Mysteries as his owne Conscience and Fayth did mooue him Beatus Rhenanus after he had discoursed at large how the Auncient Church appoynted Priestes ouer the penitent that they might giue them counsaile how to make satisfaction according to the Canons which themselues did not vnderstande and withall had prooued out of S. Cyprian S. Chrysostome S. Basill S. Ambrose S. Hierome S. Bede Tertullian Hesychius Theodulphus Theodorus Bertramus Rabanus and Nectarius all which he alleadged for his opinion he deliuered his owne iudgement in these wordes Non aliam ob causam complurimi hic testimonijs vsi sâ—mus quam ne quis admiretur TertullianuÌ„ de clancularia illa admissoruÌ„ confessione nihil loquutum quae quantum coijcimus penitus id temporis ignorabatur For no other cause haue I heere vsed the testimonies of so many Writers but least any should maruell that Tertullian spake nothing of that secret Confession which as I thinke was vtterly vnknowen at that time Loe Tertullian spake not one word of Auricular confessioÌ„
time and who they were that composed the partes thereof When as neither Durandus nor any other make the essentiall and very substantiall part of the Masse that is the wordes of Consecration to haue come from any other then the Sonne of God But they speake of the accidentall partes thereof to weet either deuout Prayers or Ceremonies which we willingly graunt to proceed from the institution of Christes Church T. B. I answere first that our Fryer giueth both the Pope and Poperie a deadly wound while he telleth vs that Durandus and others note at what time and who they were that composed the partes of their popish Masse Secondly that while our Fryer Iesuite maketh one onely essentiall part of their popish Masse that is the wordes of Consecration he graunteth that all the rest be Accidentall and so may be taken away from the same To which Doctrine I very willingly subscribe assuring the Iesuite that they and we shall soone agree if the Pope will thus reforme their Masse in abolishing all the accidentall partes here so named from the same Thirdly that I haue already prooued the word enim in the consecration of the Bread to be either of Mans institution or else the Deuils Fourthly that S. Thomas of â—â—quine Durâ—nâ— and other learned Papistes doe constantly affirme that God can not by his diuine power cause one the same body to be in diuers places at once And consequently that our Iesuites must either deny Christes body to be in Heauen contrary to the expresse wordes of holy Scripture or else that Christes body his flesh blood and bones can not be in their popish Masse or thirdly that the wordes of Popish Consecration came from some greater power then is in God which for all that no Papist dareth to auouch Fiftly that the wordes which are vsed in the popish Consecration of Wine came not from the Sonne of God I prooue it by the testimonie of Iosephus Angles that famous popish Byshoppe and learned Schoole-doctor whose expresse wordes are these Forma consecrationis Calicis qua Romana vtitur Ecclesia est sufficiens traditur enim ab Euangelistis et verba qua ab Ecclesia interpoâ—untur scilicâ—t nouâ— et aâ—erni testaments misterium fidei forma qua Christus consecrauit sensum handmutanâ— The forme of the Consecration of the Chalice or Cuppe which the Church of Rome vseth is sufficient for it is deliuered by the Euangelist and the wordes which the Church interlaceth to weet of the new and eternall Testament the misterie of Fayth doe not change the sense of the forme in which Christ did consecrate Thus writeth Byshop Angles plainely insinuating to his Readers that the Church of Rome vseth an other forme of Consecration then Christ himselfe did vse And consequently that the wordes of Consecration vsed in the Romish Church came not from the Sonne of God Ergo the Romish forme of Consecration is a Ragge of the New religion Sixtly that the Papistes can not tell indeed which be the precise wordes of their popish Consecration although that be the most principall and the very essentiall part of popish Masse and consequently of all popish Fayth and Religion I prooue it most euidently because Byshoppe Angles rehearseth foure seuerall opinions concerning this precise Article of popish Fayth these are his expresse words Quatuor sunt opiniones Prima S. Thomae qui omnia praedicta verba dicit esse de essentiaformae Secunda opinio est Alexandri D. Bonauenturae et Durandâ— qui affirmant de necessitate consecrationis Calicis esse haec sola verba scilicet hic est sanguis meus Tertia opinio dicit haec verba scilicet hic est sanguis meus qui pro â—ultis effundetur in remissionem peccatoruÌ„ esse de necessitate consecrationis praetermissis alijs verbis quae ab Ecclesia Romana adduntur qua forma vturtur Graeci Quarta opinio est Scoti qui ait de haec quastione nihil certitudinalitor esse nobis traditum There be foure opinions S. Thomas holdeth the first who auoucheth all the aforenamed words to be of the essence of the forme The second opinion is Alexanders Bonauentures and Durandus who affirme that these onely wordes are of the necessitie of the consecration of the Chalice or Cuppe to weet This is my blood The third opinion affirmeth these wordes This is my blood which shal be shed for many for remission of sinnes to be of the necessitie of ConsecratioÌ„ not the other wordes which the Church of Rome addeth to them Scotus the popish Doctor Subtilis holdeth the fourth opinion auouching that they know not certainely what to hold or thinke of this matter This is the best popish Diuinitie for the most essentiall part of all Poperie that the best learned Papistes are able to affoord vs so as euery child is well able to discerne that the now Romish Fayth is the New religion B. C. What doth Bell and such like Ministers that deride the Ceremonies and partes of the Masse but mocke and mow at their owne Communion-booke and partes thereof being borrowed from vs or in what they differ can shew no greater antiquitie then the late dayes of Edward the sixt at what time diuers Ministers did hammer them in the forge of their owne inuention T. B. This is that which the Pope and his deuoted Vassals neuer cease to instill into the hearts and eares of silly Papistes that so they may falsely perswade them that the Popish Fayth is the Old and ours the New Religion Wherefore albeit I haue againe and againe prooued most euidently that the Fayth and Doctrine which the Romish Church this day holdeth and teacheth is the New Religion neuerthelesse seeing these wordes heere obiected doe in some sort as it were insinuate to the Reader the most principall and maine poynt of the whole controuersie I am very willing to vndergoe the paines how great soeuer for the better contentment and full satisfaction of all such as desire to know the trueth I answere thus first that the Church of Rome receiued the true Catholique Apostolique Faith in the dayes of S. Peter and S. Paul which S. Paul himselfe testified while he affirmed their Fayth to he renowmed in the whole world Secondly that the Church of England receiued the same Catholique and Apostolique Fayth from the good Byshoppes of Rome at their first conuersion vnto the Fayth of Christ Iesus Explico Brutani now called England first receiued the Christian Fayth by Faganus and Deruvianus sent from Elutherius the good Byshoppe of Rome at the earnest request of Lucius then King of Brutani which was in the yeare 179. after Christ. After that Ethelbert the first Christian King of the Saxons was conuerted to the Fayth of Christ by Augustine Melitus Justus and others sent from Gregorie an other good Byshoppe of Rome in the yeare 596. after Christ. Thirdly that from that time vntill these our
forgerie and more then ridiculous foolerie the Reader God willing shall finde sound and large proofes in the next Chapter The reason is euident because sixe hundred and thirtie learned and holy Byshops assembled in councell at Chalcedon decreed the Byshop there to be equall to the Byshop of Rome in all Ecclesiasticall affayres I will alleadge the expresse words of that famous Synode which our Jesuite vseth not to do least it should discouer his lyes falsehood and cunny catching trickes These are the wordes of the Councell Gloriosissimi iudices dixerunt ex his quae gesta sunt perpendimus omnem quidem primatum et honorem praecipium secundum canones antiquae Romae deo amantissimo Archiepiscopo conseruari oportere autem sanctissimū Archiepiscopū regiae Constantinopolis nouae Romae eisdem primatibus honoris et ipsum dignū esse et potestatē habere ordinare metropolitas in Asiana et Pontica et Thracia diacesibus Sequitur Reuerendi Episcopi dixerunt haec iusta sententia haec omnes dicimus haec omnibus placent hoc iustū decretū quae constituta sunt valeant haec iusta sententia omnia ordinatè decreta sunt The most glorious Iudges sayd Wee perceiue by these thinges which are defined that all Primacie and chiefe Honour according to the Canons is reserued to the most holy Arch-byshop of old Rome but the most holy Arch-byshop of the royall citie of new Rome must haue the same primacie of Honour and power to ordaine Metropolitans in the Dioceses of Asia and Pontus and Thracia The reuerend Byshoppes answered This is a iust sentence this wee all say this pleaseth all this is a iust decree The thinges which are decreed let them be of force This is a iust sentence all thinges are orderly decreed Thus teacheth vs this most famous Councell of 630. Byshops very learned and holy Fathers Out of which Decree I obserue first that the Primacie which the most auncient and best Councels gaue to the Byshop of Rome was not of Power but of Honour Secondly that this holy learned and famous Councell gaue no other name or title to Leo then Byshop of Rome but Arch-byshop of old Rome Thirdly that the same Fathers gaue the same title or name to Anatolius then Byshop of Constantinople calling him Arch-byshop of new Rome Fourthly that this famous Councell made the Byshop of Constantinople equall with the Byshop of Rome in all things the primacie of Honour onely excepted in which preheminence of Honour the sayd 630. Fathers decreed constantly that the Byshoppe of Constantinople or new Rome should be the next to the Byshop of old Rome And this doubtles is that very doctrine which I defend For I willingly graunt both in this and in all my other Bookes that the Byshoppe of Rome is the principall and chiefest Patriarke and ought according to the auncient Canons of the famous and holy Councell of Nice to haue the chiefest place in all Ecclesiasticall meetinges councels and Assemblies before all other Byshoppes in the Christian world This assertion is yet more plainely confirmed in an other place of this famous Councell of Chalcedon these are the expresse wordes Definitiones sanctorū patrum sequentes vbique et regulam et quae nunc relecta sunt centum quinquaginta deo amantissimorum episcoporum qui congregati sunt sub piae memoriae Imperatore maiore Theodosio in regia ciuitate Constantinopoli noua Roma cognoscentes et nos eadem definiuimus de priuilegijs eiusdem sanctissimae Constantinopolitanae ecclesiae Romae nouae etenim sedi senioris Romae propter imperium ciuitatis illius patres consequenter priuilegia reddiderunt et eadem intentione permoti centum quinquaginta deo amantissimi episcopi aequa sanctissimae sedi nouae Romae priuilegia tribuerunt rationabiliter iudicantes imperio et senatu vrbem ornatam aequis senioris regiae Romae priuilegijs frui et in ecclesiasticis sicut illa maiestatem habere negotijs et secundam post illam existere Wee following the definitions of the holy Fathers euery where and knowing the Canons and the Decrees of the 150. holy Byshoppes assembled vnder the Emperour Theodosius the elder of holy memorie in the royall citie Constantinople new Rome haue defined the very same touching the Priuiledges of the same most holy Church of Constantinople new Rome For the Fathers gaue Priuiledges consequently to the seate of old Rome for the Empire and dominion of that Citie And the 150. most holy Byshops hauing the same intention gaue equall Priuiledges to the most holy seat of new Rome iudging according to reason that the Citie which was honored with the Empire and the Senate should enioy equall Priuiledges with the old royall Rome and excell in Ecclesiasticall affaires as it and be the second after it In these wordes of these 630. holy and learned Fathers it is very cleare and euident that the Byshop of new Rome was equall to the Byshoppe of old Rome in all thinges the primacie of Honour onely excepted Which illation is soundly confirmed by the decree of the famous Councell of Constantinople in these expresse wordes Constantinopolitana ciuitatis Episcopum habere oportet primatus honorē post Romanum Episcopum propteria quod sit noua Roma The Byshop of the citie of Constantinople must haue the honour of Primacie after the Byshop of Rom◠because it is new Rome Loe all that wherein the Byshop of Rome excelleth the Byshop of Constantinople and consequently all other Byshops is nothing else in deed but the sole and onely Primacie of honour Which Primacie wee are so farre from denying it that wee giue the same to our Arch-byshoppes and Metropolitans in the Church of England To which I adde and it is very emphataicall that the principall and chiefe cause of making the Byshop of Rome the chiefe Patriarke and of giuing him the Primacie of honour was this and no other viz. because the citie of Rome was the Imperiall seate of the Emperour So affirme two most famous Councels of Constantinople and Chalcedon And these Councels are consonant to the most famous Councell of all Councels since the death of the Apostles to weet the Councell of Nice in Bithyni◠although that sacred Councell did not produce the reason for the aforenamed Primacie of the Byshop of Rome B. C. To this may be added that seeing Pope signifieth Father as Bell according to the truth confesseth it followeth that the Byshop of Rome was in old time reputed Superiour to all in that he was called the Father of Fathers For Steuen Byshop of Carthage writing to Pope Damasus in the name of three Councelles celebrated in Africke giueth him this title To Pope Damasus our most blessed Lord exalted with Apostolicall dignity the Father of Fathers T. B. I answere that while our Jesuite laboureth to stablish the Popes falsesly pretended soueraigntie he prooueth himselfe a very Noddie for I haue already graunted that
importunitie to confirme the supposed Donation of Constantine obtayned with much a doe vnderpretence of the sayd Donation not the confirmation of the pretended gyft but that the Church of Rome should be the Head of all Churches Twelfely that the Byshoppes of Rome now called Popes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neither did nor could perswade any one of the Emperours for the space almost of three hundred yeares after that supposed Donation either to confirme the same or to make Rome the Head of all Churches Thirteenthly that neither S. Hierome nor S. Augustine nor S. Ambrose nor any approoued Historie doth make any mention of the sayd Donation Foureteenthly that of right the People of Rome not the Pope should set the Crowne vpon the Emperours head Fifteenthly that the Emperour had euer in his possessioÌ„ both Rome Italy the whole Westerne Empire vntill the dayes of King Pippine as also that Pope Boniface acknowledged the Citie of Rome to pertaine to the Emperour Honorius Sixteenthly that Cardinall Cusanus a great learned man a zealous Papist auoucheth constantly that he neuer read of any Bishop of Rome vntill the time of Stephanus the second who durst in the name of S. Peter presume to challenge any right in the aforenamed places Seauenteenthly that the Decree vpon which the Popes would ground their Superroyall pretended Prerogatiues is a false and counterfeit Narration and can not be found in the old Decrees Eighteenthly that Charles and Pippine spoyled the true Emperours so enriched the Citie of Rome Nineteenthly that Melchiades who was the next Byshop of Rome before Syluester doth roundly confute the sayd Donation as a thing falsely fathered vpon Constantine the great Twentethly that the Byshops of Rome were not peculiarly called Popes for the space of many hundred yeares after Christ. Furthermore that the Emperour is reported by the Popes counterfeit Decree to haue holden the Bridle of his Horse and to haue wayted at his Stirrope Where I wish the Reader to obserue seriously with me that the late Byshoppes of Rome haue vsed many coozening trickes especially the false Donation of Constantine and his pretensed seruice to the Pope so to aduance their state and superroyall Pompe and to cause Kinges and Emperours to kisse their feete Yet further that what so euer the Emperours of latter time gaue to the Church and Byshoppes of Rome that wholy proceeded from a sandy and rotten foundation with which the said Byshoppes and their flattering parasites seduced them viz. from a counterfeite and falsely supposed Donation of Constantinus surnamed the great Lastly that the late Popes or Byshoppes of Rome with their deuoted Popelinges are the cause of all kind of mischiefe and naughtinesse To all which so to cheere vp the Pope and his Popelinges I will adde a fine and graue testimonie of the Popes deare Fryer learned Schoole-doctor Franciscus a Victoria his wordes are these Et paulatim ad hanc intemperantiam dispensationuÌ„ deuentum est et hunc talem statum vbj nec mala nostra nec remedia pati possumus et ideo necesse est aliam rationem excogitare ad conseruandas leges Da mihi Clementes Lines Syluestros et omnia permittem arburio eorâ—m sea vt nihil grauius dicatur in recentiores Pontâ—fices certè multis partibus sunt prisâ—is illis inferiores By little and little we are brought to these inordinate Dispensations and to this so miserable state where we are neither able to endure our owne griefes nor the remedies assigned by Popes for the same And therefore we must perforce inuent some other way for conseruation of the Lawes Giue me Clements Lines Syluesters and I will commit all thinges to their charge But to say nothing grieuously against latter Popes they are doubtlesse inferiours to the old Byshoppes of Rome and that by many degrees Thus writeth this learned Fryer who if hee durst haue spoken his minde freely would haue told vs mirabilia First he exclaymeth against popish Dispensations Secondly he pitifully lamenteth the state of the Church Thirdly he cryeth out that the Popes doe lay such intollerable burthens vpoÌ„ them as they are no way able to endure the same Lastly he commendeth the old Byshoppes of Rome but vtterly so farre foorth as hee dareth condemneth the latter Popes or Byshoppes of Rome Whose assertion in very deed iumpeth with the doctrine which I defend and plainely conuinceth late Romish fayth and superstition to be but a rotten Ragge of the New religion Now let vs heare what the Iesuite is able to say for him selfe for the sauegard of the life of late start-vp Poperie B. C. To season the beginning of his Chapter with a litle of his mendatious powder he writeth thus Bonifacius Byshop of Rome and third of that name aboue sixe hundred yeares after Christ obtained of Phocas then Emperour of Rome that Rome should be the Head of all Churches Before which time no authenticall Writer can be named who euer ascribed the Headship vniuersall Gouernement of all Churches to the Church of Rome This is a manifest vntrueth In the Councell of Chalcedon Maximus Byshop of Antioch was confirmed by Leo the first Pope Iulius the first restored Athanasius Patriarch of Alexandria to his seate Paulus Patriarch of Constantinople and Marcellus Byshop of Ancyra deposed vniustly by an Easterne Synode as writeth Sozomenus whose wordes be these For as much as the care of all did belong to him for the dignitie of his Seate hee restored to euery of them their Church T. B. I answere first that is lying slaundering and false dealing were once set apart our Jesuites irkesome fond disputation would soone haue an end For first the famous Councell of Chalcedon was conuented holden by the commandement of Martianus the Emperour and not of Pope Leo as is euident and manifest to euery child in the very beginning of the 7. Action quoted by our Jesuite Againe the Fathers of that famous Councell acknowledge them-selues to haue come thither at the Emperours commaundement to make peace betweene Maximus byshop of Antioch and Juuenalis Byshop of Hierusalem These are the expresse wordes of the Iudges themselues Gloriosissimj Iudices dixerunt diuiniss et pijss noster Dominus Jmperator rogatus a Maximo et Juuenale sanctissimis Episcopis praecopit nos agnoscere de motis inter eos capitulis The most glorious Iudges said The most holy and religious Emperour our Lord being intreated of the most holy Byshops Maximus and Juuenalis commaunded vs to examine the coÌ„trouersies betweene them Thirdly it was the Councell not Pope Leo that confirmed Maximus and concluded a peaceable vnitie betweene him and Iuuenalis Fourthly no mention is made at all of Pope Leo who is not so much as once named in the said action of the holy and famous Councell Fiftly Anatolius the most reuerend Arch-byshop of New Rome confirmed by expresse wordes the aforenamed Vnitie
of Italy to appeale vnto him as to the chiefe Patriarch and Metropolitane of the citie of Rome but not as to the Vniuersall Byshop of the whole Christian world For no such thing is decreed by any Synode as these Fathers doe affirme Aphorisme fourth All that can be sayd for the Popes falsely pretended Primacie is fetched and deriued from the authoritie of Man I prooue it two wayes First because the Byshop of Rome to aduaunce himselfe aboue his breathren and fellow-Byshoppes inuented by the helpe of his flattering Parasites a forged and counterfeit Donation of Constantine that famous Emperour Which certes hee would neuer haue done if he could by the holy Scriptures haue exalted himselfe or otherwise haue magnified his estate Of which counterfeit Donation I haue discoursed at large in the tenth Conclusion Secondly because whensoeuer his proud attempt and falsely challenged Primacie was withstood he neuer alleadged holy Writte for the proofe thereof for that he knew he could not so preuaile but falsified the Canons of Nicene Councell thinking so in time to attaine his heartes desire which in these last worst dayes came so to passe in deed But the famous Councelles of Constantinople and Chalcedon made no reckoning of such falsifications and proud attempts And the Fathers of the Affrican Synode albeit for a time they answered very modestly that they could find no such prerogatiue in the Nicene Canons and yet were content to expect true Copies from the East and in the interim for charitie sake to admit Appellations to Rome did for all that in the end come roundly vpon the Pope and told him flatly that no Synode had so decreed and that they could no longer endure such smoakie statelinesse and so foorth as in the third and second Aphorisme is alreadie prooued in the 30. Chapter of this Booke all now lyuing Papistes are prooued flat Heretiques Aphorisme fift The reasons which the Pope and his Pope-lings vse to prooue that the Nicene Councell made more Canons in which the Popes falsely pretended Primacie is stablished albeit they be with Papistes reputed as inuincible Bulworkes will for all that after due and full examination thereof be found as strong as a Copwebbe and as heauie as a Feather obiection 1 They say first that Isidore being requested by 80. Byshoppes to gather the Nicene Canons togeather found out many more euen fourescore in all But I answere first that the varietie found in Isidore in the Epistle of the Byshoppes of Aegypt to Pope Marcus and in the answere of Marcus to them doe euidently conuince the same writinges to be false forged and counterfeit Jsidorus telleth vs forsooth that they are more but how many he knoweth not Mary hee addeth withall that by the Decrees of Pope Julius they must be Seauentie Athanasius and the rest of the Byshoppes of Egipt affirme constantly to Pope Marcus that the Councell of Nice had foure-score Canons Yet Pope Marcus in his rescript to the said Byshops clippeth off Tenne from that number Now what Horse would not breake his Halter to come to this pleasant harmonie Secondly that the very wordes of the Preface fathered vpon Jsidorus doe prooue it to be forged and counterfeit for there I finde mention made of the generall Councell of Constantinople which was holden in the time of the Emperour Constantine and Pope Agatho against Macarius Stephanus and other Byshoppes But so it is that the said Councell was celebrated sixe hundred seuentie and eight yeares after Christ True it is likewise that Isidorus died in the yeare 637. after Christ and consequently true it must be thirdly that Jsidorus was dead at the least 40. yeares before that generall Councell and so he could not possibly tell those foure-score Byshoppes of it vnlesse perhappes he rose againe after he was dead To which I must needes adde that though Jsidorus be feigned in that Preface to haue interlaced all the decretall Epistles of the Byshops of Rome which he could any where find viz. of Clemens Anacletus Euaristus and the rest vnto Pope Siluester yea vnto Pope Gregorie the great yet doth not Isidores authoritie though he were an holy Byshop winne or bring any credite to the same Epistles And why I pray you Because forsooth it is a bastard and counterfeit Preface begotten in the Popes forge of falsifications euen like to Constantines Donation and many other Popish coozening trickes as is already prooued obiection 2 They say secondly that Athanasius and other Bishops of Egypt did send to Pope Marcus for the true Copies of the Nicene Canons as also that the same Pope sent 70. Canons Nicene to the sayd Byshoppes of Egypt But I answere first that though Pope Marcus affirmed them to be onely seauentie yet did Athanasius and the other holy so supposed Byshoppes constantly auouch them to be foure-score Secondly that though the Byshoppes of Rome boast and babble much of their Prerogatiues and extraordinarie Graces yet can small credite be giuen vnto them seeing they haue made away by their owne confessions no lesse then 50. Canons of the holy Nicene Councell Thirdly that the forgerie is discouered both by the writinges of Marcus and of Athanasius for Athanasius and the Byshoppes of Egypt sent not to Pope Marcus for the Copies vntill the Arrians had burnt them at Alexandria Yet so it is that they were burnt in the time of Constantine the Emperour as it doth and may appeare to euery indifferent reader by the complaint of Athanasius when he was driuen from Alexandria into exile And true it is likewise that Pope Marcus was dead in the time of Constantine many yeares before the Copies were burnt at Alexandria And consequently true it is thirdly that both the rescript of Pope Marcus and the Epistle of Athanasius with the other Fathers of Egypt are like to the forged Donation of Constantine viz. false and counterfeit obiection 3 They say thirdly that the Popes Supremacie is prooued by the Appeales of many Fathers viz. of Athanasius of Alexandria Paul of Constantinople Asclepas of Gaza Marcâ—llus of Ancyra Lucina of Adrianople and of many others who all being dryuen out of their Churches by the Arians were restored by Pope Julius to the same But I answere that the Dignitie and Prerogatiue of the Sea of Rome in restoring them was onely of credite and honour not of power and iurisdiction This is alreadie prooued so soundly and plentifully as more can not be wished Peruse the first second and third Aphorismes and marke them well Which being truely performed all that possibly can be said for Appeales to the Church of Rome will be as light as a Feather and passe away as Smoake from the fire The iurisdiction force efficacie and power of hearing restoring and iudging the causes of the Appellantes rested wholly in the Councell then at Rome assembled This both Athanasius and Iulius himselfe doe plainely testifie Athanasius discoursing thereof doth most
Which circumstaunce can by no meanes agree to Cornelius seeing he was not three yeares Byshoppe there Fourthly because he writeth the same to an other expressely of himselfe Thence sayth hee haue Heresies and Schismes sproung and yet do spring because the Byshop which is one and ruleth the Church is despised by the proud presumption of certaine men obiection 10 They say tenthly that S. Ambrose calleth Damasus the Ruler of the Catholike Church But I answere first that those Commentaries are falsely fathered vpon S. Ambrose that holy and famous Byshoppe of Millan The Diuines of Louan haue well obserued and freely testified the same Secondly that these wordes Cuius hodie rector est Damasus can inferre or conclude no more saue this onely that Damasus was not the Ruler but a Ruler of the Church Damasus might rightly be called a Ruler of the Church in that he was Byshoppe of the Church of Rome though not the Ruler of the Vniuersall Church The word Rector may fitly be englished a Ruler but not the Ruler Thirdly that these wordes at this day haue a semblance and relation to the dayes of Timothee viz that as Timothee did gouerne the Church in S. Pauls time so was Damasus in his time Ruler of the same So then this is the true sense and meaning thereof to weete that as Timothee was placed at Ephesus to set that Church in order and to rule it not to rule the whole so was Damasus appoynted to rule the Church of Rome but not all other Churches in the world For as S. Cyprian truely sayth Episcopatus vnus est cuius in solidum a singulis pars tenetur There is one Byshopricke part whereof euery Byshoppe holdeth wholly in solidum This word in solidum must be well marked and faythfully remembred For doubtlesse if there be but one onely Byshopricke whereof euery Byshoppe hath one part wholly to himselfe it followeth by a necessarie an ineuitable illation that there can be but one onely part thereof remaine to the Byshoppe of Rome For he can not possibly haue that whole of which euery other Byshoppe hath a part wholly Let this be well marked and neuer forgotten For if these Aphorismes and the Conclusions aforegoing be seriously pondered throughly vnderstood all that the Iesuite heere sayth or possibly can be said by the Jesuiticall seditious crew will soone appeare very childish and of no force at all Howbeit for the better helpe of the simple Reader I will answere in particular to all such poyntes as shall but seeme to haue any colour of the trueth Proceede therefore sir Fryer and plead couragiously for the Pope B. C. If Bell can prooue that this surreptitious Decree of the Easterne Byshoppes was euer confirmed then were it something which he bringeth But the Byshoppe of Rome his Legates withstood that their indirect proceeding pronouncing it to be contrary to the Decrees of the Nicene Councell And Lucentius in particular spake confidently saying That the Apostolicke Sea ought not to be abased in their presence And Pope Leo himselfe did bitterly inueigh against Anatolius for this his presumption and going against the Nicene Canons T. B. I answere first that the Popes Sozimus Bonifacius and Celestinus falsified and vrged the Canons of the Nicene Councell for the falsely pretended Primacie of the Church and Byshoppe of Rome But the holy learned and famous Byshoppes of the Aphrican Councell whereof S. Austin that rare light of the Christian world was one did roundly controll that their forgerie and naughtie dealing calling it Fumosum typhum seculi the smoakie statelinesse of the world This is already prooued very copiously in all the precedent Aphorismes especially in the third and fourth Secondly that no maruell it is if the Popes Messengers to the vttermost of their power pleaded ridiculously for their owne gaine For so did Demetrius the Siluer-smith for the like end plead for the Temple of the Goddesse Diana Yea so pleaded Pope Boniface the eight about three hundred yeares agoe against Philippe the faire then King of France The Pope challenging Superroyall power would needes excomunicate Philippe the French King but there was neuer excomunication which cost Pope so deare as that did him for his Messengers were committed prisoners his Bulles burnt and Boniface himselfe being taken by Naueret Chauncellour of France presently after dyed for very sorrow Wherein King Philippe did nothing but by the Councell and consent of the whole Clergie of France So Bennet the 13. otherwise called Petrus de Luna interdicted Charles the sixt and his Realme but the King sitting in his Throne of Iustice in the Parliament or high Court of Paris the 21. of May 1408. gaue sentence openly that the Bull should be rent in peeces and that Gonsalue and Conseleux the bearers thereof should be set vpon a Pillorie and publikely notified and traduced in the Pulpit Which Decree was accordingly put in execution in the moneth of August with the greatest scorne that could be deuised the two Messengers hauing this inscription vpon their Miters These men are disloyall to the Church and to the King These wordes are put downe by the French Papistes in their Booke called The Jesuites Catechisme translated into English by the Secular Priestes Thirdly that Pope Leo is a partie and so can not be a competent Witnesse in his owne cause For as one of your owne Popes truely said in euery triall there must be foure distinct persons the accuser the accused the witnesses and the Iudge Fourthly that the holy wise and graue Fathers of that famous Councell which S. Gregorie reuerenced as one of the foure Gospelles laughed the Popes Messengers to scorne and concluded with all their seuerall subscriptions against the Pope yea they protested publikely and zealously that no Byshoppe was compelled to any thing but that they all decreed as they beleeued These are the expresse wordes of the Holy Synode Gloriosissimj Iudices dixerunt Hj quj relecto tomo subscripserunt Asianj et Pontj sanctiss Epispopj dicant si voluntate propria vel imposita sibj aliqua necessitate coactj subscripserunt Let the most holy Byshops of Asia and Pontus which haue subscribed to the Articles openly read declare vnto the Councell whether they subscribed of their owne free accord or by compulsion of Anatolius or any other The holy and most reuerende Fathers answered seuerally protesting before God that they subscribed voluntarily according to their knowledge and as they constantly beleeued no one or other any way constrayning them therevnto It would be a thing tedious to the Reader and laborious to my selfe otherwise I would set downe the seuerall subscriptions of the Byshops For though they be long yet do they conteyne such Christian varietie of wordes as are able to touch the heart of euery honest Reader This may suffice to confound our Iesuite and to cleare Anatolius that blessed Patriarch of the immodest
praecedenteÌ„ SynoduÌ„ Episcopos earuÌ„ haeresum conuocauit sequitur cum autem conuenissent accersito ad se Nectario Imperator cuÌ„ eo de futura Synodo coÌ„municat iubetque vt quaestiones ex quibus natae fuerant haereses in disputationeÌ„ proponat quo vna fieret in ChristuÌ„ credentiuÌ„ Ecclesia et constitueretur dogma consonuÌ„ ad quaÌ„ religio conformaretur The Emperour not long after the precedent Synode calleth the Byshops of those Heresies togeather When they were assembled the Emperour calleth Nectarius the Byshop of Constantinople to him and consulteth with him concerning the future Synode and coÌ„maundeth him to propound in disputation those questions from whence the Heresies did spring to the ende that there might be one Church of the faythfull a consonant rule of fayth which might be as a paterne of religion Sigâ—bertus a famous Popish Monke writeth in this manner Secunda Synodus vniuersalis 150. PatruÌ„ congregatur Constantinopoli iubente Theodosio et annuente Damaso Papa quae MacedoniuÌ„ neganteÌ„ spirituÌ„ sanctuÌ„ DeuÌ„ esse coÌ„demnans consubstantialeÌ„ patri et filio spirituÌ„ sanctuÌ„ esse docuit The second generall Councell of an hundred fiftie Byshops is assembled at Constantinople by the commaundement of Theodosius Damasus the Pope agreeing thereunto in which Synodâ— Macedonius who denied the Holy Ghost to be God was condemned and the consubstantiabilitie of the Holy Ghost with the Father and the Sonne was confirmed in the same Theodoretus is consonant and vttereth many worthy periods The fourth Section of the Councell of Ephesus The third generall Councell being the first Ephesiue of two hundred Byshoppes was proclaymed by the commaundement of the Emperour Theodosius the younger against Nestorius denying the virgin Mary to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and affirming Christ to haue persons twaine proouing that two natures did subsist in one onely person of Christ Jâ—sus in the yeare of our Lord God 433. Euagrius hath these wordes Cum ista Cyrillus venerandae memoriae Alexandrinorum Episcopus literis suis reprehendisset Nestorius vero reprehensioni illius restitisset et neque illius neque Celestini veteris Romae Episcopi monitis acquiauisset sed temulentiam suam aduersus vniuersam Ecclesiam nihil veritus effudisset haud praeter rationem a Theodosio iuniore Orientis Imperatore petijt vt ipsius nutu Synodus colligeretur Imperialibus itaque literis cum ad ipsum Cyrillum tum ad omnium vbique Ecclesiarum Episcopos missis ad sacrum Penticostes diem in quo venit ad nos spiritus S. Conuentus indicitur When Cyrillus the venerable Byshoppe of Alexandria had by his Letters reproued the wicked blasphemie of Nestorius and Nestorius had withstood the same neither yeelding to his admonition nor to Celestines the Byshop of old Rome but still malepertly powred out his drunken conceites against the whole Church then Cyrill not without cause requested the Emperour Theodosius the younger that by his authoritie a Synode might be called by the Letters therefore of the Emperour directed to Cyrill and to all other Byshops euery where the Synode is appoynted vpon the sacred day of Penticost at what time the Holy Ghost came downe vpon vs. Thus writeth this famous Historiographer Out of whose wordes I gather many worthy instructions First that neither Cyâ—illus the Byshoppe of Alexandria nor Celestinus the Byshoppe of Rome could by any meanes reclaime or diswade Nâ—storius from his cursed and blasphemous opinions Secondly that Cyrillus lamenting the harme that thereby did redound to the Church sought to the Emperour for redresse thereof humbly requesting him that a generall Councell might be gathered for the peace of the Church and for the condemnation of the Heresie of Nestorius Thirdly that Cyrillus that holy and learned Byshoppe who was reputed a Saint in his life-time did not make suite to the Byshoppe of Rome for calling of the Councell which doubtlesse he would haue done if the gathering of Councels had belonged vnto him Fourthly that S. Cyrill sought immediatly to the Emperour not once acquainting the Byshop of Rome therewith Fiftly that the Byshoppe of Rome himselfe was commaunded to come to the Synode euen in such sort as other Byshoppes were Which I prooue by a double meane First because the Storie sayth That the Emperour called omnium vbique Ecclesiarum Episcopos the Byshoppes of all Churches euery where Secondly because Nicephorus sayth that Celestinus the Byshoppe of Rome was absent but appoynted Cyrillus in his stead These are the words Celestinus autem Roma Episcopus propter nauigationis pericula Synodo adesse detrectauit ad Cyrillum tamen vt locum suum ibj obtineret scripsit But Celestine the Byshoppe of Rome was absent from the Synode by reason of the danger of Nauigation yet he wrote to Cyrillus that he might supply his place Touching the Popes absence from Councelles the Iesuiticall Cardinall Bellarmine giueth better and sounder reasons though vnawares both against the Pope himselfe which I willingly admit wishing the Reader to obserue and marke them seriously with mee as which are both memorable and of great consequence This Cardinall yeeldeth two reasons why the Pope was neuer present at Councels in the East-churches by himselfe and in his owne person the one forsooth because it was not conuenient that the Head should follow the members the other because the Emperour would euer sit in the highest place Out of whose wordes I must needes note two important poyntes by the way The one that in the auncient Church the highest place in Councels was euer reserued to the Emperour The other that the East-churches did neuer acknowledge the Popes Primacie which he this day arrogantly challengeth ouer all Kingdomes and Regalities To which twaine this pleasant adiunct must of necessitie be annexed viz. that our humble Father the Pope who hypocritically calleth himselfe seruus seruorum Dej would neuer come to Councels in the East partes because forsooth his charitie was so great that he could not endure to see the Emperour sitting in the highest place And it is not amisse for the benefite of the Reader if I heere adioyne the maner how the Emperour Constantine sate in the Councell of Nice Sozomenus that graue Historiographer who liued more then a thousand one hundred seuentie yeares agoe hath these wordes Congregatis itaque in vnum locum per medium sacerdotuÌ„ ad caput conuentus transeundo in throno quodam qui ipsi paratus erat confedit ac Synodus sedere iussa est Erant N. vtrinque ad parietes Palatij multa posita subsellia hic vero thronus maximus erat et reliquas sedes excellebat Therefore when the Byshoppes were come togeather the Emperour passing through the midst of them to the head of the assembly sate downe in a Throne prepared for him and willed the Byshops to sit downe There were many Seates on both sides to the walles of the Pallace but the Emperours
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
single Vow is able to contract Matrimonie albeit he sinne in so contracting but the subiect of a solemne Vow is inabled to matrimoniall contract the transgressions of the Vow single and solemne are of the same nature or kind albeit he that maketh the solemne Vow sinneth more grieuously The reason is because the specificall difference of actes resteth in the obiectes and seeing there is one obiect of both the Vowes to weete to keepe chastitie the actes must be of the same nature or kind howbeit the transgression of the solemne Vow shall be greater by reason of the perfecter state Thus disputeth Fryer Josepth after the opinion of other popish Doctors And doubtlesse his Discourse is euident because euery specificall difference morall aryseth of the obiectes and consequently seeing the obiect of Vow single is one and the same with the Vow solemne the difference betweene them can no way be essentiall neither can the Vow solemne dissolue Matrimonie contracted forasmuch as the Vow single beeing intrinsecally the same can not doe it Marke well the next Proposition The 11. Proposition Matrimonie euen after the solemne Vow of Religion is with our Jesuites and Iesuited Papistes very lawfull and of force so it be done by and with the Popes Dispensation This doctrine is taught by many learned Papistes Antoninus Richardus Hugo Innocentius Conarrunias Nauarius and others The same Doctrine is confirmed euen by the reall and vsuall practise of sundry Popes It may suffice in regard of breuitie to alledge one in the name of all The Popish S. Antoninus sometime the Archbyshop of Florence hath these wordes Papa dispensare potest in statuto Concilij vmuersalis de Voto solennj per prâ—fessionem etiam patet quod licet Papa non possist facere quod professus non fuit professus potest tamen facere quod non sit obligatus religâ—oni et ad votum religionis quia in omni voto intelligitur excepta authoritate Papae Infra et communiter Canonistae tenent quod Papa potest dispensare in voto solenni religionis non quidem tantum vt sit religiosus et non seruet vota sed de religioso potest facere laicum ex magna causa vrgente The Pope can dispense in the Decrees of a Generall Councell It is also cleare that he can dispense in a solemne Vow of profession For albeit the Pope can not make a professed person not to haue been professed yet can hee this doe that the professed person shall neither be bound to his Religion nor to his Vow because we must vnderstand that in euery Vow the Popes authoritie is excepted And the Canonistes doe commonly hold that the Pope can dispense in the solemne Vow of Religion not onely that one be still a Religious person and keepe not his Vow but hee can also make of a Religious person a meere Lay-man vpon an vrgent cause To this Popish canonized Saint and famous Arch-byshoppe let it not grieue our M. Fryer if I adde the worthy testimonie of their famous Popish Canonist and great Diuine Martinus Nauarrus his wordes are these Papa dispensare potest cum Monacho iam professo vt contrabat matrimonium imo de facto multj Papae dispensarunt Loe the Pope when it pleaseth his Holynesse can make of Monkes meere Lay-men he can also make Monkes to continue Monkes still and for all that not to keepe their Vowes Yea how soeuer his Iesuites and Iesuited Popelinges cry out against the Marriage of Priestes yet can hee make the Marriage of Monkes and a fortiorj the Marriage of secular Priestes to be lawfull Marriage euen with his bare word I will say nothing of Couarruvias Richardus Paludanus Scotus Caietanus Josephus Angles and others for of their verdictes the Reader may find great plentie in my Suruay of Poperie See and marke well the fourth Proposition aforegoing Onely heere by the way I would tell our holy Father if it would please him to heare me that seeing he can with his word make the Marriage of Priestes lawfull it were good he should doe it for that which hee may read in the next Proposition The 12. Proposition The forced and coacted Chastitie of Priestes hath been such so intollerable euen by the confession of the best learned Papistes as nothing in the whole world hath brought more shame to Priesthood more harme to Religion more griefe to godly men The great famous Popish Cardinall Panormitanus doth prooue this Proposition so learnedly and with such Christian grauitie as it being well marked is able to confound all Papistes in the world these are his expresse wordes Continentia non est in Clericis secularibus de substantia ordinis nec de iure Diuino quia alias Graeci peccarent nec excusaret eos consuetudo Sequitur et non solum credo potestatem messe Ecclesiae hoc condendi sed credo pro bono et salute esset animarum quod esset salubre statutum vt volentes possint contrahere quia experientia docente contrarius prorsus effectus sequitur ex illa Lege continentiae cum hodie non viuant spiritualiter nec sint mundi sed maculantur illicito coitu cum eorum grauissimo peccato vbi cum propria vxore esset castitas Continencie in secular Priestes is neither of the substaunce of their Orders nor of the Law diuine For otherwise the Greekes should sinne and their Custome could not excuse them And I doe not onely beleeue that the Church can make such a Law but also that such a Law were for the good and for the saluation of soules that such as would might marrie for experience teacheth that a contrary effect followeth of that law of continencie seeing this day they liue not spiritually neither are they cleane but polluted in vnlawfull copulation with their most grieuous sinne though they might liue chastly with their owne Wiues Thus writeth learned Panormitanus the Popes famous Canonist his deare Abbot his reuerend Arch-bishop his honourable Cardinall Let vs now heare what Polydorus Virgilius a zealous learned Papist saith for hee seeing he was an Italian knew best the Italian and Romish fashion These are his expresse wordes I will neither adde to them nor take ought from them but will deale synceerely and truly though our Jesuite be farre from it not onely in this Booke but in whatsoeuer else I shall write hereafter euen vpon the perill of my soule Illud tamen dixerim tantum abfuisse vt ista coacta castitas illam coniugalem vicerit vt etiam nullius delicti crimen maius ordini dedecus plus mali religioni plus doloris omnibus bonis impresserit inusserit attulerit quam Sacerdotum libidinis labes proinde forsitan tam e republica Christiana quam ex ordinis vsu esset vt tandem aliquando ius publici matrimonij Sacerdotibus restitueretur quod illi sine infamia sanctè potius colerent quam se spurcissimè eiuscemodi
at Rome or wheresoeuer else by manifold and most important argumentes authorities and reasons First because Gods holy Prophet affirmeth constantly that our sinnes haue made a separation betweene God and vs. Secondly because th'Apostle teacheth vs that Light hath no fellowshippe with Darknesse Righteousnesse with Iniquitie Christ with Belial Thirdly because his will that committeth Veniall sinne is opposite to Gods will that haâ—eth the same And therefore the Pope and his Jesuites must either denie that Christ hateth Veniall sinnes which they dare not doe or else that Veniall sinnes breake friendship with him For doubtlesse that which a man hateth he neither loueth nor is in friendship with it Yet the Iesuite S. R. whom his brother B. C. calleth a Learned man is bold thus to write Veniall sinne destroyeth not Charitie nor breaketh Friendship with God which is the end for which the Law was made Againe in an other place thus For Veniall sinnes whencesoeuer they come to be such breake not Friendshippe with God Fourthly because the breach of Gods CoÌ„maundements standeth not with his friendship and loue For our Sauiour himselfe sayth plainely That if any loue him hee will keepe his Word Againe he sayth That none can be his Friendes nor abide in his Loue vnlesse they doe keepe his Commaundementes Againe The marke and badge of those that are in Gods Fauour is the keeping of his Preceptes For Hee that hath my Commaundementes saith Christ and keepeth them hee it is that Loueth mee And yet as we haue seene in the Second Conclusion euery Least sinne that can be named is a breach and transgression of Gods Law Fiftly because euery Least sinne that can be named wanteth conformitie to Gods Law and consequently it breaketh Friendship with God For Gods Friendes are they that doe his Will and conforme themselues to his Law Vos amici mei estis si feceritis quae ego praecipio vobis You sayth our Maister Christ are my Friends if you shall doe the thinges which I commaund you Sixtly because euery one is accursed that keepeth not the whole Law And consequently euery Popish Venialist euen hee who committeth the Least sinne of all breaketh Friendshippe and Amitie with God vnlesse perhappes our Iesuites will say which I trow they neither wil nor dare say that one may be of God accursed still abide in Gods friendship loue fauour Seuenthly because euery Least sinne must of necessitie be confessed and consequently euery Least sinne breaketh Friendship with God Hence ariseth an Argument insoluble which striketh all Papistes dead This is it marke it well All Sinnes which must of necessitie be confessed breake the friendshippe and fauour of God but all Popish so supposed Venials must of necessitie be confessed Ergo all Popish Venials breake the friendshippe and fauour of God The consequence is in forme syllogisticall therefore it may not in any case be denied It is in the first of the three Figures and in the Mode which the Logicians call Barbara The Proposition is prooued because no reason can be alleadged or in trueth be pretended why any man should be vrged to acknowledge Gods disfauour who is and continueth in his fauour For which respect as it seemeth Martinus Nauarrus a famous Popish Canonist and a man very skilfull in Theologie telleth vs roundly without blushing that Popish Venials must not be confessed of necessitie these are his expresse wordes Quibus consequens est posse quem si velit confesso vno peccato venials alterum tacere Vpon which it followeth that one may if he list confesse one Veniall sinne and conceale an other In which Assertion hee vnawares destroyeth Popish Auricular Confession For the Scripture commaundeth the Confession of all sinnes alike and consequently if Popish Veniall sinnes be not subiect to their Auricular confession neither are their Mortall sinnes subiect to the same No text of the holy Scripture neither in the Old nor in the New Testament can truely be alleadged which vrgeth the confession of the one more then it doth of the other For which cause Caietanus that famous Popish Cardinal affirmeth Popish Confession to be voluntarie and referred by Christ himselfe to the free election of euery one Josephus Angles and others are of the same opinion with Nauarre The Assumption I prooue out of Christes owne wordes which are these But I say to you that men shall giue an account in the day of iudgement of euery idle word they speake Now euery Child knoweth that to giue an account of our Sinnes is to acknowledge and confesse the same I prooue it out of the Jesuite S. R. his wordes whom the Iesuite B. C. will needes haue a great Learned man This Iesuite fore frighted with the fall he got while he was bickering with the Downe-fall of Poperie answereth in these tearmes I answere quoth hee that wee must giue an account for euery idle word not because they be against Law but because they be beside it And Bell sayth hee will beat his Horse not onely when he turneth backe but also when he starteth out of the way Thus answereth our poore begging Fryer being at his wittes end what to say He confoundeth himselfe and perceiueth it not True it is that Bell will beat his Horse when he starteth out of the way And true it is in like maner that God will beat our Jesuites for their cursed Venials when they in committing them start out of the way of his Commaundementes and he will withall tell them that hee hateth all workers of Iniquitie and so them with their deformed Venials He will also tell them that he doth not acknowledge them for his Friendes seeing they doe not his will nor walke in his wayes Eightly because euery Least sinne of it owne nature auerâ—eth froÌ„ God and can not possibly be referred to him and consequently it neither doth nor can enioy the friendshippe and fauour of God And our Jesuites blaspheame the name of God when they most vnreuerently and very brutishly affirme that God should be vniust and vnwise if he should be offended with them for their so supposed Venials The Iesuite S.R. hath these expresse words He is no wise person who will fall out and be offended for euer with his Friend for euery trifle as the taking of a Straw nor hee is a iust Prince who should inflict death for stealing a Pinne And I beleeue Bell would thinke himselfe vniustly handled if hee were so dealt withall Wherefore if God should doe this wee should neither account him a wise Friend nor a iust Prince Thus doth our Fryer in the name of al the cursed Iesuitical crew take vpoÌ„ him roundly to censure God Almightie To which horrible and blaspheamous Assertion of our presumptuous Jesuite I answere to his euerlasting confusion vnlesse he repentin time in this manner First that Mans doinges can not fitly be compared with
and place be correspondent thereunto I prooue it first because Christ himselfe saith That euery Tree which bringeth not foorth Good fruite shal be cut downe and cast into the fire Secondly because Christ sayth in an other place That whosoeuer loue him will keepe his Commaundementes Thirdly because S. Paul telleth vs in one place That God chose vs in Christ before the world was made that we should be holy in his sight And in an other place That we are Gods workmanship created in Christ Jesu vnto good workes which he hath prepared that we may walke in them The 5. Conclusion Good workes are the effectes of Predestination depending vpon it not it vpon them S. Paul prooueth it in these plaine golden and pithy wordes Whom he hath Predestinate them hath he Called and whom he hath Called them hath he Iustified and whom he hath Iustified those hath he also Glorified By this golden Chaine we may euidently perceiue that Glorification Iustification Vocation and consequently Good workes are the effectes of Predestination especially if we ioyne this with the other Conclusions afore going For if it be true as it is most true else th'Apostle should be a lyer that we were elected to be Holy and to doe Good workes it is also true it can not be denyed that Holy life and Good workes are the effectes of our Election and Predestination in Christ Iesus For this cause sayth that famous Papist Nicholaus de Lyra in this manner Dicendum quod predestinatio diuina est preparatio gratiae in presenti et gloriae in futuro Et ideo cum sit aeterna sicut ab aeterno predestinauit aliquem ad beatitudinem ita praeordinauit modum quo daret sibi illam beatitudinem I answere sayth this great learned Popish Doctor that Gods Predestination is the preparation of Grace in this world and of Glory in the world to come And therefore seeing it is Eternall as he hath predestinated any one from eternitie to endlesse Blisse or Beatitude so hath he also fore-ordayned the meane by which he would bring him to the same For this cause sayth the Popish Angelicall Doctor Aquinas whose doctrine sundry Popes haue confirmed for Authenticall that Predestination includeth Gods will of bestowing both Grace and Glorie And this Doctor so famous and authenticall addeth these wordes Nam predestinatio est causa et eius quod expectatur in futura vita a predestinatis scz gloriae et eius quod percipitur in presenti scz gratiae For Predestination is the cause both of that which is expected in the life to come that is to say of Glorie and also of that which the predestinate receiue in this life that is to say of Grace For this cause saith our Jesuiticall Cardinall Bellarminus that Good workes follow Predestination as effectes follow their causes These are his expresse wordes Itaque sunt opera bona effectus Predestinationis Therefore Good workes are the effect of Predestination Againe in other place the same Jesuite hath these wordes Itaque illa propositio Deus ab aeterno predestinauit hominibus dare regnum per opera bona praeuisa potest et vera esse et falsa Nam si illud per opera praeuisa referatur ad verbum predestinauit falsa erit Significabit enim Deum predestinasse homines quia opera illorum bona praeuiderat si referatur ad verbum dare vera erit Quia significabit executionem futuram esse per opera bona siue quod est idem glorificationem effectum esse iustificationis et operum bonorum sicut ipsa iustificatio effectus est vocationis et vocatio praedestinationis Therefore that proposition God fore-ordayned from eternitie to giue to men the Kingdome of heauen by their fore-seene Workes may both be true and false For if those wordes by their workes fore-seene be referred to the word Predestinauâ—t hee predestinated or fore-ordayned the sense and meaning is false For it will signifie God to haue Predestinated Men because he fore-saw their Good workes but if the same wordes be referred to the worde Dare to giue and bestow the sense and meaning will be true For it will signifie that the execution must be done by Good works or which is all one that Glorification is the effect of Iustification and Good workes euen as Iustification is the effect of Vocation and Vocation the effect of Predestination Againe in an othor place hee hath these wordes Non ideo pendet praedestinatio ab operibus sed opera a praedestinatione Therefore Predestination doth not depend of Workes but Workes depend of Predestination Againe in an other place he sayth thus Alia ratio est pradestinationis alia executionis Constituit N. in praedestinatione regnum caelorum dare certis hominihus quos absque vlla operum praeuisione dilexit tamen simul constituit vt quo ad executionem via perueniendi ad regnum essent bona opera There is one reason of Predestination an other of Execution For in Predestination God decreed to giue the Kingdome of Heauen to certaine men whom he loued without any fore-sight of Workes howbeit he decreed withall that in respect of the execution Good workes should be the way to come vnto the same For this cause doe our Râ—emistes tell vs that our first Iustification is of Gods Grace and not of our deseruinges because none of all our actions that were before our Iustification could merit or iustly procure the Grace of iustification Thus discourse these famous and great learned Popish Writers to whose Doctrine I subscribe with all my heart For as I haue often sayd else where I highly reuerence the Old Romane religion and to the vttermost of my small talent skill I both haue done doe and will defende the same Yea and iustifie the Doctrine of the Church of England to be the Old Romane Catholike and Apostolike religion which S Peter and S. Paul deliuered to the auncient and first Church of Rome Out of the Doctrine heere deliuered by these famous Papistes Lyranus Aquinas and Bellarminus I gather many excellent Notes First that the Grace Fayth and Good workes which we haue in this world and the Glory which we expect in the world to come doe all wholly proceed from Gods Predestination euen without all desertes of Man Secondly that as God prepared the Kingdome of heauen for his Elect euen before they were borne or had done any Good workes so did he also prepare the way and meanes by which he would bring them to the same Thirdly that no Workes done or fore-seene to be done did mooue God to predestinate any man to the ioyes of Heauen Fourthly that Good workes are not the Cause but the Effect of Predestination Fiftly that Good workes are the way and meanes which God ordayned for the execution of Predestination and for the accomplishment of Glorification Sixtly that not onely Predestination but also Iustification proceedes of
S. Peter Redeemed with corruptible thinges as Siluer and Gold but with the precious Blood of Christ as of a Lambe vndefiled and without spot S. Iohn the Baptist speaking of Christ admonisheth vs to behold the Lambe of God that taketh away the sinnes of the world S. Paul proclaymeth that Christ hath Redeemed his Church with his owne Blood not with the Blood of Thomes Becket or of any other The Author of the Epistle to the Hebrewes auoucheth constantly that Christ entred in once vnto the Holy place and obtained eternall Redemption for his Elect. And S. Peter boldly affirmeth to Annas Caiaphas Iohn Alexander and the rest that there is Saluation in no other saue onely in Iesus Christ. Secondly that both Becket and other Popish supposed Saintes are not Mediators of Saluation in some lower and inferiour degree but euen in the highest in the selfe-same with our Lord Iesus Of Thomâ—s Becket besides that which we haue heard of his Blood I find in an other Prayer made to him these expresse wordes Mores actus et vitam corrige et in pacis nos viam dirige Sâ—lue gregis tutor egregie saelua tuae gaudentes gloriae Correct our manners deedes and life guide vs into the way of peace Haile noble Patron of the flocke saue them that reioyce in thine honour Of S. Paul I find this Prayer O beate Paule Apostole te deprecor vt ab Angelo sathanae me eripias et a ventura ira liberes et in caelum introducas O blessed Apostle Paul I pray thee that thou wilt deliuer me from the Angel of Sathan and free me from wrath to come and bring me into Heauen Of S. James this O faelix Apostole magna martyr Iacobe to colentes adiuua peregrinos vndique tuos clemens protege ducens ad caelestia O happy Apostle and mighty Martyr Iames helpe them that worship thee defende curteously thy Pilgrimes on euery side and bring them to Heauenly ioyes To S. Martin they pray thus Caecis das viam mutisque loquelam tu nos adiuua mundans immunda qui fugâ—â— daemonia nos hic libera O Martin thou causest the blind to see and the dumbe to speake helpe vs and cleanse the vncleane thou that castest out Deuils deliuer vs heere The Papistes pray in this maner to the blessed Virgin O Maria gloriosa in delitijs delitiosa praepara nobis gloriaÌ„ O Mary glorious in dainties delitious prepare thou glorie for vs. Againe in an other place thus Maria mater gratiae mater misericordiae tu nos ab hoste protege et hora mortis suscipe O Mary the mother of Grace the mother of Mercie defend thou vs from our ghostly enimie and receiue vs at the houre of death Againe in an other place thus Veni Regina Gentium dele flammas reatuum dele quodcunque deuium da vitam innocentium Come ô Queene of the Gentiles extinguish the firie heate of our sinnes blot out whatsoeuer is amisse and make vs lead an innocent life Againe in their old Latine Primers the people are thus taught to pray In extremiâ— diebus meis esto auxiliatrix et saluatrix et animam meaÌ„ et animam patris mei et matris meae fratrum sororum parentum amicorum benefactorum meorum et omnium fidelium defunctorum ac viuorum ab aeterna mortis caligine libera ipso auxiliante quem portasti Domino nostro Iesu Christo filio tuo O glorious Virgin Mary be thou my helper and sauiour in my last dayes and deliuer from the mist of eternall death both mine owne soule and my Fathers soule and the soules of my Mother Brethren Sisters Parentes Friendes Benefactors and of all the Faythfull liuing and dead by his helpe whom thou didest beare our Lord Iesus Christ thy Sonne Againe after two or three leaues in this maner Vt in tuo sancto tremendo ac terribili iudicio in conspectu vnigeniti filij tui cui pater dedit omne iudicium me liberes et protegas a paenis inferni et participem me facias caelestium gaudioruÌ„ I beseech thee most mercifull and chast Virgin Mary that in thine holy fearefull and terrible iudgement in the sight of thine onely Sonne thou wilt deliuer and defend mee from the paines of Hell and make mee partaker of Heauenly ioyes These Prayers if they be well marked will be found to conteine in them euery iote of Power Right Maiestie Glorie Soueraigntie whatsoeuer either is or ought to be yeelded to our Lord Iesus Christ. Yea these two last praiers make the blessed virgin Mary not only equall with Christ but far aboue him For first the Virgin Mary is desired to defend vs from the tortures and paines of Hell Secondly to bring vs to the ioyes of Heauen Thirdly the last Iudgement is called her Iudgement Fourthly she is called Our sauiour Fiftly she is requested to saue father mother brother sister friendes benefactors the quicke and the dead and all this must be done euen by the helpe of Christ her Sonne Now by the former Prayers she is made equall with Iesus Christ and by the last farre aboue him For she is the Sauiour and he the Intercessour which I gather out of these wordes ipso auxiliante c. by the helpe of our Lord Iesus Christ. For by these words and the rest afore-going the Virgin Mary doth saue vs and Christ is but the instrument that helpeth her in the worke of our Saluation Which how intollerable Blasphemie it is let the indifferent and iudicious Reader iudge dixi B. C. The Merites of Christ and his Saintes may auaile vs for the obtaining of spirituall giftes the merites of Christ as the principall cause the Merites of Saintes as dependent of his and the secondarie cause T. B. I answere first that Popish Saintes by Popish doctrine are not the Secondarie but euen the Chiefe and Primarie causes of mans Saluation This is already prooued Secondly that it is intollerable Blasphemie against the Sonne of God to make his Creatures either principall or secondarie causes of mans Saluation This is likewise already prooued Yea the blessed Virgin Mary the most holy pure Creature that euer was on Earth or is in Heauen was so farre from challenging to her selfe to be either the Principall or Secondary cause of Saluation that she in the spirit of true humilitie proclaymed the flat contrarie to the world in these most Christian golden wordes My Soule doth magnifie the Lord and my Spirit reioyceth in God my Sauiour B. C. That God and his Creatures may in this maner without any iniurie to his name be ioyned togeather we learne out of sacred Scripture Iacob desired God his Angel to blesse his Children The Israelites cryed out The Sword of our Lord and Gideon In Exodus wee read thus They beleeued our Lord and Moses his seruant Saint Paul testified before Christ Iesus and the elect Angels
excessiue eating Vse dayly abstinence refection without gluttonie or excesse for it profiteth thee nothing to haue an emptie Belly two or three dayes and after to fill the Panch while it may hold Thus the Popes owne Decrees teach vs and it is to be well obserued For doubtlesse Popish Fastes haue this effect most vsually the richer sort stuffe their bellies and fill their panches at Dinner with great varietie of Wines and delicate Meates Yea at all times they drinke Wines and eate Peares Apples Rasinges Figges and Simnels especially in their Collations at night they eate conserues of Quinces Cheries Wardens and like dainties which farre exceed the best Dinners of the poorer sort And this I protest for edification-sake I heere disclose the same that my selfe heard one Recusant once say at dinner that he did eate the more at dinner on the Fasting day that so he might put away Hunger vntill the next day What I haue heard touching this Subiect if I should here relate the same would seeme strange to many a one I speake of thinges heard by report the other I speake of my owne hearing this by the report of others An other Decree of Pope Pius doth yeeld vs this instructioÌ„ These are the words Nihil enim prodest homini ieiunare et orare et alia religionis bona agere nisi mens ab iniquitate et ab obtrectationibus lingua cohibeatur To Fast and Pray doth not profit a man any thing neither yet to do other dueties of Religion vnlesse he keepe his Minde from iniquitie his Tongue froÌ„ euill speaking An other Decree borrowed from S. Austen hath these wordes Ieiunium autem magnum et generale est abstinere ab iniquitatibus et ab illicitis voluptatibus seculi quod est perfectum ieiunium in hoc seculo Quasi QuadragesimaÌ„ S. abstinentiae celebramus cum bene viuimus cum ab iniquitatibus et ab illicitis voluptatibus abstinemus The great and generall Fast is to absteine from iniquitie and vnlawfull pleasures of this world and this is the perfect Fast in this world We keepe as it were a Quadragesima or Lent of abstinence while we liue well and Christianly while we absteine from sinne and from vnlawfull pleasures But an other Decree borrowed of S. Hierome shall be the vpshot of this game These are the very wordes Audiant itaque qui ea quae necessaria sunt corpori subtrahunt illud quod per Prophetam Dominus loquitur Ego Dominus odio habens rapinam holocanstorum De rapina vero holocanstum offert qui temporalium bonorum siue ciborum nimia egestate vel manducandi vel somni penuria corpus suum immoderatè affligit Let them therefore who withhold or take from the body thinges necessarie for it heare what our Lord sayth by his Prophet I the Lord hate the robbery of burnt Offeringes Now he offereth burnt Offeringes of Rapine or Roberie who afflicteth his body immoderately either with too much want of temporall good thinges or of Meates or with the penurie of eating or of sleepe This Discourse if my Tryall be annexed to it is enough concerning this Subiect To S. Hierome this in briefe is my answere viz. That the Epistle fathered on him is a counterfeit as which agreeth not with the true Hieroms Doctrine else where as is alreadie prooued To which I adde which I haue also prooued that if wee suppose and admit it to be a Tradition of the Apostles yet doth mine assertion stand firme and vntouched viz. That notwithstanding that Tradition yet was Lent-fast free voluntarie and not commaunded by any Law To S. Austen I answere first that the Sermon which our Jesuite citeth is not his but a counterfeit My reason is at hand because S. Austen as is already prooued affirmeth constantly that the Apostles made no Law for Fasting This is already prooued Secondly that in things indifferent such as I haue prooued Lent to be euery one is bound to obey the Law of that Church in which he lyueth And so he that keepeth not Lent-fast may truely be said to sinne Thirdly that S. Epiphanius and S. Austen did not reprooue Aerius for denying popish Lent-fast which was at that time vnhatched but for denying the Churches Authoritie in appoynting Fasting-dayes vpon what cause soeuer Which my selfe doe constantly auouch to be an Heresie indeede For when the Church vpon speciall causes appoynteth Fasting dayes then all that for infirmitie may ought to absteine and not to contemne those Fastes as Aerius taught Howbeit I say withall that the auncient Church condemned it for an Heresie in Montanus to appoynt ordinary times of necessarie and Religious Fasting when there was no speciall cause so to doe B. C. That which he bringeth concerning S. Spiridion his eating of Flesh in Lent all circumstaunces considered hurteth not vs but maketh against himselfe For we deny not but that in some cases Flesh may be eaten without violation of that Fast. T. B. I answere First that S. Spiridions eating of Flesh all circumstances duely considered maketh so much against Popish Lent fast as will make both the Jesuites and the Popes heart to pant when they shall seriously ponder my answere in that behalfe Secondly that our Jesuite truly graunteth that Papists may in some cases eate Flesh in theâ—â— holy Lent For first seeing the Pope can bring all Soules out of Popish Purgatory Secondly seeing he can dissolue that Matrimony which Christ himselfe instituted Thirdly seeing he can make a vowed Popish Monke to become a truly marryed man Fourthly seeing he can authorize the Brother to marrie his owne full and naturall Sister Fiftly seeing his owne will is a reason sufficient to doe whatsoeuer pleaseth him Sixly seeing he may iudge all but none iudge him Seuenthly seeing he can doe as much as Christ him selfe could doe Eightly Seeing none may say vnto him Why doest thou so Although he carry many thousandes of Soules to Hell Nynthly seeing he hath the right of both Swords the Spirituall and the Temporall and by vertue thereof deposeth Kings and translateth their Kingdomes Tenthly seeing he can by the fulnes of his power change the nature of things and of nothing make somthing all which is already prooued it followeth by an ineuitable illation that by the Popes Dispensation all Papistes may eate Flesh aswell in the time of Lent as at other times of the yeare This is confirmed by the vsuall practise aswell of Seminarie Priestes as of Iesuites Iesuited Papistes within this Land For a famous Jesuite made offer to a Gentleman that if he would become a Papist he should haue Licence to eate Flesh in Lent among Lollards that by so doing he might liue without suspition and escape daunger of the Lawes Now let vs duely examine the circumstaunces of S. Spiridions eating of Flesh in Lent Cassiodorus in the Tripartite Historie hath these expresse wordes Instante iam Quadragesima quidam
and his successors and that their fayth can not fayle B. C. What followeth What but that Bell hath abused the good Reader with an vntrueth T. B. I answere that this in very deed followeth and that of meere necessitie that our Iesuiticall Fryer is a most impudent and shamelesse lyer Which thing I haue prooued againe againe in euery Chapter most euidently I therfore must perforce conclude that seeing the late Byshops of Rome Pius Paulus Iulius haue taken in hand roundly and most Antichristianly as I haue prooued in my Tryal and more at large in the Downe-fall of Poperie to dissolue that Matrimonie which the true Church of God durst neuer dissolue for the space of more then fifteene hundred yeares after Christ the same can be nothing else but a very filthy rotten Ragge of the New Religion The 30. Chapter of the Popes pretended Superioritie ouer and aboue a generall Councell B. C. BELL beginning with false asseueration to tell vs of the late opinion of the Popes Superioritie ouer a Generall Councell interlaceth also an other shamelesse vntrueth against the Rhemists T. B. I answere that our Fryer still continueth one and the selfe-same man that is to say an impudent and shamelesse lyar as he first began For within foure lines hee compriseth and coucheth two most notorious Lyes The former is touching the late Opinion of the Popes Superioritie ouer a generall Councell I affirme that the Popish opinion which holdeth the Pope to be aboue a generall Councell is a late vpstart Fayth and Doctrine neuer knowne to the Church of God for the space of more then fourteene hundred yeares after Christ. This our Fryer calleth a False asseueration but prooueth it not at all Hee is an honest man we may if we will beleeue his bare word But I by the power of God shall prooue the contrary to be the trueth and that out of hand The latter is concerning the Rhemistes which shall be cleared God willing by and by B. C. The Rhemists quoth hee that Iesuited brood tell vs plainely if we will beleeue them that there is no necessitie of a Generall or Prouinciall Councell saue onely for the better contentation of the people Thus hee chargeth them yet not noting any particular place But I will helpe him it is in their Annotations vpon the Actes T. B. I answere that our Fryer sheweth himselfe what he is aswell heere as else where He is so full of Charitie forsooth that he will needes helpe me for his owne intended gaine though he be thereby prooued a lying swaine for in the next Page following hee hath these expresse wordes This vntrueth the Minister had set abroach once afore in his Downe-fall and quoteth the place very orderly in this manner Rhemes test in Act. 15. Loe in one page our Fryer chargeth me of purpose to haue omitted the quotation so to delude and deceiue the Reader In an other page he graunteth freely that I haue set it downe very orderly Behold this changeable Camelion who both accuseth and acquitteth me with one breath Concerning the slaundering of the Rhemists wherewith he chargeth me this is mine answere that in very deede the slaunder fitly agreeth to himselfe which he would vntruely impose vpon mee I prooue it First Because the Rhemists plainely declare their meaning in this briefe Marginall note Though the Sea Apostolique it selfe say the Rhemists haue the same assistance yet Councels be also necessarie for many causes In which wordes they graunt as much in effect as I either affirme or require Secondly because the causes which our Rhemists name may easily be reduced to that one of mine viz. For the better contentation of the people for the controuersie is this Whether the Popes Iudgement be infallible in it selfe without a Generall Councell or no. The Rhemists answere that Papistes hold the affirmatiue viz. That the Popes Iudgement is infallible and is assisted of God euen as a generall Councell Thirdly that if the Papistes will stand to the deny all of mine Assertion then must they perforce grant against them-selues which willingly they would not that they haue no infallible trueth in their Church saue onely the Determination of a generall Councell I heare it I receiue it I like it I willingly subscribe vnto it Let the Papistes therefore defend this Doctrine That the Popes Iudgement without a generall Councell is fallible that he may Iudicially erre and be deceiued and let a lawfull generall Councell determine all controuersies and no doubt all Christians in the world will yeeld thereunto But Sir Fryer Hic labor hoc opus est For in these last and worst dayes of ours the Pope will stay at home and whatsoeuer or howsoeuer the Councelles shal decree yet must nothing be of force saue that onely which the Pope liketh to confirme as he sitteth in his Chaire at Rome This I haue prooued at large in the Downe-fall of Poperie and in my Christian Dialogue by euident demonstrations B. C. What can Bell fetch from Alphonsus to iustifie his iniurious charge of the Rhemists Alphonsus was one of those Diuines that thinke the infallibilitie of Iudgement to be in a Councell and not in the Pope alone And hee bringeth this reason Because otherwise it were in vaine with so great labour to assemble so many Byshops togeather This informeth vs very well what Alphonsus his opinion was But where doth hee say that the Rhemistes teach that the Determination of a generall Councell is needlesse saue onely for the better contentation of the people because the Popes Iudgement is infallible Hee speaketh not one word of the Rhemists and no marueile for he could not being dead many a faire day before the Rhemes Testament was published T. B. I answere that I can fetch so much from the famous and learned Papist Alphonsus as is able to kill the Pope with all his Jesuites and Iesuited Popelinges For first the Pope with his Jesuites and Jesuited Popelinges auouch most impudently and would enforce all Christians to beleeue the same that Christ built his Church vpon S. Peter and vpon his successors the Byshops of Rome and also that Christ prayed for Peter and for the Byshops of Rome that their Fayth should neuer fayle But Alphonsus condemneth that opinion for Hereticall while hee affirmeth the infallibilitie of Fayth to rest in a generall Councell not in the Pope alone Secondly Alphonsus confuteth the Rhemists most soundly euidently while he affirmeth generall Councels to be gathered in vaine if the Popes Determination and iudgement were infallible Thirdly Alphoâ—sus is one of those Learned popish Writers euen by the Iesuites free confession in this place which I wish the Reader neuer to forget who defende the trueth with vs against the Pope his Iesuites and all his Iesuiteâ— Popelinges For I doe not hold or defend any Article or poynt of Doctrine as I haue often sayd and heere our Fryer vnawares graunteth the same such is the
Brytaines did at their conuersion receiue the Latine Seruice first by Eleutherius about the yeare 179. after Christ and againe by Gregorie about the 596. yeare yet can no more be truely inferred therevpon if we graunt the Latine tongue to haue been then decayed in Brytaine same onely that the Romanes deliuered their Church-seruice in the Latine tongue which then was their vulgar Language being altogeather ignoraunt of the Brytaine tongue and that the Brytaine for the loue they bore to the publique Prayers and Church-seruice which they receiued at their conuersion to the Christian faith did euer after vse and retaine the same in the Latine tongue in which they first receiued it Fourthly that seeing by Christes commandement deliuered by his Apostle All thinges in the Church ought to be done to edification it followeth of necessitie that the Latine vsage of the Brytaines in diuine Seruice was a Ragge of a New religion as which was about 179. yeares younger then the old and repugnant to Apostolicall doctrine For S. Paul spendeth no lesse then one whole Chapter that only to prooue that euery Nation ought to haue their Church-seruice in their vulgar knowne tongue If the Trumpet sayth he giue an vncertaine sound who shall prepare him selfe to the Warre So likewise you except ye vtter by the tongue manifest speech how shall it be knowne what is spâ—ken for ye shall speake in the ayre Againe thus If I know not the meaning of the voyce I shall be to him that speaketh an Aliant and he that speaketh shall be an Aliant to mee Againe thus Wherefore let him that speaketh with the tongue pray that he may interpret For if I pray with the tongue my spirit prayeth but my vnderstanding is without fruite Where I wish the Reader to obserue with me that the Spirit in this place is taken for the spirituall gift of Tongues as S. Chrysostome vpon this place doth witnesse S. â—heophilact is consonant to S. Chrysostome He calleth the Gift the Spirit sayth Theodorus My Spirit prayeth that is my spirituall Gift to speake with Tongues sayth Phoâ—us Againe thus If thou blesse with the Spirit how shall he that occupieth the roome of the vnlearned say Amen at the giuing of thankes seeing he vnderstandeth not what thou sayeth Againe thus I had rather speake fiue wordes with my vnderstanding in the Church that J may instruct others then ten thousand wordes in an vnknowen tongue Againe thus Let all things be done to edification Fourthly that our Jesuite gableth as a lying pratler while he impudently auoucheth that by Bels allowance the Latine vse in Church-seruice where the people vnderstand it not is found Catholique and Apostolicall For Bell hath plainely prooued it to be vnsound Prophane and Diabolicall as also that the vse of publique Seruice in the vulgar Tongue came neither from Wittenberge nor Geneua But from the Primitiue Apostolicall and succeding Churches for many hundred yeares togeather Whosoeuer shall with a single eye and sound iudgement peruse the Sixteene chapter afore-going and ioyne my Suruey with it can not but cleerely behold as in a Glasse of Christall the trueth to be as I haue written Lyranus a famous and great learned Papist in his learned Commentaries vpon S. Pauls Epistles doth so plainely so constantly affirme that in the Primatiue Church the publique Prayers and all other thinges were in the vulgar Tongue as none that shall read him seriously can possibly stand in doubt thereof Yea S. Basil auoucheth expressely that the Egyptians the Lybians the Thebanes the Palestines the Arabians the Phaenicians the Syrians and generally all Christian Nations of what Language soeuer they were had their common Prayers and Seruice in their vulgar Tongue But our Rhemishes obiect S. Pauls words against S. Paul in this manner Also when a man prayeth in a strange Tongue which himselfe vnderstandeth not it is not so fruitfull for instruction to him as it be knâ—w particularly what he prayed Neuerthelesse the Apostle forbiddeth not such praying neither confessing that his spirit heart and affection prayeth well towardes God though his minde and vnderstanding be not profited to instruction as otherwise it might haue been if he vnderstood the wordes Neither yet doth he appoynt such a one to get his strange Prayers translated into his vulgar Tongue to obtaine thereby the aforesaid instruction To this I answere first that I haue alreadie prooued out of S. Chrysostome and other Fathers Theodoretus Theophilactus and Photius that S. Paul doth not vnderstand by the word Spirit the Heart and Affection but the Spirituall gift to speake with Tongues Secondly that it is cleare by many textes of the Apostle that the word Spirit doth so signifie as I haue sayd Thirdly that if we should graunt the Spirit to signifie Heart and Affection as the Rhemistes absurdly expound it yet could not that serue their turne because S. Paul willeth to pray not onely with Spirit but also with minde and vnderstanding As also for that S. Paul in an other text commaundeth expressely That all thinges â—e done in the Church to edifying Which is no other Doctrine indeed then Christ himselfe teacheth in his holy Ghospell This people saith he draweth neere vnto me with their mouth and honoureth me with the lippes but their heart is farre from me Fourthly that the Apostle commaundeth him that hath the gift of Tongues to pray that he may interpret his strange tongue himselfe or that some other should interpret it or else to keepe silence in the Church For this cause doth S. Chrysostome constantly affirme that Prayers not vnderstood of him that vttereth them are altogeather vnprofitable Thou seest sayth he how by litle and litle he is come to this poynt that he declareth him to be vnprofitable not onely to others but also to him selfe seeing the minde of such a man is voyde of fruite For if a man speake onely in the Persians Language or in any other strange Tongue and doe not vnderstand those things which he speaketh he shall be to himselfe as he that vnderstandeth not the meaning of the voyce This and much more to the like effect sayth S. Chrysostome of those that had the gifts of Tongues and vnderstood not what they spake What thinke you sir Fryer would he haue sayd if he had heard the vnlearned Papistes babling on their Beades and Primers what they did not vnderstand Nay if he had heard that which now adayes is very frequent among the vnlearned Papistes both men and women how they choppe and change clippe and mangle the wordes so as they either haue a contrarie or ridiculous sense or else plaine none at all but stand as Cyphers and Voces non significatiuae For this is a truth so well knowne as it can not without blushing be denied that many popish Priestes haue been so ignoraunt that they neither vnderstood their Portesses
Hood Litle Iohn In his Detection published Anno. 1602. This is a great wonderment of the world let it be remembred Lib. 2. cap. 17. The Franke Discourse pag. 98. A.D. 1602. Marke how the Iesuites confute themselues Forerunner page 15. cap. 3. Iudic. 15. v. 4. A Iesuites Miracle See my Anatomie Loe a great number euen of the best haue consulted to answere my Bookes See my Counterblast for Garnetes Letter Loe the Iesuites write many Bookes against Bell which they dare not publish In Breuiar Rom. hebd 4. quadr in sabb Nadis pedibus adoratur crux Durand in rationale diuiâ— offic libr. 6. cap. 77. In the Preface to the Reader pag. 7. Biel in Can. miss lect 49. in fine Gabriel Biel in can miss â—ect 49. prope finem Suruey part 2. lib. r. 1. cap. 6. concl 2. Gregor Sereno episcopo lib. 7. ep 109. cap. 109. 2. Reg. 18. v. 4. Epiphan ep ad lo. Hierosol in fine In villa Anablatha Epiphan haeres 79. pag. 313. The Iesuite knoweth not in the world how or what to write See the .14 Chapter aforegoing A.D. 414. Theodor. de Graecar affect curat lib. 5. pag. 521. to .2 Amb. lib. 3. hexam cap. 5. tom 4. Iustin. apol 2. prope â—â—nom Apud Euseb. libr. 2. hist. cap. 17. Chrysost. in 2. Cor. hom 18. in morab. What can be more plainely told What more euident to the reader nothing in the whole world Cyprian in orat dom pag. 316. Vide Origen cont Celsu lib. 8.9.13 Sozom. hist. trip lib. 4. cap. 35. A.D. 424. Hier. in prefat lib. 2. in ep ad Galat. Lyer in 1. cor cap. 14. Basil. ep ad cler Neocaesar epist. 6 a. See my answere to this in the last Chapter of this Booke Psal. 115.1 1. Cor. 1.27 Mat. 21.16 Mat. 4.18 Mat. 9.9 Act. 8.3 act 9.1 1. tim 1 v. 13. Rom. 11.33 1. Sam. 17. v. 4.10 Note well the word as Mat. 26. v 27. Marke well the word as Ioh. 21. v. 15. Cap. 13. of priuate Masse Out vpon rotten Popery Ephes. 6. v. 16. Marke well the Tryall of the new Religion for this present case Epist. ad Marcellam Primo principaliter Argmentum ad hominem Supra cap. 12. 1. Cor. 11. v. 23. The Iesuite woundeth himselfe with his owne weapon Antoninus de potest Papae part 4. tit 22. cap. 3. part 1. Victor relect 4. de poâ—est papae propos 1. Pag. 126. Aquin. in lib. 3. sentent dist 37. art 4. The answere to the Iesuites consequent Euseb. hist. lib. 5. cap. 26. Nicephor ecclesi hist. lib. 12. cap. 34. They fast fifteene dayes by interuall Trip. hist. lib. 9. cap. 38. Sozom. lib. 7. cap. 19. Pope Gregory corrected the popish Lent-fast De Consecra dist 5. cap. quadragesima 36. dayes in Lent besides the Sundayes Socrates hist. lib. 5. cap. 22. Epiphan haeres 80. libr. 3. in fine Socrat. hist. lib. 5. cap. 22. A.D. 427. That is vsque ad nonam Hist. trip lib. 9. cap. 38. Niceph. lib. 12. cap. 34. A.D. 373. EpiphaÌ„ haeres 80. lib. 3. in fine This reason can neuer be truely answered Hist. tripart libr. 9. cap. 38. Nicephor lib. 12 cap. 34. The ninth houre with vs is three a clocke in the after noone Socrates hist. libr. 5. cap. 22. S. Austen turneth Popish Lent vpside downe August ad Catulanum epist. 86. The Apostles made no Law for fasting Lent Euseb. hist. lib. 5. cap. 18. ex Apollonio Secundo principaliter Gratian. dist 16. cap. Apostolorum Apostolor Con. 8. const Apostol lib. 5. cap. 16. eâ— cap. 21. lib. 7. cap. 24. Clemens lib. 7. c. 24. const Apost Tertiò principaliter 1. Tim. 4. v. 3. Dur. in rat dium offic lib. 6. cap. 7. prope finem 1. Cor. 15. v. 39. Loe Fish is Flesh. Constit. Apost lib. 5. cap. 13. in fine Durandus lib. 6. cap. 7. in initio et nota cap. 6. Dur. lib. 6. cap. 7.9.10 O wonderfull compassion O wily Popish faction See Anatomy Booke 3. Advise 9. 3500. Pounds 1000. Pounds 1000. Pounds Act. 19. v. 24. Quarto Principaliter Rom. 10.3 Mat. 15.9 Rom. 14. v. 23. Hebr. 11.6 Tit. 1. v. 15. Rom. 14. v. 5.14.17.20 1. Cor. 8. v. 8. Gal. 1. v. 10. Mar. 7. v. 15. Deut. 12.8 1. Cor. 10.31 Rom. 14.23 Hebr. 11.6 Gal. 2. v. 4 5. Cor. 7.23 Act. 16.3 Gal. 2. v. 3.4.5 A generall rule against the Papists Quintò Principaliter Durand lib. 6. cap. 10. §. 3. Durand lib. 6. cap. 30. §. 1. Esa. 58.5 Beleth in ration diu offic cap. 8. Tit. 2.12 Pietas est cultus Deo exhibitus De consecrat dist 5. cap. non dico De consecrat dist 5. cap. nihil De consecrat dist 5. cap. ieiunium De consecrat dist â— cap. non mediocriter Esa. 61.8 Aug. ad Casulan epist. 86. The Church may appoynt Fastes for speciall causes which Aerius denyed The Church may appoynt Fasting dayes Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 8. Plenitidine potestatis Super cap. 2. peâ— omnes conclusiones See my Anatomie in the preamble Hist Tripart libr. 1. cap. 10. Vide Eseb. hist. libr. 5. cap. 24. Marke this Story well neuer forget the same for it proueth Lent fast to haue bin free and voluntary in the auncient Church Nicephor lib. 8. cap. 42. Popish Lent-fast is both superstitious ridiculous Certis quibusdam diebus Note this poynt well for it is emphaticall Cum suis. S. Spiridion destroyeth popish Lent A cibo omni abstinens Vsque ad horam nonaÌ„ that is vntill three a clocke in the after noone S. Spiridion was the Byshoppe of Cyprus Ios. Angl. in 4. S. part 1. pag. 379. The Church of Rome hath indeed deceiued many a man Ios. Angl. vbi supra pag. 382. Marke that popish Lent-fast 〈◊〉 but an Apish imitation of Christes fast One may keepe the Popish Lent and be drunke euery day Forget not this poynt Ios. Angl. vbi supra pag. 394. The Pope is equall to the Apostles The Iesuite fleeth from the matter Couarru to 1. cap. 20. par 11. in med col 1. Marke this poynt well For the marriage of Priestes and Monkes see my Suruey Anton. par 1. tit 10. cap. 3. Sylu. de indulg S. R. pag. 417. See marke the eight Chapter Aquinas in supplem quaest 25. art 1. See the ChristiaÌ„ Dialogue pag. 17.19 Ioh. 14.6 Ioh. 17.17 See and note well the Rhemists vpon the New Testament Mat. 16.17 Luk. 22.31 A.D. 1540. Note well the next Chapter touching the infallibilitie of the Popes fayth A.D. 1415· Rhem. test in Act. 15. v. 28. in marg But if this be done then must Poperie be ouerthrowen See and note well the Rhem. annot vpon Mat. 16.17 and Luke 22. v. 31. Loe not the iudgement of the Pope but of a generall Councell is infallible So say the Rhemistes note the places Math. 16.17 Luk. 22.31 The learned Papistes hold all poyntes of doctrine which I defende which is and wil be my comfort to the worldes end A formall and materiall confutation See the