deteyned from them For while they gaue away their owne they vnawares and fondly deemed that they onely restored that which was not their owne in deed Instruction 8. The word Pope was not the proper and peculiar name to the Byshop of Rome for the space of 528. yeares after Christ. The Church of Rome was made the Head of all other Churches and the Byshops there the heads of all other Byshops by the imperiall constitution of Phocas 607. yeares after Christ. That the Pope could not erre iudicially was not authenticall in the Romish Church for 1500. yeares after Christ. That the Pope could vnmarrie persons lawfully married by Christes institution was neuer heard of in the Christian world vntill the yeare 1550. after Christ at which time Pope Iulius presumed to dissolue lawfull Matrimonie by his vnlawfull Dispensation It was neuer thought lawfull for the naturall Brother to marry his naturall Sister vntill the time of Pope Martin who by the instigation of the Diuell set the same abroach in the yeare 1418. after Christ. Popish Veniall sinnes were first hatched by Pope Pius 1566. yeares after Christ. That the Blood of popish Saints could worke mans redemptiō was neuer heard of for the space of 1161. yeares after Christ. The like may be sayd of many other Popish Articles for which I referre the Reader to my Tryall of the New Religion I deeme it enough for the present to insinuate to the Christian Reader that our Church hath onely abolished Superstition Errours and Heresies by litle and litle crept into the Church and doth still keepe all and euery iot of the Old Romane Fayth and Religion The Capucheenes at Rome did the like when they euen with the Popes good liking reformed the dissolute Franciscans Yea Pope Pius himselfe of late dayes did the like while he reformed the popish deformed missals and breuiaries in his late Councell gathered at Trent If hee that now is Byshop of Rome would reforme all the rest by abolishing all Nouelties by litle and litle brought into the Church as we haue done he should finde the remnant to be the Old Romane religion in verie deed Marke well the whole Discourse following where all this is soundly prooued as more cannot be wished The Contentes of the Chapters Chapter 1. Proouing THat the name and worde Pope was in the primatiue Church common to all Byshops aswell of Rome as else where That the Byshop of Rome neither is nor ought to be nor euer was called The vniuersall Byshop of the whole Church That the name Pope was not peculiar to the Bishops of Rome for more then 528. yeares after Christ. That the Iesuite volens nolens is enforced to graunt the same Chapter 2. Proouing That the Pope may not be controulled though he carry with him thousands vpon thousands into Hell That it is Sacriledge to dispute of the Popes power That the Pope with his Pardons can deliuer all soules out of Purgatory-fire That the Pope can dissolue that Matrimonie which is firme and stable by Christes institution That the Pope can dispense with the Brother to marrie his owne naturall Sister That the Pope hath as great power as Christ himselfe had on earth That the Pope may doe whatsoeuer pleaseth him That the Pope can make of nothing something That the counterfeit Donation of Constantine was the originall of all Popish superroyall power That whatsoeuer the Emperours of latter time gaue to the Church of Rome they were induced to do the same by the coozening trickes of the Byshops of Rome That the Popes Sozimus Bonefacius and Celestine falsified the Canons of the Nicene Councell so to aduance them-selues aboue all other Byshops That no Byshops nor Priestes ought to appeale to the Church of Rome That the Councell of Nice gaue the primacie of honour to the Church of Rome because it was the Seat of the Emperour and Caput Mundi That all Christians euen the Byshops of Rome are subiect to the Canons of the Nicene Councell That the Nicene Synode did confine and knit the iurisdiction of the Byshop of Rome Chapter 3. Proouing That Marriage of Priestes was euer lawfull during the time of the old Testament That the Marriage of Priestes is prohibited onely by the law of Man and not by any positiue constitution either of Christ or his Apostles That it was euer lawfull for the Byshops and Priestes of the east-East-church to marry and to beget children in time of their Priesthood That the Marriage of Priestes was euer lawfull also in the West-church vntill the time of Pope Siricius and in Germanie for the space of 1074. yeares after Christ. That all secular Priestes may Marry notwithstanding the Popish solemne Vow annexed That by Popish fayth and doctrine Marriage is of force after the single Vow of chastitie That the Vow single is of one and the same nature with the Vow solemne That the Marriage of Priestes is lawfull after the solemne Vow so it be done by the Popes Dispensation That the forced and coacted Chastitie of Priestes hath been so intollerable as nothing hath brought more shame to Priesthood more shame to Religion more griefe to godly men Chapter 4. Proouing That popish Pardons are neither found in the holy Scripture nor in the auncient Fathers That the popish Maister of sentences could finde no mention of them in the writinges of the holy Fathers That Byshoppe Fisher graunted the young age of late popish Pardons That the best learned Papistes are not able to defend the same Chapter 5. Proouing That the Greeke Church neuer beleeued Purgatorie That the Church of Rome beleeued it not for the space of 250. yeares That the Church of Rome beleeued it not all at once but by litle and litle That the inuention of Purgatorie was the birth of popish Pardons That the primatiue Church was neuer acquainted with the Popes Pardons nor yet with popish Purgatorie Chapter 6. Proouing That popish Auricular confession cannot be prooued out of the Old Testament That the New Testament doth not impose an heauier yoake vpon vs then did the Old That popish Auricular confession is not necessarie for mans saluation That it is neither commaunded by Christ nor yet by his Apostles That it is established by the meere law of man grounded only vpon a falsely imagined Apostolicall vnwritten tradition That it was not an Article of popish Fayth for the space of 1215. yeares after Christ. Chapter 7. Proouing That euery Sinne is Mortall of it owne nature That fiue famous popish Writers Roffensis Almaynus Bains Durandus Gersonus doe all confesse the same That the Jesuite S. R. graunteth freely that the Church of Rome had not defined some Sinnes to be Veniall vntill the dayes of Pius the fift which was not fiftie yeares agoe Chapter 8. Proouing That the Pope may erre both in Fayth and Doctrine iudicially That many Popes haue erred De facto That great learned Papistes did constantly confesse so
much Chapter 9. Proouing That true Merite and condigne Merite is all one That the regenerate doe Good works and receiue reward aboue their desertes That Good workes doe follow Iustification but goe not before the same That the best Workes of the regenerate are stayned with sinne and in rigour of Iustice deserue eternall death That Good workes are so necessarie to attaine eternall life as the way and meanes by which God hath decreed to bring his chosen to it but not as the cause thereof as without them it can not be had That Good workes are the effectes of Predestination depending vpon it not it vpon them That Good workes in a godly sense may be called Meritorious that is they so please God that of mercie he rewardeth them That without the mercie and promise of God they doe not merite Heauen That Charitie is not the forme of Fayth That Fayth as a worker doth not iustifie but respectiuely as an instrument apprehending Christes merites and applying them vnto vs. That Good workes though they be neither the efficient nor the formall nor the finall cause of Iustification which euer goeth before them yet are they the materiall cause and cause sine qua non as the Schooles tearme it the cause or condition without which Iustification shall not haue effect That Good workes must be done for three respectes That Gods Promise doth not make Good workes to be condignely worthy of the reward That condigne merite of Workes was not an Article of Popish fayth for more then 1540. yeares after Christ. Chapter 10. Proouing That Transubstantiation is a Monster lately begotten in Germanie and borne in Rome Chapter 11. Proouing That popish Inuocation doth not onely make Saintes the mediatours of Intercession but also of Redemption That it maketh Saintes ioynt purchasers of saluation with Christes most sacred blood so it be not in the same degree That it was not hatched for more then 1160 yeares after Christ. Chapter 12. Of the popish Communion vnder one kind Chapter 13. Of popish priuate Masse Chapter 14. Of Pope Martins Dispensation Chapter 15 Of worshipping of Images Chapter 16. Of Church-seruice in the vulgar tongue Chapter 17. Of the peeces of popish Masse Chapter 18. Of the mysteries of the popish Masse Chapter 19. Of kissing the Popes feete Chapter 20. Of praying vpon Beedes Chapter 21. Of changing the Popes name Chapter 22. Of the Paschal Torch Chapter 23. Of the popish Pax and the mysterie thereof Chapter 24. Of the Popes Bulles Chapter 25. Of the popish Agnus-dei Chapter 26. Of Candelmas-day Chapter 27. Of the dolefull Oath which popish Byshops make to the Pope Chapter 28. Of the popish Lent-fast Chapter 29. Of the annulling of popish Wedlocke Chapter 30. Of the Popes falsely pretended Superioritie ouer and aboue a generall Councell Chapter 31. Proouing That the Fayth and Doctrine of the Church of England is the old Romane Religion The Iesuites Proeme B. C. INtending to note the principall vntruethes of Bels Pamphlet I haue thought good first to salute his Epistle and see what holsome stuffe hee presenteth in that to his Patrons T. B. I Answere First that If I should stand vpon euery falsehood slaunder and coozening tricke which the Iesuite hath published and handsomely paint him out in his best beseeming colours time would sooner fayle me then matter whereof to speake Howbeit as I meane for the most part to let passe his slaunders his rayling wordes his fooleries his absurdities his contradictions and his impertinent trifles so will I by Gods holy assistance confute all the partes and parcels of his foolish and ridiculous Pamphlet not omitting any thing of any moment in the same Secondly that our Iesuite hath passed ouer in deepe silence my principall and chiefest groundes argumentes authorities reasons as not able to say any thing against them which the iuditious and honest Reader will soone perceiue with all facilitie Thirdly that our Fryer doth but snatch at peeces heere there with the which he thought he might best deale at the least in some colourable shew of wordes But let vs hearken I pray you to that attentiuely which he saith he found in my dedicatorie Epistle B. C. The Minister falleth roundly to the matter presenting his Patrons with a tricke of his occupation in his very first entraunce his wordes be these The visible Church sayth Bell as writeth Egesippus remayned a Virgin free from all heresies and corruptions during the life of the Apostles that is to say about one hundred yeares after Christ to which time S. Iohn the Euangelist was liuing but after the death of the Apostles sayth hee errours by litle and litle crept into the Church as into a voyde and desart House This Collection which Bell hath made is powdred with lies and iugling trickes thicke and threefold Bell belyeth both Egesippus and also Eusebius whom be quoteth in the third Booke of his Historie in the two and thirtie Chapter as the relator of those wordes of Egesippus Read the place he that please no such thing shall there be found nor the name of Egesippus so much as once mentioned The Minister both abuseth his Patrons and others with a notorious vntrueth of his owne fathering that vpon Eusebius which is not there to be found Neither can this dealing of his proceed from other roote then meere malice as whose braines are employed about nothing more then the hammering of lyes cauils and corruptions against the Catholicke fayth T. B. I answere First that the Jesuites accusation which here he maketh against mee is too too grieuous and more then intollerable vnto godly eares For he chargeth mee first to haue powdred mine assertion with lyes and iugling trickes Then to haue done the same thicke and threefold Thirdly to haue belyed both Egesippus Eusebius Fourthly he impudently affirmeth that no such thing can possibly be found as I haue alleadged out of Eusebius Fiftly that my position is so false and so farre from the trueth that the name of Egesippus is not so much as once mentioned Sixtly that I haue of meere malice slaundered Egesippus and Eusebius being men of great learning Secondly that seeing the Diuell is the Father of Lyers the Jesuite may very well be thought to be his only Sonne But how shal this be prooued All that shal read his booke must needes thinke he sayth the trueth because he affirmeth it so impudently confidently I would say This text of Christes holy Ghospell may well be verified in the Jesuites their accursed Iesuited crew They loued the prayâ—e of men more then the glory of God The truth is neuer ashamed she will shew her selfe to the confusion of the newly hatched sect of Jesuites of the late start-vp Romish fayth and religion These are the expresse wordes of Eusebius as Ruffinus a very learned Father who liued aboue 1200. yeares agoe hath translated them Post haec idem scriptor
other Ministers of the Church euen now in the time of the New Testament Where by the word Priestes I vnderstande all such as are admitted to preach Gods word and to administer the holy Sacramentes This Proposition is prooued very copiously in my Suruay of Poperie aswell by the Textes of holy Writte as by the flatte testimonie of S. Chrysostome S. Clement S. Eusebius S. Theophilactus and many others To which place for breuitie sake I referre the Reader especially because this trueth will be prooued againe and againe in the Propositions following The 4. Proposition The Marriage of Priestes is onely by the law of man prohibited and not by any positiue constitution either of Christ or his Apostles I prooue it many wayes First by the Popes owne Decrees where I find these expresse wordes Copula namque Sacerdotalis vel consanguineorum nec Legali nec Euangelica vel Apostolica auctoritate prohibetur Ecclesiastica tamen lege penitus interdicitur For the Marriage of Priestes is neither forbidden by the Law of Moses nor by the Law of the Ghospell nor by the Law of the Apostles yet is it altogeather and wholly forbidden by the Law of the Church of Rome Marke well these wordes gentle Reader for Christes sake for they are able to confound all Jesuites Iesuited Popelinges in the world Obserue with mee first that Gratianus who hath taught vs out of the Popes owne Decrees this godly and memorable lesson was a very famous Popish Canonist brother to Petrus Lombardus surnamed The Maister of Sentences and of such renowne in the Popish Church that his Bookes are this day read publiquely in their Diuinitie-schooles Secondly obserue that this Gratianus so learned and so famous in the Romish Church liued with his brother Lombardus euen then when the Pope was in his greatest pompe and tyrannie Obserue thirdly that this Gratian so learned and so renowned amongst the Papistes did euen in the altitude of Poperie commit that to the open view of the world which vtterly ouerthroweth all Papistrie and turneth it vpside downe Obserue fourthly that the Pope and his Popish vassals being iustly infatuated for their sinnes had no power to hinder and keepe backe from the print such Bookes as doe vtterly disclose their tyrannie falsehood and paltry dealing For our Lord God euen that mightie God Jehouah which caused the Red-sea to giue place to the Israelites who caused Balaams Asse to speake who caused the Fire to suspend it force in the burning Furnace who caused Yron to swimme vpon the Water who caused Yron-lockes and Brasen Gates to open voluntarily that mighty God I say enforced Gratian that learned famous and zealous Papist to confesse openly for the battering downe of Poperie that the marriage of Priestes which the Pope forbiddeth vpon paine of eternall damnation is neither forbidden by the Law of Moyses nor by Christ or his Apostles I prooue it secondly by the testimonie of Caietanus that learned and famous Cardinall of Rome whose words are these Nec ratione nec authoritate probari potest quod absolutè loquendo Sacerdos peccet contrahendo matrimonium nam nec ordo in quantum ordo nec ordo in quantum sacer est impeditiuus matrimonij siquidem Sacerdotium non dirimit matrimonium contractum siue ante siue post seclusis omnibus Legibus Ecclesiasticis stando tantum ijs quae habemus a Christo et Apostolis It can neuer be prooued neither by Authoritie nor by Reason if we speake absolutely that a Priest sinneth by marrying a Wife For neither the order of Priesthood in that it is order neither order as it is holy is any hinderaunce vnto Matrimonie For Priesthood breaketh not Marriage whether it be contracted before Priesthood or afterward if wee set all Ecclesiasticall Lawes apart and stand onely to those thinges which we haue of Christ and his Apostles Thus writeth this great learned man whose testimonie is so cleare and euident that no deniall no euasion no tricke of legierdemaine can haue any place For he sayth first that a Priest sinneth not in marrying a Wife Secondly that Priesthood doth not disanul Wedlocke whether a Priest be married before or after it This is a poynt of great consequence let it be well remembred Thirdly that Priestes Marriage is neither forbidden by Christ nor by his Apostles Panormitanus that famous Papist teacheh the selfe same doctrine his wordes are set downe in the 12. Proposition see them there I prooue it thirdly by the verdict of the famous Papist Viguerius as also of their Saint Antoninus sometime Arch-byshoppe of Florence These are the expresse wordes of Antoninus Episcopatus ex natura sua non habet opponi ad matrimonium The office of a Byshoppe of it owne nature is not opposite or against Marriage The case we see is most cleare and perspicuous to euery child viz. that the Marriage of Priestes is very lawfull as which is neither forbidden by Christ nor by his Apostles No no the Byshoppes of Rome onely haue prohibited it as I haue at large discoursed and prooued in my Suruay of Popery Marke well the eleuenth Proposition following as which is a confirmation hereof The 5. Proposition It was euer lawfull for the Byshoppes Priestes and Deacons of the east-East-church to be Married and to beget children in the time of their Priesthood This PropositioÌ„ is prooued by the flat testimonie of the sixt generall Councell holden at Constantinople in the yeare of our Lord God 677. where 289. Byshoppes were assembled In the 13. Canon of this famous Councell three speciall thinges are decreed First that Priestes Deacons and Sub-deacons may haue the lawfull vse of Wedlocke at such times as they doe not execute the Ministerie Secondly this famous Councell excommunicateth all those Priestes and Deacons that after their orders put away their former wiues vnder pretence of Religion Thirdly it excoÌ„municateth all such as labour to separate Priestes and Deacons from the vse and company of their Wiues And after all this this great and learned Synode addeth this worthy and memorable Obseruation viz. that they haue thus decreed albeit they know the Lawes of Rome to be otherwise Where I note by the way that so many learned Byshoppes did 677. yeares after Christ vtterly contemne the falsely challenged Primacie of the Church of Rome This Decree of the famous Councell is confirmed sundry wayes confirmation 1 First by the flat Canon of Christes blessed Apostles in these expresse wordes Episcopus aut Praesbyter aut Diaconus Vxorem suâ—m praetextu religionis non abijcito si abijcit segregator a communione si perseuerat deponator Let neither Byshoppe nor Priest nor Deacon put away his Wife vnder pretence of Religion if he so do let him be excommunicate if he continue let him be deposed Out of these wordes I obserue these golden Lessons First that in the dayes of the Apostles it was lawfull for Byshoppes Priestes and Deacons to haue Wiues
naturae vitio turpificarent Yet this I will say that this forced coacted Chastitie of Priests was so farre from excelling Chastitie in Wedlocke as no crime whatsoeuer hath brought greater shame to Priesthood more harme to Religion more griefe to all good men then the vnchast life of Priestes Therefore it were perhaps no lesse necessarie for the publique weale of Christendome then for the order of Priesthood that once againe Priestes might marrie publikely and so liue honestly and without shame and not pollute themselues so filthyly This is the doctrine of Polydorus well worthy to be written in Golden letters Yea the Marriage of Priestes is so honourable and so lawfull by Gods law and the prohibition thereof so dishonourable and dolefull that Pope Pius the second of that name who afore his Popedome was named Aeneas Syluius a very learned and famous writer did deliuer his minde opinion concerning this subiect in this manner as his owne deare Platina hath published the same Indoctum Episcopum Asine comparandum corpora malos medicos animas imperitos sacerdotes occiacre vagum Monachum diaboli esse mancipium virtutes Clerum ditasse vitia pauperem facere Sacerdotibus magna ratione sublatas nuptias maiori restituendas videri Pope Pius vsed to say as writeth his owne deuoted vassall Platina that a Bishop without learning was like vnto an Asse consequently that there are many Asses in popish Churches that euill Phisitians did kill mens bodyes and ignorant Priestes their soules that a vagrant Monke was the Diuels slaue that Vertues had enriched the Clergie in times past but that Vices of late dayes doe make it poore that there was great reason to debarre Priestes of Marriage but greater reason to restore Marriage againe vnto them Thus writeth Platina of Pope Pius Now for the benefite of the Christian reader I obserue these godly necessarie Lessons out of these three learned and famous Papistes First that the coacted Chastitie of Priests is neither of the substance of the Ministerie nor grounded vpon the law of God Secondly that the annexed Vow so tearmed is coacted and not free not voluntarie but compelled And consequently that secular Priestes are not Votaries properly but by a cursed and lawlesse Vow violently imposed vpon them Thirdly that the Prohibition of the Marriage of Priestes is against their soules health and causeth them to sinne damnably Fourthly that Priestes marriage would be honourable and honest chastitie if the law of man did not prohibite the same Fiftly that it was once lawfull for Priestes to Marrie Sixtly that it is in mans power to make their Marriages once lawful againe Seuenthly that it is expedient to restore Priestes to their right againe that is to say to referre Marriage to their free choyce and election Marke this poynt well for Christes sake gentle Reader Vt ius publicj matrimonij Sacerdotibus restitueretur That the right of publique Wedlocke might be restored to Priestes againe O sweete Iesus how impudent are our Jesuites and Iesuited Papistes who inueigh so bitterly against Priestes Marriage which is their proper right Nay how tyrannicall is the Pope who violently debarreth and keepeth them from their right Let these two wordes neuer be forgotten viz. Ius and Restitueretur for the former word Ius right doth argue Priestes Marriage to be their proper right And the latter word restitueretur might be restored doth argue the tyrannie of the late Byshops of Rome The reason is euident because Restitution can neuer be truely exacted but where iniustice went before and consequently seeing by the ioynt testimonie of these three famous popish Writers that the Marriage of Priestes ought to be restored to them it followeth of necessitie that the taking away of Marriage from Priestes was sauage brutish cruell tyrannicall and odious to God and all godly men For it was flatte iniustice and violently imposed vpon them Neither hath any good come to the Church of God thereby but filthy life and vncleannesse abounded euery where Which is not mine Assertion but the flatte and plaine Accusation of three learned zealous and famous Papistes Pope Pius him selfe being one of the three The 13. Proposition When the Fathers of the first famous Councell of Nice intended and meant to haue brought a New law into the Church and to haue abandoned the marriage of Priestes then our mercifull Father the mighty God Johouah who neuer hath been is or will be wanting to his Church in necessarie poyntes of Fayth and Doctrine raysed vp his faythfull seruant Paphuntius a man very famous by manifold myracles in his life time to withstand gainesay that cursed and neuer enough detested Law which the Father 's assembled at Nice were about to bring into the Church This Paphuntius the man of God excited by the spirit of God stood vp in the midst of the Councell and constantly affirmed before them all that to forbid Marriage to Priestes was too seuere a Law seeing by the testimonie of Christes blessed Apostle Marriage was honourable in all sortes of men wherevpon the Councell made no Decree in that behalfe This Proposition is prooued by the vniforme assent of three learned and famous Historiographers Cassiodorus Socrates Sozomâ—nus Socrates hath these expresse wordes Visum erat Episcopis legem nouam in Ecclesiam introducere The Byshops meant and intended to bring a new law into the Church But Paphuntius so perswaded the Councell by the power of the Holy ghost that they referred the whole matter to euery Priestes free choyce and election making no Law in that behalfe For Cassiodorus hath these expresse wordes Synodusque laudaâ—it sententiam eius et nihil ex hac parte sanciuit sed hoc in vniuscuiusque voluntate non in necessitate reliquit And the Synode commended Paphuntius his opinion and decreed nothing in the matter but left it in euery ones election to doe what he thought good without compulsion Sozomenus is consonant and confirmeth the same trueth The case is euident it cannot be denied The Corollarie of these 13. Propositions First therefore seeing all Ministers which are not subiect to the lawes of Poperie may lawfully Marrie euen by the doctrine of the Church of Rome as is prooued in the first Proposition Secondly seeing Marriage was euer lawfull for all Priestes and other Ministers of the Church during all the time of the old Testament as is prooued in the second Proposition Thirdly seeing Marriage is lawfull for Priestes and other Ministers of the Church euen now in the time of the new Testament as is prooued in the third Proposition Fourthly seeing the Marriage of Priestes is onely prohibited by the law of Man and not by any positiue constitution either of Christ of his Apostles as is prooued in the fourth Proposition Fiftly seeing it was euer lawfull for the Byshoppes Priestes and Deacons of the East Church to take Wiues and to beget Children in the time of their Priesthood as is prooued
trueth that Purgatorie came from the Apostles Which more bold then wise affirmance I returne vnto our Fryer for a most certaine and shamelesse Lye for a most notorious Slaunder and for an intollerable Blasphemie against the blessed Apostles of our Lord Iesus I prooue it sundry wayes First because S. Chrysostome was one of the chiefest and best Learned Fathers of the Greeke Church who as my Lord of Rochester hath told vs very plainely and resolutely neuer beleeued there was any Popish Purgatorie while they were lyuing heere on earth and consequently that Purgatorie can neuer be truely fathered vpon that great learned holy man Secondly because those Homilies from whence our Fryer would gladly fetch Purgatorie-fire are counterfeite not S. Chrysostomes indeed Whereof this is an argument insoluble that the Greeke Fathers did neuer beleeue Purgatorie For if S. Chrysostome had taught Purgatorie in his Bookes Byshoppe Fisher that glorious so supposed Popish Martyr could not truely haue written and constantly auouched to the whole world as he did that the Greekes neuer beleeued Purgatorie Thirdly that if the Apostles had taught Purgatorie then could not so many so Learned so holy Fathers of the Greeke Church haue been so long time euen till their death ignoraunt thereof Nay if the Latine Church in their dayes had receiued Purgatorie as a tradition Apostolicall they would neuer haue withstood it but most reuerently haue admitted and most Christianly beleeued the same Fourthly that if we suppose and graunt our Fryer thus much to cheare vp his spirits a while viz. that they are S. Chrysostomes wordes which he citeth in his name yet will it not serue his turne to build Popish Purgatorie therevpon For the words do onely prooue this and no more to weete that th'Apostles taught Commemoration of the dead Which my selfe am so farre from disliking that I haue many yeares agoe approoued it in my Suruay of Poperie Yea the Papistes in their publike Prayers make frequent and vsuall Commemoration of their Martyrs whom they for all that deny to be in Purgatorie-fire and freely graunt to be in Heauen And so they can not inferre Purgatorie out of the Commemoration of the dead To this I adde that Prayer for the dead which is more then Commemoration may in a godly sort be vsed as I haue shewed at large first in my Motiues and afterward in my Suruay More then which the Iesuite can not inferre out of his Author as his Marginall note doth declare I therefore conclude that our â—esuite hath runge out a notorious vntrueth when he telleth his Reader that Purgatorie came from the Apostles B. C. Heere the iudicious Reader may also note how the Minister contradicteth himselfe In his Suruay intreating of Purgatorie he sayth Thus by litle and litle it increased till the late Byshoppes of Rome made it an Article of Popish Fayth Where in the Margent he noteth the time thus In the yeare of our Lord 250. Heere he sayth that the Church of Rome beleeued it not for the space of 250. yeares After which as he telleth vs it increased by litle and litle And so in this place he maketh the seed of Purgatorie not to haue been sowen before the yeare 250. and afterward to haue increased till it came to perfection There he affirmeth that the seed was sowen before and increased by litle and litle vntill it became ripe and perfect Poperie which was in the yeare 250. And so Purgatorie was sowen and not sowen growen and not growen an article of Fayth and not an article of Fayth in the same one yeare 250. I will not deny but the Minister hath some skill in botching togeather of old endes of Diuinitie gathered out of the Ragge market of Caluin and such like Geneua-Merchants yet I feare mee it will be hard for him so to cobble the sayinges togeather that the flaw of a contradiction appeare not T. B. I answere first that where our Fryer pretendeth some feare that I can not defend by any cobling my contradiction by him so supposed I am so free from it that I weene his heart will pant so soone as he shal peruse my answere to the same For so God helpe me I woonder he is not ashamed so to write O tempora O mores I would not haue imagined that the Maister Deuill of Hell had so possessed him as to make him the instrument of such notorious execrable and plaine diabolicall Lyes Neuer did any man heare know or read such shamelesse palpable and grosse vntruethes Who will not exclaime and cry out of Poperie that shall read this Fryers Answere and this my Reply ioyned with my Tryall and my Suruay in which hee would seeme to ground his deuillish and abhominable Lyes Fie fie how can he thinke that any of witte and iudgemet will beleeue him Hee perceiueth right well that the trueth published in my Bookes can neuer be truly answered and therefore sillie Papistes who dare not for feare of Popish tyrannicall censures read my Bookes must perforce receiue and beleeue his most execrable Lyes for the trueth Oh that they would once read my Bookes nay but this one Reply with a single eye and indifferent iudgement all parcialitie set apart Hee knoweth that hee falsely accuseth mee his owne conscience though neuer so badde can not but condemne him Euery child may easily discerne that the trueth is on my side The case is so cleare my wordes so plaine and the trueth thereof so apparant as euery iudicious and honest Reader must needes thinke him worthy to haue a Whetstone tyed at his Girdle a Foxe-tayle in his necke and a Fooles-bable in his hand If Poperie through mortall wounds receiued were not past recouerie if the trueth published in my Bookes were not vnanswereable if the Iesuite were not at a Non plus not able to defend the Pope and his late start-vp Romish Fayth he would neuer thus delude the world with his most notorious Lyes and deceitfull dealing In my Suruay marke wel for Christs sake these are my expresse words in the third part and sixt Chapter Afterward Origen being too much addicted to his allegoricall speculation fayned many odde things touching Purgatorie as the Ethnicke Plato whom he much imitateth had done before him After Origen others began to call the matter into question others rashly to beleeue it others to adde many thinges to Origens conceit Thus by litle and litle it increased till the late Byshops of Rome made it an Article of Popish Fayth In my Booke intituled The Tryall of the new Religion these are my expresse words First we see that the Greeke Church neuer beleeued Purgatorie to his dayes I speake there of Iohn Fisher late Byshoppe of Rochester and so it was vnkowen to them 1517. yeares Secondly that the Church of Rome beleeued it not for the space of 250. yeares after which time it increased by litle and litle These are my very wordes in both my Bookes The
Holy Water Agnus Dei c. though nothing comparable to Sacramentes may also in a good sense be sayd to helpe vs to obtaine Saluation by the Merites of Christ for as much as all Holy thinges haue force to produce supernaturall effectes as namely to chase away wicked Spirits to extinguish the fierie Dartes of the Enemie Thus pratleth the Iesuiticall Fryer the recitall of whose wordes being naked without all proofes is a sufficient confutation of the same The holy Apostle of our Lord Iesus teacheth vs plainely that it is The Shield of Fayth wherewith we may quench al the Firie Dartes of the wicked He willeth vs not to take Holy water Holy bread Crosses Medales Agnus Deis the Bones of Champian Sherwin Ballard Watson and such like popish trumperie No Scripture of the old or new Testament no holy Father no approoued Councell no authenticall Historie can be named which exhorteth vs to put any confidence in such beggerly dotage of late Popish foolerie For the rest peruse the Tryall and it is enough The 27. Chapter of the dolefull Oath which popish Byshops make to the Pope B. C. AS for the Oathes of Byshops made to the Pope the lawfulnesse thereof appeareth because it is made with all Catholique Princes consent and meant onely in iust and lawfull thinges which are according to Gods Law and holy Canons and it hath been vsed aboue a thousand yeares agoe as it is euident by the like Oath made by a Byshoppe vnto S. Gregorie the great and S. Boniface the Apostle of Germanie and worthyest man that euer England bredde did sweare when he was consecrated Byshop to concurre with the Pope and commodities of his Church T. B. I answere first that all this which the Fryer B. C. heere telleth vs was obiected afore by S. R. in his pretensed Answere to the Downefall of Poperie Secondly that I haue confuted the same so soundly in the Jesuites Antepast as whosoeuer shal with indifferencie peruse the same can not but see the Iesuite wounded vnto death Heere by the way I must tell our Fryer that the words of S. R. are by him quoted in the thirtieth Article and the fourtenth Chapter and yet are they in the seuenth Article This I deeme to be the Printers fault and therefore doe not vse to reprooue him for the like escapes howbeit hee for want of better matter rayleth and brawleth like a madde man if he finde neuer so litle amisse in my Bookes through the Printers fault who vsually am almost 2â—0 myles from the Presse when any one of my Books is a printing All the rest of this Chapter is soundly refuted in the Iesuites Antepast Downefall of Popery The 28. Chapter of the popish Fast of fourtie dayes commonly called Lent B. C. MAny mad gambols doth the Minister fetch in this Chapter and among other hee will needs prooue that the Lenten-fast is hurtfull both to the soule and body and disputeth out of Hippocrates like a pretty Pettifogger in Phisicke to shew That it is hurtfull to our health This albeit I doe not doubt but it is a notorious vntrueth yet because it is not my profession to argue of any such Subiect I leaue him to the mercie of the Phisitions who I thinke vpoÌ„ the feeling of his Pulse are like enough for the curing of such an extrauagant conceit to condemne him to Hyppocrates bands T. B. I answere first that our Fryer by his owne confession reprooueth that as a notorious vntrueth wherein hee hath no skill and withall taketh vpon him to censure my condemnation vpon the feeling of my Pulse which to iudge is a very hard poynt in the noble art of Phisicke Secondly that it is the Jesuites profession to shew himselfe a notorious lyer which is prooued againe and againe throughout this whole discourse Thirdly that if my Disputation were not truely grounded vpon the art of Phisicke the Jesuite could not haue wanted helpe to haue confuted the same Peruse the Tryall and marke it well for it woundeth the Fryer euen vnto death B. C. Omitting this let vs see what followeth The Fast of the auncient Church quoth hee was free voluntary and not commaunded by any Law An vntrueth for it was a Tradition of the Apostles to Fast in Lent and so not free Wee sayth S. Hierome in the whole yeare do Fast one Lent according to the tradition of the Apostles And S. Austen sayth It is sinne to breake Lent-fast T. B. I answere first that I graunt the Iesuites antecedent and yet doe I deny both his consequent his consequence His consequent because Lent was free voluntarie and not commaunded by any Law as I shall by by God willing prooue by an euident demonstration His consequence because Lent may be an Aposticall Tradition and withall remaine free and voluntarie still I prooue it by the Iesuites owne free graunt and his best manner of disputing For when I in the 12. Chapter of my Tryall had prooued by Apostolicall and plaine Diuine tradition euen expressed in the holy Scripture that the Lay people ought to receiue the holy Communion vnder both kindes the holy Apostle affirming that he deliuered what he receiued from our Lord Iesus the Jesuite answered roundly in these expresse wordes The most that can be gathered out of S. Paules wordes is this That in his time the Eucharist was ministred to Lay-people vnder both kinds which we deny not but they prooue not that it neither was nor might be giuen vnder one kind Thus disputeth our Iesuite affirming resolutely that the tradition receiued from Christ and deliuered by S. Paul may be altered changed consequently that it is free voluntarie and not commaunded by any Law For doubtlesse no power vpon earth may alter or change Christs holy precept This is already prooued and is also manifest of it selfe For an inferiour hath no power to change the Law of his superiour which the popish Saint Antoninus sometime Archbyshoppe of Florence doth very plainely teach vs in these expresse wordes Quantum verò ad illa quae sunt de iure naturali vel diuino iurisdictio seu potestas Papalis non se extendit sic verò quod ista possit mutare vel etiam dare eis vim obligandi Et ratio est quia inferior non potest mutare leges superioris Deus autem superior est ad Papam Concerning those thinges which are of the law of Nature or of the law Diuine the Popes Iurisdiction or Power doth not extend it selfe vnto them so to weete that the Pope can either change them or giue power obligatorie vnto them And the reason thereof is because an inferiour can not change the Lawes of his superiour Franciscus a victoria that famous Popish Schoole-doctor who first brought Scholasticall Theologie into Spaine is consonant to Antoninus that famous popish Saint in these expresse wordes In hoc genere Decretorum aut Canonum Papa nihil
quoniam est pars satisfactionis aliter enim Ecclesia deciperet paenitenies Such a Fast he speaketh of the Fastes which Priestes enioyne is sacramentally really and properly satisfactorie The reason is because it is a part of satisfaction for otherwise the Church should deceiue the Penitentes In an other place the same Iosephus Angles hath these expresse wordes Ieiunium quadragesimale eo modo quo ab Ecclesia seruatur nes suit a Christo institutum neque ab eo iussum sed ab hominibus atque ita non est de iure diuino sed humano duntaxat Christus enim nec tempus talis ieiunij nec modum neque cibos instituit Statim enim post Baptismum in desertum secessit et illic ieiunauit Christus nullum diem a ieiunio excepit in illo quadragenario numero Ecclesia vero dies dominicos excipit Christus tunc semel nec pluries commedit neque bibit In Ecclesia vero vna refectio tantum est concessa et in potatione nulla est limitatio Quare cum nec verbo neque facto hoc ieiunium instituerit ab Ecclesia institutum erit The Lent-fast as the Church obserueth it was neither instituted of Christ nor of him commaunded but of men so as it is not stablished by Gods Law but by mans onely for Christ neither instituted the time of such a Fast nor the manner nor the Meates for so soone as he was Baptized he went into the Desart and fasted there Christ excepted no day from fasting in his Fast of Fourtie dayes but the Romish Church excepteth the Sundayes Christ neither eate nor dranke more then once but the Church graunteth Meate once a day and for drinking maketh no restraint Wherefore seeing Christ neither appoynted Lent-fast by word nor by deed it must be ordayned of the Church Where I may not forget to adde that the same Byshoppe Angles telleth vs in an other place that albeit the Apostles ordeyned Lent-fast yet may the Pope free deliuer whom he will from the keeping thereof And he yeeldeth this reason for the same Because forsooth the Pope hath as great Power in the gouernement of the Church as the Apostles had Thus disputeth our Popish Byshop telling vs plainely that Christ did not ordaine Lent-fast which he prooueth by many reasons As also that none are bound to Fast in Lent who haue gotten the Popes Dispensation to free them from it no not if the Apostles appoynted it Thirdly he graunteth freely that the Papistes Fast to satisfie God for their sinnes I therefore must perforce conclude that the Popish Lent-fast is a rotten ragge of the New religion The 29. Chapter of the annulling of Popish Wedlocke B. C. WHatsoeuer sayth Bell the Byshoppe of Rome holdeth and defineth that must euery Papist hold beleeue and maintaine as an Article of his Fayth Though generally all Catholiques doe hold the Popes Definitions to be infallible and the contrarie opinion to be erroneous ye is it not an Article of Fayth T. B. Whosoeuer shall seriously peruse my Tryall this Answere of the Jesuite to the same and this my Reply in defence of my Tryall can not but vnderstand that Poperie is meere foolerie and flatly opposite to the sacred Word of God This in briefe is my Answere First that albeit this Chapter being the 29. of my Tryall arguing against the annulling of Popish Wedlocke conteyne not fully 26. lynes yet is the Jesuite so afrayde with the plentifull matter soundly handled therein yet in briefe manner as he dareth not once touch or name the same for feare of burning him For proofe whereof I wish the indifferent Reader to peruse my Tryall of the New religion Secondly that it is most true that what the Pope defyneth that must euery Papist hold and beleeue as an Article of his Fayth I prooue it by many inuincible reasons Couarrunias a very famous popish Byshop and renowned Canonist hath these expresse wordes Nec me later D. Thomam praeuia maxima deliberatione asserere Rom. Pontificem non posse propria dispensatione continentiae solemne Monactiorum votum tollere Et Paulo Post. oportet tamen primam opinionem defendere ne quae passim fiant euertantur omnino Neither am I ignorant that S. Thomas the popish Angelicall Doctor whose Doctrine sundry Popes haue confirmed affirmeth after great deliberation that the Byshop of Rome can not with his Dispensation take away from Monkes their solemne Vow of Chastitie This notwithstanding we must defend the first opinion least those thinges which are practised euery where be vtterly ouerthrowë The Popish canonized Saint Antoninus and Syluester Prieras some time maister of the Popes sacred Pallace and for his great Learning surnamed Absolutus Theologus tell vs plainely and constantly that whatsoeuer the Pope doth whether we can prooue the same or no◠yet must we beleeue it to be so And which passeth all the rest yea which is woonderfull if not incredible to proceed from a Papistes mouth S. R. that Learned man as our Fryer B. C. tearmeth him hath these expresse wordes in his pretensed Answere to the Downe-fall of Poperie Because Byshoppes must not examine the Doctrine which the Pope deliuereth iudicially out of S. Peters Chaire as supreame Pastor of Gods Churth but onely that wherein he vttereth his owne priuate opinion Aquinas himselfe shall giue the vpshot of this game these are his expresse wordes Christus poterat relaxare ergo et Paulus potuit ergo et Papa potest qui non est minoris potestatis in Ecclesia quam Paulus fuit Christ could pardone therefore Paul could pardone therefore the Pope also can pardone as who is of no lesse or meaner Authoritie in the Church then Paul himselfe was Thirdly that seeing our Fryer graunteth all Papistes generally to hold the Popes Definitions to be infallible and the contrary Opinion to be erroneous he sheweth himselfe to be a very noddie and at a flat non-plus in denying the same to be an Article of Popish fayth I prooue it marke well my wordes by a triple Argument First because the Pope his Cardinals Iesuites and all popish Diuines can not but abound with falsehood deceite coozenage and fraudulent trickes of Legierdemaine if they teach the people to hold and receiue that as true Doctrine which themselues beleeue not to be so Secondly because the Pope his Cardinals Iesuites and all Papistes generally are bound to beleeue euery trueth agreeable to Gods word And consequently that either all Papistes beleeue the Popes Definitions to be infallible and the contrary opinion to be erroneous or else that the same is not a trueth agreeable to Gods word Thirdly that Poperie must perforce be a most miserable dangerous wretched damnable Religion if all Papistes generally hold that for an vndoubted Doctrine which is no part of their Fayth and Religion For all Iesuites and Iesuited Papistes hold that the Church is built vpon Peter
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
our Fryers liking viz. that the name Pope was giuen to other Byshops in the auncient Church as I haue prooued in my Tryall euen hundreds of yeares after the Primitiue Church To which addition this to cheere vp our Fryer is consectarie to weet that the Clergie of Rome writing to the Clergie of Carthage called S. Cyprian the most blessed Pope Which verily as is already sayd they neither would nor yet durst haue done if the name in such a peculiar manner as the Fryer would make vs beleeue had been due to the Byshop of Rome For if the sayd name had been peculiar to him and his supposed soueraignetie implied therein other Byshops could neuer haue enioyed the same in the puritie of the Church Nay other Byshops would neuer haue improperly accepted of that name and title which none but the Byshop of Rome could properly ascribe vnto himselfe B. C. With the former he hath coupled an other saying thus And so in processe of time the Byshoppes of Rome were solely and onely called Popes and of Late yeares our Holy Father and his Holynesse is his vsuall name A grosse vntrueth T. B. This assertion hath two partes The former our Fryer hath freely graunted in his immediately aforegoing words The latter he must likewise yeeld vnto against his will or else be condemned of the whole world For besides that the Iesuiticall Cardinall Bellarmine and the popish Byshop Iosephus Angles in their Books of Late yeares dedicated to the Byshoppes of Rome haue giuen them the title of Holinesse euen in the abstract it is so euident that his Holinesse is of Late yeares the vsuall name of the Byshop of Rome that if any man either in Rome or in Jâ—ahe shall deny the same he may iustly be censured worthy of the Whetstone That which he sayth of Theodoretus the Councell of Chalcedon S. Cyprian and S. Austin is very friuolous and nothing to the purpose For first I say of Late yeares and yet the youngest of our Fryer named lyued aboue a thousand yeares agoe Secondly there is great disparitie betweene a peculiar and an vsuall name A peculiar name perteineth solely and onely vnto one but that an vsuall name may agree to many at once it cannot be denyed Thirdly as our Fryer hath confessed that the name Pope was of old time giuen to many and yet afterward remayned to the Byshop of Rome alone so must he volens nolens confesse of the name Holynesse B. C. Prosecuting his former matter he sayth But this Emperour that is Iustinian lyued after Christ his birth about 528. yeares ergo this poynt of poperie is a rotten ragge of the New religion In which wordes he venteth out an vntrueth For be it that it was then appropriated to the Pope as he sayth yet how can it be New which by his owne confession was vsed xi hundred yeares agoe That is so many ages before the foundations of his Religion were laide or the name of a Protestant heard of in the whole world T. B. Our Iesuite desiring to discharge the Pope and Poperie of Newnesse would prooue it by my graunt viz. because I confesse the name Pope to haue been appropriated to the Byshops of Rome a thousand yeares agoe But our Fryer in thus disputing doth prooue him selfe a very Daw. For he must learne to know that the newnesse of a thing may be considered two wayes absolutely and respectiuely And consequently that though the name Pope be Old absolutely considered yet it is New respectiuely when it is compared with the time of the Apostles Now so it is that you Papistes beare the world in hand that your Poperie is the Old religion and that selfe-same Doctrine which S. Peter and S. Paul deliuered to the Church of Rome This is the Doctrine which I oppugne euen in the beginning of this present Chapter But our Fryer is so besotted with malice that he cannot discerne the trueth my reason standeth thus You Iesuites and Iesuited Papistes affirme desperatly and damnably that your Late start-vp Poperie is the Old religion deliuered by S. Peter and S. Paul to the Church of Rome But that is so farre from being true that the very name Pope is New as wanting aboue 500. yeares of that age or time whereof you bragge and boast ergo seeing the Apostolicke and first Religion is onely the Old religion and that which commeth after as Tertullian truly writeth the false and New religion it followeth of necessitie that the name Pope comming 500. yeares after the Old religion is but a rotten Ragge of the New Where I wish the Reader to remember that I speake of the name Pope in that sense in which the Byshoppes of Rome vsurpe the same That which our Jesuite addeth of Protestantes how absurd it is shall God willing by and by appeare B. C. I omit heere how many Ecclesiasticall names haue been brought into the Church as Consubstantiall against the Arrians Incarnation against other Heretikes the better by a new name to declare an auncient article of Fayth Will Bell for all that call these Wordes rotten Ragges of a New religion Hee never dare offer it and yet with no lesse reason may be doe it then he doth heere the name of the Pope T. B. Who seeth not to what shiftes our Iesuiticall Fryer is driuen He affirmeth desperately that I may with no lesse reason call the holy names appropriated to the sonne of God rotten ragges of a New religion then the name of the Pope But out vpon such Rotten diuinitie out vpon such paltry Fryers The sacred names Consubstantiall and Incarnation are equiualently according to the substance and true nature of the thinges signified by the same set downe in many places of the holy Scriptures Which was made most apparant against the Arrians by the Fathers of the first famous Councell of Nice but the name Pope as it is of Late yeares challenged by the Byshops of Rome and heere auouched by the impudent Fryer is so farre from being either expressely or virtually conteyned in the holy Scriptures that all sacred Writ vtterly condemneth the same as a Rotten ragge of a New religion inuented at Rome aboue fiue hundred yeares after the death of S. Peter S. Paul Againe the Holy names of Consubstantiall and Incarnation were not first common to others and afterward attributed to the sonne of God But the name Pope as I haue prooued and as the Frier hath plainely confessed was first and that more then 500-yeares common to all Byshops and in processe of time appropriated to the Byshops of Rome Thirdly the thing truly signified by the holy wordes Consubstantiall and Incarnation neuer could agree to any creature in the world but the thing truely signified by the word Pope did in the primatiue and purest age of the Church doth at this present and may in time to come truely agree to all true Byshops in Christs Church Now touching the name of Protestant I answere
in the fift Proposition Sixtly seeing the Marriage of Priestes was euer lawfull also in the West Church vntill the cursed and vntimely inuented Prohibition of Pope Siricius almost 400. yeares after Christ as is prooued in the sixt Proposition Seuenthly seeing Siricius his Prohibition notwithstanding Priestes were still Married in many places a long time and in Germanie aboue a thousand yeares after Christ without restraint euen vntill the dayes of the vngratious Pope Hildebrand as is prooued in the 7. Proposition Eightly seeing all secular Priestes are so free from the Vow which is annexed to Ecclesiasticall orders by the Church of Rome that the supposed dissoluing impediment thereof notwithstanding their Marriages are true perfect and of force Ninthly seeing that by Popish Fayth and Doctrine the single Vow of Chastitie neither doth nor can dissolue Matrimonie as is prooued in the ninth Proposition Tenthly seeing the Vow single is of one and the same nature with the Vow solemne not distinguished by any essentiall but meere accidentall difference as is prooued in the tenth Proposition Eleuenthly seeing Matrimonie of Monkes Fryers and Nonnes euen after their solemne Vow of Religion is with the Pope his Iesuites and Iesuited Popelinges very lawfull and of force so it be done by and with the Popes Dispensation as is prooued in the eleuenth Proposition Twelfthly seeing the forced and coacted Chastitie of popish Priestes hath been such and so intollerable euen by the best learned Papistes their free confessions as nothing in the whole world hath brought more shame to Priesthood more harme to Religion more griefe to godly men as is prooued in the 12. Proposition Thirteenthly seeing the Fathers of the famous Councell of Nice thought it not agreeable to Gods word to make any Law against the Marriage of Priestes as is prooued in the 13. Proposition I can not I may not but must of necessitie conclude with this ineuitable and irrefragable illation ergo the Prohibition of Priestes Marriage is but a rotten ragge of the new Religion The Refutation of the Friers third Chapter In these 13. Propositions if due application be made thereof all the vntruethes lyes miserable shiftes and colourable euasions of our Fryer Jesuite will easily appeare and vanish away as doth the smoake of a Fire especially if my Discourse in the Suruay of Poperie bee duely pondered with these 13. Propositions For all that our Fryer hath sayd in this Chapter and whatsoeuer else any other Iesuite or Iesuited Papist in the world is able to say against the Marriage of Priestes is verie largely distinctly and soundly resuted in my Suruay of Poperie The Jesuite full of nothing but Winde Vanitie Rayling and lying would dazell the eyes of his Reader with crying out against Vntruethes when indeed all vntruethes proceed onely from his owne lying lippes Two thinges onely may seeme to the vulgar Reader to carry some shew or colour of trueth which both are soundly confuted in my Suruay Howbeit for the better satisfaction of the indifferent Reader especially of such as perhappes haue not read my Suruay I am content once againe to examine the same The former colour of trueth pretended by our Frier is this in very deed viz. That Saint Paphuntius in the Councell of Nice perswaded the Fathers onely vnto this to weete That they which were called to the Priesthood beeing Married should not be separated from their Wiues which they had for it was the old Tradition of the Church sayth our Fryer That those which were made Priestes beeing not yet Married should not afterward marrie Wiues Thus pleadeth our Jesuite out of Sozomenus and Socrates Marke now my Answere to the same The Answere I answere first that the Marriage of Priestes is onely prohibited by the Law of man and not by any positiue Constitution either of Christ or his Apostles This I haue prooued in the 4. Proposition by the flat testimonie of many famous Popish Writers yea out of the Popes owne Decrees Read the Proposition to the end and marke it seriously Secondly that it was euer lawfull for Priestes in the East Church to be Married and to beget children in time of their Priesthood This trueth is cleared in the fift Proposition euen out of the Popes owne Decrees Thirdly that it was lawfull in the West Church for Priestes to be Married for the space of one thousand yeares after Christ This is made euident in the sixt and seuenth Propositions Fourthly that Secular Priestes are not Votaries and that therefore their Marriage is lawfull This trueth is soundly prooued in the 8. and 9. Propositions Let them be well marked Fiftly that the Marriage of Priestes is their owne proper right and that therefore restitution must be made for taking the same away This trueth is prooued in the 12. Proposition and it striketh dead Now seeing first that no positiue Constitution against Priestes Marriage can truely be deriued either from Christ or his Apostles seeing secondly that it was euer lawfull for Priestes in the East Church to be Married seeing thirdly that it was lawfull for Priestes euen in the West Church to Marrie euery where for the space almost of 400. yeares and in Germanie aboue a thousand yeares after Christ seeing fourthly that Secular Priestes are no Votaries seeing fiftly that the Pope is bound to Restitution for taking away of Priestes Marriage I must perforce conclude against our Iesuite that the Tradition which Socrates and Sozomenus speake of was neither Generall nor Diuine howsoeuer Paphuntius alleadged it so to mittigate the rigorous and seuere Lawes intended by the Councell I prooue it by a double argument First because if there had been any such Tradition generall or diuine the Greekes could not be excused who neuer yeelded therevnto Secondly because so many Learned Papistes doe constantly affirme and teach that neither Christ nor his Apostles made any Law against Priestes Marriage To which I must needes adde that if there had been any such Tradition receiued either from Christ or his Apostles neither would holy Paphuntius haue pleaded against it neither yet the famous Councell haue yeelded to him in that behalfe But the Councell of Carthage will some say maketh mention of Apostolicall tradition to the same effect I answere with the Popes owne deare Glosse vpon his Decrees in these expresse wordes Ergo Apostoli dâ—cuerunt exemplo et admonitione non institutione vel constitutione Therefore the Apostles taught it by example and admonition and not by any Law or Constitution But how by Admonition and Example did the Apostles teach the single life of Priestes S. Paul albeit he were some time a marryed-man as S. Clement very probably deduceth out of the holy Scriptures yet did he after that liue a single life and withall exhorted others that had the gift to liue as he did But here three things must seriously be obserued First that th' Apostle wished Lay-men aswell as he did Ecclesiasticall persons
Suruay and The Tryall I meane out of which our Fryer Jesuite who may seeme to be begotten of some Fayrie Bratte as the Secular popish Priestes write of the Iesuite Robert Parsons the Author of this scurrilous shamelesse impudent and lying Libell would seeme to conclude and finde out against mee a strange Contradiction viz. that in the one Booke I make the seede of Purgatory not to haue been sowen before the yeare 250. And afterward to haue increased till it came to perfection And that this notwithstanding in my other Booke I make the seede sowen before and to haue increased by litle and litle vntill it became ripe and perfect Poperie which was in the yeare 250. And therevpon he inferreth that Purgatorie was sowen and not sowen growen and not growen an Article of Fayth and not an Article of Fayth in one and the same yeare Now to this lusty Gallant a poore begging Fryer by profession though as the Secular Priestes their brethren in Poperie tell them they shame with that occupation as who must haue their Chambers Perfumed Gentlewomen to pull off their Bootes them-selues to trowle vp and downe from good cheare to good cheare at their owne good pleasures I returne this Answere which if nothing else would is able to strike him dead First that hee hath vttered as many Lyes as hee hath done lines His first Lye is this viz. That I say in my Suruay of Poperie that the seed of Purgatorie was sowen before the yeare 250. His second Lye is this viz. That I affirme in my sayd Suruay that Poperie was ripe and perfect in the yeare 250. His third Lye is this viz. That I make Poperie sowen and not sowen in one and the same yeare His fourth Lye is this viz. That I make Purgatorie growen and not growen in one the same yeare His fift Lye is this viz. That I make Poperie an Article of Fayth and not an Article of Fayth in one and the same yeare that is to say in the 250. yeare after Christ. Secondly that albeit hee charge mee with sundry vntruethes and more then a litle please himselfe therewith yet is there no vntrueth at all but those false accusations which proceed from his owne lying lippes No other proofe need be made thereof but the bare recitall of my wordes For doubtles the Jesuite either speaketh against his owne knowledge or else he is so besotted blinded with malice that he can not see Wood for Trees Thirdly that our Fryer sheweth himselfe to be a right Iesuite that is to say a shamelesse and impudent Lyer For the Letters and Figures in the Margent A.D. 250. doe not connotate the wordes following but the wordes immediatly afore-going Which no man of iudgement and reason can for shame denie For first I say plainely that Origen fayned many odde thinges touching Purgatorie Againe I say expressely that after Origen others began to call it into question Where I wish the indifferent Reader to obserue seriously these two poyntes with mee First that Purgatorie could not be ripe and perfect when it began but to be called into question Then that this calling into question was after Origen who was lyuing about 250. yeares after Christ And consequently that the 250. yeares must needes haue relation to the time of Origen and his immediate followers as who all approoued Chronographers testifying the same lyued about that time And this is confirmed because I do not speake of the Byshoppes of Rome barely and absolutely but with a restriction implyed in this word late I in all my Bookes doe euer repute S. Austen S. Chrysostome and others that lyued 400. yeares after Christ not late Writers but old and auncient Fathers which is an euident argument that I applyed my Marginall note to the time of Origen of his immediate followers and not to the late Byshoppes of Rome whom I contend to be men not of the Old but of the late and New Religion So as euery child may see that our Iesuite not able to defend Poperie nor to withstand the trueth and yet vnwilling to yeeld to the trueth and to condemne Poperie in which and by which he liueth in wealth pompe and glorie imployeth himselfe and his wittes with might and maine heaping Lyes vpon Lyes furnished with notorious coozening trickes euery where so to dazell the eyes of his Reader least he behold the trueth and so condemne the rotten Ragges of Poperie for the New Religion He is at a non plus his Backe is at the Wall all his pleading for late start-vp Poperie is fraughted with nothing else but coozening trickes notorious cauils impudent calumnies and false dealing B. C. In the same place he writeth thus Fiftly that the primatiue Church was neuer acquainted with the Popes Pardons nor yet with his counterfeit and forged Purgatorie A notable vntrueth for not to speake of Pardons but of Purgatorie was it not the primatiue Church which beleeued Purgatorie when as himselfe confesseth that it was made an Article of Popish Fayth in the yeare 250. at what time all the Popes were martyred for Christ and in his Funerall he acknowledgeth the first thirtie for godly men saying that both they and diuers others taught the same doctrine which S. Peter had done before them and most certaine that one of these thirtie lyued in the yeare 250. and so I trow they were of the primatiue Church The Minister is full of distinctions his braine a shoppe of solutions hauing many I-sayes for the answere of any Obiection Yet it is to be feared that no deuise will free him from a grosse vntrueth affirming heere that the primatiue Church was not acquainted with Purgatorie and yet teaching in his Suruay that Purgatorie was made an Article of Fayth by the late Popes of Rome in the yeare 250. T. B. I answere first that our Fryer is willing heere as afore to passe ouer in deepe silence the Popes Pardons as a thing not possible to be defended Secondly that our Jesuite seemeth more impudent then Impudencie it selfe as who is not ashamed againe and againe to iterate most grosse palpable and shamelesse Lyes I haue already refuted him plentifully and honestly discharged my selfe of that vntrueth which he would gladly impose vpon mee concerning the making of Purgatorie an Article of Popish Fayth Thirdly that I doe not in any one of all my Bookes impute the inuention of Purgatorie to any one of the first thirtie Byshops of Rome as whom all I honour in mine heart haue euer spoken and written reuerently of them Fourthly that I doe not onely trow but am well assured that our Iesuites trowing is a meere leasing while he auoucheth 250. yeares to be within the compasse of the primatiue Church I prooue it because all Christes Apostles who were the primatiue Church were dead long before that time of which our Fryer speaketh Fiftly that our Fryers feare is a flatte Lye
be so plainely deliuered by our Aduersaries may seeme a woonderment to the Christian world For it clearely turneth vpside-downe the chiefest Bulworke of Popish vnwritten Traditions and in effect all Popish Fayth and Religion The common good which commeth to the Church of God by writing against the Aduersaries of his Trueth is hence apparant to all the World For after the swaggering Iesuite S.R. with the aduise of Bellarmine and others had bickered so long with the Downefall of Poperie that the fall had almost broken their neckes then ouercome with the dint of Argumentes and force of the Trueth he was as it were violently compelled to write as we here see in defence behalfe of the Trueth To which for the better manifestation of this trueth so necessarie to be knowen I will adde yet an other Testimonie of our Jesuite in these wordes Truly sayd S. Epiphanius that we may tell the inuention of euery question out of the consequence of Scripture He sayd not Out of the Scripture For all cannot be taken thence as him selfe writeth but of the consequence of them Because all questions are resolued out of the Scriptures or out of that which followeth of them as the effect of the cause Thus the Iesuite approoueth vnawares the selfe same Doctrine which I in the Downefall doe defend And consequently the very weapons which our Aduersaries put into our handes are sufficient God be blessed for it to defend vs and our cause against them The Fourth Conclusion Popish Auricular Confession is not necessarie for mans saluation For first seeing all thinges necessarie for saluation are conteyned in the holy Scriptures as in the third Conclusion Secondly seeing all Preceptes and Promises of God in the New are contayned in the Old Testament as in the first Conclusion Thirdly seeing Popish Auricular Confession is not contayned in the Old Testament as in the second Conclusion it followeth by a necessarie and ineuitable consequution that Popish Auricular Confession is not necessarie for mans saluation This trueth will yet better appeare in the Conclusions following The Fift Conclusion Popish Auricular Confession is neither commaunded by Christ nor yet by his Apostles I prooue it because it is not contayned in the Old Testament as in the second Conclusion Which Testament for all that contayneth all the Preceptes of the New as may doth appeare to the indifferent reader in the first Conclusion The Sixt Conclusion Popish Auricular Confession was instituted and established by the meere Law of man grounded onely vpon a falsely imagined Apostolicall vnwritten Tradition I prooue it many wayes First because the Popes owne Decrees referre the matter to the iudgement of the Reader viz. Whether one be bound to Confession Auricular by Gods law or by Mans law These are the expresse wordes as Gratianus hath published the same Quibus authoritatibus vel quibus rationum firmamentis vtraque sententia satisfactionis et confessionis nitatur in medium breuiter exposuimus Cuj autem harum potius adhaerendum sit lectoris iudicio reseruatur Viraque N. fautores habet sapientes et religiosos viros Vpon what Authorities or foundations of Reasons either opinion is grounded I haue briefly shewed But to whether of them it is better to adhere that I leaue to the iudgement of the Reader for either opinion hath Wise and Religious men for the Patrons of the same Behold heere gentle Reader that not onely the Popes Doctors but his owne Canon-law and the Commenters vpon the same doe all confesse that Confession after Popish manner is onely solely grounded vpon Mans law Yea the Popish Glosse addeth That both Wise and Religious men doe so thinke though some others hold the contrary Secondly because the great Thomist who for his rare skill in Theologie was surnamed Absolutus Theologus Syluester Prieras doth deliuer his opinion in these wordes Quarto vtrum ad confessionem teneamur diuino iure vel humano Et dicâ— quod Canonistae videntur tenere quod sit de iure positiuo Et ad hoc est Glossa de paenit Dist. 5. In summa quae vult quod instituta sit a quadam vniuersali traditione Ecclesiae Ideo infert quam confiteri non tenentur infideles nec similiter Graeci ex quo non acceptauerunt huiusmodi constitutionem sicut nec votâ—â— castitatis It is demaunded fourthly sayth the great Learned Papist Syluester whether we be bound to Popish Confession by the law of God or by the positiue Law of man And I say the Canonistes hold that we are bound by the Law of man And of this opinion is the Glosse which is of this minde that Confession was instituted by a certaine vniuersall tradition of the Church Wherevpon the sayd Glosse inferreth that Infidels are not bound to Confession neither the Greekes in like maner seeing they did neuer approoue such Constitution as neither the vow of Chastitie Thirdly because the highly renowned Papist Martinus Nauarrus confesseth constantly and plainely that their solemne Glosse commonly receiued and approoued of all Canonistes holdeth Confession to be commaunded by the Church Fourthly because the famous Canonist most reuerend Arch-byshop and honourable Cardinall Panormitanus was of the same opinion with the Glosse For Couarruvâ—as a very learned Popish Arch-byshoppe deliuereth his minde in these wordes Quam ex nostris plerique sequuti sunt maximè Panormitanus ex ea asserentes confessionem sacramentalem quae Sacerdotibus fit iure humano institutam esse Which Glosse many of our Canonistes haue followed especially Panormitanus affirming out of that Glosse that Sacramentall confession made to Priestes was ordayned by the law of Man Fiftly because Scotus the Popish subtile schoole Doctor surnamed for his great skill Doctor subtilis after hee had largely disputed pro et contra of Popish Auricular confession concludeth in these wordes Apparet ergo istud non esse de iure diuino promulgato per scripturam Apostolicam Vel ergo tenendum est primum membrum scilicet quod sit de iure diuino promulgato per EuangeliuÌ„ vel si illud non sufficiat dicendum est tertium scilicet quod est de iure diuino positiuo promulgato a Christo Apostolis sed Ecclesiae promulgato per Apostolos absque omni scriptura It therefore appeareth that it is not of the law of God published by Apostolicall Scripture We must therfore either hold the first member to weeâ—e that it is of the law of God published by the Ghospell or if that will not suffice we must say the third that is to say that it commeth from the positiue law of God published by Christ to his Apostles but published by the Apostles to the Church without all Scripture Thus writeth the Popish Doctor subtilis who with all his subtiltie can not tell in the world what to say in defence of their Popish Auricular confession For after he hath discoursed to the vttermost of his wittes and imployed his
as the great learned Papist Rhenanus telleth vs And hee yeeldeth this reason thereof viz. because Auricular or Secret Confession was wholly vnknowen in those dayes I further adde for the accomplishment of this Conclusion that which the sayd Rhenanus citeth out of a famous and learned Papist Geilerius These are the wordes Thomas Aquinas et Scotus homines nimium arguti confessionem hodie talem reddiderunt vt Iohannes ille Geilerius grauis ac sanctus Theologus qui tot annis argentorati concionatus est apud amicos suos saepe testatus sit iuxta eorum denteroseis impossibile esse confiteri But Tho. Aquinas and Scotus men too much delighted with subtilties haue brought Confession this day to such a passe that Iohannes Geilerius a graue and reuerend Diuine and a Preacher a long time at Argentâ—ratuÌ„ said many a time vnto his friends that it was impossible for a man to make his Confession according to their Traditions Out of these words I note first that the vaine curious distinctions of the Schoole-Doctors haue brought much mischiefe into the Church of God Which if a Papist had not spoken it would seeme incredible to the world Secondly that it is impossible for a Papist to make his Confession according to the Popish Law And consequently that all Papistes by Popish Doctrine must perish euerlastingly Marke well my wordes gentle Reader as thou art carefull of thine owne saluation The Papistes teach vs to hold for an Article of our Beleefe that wee are bound to make our Confessions as the Popes Law prescribeth that is as Aquinas whose Doctrine two Popes haue confirmed for Authenticall and Scotus the Popes Doctor subtilis haue set downe the same And for all that Geilertus a Papist himselfe a great learned man complained often to his friends that none could possibly performe the same Now then since on the one side Popish Confession must be made and that vnder paine of damnation and since on the other side none possibly can make the same as it is coÌ„maunded it followeth of necessitie by Popish doctrine that Papistes must be damned eternally Thirdly that many lyuing among the Papistes doe externally seeme to obey the Popes Law who in their heartes detest a great part of their late hatched Romish Religion This is euident by the secret complaint of the learned Papist Geilerius who told that to his trustie friendes which he durst not disclose to others Yea God hath euen among the Papistes in Italie and Rome many thousandes which haue not or doe not this day bow their knee to Baal Read my Suruay and it will satisfie thee in this behalfe Let vs now heare our Jesuite and confute his fond cauils and ridiculous sophistications B. C. Scotus enquireth by what Law a man is bound to Confession and determineth first in generall that the precept must grow from one of these Lawes either from the Law of Nature or the Law positiue of God or the Law of the Church And descending to particulars hee resolueth first that wee are not bound by the Law of Nature Nextly hee disputeth whether it groweth from the precept of the Church and not liking that opinion he proceedeth to the next member and sayth To be short it seemeth more reasonable to hold the second member that Confession falleth vnder the positiue Precept of God But then wee must consider sayth Scotus whether it be found explicitely in the Ghospell immediately from Christ because it is manifest quoth hee that it is not in the old Law or whether it be from him expressely in some of the Apostles doctrine or if neither so nor so whether then it was giuen of Christ by word only published to the Church by the Apostles And hauing made this triple Diuision how Confession might come by the Precept of God that is either first commaunded by him in the Ghospell or else secondly to be found in some of the Apostles writinges or lastly instituted of Christ by word of mouth onely And hauing disputed of the first two members with dislike of the second he concludeth that we must either hold the first member to weete that it commeth from the Law of God published by the Ghospell or if that be not sufficient we must say the third that it is of the positiue Law of God published by Christ to the Apostles but published by the Apostles to the Church without all Scripture T. B. I answere first that albeit our Jesuite vseth much babling turning himselfe this way that way and euery way to anoyde and cassire if it were possible the verdict censure of their subtile Doctor Scotus yet is all that hee sayth in this Chapter as also all that any other Iesuite or Papist in the world is able to say in the same subiect soundly and most euidently refuted in the sixt Conclusion aforegoing For the last and best Resolution that Scotus could inuent after he had disputed the Question pro et contra so profoundly as his wittes could conceiue was euen this and no other viz. that Popish Auricular Confession is not grounded vpon Christes Ghospell or Apostolicall writing but onely and solely vpon vnwritten Tradition which is an huge and deepe Gulfe without any bottome If the sixt Conclusion be duely pondered and vnderstood aright the Jesuites backe is at the wall Yet I will adde thereto one other Confirmation which is deduced and plainely related in the Popes owne Decrees these are the expresse wordes Quidam Deo solummodo confiteri debere peccata dicunt vt Graeci Quidam vero Sacerdotibus confitenda esse percensent vt tota ferè Ecclesia sancta Quod vtrumque non sine magno fructu intra sanctam fit Ecclesiam ita dumtaxat vt Deo qui remissor est peccatoruÌ„ peccata nostra confiteamur Some say we must Confesse our sinnes onely to God as the Greekes doe Other some say wee must Confesse them vnto Priests as doth almost the whole Church Either of which is done with great good within the holy Church so onely that we Confesse our sinnes to God who is the forgiuer of sinnes Thus are wee taught by the Popes owne sweete deare Decrees published in print to the view of the whole world Out of which Decree I obserue these memorable documentes for the helpe of the Reader First that the Greeke Church neuer confessed their sinnes vnto Priests but vnto God alone Of which Church for all that the Presidentes Gouernours were most holy learned Fathers viz. S. Epiphanius S. Chrysostome S. Basill surnamed the great S. Gregorie Nazianzene S. Damascene and many other most excellent and holy Byshoppes Secondly that others hold the contrarie saying that wee must Confesse our sinnes to Priestes Thirdly that both these opinions are profitably practised in the Church so wee Confesse our sinnes to God Fourthly that Popish Auricular confession euen by the Popes owne Decrees is not necessarie to saluation as the Papistes this day
is baken in the Ouen and that is dressed in the Panne and in the frying Panne shall be the Priestes that offereth it And euery Meate offering mingled with Oyle and that is dry shall pertaine to all the sonnes of Aaron to all alike B. C. To the matter An vntrueth it is that priuate Masses were not before the time he mentioneth The twelft Councell of Toledo almost nine hundred yeares agoe reprehendeth those Priestes which offering Sacrifice did not communicate Quale illud Sacrificium c. What manner of Sacrifice is that sayth the Councell of which neither he that sacrificeth is knowen to be partaker Which wordes doe shew that none was present to communicate and yet the Councell requireth onely that the Priest himselfe doe Communicate S. Austen also recordeth how a Priest offered Sacrifice in a priuate forme for the freeing of that place from the molestation of wicked spirites In so particular and extraordinarie a place and for so particular a businesse no probabilitie that there were any other Communicantes T. B. I answere first that it is high time for our Jesuiticall Fryer to come once to the matter whose custome is seldome or neuer to be occupied in that honest kind of dealing Secondly that the Councell doth not so much as once name Priuat Masse much lesse doth it approoue the same Thirdly that if priuate Masse had then been vsed in some odde Churches yet would not that serue the Fryers turne The reason is at hand because that which commeth almost 700. yeares after Christ must needes be the New religion To that of S. Austen the same answere is correspondent and our Iesuite sheweth himselfe a very silly and ridiculous disputer while hee seeketh to stablish an Article of Fayth vpon iciune and barren probabilities Fourthly that all approoued antiquitie condemneth our Iesuite with his priuate Masse In the Canons of the Apostles I find these expresse wordes Si quis Episcopus Presbyter vel Diaconus vel ex Sacerdotali catalogo facta Oblatione non coÌ„municauerit causam dicat et si probabilis fuerit veniam consequatur sin verò minus segregetur vt qui populo â—ffensionis causa sit et suspicionâ—â— dedetit aduersus eum qui obtulit tanquam non dignâ— obtulerit If any Byshop Priest or Deacon or other of the Clergie shall not Communicate in time of the Oblation let him shew the cause or if it be found reasonable let him be pardoned but if otherwise let him be excommunicate as one that hath giuen scandall and brought him into suspition which offered as if he had done amisse The Popes owne Decrees are so cleare and manifest at nothing can be more One Canon commaundeth all such to be put out of the Church as do not receiue the holy Communion these are the expresse wordes Paracta Consecratione omnes comunicent qui noluerint Ecclesiaâ—ticiâ— câ—reâ—â—liminibus Sir N. Apostoli slatuerum et suncta Romaâ—â— tinet Ecclesia Whâ—â—â— Consecration is accomplished â—â—t all that will not Communicate be put out of the Church For so the Apostles haue ordeyned and so the holy Romane Church obserueth An other Canon hath these wordes Si quis 〈◊〉 Ecclesiam Dei 〈…〉 sua auertit se a Communione sacramenti et in obseruandis ministerijs declinat constitutam regulam disciplinae istum talem proijciendum de Ecclesia Catholica esse decernimus donec panitentiam agat If any come into Gods Church and heare the holy Scriptures and superstitiously auert himselfe from the Communion of the Sacrament and in obseruing the ministeries swarue from the set Rule of discipline wee decree such a one to be excommunicate vntill he repent An other Canon hath these wordes Omnes fideles qui conueniunt in solennitatibus sacris ad Ecclesiam et scripturas Apostolorum et Euangelium audiant Qui autem non perseuerant in oratione vsque dum missa peragatur nec sanctam Communionem percipiunt velut inquietudines Ecclesiae commouenies conuenit communione priuari All the faythfull which come to the Church in the time of sacred Solemnities must heare the Scriptures of the Apostles and the Ghospell But they that doe not continue in Prayer vntill Masse be done nor receiue the holy Communion ought to be excommunicate as disquieters of the congregation S. Chrysostome is so farre from approouing priuate Masse that he calleth them impudent and wicked that beeing present doe not communicate these are his wordes Ista videlicet et nunc ad omnes nos dicit qui impudenter hic et improbè astamus Quisquis Nâ—mysteriorum consâ—rs non est impudens et improbus astat These thinges verily he now sayth to vs all which stand by impudently and wickedly For whosoeuer standeth by and doth not communicate is impudent and wicked Oh what would this holy Father say if he were this day in Rome and should see many hundredes standing by gazing and the Priest onely deuowring all He would doubtlesse tearme them most impudent and vngratious people This Subiect is plentifully disputed in my Suruey to which place I referre the Reader The 14. Chapter of Pope Martins Dispensation for the Brother to marrie his naturall Sister ALL that our Jesuite sayth in defence of Pope Martins Dispensation is plaine silence in very deed For albeit I soundly confuted the forerunner in my Booke intituled The Popes Funeraâ—l there answering to euery sentence word and syllable which B.C. in his forerunner possibly could deuise yet S. R that Learned Iesuite in his pretensed Answere to the Downefull of Poperie not able to withstand or gainesay the dint of my Authorities Argumentes and Reasons passed ouer all the same being many and of great consequence in deepe silence In like manner this Jesuite fearing to suffer shipwracke vpon the same Rocke is afraid now either to reply vpon mine Answere in the Funerall or to answer my Authors plainely named in the Triall I prooued the Question soundly and clearely in the Popes Funerall by the Authorities and plaine Testimonies of Siluester Prieras sometime Maister of the Popes sacred Pallace and a Fryer so learned that he was surnamed Absolutus Theologus of Bartholomaeus Fumus a religious dominican Fryer a famous Popish summist and a man of great Authoritie in the Holy house of popish Inquisition of Angelus de Clauasio a Papist of great learning and reputation as who was Vicar generall of the Cismontani-Minors of Cardinall Caietain the most learned Papist of that crew and of Martinus Nauarrus a singular Writer and a most famous popish Canonist This notwithstanding all the answere that can any way be extorted from the Jesuites Penne is this and no other viz. that he hath answered me in the Dolefull Knell Which answere if it be pondered seriously with all the circumstaunces thereto apperteyning is able of it selfe if nothing els could be said to ouerthrow Poperie to turne it vpside downe Marke therefore gentle Reader very attentiuely what I
the mouth of babes and sucklings hast made perfect thy prayse thou who hast chosen Peter the Fisher Matthew the Publican and Paul the Persecutor to be thine Apostles thou thou ô God in thine vnsearchable iudgements hast ordained me the meanest and vnworthiest among many thousands to bicker with the mighty Goliath and to fight the Battell of thy Church against him the Byshop of Rome I meane who would thrust our Lord Iesus thy deare Sonne out of his throne The 17. Chapter of the Antiquitie of Popish Masse and the partes thereof B. C. HEe falsely and blasphemously concludeth euery peece of the Masse to be rotten Ragges For are the wordes of Consecration the most essentiall part thereof which came not from any man but from the institution of Christ himselfe as also the Pater noster rotten Ragges Who durst say it but Sir Thomas T. B. I answere first that one of the wordes of our supposed Consecration which is enim is no essentiall part thereof as your owne best learned Doctors tell vs. Secondly that in your supposed Consecration of the Chalice sundry wordes as Aquinas and other learned Papistes graunt are not of the Essence thereof For the larger discourse of which Subiect I referre the Reader to my Suruey Thirdly that the Holy wordes This is my body came not from Christ as they are a part of the late Romish Masse I prooue it soundly for that our Sauiour Christ did not vtter them vntill he had blessed and consecrated the Bread And consequently they neither are nor can be any part of Popish Masse as Christ ordeyned them For in Christes Consecration many thinges went before First he tooke the Bread secondly he blessed it thirdly he brake it fourthly he gaue it to his Disciples fiftly he sayd Take and eate this is my Body Whereupon I conclude with this ineuitable illation that either the wordes of popish Conseceation do not worke Transubstantiation or else that that which Christes Apostles receiued at Christes handes was not Christes body vnder accidentes without subiectes For the larger discourse whereof I referre the Reader to the Downe-fall of Poperie and to the Jesuites Antepast The rest of this Chapter God willing shal be answered soundly and plainely in the last Chapter of this Discourse at which time I hope in God I shall triumph ouer Pope and Poperie and giue them both their deadly woundes The 18. Chapter of the profound mysteries of popish Masse T. B. IN this Chapter our Iesuite being at a non-plus as many times afore doth onely charge mocke and mow at our Communion Booke the partes thereof For his answere I reserue the last Chapter His 19. and 20. Chapters require no answere at all He can say plaine nothing neither for the Kissing of the Popes Feete nor for Praying vpon Beades Hee freely graunteth euen the noueltie and non-age of them both The 21. Chapter of changing the Popes name B. C. IF our sauiour Christ constituting Simon Head of the Church changed his name and called him Peter what inconuenience or absurditie is it that the Pope assumpted to that dignitie should imitate the same and make choyce of some of his predecessours names thereby to be stirred vp to follow his vertue and sollicitude in gouerning the Church of Christ T. B. I answere first that what dignitie the Pope hath in the Church it is sufficiently disputed in the second Chapter Secondly that latter Popes haue been so stirred vp to Vertue by the example and names of the former as they haue better deserued to be reputed Deuils incarnate then holy Saintes or Godly men on earth Thirdly that our Jesuite giuing power to the Pope to doe what Christ hath done before him confirmeth what I haue sayd of the Pope in the second Chapter That he can change the nature of thinges make of nothing something and such like Fourthly that the Iesuit◠belyeth our Lord Iesus egregiously while he affirmeth him to haue changed Simons name For Christ changed no name in his Apostle but added a new name for the perfection of the former I prooue it because Christ euen after his resurrection called him three seuerall times Simon the sonne of Jona and once Simon Peter But with our lying and impudent Fryer an Horse-mill or a Mil-horse is all one Yet with honest and wise men it is one thing to change a mans name an other thing to adde perfection to the same Fiftly that as I sayd in my Tryall it is no maruell if Popes be ashamed of Christes Religion seeing they are ashamed of their names giuen them in their Baptisme To this our Fryer is mute because hee could not answere it Sixtly that our Fryer else where reprooueth scornefully that the Bread remayning after our Communion is allotted to the vse of the Minister But heere he will haue it no irreuerence to change the name giuen in holy Baptisme by which for all that he was dedicated vnto God Seuenthly that not the desire of Vertue but the sting of Pride caused Pope Hog-snoute to change his name into Sergius which noueltie was brought into the Church 840. yeares after Christ. The 22. Chapter of The paschall Torch T. B. THIS Pascall Torch inuented by Sozimus 400. yeares after Christ was very superstitiously vsed as I shewed in my Tryall But both the newnesse and the superstition our Fryer swalloweth vp and his mouth is so full therewith that he is become mute The 23. Chapter of the Popish Pax and the mysteries thereof B. C. THe soules in Purgatorie are in mutuall peace and charitie one with an other and without all feare of falling from that happy state and this signifieth the withholding of the Pax or kisse of Peace in a Masse for the dead T. B. I answere first that late Poperie is meere foolerie For seeing the withholding of the Pax signifieth mutuall Peace Charitie one with an other it were expedient to keepe the Pax as well from the liuing as from the dead especially from the Popes and popish massing Priestes For they receiuing the Pax if this great mysterie be true doe thereby insinuate to the world that they are not in peace and charitie one with an other no not in the time of their holy so supposed Masse For the rest see the Tryall and it is enough Secondly that our Papistes vsually graunt that the fire of Hell and of popish Purgatorie is all one saue that Purgatorie fire shall once haue an end And yet our Fryer heere calleth them happie that are boyling and burning there Let such happinesse for mee befall him and his cursed crew The 24. 25. and 26. Chapters T. B. FOr these three Chapters I wish the Readers to obserue with me the Iesuites free confession vttered in these expresse tearmes The principall cause of our Saluation is our sauiour Christ and his Merites Secondarie and instrumentall are many thinges as the Sacramentes and Men that cooperate vnto our Saluation Yea other Consecrated thinges as
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
Brytaines did at their conuersion receiue the Latine Seruice first by Eleutherius about the yeare 179. after Christ and againe by Gregorie about the 596. yeare yet can no more be truely inferred therevpon if we graunt the Latine tongue to haue been then decayed in Brytaine same onely that the Romanes deliuered their Church-seruice in the Latine tongue which then was their vulgar Language being altogeather ignoraunt of the Brytaine tongue and that the Brytaine for the loue they bore to the publique Prayers and Church-seruice which they receiued at their conuersion to the Christian faith did euer after vse and retaine the same in the Latine tongue in which they first receiued it Fourthly that seeing by Christes commandement deliuered by his Apostle All thinges in the Church ought to be done to edification it followeth of necessitie that the Latine vsage of the Brytaines in diuine Seruice was a Ragge of a New religion as which was about 179. yeares younger then the old and repugnant to Apostolicall doctrine For S. Paul spendeth no lesse then one whole Chapter that only to prooue that euery Nation ought to haue their Church-seruice in their vulgar knowne tongue If the Trumpet sayth he giue an vncertaine sound who shall prepare him selfe to the Warre So likewise you except ye vtter by the tongue manifest speech how shall it be knowne what is spâ—ken for ye shall speake in the ayre Againe thus If I know not the meaning of the voyce I shall be to him that speaketh an Aliant and he that speaketh shall be an Aliant to mee Againe thus Wherefore let him that speaketh with the tongue pray that he may interpret For if I pray with the tongue my spirit prayeth but my vnderstanding is without fruite Where I wish the Reader to obserue with me that the Spirit in this place is taken for the spirituall gift of Tongues as S. Chrysostome vpon this place doth witnesse S. â—heophilact is consonant to S. Chrysostome He calleth the Gift the Spirit sayth Theodorus My Spirit prayeth that is my spirituall Gift to speake with Tongues sayth Phoâ—us Againe thus If thou blesse with the Spirit how shall he that occupieth the roome of the vnlearned say Amen at the giuing of thankes seeing he vnderstandeth not what thou sayeth Againe thus I had rather speake fiue wordes with my vnderstanding in the Church that J may instruct others then ten thousand wordes in an vnknowen tongue Againe thus Let all things be done to edification Fourthly that our Jesuite gableth as a lying pratler while he impudently auoucheth that by Bels allowance the Latine vse in Church-seruice where the people vnderstand it not is found Catholique and Apostolicall For Bell hath plainely prooued it to be vnsound Prophane and Diabolicall as also that the vse of publique Seruice in the vulgar Tongue came neither from Wittenberge nor Geneua But from the Primitiue Apostolicall and succeding Churches for many hundred yeares togeather Whosoeuer shall with a single eye and sound iudgement peruse the Sixteene chapter afore-going and ioyne my Suruey with it can not but cleerely behold as in a Glasse of Christall the trueth to be as I haue written Lyranus a famous and great learned Papist in his learned Commentaries vpon S. Pauls Epistles doth so plainely so constantly affirme that in the Primatiue Church the publique Prayers and all other thinges were in the vulgar Tongue as none that shall read him seriously can possibly stand in doubt thereof Yea S. Basil auoucheth expressely that the Egyptians the Lybians the Thebanes the Palestines the Arabians the Phaenicians the Syrians and generally all Christian Nations of what Language soeuer they were had their common Prayers and Seruice in their vulgar Tongue But our Rhemishes obiect S. Pauls words against S. Paul in this manner Also when a man prayeth in a strange Tongue which himselfe vnderstandeth not it is not so fruitfull for instruction to him as it be knâ—w particularly what he prayed Neuerthelesse the Apostle forbiddeth not such praying neither confessing that his spirit heart and affection prayeth well towardes God though his minde and vnderstanding be not profited to instruction as otherwise it might haue been if he vnderstood the wordes Neither yet doth he appoynt such a one to get his strange Prayers translated into his vulgar Tongue to obtaine thereby the aforesaid instruction To this I answere first that I haue alreadie prooued out of S. Chrysostome and other Fathers Theodoretus Theophilactus and Photius that S. Paul doth not vnderstand by the word Spirit the Heart and Affection but the Spirituall gift to speake with Tongues Secondly that it is cleare by many textes of the Apostle that the word Spirit doth so signifie as I haue sayd Thirdly that if we should graunt the Spirit to signifie Heart and Affection as the Rhemistes absurdly expound it yet could not that serue their turne because S. Paul willeth to pray not onely with Spirit but also with minde and vnderstanding As also for that S. Paul in an other text commaundeth expressely That all thinges â—e done in the Church to edifying Which is no other Doctrine indeed then Christ himselfe teacheth in his holy Ghospell This people saith he draweth neere vnto me with their mouth and honoureth me with the lippes but their heart is farre from me Fourthly that the Apostle commaundeth him that hath the gift of Tongues to pray that he may interpret his strange tongue himselfe or that some other should interpret it or else to keepe silence in the Church For this cause doth S. Chrysostome constantly affirme that Prayers not vnderstood of him that vttereth them are altogeather vnprofitable Thou seest sayth he how by litle and litle he is come to this poynt that he declareth him to be vnprofitable not onely to others but also to him selfe seeing the minde of such a man is voyde of fruite For if a man speake onely in the Persians Language or in any other strange Tongue and doe not vnderstand those things which he speaketh he shall be to himselfe as he that vnderstandeth not the meaning of the voyce This and much more to the like effect sayth S. Chrysostome of those that had the gifts of Tongues and vnderstood not what they spake What thinke you sir Fryer would he haue sayd if he had heard the vnlearned Papistes babling on their Beades and Primers what they did not vnderstand Nay if he had heard that which now adayes is very frequent among the vnlearned Papistes both men and women how they choppe and change clippe and mangle the wordes so as they either haue a contrarie or ridiculous sense or else plaine none at all but stand as Cyphers and Voces non significatiuae For this is a truth so well knowne as it can not without blushing be denied that many popish Priestes haue been so ignoraunt that they neither vnderstood their Portesses
dayes the Byshoppes of England now so called haue had and kept a continuall and vninterrupted succession of Byshoppes successiuely so sound firme and inuiolable as the Church of Rome is not able to shew the like This succession is so clearely prooued in my Christian Dialogue as none with right reasoÌ„ can deny the same Fourthly that the Church of England now so called hath euer since the time of King Ethelbert constantly kept all and euery Article of the old Romane Religion which she receiued from the auncient and purer Church of Rome No Papist liuing is able to giue any true instance against this irrefragable assertion Fiftly that as in processe of time many superstitious grosse and palpable errours yea flatte Heresies haue by litle and litle crept into the Church of Rome euen so hath our Church of England through the sway of the time been deeply stayned polluted with the same Sixtly that our Church in the time of King Henry the eight began to be reformed in some Articles of Fayth and Doctrine but the reformation was not perfect vntill the raigne of King Edward the sixt In which Reformation no New Article of Fayth or Religion is added to the former but the former Fayth and Religion is onely refyned purged purified and such Superstition Errours and Heresies abolished as were by litle and litle brought into the Church All and euery iote of the old Romane Religion remayneth still in our Church permanent and inuiolable But some perhappes will heere demaunde of me how the Church of Rome did so degenerate from the auncient Fayth and so foulely corrupt the old Romane Religion To whom I answere in this manner First with Egesippus that auncient and learned Father that during the life of Christes blessed Apostles the visible Church remayned a Virgin free from all Heresies and corruptions but after their death Errours by litle and litle crept into the Church as into a voyde and desart House Secondly with Franciscus a Victoria that famous popish Fryer and great learned Schooleman that by litle litle the Papistes were in his time brought to such inordinate dispensations and to so miserable a state that they were neither able to endure their owne griefes nor remydies assigned by the Pope for the same That Clemens Lâ—nus and Syluester were very good Byshoppes of Rome but that the latter Byshoppes comming after them successiuely were wicked men and nothing comparable to the olde Byshoppes there Thirdly with Iosephus Angles that famous Popish Byshoppe euen in that Booke which hee dedicated to the Pope himselfe that the Romish Religion changeth euery day Fourthly with the fiue famous Popish Doctors Iohannes Roffensis Jacobus Almaâ—nus Gersonus Durandus and Michael Baius that euery sinne is mortall of it owne nature and that the old Romane Church did so beleeue vntill the time of Pope Pius the fift that is about 1560 yeares after Christ at which time Veniall sinnes werâ— hatched in the Church of Rome This is such a constant knowen trueth as neither the Jesuite S. R. nor yet the Iesuite B. C. his deare brother can tell in the world what answere to frame to the same Fourthly with Polidorus Virgilius that famous Popish Writer that the Popish Legistes and Canonistes of latter dayes haue so wrested the holy Scriptures to their owne sense and liking as Coblers doe gnaw with their teeth and stretch out their filthy skinnes Fiftly with Platina the Popes deare Vassall and trustie Friend that in his dayes the Popedome was brought to that passe that who so could goe before others in Bribes and Ambition hee onely should haue the place Sixtly with Couarruuias that worthy popish Arch-byshoppe and learned Canonist that in these dayes either the Popes opinion must be defended or else Poperie can not stand Lastly with Iosephus Angles writing to the Popes deare Holynesse that albeit the old Church of Rome did by the commaundement of the Apostles excommunicate all non communicants in the time of the Masse or Liturgie yet hath the late Church decreed that it shall be lawfull for all Lay persons to receiue the Eucharist onely at Easter Much more I might and could say if I thought not this sufficient So then the Fayth and Doctrine this day professed and authorized in this our Church of England is indeed the old Romane religion purged refined and restored to the primatiue and most auncient puritie in King Edwardes dayes in whose happy raigne was the perfect and complete Reformation But the Fayth and Religion it selfe came from S. Peter and S. Paul yea euen from Christ himselfe their Jesus and our Jesus world without end To whom with the Father and the holy Ghost three in the distinction of persons and one in the vnitie of diuine essence be all Honour Maiestie Power Glory and Dominion now and euermore Amen A Caueat to the Christian Reader THE masked Jesuite in his Preface to the Reader laboureth with might and maine to perswade his Readers that I dare not performe that challenge which I made to the Fore-runner his wordes are these I the meanest of many millions doe accept of his Challenge and doe vndertake to defend not onely these two poynes of Iosephus Doctrine and Pope Martins Dispensation which he hath singled out as matters important but also all the rest so it may be with that equitie and fauour which was graunted to the Protestantes in France And vpon the same conditions doe prouoke him with a counter-challenge to the defence of his Bookes And a litle after he telleth his Reader That hee sendes me as many Challenges as will stand betweene Charing-crosse Chester and as many Dares as will reach from Darby to Darington To which I answere in this manner First that the Jesuites are accused and charged by their deare Breathren the popish Secular Priestes with Pride Ambition Couetousnesse Coozenage Theft Crueltie Murther Treason and all wickednesse that can be named Yea of Fryer Parsons that trayterous Iesuite they giue this testimonie in particular viz. by Parsons platformes Secular Priestes must depend vpon Blackwell and Blackwell vpon Garnet and Garnet vpon Parsons and Parsons the Priestes Bastard vpon the Deuill Peruse my Anatomy of popish Tyrannie and there thou shalt finde this trueth with great varietie of like matter Secondly that in all my Challenges I require but one onely Condition which the Iesuite passeth ouer in silence because he meaneth not to performe the same The Condition is this viz. That the Iesuite which shall accept the Challenge must put downe his name with his addition in print and send it to me Which if it be once performed during my life I promised vpon my saluation to doe what in me lyeth to procure a false conduct for the safe comming safe abyding and safe departure of him whosoeuer he be that shall accept and vndertake the true performance of the Challenge in maner aforesayd Thirdly that the Jesuite