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-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
but that was both before it was condemned in the Church as it was since by Pius the fift and Gregorius the thirteenth Loe our Jesuite in the name of all Papistes for all Papistes must so beleeue blusheth not to publish to the World in print in perpetuam rei memoriam that Pope Pius was the Church in his time Pope Gregorie in his time and consequently euery Pope in his time For what he affirmeth of those two in this kind of subiect the same perforce he must approue in all other Popes successiuely So then this is a constant maxime in the Church of Rome that whensoeuer our Papistes say or write That the Church can not erre or The Church hath thus and thus defined they euer meane of the Pope and Church of Rome I therefore cannot but conclude with this ineuitable illation viz. that in true Popish sense and meaning the Pope is the onely Iudge in all controuersies of Religion B. C. That their Popes sayth Bell can not erre in Fayth iudicially is this day with Papistes an Article of their Fayth An vntrueth I say it is for though the more common and better opinion be That the Pope in his iudiciall and definitiue sentence can not erre in Fayth yet false it is that this is an Article of Fayth when as many Diuines both haue and doe hold the contrarie T. B. I answere first that I willingly acknowledge one trueth here vnawares vttered by our Iesuite viz. that there is great dissention amongest the Popish Doctors concerning matters of Fayth and Doctrine Of which dissention I haue discoursed at large in my Motiues Secondly that the best opinion in the Romish Church doth not make an Article of Romish Fayth Thirdly that he might be deemed a right wise man that could soundly discouer the Articles of Popish fayth For the Fryer heere telleth vs lustily that which is the common and better opinion euen the opinion of the Pope himselfe for his doubtlesse is the best prooueth not an Article of Popish fayth Fourthly that our Jesuite doth heere giue vs a generall rule how to discerne the Articles of Popish fayth For thus disputeth our Learned Fryer Although it be the more common and better opinion yet seeing many Diuines hold the contrarie it can not be an Article of Popish fayth This is a golden and most excellent Rule in deed for which I thanke our Jesuite with all my heart For no stronger reasons and proofes can be had in controuersies then the plaine confession of the aduerse part Hence are fitly deduced sundry golden and very memorable Corollaries The first whereof is this viz. that the Papistes this day haue either very few or flat none at all Articles of their Fayth The second Corollarie is this viz. that it is not against Popish fayth to beleeue and defend that the Pope may erre Iudicially that Christes naturall body is not in the holy Eucharist really that the Marriage of Priests is lawfull that the Pope is a Tyrant and Heretique a Firebrand of all mischiefe that a great number of zealous and faythfull Martirs of Iesus Christ were burnt in Queene Maries daies by force of the Popes tyrannicall Law who for all that held no Article against Popish fayth Out vpon late hatched Poperie Euerie child may see that it is the New religion The Jesuite with the helpe of his best Learned breathren for to defende Poperie froÌ„ the note suspition of the New religion the most Learned Iesuites put to their helping hands gaue their best aduise is not able in truth to say any thing for the antiquitie of the same How be it rather theÌ„ his proud heart shall yeeld to the trueth retract his former ignorance malice he wholly consecrates himselfe to very childish shiftes and most foolish ridiculous cauils B. C. Hee runneth vpon the Doctrine taught by Soto and generally holden of Catholikes viz. that the Pope can not erre in Fayth and confidently auoucheth that it was neuer heard of till of late dayes his wordes be these This onely will I say that this Popist Article the Pope can not erre in Fayth was neuer heard of in Christes Church for the space of a thousand and fiue hundred yeares A gallant vntrueth worthy of the reformed Minister Thomas Waldensis was long before that time as also Turrecremata who both hold that the Pope can not erre in Fayth And not onely late Writers but the auncient Fathers haue taught the same Doctrine relying them selues vpon the Promise of Christ in the Ghospell The wordes of Soto prooue very well that the Pope as Pope can not erre which the most and best Diuines doe also maintaine But no word hath he or syllable that this is an Article of Fayth which was the poynt that Bell should haue prooued and for which he pretended to cite his wordes T. B. I answere first that one Popish trueth here vnawares confessed by our Fryer Jesuite doth comfort my heart more then a litle viz. that the Pope as Pope can not erre For albeit it be most absurd and false in rei veritato as I haue plentifully prooued in my Christian Dialogue yet is it a Popish trueth or a flat lye which is the same and turneth Poperie vpside downe Secondly that though the Pope with his most and best Diuines doe hold that the Pope as Pope can not erre yet is it not an Article of Popish Fayth This Confession I likewise approoue and out of this double Graunt I inferre a double Corollarie corollary 1 First that seeing it is no Article of Popish Fayth to beleeue that the Pope can not erre a shame of all shames it is to the Pope and his deuoted Vassals to hold affirme and beleeue that the Councels can not erre which the Pope confirmeth nor those Councels decree a trueth which he reiecteth and condemneth For most absurde and execrable it is to burne with Fire and Faggot zealous Men and zealous Women because forsooth they will not beleeue that which the Pope himselfe doth not beleeue O tempora O mores The Pope himselfe doth not beleeue that hee can not erre as this sweete Doctrine of our sweete Sir Fryer teacheth vs. And yet must all be burnt with Fire and Fagot that say hee may erre in decreeing matters of Fayth corollary 2 Secondly that all the late Popes and Papistes are flat Heretiques The reason is euident because they beleeue not Christes promise made to Peter and the Byshops of Rome his successors as both the Pope and all his deuoted Vassals do beleeue For which respect the Fryer in this very place telleth vs peremptorily and blusheth neuer a whit thereat that not onely Walâ—ensis and Cardinall Turrecremata but Late Writers and the auncient Fathers also haue taught the same Doctrine For which respect the Iesuites and all Iesuited Papistes haue euer in their mouthes and continually obiect as an argument vnanswerable that
Christ prayed for the Fayth of S. Peter and his successours that it should neuer fayle that Hel-gates should neuer preuaile against it Yet heere God be thanked for it their pride is somewhat abated Christ is now either distrusted of them which they dare not say or at least suspected not to haue promised to the Byshops of Rome that their Fayth should not fayle For if they beleeue not that Christ is faythfull in all his Promises they are flat Heretiques If they beleeue him to performe what hee hath promised then it must perforce either be with them an Article of popish Fayth that the Pope as Pope can not erre or else doubtlesse that Christ made no such Promise to the Byshops of Rome Vtrum â—orum manis accipe good sir Fryer for the better of them is able to giue the Pope his dinner For which respect S. R. that learned Iesuite as his deare brother B. C. calleth him telleth vs roundly that false Fayth can haue no accesse to S. Peters Chaire For which respect the same Jesuite telleth vs in an other place That wee must obey what hee decreeth or defineth iudicially as sitting in S. Peters Chaire though in heart he were an Heretique For which respect the same Iesuite telleth vs in his wordes following That Byshops must not examine the Doctrine which the Pope deliuereth iudicially out of S. Peters Chaire as supreame Pastor of Gods Church but onely that wherein he vttereth his owne priuate opinion Thus writeth S. R. that great Learned Jesuite truly telling vs the Popish Fayth Which Doctrine if any but a Papist had deliuered it few or none would haue giuen credite thereunto O sweete Iesus I woonder how any Papist hearing such Doctrine published in print by the Jesuites so deare and so neare to the Pope himselfe and duely pondering the vanitie thereof and the blasphemie therein conteyned can still be a Papist and not defie the Pope and his damnable Doctrine What shall we doe with the holy Scripture Is it the infallible rule of Fayth Is it superiour to the Popes Iudiciall sentence Must the Papistes depend vpon it rather then vpon the Popes Decree No no if the Pope define against it his Decree must be obeyed neither may any Byshop as our Fryer heere teacheth vs much lesse may euery Priuate man examine the same or once call it into question Of which more at large when I come to the Oath which Byshops make to the Pope Thirdly that when I say this Popish Article of Fayth was neuer heard of in the Church for the space of a thousand and fiue hundred yeares I meane not of bare vocall hearing but of hearing with approbation of which hearing this Text of the holy Ghospell is emphaticall Scimus quia peccatores Deus non audit Wee know that God heareth not sinners that is Approoueth not sinners in graunting their requestes For God knoweth seeth and heareth all Petitions vocally but theirs onely with approbation Which aske according to his will The Psalmograph vseth the like phrase in these wordes They shall cry but there shall be none to helpe them yea euen vnto the Lord shall they cry but he shall not heare them The Prophet Micheas doth second the Psalmograph in these wordes Then shall they cry vnto the Lord and he shall not heare them The Prophet Zacharie is consonant in these wordes Sic clamabunt et non exaudiam dicit Dominus exercituum So shall they cry and I will not heare them sayth the Lord of Hostes. All which places and the like must perforce be vnderstood not of bare vocall hearing but of hearing with approbation Which kind of hearing my selfe did plainly insinuate to the Reader when in my words following I excepted the Iesuites and Iesuited Papistes For if I had meant of bare vocall hearing I neither would nor truely could haue excepted the Iesuites whom I graunt to haue heard it both vocally with approbatioÌ„ Fourthly wheÌ„ our Fryer obiecteth ridiculously that Aquinas Antoninus Waldensis and Turrecremata taught the same Doctrine within 1500. yeares I answere thus first that Canus denieth Waldensis to hold that opinion Secondly that the vse of holy Writ is to speake of many as all and of few as none Which synecdochicall speach very frequent in the holy Scriptures were sufficient if need required as it doth not to iustifie my manner of speaking in this behalfe Thirdly that if I should admit so much as our sir Fryer desireth yet would it follow of necessitie that Poperie is the New Religion For we see heere as clearely as the Sunne shyning at noone day that this Popish Article the Pope as Pope can not erre was hatched a thousand two hundred and fourtie yeares after Christ. For the most auncient Father thereof which our Iesuite possibly is able to name is Aquinas as we haue seene who for al that liued more then 1240. yeares after Christ. To which I adde that the Church as the famous Papistes Panormitanus and Gersonus teach vs is either the Congregation of the faythfull or a generall Councell sufficiently representing the same This being so and my reasons duely pondered it is very cleare and euident that this Popish Article of Fayth was neuer heard of in the Church that is approoued of the Church for the space of 1240. yeares after Christ. For doubtlesse the approbation of Aquinas Antoninus and Turrecremata the Popes flattering Parasites can not establish the Religion and Fayth of the Church of Rome If our Iesuite dare say it let him publish it in print and then expect my Commentarie vpon the same See and note well the 29. and the 30. Chapters as also the Christian Dialogue page 24.27.30.38.41.60.63.65 B. C. One maine Lye with a prettie tricke of lieger-demaine For he is to prooue out of Alphonsus that the Pope might erre in Fayth iudicially for that is the question as appeareth in the Premisses and that this Article was neuer heard of 1500. yeares and yet in the foresayd wordes of Alphonsus no such thing is conteyned seeing he speaketh in them not of his iudiciall Decrees but of priuate Errours which may befall him in the exposition of the Scriptures and that Alphonsus must needes meane of his priuate opinions in writing or otherwise and not of his definitiue sentence is certaine For otherwise there be and were in his time that held the Pope could not be an Heretique iudicially or erre as Pope Much lesse doth Alphonsus say that it was neuer heard of for the space of 1500. yeares that the Pope could not erre in Fayth iudicially for of this poynt he hath not one word or syllable T. B. I answere thus first that I beleeue our Jesuite viz. while he telleth vs that his Pope may erre in expounding the holy Scriptures But withall I must needes tell him that his Pope may as truely erre in his iudiciall sentence The reason is euident
Platina Carranza Sigeberius Nanclerus Marke well the answere Petr. Dam. Mar. Polonus The Buffaloes are Beastes as terrible as Lyons Many yet liuing know this to be most true The Iesuit Alphonsus was then the Maister of the English Colledge A thing neuer heard nor knowne before Iohn 4 v. 24. 1. Iohn 5. v. 14. Sap. 8.1 Ephes. 1. v. 4.11 Rom. 9. v. 11.15.16 c. Ephes. 6.12 Act. 9. v. 1.2.3 c. Act. 8. v. 1.3 See the Anatomie for this point and note it well Loe the Fryer confoundeth both himselfe and his Pope The Author with the Church of England defendeth euery iote of the old Romane Religion Three very Memorable pointes See the oath Infra Cap. 27. All must be as the Pope will See the Oath which Bishops make to the Pope infra Cap. 27. The Popes pretended prerogatiues must euer be defended Rhemistes in Act. 15. The Pope can not erre The Pope in the Church say the Iesuites S. R. pag. 281. marke this well When Papists speake of the Church they euer meane the pope The Iesuite cuts the Popes throate Marke well the answere See my Booke of Motiues Cap. 8. The Popish Church holdeth no poynts of fayth Marke well for Christes sake this poynt of doctrine The first Corollarie The second Corollarie All this is meere folly Praecedunt ista in B.C. page 86. Marke this confession The Pope as Pope by Popish graunt can not erre Vnderstand this poynt well for Christes sake See and note well my ChristiaÌ„ Dialogue Chap. 2. Pag 14. Argumentum ad hominem See and note well the 29. the 30. Chapters Christ neuer prayed that the Pope should not erre This DileÌ„ma is insoluble S.R. Pag 315. Pag. 417. Loe we must beleeue his doctrine that is an Heretike See and note my Reply to the 29. Chapt. S. R. in the name of the Pope proclaimeth the Popes fayth and doctrine Inferius Cap. 27. Ioh. 9 3â— 1. Ioh. 5. v. 14. Psal. 18. v. 41. Mich. 3.4 Zach. 7. v. 13. Poperie is the new religion Vixit Aquinas A.D. 1243. For the space of 1240. The Fryer dare not do it for his lugges Loe the Pope as Pope by Popish doctrine can not erre The Iesuite how he is beleeued Luke 22. vers 32. Alas alas Poperie is wounded vnto death S. R. pag. 417. Out vpon Poperie who is able to endure it S. R. pag. 417. The Iesuite is shameles and impudent Alphons lib 3. aduers. haereses prope finem This is wonderfull Bellarmine speaketh against his owne knowledge O childish vanitie A.D. 1538. Marke well for Christes sake if thou loue thine owne soule Alphons lib. 1. cap. 4. aduers haeres Marke well this poynt striketh dead The Iesuites are Gypsies Loe the Pope is wounded at the heart hee can no longer liue A note worthy the remembrance The Iesuite hath deserued the whetstone Iob. 1.8 1. Ioh. 3. v. 12. Gen. 6· v. 9. Luke 1.28 Luke 1.6 Heb. 11. Act. 10. v. 2. Mat. 10. v. 42. Heb. 11. v. 27. Rom. 8. v. 18. Io. de Comb. lib. 5. Theol. ver cap. 11. Rhem. Rom. 8. v. 17. in annotae Heb. 11.6 Mat. 7. v. 18. Rom. 14. v. 23. Mat. 7.17 Aug. de fide ex operib cap. 14. tom 4. Esa. 64.6 Bernard de verb. Esa. Serm. 5. p. 405. Phil. 3.12 1. Cor. 1.30 Bernard vbi super D. 2. Ioh. 3.9 Rom. 6.23 Iac. 3.2 Bernard de grat et lib. Arb. p. 1189 Aug. in Ps. 11â— con 2. in fine Bernar. de aduent Dom. Serm. â— To. 1. See my Suruay pag. 389. 2. Cor. 5. v. 19. Vulgaâ—a editio Marke this poynt well Note the Seuenth Conclusion Mat. 7.19 Ioh. 14. v. 23. Ephes. cap. 1. v. 4. et cap. 2. v. 10. Rom. â— v. 30. Esa. 59.2 Ephes. 2. .v. 3.5 Lyr. in Cap. 6 Matt. See the Conclusion and note it Loe Good workâ— are the way which lead vs to heauen Aquin. p. 1. q. 23. art 3. ad 2. Bellar. To. 3. col 627. et col 628. The foresight of workes no cause of predestination Bellarm. To. 3. Col. 628. Bellarm. To. 3. Col 626. et Col. 628. Workes are not the cause of saluation yet the way by which we must come vnto it I defend the old Romane religion God in his eternall purpose prepared both eternall glory for his elect and the way or meanes to attaine the same Bern. super Cant. Ser. 68. Loe the confession of our vnworthines is our best merite Bern in Canâ—â— ser. 67. Bern. ser. 1. in Annunâ— B.M.V. This testimonie is wonderfull Marke it well The Popish Abbot woundeth the Pope at the very heart Vixit Bernardus A.D. 1110. Marke this well Note this ex iure This reason can not be answeared See and note well the 11. Conclusion Aug. lib. 9. Confess cap. 13. Psal. 143. v. 2. Psal. 130. v. 3. Bern. de adu dom serm 6. tom 1. Bernard in annue B.V. serm 1. No Workes can merite Glory Durand in 2 sent dist 27. q 2. in medio Condigne merite is so farre aboue mans capacitie as no man possiblely can haue it Suruey part 3. cap. 9. Soro de nat et gr lib. 3. cap. 6. pag. 138. Popish satisfaction is impossible Arist. in 8. Ethic. cap. 7. Luke 17. v. 20. Iac 3 v. 2. Aquin. 1.2 q. 114. ar 1. in corp Loe man can not merite any thing condignely or properly There is no proper merite in man Marke vnderstand this poynt aright Angles in 2. sent pag. 103. Loe the Papistes graunt as much as we desire Philip. 3.9 Rom. 10.4 Tit. 3.5 1. Cor. 1.30 2. Cor. 5.19 Rom. 8. v. 1 2.3.4 Rom. 5. v. 14. Reu. 7. v. 14. Reu. 3. v. 4. All this is already proued Marke the Cardinals wordes wel vnderstand them soundly Bellar. de iustif tom 3. col 1296. ct col 1298. All the good deedes we can possibly doe are Gods owne and so we can merite nothing of God with them Marke well for Christes sake for Poperie bleedeth vnto death Aug. lib. 9. Confess cap. 13. Marke this well Secundò principaliter Angles in 2. sent pag. 107. The Byshoppe confuteth him selfe he needeth no aduersarie A very fond distinction inuented without rime or reason Tit. 1. v. 2. Heb. 6.10 2. Tim. 4.8 Iac. 1.12 Iac. 2.5 Psal. 130.3 Psal. 143.2 S. R. pag. 257. Note well the eleuenth Conclusion following 1. Cor. 13. v. 13. Heb. 11. v. 6. Aug. in Epist. IohaÌ„ tract 10. in initio Ioh 6. v. 29. Rom. 3 28. Rom. 5.1 Rom. 10. v. 3.4 Act. 13.39 Phil. 3 9. Fides sumitur dupliciter propriè et sinapliciter seu figuratè et re latiuè By Fayth Christes obedience merites are applyed to vs. By Fayth Christes obedience merites are applyed to vs. Ioh. 3. v. 17. Mar 16 v. 7. Hâ—b 11. v. 7 Bona opera sunt medium sine quo non salutis Supâ—rius concl 4. See the 5. Conclusion and note it Rom. 5.1 1. Cor. 1.3 2. Cor. 4.16 Gal. 6.15 Mat. 7.17 Ioh. 15.12 Ioh. 14. v. 1â—
THE Catholique Triumph Conteyning A Reply to the pretensed Answere of B. C. a masked Iesuite lately published against the Tryall of the New Religion Wherein is euidently prooued that Poperie and the Doctrine now professed in the Romish Church is the New Religion And that the Fayth which the Church of England now mayntaineth is the ancient Romane Religion Psal. 22. v. 16. Dogges are come about mee and the councell of the wicked layeth siege against me Psal. 120. v. 3. What reward shall be giuen to thee thou false tongue euen mighty and sharpe arrowes with hot burning coales AT LONDON Printed for the companie of Stationers 1610. To the most reuerend Father my very good Lord TOBY the L. Archbyshop of Yorke his Grace Primate of England Fifteene yeares most reuerend Father are now fully expired since I first began to write against the professed aduersaries of the auncient Christian Catholike Apostolique and old Romane religion I meane the late Byshops of Rome the Romish Cardinals the Iesuites Iesuited Papistes and Gunpowder-popish-vassals In which space of time I haue published so many Bookes in defence of the Catholique Fayth as are in number correspondent to the yeares A very long time it was the argument in hand considered before I could any way extort any Answere to any of my Bookes Howbeit when the Iesuites after mature deliberation had seriously pondered with them-selues that through their long silence many Papistes did vtterly renounce Poperie and ioyfully embrace the Catholique Fayth this day sinceerely professed in our Church then they became so ashamed of their silence in that behalfe that in the yeare 1605. they published a litle Pamphlet tearming it The forerunner of Bels downefall wherein they auouched with brasen faces that they had written fiue Bookes fiue yeares afore that time against my Motiues and my Suruey of Poperie And least it should be obiected against them that it cannot be so seeing we can neither see them nor heare of them the Fore-runner telleth vs very grauely but to their endlesse shame that the Answere is suppressed and vpon iust occasion stayed from the publication Alasse alasse how are silly Papistes bewitched with the iugling and deceitfull dealing of these seducers They haue been buzzing about the answering of my two first Bookes as they them selues tell vs almost the space of sixe whole yeares and when after their great paines and labours of so many yeares they had framed the answere in the best manner they could deuise then they suppressed the same vpon iust occasiō as their Forerunner in their name telleth vs. What haue they bestowed fiue yeares in wryting fiue Bookes against two of my Bookes and dare not to this day publish any one of them Out vpon lying lippes Out vpon trayterous Iesuites and Iesuiticall deceyuers of the world The trueth is that there is no trueth in these men And it is an euident testimonie that they are not indeed able to answere for otherwise they would not for very shame haue protested so much in print and haue performed nothing lesse I am verily perswaded that they will neuer during my life which they wish to be short and therefore haue they prouided my Winding sheete and other indirect meanes to take away my life frame any full and direct Answere to the said Bookes because in trueth all the Iesuites in the Christian world are not able to performe it the trueth being so cleare forcible against them After the Fore-runner a pretensed Answere was published in the yeare 1606. against the Downe fall of Poperie For refutation of which silly Pamphlet I addressed my Booke intituled The Iesuites Antepast which seemeth to their daintie mouthes so vntouthsome that I deeme it will serue also for their Post-past as I had formerly published an other Reply intituled The Popes Funerall to the Fore-runner of the Downefall Now lately in the end of the yeare 1608. an other pretensed Answere a silly thing God wote was published against my Booke intituled The Tryall of the new religion This Pamphlet came to my handes in Nouember last at which time I was very ill in body and also distant aboue one hundred Myles from mine owne Librarie the want whereof at that time was farre more grieuous to me then were all my painefull infirmities of body In the midst of which whiles I am writing for the trueth I find no litle comfort The case so standing albeit your Grace was then aboue fourtie Myles from me yet did I presume to bemone my selfe vnto your Grace for the supply of my present want of Bookes with whom my suite found such intertainement as I neither did nor euer could expect Bookes indeed I expected but that your Grace should also send them to me vpon your owne charges most freely and Christianly offering to send me your whole Librarie which is indeed a Librarie most excellent if I shouldst and in need thereof it seemed to mee such an honorable sauour as that I could not now in duetie omit to make this publique acknowledgement thereof The Iesuites and Iesuited Gunpowder Papistes not able to endure the sound of my Tryall wherein Poperie was tearmed and prooued the New Religion haue suborned as it seemeth Robert Parsons that lewd companion and trayterous Fryer to publish that supposed Refutation the summe and substaunce whereof they had no doubt collected and framed to his handes His name he dareth not disclose least the great disgrace which can not but insue vpon that silly Answere should eternally cleaue vnto him as being one who not able to defend Poperie by honest and Christian-like proceeding bestirreth himselfe to effect the same by continuall forgerie by lying by coozenage and deceitfull dealing as in this Booke I shall make apparant Wherein what my selfe haue effected or rather God in mee let the iuditious and honest Reader iudge and for that which he findeth well done giue God the glorie Such as it is I dedicate vnto your Grace as vnto him who hath deserued my vttermost service The Almighty blesse your Grace with many happy yeares in this life and with eternall glory in the life to come Amen Iunij 3. 1609. Your Graces most bounden Thomas Bell. Briefe Instructions for the better vnderstanding of the Discourse following Instruction 1. THE Pope Cardinals Iesuites and all Papistes generally do beare the world in hand that the Church of Rome this day keepeth inuiolably that Fayth and Religion which S. Peter and S. Paul in their time planted there I hold and defende the negatiue proouing the same soundly and euidently throughout this whole Discourse Wee all agree in this that the Church of Rome had once the true auncient Christian catholique and apostolique Fayth which she receiued from S. Peter and S. Paul my selfe most willingly subscribing thereunto I neither impugne the old Romane religion nor reprooue the auncient Byshops there it is the Late vp-start-religion of the Romish Church that now is which I detest and write against in all
Sozimus had vnderstood and meant the Canons of Sardica when he named the Canons of Nice about which there was so much adoe as we haue already seene then doubtlesse it had been his part to haue named them though for no other end but onely for vnitie peace and charitie-sake Secondly that I willingly agree to our Jesuite when he auoucheth no new thing touching Fayth to haue been enacted in the supposed Synode of Sardica And my reason is this for that Appeales to the Church of Rome are no matters of Fayth indeed thirdly that it is a matter of Fayth with the Papistes to beleeue that the Fathers of Nice could not erre either in defining matters of Fayth or Manners And consequently seeing the Synode of Sardica in the fourth and seuenth Canons hath decreed flat contrary to the Synode of Nice in the fourth fift sixt and seuenth Canons it can not be deemed a legittimate and lawfull Synode but a bastard and plaine counterfeite as I haue already prooued in the third Aphorisme of this present Chapter To which place I referre the Reader as where he may find whatsoeuer his heart can desire This onely will I heere say for the present that not onely the other first three generall Councels after Nice viz. of Constantinople Ephesus and Chalcedon being all three after it decreed contrary to it but which is more to be admired 217. Byshoppes of which S. Austen was one assembled in the famous Councell Aphrican affirmed constantly with one vniforme assent to Pope Celestine that no Synode had made such Canons as the Byshoppes of Rome alleadged for their owne pompe and statelynesse These are the expresse words of the holy Synode Nam vt aliqui tanquam a tuae sanctitatis latere mittantur nulla inuenimus patrum Synodo constitutum For that any should be sent from your Holynesse we find it not defined by the Fathers in any Synode Now notwithstanding this vniforme assertion of so many so learned so holy and so auncient Fathers yet is that falsely supposed prerogatiue of Appeales to Rome plainely decreed in the fourth and seuenth Canons of Sardica And consequently either the Synode of Sardice was a bastard and counterfeite Conuenticle or else the two hundred and seuenteene Fathers of the Aphrican Councell auouched to the Pope a most notorious vntrueth But doubtlesse neither could so many holy Fathers for their great reading and learning haue been ignoraunt of the sayd Councell if any such lawfull Synode had been extant neither for their rare pietie would they haue gainesayd or withstood the same Fourthly that the affirmance of the Nicene Fathers to haue been also at Sardice is like to the counterfeite Donation of Constantine the rescript of Pope Julius and such like of which I haue discoursed at large in the conclusions and Aphorismes of this present Chapter Fiftly that it greatly stood the Popes in hand Sozimus Bonifacius and Celestinus during whose times the controuersie did continue to haue vrged the Canons of Sardica if any such lawfull generall Synode had been extant And consequently seeing they neuer once related them it followeth that in their dayes there was no such Councell extant in very deed Sixtly that Pope Gregorie reuerenced the foure first generall Councels as the foure holy Ghospels but for all that he neuer made mention of the Synode of Sardica which if it had been extant no counterfeite ought to haue had the second place Seuenthly that the fourth and seuenth Canons of Sardice are flat contrary to the fourth fifth sixth and seuenth Canons of Nice And yet without all peraduenture no Synode especially comming within a few yeares after Nice which Councell all the Christian world did highly reuerence at all times either would or durst haue decreed against the same To that which is here and else where sayd of the Centuristes and M. Perkins this may in generall yeeld sufficient contentation to the honest Reader viz. that albeit they doe not in euery poynt iumpe precisely with Bell yet doe they not speake any thing in defence of Poperie nor any where plead for the supposed antiquitie thereof No no they vtterly reiect Poperie and euery where condemne the same To that of Policarpus I answere that his comming to Rome was not to insinuate any soueraigntie of Anicetus ouer him as the very end did declare but to visit that famous imperiall Citie the Queene of the world and Caput mundi and to see the old Monumentes in that place euen as the Queene of the South came from farre to heare Salomons Wisedome and to beholde his glory To that of Jrenaeus I haue said sufficiently in many places of this Chapter as also to that of Policrates and the other Byshoppes of Asia That which I haue sayd of S. Cyprian doth euidently confirme the same And the testimonie of Eusebius is consonant while he writeth in this maner Sed hoc non omnibus placabat Episcopis quin potius è contrario scribentes ei iubebant vt magis qua sunt pacis ageret et concordia atque vnanimitati studeret denique extant etiam ipsorum literae quibus asperius obiurgant Victorem All Byshoppes liked not his dealing but by their Letters directed to him they commaunded marke well the word that he should rather doe those thinges which belong to peace and should indeuour himselfe to establish concord and vnitie To be briefe their Letters are extant in which they reprooue Victor the Byshoppe of Rome very sharpely Thus writeth the auntient and learned Father Eusebius cleering two thinges vnto vs. Th' one that Irenaeus and the other holy Byshoppes did chide and reproue the Pope Th' other that they did not onely rebuke him but which is much more freely in their Letters to him commaund him Marke well the word Iubebant they commaunded him For sayth our Jesuite the other Apostles sent not Peter by any authoritie of commaund but onely by request and petition as Princes and Superiours without any touch of their high Office or Dignitie may be sent by their inferiours their sending proceeding from petition nothing empeacheth their high Soueraigntie But our sir Fryer either desireth to deceiue others or knoweth not what he sayth For without all peraduenture in proper phrase of speach whosoeuer is sent by an other or others marke well my wordes the same person or persons as they be sent are inferiours For this reduplication sent as sent implyeth intrinsecally a duetie and subiection euen in him or them who otherwise may be superiours Whensoeuer one goeth to a place vpon request he is not properly sent thyther by him that made the request but freely taketh that iourney in hand of his owne accord Hee doth it willingly not by compulsion of charitie not of duetie To which I adde that it is a disloyall speach of a Subiect to affirme that the King may be sent of his Subiectes Howbeit I will not deny but the King in some matters of
euery whit God make mee this day and euer thankefull for it and for all other his manifold mercies and fauours towards me we all returned to the Colledge with great ioy and speed The Rector of the Colledge could no way be perswaded but that I had receiued some secret and inward mortall wound albeit neither my self felt any neither could their eyes or wits discerne any hurt at all saue onely that my face was something bloody by reason of the fall I got while perceiuing the imminent danger which afore I feared not I made haste to haue escaped from the same for it had neuer bin knowne or heard in Rome that any man woman or child euer escaped with life being once in that kinde of danger to wit in the curtesie of the furious and raging Buffaloes Many gaue their censures concerning the wonderfull fact and rare euent the generall resolution was this Viz. That J might fight with Buffaloes in England and haue the vpper hand My selfe did deeme their censure to be probable and this day me thinketh the same is brought to passe though Gods name bee blessed for it in the farre different sense and meaning from that which either they or my selfe did then imagine I sought God then but found him not because I sought him not in trueth and according to his holy will I thought then being blinded with late start-vp Poperie that I should fight against the true professours of Christes Ghospell whom I then reputed Heretiques and spirituall Buffaloes But our most mercifull God whose wisedome reacheth from end to end mightily and disposeth all thinges sweetly ordayned me in his eternall purpose a vosteriori hoc fa â—lè infertur to a farre more honorable and sacred Warfare viz. to encounter the trayterous Jesuâ—tes and â—esuited Gunpowder Popelinges valiantly to fight the battaile of Christes Church against those most furious brainelesse cruell Buffaloes of mens soules Whose legierdemaine coozenage periurie pride malice theft murders fraud feigned miracles and infinite cunnicatching trickes the gentle Reader may finde at large soundly prooued out of the Bookes which the Seminâ—rie-priestes haue published to the World in my Booke intituled The Anatomie of Popish tyrannie Which Booke whosoeuer shall with iudgement and a single eye peruse can not but perceiue the Jesuites to be Firebrands of all mischiefe and most vgly monsters of the World B. C. Not long after he hath these wordes For first it is a constant Maxime quoth he that the Pope and none but the Pope must iudge in all Controuersies of fayth and doctrine Nay it is rather a most constant Maxime that Bell seldome writeth any thing that is true False it is that the Pope and none but the Pope is the Iudge in all matters of Fayth and Doctrine For a generall Councell also is Iudge yea and by the opinion of many learned Diuines the Pope iudging alone without a generall Councell may erre T. B. I answere first that the Iesuite not able to answere the trueth by me soundly defended seeketh to get the victorie by crying out against the trueth This is cleare to euery iudicious Reader Secondly that our Fryer sayth truely That by the iudgement of many learned Papistes the Pope may erre without a generall Councell To this Doctrine I willingly subscribe as which is the very trueth that I defend For mine vsuall manner euer is in all my Bookes to confound Poperie with the best Lerned Popish Writers I hold and defende no point of doctrine but such onely as great learned Papistes hold and defend with me This my ioy this is my credite this the honour of the cause in hand that I constantly hold with the now Church of England euery Article of the old Romane Religion onely condemning and reiecting erroneous superstitious childish and ridiculous additamentes of late yeares by litle and litle crept into the Church Thirdly that I haue prooued so largely in the Downe-fall of Poperie that the Pope onely is the Iudge of all controuersies in Religion as to say more in that behalfe may be thought actum agere and a thing altogether needlesse Three thinges onely will I now poynt at referring the indifferent Reader for the proofe to the Downe-fall of Poperie The first is this viz that the Pope staying at home himselfe sendeth his Legates to the Councels to supply his place to whom for all that O monstrum horrendum he can not commit his Authoritie The second is this viz. that no Byshoppe in these our dayes can haue voyces in Councels but such as will sweare obedience to the Pope before their admittaunce and promise to defend his Canon Law The third is this viz. that it is not in Popish Councels as in humaine affayres and assemblies where moe voyces euer doe preuaile But all the force power strength and authoritie of Councels doe and must depend vpon the Popes will and pleasure For after the Fathers there haue fasted long prayed much consulted grauely deliberated maturely decreed constantly commaunded strictly and accursed seuerely neither can others nor yet them selues tell what shall be of force therein For all must be as shall best content the Popes humour sitting right stately in his pontificall Chaire at Rome To which I adde that the Pope abuseth the World shamefully when he taketh vpon him to call togeather all Byshoppes in the Christian world to decide and determine controuersies in Religion and for all that will approue nothing that they decree vnlesse the same be agreeable to that which himselfe decreeth alone in his pontificall Chaire at home As also in that he condemneth and reiecteth all Councels which doe not consent in all poyntes to his Legates who for all that must not yeeld to any thing which swarueth from their Charge and Commission receiued from the Popes mouth In which Charge this is euer the principall and maine poynt that they suffer not the Popes Superroyall power and falsely pretended Prerogatiues of the Church of Rome to be any way abased or gainesayd This Addition hath a double Confirmation at hand th' one from the Rhemistes th' other from S. R. that great learned Iesuite The Rhemistes tell vs roundly blush neuer a whit thereat that generall Councels are not needfull saue onely for the better contentation of the weake people and their onely ground which they stand vpon is this viz. that the Pope is so diuinely priuileadged and assisted by the Holy Ghost as he can neuer erre iudicially in any matter of Fayth Which assertion if it were true as it is most false for which let the Christian reader duly peruse my Christian Dialogue there were no great need of Councels in very deed The Iesuiticall Fryer S. R. Robert Parsons is the man telleth vs peremptorily that the Popes Sentence is the Decree of the Catholique Church These are his expresse wordes True it is that B. Fisher and Gerson were in that errour
egregious and notorious lye the Fryer set abroach so to maintaine if it were possible the falsely pretended Antiquitie of rotten Poperie The Fryer durst not cite the wordes of his Authors though my selfe neuer fayle therein least his cogging forgerie and false dealing should haue been discouered by that meanes These are the expresse wordes of Sezomenus Vir quidam è Macedoniana haeresi vxorem eiusdem opinionis habebat Hic cum Johannem quomodo de Deo sentiendum esset docentem andisset dogma illius laudabat et vxorem quoque vt secum sentiret hortabatur Cum vero illa magis nobilium mulierum sermonibus quam illius consuetudini obtemperaret et post frequentes admonitiones vir illius nihil effecisset nisi inquit in diuinis mihi consors fueris neque in vitae communione posthac eris Mulier hoc audito et consensum pollicita rem eam famulae cuidam communicat quam sibi fidam esse iudicabat illiusque opera ad fallendum viruÌ„ vtitur Circa tempus autem mysteriorum illa quod accepit continens quasi oratura procuÌ„bit famula astans clauculum illi dat quod secum in manu attulerat Hoc cum dentibus admoueretur in lapidem congelascit A certaine man infected with the Heresie of Macedonius had a wife of the same opinion hee hearing the doctrine of S. Iohn Chrysostome how he ought to thinke and beleeue of God commended his Doctrine and exhorted his wife to beleeue as he did But when she hearkened rather to the Tales of Noble women then to his admonition so as her husband preuayled nothing by his exhortations vnlesse sayth he thou wilt ioyne with mee in matters diuine I will not hencefoorth ioyne with thee in secular affayres His wife hearing this and promising her consent imparteth the matter to one of her Maydes in whom she reposed great confidence and vseth her helpe to defraude her Husband While the mysteries were in hand she keeping that which she had receiued looketh downe as if she would pray Her Mayde standing by giueth her priuily that which she brought with her in her hand Which when she began to eate it was chaunged into a Stone Nicephorus reciteth the same Storie in the selfe same manner I haue cited the wordes at large that the indifferent Reader may behold the false dealing of the Fryer and be an indifferent iudge betweene him and mee Sozomenus and Nicephorus do both ioyntly and constantly affirme that the Woman receiued the Sacramentall bread which she did not eate so to defraud and deceiue her Husband The Jesuite impudently auoucheth that she being a Macedonian Heretique did so the better to conceale her Religion Which notorious lying of the shamelesse Jesuite not onely the Historie it selfe doth confute but also the due consideration of the Heresie which the woman held For neither the eating neither the not eating of the Sacramentall bread did either further or hinder the Macedonian Heresie If she had been an Arian the Fryers assertion might haue had some colour of truth but seeing she was a Macedonian it is too too foolish and ridiculous For the Heresie of Macedonius consisted in this that the Holy Ghost was not God Secondly that neither Sozomenus nor Nicephorus sayth as the Jesuite beareth his Readers in hand viz. that the Sacrament of our Lords Body and Blood was then ministred vnder one kind but onely this and nothing else viz. that the Woman deceiued her Husband in taking the Bread which she did not eate Thirdly that our Iesuite falsely sayth that the Cuppe was not then giuen into the handes of the Communicantes his Authors affirme nothing lesse Fourthly that whatsoeuer our Fryer saith howsoeuer he imagine that the Woman could not haue had the same euasion in taking the Cuppe which she had in taking the Bread yet doe I constantly affirme and experience will prooue the same that she might haue seemed to drinke of the Cuppe yet haue tasted no Wine at all Fiftly that Pope Gelasius doth contest with me that the Lay people did in his time which was 492. yeares after Christ at the least receiue the holy Eucharist vnder both the kinds yea he affirmeth it to be Sacriledge to receiue but the one kind alone These are his expresse wordes Comperimus autem quod quidam sumpta tantummodo corporis sacriportione a Caâ—ice sacratiâ—ruoris abstineant Qui procul dubio quoniam nescio qua superstitione docentur astringi aut integra sacramenta percipiant aut ab integris arceantur Quia diuisio vnius eiusdemque mysterij sine grandi sacrilegio non potest peruenire We vnderstand that some receiue onely the portion of the sacred Body and abstaine from the Cuppe of the holy Blood Who for that we know not how they are taught to be superstitious shall either receiue the whole Sacramentes or else be excluded from the whole Thus writeth Pope Geâ—asius the first whom Genebrard truly calleth the most learned Pope That some odde persons in his time did not receiue the Eucharist in both kindes whom hee therefore condemneth of flat Sacriledge because the one kind may not be taken without the other But I will yet touch and tickle our Jesuite more strictly and tell him that which will make his eares to tingle Gabriel Biel a very learned Schoole-doctor and a religious Popish Fryer in his Commentaries vpon the Canon of popish Masse telleth vs very constantly that it was a right generally vsed in the primatiue Church to receiue the holy Eucharist vnder both kindes But withall he affirmeth very resolutely that the Church of Rome in processe of time brought into the Church an other Custome of receiuing in one kind onely In the end he determineth decideth the controuersie in these expresse wordes Olim quaestio illa poterat esse dubia sed nunc post determinationeÌ„ concilij Constantiensis veritateÌ„ catholica determinantis dicere coÌ„munionem sub vtraque specie esse de necessitate salutis omni fideli est haeresis ibidem publice condemnata In former times it was lawfull to doubt of that QuestioÌ„ But in these latter dayes after the Councell of Constance which hath determined the Catholique veritie therein to say that all the faythfull must vpon necessitie of saluation Communicate vnder both kindes is a flatte Heresie publiquely condemned in the sayd Councell Thus disputeth this great Learned Papist out of whose words I gather these worthy obseruations First that the Church of Rome can make Heresies at her good will and pleasure I prooue it because that which was Catholique doctrine in the Primatiue Church is now made a flatte Heresie by Popish constitutioÌ„ Secondly that the Laicall Communion vnder one kind was consonant to the Catholique fayth vntill the late Councell of Constance that is to say for the space of one thousand foure hundred and foureteene yeares For so long was that Councell holden after Christ. Thirdly that no mortall man no pure
creature no Angell in heauen or Saint vpon earth hath any power at any time to alter or change the least iote of the Catholique fayth This Obseruation all learned Papistes willingly imbrace acknowledging the same for an vndoubted truth And Biel my Doctor now in hand approoueth the same in these expresse wordes Quaedam sunt de necessitate sacramentorum et de iure diuino sic quod nulla authoritate vel consuetudine oppositum induci possit Some thinges are of the necessitie of Sacramentes and of the Law diuine so that whatsoeuer is opposite or repugnant to the same can neuer be established by any Custome or Authoritie To which I adde fourthly that the Church hath no new reuelations in matters of Fayth So writeth the famous Byshoppe and great learned popish Doctor Melchior Canus in these expresse wordes Nec vllas in fide nouas reuelationes Ecclesia habet The Church hath no new Reuelations in matters of Fayth This is true Catholique doctrine in very deed no denyall may be made thereof For once a matter of Fayth is and must euer be a matter of Fayth And in like maner once no Article of Fayth neither is nor euer can be an Article of true Fayth indeed B. C. S. Thomas of Aquine doth not say That this was in some few places onely as Bell maketh him to speake but that in some Churches it was so obserued which might be very many as well as some few T. B. I Answere that in my Suruey of Poperie I set downe Aquinas his expresse wordes as mine accustomed manner euer hath been though our Iesuite dare not performe so much In my Tryall I onely gaue the true sense and meaning for breuitie sake His wordes are these Ex parte quidem ipsius sacramenti conuenit quod vtramque sumatur sez et corpus et sanguis quia in vtroque consistit perfectio sacramenti Sequitur ideo prouidè in quibusdam ecclesijs obseruatur vt populo sanguis sumendus non detur sed solum a sacerdote sumatur On the behalfe of the Sacrament it is meete and conuenient that both be receiued to weet both the Body the Blood because in both consisteth the perfection of the Sacrament Therefore it is prouidently obserued in some Churches that the Blood be not giuen to the Lay people but be onely receiued of the Priest Thus writeth Aquinas out of whose wordes I note two speciall Documentes Thâ—one that the perfection of the Sacrament consisteth in both kindes and consequently that the Communion of the Lay people is this day vnperfect in the Church of Rome This is a note of great consequence let it be well remembred Th' other that both kindes were vsually receiued euen of the Lay people in the dayes of Aquinas both in the Church of Rome and in all other Churches some few excepted For if Aquinas should meane by some Churches very many Churches as our Fryer would perswade his readers he should not haue sayd in some Churches but in very many or in all Churches for the most part For two which are a few not very many may determine some Churches very sufficiently But to extend some Churches to very many is to offer no small violence to the Text. For example sake If our Jesuite should promise to giue me some Money for my paines as I thinke he will not if then I did challenge very much Money vpon his Promise hee perperhaps would deny the same and my selfe for any helpe the wordes would affoord me should by Law recouer the great summe ad Calendâ—â— Graetaâ— In my Suruey this Lay call Communion vnder both kindes is prooued at large out of Origen S. Cyprian S. Hierome S. Chrysostome S. Jgnatius S. Justinus S. Ambrose S. Austen S. Gregorie and Haymo It shall now suffice to cite the testimonies of Iustinus and Haymo Iustinus hath these expresse wordes Qui apud nos vocaÌ„tur Diaconi atque Ministri distribuunt vnicuique praesentium vt participet eum in quo gratiae actae sunt Panem Vinum et Aquam Sequitur Nam Apostoli in commentarijs a se scriptis quae Euangelia vocantur ita tradiderunt praecepisse sibi Iesum They that we call Deacons and Ministers doe distribute to euerie one that is present the sanctified Bread Wine Water to be made partaker thereof For the Apostles in their Commentaries that is in the Ghospels haue taught vs that Iesus so commaunded them to minister the holy Communion Haymo an auncient Father and learned Byshoppe hath these expresse wordes Ego N. accepi â— Domino quod et tradidi vobis id est mysterium corporis et sanguinis Domini quomodo debeatis sumere sicut mihi reuelauit ita tradidi vobis For I haue receiued of the Lord that which I deliuered to you that is the mysterie of our Lords Body Blood in what maner yee ought to receiue it Euen as he reuealed it to mee so haue I deliuered it to you Thus write these holy auncient learned Fathers very resolutely and plainely teaching vs that Christ commaunded all sortes of people to Communicate vnder both kindes I therefore must conclude with this ineuitable illation That seeing the Communion vnder one kind was not an Article of popish Fayth for the space of 1414. yeares after Christ as is already prooued it both is and must perforce be so reputed a very rotten ragge of the New religion The .13 Chapter of Popish priuate Masse B. C. THE Minister speaketh of the dreadfull Mysteries as homely as though he were talking of the English Communion which is had in such high reuerence that the fragmentes remayning are appoynted for the Ministers priuate vses and leaue giuen him to feed with them his Chickens or to soppe his Pottage T. B. I answere first that our cogging Iesuite is as vnreuerent in speaking as he is impudent and shamelesse in lying Secondly that all wise discreete and zelous Christians in our Churches doe come with more true reuerence to our holy Communion which we acknowledge to be sacramentally Christes true Body and pretious Blood then Papistes doe in the Romish Church to their transubstantiated Bread-god Thirdly that the Papistes giue leaue to Dogges Mice and Rattes to eate the remainder of their Bread-gods in so much that Petrus Lombardus their reuerend Maister of Sentences not able to expresse what the Mouse doth eate answereth to the great mysticall difficultie in these wordes Deus noâ—u God knoweth what the Mouse doth eate Fourthly that God by the mouth of holy Moses pronounced to the Isâ—â—eâ—uâ— that the remnant of the Meat-offering should be Aaron and his Sonnes And the reason is added immediately in these expresse wordes For it is most Holy of the Lordes Offeringes made by Fire Againe in an other place thus The Priest that offereth any mans Burnt offering shall haue the Skinne of the Burnt offering which he hath offered And all the Meate offering that
litle children the consonant sound reboundeth as it were an eccho with the surges of the Sea Iustinus Martyr hath these wordes Sub haec consurgimus communiter omnes et praecationes profundimus et sicuti retulimus praecibus peractis panis offertur et vinum et aqua Et praepositus itidem quantum pro virili sua potest praeces et gratiarum actiones fundit et populus faustè acclamat dicens Amen These thinges being done wee all arise togeather and make our Prayers and after our Prayers the Bread is offered with Wine and Water and the Minister as he is able prayeth and giueth thankes and the people with ioyfull acclamation say Amen Philo a very auncient and learned Writer awong the Iewes sheweth this old practise of our Christian Church in these wordes Quae omnia supra dictus vir eo ordine eademque consequentia qua apud nos geruntur expressit Et vt vnus ex omnibus consurgens in medio Psalmū honestis modulis concinat vtque praecinenti ei vnum versiculum omnis multitudo respondeat All which the aforenamed man he speaketh of Philo the Jew related in the same order and consequence in which our selues doe them And that one among all rising vp in the middest sing a Psalme with tunable voyce and that so soone as he hath sung one Verse all the people answere him S. Chrysostome speaketh so plainely of the peoples praying togeather with the Priest that euē in the time of the Liturgis or Masse as none doubtlesse that either read or heare his wordes can stand any longer in doubt thereof These are his expresse wordes In eisdem iterum horrendis mysterijs bene precatur Sacerdos populo et bene precatur populus Sacerdoti Nam cum spiritu tuo nihil aliud est quam hoc Ea quae sunt Eucharistiae id est gratiarum actionis communiae sunt omnia neque ille solus gratias agit sed etiam omnis populus prius N. accepta illorum voce deinde congregatis illis vt dignè et iustè hoc faciat incipit Eucharistiā Et quid miraris si populus cum Sacerdote loquitur In these dreadfull mysteries the Priest wisheth well to the people and the people desire Gods mercie to the Priest For these wordes with thy spirit haue no other meaning The thinges that pertaine to the Eucharist that is to the giuing of thankes are common to them all for he onely giueth not thankes but all the people also with him For he first receiueth their voyce after that they being gathered togeather that he may doe this reuerently and well he beginneth the Communion And what maruell is it to thee if the people pray with the Priest S. Cyprian testifieth the same practise to haue been vsuall in his time alleadging the very wordes that the common people answered to the Priest Thus doth he write in expresse tearmes Ideo et Sacerdos ante orationem praefatione praemissa parat fratrum mentes dicendo sursum corda vt dum respondet plebs habemus ad Dominum admoneatur nihil aliud se quam Dominum cogitare debere Therefore the Priest after the Preface before the Prayer prepareth the mindes of the brethren saying Lift vp your heartes that while the common people answere wee lift them vp vnto the Lord they may be instructed to thinke vpon no other thing but the Lord. What need is there to stand vpon this poynt any longer Sozomenus sheweth plainely in his Historie that in his time which was more then 400. yeares after Christ the people and the Clergie did sing Psalmes in the Church togeather So S. Hierome testifieth of the Church of Rome that in his time the people sounded out Amen with such an eccho as if it had been with an heauenly Thunder Nicolaus Lyranus that great learned popish Doctor in his Commentaries vpon S. Paul to the Corinthians affirmeth to his Readers very constantly that in the Primatiue Church both the Prayers and all other thinges were in the Vulgar tongue Yea S. Basil sayth that in his time all the people sang Psalmes togeather in the Church And he addeth therevnto that it was the custome of all Churches so to doe By these Testimonies it is cleare and euident that in the Primatiue Church and many yeares after the Church seruice was euerywhere in the Vulgar tongue S. Gregorie sometime Byshoppe of Rome himselfe reporteth the vsuall practise of the Greeke Church which he approoueth to haue been as we haue already heard out of S. Chrysostome and other famous Greeke Writers And that which our Fryer sayth of the same Gregorie is too too childish ridiculous as it is euident by that which is already said shall God willing be yet more euident before the end of this discourse Our Iesuite heere by way of a digression more then extrauagant giueth a very short but too too sweete an admonition In which he pleaseth himselfe more then a litle with his old doting foolerie and rusty rotten Poperie He telleth his Readers whom he would gladly perswade to giue credite to his wordes that our Ceremonies are pild patches of Protestanisme rusty ragges of the Reformed Congregation and withall forsooth that our Communion Booke it selfe was neuer heard of in the whole world till the late dayes of King Edward the sixt My answere to this extrauagant and foolish admonition I purpose in God to set downe in the last Chapter of this Discourse My reason hereof is this My scope intent and purpose in this present Booke is bipartite or two folde viz. to prooue soundly and plainely to lay open to all iudicious honest and indifferent Readers that the Religion Fayth and Doctrine of the late Byshoppes Church of Rome is indeed the New religion by litle and litle crept into the Church and distinctly to name the time when and the Authors by whom euery materiall poynt Article of the new Romish Fayth and Religion did first begin as also to prooue soundly and clearely that the Fayth and Doctrine this day established in the Church of England is Catholique Apostolicall and the Old Romane religion For which respect I haue thought it meete and conuenient first to accomplish and finish the former member in proouing Poperie the New Religion And that done to prooue the Doctrine and Fayth of our English Church to be the Old Religion Which to performe as is sayd I haue steadfast confidence in my mercifull GOD all sufficient who woonderfully preseruing me from many dangers almost ineffable seemeth to haue reserued me to that end and purpose God make me thankfull and euer to referre all that I well doe to his most holy name Non nobis Domine non nobis sed nomini tuo da gloriam Thou ô God who hast chosen the foolish things of this world to confound the wise and the weake thinges to confound the mightie things thou who by
quoniam est pars satisfactionis aliter enim Ecclesia deciperet paenitenies Such a Fast he speaketh of the Fastes which Priestes enioyne is sacramentally really and properly satisfactorie The reason is because it is a part of satisfaction for otherwise the Church should deceiue the Penitentes In an other place the same Iosephus Angles hath these expresse wordes Ieiunium quadragesimale eo modo quo ab Ecclesia seruatur nes suit a Christo institutum neque ab eo iussum sed ab hominibus atque ita non est de iure diuino sed humano duntaxat Christus enim nec tempus talis ieiunij nec modum neque cibos instituit Statim enim post Baptismum in desertum secessit et illic ieiunauit Christus nullum diem a ieiunio excepit in illo quadragenario numero Ecclesia vero dies dominicos excipit Christus tunc semel nec pluries commedit neque bibit In Ecclesia vero vna refectio tantum est concessa et in potatione nulla est limitatio Quare cum nec verbo neque facto hoc ieiunium instituerit ab Ecclesia institutum erit The Lent-fast as the Church obserueth it was neither instituted of Christ nor of him commaunded but of men so as it is not stablished by Gods Law but by mans onely for Christ neither instituted the time of such a Fast nor the manner nor the Meates for so soone as he was Baptized he went into the Desart and fasted there Christ excepted no day from fasting in his Fast of Fourtie dayes but the Romish Church excepteth the Sundayes Christ neither eate nor dranke more then once but the Church graunteth Meate once a day and for drinking maketh no restraint Wherefore seeing Christ neither appoynted Lent-fast by word nor by deed it must be ordayned of the Church Where I may not forget to adde that the same Byshoppe Angles telleth vs in an other place that albeit the Apostles ordeyned Lent-fast yet may the Pope free deliuer whom he will from the keeping thereof And he yeeldeth this reason for the same Because forsooth the Pope hath as great Power in the gouernement of the Church as the Apostles had Thus disputeth our Popish Byshop telling vs plainely that Christ did not ordaine Lent-fast which he prooueth by many reasons As also that none are bound to Fast in Lent who haue gotten the Popes Dispensation to free them from it no not if the Apostles appoynted it Thirdly he graunteth freely that the Papistes Fast to satisfie God for their sinnes I therefore must perforce conclude that the Popish Lent-fast is a rotten ragge of the New religion The 29. Chapter of the annulling of Popish Wedlocke B. C. WHatsoeuer sayth Bell the Byshoppe of Rome holdeth and defineth that must euery Papist hold beleeue and maintaine as an Article of his Fayth Though generally all Catholiques doe hold the Popes Definitions to be infallible and the contrarie opinion to be erroneous ye is it not an Article of Fayth T. B. Whosoeuer shall seriously peruse my Tryall this Answere of the Jesuite to the same and this my Reply in defence of my Tryall can not but vnderstand that Poperie is meere foolerie and flatly opposite to the sacred Word of God This in briefe is my Answere First that albeit this Chapter being the 29. of my Tryall arguing against the annulling of Popish Wedlocke conteyne not fully 26. lynes yet is the Jesuite so afrayde with the plentifull matter soundly handled therein yet in briefe manner as he dareth not once touch or name the same for feare of burning him For proofe whereof I wish the indifferent Reader to peruse my Tryall of the New religion Secondly that it is most true that what the Pope defyneth that must euery Papist hold and beleeue as an Article of his Fayth I prooue it by many inuincible reasons Couarrunias a very famous popish Byshop and renowned Canonist hath these expresse wordes Nec me later D. Thomam praeuia maxima deliberatione asserere Rom. Pontificem non posse propria dispensatione continentiae solemne Monactiorum votum tollere Et Paulo Post. oportet tamen primam opinionem defendere ne quae passim fiant euertantur omnino Neither am I ignorant that S. Thomas the popish Angelicall Doctor whose Doctrine sundry Popes haue confirmed affirmeth after great deliberation that the Byshop of Rome can not with his Dispensation take away from Monkes their solemne Vow of Chastitie This notwithstanding we must defend the first opinion least those thinges which are practised euery where be vtterly ouerthrowë The Popish canonized Saint Antoninus and Syluester Prieras some time maister of the Popes sacred Pallace and for his great Learning surnamed Absolutus Theologus tell vs plainely and constantly that whatsoeuer the Pope doth whether we can prooue the same or no◠yet must we beleeue it to be so And which passeth all the rest yea which is woonderfull if not incredible to proceed from a Papistes mouth S. R. that Learned man as our Fryer B. C. tearmeth him hath these expresse wordes in his pretensed Answere to the Downe-fall of Poperie Because Byshoppes must not examine the Doctrine which the Pope deliuereth iudicially out of S. Peters Chaire as supreame Pastor of Gods Churth but onely that wherein he vttereth his owne priuate opinion Aquinas himselfe shall giue the vpshot of this game these are his expresse wordes Christus poterat relaxare ergo et Paulus potuit ergo et Papa potest qui non est minoris potestatis in Ecclesia quam Paulus fuit Christ could pardone therefore Paul could pardone therefore the Pope also can pardone as who is of no lesse or meaner Authoritie in the Church then Paul himselfe was Thirdly that seeing our Fryer graunteth all Papistes generally to hold the Popes Definitions to be infallible and the contrary Opinion to be erroneous he sheweth himselfe to be a very noddie and at a flat non-plus in denying the same to be an Article of Popish fayth I prooue it marke well my wordes by a triple Argument First because the Pope his Cardinals Iesuites and all popish Diuines can not but abound with falsehood deceite coozenage and fraudulent trickes of Legierdemaine if they teach the people to hold and receiue that as true Doctrine which themselues beleeue not to be so Secondly because the Pope his Cardinals Iesuites and all Papistes generally are bound to beleeue euery trueth agreeable to Gods word And consequently that either all Papistes beleeue the Popes Definitions to be infallible and the contrary opinion to be erroneous or else that the same is not a trueth agreeable to Gods word Thirdly that Poperie must perforce be a most miserable dangerous wretched damnable Religion if all Papistes generally hold that for an vndoubted Doctrine which is no part of their Fayth and Religion For all Iesuites and Iesuited Papistes hold that the Church is built vpon Peter
second Chapter of this present Volume To this let vs adde a most notable testimonie of our Rhemistes which is comprised in these very wordes Notorious is the saying of S. Augustine concerning S. Cyprian who being a blessed Catholique Byshop and Martyr yet erred about the rebaptizing of such as were Christined by Heretiques If he had liued sayth S. Augustine to haue seene the determination of a plenarie Councell which he saw not in his life time he would for his great humilitie and charitie straight way haue yeelded preferred the generall Councell before his owne Iudgement and his fellow Byshops in a prouinciall Councell onely Thus dispute our Rhemistes confounding them-selues and their Pope vnawares For first they tell vs marke well my wordes that S. Cyprian was a blessed Byshop and Martyr and therefore would haue yeelded to the Decree of a generall Councell They tell vs secondly that S. Augustine was of the same opinion In which double Narration the Rhemistes confound them-selues with their Pope and all his deuoted Popelinges For they giue vs to vnderstand very plainely that neither the Pope is aboue a generall Councell neither yet his Iudgement infallible But how prooue I that This forsooth is a plaine demonstration thereof S. Cyprian and S. Augustine being both of them very Holy very Learned Fathers could not but know right well for their great Learning what Authoritie Power Priuiledges and Prerogatiues Christ had giuen to the Byshops of Rome And without all question it is it can not be denyed that for their great pietie and humilitie they would humbly haue acknowledged and highly reuerenced all Power giuen them by our Lord Iesus Yet true it is sir Fryer marke well my wordes that Pope Cornelius togeather with a nationall Synode of the Byshoppes of Jtaly had made a flatte decree concerning Rebaptization True it is likewise that Pope Stephanus had confirmed the same Decree and commaunded it to be obserued True it is thirdly that all Papistes of late dayes doe obstinately affirme as our Rhemistes in the name of all Papistes tell vs that the Pope is aboue a generall Councell that the Pope can not erre Iudicially that the Popes Iudgement is infallible Now this Decree made by Pope Cornelius and confirmed by Pope Stephanus S. Cyprian knew right well neither was S. Austen ignorant thereof Howbeit this notwithstanding S. Cyprian roundly withstood the Decree of Pope Stephanus and both sharpely reprooued him and vtterly contemned his falsely pretended Authoritie S. Austen in like manner held the same opinion with S. Cyprian concerning the Popes falsely pretended Prerogatiues infallibilitie of Iudgement neuer excusing any such thing in S. Cyprian as a fault neither once saying that the Pope was Christes Vicar or that Christ had prayed that his Fayth should not fayle but constantly telling the Reader for his full satisfaction on S. Cyprians behalfe that he would humbly haue yeelded to the Decree of a plenarie Councell if any such had been in his time In which wordes S. Austen giueth the Reader to vnderstand that though S. Cyprian did contemne both the definitiue Sentence of the Pope and the Decree of his prouinciall Councell because neither of their Iudgements was infallible yet would he haue yeelded to the Decree of a plenarie Councell as which he acknowledged to be infallible and to haue the assistannce of the holy Ghost Let vs adde further that the two hundred seauenteene Fathers in the Aphrican Councell whereof S. Augustine was one were so farre from acknowledging the Byshop of Rome to be Christes Vicar generall vpon earth to be aboue a plenarie Councell and his Iudgement to be infallible that they all with one assent refused vtterly to graunt any such Prerogatiue or Priuiledge vnto him constantly affirming that he was bound as well as they to obey the Decrees of the Nicene Councell For which cause neither would the said Fathers graunt greater Power and Prerogatiues to the Byshoppes of Rome neither did the Byshoppes of Rome them-selues challenge greater Power then the Canons of the Nicene Synode would affoorde them Of which poynt I haue disputed at large in the second Chapter afore-going Whosoeuer shall seriously peruse that whole Chapter from the beginning to the end thereof will vndoubtedly rest satisfied in this behalfe Ioyne this with my Tryall and Poperie will prooue it selfe the New religion The 31. Chapter conteyning according to my promise an Answere to the Iesuites short admonition in the 16. Chapter aforegoing as also to some other patches elsewhere dispearsed to the same effect T. B. HAuing euidently prooued and plainely conuinced by the power of God and the assistance of his holy Spirit that Poperie is the New religion it followeth consequently that I prooue the Fayth Doctrine this day professed and by Authoritie established in the Church of England to be the Old Religion I therefore heartily craue the gentle Readers attentiue hearing vnto the end of my Discourse I haue not hitherto in any of my former Bookes oppugned the Old Romane Religion which S. Peter and S. Paul deliuered to the Church of Rome while they liued heere on earth Neither doe I at this present or euer intend hereafter in any future worke to oppugne the same It is the late Fayth and late Romish Doctrine which I contend to be the New Religion euery maine poynt whereof I haue clearely conuinced when and by whom it first began Our Church of noble England constantly reteyneth euery Article and iote of the old Romane Religion onely reiecting and abolishing of the essentiall partes of late Romish Fayth and Doctrine so much as was Hereticall erroneous or superstitious and repugnant to the eternall trueth of Gods most sacred word And concerning late Romish ceremonies such so many as were either superstitious or ridiculous or vnprofitable to the Church of God So that wee are this day the true reformed Catholiques euen as the Fryers at Rome commonly called Capuchoâ—nes are indeed the true reformed Franciscans The Church of England doth not this day hold any Article of Fayth or Doctrine or vse any Ceremonie saue such onely as we are able to iustifie either by the expresse wordes of the holy Scripture and by the approbation of best approoued Antiquitie or else to deduce the same from thence by a necessarie ineuitable consequence Let vs now in Gods name heare attentiuely what our Iesuite in the name of all Papistes is able to obiect against the Fayth and Doctrine of the Church of England B. C. COncerning Ceremonies and such like Bell in his Regiment of the Church graunteth freely that the Church hath Authoritie to ordaine and abrogate to make or repeale Lawes as shall seeme most meete for the honour of God and the edification of Christian people T. B. Bell admitteth all this Say on good Fryer if happily thou haue any better Bread in thy Bagge seeing this is not worth a silly Ragge Howbeit our Fryer for want of matter
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
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
and a good man in deed did admit the foure first generall Councels of Nice Constantinople Ephesus and Châ—lcedon and did reuerence the same as the foure Gospels These are his expresse wordes as Gratianus hath related the same in the Popes owne Decrees Sicut sancti Euangelij quatuor libros sic quatuor Concilia suscipere et venerarie me fateor Nicenum scilicet in quo peruersum Arij dogma destruitur Constantinopolitanum quoque in quo Eunomij et Macedonij error conuincitur Ephesinum etiam primum in quo Nestorij impietas iudicatur Chalcedonense vero in quo Euticetis et Dioscori prauitas est reprobata Haec tota deuotione amplector integerrima approbatione custodio As I professe my selfe to receiue and reuerence the foure Books of the holy Gospell so also the foure Councels in like maner to weete the Councell of Nice in which the peruerse opinion of Arius is confounded the Councell of Constantinople also in which the errour of Eunomius and Macedonius is conuinced the Councell of Ephâ—sus also the first in which the impietie of Nestorius was censured the Councell of Chalcedon in like maner in which Eutiches Dioscorus were condemned These Councels I imbrace with great deuotion and keepe them with most holy approbation obiection 8 They say eightly that Pope Cornelius was Byshoppe of the Catholike Church of the whole world not of the Citie of Rome onely and they prooue it by these words of Cornelius in his Epistle to S. Cyprian Nec ignoramus vnum Dâ—um esse et vnum Christum esse Dominum quem confessj sumus vnum spiritum sanctum vnum Episcopum in Catholica Eccesia esse debere We are not ignorant that there is one God one Christ one holy Ghost and that there ought to be one Byshop in the Catholike Church But I answere that Cornelius meaneth the Catholike Church of the citie of Rome calling it rightly the Catholike Church yet not as it signifieth Vniuersall but as it connotateth a Church constantly holding the Catholike Fayth I prooue it because Cornelius himselfe in whose Epistle that is written sayth in an other Epistle directed to Fabius where he entreateth of the same matter that there ought to be one Byshoppe in that Catholike Church wherein there are â—ixe and fourtie Elders and seauen Deacons with seauen Sub-deacons so foorth These are the expresse wordes Ita igitur lepidum Euangelij patronuÌ„ Nouatum omnino praeâ—erijâ— scilicet vnum solum Episcopum oportere esse in hac Eccesia catholica in qua tamen non ignorabat quomodo enim poterat Presbyteros esse quadraginta sex Diaconos septem Subdiaconos septeÌ„ Acolythos quadraginta duos Exorcistas et Lectores vnacum ostiarijs quinquaginta duos viduas et alios morbo atque egestate afflictatos mille et quingentos quos omnes Domini gratia et benignitas abunde sustentat Hee therefore omitted altogeather this pleasant defender of the Gospell Nouatus because there ought but to be one onely Byshop in this Catholike Church in which for all that he was not ignoraunt for how could that be that there was fourtie sixe Elders or Priestes seauen Deacons seauen Subdeacons fourtie two Acolythes Exorcistes and Readers togeather with Sextenes fiftie two Widowes and others needie and sicke persons a thousand and fiue hundred All which the grace and liberalitie of our Lord doth aboundantly relieue And towards the beginning of the Epistle I find these words as Eusebius relateth theÌ„ Epistolae quidem Cornelij Episcopi Romani scriptae ad Fabium Episcopum ecclesiae Antiochenae ad nos peruenerunt quae tum acta concilij Romae habiti ab omnibus in Italia in Africa inque alijs in locis de eo errore decreta erant euidenter declarant The Epistles of Cornelius Byshoppe of Rome written to Fabius Byshoppe of Antioch came to our handes which did euidently declare the thinges which were then decreed touching that errour in a Councell then holden at Rome of all the Byshoppes in Jtaly Africa and other places This was the case the Church being troubled at that time with the Schismes and Heresies of Nouatus the Nouatians refused the communion of the Catholikes therevpon ordayned new Byshops for their Schismaticall conuenticles whereby it came to passe that in one Citie there were two Byshoppes at once a Catholike and an Heretike In Rome Cornelius and Nouatianus in Carthage Cyprian and Fortunatus Nouatus being very desirous to be a Byshoppe ioyned to himselfe two desperate companions and by that meanes three Byshoppes who were very rude and simple men These Byshoppes hee deceiued with faire speaches promises and coozening trickes Hee told them constantly that they must goe to Rome with all speed that by their sentence and iudgement all controuersies might be decided and fully ended The Byshops giuing credite to the report by reason of their simplicitie came to Rome with all conuenient speede Nouatus with a companie of odde companions like vnvnto himselfe found meanes to get them into an odde corner prepared for that end and purpose where so soone as the Byshoppes were made merry with Wine and delicate cheere hee violently compelled them to make him Byshoppe by a vaine and imaginarie imposition of handes Which being effected hee challenged the Byshopricke of Rome ioyntly with Cornelius Cornelius being lawfully possessed thereof and relying vpon the Decree of the Nicene Councell in that behalfe affirmed constantly that there could be but one Byshoppe in that Catholike Church of Rome The Catholikes therefore communicating in fayth and Christian loue with Cornelius tearmed him the Byshoppe of the Catholike Church obiection 9 They say ninthly out of S. Cyprian that all Heresies and Schismes haue sprong out of this onely fountaine and no other viz. that one Priest for the time in the Church and one Iudge for the time in stead of Christ is not regarded To whom if the whole brotherhoode would be obedient according to Gods ordinaunce no man would make any thing adoe against the companie of Gods Priestes Where by one Priest he meaneth one Byshoppe and by one Byshoppe Cornelius the Pope to whom hee writeth those thinges and consequently he argueth the Pope to be the Byshoppe of the whole Church and one Iudge for the time in Christes stead But I answere first that this in effect is the same with the former of Cornelius and consequently it ought to admit the same answere For he speaketh it vpon occasion of iniurie which the Nouatians offered himselfe in Carthage for the Nouatians there had ordeyned a new Byshoppe against him as their fellowes did in Rome against the good Byshoppe Cornelius Secondly because the wordes both precedent and subsequent doe clearely insinuate that he meaneth it of all Catholike Byshoppes each in his owne charge yea that he applyeth it to himselfe not to Cornelius Thirdly because he speaketh of a Byshoppe who hath been approoued in the Byshopricke foure yeares
praecedenteÌ„ SynoduÌ„ Episcopos earuÌ„ haeresum conuocauit sequitur cum autem conuenissent accersito ad se Nectario Imperator cuÌ„ eo de futura Synodo coÌ„municat iubetque vt quaestiones ex quibus natae fuerant haereses in disputationeÌ„ proponat quo vna fieret in ChristuÌ„ credentiuÌ„ Ecclesia et constitueretur dogma consonuÌ„ ad quaÌ„ religio conformaretur The Emperour not long after the precedent Synode calleth the Byshops of those Heresies togeather When they were assembled the Emperour calleth Nectarius the Byshop of Constantinople to him and consulteth with him concerning the future Synode and coÌ„maundeth him to propound in disputation those questions from whence the Heresies did spring to the ende that there might be one Church of the faythfull a consonant rule of fayth which might be as a paterne of religion Sigâ—bertus a famous Popish Monke writeth in this manner Secunda Synodus vniuersalis 150. PatruÌ„ congregatur Constantinopoli iubente Theodosio et annuente Damaso Papa quae MacedoniuÌ„ neganteÌ„ spirituÌ„ sanctuÌ„ DeuÌ„ esse coÌ„demnans consubstantialeÌ„ patri et filio spirituÌ„ sanctuÌ„ esse docuit The second generall Councell of an hundred fiftie Byshops is assembled at Constantinople by the commaundement of Theodosius Damasus the Pope agreeing thereunto in which Synodâ— Macedonius who denied the Holy Ghost to be God was condemned and the consubstantiabilitie of the Holy Ghost with the Father and the Sonne was confirmed in the same Theodoretus is consonant and vttereth many worthy periods The fourth Section of the Councell of Ephesus The third generall Councell being the first Ephesiue of two hundred Byshoppes was proclaymed by the commaundement of the Emperour Theodosius the younger against Nestorius denying the virgin Mary to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and affirming Christ to haue persons twaine proouing that two natures did subsist in one onely person of Christ Jâ—sus in the yeare of our Lord God 433. Euagrius hath these wordes Cum ista Cyrillus venerandae memoriae Alexandrinorum Episcopus literis suis reprehendisset Nestorius vero reprehensioni illius restitisset et neque illius neque Celestini veteris Romae Episcopi monitis acquiauisset sed temulentiam suam aduersus vniuersam Ecclesiam nihil veritus effudisset haud praeter rationem a Theodosio iuniore Orientis Imperatore petijt vt ipsius nutu Synodus colligeretur Imperialibus itaque literis cum ad ipsum Cyrillum tum ad omnium vbique Ecclesiarum Episcopos missis ad sacrum Penticostes diem in quo venit ad nos spiritus S. Conuentus indicitur When Cyrillus the venerable Byshoppe of Alexandria had by his Letters reproued the wicked blasphemie of Nestorius and Nestorius had withstood the same neither yeelding to his admonition nor to Celestines the Byshop of old Rome but still malepertly powred out his drunken conceites against the whole Church then Cyrill not without cause requested the Emperour Theodosius the younger that by his authoritie a Synode might be called by the Letters therefore of the Emperour directed to Cyrill and to all other Byshops euery where the Synode is appoynted vpon the sacred day of Penticost at what time the Holy Ghost came downe vpon vs. Thus writeth this famous Historiographer Out of whose wordes I gather many worthy instructions First that neither Cyâ—illus the Byshoppe of Alexandria nor Celestinus the Byshoppe of Rome could by any meanes reclaime or diswade Nâ—storius from his cursed and blasphemous opinions Secondly that Cyrillus lamenting the harme that thereby did redound to the Church sought to the Emperour for redresse thereof humbly requesting him that a generall Councell might be gathered for the peace of the Church and for the condemnation of the Heresie of Nestorius Thirdly that Cyrillus that holy and learned Byshoppe who was reputed a Saint in his life-time did not make suite to the Byshoppe of Rome for calling of the Councell which doubtlesse he would haue done if the gathering of Councels had belonged vnto him Fourthly that S. Cyrill sought immediatly to the Emperour not once acquainting the Byshop of Rome therewith Fiftly that the Byshoppe of Rome himselfe was commaunded to come to the Synode euen in such sort as other Byshoppes were Which I prooue by a double meane First because the Storie sayth That the Emperour called omnium vbique Ecclesiarum Episcopos the Byshoppes of all Churches euery where Secondly because Nicephorus sayth that Celestinus the Byshoppe of Rome was absent but appoynted Cyrillus in his stead These are the words Celestinus autem Roma Episcopus propter nauigationis pericula Synodo adesse detrectauit ad Cyrillum tamen vt locum suum ibj obtineret scripsit But Celestine the Byshoppe of Rome was absent from the Synode by reason of the danger of Nauigation yet he wrote to Cyrillus that he might supply his place Touching the Popes absence from Councelles the Iesuiticall Cardinall Bellarmine giueth better and sounder reasons though vnawares both against the Pope himselfe which I willingly admit wishing the Reader to obserue and marke them seriously with mee as which are both memorable and of great consequence This Cardinall yeeldeth two reasons why the Pope was neuer present at Councels in the East-churches by himselfe and in his owne person the one forsooth because it was not conuenient that the Head should follow the members the other because the Emperour would euer sit in the highest place Out of whose wordes I must needes note two important poyntes by the way The one that in the auncient Church the highest place in Councels was euer reserued to the Emperour The other that the East-churches did neuer acknowledge the Popes Primacie which he this day arrogantly challengeth ouer all Kingdomes and Regalities To which twaine this pleasant adiunct must of necessitie be annexed viz. that our humble Father the Pope who hypocritically calleth himselfe seruus seruorum Dej would neuer come to Councels in the East partes because forsooth his charitie was so great that he could not endure to see the Emperour sitting in the highest place And it is not amisse for the benefite of the Reader if I heere adioyne the maner how the Emperour Constantine sate in the Councell of Nice Sozomenus that graue Historiographer who liued more then a thousand one hundred seuentie yeares agoe hath these wordes Congregatis itaque in vnum locum per medium sacerdotuÌ„ ad caput conuentus transeundo in throno quodam qui ipsi paratus erat confedit ac Synodus sedere iussa est Erant N. vtrinque ad parietes Palatij multa posita subsellia hic vero thronus maximus erat et reliquas sedes excellebat Therefore when the Byshoppes were come togeather the Emperour passing through the midst of them to the head of the assembly sate downe in a Throne prepared for him and willed the Byshops to sit downe There were many Seates on both sides to the walles of the Pallace but the Emperours
Reges Domino seruiunt in timore nisi ea quae contra iussa Domini fiunt religiosa seueritate prohibendo atque plectendo Aliter N. seruit quia homo est aliter quia etiam et rex est Quia homo est ei seruit viuendo fideliter quia vero etiam Rex est seruit leges iusta praecipientes et contraria prohibentes conuenienti vigore sanctiendo sicut seruiuit Ezechias Lucos et Templa Idolorū et illa excelsa quae contra praecepta Dei fuerant constructa destruendo sicut seruiuit Iosias talia et ipse faciendo sicut seruiuit rex Niniuitarum vniuersam Ciuitatem ad placandum Dominum compellendo sicut seruiuit Darius Idolum frangendum in potestatem Danieli dando et inimicos eius Leonibus ingerendo sicut seruiuit Nabuchodonosor omnes in regno suo positos a blasphemando Deo lege terribili prohibendo In hoc ergo seruiunt Domino Reges in quantum sunt Keges cum ea faciunt ad seruiendum illi quae non possunt facere nisi Reges How doe Kinges serue God in feare but by punishing with religious seueritie such thinges as are against Gods lawes For the King serueth God one way as he is man an other way as he is King As he is man he serues God in lyuing as becommeth an honest Christian as he is King he serues God in making sharpe Lawes to the furtheraunce of Vertue and to the suppressing of Vice As Ezechias serued God while he destroyed the Groues and Temples of Idols and those Hie places which were erected against Gods lawes As Josias serued God while he performed the same or like dueties As the King of the Niniuites serued God in compelling the whole Citie to serue God As Nabuchodonosor serued God while he with very sharpe Lawes terrified all his subiectes from blaspheming the euerliuing God In this therefore Kings serue God as they are Kinges when they doe that for the seruice of God which none but Kinges can doe Thus writeth S. Austin that auncient Father that holy Writer that learned Doctor that strong Piller that worthy Champion of Christes Church Out of whose Discourse I obserue many thinges well worthy to be engrauen in Marble with Golden letters in perpetuam rei memoriam First that Kinges serue God when they religiously punish sinne Secondly that Kinges serue God as they be men when they liue as it becommeth faythfull and honest Christians Thirdly that Kinges serue God as they be Kinges when they make Godly lawes to aduance Vertue and to suppresse Vice Fourthly that it belongeth to the office dutie and charge of Kings to purge the Church and House of God from Heresies Errours Superstition and Idolatrie Fiftly that it appertaineth to the charge and office of Kinges to punish Blasphemie and to cause their Subiectes to liue religiously and in the feare of God Sixtly that this holy Father and great learned Doctor vtterly condemneth the Popes Fayth and Doctrine while he denyeth all authoritie to Kinges in Church causes and Ecclesiasticall affaires and maketh them onely executors of his Lawes Will and good Pleasure For which respect the same holy Father soone after addeth these expresse wordes Quis mente sobrius Regibus dicat Nolite curare in regno vestro a quo teneatur vel oppugnetur Ecclesia Domini vestri non ad vos pertineat in regno vestro quis velit esse siue religiosus siue sacrilegus Who well in his Wittes will say thus to Kinges Haue no regard neither take any care who within your Kingdome either protect or oppugne the Church of God you haue no charge neither doth it pertaine to your office who in your Kingdome be Religious or who be Sacrilegious Seuenthly that Kinges haue charge not onely of the bodyes of their Subiectes but much more of their soules Which not onely S. Austen fayth but the whole course of Scripture teacheth the same For the godly Kinges as well in time of the Law of Moyses as in the time of the New Testament and law of Grace did manage all matters both of Church and Common-weale For which cause the Ciuill Magistrate was commaunded to read the whole Booke of the Law as well of the first as of the second Table and to studie the same night and day For which cause the Ciuill Magistrate was commaunded to goe out and in before the people and to lead them out and in that the congregation of the Lord should not be as Sheepe without a Shepheard For which cause the Booke of the Law was deliuered into the Kings handes at such time as he receiued the Crowne and was annoynted King Lastly and this striketh dead that Kings as Kings serue God when they doe those things which none but Kinges can doe If this golden Periode were soundly vnderstood and perfectly kept in memorie it alone would be enough to trample Pope and Poperie vnder foote For I pray you sir Frier did not Constantinus surnamed the great Theodesius the elder Theodosius the younger and Martianus gather the foure first generall Councels of Nice Constantinople Ephesus and Chalcedon which Pope Gregorie did reuerence as the foure Ghospels did they not call the same Synodes as they were Emperours Kinges and Monarches I wote they did it is already prooued it can not be denyed What Did not Reccaredus as King commaunde all the Byshops of Spaine and Gallicia to assemble themselues before him at Toledo there to decide and determine causes ecclesiasticall did he not tell them the cause why he sent for them did he not sit downe among them did he not define with them did he not subscribe before all the Byshops did he not confirme the Decrees and Canons of the Councell with his royall edict we haue already seene it wee haue viewed the very wordes it is prooued most manifestly Now let vs duely ponder and throughly vnderstand what of necessitie must be inferred heereupon S. Austin affirmeth constantly that when Kinges serue God as Kings then doe they that which none but Kings can doe But so it is that Reccaredus and the other Kings both called confirmed Councels as they were Kings for it is already prooued ergo Kinges and none but Kings can call and confirme holy Councels and sacred Synodes The reason is S. Austens when he resolutely auoucheth that while Kinges serue God as Kinges they doe that which none but Kinges can doe for if Kinges as Kinges call and confirme Councels none doubtlesse which are no Kinges can doe the same And consequently no Byshop no not the Pope of Rome hath authoritie to gather Councels or to confirme the same Two thinges onely the Pope may in shew of wordes seeme to obiect for himselfe obiection 1 Th' one that Kinges doe not call or confirme Councels as they be Kinges but rather as the Seruantes or Deputies of the Pope obiection 2 Th' other that the Pope is not onely a Byshoppe but a King also To
naturae vitio turpificarent Yet this I will say that this forced coacted Chastitie of Priests was so farre from excelling Chastitie in Wedlocke as no crime whatsoeuer hath brought greater shame to Priesthood more harme to Religion more griefe to all good men then the vnchast life of Priestes Therefore it were perhaps no lesse necessarie for the publique weale of Christendome then for the order of Priesthood that once againe Priestes might marrie publikely and so liue honestly and without shame and not pollute themselues so filthyly This is the doctrine of Polydorus well worthy to be written in Golden letters Yea the Marriage of Priestes is so honourable and so lawfull by Gods law and the prohibition thereof so dishonourable and dolefull that Pope Pius the second of that name who afore his Popedome was named Aeneas Syluius a very learned and famous writer did deliuer his minde opinion concerning this subiect in this manner as his owne deare Platina hath published the same Indoctum Episcopum Asine comparandum corpora malos medicos animas imperitos sacerdotes occiacre vagum Monachum diaboli esse mancipium virtutes Clerum ditasse vitia pauperem facere Sacerdotibus magna ratione sublatas nuptias maiori restituendas videri Pope Pius vsed to say as writeth his owne deuoted vassall Platina that a Bishop without learning was like vnto an Asse consequently that there are many Asses in popish Churches that euill Phisitians did kill mens bodyes and ignorant Priestes their soules that a vagrant Monke was the Diuels slaue that Vertues had enriched the Clergie in times past but that Vices of late dayes doe make it poore that there was great reason to debarre Priestes of Marriage but greater reason to restore Marriage againe vnto them Thus writeth Platina of Pope Pius Now for the benefite of the Christian reader I obserue these godly necessarie Lessons out of these three learned and famous Papistes First that the coacted Chastitie of Priests is neither of the substance of the Ministerie nor grounded vpon the law of God Secondly that the annexed Vow so tearmed is coacted and not free not voluntarie but compelled And consequently that secular Priestes are not Votaries properly but by a cursed and lawlesse Vow violently imposed vpon them Thirdly that the Prohibition of the Marriage of Priestes is against their soules health and causeth them to sinne damnably Fourthly that Priestes marriage would be honourable and honest chastitie if the law of man did not prohibite the same Fiftly that it was once lawfull for Priestes to Marrie Sixtly that it is in mans power to make their Marriages once lawful againe Seuenthly that it is expedient to restore Priestes to their right againe that is to say to referre Marriage to their free choyce and election Marke this poynt well for Christes sake gentle Reader Vt ius publicj matrimonij Sacerdotibus restitueretur That the right of publique Wedlocke might be restored to Priestes againe O sweete Iesus how impudent are our Jesuites and Iesuited Papistes who inueigh so bitterly against Priestes Marriage which is their proper right Nay how tyrannicall is the Pope who violently debarreth and keepeth them from their right Let these two wordes neuer be forgotten viz. Ius and Restitueretur for the former word Ius right doth argue Priestes Marriage to be their proper right And the latter word restitueretur might be restored doth argue the tyrannie of the late Byshops of Rome The reason is euident because Restitution can neuer be truely exacted but where iniustice went before and consequently seeing by the ioynt testimonie of these three famous popish Writers that the Marriage of Priestes ought to be restored to them it followeth of necessitie that the taking away of Marriage from Priestes was sauage brutish cruell tyrannicall and odious to God and all godly men For it was flatte iniustice and violently imposed vpon them Neither hath any good come to the Church of God thereby but filthy life and vncleannesse abounded euery where Which is not mine Assertion but the flatte and plaine Accusation of three learned zealous and famous Papistes Pope Pius him selfe being one of the three The 13. Proposition When the Fathers of the first famous Councell of Nice intended and meant to haue brought a New law into the Church and to haue abandoned the marriage of Priestes then our mercifull Father the mighty God Johouah who neuer hath been is or will be wanting to his Church in necessarie poyntes of Fayth and Doctrine raysed vp his faythfull seruant Paphuntius a man very famous by manifold myracles in his life time to withstand gainesay that cursed and neuer enough detested Law which the Father 's assembled at Nice were about to bring into the Church This Paphuntius the man of God excited by the spirit of God stood vp in the midst of the Councell and constantly affirmed before them all that to forbid Marriage to Priestes was too seuere a Law seeing by the testimonie of Christes blessed Apostle Marriage was honourable in all sortes of men wherevpon the Councell made no Decree in that behalfe This Proposition is prooued by the vniforme assent of three learned and famous Historiographers Cassiodorus Socrates Sozomâ—nus Socrates hath these expresse wordes Visum erat Episcopis legem nouam in Ecclesiam introducere The Byshops meant and intended to bring a new law into the Church But Paphuntius so perswaded the Councell by the power of the Holy ghost that they referred the whole matter to euery Priestes free choyce and election making no Law in that behalfe For Cassiodorus hath these expresse wordes Synodusque laudaâ—it sententiam eius et nihil ex hac parte sanciuit sed hoc in vniuscuiusque voluntate non in necessitate reliquit And the Synode commended Paphuntius his opinion and decreed nothing in the matter but left it in euery ones election to doe what he thought good without compulsion Sozomenus is consonant and confirmeth the same trueth The case is euident it cannot be denied The Corollarie of these 13. Propositions First therefore seeing all Ministers which are not subiect to the lawes of Poperie may lawfully Marrie euen by the doctrine of the Church of Rome as is prooued in the first Proposition Secondly seeing Marriage was euer lawfull for all Priestes and other Ministers of the Church during all the time of the old Testament as is prooued in the second Proposition Thirdly seeing Marriage is lawfull for Priestes and other Ministers of the Church euen now in the time of the new Testament as is prooued in the third Proposition Fourthly seeing the Marriage of Priestes is onely prohibited by the law of Man and not by any positiue constitution either of Christ of his Apostles as is prooued in the fourth Proposition Fiftly seeing it was euer lawfull for the Byshoppes Priestes and Deacons of the East Church to take Wiues and to beget Children in the time of their Priesthood as is prooued
in the fift Proposition Sixtly seeing the Marriage of Priestes was euer lawfull also in the West Church vntill the cursed and vntimely inuented Prohibition of Pope Siricius almost 400. yeares after Christ as is prooued in the sixt Proposition Seuenthly seeing Siricius his Prohibition notwithstanding Priestes were still Married in many places a long time and in Germanie aboue a thousand yeares after Christ without restraint euen vntill the dayes of the vngratious Pope Hildebrand as is prooued in the 7. Proposition Eightly seeing all secular Priestes are so free from the Vow which is annexed to Ecclesiasticall orders by the Church of Rome that the supposed dissoluing impediment thereof notwithstanding their Marriages are true perfect and of force Ninthly seeing that by Popish Fayth and Doctrine the single Vow of Chastitie neither doth nor can dissolue Matrimonie as is prooued in the ninth Proposition Tenthly seeing the Vow single is of one and the same nature with the Vow solemne not distinguished by any essentiall but meere accidentall difference as is prooued in the tenth Proposition Eleuenthly seeing Matrimonie of Monkes Fryers and Nonnes euen after their solemne Vow of Religion is with the Pope his Iesuites and Iesuited Popelinges very lawfull and of force so it be done by and with the Popes Dispensation as is prooued in the eleuenth Proposition Twelfthly seeing the forced and coacted Chastitie of popish Priestes hath been such and so intollerable euen by the best learned Papistes their free confessions as nothing in the whole world hath brought more shame to Priesthood more harme to Religion more griefe to godly men as is prooued in the 12. Proposition Thirteenthly seeing the Fathers of the famous Councell of Nice thought it not agreeable to Gods word to make any Law against the Marriage of Priestes as is prooued in the 13. Proposition I can not I may not but must of necessitie conclude with this ineuitable and irrefragable illation ergo the Prohibition of Priestes Marriage is but a rotten ragge of the new Religion The Refutation of the Friers third Chapter In these 13. Propositions if due application be made thereof all the vntruethes lyes miserable shiftes and colourable euasions of our Fryer Jesuite will easily appeare and vanish away as doth the smoake of a Fire especially if my Discourse in the Suruay of Poperie bee duely pondered with these 13. Propositions For all that our Fryer hath sayd in this Chapter and whatsoeuer else any other Iesuite or Iesuited Papist in the world is able to say against the Marriage of Priestes is verie largely distinctly and soundly resuted in my Suruay of Poperie The Jesuite full of nothing but Winde Vanitie Rayling and lying would dazell the eyes of his Reader with crying out against Vntruethes when indeed all vntruethes proceed onely from his owne lying lippes Two thinges onely may seeme to the vulgar Reader to carry some shew or colour of trueth which both are soundly confuted in my Suruay Howbeit for the better satisfaction of the indifferent Reader especially of such as perhappes haue not read my Suruay I am content once againe to examine the same The former colour of trueth pretended by our Frier is this in very deed viz. That Saint Paphuntius in the Councell of Nice perswaded the Fathers onely vnto this to weete That they which were called to the Priesthood beeing Married should not be separated from their Wiues which they had for it was the old Tradition of the Church sayth our Fryer That those which were made Priestes beeing not yet Married should not afterward marrie Wiues Thus pleadeth our Jesuite out of Sozomenus and Socrates Marke now my Answere to the same The Answere I answere first that the Marriage of Priestes is onely prohibited by the Law of man and not by any positiue Constitution either of Christ or his Apostles This I haue prooued in the 4. Proposition by the flat testimonie of many famous Popish Writers yea out of the Popes owne Decrees Read the Proposition to the end and marke it seriously Secondly that it was euer lawfull for Priestes in the East Church to be Married and to beget children in time of their Priesthood This trueth is cleared in the fift Proposition euen out of the Popes owne Decrees Thirdly that it was lawfull in the West Church for Priestes to be Married for the space of one thousand yeares after Christ This is made euident in the sixt and seuenth Propositions Fourthly that Secular Priestes are not Votaries and that therefore their Marriage is lawfull This trueth is soundly prooued in the 8. and 9. Propositions Let them be well marked Fiftly that the Marriage of Priestes is their owne proper right and that therefore restitution must be made for taking the same away This trueth is prooued in the 12. Proposition and it striketh dead Now seeing first that no positiue Constitution against Priestes Marriage can truely be deriued either from Christ or his Apostles seeing secondly that it was euer lawfull for Priestes in the East Church to be Married seeing thirdly that it was lawfull for Priestes euen in the West Church to Marrie euery where for the space almost of 400. yeares and in Germanie aboue a thousand yeares after Christ seeing fourthly that Secular Priestes are no Votaries seeing fiftly that the Pope is bound to Restitution for taking away of Priestes Marriage I must perforce conclude against our Iesuite that the Tradition which Socrates and Sozomenus speake of was neither Generall nor Diuine howsoeuer Paphuntius alleadged it so to mittigate the rigorous and seuere Lawes intended by the Councell I prooue it by a double argument First because if there had been any such Tradition generall or diuine the Greekes could not be excused who neuer yeelded therevnto Secondly because so many Learned Papistes doe constantly affirme and teach that neither Christ nor his Apostles made any Law against Priestes Marriage To which I must needes adde that if there had been any such Tradition receiued either from Christ or his Apostles neither would holy Paphuntius haue pleaded against it neither yet the famous Councell haue yeelded to him in that behalfe But the Councell of Carthage will some say maketh mention of Apostolicall tradition to the same effect I answere with the Popes owne deare Glosse vpon his Decrees in these expresse wordes Ergo Apostoli dâ—cuerunt exemplo et admonitione non institutione vel constitutione Therefore the Apostles taught it by example and admonition and not by any Law or Constitution But how by Admonition and Example did the Apostles teach the single life of Priestes S. Paul albeit he were some time a marryed-man as S. Clement very probably deduceth out of the holy Scriptures yet did he after that liue a single life and withall exhorted others that had the gift to liue as he did But here three things must seriously be obserued First that th' Apostle wished Lay-men aswell as he did Ecclesiasticall persons
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
whole care industrie and diligence to see what helpe might be had in that behalfe his best resolution is to say with the old doting man of Carlton That it is either one thing or other For first he freely confesseth that it is not in the Old law Secondly that it is not in the Scripture of th'Apostles Thirdly that we must either hold this or that but he can not tell whether Fourthly that how soeuer we thinke or say of this Popish Auricular confessioÌ„ this perforce we must resolue to be the trueth viz. that it is grounded vpon Vnwritten tradition without all maner of Scripture This is it which our Papistes must euer flie vnto as to their best and last trumpe For which respect their learned and canonized Martyr the late Byshoppe of Rochester confessed plainely that the holy Scriptures will not serue their turne these are his expresse wordes Contendentibus itaque nobiscum Hareticis nos also subsidio nostram oportet tueri causam quam scriptura sacra Therefore when Heretiques contende with vs we must defend our cause by other meanes then by the holy Scripture Thus writeth Byshoppe Fisher the Popes canonized Saint and glorious Martyr a Learned man indeed who as we see for all his Learning was not able to defend Poperie by Gods word and therefore he fled from the holy Scriptures to vnwritten Traditions as Scotus did afore him And for the same respect Couarruuias a famous Popish Bishoppe and a great learned man confessed and published to the whole world that howsoeuer the trueth was that which their Pope did must of necessitie be defended These are his expresse words Nec mâ—latet c. Neither am I ignorant that S. Thomas affirmeth after great deliberation that the Byshoppe of Rome can not with his Dispensation take away from Monkes their solemne Vow of Chastitie This notwithstanding wee must defend the first opinion least those thinges which are practised euery where be vtterly ouerthrowne Behold here gentle Reader that howsoeuer the Popes opinion be whether true or false that skilleth not the same wee must defende of necissitie And why I pray you must this be done Because forsooth sayth Couarruutas otherwise Poperie will be turned vpside downe Sixtly because their famous Cardinall Caietanus affirmeth roundly that Auricular and Secret confession is against Christes institution as also the Precept that vrgeth vs to the same For albeit hee approoue Confession as instituted by Christ yet doth he adde a double restriction First that it was Voluntarie then that it was neither Secret nor of All sinnes Which twaine for all that the late Byshoppes of Rome affirme and vrge as necessarie to Saluation Marke well the next Conclusion out of the Popes owne Decrees The Seuenth Conclusion Popish Auricular Confession was not an Article of Popish Fayth for the space of 1215. yeares I prooue it because their famous Fryer and reuerend Popish Byshop Iosephus Angles affirmeth peremptorily and without all And 's or Ifs that none were Heretikes for the deniall of the necessitie of Popish confession vntill the Decree of their late Councell of Latheran which was holden 1215. yeares after Christ. And the Fryer Byshoppe yeeldeth this reason for the same viz. Quia nondum erat ab Ecclesia declaratum Because the Church of Rome had not before that time declared it to be so To which I adde for the complement of this controuersie that the Holy Auncient Fathers those stout Champions and mighty Pillers of Christes Church were neuer acquainted with Popish Auricular confession I prooue this by a double argument First by the fact of the holy Byshop Nectarius then by the ioynt-testimonies of Nicephorus and Rhenanus Concerning Nectarius that holy and worthy Byshoppe of Constantinople hee abolished the Law made for Confession so to auoyde the great Vices which ensued therevpon Where the Reader must obserue two thinges with mee th' one that in the Auncient church Publike Penaunce was inioyned to those who publikely denyed the Fayth in time of Persecution And that some were so zelous and so highly esteemed the sacred Ministerie that although they did not denie the Fayth publikely yet for that they had some doubtes therein and were troubled in their mindes they voluntarily disclosed their secret griefes to Gods Ministers humbly desired their Godly aduise submitted themselues to doe what was thought expedient by those Ministers whom the Church had placed to inioyne Penance for publike sinnes Th' other that notwithstanding the whoredome of the Deacon and other vices neither would that holy Byshop Nectarius euer haue attempted to abolish Confession if it had been Gods ordinance neither would so many famous Byshops haue imitated his fact And yet is it most certaine as shal be seene by and by that all for the most part Easterne-Byshops did follow his opinion Yea euen S. Chrysostome who succeeded Nectarius at Constantinople that goodly Patriarchall seate of the World Concerning Nicephorus and Rhenanus their owne expresse wordes shall heere be layde open to the Reader Nicephorus after he hath told vs what Nectarius did immediatly addeth these wordes Quem etiam ferè Orientales Episcopi omnes sequuti sunt Whom almost all the Byshoppes of the East did follow and imitate Againe he addeth toward the end of that Chapter these wordes Itaque de quorundam maximè vero Eudaemonis Ecclesiae eius Presbyteri patria Alexandrini Consilio ne postea in Ecclesia Presbyter paenitentiarius esset Nectarius statuit suadentibus illis vt cuique permitteretur pro conscientia et fiducia sua communicare et de immaculatis mysterijs participare Therefore Nectarius being aduised by sundry especially by Eudaemon an Elder of that Church borne in Alexandria made a Decree through their perswasion that from that day no Priest should heare the Confessions of the penitentes but that euery one should be permitted to communicate and to be partaker of the holy Mysteries as his owne Conscience and Fayth did mooue him Beatus Rhenanus after he had discoursed at large how the Auncient Church appoynted Priestes ouer the penitent that they might giue them counsaile how to make satisfaction according to the Canons which themselues did not vnderstande and withall had prooued out of S. Cyprian S. Chrysostome S. Basill S. Ambrose S. Hierome S. Bede Tertullian Hesychius Theodulphus Theodorus Bertramus Rabanus and Nectarius all which he alleadged for his opinion he deliuered his owne iudgement in these wordes Non aliam ob causam complurimi hic testimonijs vsi sâ—mus quam ne quis admiretur TertullianuÌ„ de clancularia illa admissoruÌ„ confessione nihil loquutum quae quantum coijcimus penitus id temporis ignorabatur For no other cause haue I heere vsed the testimonies of so many Writers but least any should maruell that Tertullian spake nothing of that secret Confession which as I thinke was vtterly vnknowen at that time Loe Tertullian spake not one word of Auricular confessioÌ„
and his successors and that their fayth can not fayle B. C. What followeth What but that Bell hath abused the good Reader with an vntrueth T. B. I answere that this in very deed followeth and that of meere necessitie that our Iesuiticall Fryer is a most impudent and shamelesse lyer Which thing I haue prooued againe againe in euery Chapter most euidently I therfore must perforce conclude that seeing the late Byshops of Rome Pius Paulus Iulius haue taken in hand roundly and most Antichristianly as I haue prooued in my Tryal and more at large in the Downe-fall of Poperie to dissolue that Matrimonie which the true Church of God durst neuer dissolue for the space of more then fifteene hundred yeares after Christ the same can be nothing else but a very filthy rotten Ragge of the New Religion The 30. Chapter of the Popes pretended Superioritie ouer and aboue a generall Councell B. C. BELL beginning with false asseueration to tell vs of the late opinion of the Popes Superioritie ouer a Generall Councell interlaceth also an other shamelesse vntrueth against the Rhemists T. B. I answere that our Fryer still continueth one and the selfe-same man that is to say an impudent and shamelesse lyar as he first began For within foure lines hee compriseth and coucheth two most notorious Lyes The former is touching the late Opinion of the Popes Superioritie ouer a generall Councell I affirme that the Popish opinion which holdeth the Pope to be aboue a generall Councell is a late vpstart Fayth and Doctrine neuer knowne to the Church of God for the space of more then fourteene hundred yeares after Christ. This our Fryer calleth a False asseueration but prooueth it not at all Hee is an honest man we may if we will beleeue his bare word But I by the power of God shall prooue the contrary to be the trueth and that out of hand The latter is concerning the Rhemistes which shall be cleared God willing by and by B. C. The Rhemists quoth hee that Iesuited brood tell vs plainely if we will beleeue them that there is no necessitie of a Generall or Prouinciall Councell saue onely for the better contentation of the people Thus hee chargeth them yet not noting any particular place But I will helpe him it is in their Annotations vpon the Actes T. B. I answere that our Fryer sheweth himselfe what he is aswell heere as else where He is so full of Charitie forsooth that he will needes helpe me for his owne intended gaine though he be thereby prooued a lying swaine for in the next Page following hee hath these expresse wordes This vntrueth the Minister had set abroach once afore in his Downe-fall and quoteth the place very orderly in this manner Rhemes test in Act. 15. Loe in one page our Fryer chargeth me of purpose to haue omitted the quotation so to delude and deceiue the Reader In an other page he graunteth freely that I haue set it downe very orderly Behold this changeable Camelion who both accuseth and acquitteth me with one breath Concerning the slaundering of the Rhemists wherewith he chargeth me this is mine answere that in very deede the slaunder fitly agreeth to himselfe which he would vntruely impose vpon mee I prooue it First Because the Rhemists plainely declare their meaning in this briefe Marginall note Though the Sea Apostolique it selfe say the Rhemists haue the same assistance yet Councels be also necessarie for many causes In which wordes they graunt as much in effect as I either affirme or require Secondly because the causes which our Rhemists name may easily be reduced to that one of mine viz. For the better contentation of the people for the controuersie is this Whether the Popes Iudgement be infallible in it selfe without a Generall Councell or no. The Rhemists answere that Papistes hold the affirmatiue viz. That the Popes Iudgement is infallible and is assisted of God euen as a generall Councell Thirdly that if the Papistes will stand to the deny all of mine Assertion then must they perforce grant against them-selues which willingly they would not that they haue no infallible trueth in their Church saue onely the Determination of a generall Councell I heare it I receiue it I like it I willingly subscribe vnto it Let the Papistes therefore defend this Doctrine That the Popes Iudgement without a generall Councell is fallible that he may Iudicially erre and be deceiued and let a lawfull generall Councell determine all controuersies and no doubt all Christians in the world will yeeld thereunto But Sir Fryer Hic labor hoc opus est For in these last and worst dayes of ours the Pope will stay at home and whatsoeuer or howsoeuer the Councelles shal decree yet must nothing be of force saue that onely which the Pope liketh to confirme as he sitteth in his Chaire at Rome This I haue prooued at large in the Downe-fall of Poperie and in my Christian Dialogue by euident demonstrations B. C. What can Bell fetch from Alphonsus to iustifie his iniurious charge of the Rhemists Alphonsus was one of those Diuines that thinke the infallibilitie of Iudgement to be in a Councell and not in the Pope alone And hee bringeth this reason Because otherwise it were in vaine with so great labour to assemble so many Byshops togeather This informeth vs very well what Alphonsus his opinion was But where doth hee say that the Rhemistes teach that the Determination of a generall Councell is needlesse saue onely for the better contentation of the people because the Popes Iudgement is infallible Hee speaketh not one word of the Rhemists and no marueile for he could not being dead many a faire day before the Rhemes Testament was published T. B. I answere that I can fetch so much from the famous and learned Papist Alphonsus as is able to kill the Pope with all his Jesuites and Iesuited Popelinges For first the Pope with his Jesuites and Jesuited Popelinges auouch most impudently and would enforce all Christians to beleeue the same that Christ built his Church vpon S. Peter and vpon his successors the Byshops of Rome and also that Christ prayed for Peter and for the Byshops of Rome that their Fayth should neuer fayle But Alphonsus condemneth that opinion for Hereticall while hee affirmeth the infallibilitie of Fayth to rest in a generall Councell not in the Pope alone Secondly Alphonsus confuteth the Rhemists most soundly euidently while he affirmeth generall Councels to be gathered in vaine if the Popes Determination and iudgement were infallible Thirdly Alphoâ—sus is one of those Learned popish Writers euen by the Iesuites free confession in this place which I wish the Reader neuer to forget who defende the trueth with vs against the Pope his Iesuites and all his Iesuiteâ— Popelinges For I doe not hold or defend any Article or poynt of Doctrine as I haue often sayd and heere our Fryer vnawares graunteth the same such is the
Brytaines did at their conuersion receiue the Latine Seruice first by Eleutherius about the yeare 179. after Christ and againe by Gregorie about the 596. yeare yet can no more be truely inferred therevpon if we graunt the Latine tongue to haue been then decayed in Brytaine same onely that the Romanes deliuered their Church-seruice in the Latine tongue which then was their vulgar Language being altogeather ignoraunt of the Brytaine tongue and that the Brytaine for the loue they bore to the publique Prayers and Church-seruice which they receiued at their conuersion to the Christian faith did euer after vse and retaine the same in the Latine tongue in which they first receiued it Fourthly that seeing by Christes commandement deliuered by his Apostle All thinges in the Church ought to be done to edification it followeth of necessitie that the Latine vsage of the Brytaines in diuine Seruice was a Ragge of a New religion as which was about 179. yeares younger then the old and repugnant to Apostolicall doctrine For S. Paul spendeth no lesse then one whole Chapter that only to prooue that euery Nation ought to haue their Church-seruice in their vulgar knowne tongue If the Trumpet sayth he giue an vncertaine sound who shall prepare him selfe to the Warre So likewise you except ye vtter by the tongue manifest speech how shall it be knowne what is spâ—ken for ye shall speake in the ayre Againe thus If I know not the meaning of the voyce I shall be to him that speaketh an Aliant and he that speaketh shall be an Aliant to mee Againe thus Wherefore let him that speaketh with the tongue pray that he may interpret For if I pray with the tongue my spirit prayeth but my vnderstanding is without fruite Where I wish the Reader to obserue with me that the Spirit in this place is taken for the spirituall gift of Tongues as S. Chrysostome vpon this place doth witnesse S. â—heophilact is consonant to S. Chrysostome He calleth the Gift the Spirit sayth Theodorus My Spirit prayeth that is my spirituall Gift to speake with Tongues sayth Phoâ—us Againe thus If thou blesse with the Spirit how shall he that occupieth the roome of the vnlearned say Amen at the giuing of thankes seeing he vnderstandeth not what thou sayeth Againe thus I had rather speake fiue wordes with my vnderstanding in the Church that J may instruct others then ten thousand wordes in an vnknowen tongue Againe thus Let all things be done to edification Fourthly that our Jesuite gableth as a lying pratler while he impudently auoucheth that by Bels allowance the Latine vse in Church-seruice where the people vnderstand it not is found Catholique and Apostolicall For Bell hath plainely prooued it to be vnsound Prophane and Diabolicall as also that the vse of publique Seruice in the vulgar Tongue came neither from Wittenberge nor Geneua But from the Primitiue Apostolicall and succeding Churches for many hundred yeares togeather Whosoeuer shall with a single eye and sound iudgement peruse the Sixteene chapter afore-going and ioyne my Suruey with it can not but cleerely behold as in a Glasse of Christall the trueth to be as I haue written Lyranus a famous and great learned Papist in his learned Commentaries vpon S. Pauls Epistles doth so plainely so constantly affirme that in the Primatiue Church the publique Prayers and all other thinges were in the vulgar Tongue as none that shall read him seriously can possibly stand in doubt thereof Yea S. Basil auoucheth expressely that the Egyptians the Lybians the Thebanes the Palestines the Arabians the Phaenicians the Syrians and generally all Christian Nations of what Language soeuer they were had their common Prayers and Seruice in their vulgar Tongue But our Rhemishes obiect S. Pauls words against S. Paul in this manner Also when a man prayeth in a strange Tongue which himselfe vnderstandeth not it is not so fruitfull for instruction to him as it be knâ—w particularly what he prayed Neuerthelesse the Apostle forbiddeth not such praying neither confessing that his spirit heart and affection prayeth well towardes God though his minde and vnderstanding be not profited to instruction as otherwise it might haue been if he vnderstood the wordes Neither yet doth he appoynt such a one to get his strange Prayers translated into his vulgar Tongue to obtaine thereby the aforesaid instruction To this I answere first that I haue alreadie prooued out of S. Chrysostome and other Fathers Theodoretus Theophilactus and Photius that S. Paul doth not vnderstand by the word Spirit the Heart and Affection but the Spirituall gift to speake with Tongues Secondly that it is cleare by many textes of the Apostle that the word Spirit doth so signifie as I haue sayd Thirdly that if we should graunt the Spirit to signifie Heart and Affection as the Rhemistes absurdly expound it yet could not that serue their turne because S. Paul willeth to pray not onely with Spirit but also with minde and vnderstanding As also for that S. Paul in an other text commaundeth expressely That all thinges â—e done in the Church to edifying Which is no other Doctrine indeed then Christ himselfe teacheth in his holy Ghospell This people saith he draweth neere vnto me with their mouth and honoureth me with the lippes but their heart is farre from me Fourthly that the Apostle commaundeth him that hath the gift of Tongues to pray that he may interpret his strange tongue himselfe or that some other should interpret it or else to keepe silence in the Church For this cause doth S. Chrysostome constantly affirme that Prayers not vnderstood of him that vttereth them are altogeather vnprofitable Thou seest sayth he how by litle and litle he is come to this poynt that he declareth him to be vnprofitable not onely to others but also to him selfe seeing the minde of such a man is voyde of fruite For if a man speake onely in the Persians Language or in any other strange Tongue and doe not vnderstand those things which he speaketh he shall be to himselfe as he that vnderstandeth not the meaning of the voyce This and much more to the like effect sayth S. Chrysostome of those that had the gifts of Tongues and vnderstood not what they spake What thinke you sir Fryer would he haue sayd if he had heard the vnlearned Papistes babling on their Beades and Primers what they did not vnderstand Nay if he had heard that which now adayes is very frequent among the vnlearned Papistes both men and women how they choppe and change clippe and mangle the wordes so as they either haue a contrarie or ridiculous sense or else plaine none at all but stand as Cyphers and Voces non significatiuae For this is a truth so well knowne as it can not without blushing be denied that many popish Priestes haue been so ignoraunt that they neither vnderstood their Portesses
time and who they were that composed the partes thereof When as neither Durandus nor any other make the essentiall and very substantiall part of the Masse that is the wordes of Consecration to haue come from any other then the Sonne of God But they speake of the accidentall partes thereof to weet either deuout Prayers or Ceremonies which we willingly graunt to proceed from the institution of Christes Church T. B. I answere first that our Fryer giueth both the Pope and Poperie a deadly wound while he telleth vs that Durandus and others note at what time and who they were that composed the partes of their popish Masse Secondly that while our Fryer Iesuite maketh one onely essentiall part of their popish Masse that is the wordes of Consecration he graunteth that all the rest be Accidentall and so may be taken away from the same To which Doctrine I very willingly subscribe assuring the Iesuite that they and we shall soone agree if the Pope will thus reforme their Masse in abolishing all the accidentall partes here so named from the same Thirdly that I haue already prooued the word enim in the consecration of the Bread to be either of Mans institution or else the Deuils Fourthly that S. Thomas of â—â—quine Durâ—nâ— and other learned Papistes doe constantly affirme that God can not by his diuine power cause one the same body to be in diuers places at once And consequently that our Iesuites must either deny Christes body to be in Heauen contrary to the expresse wordes of holy Scripture or else that Christes body his flesh blood and bones can not be in their popish Masse or thirdly that the wordes of Popish Consecration came from some greater power then is in God which for all that no Papist dareth to auouch Fiftly that the wordes which are vsed in the popish Consecration of Wine came not from the Sonne of God I prooue it by the testimonie of Iosephus Angles that famous popish Byshoppe and learned Schoole-doctor whose expresse wordes are these Forma consecrationis Calicis qua Romana vtitur Ecclesia est sufficiens traditur enim ab Euangelistis et verba qua ab Ecclesia interpoâ—untur scilicâ—t nouâ— et aâ—erni testaments misterium fidei forma qua Christus consecrauit sensum handmutanâ— The forme of the Consecration of the Chalice or Cuppe which the Church of Rome vseth is sufficient for it is deliuered by the Euangelist and the wordes which the Church interlaceth to weet of the new and eternall Testament the misterie of Fayth doe not change the sense of the forme in which Christ did consecrate Thus writeth Byshop Angles plainely insinuating to his Readers that the Church of Rome vseth an other forme of Consecration then Christ himselfe did vse And consequently that the wordes of Consecration vsed in the Romish Church came not from the Sonne of God Ergo the Romish forme of Consecration is a Ragge of the New religion Sixtly that the Papistes can not tell indeed which be the precise wordes of their popish Consecration although that be the most principall and the very essentiall part of popish Masse and consequently of all popish Fayth and Religion I prooue it most euidently because Byshoppe Angles rehearseth foure seuerall opinions concerning this precise Article of popish Fayth these are his expresse words Quatuor sunt opiniones Prima S. Thomae qui omnia praedicta verba dicit esse de essentiaformae Secunda opinio est Alexandri D. Bonauenturae et Durandâ— qui affirmant de necessitate consecrationis Calicis esse haec sola verba scilicet hic est sanguis meus Tertia opinio dicit haec verba scilicet hic est sanguis meus qui pro â—ultis effundetur in remissionem peccatoruÌ„ esse de necessitate consecrationis praetermissis alijs verbis quae ab Ecclesia Romana adduntur qua forma vturtur Graeci Quarta opinio est Scoti qui ait de haec quastione nihil certitudinalitor esse nobis traditum There be foure opinions S. Thomas holdeth the first who auoucheth all the aforenamed words to be of the essence of the forme The second opinion is Alexanders Bonauentures and Durandus who affirme that these onely wordes are of the necessitie of the consecration of the Chalice or Cuppe to weet This is my blood The third opinion affirmeth these wordes This is my blood which shal be shed for many for remission of sinnes to be of the necessitie of ConsecratioÌ„ not the other wordes which the Church of Rome addeth to them Scotus the popish Doctor Subtilis holdeth the fourth opinion auouching that they know not certainely what to hold or thinke of this matter This is the best popish Diuinitie for the most essentiall part of all Poperie that the best learned Papistes are able to affoord vs so as euery child is well able to discerne that the now Romish Fayth is the New religion B. C. What doth Bell and such like Ministers that deride the Ceremonies and partes of the Masse but mocke and mow at their owne Communion-booke and partes thereof being borrowed from vs or in what they differ can shew no greater antiquitie then the late dayes of Edward the sixt at what time diuers Ministers did hammer them in the forge of their owne inuention T. B. This is that which the Pope and his deuoted Vassals neuer cease to instill into the hearts and eares of silly Papistes that so they may falsely perswade them that the Popish Fayth is the Old and ours the New Religion Wherefore albeit I haue againe and againe prooued most euidently that the Fayth and Doctrine which the Romish Church this day holdeth and teacheth is the New Religion neuerthelesse seeing these wordes heere obiected doe in some sort as it were insinuate to the Reader the most principall and maine poynt of the whole controuersie I am very willing to vndergoe the paines how great soeuer for the better contentment and full satisfaction of all such as desire to know the trueth I answere thus first that the Church of Rome receiued the true Catholique Apostolique Faith in the dayes of S. Peter and S. Paul which S. Paul himselfe testified while he affirmed their Fayth to he renowmed in the whole world Secondly that the Church of England receiued the same Catholique and Apostolique Fayth from the good Byshoppes of Rome at their first conuersion vnto the Fayth of Christ Iesus Explico Brutani now called England first receiued the Christian Fayth by Faganus and Deruvianus sent from Elutherius the good Byshoppe of Rome at the earnest request of Lucius then King of Brutani which was in the yeare 179. after Christ. After that Ethelbert the first Christian King of the Saxons was conuerted to the Fayth of Christ by Augustine Melitus Justus and others sent from Gregorie an other good Byshoppe of Rome in the yeare 596. after Christ. Thirdly that from that time vntill these our
ChristiaÌ„ Dialogue pag. 17.19 A.D. 1415. The Fryer killeth himselfe with his owne sword Note well the answere This is veriâ—â—ed in the Gun-powder Iesuited vassals Marke well this answere See my Anatomie where this is plainely prooued A.D. 1415. O new borne Popery where is thy mother where is thy Godfather where is thy christianitie None euer heard of thee for the space of 1414. yeares after Christ. A generall Councell is aboue the Pope Gers. in Serm. coram concil Const. V prim part Gers. prim part in tract de appellat a Papa circa med Gers. vbi supr in 2. propos Gers. in serm coram Concil Const. K. prim part To this doctrine I willingly agree See my Anatomy pag. 137. All Papistes are Heretikes Rhem. in 16. Mat. 22. Luk. 15. Act. 18. All Papistes are Heretikes Rhem. in 15. Act. v. 28. ex Aug. libr. 2. de baptis cap. 4. Florint Cypriauâ—â— A.D. 250. Aug. A.D. 419. Marke well this poynt Supr cap. 2. prope finem The old Romane religion was the true Catholique Church The Papistes are the deformed and wee the reformed Catholiques in very deed B.C. pag. 136. All this is true but nothing to the purpose B.C. page 138. The Iesuite is full of vanitie and lying Marke well the answere B·C. page 136. See the Regiment cap. 14. page 183 184.185.187 170.166.200 128.125.155.119 Act. 19. v. 24.25 Marke well this poynt The right end is edification 1. Cor. 14 v. 14. v. 26.16 See and note my Regiment pag. 183.185.200.198.199 1. Cor. 14. v. 27.40 Marke well gentle reader B.C. pag. 135. Beda lib. 2. hist. cap. 2. Super cap. 16. note the chapter well Aug. confess lib. 1 cap. 14. de doctr Christ. lib. 2. cap. 13. de Catechi rud cap. 9. et in Psal. 123.128 Foolish zeale doth much hurt to the Church 1. Cor. 14. v. 26 1. Cor. 14. per totum V. 8. V. 9. V. 11. V. 13. V. 14. Chrysost. in 1. Cor. hom 35. Theodoretus in 1. Cor. 14. Phoâ—ius ibideÌ„ V. 16. V. 19. V. 26. Suruey part 3. cap. 10. pag. 477. Lyran. in 1. Cor. 14. Basill in ep ad cler Neocaesar ep 62. Rhem. in 1 Cor. 14. v. 14. Marke well this answere V. 15. Mat. 15. v. 8. V. 13. et V. 28. Chrysost. in 1. Cor. hem 35. Loe S. Chrysostome doth very sharply reprooue them that haue the diuine Seruice in a tongue vnknowne Conc. Later sub Innoc. 3. cap 9. A.D. 1215. See Suruey et supra cap. 23. 1. Cor. 14. v. 26.40 Things good in their owne nature are prophaned in the popish Masse None but popish Priestes may say Dominus vobiscuÌ„ Popish Deacons may not say The Lord be with you 1. Cor. 14. v. 16.40 B.C. page 140. Marke well this reduplication Mat. 26.27 Mar. 14.22 Luke 22.19 1. Cor. 11.24 Math. 26.27 Luk. 22.19 Masse and Communion are all one in the true sense and meaning Confirmatio prima Ioseph Angles in 4. sentent part 1 p. 102. Marke the vncertaintie of popish Consecration Confirm 2. Sot apud Angels in 4. s. p. 102. Ios. Angl. in 4. s. p. 103. Apud 10. Angl. in 4. s. p. 144. Iosep. Angles vbi supra Angl. vbi supra p. 105. Mat. 26.27 Mar. 14.22 Luk. 22.19 1. Cor. 11.24 Quartò prinâ—ipaliter Deut. 4.2 Deut. 5.32 Deut. 12.32 Reuel 22.18 1. Cor. 14. v. 27. 1. Sam. 5.2 See my Suruey the Downefall the Iesuites Antepast 1. Cor. 10.31 Rom. 16.27 Ier. 9.24 Psal. 115.1 Gal. 1.5 Ephes. 1.12 B.C. pag. 140. Accidens potest adesse et abesse citra subiecti interitum Apud Ioseph Angles in 4 â— part 1. pag. 151. Act. 3.11 Chistes be dyâ— flesh blood bones in the popish Masse Ios. Angl. in 4. s. part 1. pag. 104. concl 1. Loe Popish Masse is the New religion Ios. Angles vbi supra pag. 104. Ios. Angles vbisupra pag. 104. B.C. pag. 141. Our Church was stayned with many errors vntill the time of King Edward when it was restored to the auncienâ— puritie of Fayth and Doctrine Rom. 1.8 A.D. 179. Tertio principaliter See the ChristiaÌ„ Dialogue chap. 4. pag. 66 The Papistes can name no â—ote of the old Romane religion which is not still kept in our Church of England See marke well my Dialogue chapter 4. pag. 92. Apud Euseb. hist. lib. 3. cap. 32. Victor de potest Papae et coÌ„c rel 4. pag. 151. et paulaâ—â—m c. Io. Angles in 2. sent pag. 275. part 2. See S. R. pag. 281. et B.C. pag. 76. Polyd. lib. 4. cap. 9. pag. 39. Couaâ—ruu to 1. c. 20. part 11. in med col 1. Angl. in 4. s. p. 1. pag. 133. Conc. Later Sic enim Apostoli statuerunt et sancta Romana tenet Ecclesia Preface pag. 15. Chalenges doe occupie no place they are adiectiues which can not stand without subiectes The Author still so protesteth that he will performe his promise The Iesuite dareth not dispute and therefore requireth new conditions Preface pag. 18.