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
et successoribus eius plenissimaÌ„ potestatem commisit For seeing the Pope is the Vicar of Christ none can lawfully withdraw himselfe from his obedience as none can lawfully withdraw himselfe from Gods obedience And as Christ receiued of his Father the Dukedome and Scepter of the Church of the Gentiles ouer all Principalitie and power and aboue euery thing that hath beeing that to him euery knee may bend euen so Christ hath committed most full Power to Peter and to his successours the Byshops of Rome Out of these Popish authorities I obserue to the confusion of the Pope and Poperie these golden Lessons First that the Pope hath Fulnesse of power euen as largely as Christ himselfe hath it Secondly that the Pope may doe whatsoeuer pleaseth him his bare Will being a law so to doe Thirdly that he can change the nature of thinges Fourthly that he can apply the essentiall partes of one thing to another and consequently of a Pigge make an Oxe of a Gosling a Lyon and so foorth yea of a Peece of Bread the Body of our Sauiour accidents remayning without subiectes Fiftly and this surpasseth all the rest that the Pope is aboue GOD himselfe Which Collection or Obseruation though it be very strange and woonderfull is truly deduced out of these wordes Super omne quodcunque est vt ei genua cunctae curuentur forasmuch as it must needes be graunted euen of the Pope himselfe that God hath not onely a beeing but such a supereminent beeing as of which all other beeings depend and from thence receiue their beeings Sixtly that the Pope can make of nothing some thing and so create new creatures in the world as also new worldes to receiue them Which Obseruations being true as they are most true I can not but needes I must conclude that the Pope at the least is the fore-runner of Antichrist it can not with any reason be denied The Tenth Conclusion The first occasion and Popish falsely pretended foundation of all the forenamed Arrogant Lordly Superroyal and plaine diuine tytles ascribed to the late Byshoppes of Rome was a counterfeite and falsely pretended Donation of the Emperour Constantinus surnamed the great at his departure from the West into the East about 327. yeares after Christ that is to Constantinople from the citie of Rome Behold the proofe The Popes Decrees compiled and gathered togeather by his deuoted vassall Gratianus beare the world in hand and tell the Readers that the Emperour Constantine the great gaue great Power royall Excellencie and imperiall Maiestie euen the royall Crowne of pure Gold from off his head with all his tytle right prerogatiues royall authoritie power and dignitie whatsoeuer not only in Rome but also in Italie in all the West parts to the Byshop of Rome and his successours for euer And the rather to perswade all people that Constantine gaue to the Byshops of Rome as is already sayd the sayd popish Decree setteth downe the worthy motiue by which the Emperour was induced to translate the Westerne Empire with all his royall right there and to bestow the same vpon the Byshoppes of Rome These amongst many other long periods doe plainely intimate his motiue Vnde congruuÌ„ perspeximus nostruÌ„ imperiuÌ„ et regni potestatem orientalibus transferri regionibus et in Bizantiae prouinciae optimo loco nomini nostro ciuitateÌ„ aedificari et nostruÌ„ illiâ— imperium constitui quoniaÌ„ vbi principatus SacerdotuÌ„ et Christianae religionis caput ab Imperatore caelesti constitutuÌ„ est iustuÌ„ non est vt Imperator terrenus habeat potestatem Wherevpon we haue thought it meete that our Empire power of our kingdome should be remooued to the Easterne regions and that a Cittie should be built for our name at Bâ—zantiuÌ„ a place most fit for vs and that our Empire should be appointed there Because where the Prince of Priest-hood and the head of christian religion was appointed by the Heauenly Emperour it is not meete that an earthly Emperour should haue power Thus disputeth the Pope for his Primacie and Golden Crowne insinuating himselfe if we will beleeue his Antichristian pleading to be the Emperour of the westerne World This falsely pretended Donation of which I haue written more at large in the Downefall of Poperie the latter Popes did euer obiect and violently obtrude it vpon the Church neuer ceasing with importunitie to sollicite the succeeding Emperours to confirme the sayd supposed Donation and to make Rome the head of all Churches vntill such time as Pope Boniface the third of that name did with much adoe obtaine of the cruell and bloody tyrant Phocas then the Emperour who rauished many vertuous Matrones and murdered the good Emperour Mauritius with his wife and children that Rome should be the Head of all Churches This was effected about 607. yeares after Christ. So then the Maiestie of the Byshops of Rome was not heard of in Christes Church for the space of 327. yeares after Christ at which time a counterfeit and false Donation was fetched from Hell in the name of the Emperour Constantine the great Neither could the Byshops of Rome perswade any one of the Emperours for the space almost of three hundred yeares after that supposed Donation either to confirme the same or to make Rome the Head of all Churches One onely Phocas that wicked Emperour gaue some credite to it and made Rome Head of all Churches Of which subiect I haue else where disputed more at large both in the Downe-fall of Poperie and in my Suruay Now that it is a counterfeit and falsely pretended Donation albeit the Byshops of Rome haue with many coozening trickes made vse thereof for their aduancement I will euidently prooue and plainely conuince by the cleere testimonies of many learned and famous Writers who all are of high esteeme in the Church of Rome Nicolaus de Cusa a famous and learned Cardinall wrote to to the Councell of Basill his opinion concerning the falsely supposed Donation of Constantine these are his expresse wordes Sed in veritate super modum admiror sires ita est eo quâ—d in autenticis libris et in historijs approbatis non inuenitur Relegi omnia quae potui gesta Imperialâ—a ac RomanoruÌ„ pontificuÌ„ historias sancti Hier onymj qui ad cuncta colligendum diligentissimus fuit Augustinj Ambrosij ac alioruÌ„ opuscula peritissimoruÌ„ Reuelui gesta sacroruÌ„ conciliorum quae post Niconumfuere et nullam inuenio concordantiam ad ea quae de illa donatione leguÌ„tur Sanctus Damasus Papa ad instantiam beati Hieronymj actus et gesta praedecessorum dicitur annotasse in cuius opere de Siluestro Papa non ea inueniuntur quae vulgo dicuntur But in truth I greatly admire if it be so seeing it can not be found in any authenticall Bookes and approoued Histories I haue read all the Actes of the Emperours and the Histories of the Byshops of Rome which
requiratur autem ne pusillanimitate aut contentione aeut alio quolibet Episcopi vitio videatur a congregatione seclusus Vt hoc ergo decentius inquiratur bene placuit annis singulis per vnamquamque Prouinciam bis in anno concilia celebrari vt cōmuniter simul omnibus Episcopis congregatis Prouinciae discutiantur huiusmodi quaestiones et sic qui suo peccauerunt Episcopo euidenter excommunicati rationabiliter ab omnibus extimentur vsquequo vel in communi vel Episcopo placeat humaniorem pro talibus ferre sententiam Concilia vero celebrentur vnum quidem ante quadragesimam Paschae vt omni dissensione sublata munus offeratur Deo purissimum Secundum vero circa tempus Autumni Concerning those who are put from the Communion whether they be of the Clericall or Laicall order let the sentence of Byshoppes throughout euery Prouince giuen according to the Canon be of force that they who are reiected be not receiued of others Let examination be had least any be secluded through pusillanimitie or contention or other fault of the Byshop That this therefore may be duly examined it hath pleased the Councell well that yearely in euery Prouince Councels should be kept twise in the yeare that when all the Byshops of the Prouince shall meete togeather in one place then such questions may be duely examined And so they that haue offended their Byshop manifestly may be iudged by all to be excomunicated not without a cause vntill it please the Byshop of the place or all in the Prouince to shew them fauour Let the Councels be kept one before Lent that all dissention being taken away a most pure Oblation may be presented vnto God The second about Autumne Thus this holy and most famous Councell out of whose definition two thinges are cleered th' one that the Byshops of the Prouince should end and determine all appeales no mention at all made or any regard had of or to the Byshop of Rome Th' other that the auncient Canon ought to be kept which commaundeth that none should receiue them to the Communion who were excomunicated and condemned by others So then the Councell of Nice did curbe the Pope and kept him vnder in his former state And withall the holy Councell prouided a very Christian remedie that none should be vniustly oppressed by his Byshoppe Which remedie was this viz. That hee who found himselfe grieued might appeale from his Byshop yet to the Byshops of the Prouince but to none else Secondly the same Councell ordayned in an other Canon that none should be created Byshoppes but by the Byshoppes of their owne Prouince as also that the Metropolitane of the Prouince not the Byshop of Rome should haue authoritie and power to confirme those who were made Byshoppes within the Prouince Thirdly that the Byshoppe of Rome had no prerogatiue of power but onely within his owne Diocesse is constantly auouched by the sayd Councell in the sixt Canon thereof These are the wordes of the Councell as Ruffinus an auncient and learned Writer about 1200. yeares agoe so within eightie yeares of the time of the Nicene Councell hath interpreted the same Et vt apud Alexandriam et in Vrbe Romae vetusta consuetudo seruetur vt vel ille Aegypti vel hic suburbicariarum Ecclesiarum sollicitudinem gerat And that in Alexandria and in the citie of Rome the old custome be kept that the one haue the sollicitude of Egypt the other of the Churches adioyning and about Rome Thus writeth Ruffinus shewing very plainely that the Byshop of Alexandria had as great iurisdiction or rather more as the Byshop of Rome Yea Cusanus a popish Cardinall vnderstandeth the Canon after the same manner with Ruffinus And it is confirmed by the fourth Canon of the same Councell as Ruffinus citeth it these are the wordes Absque quo ordinationē irritam esse voluerunt Without whose authoritie he meaneth the Metropolitane the Councell decreed the ordination to be voyde and of none effect But this sacred Decree of a Councell so holy and so famous the Pope this day contemneth and challengeth the right of all Metropolitanes to himselfe Fourthly the famous Councelles both of Constantinople and of Chalcedon did make the Byshop of Constantinople equall with the Byshoppe of Rome in all Ecclesiasticall affaires excepting onely the Primacie of honour as we haue already seene See and note well the 30. Chapter of this present Booke Aphorisme second The Canons of the holy Nicene Councell are but only twentie though the Pope and his Jesuites would haue them to be foure-score For first onely twentie are this day extant in the common Volumes of Councels Secondly no approoued Councell did euer admit or receiue any more This is very cleere and euident by the testimonie of the famous Affrican Councell as by and by God willing I shall vnfold Thirdly the famous Councels of Constantinople and Chalcedon haue flatly decreed against the falsely pretended Primacie of the Byshoppe of Rome which Councels for all that did in euery respect highly reuerence the Decrees and Canons of the Nicene Councell and consequently the sayd Councels did not acknowledge any Canon of the Nicene Synode which made for the pretended Primacie of the Byshoppe of Rome But this Aphorisme shall be further prooued by an euident demonstration in the Aphorismes immediatly following and therefore there is no need now to stand longer about the same Aphorisme third The Councell of Sardica is not a legitimate and lawfull Synode but a bastard and counterfeite conuenticle I prooue it first because S. Augustine doth acknowledge no Councell of Sardica saue one onely which was Hereticall Secondly because Cardinall Cusanus who was a great Champion of the Romish Church is of the same opinion Thirdly because the Councell of Sardica is against the Councell of Nice concerning Appellations to the Pope Fourthly because the Fathers of the famous Affricane Councell in their Epistle to Caelestine then Byshop of Rome doe most constantly affirme with vniforme assent that the Councell of Nice forbiddeth Appeales to the Church of Rome these are their expresse wordes Praefato itaque debitae salutationis officio impendiò deprecamur vt deinceps ad vestras aures hinc venientes non facilius admittatis nec a nobis excommunicatos in communionem vltra velitis excipere Quia hoc etiam Niceno Concilio definitum facilè aduertet venerabilitas tua Nam etsi de inferioribus Clericis vel Laicis videtur ibi praecaueri quanto magis hoc de Episcopis voluit obseruari ne in sua prouincia communione suspensi a tua sanctitate vel festinatò vel praeproperè vel indebitè videantur cōmunioni restitui Presbyterorum quoque et sequentium clericorum improba refugia sicuti te dignum est repellat sanctitas tua quia et nulla patrum definitione hoc Ecclesiae derogatum est Aphricanae et decreta Nicaena siue
teach and with Fire and Faggot violently vrge the same but is a thing in deed indifferent For if it had been necessarie vnto mans saluation all the holy and learned Fathers of the Greeke Church should haue perished euerlastingly But some will here demaund how that can be prooued To whom I answere that the same is plainely and expressely prooued in the Popes owne Decrees Which is such a testimonie against the Pope and his Popelings as none greater can be had The expresse wordes of the Popish Decrees haue already sounded in our eares This mine Obseruation is confirmed by the plaine wordes of the same Decrees where it is freely confessed that that opinion which holdeth sinnes onely to be confessed vnto God of necessitie is true lawfull and honest Let the wordes of the Decree be well marked because it sheweth all the holy Fathers of the Greeke Church to confound the Pope and all his Jesuited Popelings But let vs heare the verdict of a famous popish Cardinall of Rome Cardinall Caietanus as we haue seene already auoucheth constantly that Auricular and Secret confession is against Christes holy Institution as is also the Precept that compelleth vs to frequent the same For the better explication of this famous Cardinals Assertion because the Pope and his Jesuites can not endure to heare the same I will heere lay open before the eyes of the indifferent Reader the best answere that the Papistes haue or can inuent against the same Iosephus Angles that famous Popish Byshoppe not well pleased with the Popish Cardinall as it may seeme writeth of his Doctrine in this manner Hinc intelliges cauendum esse Caietanum super Ioan. cap. 20. vbi duos errores affirmauit vnum est institutam fuisse â— Christo Confessionem voluntariam cum sit ab Ecclesia definitum necessariam esse ad salutem Nam quod est voluntarium vt religionis ingressus non est ad salutem necessarium Alterum scilicet modum confitendi ad aurem non esse a Christo institutum Et hic error est in Conc. Trident. damnatus Hence mayest thou vnderstand that wee ought to take heede of Caietane vpon the 20. of John where hee affirmeth two errours the one is that Christ instituted Confession voluntary albeit the Church defined the same to be necessarie to saluation The other is that Christ did not institute Confession Auricular which is made in the Priestes eare And in the next page the same Angles telleth vs that the Councell of Trent did of purpose condemne Caietans opinion By the doctrine of this great Learned Papist who was a Cardinall of Rome and a Frier Dominican we see clearely these three poyntes First that the best learned Popish Doctors condemne Poperie and iustifie the doctrine of the Church of England Secondly that Auricular Confession was voluntarie in the dayes of Cardinall Caietane who liued aboue a thousand yeares after Christ. Thirdly that this Cardinall gaue such a deadly wound to Popish Confession a Ragge of the New religion that the Councell of Trent could find no better remedie but to condemne his Opinion as Hereticall Wisely therefore doth the Popish Byshoppe Angles exhort his Readers to beware of Caietane Bonauenture Hugo Panormitane and the Popish Glosse because they all with the Popes deare Canonistes tell vs constantly that Popish Confession hath no better ground then pure Mans inuention And consequently all such may iustly be deemed as blind as Beetles that do not see Popish Auricular Confession to be a rotten Ragge of the New religion The Iesuites Seuenth Chapter Of Popish Veniall sinnes COncerning Popish Veniall sinnes I will first set downe and lay open to the Reader the state and trueth of the Controuersie now in hand and that done refute refell the Iesuites counterfeite and pretensed Answere to the same The 1. Conclusion Euery Sinne is mortall of it owne nature I prooue it sundry wayes First because the Prophet in the spirit of God pronounceth Death to be due to euery Sinne Anima quae peccauerit ipsa morietur The soule that sinneth it shall die Secondly because S. Paul teacheth vs that The reward of sinne is death Thirdly because S. Iohn affirmeth euery Sinne to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say The transgression of Gods Law for so doth Ben. Arias Montanus that famous Popish Linguist translate the Greeke word and therefore no deniall can be made thereof Fourthly because the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vsed in the Scripture for Sinne and signifying a declining or swaruing from the right way doth emphatically and plainely confirme the same Fiftly because S. Bede Dionisius Carthusianus and Nicolaus Lyranus doe all three with vniforme assent expound S. John of Mortall sinne S. Bede who for his Learning and Vertue was renowned throughout the Christian world and therevpon surnamed Venerabilis hath these expresse wordes Virtus huius sententiae facilius in lingua Graecorum qua edita est Epistola compraehenditur Siquidem apud eos iniquitas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vocatur quod significat quasi contra legem vel sine lege factum Siquidem lex graecè 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appellatur Sequitur sed et Latinum nomen eidem rationi congruit quod iniquitas quasi aequitati aduersa nuÌ„cupatur Quia quicunque peccat contrarius nimirum aequitati diuinae legis peccando existit The force and efficacie of this sentence is more easily perceiued in the Greeke tongue in which the Epistle was written for Iniquitie with them is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth As done against Law or without Law for the Law is called in Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Latine word also agreeth to the same reason because it is called Iniquitie as being against Equitie For euery one that sinneth is by reason of sinne contrary to the equitie of Gods Law Dionysius Carthusianus a famous and learned Papist hath these expresse wordes Lex autem diuina est aequitas ipsa sicque mortale peccatum est iniquitas id est non aequitas vtpote violatio aequitatis The Law of God is Equitie it selfe and consequently Iniquitie that is not Equitie as the trangression of Equitie is a mortall sinne Lyranus an other famous Popish Writer hath these wordes Peccatum est transgressio legis diuinae Lex autem diuina est ipsa aequitas et ideo in omni peccato mortali est aequitatis corruptio et per consequens iniquitas Sinne is the transgression of Gods Law and the Law of God is Equitie it selfe And therefore in euery mortall sinne there is corruption of Equitie and consequently there is Iniquitie Sixtly because holy Moses pronounceth euery one accursed that keepeth not the whole Law Seuenthly because fiue famous and great learned Papistes Iacobus Almaâ—nus Durandus Jo. Gersonus Michael Baius and Byshop Fisher not able to answere the reasons against Veniall sinnes doe freely and constantly affirme without all And 's or
Church while euery one of them sought with might and maine to be the Pope of Rome For the Councell lamenting the Schisme and greatly desiring to stablish vnitie peace in the Church vsed the chiefest and last remedie in that behalfe that is they deposed the three contentious Popes Iohn Gregory and Benedict and chosing Martin made him Pope by their supereminent power And to take away al Schisme dissentions difficulties doubtes suspitions and future garboyles which might perhappes haue insued therevpon the Councell decreed and constantly defined that a generall Councell in causes Ecclesiasticall had the greatest power vpon earth and consequently power and authoritie ouer the Pope euen to cite him to excommunicate him and to depose him And therefore De facto they deposed the three aforenamed Popes and placed Martin in their stead Maister Doctor Gerson a famous and great learned Papist maketh this case so plaine in many places of his workes as none that with iudgement and indifferencie shall peruse the same can stagger or stand in doubt thereof these are his expresse wordes Ecclesia vel generale Concilium eam reprasentans est regula a spiritu sancto directa tradita a Christo vt quilibet cuiuscunque status etiam Papalis existat cam audire ac eidem obedire teneatur alioquin habendus est vt Ethnicus et Publicanus The Church or generall Councell representing it is a rule directed of the holy Ghost and giuen vs of Christ that euery one of what state soeuer euen Papall must heare and obey the same or else be reputed as an Ethnicke and Publican Againe in another place the same Doctor hath these words Iohannes Papa non est accusatus vel conuictus de Heretica prauitate et tamen concilium vocauit et iudicauit ipsum tanquaÌ„ suuÌ„ subditum vnde et in toto processu vsque post sententiam definitiuam suae depositionis reputatus est ab eodem concilio verus Papa Pope John was neither accused nor conuicted of Heresie and for all that the Councell both called and iudged him as their Subiect Wherevpon the Councell reputed him the true Pope in all the time of their proceeding against him vntill after the definitiue sentence of his Deposition In an other place the same Learned Writer hath these wordes In causis fidei non habetur in terra Index infallibilis vel qui non sit deuiabilis a fide de lege communi praeter ipsum Ecclesiam vniuersalem vel ConciliuÌ„ generale eam sufficienter repraesentans In matters of Fayth there is no infallible Iudge vpon earth or which can not swarue from the Fayth by the common course of Gods proceedinge sauing the Church vniuersall or a generall Councell representing the same sufficiently In an other place he hath these wordes Ecclesia vel generale Concilium potuit et potest congregari sine expresso consensu vel mandato Papae etiam ritè electi et viuentis in multis câ—sibus The Church or a generall Councell both might and may be called togeather without the expresse consent or mandate of the Pope euen when the Pope is lawfully elected liuing Thus disputeth this famous Papist and great learned Doctor Out of whose wordes I gather many very excellent documentes well worthy to be written in Golden letters First that the Pope is subiect to a generall Councell and may be controlled by the same Secondly that the Pope may erre both priuately and publiquely in resolutions of Fayth aswell as other Byshopps and Ministers of the Church Thirdly that a generall Councell is aboue the Pope and hath power to depose the Pope for any notorious Crime whatsoeuer Fourthly that the contrary opinion is flatte Heresie condemned in the Councell of Constance Fiftly that a generall Councell hath full power to compell a Pope lawfully elected to renounce and forsake the Popedome and to giue place to him whom the Councell shall appoynt and choose Sixtly that if the Pope shall withstand the Councell and refuse to obey the Decrees and Constitutions thereof he ought and must be excommunicated and reputed as an Ethnicke and Publican Seuenthly that a generall Councell may be summoned and kept without the consent of the Pope euen of that Pope who is both lawfully chosen and at time liuing Eightly that all people are subiect to a lawfull generall Councell euen by Christes owne rule and designement Ninthly that neither the Pope nor any one man vpon earth is or can be an infallible Iudge in matters of Fayth Tenthly that the iudgement which we must finally rest vpon in all controuersies of Fayth and Religion is either the iudgement of the vniuersall Church or else of a generall Councell sufficiently representing the same This is found and very Catholike doctrine though proceeding from the Penne of a great Papist Which Doctrine as the Councell of Constience first and after it the Councell of Basill did approoue by their flat decrees so doe I reuerently embrace the same with all my heart humbly thanking God that by the mighty power of his trueth our aduersaries are compelled to confesse the trueth against them-selues This Doctrine is confirmed more at large both in my Anatomie and in my Golden Ballance to say nothing of my Christian Dialogue which woundeth the Pope at the very heart From hence proceedeth that which will seeme to many a woonderment of the world But what is that will some say This forsooth that all Papistes this day liuing are flat Heretiques Is it so in deede Is that possible to be prooued It is so possible that I haue euen now prooued the same most euidently And thus the most simple Reader in the world shall easily perceiue the same The generall Councell of Constance decreed plainely that the Popes Iudgement is fallible that the Pope is subiect to a generall Synode and by the authoritie thereof may be depriued of the Popedome as also that the contrary opinion is flatte Heresie This is alreadie prooued Now so it is that all Papistes this day liuing vpon earth doe hold the Popes Iudgement to be infallible and himselfe to be aboue a generall Councell So say the Rhemistes so sayth our Iesuite euen in the end of his Chapter next afore-going being the 29. in number Ergo seeing all Iesuites and Iesuited Papistes doe this day hold and defende that opinion which a generall Councell hath defined to be flatte Heresie it followeth by a most necessarie consequence and ineuitable illation that they all are flat Heretiques it can not be denyed Deo gratias dixi B. C. And before we prooued how Pope Leo irritated and made of no force a Decree enacted in the Councell of Chalcedon which argueth his Superioritie ouer the Councell T. B. I answere first that this assertion and opinion of our Fryer is a flatte Heresie as it is euen now prooued and that most euidently Secondly that this sottish allegation is confuted againe and againe in the
Ethnickes Publicanes vntill they giue true signes of vnfeyned repentance But withall this must euer be remembred and most loyalty obserued of all Byshoppes in Christes Church viz. That the Prince though full of manifest vices most notorious crimes in the world may neuer be shunned neither of the people nor yet of the Byshoppes The reason is at hand Because God hath appoynted him to be their Gouernour Much lesse may the people forsake their obedience to his sacred prerogatiue Royall and supereminent Power And least of all for it is most execrable damnable and plaine diabolicall may either the people alone or the Byshoppes alone or both ioyntly togeather depose their vndoubted Soueraigne though a Tyrant Heretique or Apostatate for euen in that case all loyall obedience and faythfull seruice in all ciuill affayres and whatsoeuer else is lawfull must of duetie be yeeled vnto them Hee may be admonished by Gods true Ministers in the pulpit court of Conscience if his vices be publike scandalous to the Church but he may neuer be iudged in the court of their Consistorie touching his power Royall and Princely prerogatiue Their power is onely to admonish and rebuke him and to pray to God to amende what is amisse Hee hath no Iudge that can punish him but the great Iudge of all euen the God of Heauen The popish Cardinall Hugo deliuereth this most Christian doctrine though to the vtter confusion of the Pope Tibi soli quia non est super me alius quam tu qui possit punire ego N. sum Rex et non est aliquis preter te super me To thee onely sayth Cardinall Hugo because there is not any aboue mee but thy selfe alone that hath power to punish mee for I am a King and so besides thee there is none aboue mee And the popish Glosse doth giue this sense meaning of the Prophets words Rex omnibus superior tantum a Deo puniendus est The King is aboue all and he can be punished of none but of God alone But for a larger Discourse of this Subiect I referre the Reader to the Downefall of Poperie Thirdly that no Minister may admit any impenitent Person knowne to be such no not him that weareth the Golden Crowne vnto the Holy mysteries for otherwise that Minister should sinne damnably as partaker of his sinne yea the holy Canons of our English Church doe flatly prohibit the same Fourthly that our Iesuite doth shew himselfe to be a sillie disputer while he argueth the defect of power Royall for that the King in some respect is as it were subiect to the Minister For I pray your worship good sir Fryer doth not your Pope himselfe fall downe prostrate before the feete of a silly Minister or Priest when he confesseth his sinnes vnto him Doth he not humbly submitte himselfe vnto the same sillie Priest Is not the sillie Priestes power aboue the Popes while he absolueth the Pope from his sinnes Is not the sillie Priestes Power aboue the Popes while he inioyneth Penance to the Pope I wote he is though not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and absolutely yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in some respect or sort If any Papist shall this deny I can prooue by his Popish denyall all their Popes to perish euerlastingly B. C. S. Cyprian opposing himselfe against the Pope doth nothing preiudice the Authoritie of the Pope For albeit the Pope commaunded Rebaptization not to be practised yet did he not define the question or pronounce any censure against Cyprian or others of his opinion much lesse was it condemned by a generall Councell with reason S. Augustine bringeth in his defence and so it was free for him without daunger of Heresie to persist in his owne opinion T. B. I answere first that though Cornelius then Byshoppe of Rome togeather with the whole nationall Synode of all the Byshops of Jtaly had made a flatte decree touching Rebaptization and though also Pope Stephanus had confirmed the same Decree straightly commaunding to obserue the same and though thirdly our Papistes of late dayes doe obstinately affirme that their Pope can not erre when he defineth iudicially yet this notwithstanding S. Cyprian teacheth and telleth vs plainely that in his dayes the Byshoppe of Rome had no such Power or preheminent prerogatiues as hee this day proudly and Antichristianly taketh vpon him For hee roundly withstood the Decree of Pope Stephanus who then was Byshoppe of Rome and both sharply reprooued him and contemned his falsely pretended Primacie And for all that S. Cyprian was euer reputed an Holy Byshoppe in his life time and a glorious Martir being dead But if the Byshoppe of Rome had been Christes Vicar and so priuiledged as our Papistes beare the world in hand hee is then doubtlesse S. Cyprian must needes haue been an Heretike and so reputed and esteemed in the Church of God Yea if any Christian shall this day doe or affirme as S. Cyprian did or publikely deny the Popes falsely pretended Primacie in any place countrey territories or dominions where Poperie beareth the sway then without all peraduenture hee must be burnt at a Stake with Fire and Faggot for his paines Of which Subiect the Reader may find a larger Discourse in my Christian Dialogue Secondly that while S. Austen sayth that S. Cyprian would haue yeelded to the Decree of a generall Councell albeit he made no reckoning of the Popes Decree euen ioyned with the nationall Synode of all the Bishoppes of Jtaly hee giueth vs to vnderstande two memorable poyntes of Doctrine which I wish the Reader to obserue attentiuely Th' one that the Definitiue sentence of the Byshoppe of Rome is not infallible although he define ioyntly with an whole nationall Synode And consequently that his Definitiue sentence may much more be false and erroneous when he decreeth and defineth without a Councell For if S. Augustine had been of that minde that the Byshoppe of Rome could not haue erred in his Iudiciall and Definitiue sentence either apart or with a nationall Councell hee neither would nor could haue excused S. Cyprian who scorned and constantly refused to yeeld to the same Yea S. Cyprian himselfe would for his great pietie haue humbly yeelded to the Popes sentence if he had knowne him to haue receiued such a Priuiledge and Prerogatiue from Heauen But neither did the Byshoppe of Rome in those dayes stand vpon any such Prerogatiue of not erring neither did any learned Father of that age euer dreame of any such extraordinarie Priuiledge No no the most that the Byshoppes of Rome could say and alleadge for their falsely pretended Soueraigntie when S. Augustine and the other Fathers of the Aphrican Councell reiected and condemned appeales to Rome was onely this and no other thing viz. that the Fathers of the Nicene Councell had graunted such Priuiledge Primacie to the Church of Rome And therefore did S. Austen both grauely and prudently excuse S. Cyprian for
that he would haue yeelded to a lawfull generall Councell As if he had sayd S. Cyprian was no more bound to follow the Opinion and Decree of the Byshoppe of Rome then the Byshoppe of Rome to follow his Thirdly that our Iesuite saith truly though vnawares against himselfe that it was free for S. Cyprian without the danger of Heresie to persist in his owne opinion For it was not in the power of the Byshoppe of Rome to make that Heresie which was not Heresie afore B. C. That it was lawfull and vsuall before the time of this Councell to appeale to Rome is euident out of S. Cyprian who reporteth how Fortunatus and Felix deposed by himselfe appealed to Cornelius Byshoppe of Rome And one Basilides deposed in Spaine appealed to Pope Stephen as the same Cyprian recounteth Not to speake of Marcion that auncient Hereticke who excommunicated of his Byshoppe in Pontus came to Rome for absolution as Epiphanius relateth And therefore Pope Leo calleth it an auncient custome to appeale to Rome T. B. I answere First that many distressed persons in their distressed and desperate causes haue many times indeede sought to Rome for helpe and succour But wee must not so much regard and consider what hath beene done especially by naughty and disobedient persons as what ought of right to be done and according to the Law of God Persons driuen to the brincke of desperation by reason of their bad and wicked dealing will soone attempt any thing which may any way seeme to better their dolefull and miserable estate Euen so men desirous of Honour will easily hearken vnto that which seemeth any way to further their intended purpose But that such Appeales were neuer approued by the holy Fathers and auncient Councels I haue copiously prooued in the Aphorismes of this Chapter and S. Ciprians opposition against the Byshoppe of Rome doth euidently confirme the same What Pope Leo sayth is of no force B. C. That many Canons are wanting in the Nicene Councell is most certaine For one Canon of that Councell was about the obseruation of Easter day as testifieth Constantine in his Epistle and also Epiphanius and Athanasius but this Canon is in none of those twentie which be now extant and of which onely so many yeares since Ruffinus maketh mention in his Historie T. B. I answere first that I will not deny but some thinges might be decreed in the Nicene Councell which are not this day to be found in the Canons now extant But withall I constantly auouch that there is a great disparitie betweene Canons and Decrees as the late popysh Synode of Trent playnely telleth vs. And consequently that there were but twentie Canons howsoeuer some other things besides were decreed at that time To which I adde that all Decrees are not alwayes thought necessarie to be put in print Whereof we haue an euident example in our English Parliament-statutes for it is often thought conuenient not to put them all in print Secondly that Epiphanius distinguisheth Canons from Decrees these are his expresse wordes In eadem Synodo Canones quosaaÌ„ posuerunt Ecclesiasticos simulque de paschate decreuerunt vnam vnitatem ac consensum In the same Synode they put downe certaine Canons Ecclesiasticall and withall they decreed one vnitie and consent touching the Keeping of Easter Loe this auncient and holy Father maketh a cleere difference betweene the Canons of the Nicene Synode and the Decrees thereof Thirdly that though wee should graunt some of the Nicene Canons to haue perished which we constantly deny yet would it not follow thereupon that such Canons conteyned the Popes falsely pretended Primacie especially seeing both the holy Fathers and most renowned Councels doe stoutly impugne the same This is prooued at large throughout the Aphorismes aforegoing Fourthly that 217. holy Fathers assembled in the Aphrican Councell told the Pope roundly that they had vsed all exquisite diligence to find out the true Copies and to that end had sent Messengers into sundry partes of the East howbeit such Canons as the Pope pretended for his falsely challenged Soueraigntie none could any where be found And therefore they aduised him to surcease and to giue ouer his claime for they could no longer endure such Fumosum typhum seculi such smoakie statelinesse of the world I vse the very wordes of the holy Synode as I haue already prooued Fiftly that Pope Julius swore solemnely that he had locked them vp in a Coffer of his Church These are his expresse words Si quis auteÌ„ de his ampliora atque abundantiora scâ—re voluerit in sacro nostrae Ecclesiae sedis 〈◊〉 et ea quae praeâ—â—ximus inuenire poterit If any shall desire a larger Discourse hereof he may find these Canons much more like stuffe in the Holy Arke or Coffer of the seate of our Church Thus writeth Pope Julius nay rather thus sweareth that holy Pope For these wordes follow immediatly Verum me dixisse testis est Diuinitas The Diuinitie is a witnesse that I haue spoken the truth Heere I wish the gentle and honest Reader to ponder duely these poyntes with mee First that this Epistle of Julius is a counterfeite as I haue already prooued for if the Pope had so layde them vp as heere hee sweareth solemnely Sozimus and the other Popes who made such adoe with the Byshoppes of Africke about those Canons would roundly haue shewed the same Yea doubtlesse if they had once had them in their Coffer vnder a Locke they would rather haue lost all the rest then them Secondly that the world hath been too long abused with this kind of coozenage trickes of legierdemaine Thirdly that if the Byshoppes of Rome can not keepe those Canons which make so much for the aduauncement of their stately Soueraigntie how can we safely credite them in keeping pure and free from errours such Bookes Councels and Canons as make greatly for vs and wholly against them selues Wee can not doe it Fourthly that if counterfeite Bookes Histories and Canons were wholly layde away Poperie beleeue mee would soone fall of it selfe For in this supposed rescript of Pope Iulius directed to the Byshoppes of the East there is such aboundance of matter for the Popes Super-lordly Soueraigntie as would certainly serue his turne if it could so be admitted But Gods holy name be blessed the forgerie is so palpable as euery one may with all facilitie discouer the same Fiftly that S. Augustine Alipius Possidius Marinus and all the other Byshoppes 217. in number assembled in the famous Aphricane Synode doe plainely auouch and constantly affirme that the true Copies of the Canons of the Nicene Councell were at Antioch Alexandria and Constantinople and that they were content for charitie-sake to obserue such proceedinges touching Appeales as the Popes Messengers did alleadge out of their commonitorie from Rome vntill true triall should be made thereof out of the true Copies from the East which were to
be so plainely deliuered by our Aduersaries may seeme a woonderment to the Christian world For it clearely turneth vpside-downe the chiefest Bulworke of Popish vnwritten Traditions and in effect all Popish Fayth and Religion The common good which commeth to the Church of God by writing against the Aduersaries of his Trueth is hence apparant to all the World For after the swaggering Iesuite S.R. with the aduise of Bellarmine and others had bickered so long with the Downefall of Poperie that the fall had almost broken their neckes then ouercome with the dint of Argumentes and force of the Trueth he was as it were violently compelled to write as we here see in defence behalfe of the Trueth To which for the better manifestation of this trueth so necessarie to be knowen I will adde yet an other Testimonie of our Jesuite in these wordes Truly sayd S. Epiphanius that we may tell the inuention of euery question out of the consequence of Scripture He sayd not Out of the Scripture For all cannot be taken thence as him selfe writeth but of the consequence of them Because all questions are resolued out of the Scriptures or out of that which followeth of them as the effect of the cause Thus the Iesuite approoueth vnawares the selfe same Doctrine which I in the Downefall doe defend And consequently the very weapons which our Aduersaries put into our handes are sufficient God be blessed for it to defend vs and our cause against them The Fourth Conclusion Popish Auricular Confession is not necessarie for mans saluation For first seeing all thinges necessarie for saluation are conteyned in the holy Scriptures as in the third Conclusion Secondly seeing all Preceptes and Promises of God in the New are contayned in the Old Testament as in the first Conclusion Thirdly seeing Popish Auricular Confession is not contayned in the Old Testament as in the second Conclusion it followeth by a necessarie and ineuitable consequution that Popish Auricular Confession is not necessarie for mans saluation This trueth will yet better appeare in the Conclusions following The Fift Conclusion Popish Auricular Confession is neither commaunded by Christ nor yet by his Apostles I prooue it because it is not contayned in the Old Testament as in the second Conclusion Which Testament for all that contayneth all the Preceptes of the New as may doth appeare to the indifferent reader in the first Conclusion The Sixt Conclusion Popish Auricular Confession was instituted and established by the meere Law of man grounded onely vpon a falsely imagined Apostolicall vnwritten Tradition I prooue it many wayes First because the Popes owne Decrees referre the matter to the iudgement of the Reader viz. Whether one be bound to Confession Auricular by Gods law or by Mans law These are the expresse wordes as Gratianus hath published the same Quibus authoritatibus vel quibus rationum firmamentis vtraque sententia satisfactionis et confessionis nitatur in medium breuiter exposuimus Cuj autem harum potius adhaerendum sit lectoris iudicio reseruatur Viraque N. fautores habet sapientes et religiosos viros Vpon what Authorities or foundations of Reasons either opinion is grounded I haue briefly shewed But to whether of them it is better to adhere that I leaue to the iudgement of the Reader for either opinion hath Wise and Religious men for the Patrons of the same Behold heere gentle Reader that not onely the Popes Doctors but his owne Canon-law and the Commenters vpon the same doe all confesse that Confession after Popish manner is onely solely grounded vpon Mans law Yea the Popish Glosse addeth That both Wise and Religious men doe so thinke though some others hold the contrary Secondly because the great Thomist who for his rare skill in Theologie was surnamed Absolutus Theologus Syluester Prieras doth deliuer his opinion in these wordes Quarto vtrum ad confessionem teneamur diuino iure vel humano Et dicâ— quod Canonistae videntur tenere quod sit de iure positiuo Et ad hoc est Glossa de paenit Dist. 5. In summa quae vult quod instituta sit a quadam vniuersali traditione Ecclesiae Ideo infert quam confiteri non tenentur infideles nec similiter Graeci ex quo non acceptauerunt huiusmodi constitutionem sicut nec votâ—â— castitatis It is demaunded fourthly sayth the great Learned Papist Syluester whether we be bound to Popish Confession by the law of God or by the positiue Law of man And I say the Canonistes hold that we are bound by the Law of man And of this opinion is the Glosse which is of this minde that Confession was instituted by a certaine vniuersall tradition of the Church Wherevpon the sayd Glosse inferreth that Infidels are not bound to Confession neither the Greekes in like maner seeing they did neuer approoue such Constitution as neither the vow of Chastitie Thirdly because the highly renowned Papist Martinus Nauarrus confesseth constantly and plainely that their solemne Glosse commonly receiued and approoued of all Canonistes holdeth Confession to be commaunded by the Church Fourthly because the famous Canonist most reuerend Arch-byshop and honourable Cardinall Panormitanus was of the same opinion with the Glosse For Couarruvâ—as a very learned Popish Arch-byshoppe deliuereth his minde in these wordes Quam ex nostris plerique sequuti sunt maximè Panormitanus ex ea asserentes confessionem sacramentalem quae Sacerdotibus fit iure humano institutam esse Which Glosse many of our Canonistes haue followed especially Panormitanus affirming out of that Glosse that Sacramentall confession made to Priestes was ordayned by the law of Man Fiftly because Scotus the Popish subtile schoole Doctor surnamed for his great skill Doctor subtilis after hee had largely disputed pro et contra of Popish Auricular confession concludeth in these wordes Apparet ergo istud non esse de iure diuino promulgato per scripturam Apostolicam Vel ergo tenendum est primum membrum scilicet quod sit de iure diuino promulgato per EuangeliuÌ„ vel si illud non sufficiat dicendum est tertium scilicet quod est de iure diuino positiuo promulgato a Christo Apostolis sed Ecclesiae promulgato per Apostolos absque omni scriptura It therefore appeareth that it is not of the law of God published by Apostolicall Scripture We must therfore either hold the first member to weeâ—e that it is of the law of God published by the Ghospell or if that will not suffice we must say the third that is to say that it commeth from the positiue law of God published by Christ to his Apostles but published by the Apostles to the Church without all Scripture Thus writeth the Popish Doctor subtilis who with all his subtiltie can not tell in the world what to say in defence of their Popish Auricular confession For after he hath discoursed to the vttermost of his wittes and imployed his
as the great learned Papist Rhenanus telleth vs And hee yeeldeth this reason thereof viz. because Auricular or Secret Confession was wholly vnknowen in those dayes I further adde for the accomplishment of this Conclusion that which the sayd Rhenanus citeth out of a famous and learned Papist Geilerius These are the wordes Thomas Aquinas et Scotus homines nimium arguti confessionem hodie talem reddiderunt vt Iohannes ille Geilerius grauis ac sanctus Theologus qui tot annis argentorati concionatus est apud amicos suos saepe testatus sit iuxta eorum denteroseis impossibile esse confiteri But Tho. Aquinas and Scotus men too much delighted with subtilties haue brought Confession this day to such a passe that Iohannes Geilerius a graue and reuerend Diuine and a Preacher a long time at Argentâ—ratuÌ„ said many a time vnto his friends that it was impossible for a man to make his Confession according to their Traditions Out of these words I note first that the vaine curious distinctions of the Schoole-Doctors haue brought much mischiefe into the Church of God Which if a Papist had not spoken it would seeme incredible to the world Secondly that it is impossible for a Papist to make his Confession according to the Popish Law And consequently that all Papistes by Popish Doctrine must perish euerlastingly Marke well my wordes gentle Reader as thou art carefull of thine owne saluation The Papistes teach vs to hold for an Article of our Beleefe that wee are bound to make our Confessions as the Popes Law prescribeth that is as Aquinas whose Doctrine two Popes haue confirmed for Authenticall and Scotus the Popes Doctor subtilis haue set downe the same And for all that Geilertus a Papist himselfe a great learned man complained often to his friends that none could possibly performe the same Now then since on the one side Popish Confession must be made and that vnder paine of damnation and since on the other side none possibly can make the same as it is coÌ„maunded it followeth of necessitie by Popish doctrine that Papistes must be damned eternally Thirdly that many lyuing among the Papistes doe externally seeme to obey the Popes Law who in their heartes detest a great part of their late hatched Romish Religion This is euident by the secret complaint of the learned Papist Geilerius who told that to his trustie friendes which he durst not disclose to others Yea God hath euen among the Papistes in Italie and Rome many thousandes which haue not or doe not this day bow their knee to Baal Read my Suruay and it will satisfie thee in this behalfe Let vs now heare our Jesuite and confute his fond cauils and ridiculous sophistications B. C. Scotus enquireth by what Law a man is bound to Confession and determineth first in generall that the precept must grow from one of these Lawes either from the Law of Nature or the Law positiue of God or the Law of the Church And descending to particulars hee resolueth first that wee are not bound by the Law of Nature Nextly hee disputeth whether it groweth from the precept of the Church and not liking that opinion he proceedeth to the next member and sayth To be short it seemeth more reasonable to hold the second member that Confession falleth vnder the positiue Precept of God But then wee must consider sayth Scotus whether it be found explicitely in the Ghospell immediately from Christ because it is manifest quoth hee that it is not in the old Law or whether it be from him expressely in some of the Apostles doctrine or if neither so nor so whether then it was giuen of Christ by word only published to the Church by the Apostles And hauing made this triple Diuision how Confession might come by the Precept of God that is either first commaunded by him in the Ghospell or else secondly to be found in some of the Apostles writinges or lastly instituted of Christ by word of mouth onely And hauing disputed of the first two members with dislike of the second he concludeth that we must either hold the first member to weete that it commeth from the Law of God published by the Ghospell or if that be not sufficient we must say the third that it is of the positiue Law of God published by Christ to the Apostles but published by the Apostles to the Church without all Scripture T. B. I answere first that albeit our Jesuite vseth much babling turning himselfe this way that way and euery way to anoyde and cassire if it were possible the verdict censure of their subtile Doctor Scotus yet is all that hee sayth in this Chapter as also all that any other Iesuite or Papist in the world is able to say in the same subiect soundly and most euidently refuted in the sixt Conclusion aforegoing For the last and best Resolution that Scotus could inuent after he had disputed the Question pro et contra so profoundly as his wittes could conceiue was euen this and no other viz. that Popish Auricular Confession is not grounded vpon Christes Ghospell or Apostolicall writing but onely and solely vpon vnwritten Tradition which is an huge and deepe Gulfe without any bottome If the sixt Conclusion be duely pondered and vnderstood aright the Jesuites backe is at the wall Yet I will adde thereto one other Confirmation which is deduced and plainely related in the Popes owne Decrees these are the expresse wordes Quidam Deo solummodo confiteri debere peccata dicunt vt Graeci Quidam vero Sacerdotibus confitenda esse percensent vt tota ferè Ecclesia sancta Quod vtrumque non sine magno fructu intra sanctam fit Ecclesiam ita dumtaxat vt Deo qui remissor est peccatoruÌ„ peccata nostra confiteamur Some say we must Confesse our sinnes onely to God as the Greekes doe Other some say wee must Confesse them vnto Priests as doth almost the whole Church Either of which is done with great good within the holy Church so onely that we Confesse our sinnes to God who is the forgiuer of sinnes Thus are wee taught by the Popes owne sweete deare Decrees published in print to the view of the whole world Out of which Decree I obserue these memorable documentes for the helpe of the Reader First that the Greeke Church neuer confessed their sinnes vnto Priests but vnto God alone Of which Church for all that the Presidentes Gouernours were most holy learned Fathers viz. S. Epiphanius S. Chrysostome S. Basill surnamed the great S. Gregorie Nazianzene S. Damascene and many other most excellent and holy Byshoppes Secondly that others hold the contrarie saying that wee must Confesse our sinnes to Priestes Thirdly that both these opinions are profitably practised in the Church so wee Confesse our sinnes to God Fourthly that Popish Auricular confession euen by the Popes owne Decrees is not necessarie to saluation as the Papistes this day
Gods most Holy most Wise and most Pure Decrees For which respect God telleth vs by the mouth of his Prophet that his wayes are not as ours For My thoughtes sayth Esay are not your thoughtes neither are your wayes my wayes saith the Lord. Gods Will is the Rule by which all mans thoughtes wordes and workes must be measured But Mans Will is no Rule or Law to measure Gods actions or to direct his most Iust most Holy and most Pure Purposes Ordinaunces and Decrees Secondly Man can but punish the body temporally but God can punish both body and soule eternally Man can but punish the outward actions of man but God can punish both the outward actes and the inward thoughtes Man can but punish the temporall iniurie done to man but God can punish both that and the eternall iniurie done to his most sacred Maiestie surpassing Omnipotencie and ineffable Deitie Offence done to Man is finite and limitted but offence done to God is infinite and illimited Thirdly Sinnes which are but small in respect of man are exceeding great in respect of God For example sake a reprochfull word spoken against a Meane priuate person is respectiuely a small offence the same word spoken against a Great personage of high place in Church or Common-weale is a farre greater Offence the same spoken against our Soueraigne Lord the King is the greatest of all three And consequently when we offende God whose person is of infinite Worthinesse of infinite Maiestie of infinite Power our offence obiectiuely must needes be infinite howsoeuer our Iesuites and Jesuited Papistes flatter themselues in their Venials Fourthly the thinges which are trifles in our Iesuites iudgement are great and heynous Sinnes in the tribunall of our Lord Iesus Adams eating of the Apple was one of our Iesuites trifles The looking backe of Lots wife was an other The sinne of Infantes in their natiuitie was an other For which respect sundry of their best learned Doctors haue inuented a third place beside Heauen and Hell for those Infantes which die without Baptisme Superfluous idle Wordes an other All which for all that are heynous and grieuous Sinnes with God And no maruayle seeing the Least sinne that can be named is against the infinite Maiestie of God and consequently of infinite deformitie And our Iesuite S. R. sheweth himselfe to be a very noddie while he publisheth these wordes For who will say that a little superfluous Laughter breaketh the order of Nature Marke well gentle Reader and thou shalt see Poperie stricken dead When our Jesuite S. R. was not able to answere the Authorities of the holy Fathers layd open by T. B. in the Downe-fall of Poperie which did euidently conuince that the Breaking of the order of Nature was against the eternall Law and Will of God hee was enforced to say as there is to be seene in the Page noted in this Margent that the Fathers S. Austen and S. Ambrose defined such Sinne as breaketh the order of Nature which also is Mortall Sinne not Veniall In which wordes he vnawares confoundeth himselfe For he truely sayth against himselfe That the Sinne which is against the Order of Nature is a Mortall sinne indeed But withall hee sayth vntruly That a litle superfluous Laughter breaketh not the order of Nature For if it be true as it is most true which Christ himselfe hath told vs viz. That euery idle and superfluous word breaketh the order of Nature in that it is against the Law eternall it followeth by a necessarie consequence that euery superfluous and idle Laughter breaketh the order of Nature in that it is against the Law eternall to which the Law and Order of Nature is subordinate To which I adde to second my former proofe that the order of Nature as Nature to weete of Nature afore not after Adams fall was pure free and voyde of euery spot bleamish excesse defect or other fault whatsoeuer and consequently of euery vaine idle and superfluous Laughter But perhaps our Fryer will say that idle and superfluous Laughter is besides the order of Nature not against the same as he before affirmed his Venials to be besides the Law but not against the Law of God If he so doe the confutation is at hand First because Christ sayth plainely that Hee is against hâ—m whosoeuer is not with hâ—m Againe because Vega Durandus Almaynus Baius Gersorus and all the Popish Schoole-doctors of best esteeme do auouch plainely and resolutely That euery Sinne euen the least that can be named is against the Law Whereupon Vega that great Learned Papist a man of high esteeme in the late Councell of â—rent concluded egregiously and learnedly That the whole Law is impossible to be kept at once For albeit he graunt that euery part of the Law may be kept yet doth he withall confesse that while we keepe one part thereof we can not but breake an other Ninthly because our Fryer S. R. that Learned man as his brother Jesuite B. C. stileth him confesseth lustily though vnawares against himselfe that involuntarie Concupiscence is naught euill disorderly because it is against the rule of Reason and much more doubtlesse is superfluous voluntarie Laughter against the order of Nature rule of Reason and consequently it breaketh friendshippe with God as being quite opposite to the eternall Law which is his diuine Will and Reason Tenthly because the same Jesuite freely confesseth in an other place That the Least Sinnes want equitie and conformitie to Gods Law and consequently he must volens nolens confesse withall That his falsely supposed Venials are truely Mortals against Gods friendship and his eternall Law Now let vs heare our Jesuite speake for the honour of the Pope B. C. The common opinion most receiued and most sound is that some Sinnes of their owne nature be small or Veniall others great and Mortall Byshoppe Fisher and some foure other alleadged by Bell thinke that all Sinnes of their owne nature be Mortall and that it proceedeth from the Mercie of God that some be Veniall because he would not vpon diuers smaller Sinnes impose so great a punishment But notwithstanding this small difference neither B. Fisher nor any of the others denie Veniall Sinnes as Bell and his consorts doth T. B. I answere first that the Papistes themselues doe not agree in their Popish Fayth and Doctrine as the Jesuite heere confesseth to their confusion For he freely graunteth that the great Learned Papistes whom I named viz. Jacobus Almaynus Durandus Gersonus Michael Baius and Byshoppe Fisher doe all fiue constantly hold and defend that all Sinnes are Mortall of their owne nature And withall he telleth vs that the Pope and Church of Rome hold the contrary opinion Secondly that Small sinnes and Veniall sinnes are all one as our Iesuite heere teacheth vs. And my selfe will not deny that some sinnes respectiuely are small of their owne nature as
it is alreadie prooued in the third Conclusion To which I adde that the holy Fathers when they speake of Venial sinnes doe euer vnderstand Small sinnes respectiuely In which sense my selfe do willingly admit Veniall sinnes as also sinnes Veniall by the mercie of God But withall I wish the Reader euer to remember what Gersonus Almaynus Baius Durandus and Roffensis teach vs viz. that euery least Sinne is Mortall of it owne nature which is the flat Doctrine I heere defend Thirdly that the difference amongst the Learned Popish Doctors concerning Veniall sinnes is a matter of small importance which I exhort the Christian reader in the bowels of our sweete Redeemer neuer to forget For it doth plainely conuince if nothing else could be sayd in that behalfe that Poperie is the New religion What is Popish fayth a matter of Small moment Is it not necessarie to saluation If the Pope will say it I am ready to confirme it Roffensis Baius Almaynus Durandus and Gersonus all being both learned and zealous Papistes affirme constantly the force of trueth compelling them that euery Sinne is Mortall of it owne nature Contrariwise the Pope his Jesuites and Jesuited vassals affirme teach and beleeue as an Article of Popish Fayth that many Sinnes are Veniall euen of their owne nature This notwithstanding our Jesuite telleth vs roundly though nothing Clerkly that the difference is but small So then Articles of Popish fayth are small or great as it pleaseth the Pope His bare Will as we haue heard and seene is a warrant sufficient in euery thing as who can change the nature of thinges if we will beleeue him and of nothing make some thing Fourthly that my selfe hold no Opinion teach no Article of Fayth defend no Position but such Opinions Positions and Articles as the best learned Papistes haue holden taught and defended before mee For my woonted maner euer hath been is and shall be to wound the Papistes with their owne Weapons and to conâ—ound the Pope with his best Learned Proctors B. C. This being so let vs consider what a notable vntrueth the Minister offereth to the view of his Readers when he sayth Almaynus Durandus Gerson Baius and other famous Papistes not able to answere the reasons against Veniall sinnes confesse the trueth with the Byshop that euery Sinne is Mortall Hee doth cunningly abuse them in leauing out those wordes of it owne nature which ought to be added after their opinion and himselfe likewise doth adde in citing of Roffensis immediately before T. B. I answere first that the vntrueth our Fryer speaketh of proceedeth from his owne lying lippes as by and by it will appeare Secondly that our Fryer doth falsely peeuishly vnchristianly and impudently abuse both his Reader and mee when he chargeth me to abuse my Authors in leauing out their wordes What wordes sir Fryer haue I left out These wordes forsooth of it owne nature sayth our Iesuiticall Fryer O malitious Jesuite Where is thine Honestie where is thy Christianitie where is thy Fayth where is thy Conscience Art thou become a flat Atheist art thou at defiance with true dealing Thou seemes to make thy soule saleable for the Popes pleasure Doth not thine owne Penne condemne thee when thou grauntes that I added the same wordes in citing of Roffensis immediatly before Let the indifferent Reader be an indifferent Iudge betweene vs. I added the wordes immediatly before as our Fryer truely sayth it therefore had been an irkesome tantologie to cite them againe in the next wordes following especially seeing I affirme the Popish Doctors Almaynus Durandus Gersonus and Baius to hold and defend the selfe same opinion that Byshoppe Fisher affirmeth to be the trueth Againe the Controuersie consisteth precisely in this speciall poynt viz. Whether euery sinne be Mortall of it owne nature or no. I defende the affirmatiue the Iesuite the negatiue And consequently I must perforce speake of Sinnes as they are in their owne nature O worthy defender of late start-vp Poperie Thou perceiuest right well that Poperie is the New religion indeed and not able to withstand the truth nor to answere mine inuincible reasons and groundes Thou fleest from that which is in question to impertinent extrauagant and friuolous cauils so to dazell the eyes of thy Readers least they behold the newnesse of late Romish Religion Out vpon such beggerly Religion as which can not be defended but by cauils coozenage lying and deceitfull dealing B. C. After this vntrueth immediatly followeth another Yea the Jesuite S. R. quoth hee with the aduice of his best Learned friendes in his answere to the Downefall of Poperie confesseth plainely and blusheth not thereat that the Church of Rome had not defined some sinnes to be Veniall vntill the dayes of Pius the fift and Gregorie the 13. which was not fiftie yeares agoe In which wordes he blusheth neuer a whit to slaunder that Learned man and wholly to corrupt his meaning Hee sayth not that the Church of Rome had not defined some sinnes to be Venial vntill the dayes of Pius the fift and Gregorie the 13. as this licentious cast-away corruptly fathereth vpon him For he knew well that to beleeue Veniall sinnes was an Article long receiued before the times of those Popes But he affirmeth onely that to hold Veniall sinnes onely to be such by the mercie of God was censured and condemned by those Popes Why did Sir Thomas his sinceritie cut away these wordes by the mercie of God Forsooth because that without lying and corruption he can obiect nothing against Catholike doctrine T. B. I answere first that our impudent Fryer lyeth egregiously when he chargeth mee to slaunder S. R. his learned Brother For vpon my saluation I auerre it I deale christianly honestly and sincerely I neuer change adde or take away any one iote of that which I finde in mine Authors Would to God our Iesuites did so deale with mee Secondly our Fryer lyeth impudently when he vttereth these wordes Hee sayth not that the Church of Rome had not defined some sinnes to be Veniall vntill the dayes of Pius the fift and Gregorie the thirteenth For these are S. R. his expresse wordes True it is that Byshoppe Fisher and Gerson were in that errour but that was both before it was condemned in the Church as it was since by Pius the fift and Gregorie the thirteenth In which wordes the Jesuite S. R. telleth vs two memorable poyntes of Doctrine Th' one that Fisher and Gerson were in an Errour Th' other that the Errour was before the Church had condemned it So it onely remaineth duely to examine what the supposed Errour was The Iesuite B. C. heere telleth vs plainely if wee may beleeue him that the Popes Pius and Gregorius condemned that opinion onely which holdeth Venial sinnes to be onely such by the mercie of God I admit the Assertion I like the Narration I onely reiect the Popes friuolous vnchristian and
but 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
which he would enforce me to giue howsoeuer he thinke to deceiue others with his palpable and grosse lying True it is that through the negligence of the Printer Compositor or Corrector whom in this kind of businesse I repute as one man the place out of Biel is quoted amisse Whereat the Fryer for want of other better matter thought it his best course to wrangle and cauill albeit he knew right well as is already prooued that in The wofull cry of Rome the wordes are sincerely cited and the place truly quoted Which is an insoluble argument that our Iesuite hath a cauterized Conscience and is in semblance much like to Knightes of the Post. B. C. An other thing heere accurreth worth the noting Bell citeth in the Pamphlet of his Wofull cry as Gabriels wordes those which be not his but rather Holcots though alleadged by Gabriel which also he doth interpret to a good sense as before was sayd T. B. I answere first that as the wordes are Holcots by inuention so are they Gabriels by approbation And consequently that Holcot an other learned Papist doth oppose himselfe against the Worshippe done to Images Secondly that Gabriel hath affirmed very resolutely that Images are neither to be worshipped as Wood nor yet as they be Images that is no way at all as we haue alreadie heard A litle after that same Gabriel propoundeth the Question if that act by which one is carried to the Image ought to be called Adoration To which he answereth in these wordes Dicitur quod est adoratio analogicè et impropriè non auteÌ„ propriè quoniam est respectu creaturae I answere that it is called Adoration analogically and improperly but not properly because it is in respect of a creature And certes seeing he will haue all proper and true Worshippe to pertaine to God alone hee consequently auoucheth that no true Worshippe is or can be giuen to any Image whatsoeuer Thirdly that Gabriel citeth Damascenus for the same end and purpose These are his expresse wordes Quia non omnes noscunt literas neque lectioni vacant patres excogitauerunt velut quosdam triumphos in imaginibus hoc describere ad velocem memoriam Quapropter multoties non secundum montem habentes Domini passionem imaginem crucifixtionis Christi videntes et in salutaris passionis memoriam venientes procidentes adoramus Christum Ecce dicit Christum adorari ad inspectionem imaginum ducentium in notitiam rememoratinam Christi Because all can not read neither haue all leasure to read the Fathers haue inuented as it were certaine triumphes to describe this in Images for the speedy helpe of Memorie Wherefore not hauing often times in minde our Lordes Passion when we behold the Image of Christ crucified remembring his healthfull Passion we falling prostrate doe adore Christ. Behold Damascene sayth that wee adore Christ when we behold his Image bringing him to our remembrance Thus writeth Biel out of Damascene So then albeit the best learned Papistes do not denie Christ to be adored before his Image yet will they by no meanes graunt or allow the Image itselfe to be adored B. C. What hath Bell got by vouching the authoritie of S. Gregorie About the retayning of Images in Churches he is directly against him as he can not deny Concerning their Adoration also he nothing helpeth him but teacheth that which nothing pleaseth his reformed spirit and therefore true it is not that he reprooued the Worshippe done to Images as Bell affirmeth T. B. I answere first that notorious lying is our Jesuites vsuall occupation For I am so farre from condemning simply and absolutely the making and retayning of Images for ciuill vse that I haue plainely expressely written in defence thereof constantly affirming the same not to be prohibited by the word of God Hee that shall duely peruse my Suruey of Poperie can not stand in doubt thereof And consequently our Fryer knowing that Booke right well to his griefe and sorrow prooueth himselfe to haue deserued the Whetstone to be hanged about his necke for lying Secondly that our Fryer belyeth both S. Gregorie and my selfe while he impudently denyeth that Gregorie reprooued the Worshipping of Images These are his expresse wordes Et quidem zelum vâ—s ne quid manu factum adorari possit habuisse laudauimus sed frangere casdem Imagines non debuisse iudicamus Sequitur tua ergo fraternitas et illas scruare et ab earum cultu populum prohibere debuit Wee truely commende you as hauing had zeale therein least any thing made with handes should be adored yet doe I iudge that you shouâ—d not haue broken the same Images Therefore your brotherhood should both haue kept them whole and also haue forbidden the people to adore them Thus discourseth Pope Gregorie Out of whose wordes I obserue these golden Lessons First that Images may not be worshipped Secondly that it is the duety of Byshoppes to forbid the people to worshippe them Thirdly that Gregorie commended the zeale of the good Byshoppe Serenus who breaketh Images in peeces which the people worshipped Fourthly that though Images were in those dayes permitted for instruction sake yet were the people neuer permitted to Worshippe them but euer sharpely reprooued in that behalfe This is the trueth concerning Gregorie and Serenus Serenus thought it time to breake the Images when the people began to adore them Gregorie thought they might still remaine in the Church so the people were instructed how to vse them and prohibited to Worshippe them And of his opinion are some reformed Churches in this age who still retaine Images in their Temples I neither dare condemne those who still keepe them in their Churches or Temples nor yet those who haue abolished the same But this I boldly auouch that Serenus had for his example both the fact of the good King Ezechias who brake in peeces the Brazen Serpent when the people began to adore it albeit God himselfe had commaunded to set it vp and also the practise of S. Epiphanius who seeing the Image of a Saint hanging in the Church tore the same asunder and aduised the Wardens to bury some poore body with the Vaile and to see that thencefoorth no such Vailes should be hanged vp in the Church These are the expresse wordes of S. Epiphanius translated by S. Hierome out of Greeke into the Latine tongue Inueni ibi velum pendens in foribus ciusdem Ecclesia tinctum atque depictum et habens Imaginem quasi Christi vel sancti cuiusdam Non. N. satis memini cuius Imago fuerit Cum ergo hoc vidissem in Ecclesia Christi contra authoritatem scripturarum hominis pendere imaginem scidi illud et magis dedi consilium custodibus eiusdem loci vt pauperem mortuum eo obuoluerent et efferrent Sequitur Et precor deinceps praecipere in Ecclesia Christi istiusmodi vela quae contra religionem nostram veniunt non appendi I found there
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
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