who knoweth not that some â— his writings be erroneous though not errorneouâ— in that sence which Bell pretendeth and so hâ— sayth much but to litle purpose vnlesse it be tâ— shew with what facilitye he can cite authorâ— vntruely making them to iustifie that to which their wordes can not be drawne The premisses duly pondered the prudent reader can not but vnderstand that I haue dealt frendly with Bell noting him only for one vntruth when as diuers might very well haue runne vppon the reckoninge The rest of his Epistle conteyneth litle els but a recapitulation of the cheife contents of his bookes or a bundle of vntruthes trussed vp together which must be examined in the chapters following only here wheras according to his great modesty he sayth that he will sett before the eyes of all indifferent readers as clerely as a glasse of christall the originall and dayly excrements of Popery I can not but add that the excrements of the Catholicke church be principally such Apostates as Luther Bucer Peter Martir and many more that forsooke their professioÌ„ of chastitie a religioê° life and the better to lay the foundations of the new gospell betoke them selues to the mortification of new wiues drawne out of Nunneries or other places where they could best meete with such kind of cattle Had it not bene for these and such like other excrements of ours the congregation would haue had poore increments and hardly would they haue bene furnished with Apostles had not our church voyded forth such Apostates Veryly he might with far lesse harme to his soule employ his talent by setting downe their originall and procedinge then he doth in discouering the beginning encreasing of Popery especially Bel borne at Rascal in Yorkeshire if he would remember an old acquaintance of his one Sir Thomas of Rascall that excrementicall companion for I knowe not a man in the parish that can better performe it beinge furnished with a rude rusticall stile fitt for such a subiect and one that hath perfect intelligence of his heauenly conuersation and righteousnes of life The counts being cast and the summe sett downe what hath he gott by his voluntary error to degorge his malice against vs for his disposition considered and the qualitye of the fault I can not thincke otherwise or what hathe he gayned by his grosse girdinge and filthy fleeringe at the excrements of Poperie Bels I. chapter Of this name and worde Pope THE II. VNTRVTH DIsputing of this name Pope and shewing out of S. Ciprian and others that it was giuen in old tyme to other Bishops and not only to the Bishoppe of Rome he addeth these words But aster that the Emperour Iustinianus had in his legall constitutions named the Bishoppe of Rome Pope the arrogant Bishopps of Rome began to challenge the name as if it were proper to them alone An vntruth why did he not name those arrogant Bishops of Rome that challenged the propertie of this title or some author of creditt that reporteth it And what reason had the Bishops of Rome to lay hold vppon the Emperors words rather then the words of the generall Councell of Chalcedon which was many yeares before in which he was called by that name as shal straight be handled This therfore must remaine for one vntruth vntill he can better discharge him selfe One thinge I must here add which wil litle please the minister and that is albeit the name Pope was attributed also to other Bishops yet was it in such speciall manner giuen to him that it did sufficiently declare his supreame authoritye ouer all other which appeareth first because when any was called Pope without further addition it was vnderstoode only of the Bishoppes of Rome as is euident out of the Councell of Chalcedon where it Act. 16. is sayd The most blessed and Apostolicke man the Pope doth command vs this thinge Secondly because the Bishoppe of Rome was called Pope of the whole church as we reade in the same Councell where Leo is called Pope of the vniuersall church and Liberatus affirmeth Act. 16. In Breuiario cap. 22. that there is no Pope ouer the church of the whole world but the Bishoppe of Rome Thirdly because he is called the Pope or father of generall Councels and of the whole world but he calleth not other Bishops Popes or fathers but his brethren or sonnes as is apparant out of an epistle of Pope Damasus to the Easterne Bishoppes recited by Theodoretus and in the Epistle of the Councell of Lib. 5. c. 10. Chalcedon to Pope Leo. To this may be added that seing Pope signifieth father as Bell according to the truth confesseth it followeth that the Bishoppe of Rome was in old time reputed superiour to all in that he was called the Father of fathers for Steuene Bishoppe of Carthage writinge to Pope Damasus in the name of three Councells celebrated in Affricke giueth him this title To Pope Damasus our Epis ad Damrsam most blessed Lord exalted with Apostolical dignity the holy father of fathers And this may be the reason that albeit sometime in the Primitiue Church the name was also giuen to other Bishopps yet seing in foresayd manner it agreed peculiarly to the Bishoppe of Rome as declaring his soueraigue authoritye ouer others the former custome ceased and so it remayned alone to him THE III. VNTRVTH VVIth the former he hath copled an other saying thus And so in processe of time the Bishopps of Rome were solely and only called Popes and of late yeares Our holy father and His holynes is his vsuall name A grosse vntruth for the name of his holines is not of late yeares beinge long since giuen to the Pope by Iustinian the Emperour and Theodoretus writinge to In epis ad Ioaâ— 2. Pope Leo vseth the same phrase Obsecro vestram sanctitatem I besech your Holynes sayth that learned and venerable Epist. ad Leonem Papam father and the Councell of Chalcedon in their letters to the same Pope Leo inuaighing against Dioscorus the heretike that presumed to excommunicate the Pope sayth thus Etpost haec omnia Epist. ad Lenem â—apam And after all these things he did also extend his madnes against him to whom the custody of the vineyard was committed by our Sauiour that is against thy Apostolike holines And if S. Ciprian and S. Augustin were called most blessed Popes as Bell here confesseth can any maruaile that the title of holines should be giuen to their superior and yet doth he neuer make scruple to say that it is a title only of late yeares making it to haue sprung vp long after that the title of Pope was appropriated as he would haue it to the Bishoppe of Rome which appropriation as he saith was about the yeare of Christ 528. and so the name of his holines much later and yet is that title more auncient then the sayd yeare of Christ 528. as is euident out of Theodoretus and
Much more might be sayd to the same purpose but it shall not neede when as the thinge is so cleere that our mortall enimies confesse it for the Magdeburgian historiographers after relation how the Roman Legates with-stood the audacious attempt of Anatolius and his confederates write thus VVherfore the iudges of the Synod decreed that the Centur. 5. col 949. principall primacye and honour was to be left vnto the Bishop of Rome and that notwithstanding somethinge was to be giuen to the Church of Constantinople because that city was adorned with the dignitye of the Empire and was called newe Rome that it might haue power to ordayne Metropolitanes in the dioceses of Asia Pontus and Thrace yet so that it might be lawfull for the Metropolitanes of euery prouince to ordayne Bishops This was that dignity and equalitye of priuiledge which they desired which notwithstandinge they obteyned not Pope Leo wholy irritating that decree as hath bene saide Thus haue we not only conuinced Bell of lying and corruption but so far prâ—uayled against him that by meanes of that decree by which he would ouerthrowe the superioritye of the church of Rome we haue abundantly proued the contrary and so we may say with the Prophet The arrowes of litle ones are become their woundes Psal 63. Neuer had gallant Minister worse fortune for not only his blowe is still defeated but his weapon disgratiously beaten backe vppon his owne face What sayth he now to the famous Councell of Chalcedon The Popes authoritye maugre his malice is cleerely proued out of that as hath bene sayd and so nothinge found there that can relieue his cause but such Vnguentum baculinum as he list not to meddle with al and that not only touching the Popes superiority wherof we haue spoken sufficiently but also other matters for example that Councell decreed thus Virginem c. It is not lawfull for a virgine Sessi 16. â—â—n 16. which hath consecrated her selfe to God and likwise a Monke to contract Matrimonye But if they be found doing any such thinge let them be excommunicated Did Bell for all that neuer in his whole life heare of any such creatures that remayne so far from being excommunicated that they be highly commended as the principall aduauncers of the Gospell and doth he not knowe a deare freind of his that hath written See Bels suruey pag. 231. 235. c. in defence of such wicked and filthy wedlocke Gladly then would I be enformed how his Ministershippe can eyther defend such sacrilegious wretches from the force of that Canon or his friende from beinge opposite to the doctrine of that Councell To deny the authoritye of that Sinode which him selfe vrgeth calling it a famous Councell were a base shift and nothing becomming his grauity and constancy but rather the leuitie of some mutable minister especially that being authorised by Act of Parlament which for certayne reasons he must defende but how in this case God knoweth that knowes all things THE VII VNTRVTH IT followeth immediatly in Bels booke Eightly the Councell of Nice prescribed limites as well to the Bishop of Rome as to other Patriarches This is a manifest vntruth and that by the iudgment of any that is indifferent The place he meaneth Can. 6. for he noteth none is in the sixt canon in these wordes Let auncient customes be kept throughout Egipt Libia and Pentapolis that the Bishop of Alexandria haue power of all these because the Bishop of Rome hath that custome Out of which wordes so far of it is that the iurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome is confined within any limits that her ample and vniuersall superioritye is confirmed for nothinge is here determined concerning the church of Rome but that is made the rule of other churches as Pope Nicholas the first noteth who also affirmeth Epist. ad MichaëleÌ„ that the Nicene Councell appoynted nothing about the Romane church because the authoritye therof was not from men but from God In the former vntruth diuers times was it mentioned our of Pope Leo as also out of his legates in the Councell of Chalcedon that the Grecians went against the Nicene Canons in their presumpreous attempt But to make the matter most clere to wâ—tt that the Councell of Nice did not limitt the Popeâ— iurisdiction but contrary wise allowed and approued nis supreame authoritye beside the restimony of Pope Nicholas alread alledged I will demonstrate the same out of the Chalcedon Synode which Bell calleth a famous Councell as it was in deede and therfore worthyly admitted by our country In the sixtene session Paschasinus the Popes legate cited this very Canon for the Popes Primacye for after the iudge had sayd Let both sides propound Concil Chalced. Act. 16. canons â—t followeth in these words The reuerend man Paschasinus Bishop and vicar of the Apostolike sea recited The sixt canon of the three hundred and eightene holy fathers That the Church of Rome hath alwayes had the These wordes are more clere in â—hâ— Nicene Councel â—t selfe See a little before Primacye But let Egipt hould that the Bishop of Alexandria haue power of all because the Bishop of Rome hath this custome Behold Paschasinus proueth the Popes supremacye out of that canon from which Bell would deduce the contrary And the Grecian Bishops were so far from contradicting this which no question they would had the canon bene plaine to the contrary senâ—e as the minister maâ—ntayneth that their silence confessed it to be most true Yea the iudges them selues though desirous to aduance the dignitye of Constantinople yet were they so ouercome with the light of truth shining in that canon that vppon the former euidence they sayd VVeperfectly perceiue all primacy and principall Act. 16. honour according to the canons to be kept for the Archbishop of old Rome most beloued of God The true meaning â—nertore of the canon is that the Bishope of Rome before the definition of any Councell vsed to committ the gouernement of Egipt Libia and Pentapolis to the Bishop of Alexandria as Pope Nicholas the first doth expound it and is plaine out of the Councell of Chalcedon which being so Bell remayneth guilty of an vntruth and the Popes eminent authority confirmed by that very canon which he brought to ouerthrowe it What an vnlucky hand hath this minister that striking at others still woundeth him selfe THE VIII IX AND X. VNTRVTHES AFter Bell had produced many arguments against the Popes soueraigne superioritye he maketh a recapitulation of them all but so handsomly that for their better grace he doth florish them ouer with new lyes To stande vpon one that hath a couple of followers Fourthly quoth he seing Polycarpus S. Polycrates S. Ireneus and S. Ciprian with many Bishops of Europe Asia and Affrica contemned the Bishop of Rome his decrees and supposed supremacye That S. Polycarpus contemned the Popes decrees is most false and vntruly collected out of his former argument in
still keepe his former custome of celebrating Easter and also performe due obedience to Anicetus was because Anicetus would not for so smal a controuersiâ— or variety breake peace but was content to tolerate the same and therfore false it is that Bell sayth to witt that Polycarpus would and must haue yelded to Anicetus if he had acknowledged him for his superiour seing no such thinge was commaunded him but the matter left to his owne election Bels II. obiection SEcondly Ireneus and other holy and learned Bishopps of Fraunce ioyning with him reproued Victor then Bishoppe of Rome very sharply and roundly as one that had not due respect to the peace and vnity of the church which doubtelesse those holy and learned Bishops would not haue done if the Bishoppe of Rome had had in those dayes the supreame soueraignty ouer them THE ANSWERE HAd Bell recounted the cause why those Bishopps reprehended so roundly as he speaketh Pope Victor with other necessary circumstances he had marred all his market and proued the Popes superiority by that argument by which as he perfidiously handleth the matter he would ouerthrowe it The blessed martyr Ireneus with other reprehended Victor not for any wrong opinion about the keeping of Easter him selfe they being of the Popes minde as also the Prorestantes now be but for that he excommunicated the Bishops of Asia refusing to conforme them selues to the Church of Rome neyther did S. Ireneus this vppon conceipt that the Pope exceeded the limits of his power for no such thing appeareth in Eusebius from whom this story is fetched but for that he did vse it out of due season to the great trouble of the Church and for a small matter as he and they thought which sheweth playnely that they made no doubt of his authority otherwise many misliking his fact would easyly haue contemned his censure and iustly haue obiected presumption in vsurping that authoritye which belonged not to him where of no mention is made Superiours yea and the Pope him selfe may with due respect be admonished and reprehended especially by Bishoppes yf any great scandall or trouble of the Church be feared S. Paul resisted S. Peter in face because he was reprehensible Galat. 2. v. 11. wherof our Protestants absurdly gather that S. Peter had no sup riority ouer the Apostles a collection not known to an iquitye when as the matter was then so famous and certaine that wicked Porphiry that Paganicall philosopher reproueth S. Paul of sawcines for that he presumed Proaem com in Galatas epis 11. ad Aug. inter epistolas Augustini to reprehend Peter the Prince of the Apostles as S. Hierom reporteth S. Cyprian highly commendeth the humilâ—ty of S. Peter that tooke so quietly the reprehension of S. Paul being his inferiour For neyther Peter sayth S. Cyprian whom our Lord chose the first and vppon whom he built the church when Paul disputed with him about circumcision arrogantly tooke any thinge to him self saying that he had the primacy and therfore Epist 71. ad Quin. the latter disciples ought rather to obey him S. Augustin sheweth excellently by this example that S. Cyprian erring about rebaptization could not nor would not haue bene offended to haue bene admonished by others his followers or inferiours much lesse by Lib. 2. de Baptis cap. 1. a Councell VVe haue learned sayth he that Peter the Apostle in whom the Primacy of the Apostles by excellent grace is so praeeminent when he did otherwise concerning circumcision then the truth required was corrected of Paule the later Apostle I thincke without any reproach vnto him Cyprian the Bishoppe may be compared to Peter the Apostle howbeit I ought rather to seare least I be iniurious to Peter sor who knoweth not that the principalitye of Apostleshipp is to be perferred before any dignity of Bishoppe whatsoeuer but yf the grace of the chaires differ yet the glory of the martyrs is one These authorities shew two things the first is that S. Peter was reputed with the auncient fathers head and prince of the Apostles and also that the very Pagans were not ignorant of that thinge which I suppose will not greatly content Bell for certayne deductions that may be drawne from thence The second which is the cause why I haue alledged this of S. Peter and S. Paul is that dislike or reprehension of an other mans action doth not argue the man reproued not to be the others superior how soeuer Bell would inferr that when as hath bene sayd S. Paul inferiour to S. Peter reprehended him And therefor the most that can deduced out of the ministers idle discourse is that if him selfe wer a Bishoppe he would looke as the deuill God blesse vs is sayd to haue looked ouer Lincolne and none might without incurring of is mortall indignation admonish him of any fault or scandalous demeanure Great pitty surely it is that one qualified as he is and endowed with such an humble spirite should not be preferred to an Episcopale or to vse his owne phrase some ouerseing dignitye Thus by dismol destiny Bels argument hath rather hurt him then giuen him any help at all But one necessary adiunct belonged to this controuersie which he thought good not to touch for scalding of his fingers to witt that S. Victor excommunicated the Bishopps of Asia as I noted before for seing Bell confesseth that the old In his Fâ—neral lib. 2. cap. 2. Bishopps of Rome were very godly men and taught the same doctrine which S. Peter had done afore them and most certayne that S. Victor was one of those holy Martyrs it followeth that he vsurped no authority but exercised that which lawfully he might neyther that he taught any doctrine but that which S. Peter had done before him Out of which and the precedent discourse three or foure memorable notes may be inferred against Bell. The first and principall is that the Primacye of the Bishoppe of Rome began not six hundred yeares after Christ as befor he mayntayned hauing bene practised four hundred yeares before by S. Victor and descended to him from S. Peter The second is that Bels argumeÌ„t against the supreame authority of the Bishoppe of Rome being duly and truly examined proueth the cleane contrary The third is that the minister cunningly coÌ„cealed the cause why S. Ireneus reproued S. Victor as nothing fitting his purpose The fourth may be that most perfidiously he inferreth out of the reprehension of S. Ireneus that he contemned the Bishoppe of Rome his decrees and supposed supremacy as before hath bene noted I add lastly that whatsoeuer S. Ireneus and others thought yet blessed Pope Victor proceded most prudently for as much as he perceiued how that obseruation which in the time of Anicetus was only variety of rite without preiudice of religion began now to corrupt the soundnes of the Catholike fayth one Blastus who liued in Victors time as Lib. 5. hist cap. 15. De proscript in
fine Eusebius sayth vnder colour of that cunningly labouring to bring in Iudaisme as TertulliaÌ„ recordeth And this senteÌ„ce of Victor was afterward approued in the Councell of Nice as is manifest out of Eusebius Lib. 3. de vita Constantini cap. 13. Heres 53. Heres 75. and afterward those that held the Asian error wer accounted heretikes as appeareth in S. Augustin and S. Epiphanius Bels III. obiection THirdly S. Policrates and many Bishopps of Asia did stoutly withstand the same Victor then Bishoppe of Rome in his presumpteous procedings touching Easter THE ANSWERE ANd how many Emperours and Kings as we reade partly in scriptures partly in prophane histories haue bene resisted most disgraciusly entreated and abused by their subiects were they not for all that their superiours yea Iesus Christ him selfe suffered many indignities at the Iewes handes was he not for all that their Creator king and Sauiour His caÌ„nonization of Polycrates rather sheweth his malitious cunninge then any wayes bettereth his cause wherof I haue spoken before and here can not but adioyne as a matter of note that the letters of Polycrates and other to S. Victor in defence of them selues make more for his ecclesiasticall superiority then their disobedient resistance sheweth that he had not authority ouer them when as many haue withstood their lawfull Pastors For why should they haue neded any such Apologeticall letters more to him then to any other Patriarch or Bishop had it not bene for the dignitye of his sea or can it sincke into any mans head that the Asian Bishopps would not haue reprehended his vsurped authoritye had they bene of Bels minde for censuring them that were not subiect to his iurisdiction His terminge S. Victors proceedinges presumpteous sheweth his inueterat malice to that blessed Pope and martyr and beside declareth his folly in condemning him so depelie whom els where he commendeth so highely Bels IIII. obiection SAint Cyprian roundly opposed himselfe against Stephanus then Bishoppe of Rome contemning his decree and deridinge his reasons THE AVNSWERE VVEre not Bell one of Chams coÌ„fraternity he would neuer mention that which turneth to the disgrace of that blessed martyr and nothing toucheth the authoritie of the Pope at all For that S. Cyprian was in an error I dare say Bell will not deny and therfore the more roundly he wrott to the Pope the more is his fault encreased Far was blessed S. Austen from the spirit of this minister who wholy to take away or at least to diminish Epist. 48. ad VinceÌ„â—iam this stayne of S. Cyprian sayth that eyther those writings be none of his in which these things be found as som then saide or else that afterward he repented him of his errour chaunged his opinion though the retractation be not found As for the authoritye of the Pope it doth nothing preiudice that at all for albeit the Pope coÌ„manded that rebaptization should not be practised the pointe of controuersie betwixt them two yet did he not define that questioÌ„ nor pronounce any censure against Cyprian or others of his opinion much lesse was it coÌ„demned by a generall CouÌ„cell which reason also S. Augustin bringeth in his defence and Lib. 1. do Baptism cap. 18. so it was free for him without dauÌ„ger of heresie to persist in his owne opinion especially seing he had on his side a prouincial Councell of fowerscore Bishops as he thought much probability for his part Many good men no question both haue and hereafter may be carried awaye with ignorant zeale to defende an erroneous opinion yet with all subiection to the Pope remayning all wayes with ready minde when they shall see ther error ouerthrown by Apostolicall definition to submitt them selues with all obedience Bels V. obiection FIftly the Apostles at Ierusalem sent Peter and Iohn to confirme the faythfull in Samaria and consequently if the Pope be not aboue Peter but his supposed successour he may be sent of Bishopps his bretheren as S. Peter was But who is that Bishoppe and where dwelleth he that at this day dareth do the now Pope such supposed villanie THE ANSWERE NOt any supposed but the true and reale folly of the minister appeareth in this argument for he would inferr because S. Peter was sent of the Apostles that therefore he was not the cheife and Prince of the Apostles but yf his illation be of any force to bereaue him of his superiority which Bell vrgeth it hath the like strength to make him their inferiour which I thinke he will not graunte for commonly they be such that be sent of others Wherfore I answeare that althoughe it be no vsuall thinge yet sometyme in greate and important affaires superiours are sent of their inferiours not by power and authoritie but by request and entreatie to which they may yelde yf they thinke it expedient for the common goode or refuse it yf they lyke not to vndergoe that charge A greate question arising at Antioch about circumcision and other legall ceremonies Paul and Barnabas were sent by the faithfull Act. 15. there to Ierusalem to conferr aboute that pointe with the Apostles Will Bell therfore inferr that Paul and Barnabas were their inferiours Iosephus also reporteth how the Iewes Lib. 20. Antiq. cap. 7. hauing a controuersie against Agrippa their kinge and Festus their President sent vnto Nero the Emperour tenne legates of the principall Iewes and with them Ismaell the highe Priest and Chelcias the Treasurer who semed next to him in dignitie For as much therfore as the conuersion of the Samaritans was a matter of greate moment they being reputed in as bad case yf not worse then the Gentils For which cause our Sauiour saide Into the waye of the Gentils goe ye not and Math. 10. into the cities of the Samaritanes enter ye not S. Peter and S. Iohne were sent as most mete for that busines S. Peter being the cheife and to whom the managing and disposing of fuch matters appertayned but not by any authoritye or commande but only by request and petition as hath bene saide in which manner both in former tymes and hereafter in like cases of the common goode Princes and superiours without any touch of their highe office or dignitie may be sent by their inferiours their sending proceding from petition nothing empeacheth their highe soueraigntie and their willing vndertaking such a charge for the common goode proclayminge their greate loue to God and their countrie Bels VI. obiection SIxtly the fathers of the famous African councell in which S. Austen that holy father and most stoute champion of Christs Church was present to the great honour and credit thereof woulde in no wise yelde to Celestine then Bishoppe of Rome in the controuersy of Appeales concerning Appiarius And when Pope Celestine alleadged for himselfe and his supposed soueraygnty that the auncient and famous councell of Nice gaue liberty to appeale to Rome the Fathers of the Councell answered roundly that the true copies of
the decree were otherwise where I wish the reader to obserue with me these two points seriously Frist that the Pope coulde not and therefore did not alleadge any better reason sor his vsurped and falsely pretended supremacy then the authority and decree of that famous Councell of Nice Secondly that the Pope Celestine falsified the canon and decree of the Councell so to gayne credit and authority to himselfe if it might be THE ANSWERE TO the first of these two points I answere that there was no question betwixt them whether the Popes iurisdiction did extende into Afsrike or no or whether appeals in rigor might not be made to Rome but whether it were a thinge coÌ„uenient for on the one side not to allowe appeales seemeth to giue occasion to Metropolitanes and Bishops to oppresse their subiects and on to the coÌ„trary to allowe appeales seemeth the next way to make endlesse quarells often to vexe Bishoppes without all cause of which inconuenience and great trouble of the church holy men haue complained This doubtfull pointe then was defined by the Councell of Nice or Sardica which declared that it was expedient for Priestes to appeale from their Bishoppes vnto a prouinciall Councell and for Bishoppes to appeale vnto Rome For that it was lawfull and vsuall before the tyme of this Councel to appeale vnto Rome is euident out of S. Cyprian who reporteth how Fortunatus and Felix deposed by himselfe appealed vnto Cornelius Bishope of Rome Lib. 1. ep 3. And one Basilides deposed in Spaine appealed to Pope Stephen as the same S. Ciprian recounteth Not to speake of Marcion that auncient heretike Lib. 1. ep 4. who excoÌ„municated of his Bishope in Pontus came to Rome for absolution as Epiphanius relateth and Heres 42. therefore Pope Leo calleth it an auncient custome to appeale vnto Rome This was the cause why Epist. 89. the Bishoppe of Rome vrged especially the decree of the Nicene councell to shewe that it was not only lawfull but also very expedieÌ„t sor albeit the Affricane Bishoppes desired that Appeales might not easily be admitted for the great iniury to iustice vaine protraction of sutes which they dayly perceiued to followe thereof yet knowing full well that they coulde not forbid such appeales of them selues they humbly made petition to the Pope for more moderation therein In their epistle which they wrote to Pope Celestinus these be their wordes The office of dutifull salutation premised wee earnestly beseech you that hereafter you woulde not easily giue audience to such as come from hence Had they bene of Bels minde they woulde neuer haue vsed any deprecatory petition but haue roundly and readily told him that he had no authority to admit any appeales neither was his iurisdiction ouer them and therefore that they did owe him no obedience or subiection But farre were they from any such conceipt as being not ignorant of his iurisdiction ouer them according to which beliefe they proceeded in like manner For which cause the same verie Bishops of Affrica when this matter of Appeales and the Nicene councell was one foote and Pope Sozimus had sent vnto their councell three legates wrote vnto Bope Bonifacius the Successour of Sozimus in this maner Because it hath pleased our Lord concerning such thinges as our holy hrethren haue handled with vs Faustinus our fellow Bishop and Philippe and Asellus our fellowe Priests that our humilitye can not write vnto Sozimus a Bishop of blessed memory from whom they brought both precepts and letters but to your veneration who by Gods ordinance are succeded in his place we ought briesely to insinuate those thinges which by the agreement of both parts were determined in which we stayed indeede without breach of charity but not without great altercation in which wordes making relation of their Acts to Pope Bonifacius and testifinge that they had receiued precepts or commandements from his predecessor Pope Sozimus what do they els but acknowledge their obedience and subiection to the Apostolicke sea Beside not longe after this Councell â—pist 87. Pope Leo writinge to the Bishops of Mauritania in Affrike saith that he restored the communion to Bishop Lupicinus because he appealed to him out of Affrike and likewise that he sent vnto them for his legate Bishop Potentius who shoulde in his steade haue care of the affaires of Affrike All which abundantly testify both the authority of the Bishop of Rome in Affrica and that appeales were made to him and also that the Affricane fathers denied not this though for the reason before alleadged they desired more moderation therein to be vsed And albeit S. Augustine was one of these Bishops and so his voyce passed in the common letters with others yet because Bell doth here so magnify him as though he had bene a mighty enemy to the Popes supremacy I will in particular shewe out of that venerable and learned father what reuerence subiection and dutifull respect he carried to the Pope contenting my selfe only with that which hee writeth of this very pointe or of the three Popes in whose tymes this matter of appeales was handled and some of which the minister very bodly yf not some-what saucily but out of all question most falsly pronounceth to haue corrupted the Nicene canons This holy father writinge most plainly how him selfe and other Bishops came to Cesarea by the commaundement of Sozimus what doth he but clerely proclaime his primacy ouer Affrica The same Augustine was most Epist 157. subiect and deare to Pope Bonifacius as we learne out of the beginninge of his first booke against the two epistles of the Pelagians directed to the same Bonifacius The same Augustine writing to Pope Celestinus referreth the cause of a certayne Africane Epist 221. Bishop to him after this manner O holy Pope most blessed Lorde venerable for piety and with dutifull charity to be receiued labour together with vs and commaunde all thinges which are sent to be recited vnto thee and on the contrary Pope Celestinus doth highly commende S. Augustine Epist. ad Gallos as one that had alwayes remayned in the communion of the Romaine church and had bene reputed alwayes of him selfe his predecessours for a great Doctor Out of that which hath bene saide the ministers first doubt is solued why the Pope rather alleadged the decrees of the Nicene Councel then any other prooffe out of the Gospell because as I said the question was not about his supremacy in generall as Bell cuningly or malitiously maketh it but of Appeales which though it be a thinge consectary to his supreame iurisdiction yet for the reasons before mentioned som doubt might be made about the exercise thereof for the satisfying of which no better resolution coulde be deuised then of a generall Councell The good reader also can not but sufficiently gather out of the premises an answere to the second question to witt that neither Celestinus the Pope nor any of his predecessors
forged any canons as Bell and such like with lying lippes affirme who measure others according to them selues both for that they appealed to Rome out of Affrike before the tyme of the Nicene councell and so litle needed they had they bene so wicked to forge any thinge to proue that which was practised before and for that straight after appeales were likewise admitted and also for that the Bishop of Rome had his Legate there resident amongst them for the dispatch of ecclesiasticall busines as out of Pope Leo hath bene declared The same thinge also appeareth in that neither the Affricane Bishops nor S. Austen euer obiected any such crime of forgery to any of those Popes as the ministeriall fraternity of forgers doe but contrariwise behaued them selues in most dutifull manner giuing them very reuerent honourable titles protestinge also their obedience and subiection to them as hath bene saide and so they be far vnlike to our Protestāt professours that persecute them with scrrilous and odius termes As therefore the vnseemely carriage and bitter accusation of our Gospellers doth manifestly argue their spighte to these Popes and that they condemne them as guilty of forgery so their dutifull and obedient deportment towardes those holy Popes giue the worlde to vnderstande that they were far from any such malitious conceipt and therefore albeit I might content my selfe with that which hath bene saide yet more to cleare them from the venim of Bels aspish lippes and to free them wholy from the malitious imputation of the minister and that in the iudgement of any indifferent reader I say further that these canons of the Nicen◠councell allowing appeales to Rome might be in that Councell though nowe not founde there nor yet extant then in those copies sent from the East to the Bishops of Affrike for as much as most certayne it is that there were diuers canons more then be nowe founde or were sent to Affrike many being perished either by the malice of the Arrians whose power ouerswaied the Easterne churches and were most mortall enemies to that Councell which is very probable els by some other dismoll accident of fire or otherwise How soeuer it be that many canons be wantinge is most certayne for one of the canons of that Councell was about the obseruation of Easter day as testifieth Constantine in his epistle and also Epiphanius Apud Euseb lib. 3. de vita Constantini Heres 69. Epist do Synodis Arimin Seleucien Lib. 10. hist cap. 6. Epist. 110. Lib. 1. cap. 8. and Athanasius but this canon is in none of those twenty which be nowe extant and of which only so many yeares since Ruffinus maketh mention in his history It was prohibited also in the same Councell that there shoulde be two Bishops in one place as S. Austen affirmeth but no such canon or decree now appeareth And to omitt diuers other particulars not only other Protestants but Bell also both in his other bookes and in this pamphlet in the next chapter obiecteth out of Socrates that a canon was made in the Nicene councell by the suggestion of Paphnutius which permitted Priests to remayne with their former wiues but this Canon is no where to be founde amongst amongst those twenty Wherefore yf Pope Celestinus must be condemned for a falsary because he cited a canon which is not now extant nor mentioned by Ruffinus by the same reason must Constantinus Athanasius Epiphanius Augustinus Socrates yea and not other Protestants only but Bell him selfe be sentenced of forgery for citinge of that canon which is not now extant amongst those twenty Albeit that which hath bene saide may giue full satisfaction to any man of moderation yet more to musle the mouth of the minister I adde and say that these canons of appeale being founde formally in the Councell of Sardica where in most ample and playn words both in the fourth seuenth canons Can. 4. 7. appellations to Rome are ratified and confirmed both Pope Sozimus and others call them by the name of the Nicene canons though they be founde in the Councell of Sardica and the reason is for that these two Councels are accounted for all one both because the same fathers that were present at Nice were also a great number of them at Sardica and also for that no newe thinge touching faith was there enacted whereas in other Councels newe heresies were condemned and this is the cause why it maketh not any number for being a generall and approued Councell it should be the secōd in order being celebrated an eleauene yeares after the death of Constantine the great as the Magdeburgians them selues relate out of Socrates Centur 4. col 747. Theodoretus and Sozomenus for they solemnely report the whole councell together with these two canons of appellations to Rome where Bell for his colde comfort may reade them it shoulde I say be the second being some yeares before that of Constantinople but that for the reason alleadged it is reputed all one with that of Nice and so maketh not any number This also is confirmed for that in the copie of one Dionisius who a thousand yeares since translated the Nicene Councell out of the Greeke tongue yet extant in the Abbey of S. Vedastus at Arras Lib. 2. de Roman◠pontif cap. 25. as Cardinall Bellarmine reporteth all the canons of the Coucell of Sardica are founde adioyned with those of Nice as of one Councell What maruaile then yf Pope Sozimus or Bonifacius cite the canons of the Councell of Sardica for the canons of Nice when as they were accounted for all one and in all probability founde them in their copies so ioyned together Bels great difficulty is dissolued and the Pope discharged from all forgery and false packing Now to come vpon him and to beate the ende of his owne weapon vpon his owne face what saith he to the canons of the Councell of Sardica or Nice which graunt appeales to Rome as the Legates of the Pope veryfyed to the Affricane Bishops were they founde formally in the Nicene councel Bell were ouerthrowne for euer but they be in the Councell of Sardica celebrated straight after which is reputed one with this of Nice and of soueraigne authority what starting hole will he finde out to auoyde this blowe O miserable minister whose carcase is still beaten like an anuile with the hammers of his owne arguments His other reasons out of the Councell of Chalcedon and Nice are answered before Bels III. Chapter Of the marriage of Priests and ministers of the Church THE VI. VNTRVTHE THe minister pleading here hard for the wiuing of Priests hath these wordes For this respect did holy Paphnutius stande vp in the Councell of Nice at such times as the Fathers then and there assembled together thought to haue seuered married Priests and Bishops from their wiues and tolde them according to gods worde that to forbidde marriage to Priests was too seuere a lawe He yelded this reason
S. Augustin when no corruption had crept into the Churche but the Introite in the masse the Pax the Paschall torche instituted by those Popes in S. Augustinus tyme are rotten ragges and intreated in all scornfull manner though no other difference can be founde but only the ministers pleasure hauinge one doctrine and other principles to followe when he disputeth against vs and an other when he argueth against the See his RegimeÌ„t in the Preface Puritanes whom he calleth Cursed broodes vntimely hatched detested of God and irksome to the world God open the eies of good people to take heede howe they followe the ianglinge of such a Bell that can clincke what religion youe thinke and committe their soules to the direction of suche a mutable minister I omitte here howe before he would haue the Church straight after S. Iohns tyme to haue bene Bel coÌ„tradicteth himselfe infected with errors because that serued him well against vs in that place here the Church was in S. Augustins tyme cleare from all corruption in doctrine which was three hundred yeares after because it standeth him here in great stead against the Puritanes for it were an infinite labour to pursue him in all his trickes quirckes corruptions contrarieties and absurdities himself saying that in one place which he vnsaith in an other prouinge that here which els where he disproueth sailing with that winde which bloweth and making his commoditie of that which may help the present necessity Such be the conditions of the reformed minister trusty Sir Thomas Bels XXVIII Chapter Of the Popish fast of fourtie daies commonly called lent THE LVI VNTRVTH Many mad gambols doth the minister fetch in this chapter and among others he will nedes proue that the lenton fast is hurtfull both to the soule and body and disputeth out of Hippocrates like a pretty pettisogger in Physike to shewe that it is hurtfull to our health This albeit I dot not doubt but it is a notorious vntruth yet because it is not my profession to argue of any such subiect I leaue him to the mercy of the Phisitians who I thinke vpon the feeling of his pulse are like ynough for the curing of such an extrauagant conceipt to condemne him to Hyppocrates bands omittinge this lett vs see what followeth The fast of the auncient Churche quoth he was free voluntary and not commanded by any lawe An vntruth for it was a tradition of the Apostles to fast in Lent â— so not free VVe saith S. Hierom in the whole yeaâ— Epis. ad Marcellam Serm. 6. de Quadrages Sabbato post Dom. Quinquag de tempore serm 62. Synne not to fast in Lent 4. Instit cap. 12. § 20. CeÌ„tur 5. col 686. do faste one Lent according to the tradition of the Apostle S. Leo calleth it also the institution of the Apostle to faste fourty daies and S. Augustin thus exhorteth his auditors in the beginning of Lent beseech youe moste deerly beloued brethren that in this most conuenient and holy time exceptinge the Sundaies none presume to dine vnlesse haply such a one as sicknes doth no permitt to fast because to fast on other daies is a remedy or reward not to fast in Lent is sinne Iohn Caluin speaking of the Primatiue Church saith that the superstitiouâ— obseruation of Lent had preuailed euery where And the Lutherane Centurists reproue S. Augustin for speaking in commendation of the Lenton fast in the same place they write of him in this manner And verylie in the third chapter of his thirtith booke against Faustus the Manichee he doth expressely say that throughout the world Lent is kept in the Catholique Church euery where with great diligence Lastly was not Aerius scored vp by S. Epiphamis Heres 75. Heres 53. and S. Augustin for an heretique because he denyed the solemne and appointed fastes of the Church And yet decree the Apostles what they will about these Lent fasts let S. Augustin call it a synne not to fast in Lent Let Caluin and the Lutherans assure vs of the obseruation of Lent in the Primitiue Church To conclude let S. Augustin and Epiphanius condemne Aerius of heresy for maintaining freedom and liberty of fastinge yet will Bell defend that was free voluntary and not commanded by any lawe how truly I say no more but report me to that which hath bene said That which he bringeth concerning S. Spiridion his eating of fleshe in lent all circuÌ„stances considered hurteth not vs but maketh against himself for we deny not but that in some cases fleshe may be eaten without violation of that fast But that holy Spiridion did most strictly obserue it and that it was also the common custom of the Church is gathered out of the same story which doth condemne the licentiousnes of our fleshly Gospellers Bels XXIX Chapter Of the annulling of Popish wedlocke THE LVII VNTRVTH VVHatsoeuer saith Bell the Bishop of Rome houldeth and defineth that must euery Papist hould beleue and mayntaine as an article of his fayth Though generally all Catholiques do hould the Popes definitions to be infallible and the contrarie opinion to be erroneous yet is it not an article of fayth whatfolloweth what but that Bell hath abused the goode Reader with in vntruth See before pag. 84. 85. Bels XXX Chapter Of the Popes pretended superioritie ouer and aboue a generall Councell THE LVIII VNTRVTH BEll beginninge with false asseueration to tel vs of the late opinion of the Popes superioritâ— ouer a generall Councell interlaceth also an other shamelesse vntruth against the Remists The Rhemists qhoth he that Iesuited broode tell vs plainely if will beleue them that there is no necessity of a generall â— prouinciall Councell saue only for the better contentation of the people Thus he chargeth them yet not nothing any particular place but I will helpe him it is in their annotations vpon the Acts where they write thus Yf againe it be demaunded what nede is there to expect Chap. 15. v. 27. the Councels determination if the Popes or See Apost dikes indgement be infallible and haue the assistance of God also as the Catholiques affirme we answeare that sor the catholike and peacable obedient children of the Church it is a comfort to haue such various meanes of determination triall and declaration of the truth and that it is necessary for theÌ„ recouery of heretiques and for the contentation of the weake who not alwaies giuing ouer to one mans determination yet will either yeld to the iudgement of all the learned men and Bishoppes of all nations or els remayne desperate and condemned before God and man for euer And as I said before this assistance of the holy Ghost promised to Peters See presupposeth humane meanes of searching out the truth which the Pope alwaies hath vsed and will and must vse in matters â—â— great importance by calling Councels euen as here you see â—â—eter and Paul themselues and all the Apostles though inâ—â—â—d with the holy Ghost yet
a man of his profession charge vs with so strange paradoxicall and blasphemous an assertion and so iniurious to the sacred bloud of the Redeemer of the whole world and that both of men and women without recoilinge of Conscience we denye what he saith how doth he proue what so boldly he affirmeth Postellus the Iesuit quoth he teacheth this execrable dnctrine which he proueth out of the Iesuits Cathechisme That Postellus was one of that order is more then I doe knowe or more then I list yet to beleue vntill I see better prooffes but yf he were he was no other then such a religious man as Luther was that ranne out of his cloister to lay the foundation of the Gospell I finde him in the Indice of the Councell of Trent commonly annexed thereunto enrolde for an heretike and so discharged from vs albeit I can hardly beleue that euer he could be so madde as to broach any such ridiculous sensles and blasphemous doctrine To iustify this of Postellus Mr. Rogers voucheth the Iesuits Catachisme that is a most scandalous and slaunderous libel made by one Pasquiere a French heretike in disgrace of that renowmed order as he knoweth full well when he citeth out of the same Catachisme two infamous verses tendinge deepely to the Pag. 187. touch of their liues which none so simple to thinke that they would publishe of themselues They are so far from being the authors of that filthie and hereticall booke that one Richeome a learned man of that Society hath sette forth a confutation thereof Should a Catholike compose a like treatise bearinge title The Church of Englands Catechisme fraught with abhominable and most odious opinions and such in truth as they vtterly detest and should I produce out of it most loathsom stuffe against them in disgracè of their religion would he not condemne both the author for a monster of the world and me for an extreame malitious slaunderer to presse them with any such damnable testimony I leaue the application to himself Pag. 17. He condemneth it in vs as an error and dreame that Christ descended downe into hell to deliuer the Soules of our forefathers and that most iniuriously for to omitte what may be brought out of sacred scripture we can not be condemned herein but the auncient fathers must beare vs company and that by the testimony of our aduersaries The fable quoth Casuin of a place vnder the 2. Instit. cap. 16. §. 9. ground called Limbus albeit it hath greate authors yet it is nothing els then a fable Sutcliffe confesseth that S. Hierom and other fathers beleued that Lib. 1. de Purgato cap. 4. there was a simbus patrum before the comming of Christ But he addeth that they affirmed it rather scholasticaliy then dogmatically which yet he neither doth nor can proue we take what he graunteth of their beleuinge the other we deny Willet also can not gainesay the same We confesse In his sâ—nopsis of the editioÌ„ 1600. pag. 353. quoth he that the fathers for the most part of them to haue bene in this error To conclude this doctrine is taught by the church of Englande when as in the Geneua Psalms allowed and authorized by receiued custome amongest them this article of the Crede He descended into hell is turned thus into meeter His soule did after this discende into the lower parts To them that longe in darkenes were the true light of their harts By what warrant therfore Mr. Rogers expoundeth them here to the contrary I know not him selfe can best tell Pag. 23. many Papistes quoth he and namely the Franciscans blushe not to say that S. Francis is the Holy Ghost Mr. Rogers blusheth not notoriously to iniury vs with the imputation of so blasphemous an assertion He quoteth in the margent for prooffe the Alcaron of the Franciscans a most shamelesse and scurrilous booke sett out by modern heretikes against that worthy and religious order It seemeth he bestoweth much of his tyme in such spirituall books as these and willingly entertaineth such witnes against vs as the Scribes and Phariseis did against Christ vntill he dischargeth himself better this iniurious and blasphemous vntruth must ly vpon him self Pag. 29. Speaking of our behauiour to the scriptures he Antidot euang in Luc. 16. p. 528. saith To the same purpose but more blasphemously Stapleton saith as the Iewes were to beleue Christ so are we simply and in euery thinge to beleue the Church of Rome whether it teacheth truth or errors He fathereth a grosse vntruth vpon Stapleton his words be these Certum est c. It is certayne that the Iewes ought to haue obeâ—ed Christ so far forth as he gaue testimony to the truth but whether he did that or no belonged not to the Iewes to make any doubt of but simply to beleue Wherefore as the Iewes ought to haue beleued Christ so ought we simply to beleue the Churche not verily whether Note these wordes against Mr. Rogers it teacheth true thinges or not but whether that be certayne to vs or not We ought not to doubt but as the father sending Christ coÌ„maunding him to be heard so Christ sending his church and commaunding that to be heard hath by his wisdom disposed that without all daunger of errour as well the Churche should be heard of vs as Christ of the Iewes True therefore it is not that Stapleton saith we are simply and in euery thinge to beleue the Church whether it teacheth truth or errors for he affirmeth the contrary and his words contayne not any impious or absurd doctrine though Mr. Rogers by ouerlashing and not reciting his wordes truly would make him to speake both impiously and falsely Pag. 49. He taxeth vs for teachinge free will and these words he citeth as out of the Councell of Trent Man Ses 6. cap. 1. hath free will to performe euen spirituall and heauenly thinges VVhat error can this be when straight after Mr. Rogers setteth downe this proposition Man may performe and do good works when he is preuented by the grace of Christ and renued by the Holy Ghost But he will say that the Councell of Trent teacheth that good workes may be done without the grace of Christ and therefore he citeth this doctrine of ours as erroneous and contrary to a former proposition of his which is this Man can not do any good worke that good is and godly being not yet regenerate But herein he doth slaunder the Councell of Trent In the very place by him quoted it rather hath the contrary and in the first Canon of that Session most plainely which is this Yfany shall say that a man is iustified before Ses 6. can 1. God by his workes which are done either by the force of humane nature or the doctrine of the lawe without diuine grace by Iesus Christ be he accursed Iudge nowe gentle Reader whether Mr. Rogers hath dealt truly with vs and the Councell of Trent or
the Euangelist no lesse then fiftye yeares by Bels owne computation for S. Peter was crucified as he sayth Suruey pag. 172. at Rome vnder Nero the fourtith and fourth yeare after Christe Nay the same Eusebius noteth though breifely how Simon Magus was ouercome by S. Peter Cerinthus also the heretike was in the Lib. 2. hist cap. 1. Apostles time for Ireneus maketh mention how S. Iohn the Euangelist comming to wash him selfe Lib. 3. cap. 3. in the bath finding there Cerinthus suddainly departed saying that he feared least the bath would fall for as much as the enemye of truth was then in it But what doe I dispute further in a matter so euident for certaine it is out of sacred scripture that heresies were taught long before the death of S. Iohn S. Paule who was beheaded Suruey pag. 172. at Rome the same day and yeare with S. Peter as Bell confesseth writing that Hymenaeus and Philetus erred from the truth saying the resurrection is done 2. Tim. 2. v. 18. already and had subuerted the fayth of some which conuinceth playenly that their doctrine was hereticall otherwise it could not haue subuerted faith Doth not S. Iohn also him selfe speake of the damnable Nicolaites This being so could Egesippus or Eusebius men of greate learninge and conuersant Apoc. 2. in the scriptures be ignorant of this or knowing it can it enter into any mans imagination that they would write as Bell alleadgeth them directly contrary to the truth and opposit to their owne knowledge will not any soner beleeue that the minister hath grosly slaundered them and coyned this fâ—ction in the forge of his owne braines imployed about nothing more then the hammering of lyes cauils and corruptions against the Catholicke fayth The minister proceding forward laboureth to shew how errors crept in after the death of S. Iohn and telleth out of Eusebius that Papias and Ireneus were Chiliastes which I willingly graunt but withall deny that they were therefore heretikes as before hath bene sayd and so they helpe his cause nothinge at all for he speaketh of such errors as be ioyned with heresie from which they wer free Melchior Canus also quoth he opposeth him selfe against all the Thomists and Scotists both the old and latter Papists and this he bringeth to proue that hereticall errors haue crept into the Church He slandreth that great learned man and professor of diuinity when he woulde make him of his owne opinion what he thought of the Churches infallibility in not erring he deliuereth in these conclusions The first The fayth Lib. 4. de locu cap. 4. os the Church can not faile The second conclusion The Church can not err in beleeuing The third conclusion Not only the old Church could not err in fayth but neyther the church which now is and which shall be to the end of the world eyther can or shall err in fayth And yet the minister produceth him as I sayd to proue that heresies crept into the church after the time of the Apostles how truly let the reader iudge The question then wherof Canus speaketh concerneth not any poynt of faith as in expresse termes he there affirmeth but a matter debatable in scholes True it is that Bell maketh him to say that he doth oppose him selfe against all the Thomists and Scotists both the old and latter Papistes but the worde Papistes is foisted in by him selfe by which he would haue the reader to thinck that he spake of auncient fathers when as he talketh only of old and new Scholemen as he might learne out of the very title of that chapter which is Of the authoritye of the Schole Doctors The like may be sayd of Caietanus Nauarrus and Roffensis alledged for the same purpose by Bell all which liued in our age and were well known not to haue swarued from any thinge defined by the Catholicke church as I could shew and in particular demonstrat how he abuseth them were it not to be tedious especially about the Epistle wherof I was once determined to haue sayd nothinge at all Yet must I not omitt S. Augustin cited by Bell What sayth he any thinge perhapps to proue that the Church straight after S. Iohn was infected with hereticall error Mary quoth Bell he reputed Epist ad HieroÌ„ 19. no mans writings wholy free from errors saue only the writers of the holy scriptures This serueth not the turne S. Augustin must speake of hereticall errors or else he nothinge helpeth Bell but I trowe he will not make all others beside the writers of the scriptures to haue runn into any such errors No nor it is not be imagined that he will graunt that the Communion booke or the late Prouinciall councell of England confirmed by roiall assent and least of all his owne bookes to be stayned with any such errors yea or any errors at all and yet if S. Austens words be true as Bell alledgeth them how these will be excused I know not vnlesse he will tell vs that S. Austens spake of his owne former times not of those which shold follow after and so attribute more prerogatiue to moderne writers then to the venerable learned fathers of the Primitiue church which were a desperate shift meete for a man of his shifting conditions But where I beseche him hath S. Augustin these wordes He quoteth epis ad Hierom. ep 19. Where no such thinge will be founde only he faith that no bookes are comparable for truthe with the bookes of the Prophetes and Apostle which is not to censure all writers for erroneouâ— but not to match them with the Prophetes alâ— Apostles That holy doctor was far ynoughe froâ— thincking that the church could err Speaking the church of Rome and that blessed successiâ— he saith Number the Priestes yea euen from the veâ— In Psal cont parteÌ„ Donati seate of Peter and in that order of fathers see who succded whom that is the rocke which the proude gates of hâ— doe not ouercome And to generall councels Iâ— which the church is represented he did attribuâ— so much that he excuseth Cyprian from hereâ— Lib. 1. de Baptismo cap. 18. because in his time there was no generall Councâ— which had defined that question of rebaptization which sheweth euidently that he thought the could not err And the custome and authoritâ— of the church he reputed so infallible that hâ— saith To dispute against that which the vniuersall churâ— Epist. 118. holdeth is most insolent madnes Colde comfort dotâ— S. Augustin afforde Bell to proue that heretica errors haue crept into the churche An other sentence alleadged out of S. Austiâ— where that holy Father saith that he doth not repute CoÌ„t Crescon lib. 2. cap. 32. S. Cyprians writings as canonicall but iudge them â— the canonicall and whatsoeuer doth not agree with tâ— scriptures that by his leaue he doth refuse might ver well haue bene spared for who taketh them foâ— canonicall nay
the Councel of Chalcedon both which were long time before the sayd time as Bell will not denye THE IIII. VNTRVIH PRosecuting his former matter he sayth But this Emperour that is Iustinian liued after Christ his birth about 528. yeares Ergo this pointe of Poperie is a rotten ragge of the new religion In which words he venteth out an vntruth for be it that it was then appropriated to the Pope as he sayth yet how can it be new which by his owne confession was vsed an eleuene hundred yeares agoe that is so many ages before the foundations of his religion were layd or the name of a Protestant heard of in the whole world I omitt here how many ecclesiastical names haue bene brought into the church as Homousios or Consubstantiall against the Arrians Incarnation against other heretikes the better by a new name to declare an auncieÌ„t article of faith Will Bell for al that call these words rotten raggs of a new religion He nauer dare offer it yet with no lesse reason may he doe it then he doth here the name of the Pope As for his rustical scoffinge the special grace of his writinge at the sylly people for reputing the word Pope a most sacred thing though ignoraÌ„t as he saith what is meÌ„t by the name I say no more but that he may with like grace runne vppon the name of Iesus Christ for thousands amoÌ„gst the Protestants which reuerence theÌ„ for sacred can tel as litle what is vnderstoode by it as we can by the name of the Pope But we are beholding to Bell that he vouch safeth to explicate the originall of that name telling vs that it signifieth Father and for that after so terrible a persecution of those few letters as though some misterye of iniquitie had lurked in them in such sort that in the time of Henry the eight it was rased out of all bookes and after many spightfull termes and most odius conceipts framed in the minds of the vulgar sort concerning that name he hath discharged it from all suspition of secret venim assuring good people that it is indede venerable as that which was giuen to most holy and auncient Bishopps and might in his opinion be giuen to him selfe could he haue the lucke to finger that dignitye Thus much of the Popes name now we are come to talke of his office and authoritye Bels II. Chapter Of the Popes superoiall power THE V. VNTRVTH TO season the begining of his chapter with a litle of his mendacious powder he writeth thus Bonifacius Bishoppe of Rome and the third of that name aboue six hundred yeares after Christ obteyned of Phocas then Emperor of Rome that Rome should be the head of all churches Before which time no authenticall writer can be named who euer ascribed the headship and vniuersall gouernment of all churches to the church of Rome To conuince this manifest vntruth somethinge hath bene sayd in the precedent chapter but plentifully haue I proued the contrary in The doleful knell published not long since against his Ministership both Pag. 45. 46. c. out of other authorities as also by the confession of the Lutherane Centuristes his deere brethren and lastly out of his sweete selfe that more cannot be desired Somthinge also shall be sayd in the sequell his owne wordes ministring iust occasion and here I will adioyne a litle more In the Councell of Chalcedon Maximus Bishoppe of Antioch was Act. 7. confirmed by S. Leo the first Pope Iulius the first also restored Athanasius Patriarch of Alexandria to his seate Paulus Patriarch of Constantinople and Marcellus Bishoppe of Ancyra depofed vinustly by an Easterne synode as writeth Sozomenus whole words be these For as much as the care of all did belonge to him for Lib. 3. cap. 7. the dignitye of his sea he restored to euery of them their church And a litle after Athanastus and Paulus doe returne to their seates and sent the letters of Tulius to the East Bels best and most spedy answere to these prooffes will be to say that he was superiour to the Patriarches and other Bishops but had not any authority ouer inferior ministers Alas poore soule to what pityfull straights hath he brought him selfe whiles vpoÌ„ zeale he lyeth for the credit of the coÌ„gregatioÌ„ THE VI. VNTRVTH IN his arguments propounded against the superiority of the Bishoppe of Rome wherof afterward I meane more fully to entreat this is one Seauently the famous councel of Chalcedon gaue the Bishope of Constantinople equall authority with the Bishope of Rome in all ecclesiasticall affaires In which words is one vntruth cunningly couched for he calleth that here the decree of the Councell which was by the ambition of Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople effected in the absence of the Romane legates Yf Bell can proue that this surreptitious decree of the Easterne Bishopes was euer confirmed then were it some thinge which he bringeth But the Bishop of Rome his legates withstood that their indirect proceedinge pronouncing it to be contrary to the decrees of the Nicene Councel and Lucentius in particular Se the 16. Action spake confidently saying that the Apostolicke sea ought not to be abased in their presence with other notable wordes tendinge to the same purpose And Pope Leo him selfe in his Epistle to Anatolius did bitterly inueigh against him for this his presumption and going against the Nicene canons admonishing him also how his legates which in his stead wer presidents of the Councell did withstand that his vnlawfull attempt for which cause he disclaymeth vtterly for giuing his consent Far be it â—pist 53. quoth he from my conscience that so wicked a desire should be holpen with my labor and of all that minde not high things but consent to the humble and he giueth the reason because it were as he sayth to infringe the Canons of the Nicene Councell and to depriue the sea of Alexandria of beinge the second in dignitye and Antioch of beinge the third and all Metropolitane Bishops of their honour About the same matter he wrott also to the Emperour shewing his great dislike of Anatolius ambition putting him in minde what special fauour he had afforded him concerning his consecration insinuating playnly how he deserued to haue bene deposed for falling into the heresie of Eutiches and for beinge wickedly promoted by Dioscorus of Alexandria to be Bishoppe of Constantinople yet because he renounced his heresie at the entreaty of the Emperour the Pope dispeÌ„sed with him VVe sayth Pope Leo hauing respect to your fayth Epist. 54. and intercession whereas the beginings of his consecration were not sound by reason of them that did it desired rather to be gratious then iust to the end we might thereby by applying of remedies pacifie all stirres which the deuill had procured which things ought rather to haue made him modest then immoderate in the end he exhorteth the Emperour to labour about the repressing of his insolencie Endeuour
which no mention is made of any decree concerninge the keeping of Easter the matter then in question as shall appeare afterwarde when we come to answere that argument how could he then contemne that which was not extant See the scrupulous conscience of the minister because before he passed ouer the matter without the marke of his occupation he hath here made lewde restitution clapping three vntruthes together one in the necke of an other The first is now recited and to make it the more manifest I will adioyne what he writeth of this matter in his Motiues His wordes be these In like manner quoth he though with more modesty dissented Anicetus pag. 145. an other Bishoppe of Rome from S. Polycarpe Bishoppe of Smyrna where I desire the good reader to note his malicious dealinge his rooted hatred against those Popes whom he confesseth to haue bene blessed Martyrs Anicetus quoth he dissented from S. Polycarpe and why I beseech him doth he not rather say that S. Polycarpe dissented from Anicetus I trust he will not deny but that S. Anicetus had the better quarrell except he list to condemne the church of Englād and the whole Christian world that obserue Easter according to the custome of Rome Besides this is it not most certayne that S. Polycarp was far inferiour in dignitye to S. Anicetus when as so much is euident out of the premisses in which we haue heard how the Patriarche of Constantinople did emulate some prerogatiues of Rome and not any of Smyrna An other tricke of his rācour also sheweth it selfe when as the one is with him plaine Anicetus the other S. Polycarpe why I beseech him was not blessed Anicetus also a martyr as well as S. Polycarpe it can not be denyed and yet doth this minister out of his damnable deuotion to the sea of Rome entreate him in this disgratious manner But sufficient it is for my purpose that he confessethe dissention betwixt S. Anicetus and S. Polycarpe to haue bene with more modesty to witt then it was betwixt S. Victor and the Bishops of Asia which argueth playnely that no decree was made by S. Anicetus for then the dissention could not haue bene conteyned within the limitts of modesty yf Polycarpus had resisted his decree neyther could he haue bene in better case then the Bishopps of Asia were who withstood S. Victors decree and so the dissention had bene as immodest which seing Bell denyeth consequently he graunteth that he hath dealt falsy in accusing S. Polycarpe to haue contemned S. Anicetus decree when as he neuer published any such what soeuer Bell with lying lippes affirmeth to the contrary This is the first vntruth The next is where he saith S. Polycrates contemned the Bishoppe of Rome his decrees for where doth he find him enrold for a Saint not in the Romane martyrologe not in Eusebius or S. Hierom. no nor in the Centuries of Magdeburge where they talke of him He is a Saint only of Bels canonization because he resisted the Pope which title if it will procure any such grace the minister him selfe is like to proue a great and monsterous Saint for neuer I dare say did Polycrates carry him selfe so insolently and in such vnspeakable contumelious manner as Sir Thomas doth The third vntruth is that S. Ireneus contemned the Bishoppe of Rome his decrees and his supposed supremacie for what father so auncient as he writeth more clerely for his supremacye Speaking of the Romane church these be his words To this church by reason of the more potent principalitye it is necessary Lib. 3. cap. 3. that euery church should come that is those faythfull people which be euery where in which that tradition which came from the Apostles hath bene kept of them which be in all partes Thus he writeth in defence therof but that euer he oppugned the Popes decrees or contemned his supremacy is most falsly affirmed by Bell as shall appeare when we come to examin his second argument against the Popes Supremacy from whence he would seme to haue collected this but before I come to that pointe I must here admonish the good reader that whereas Bell desperatly affirmed that the Bishoppe of Romes superioritye was not hearde of till six hundred yeares after Christ the contrary hath not only bene proued sufficiently before out of other authorityes but also out of those testimonies which he bringeth as most clere against it to wittout of the Chalcedon and Nicene Councels and also out of S. Ireneus as in the premisses hath bene sayd and yet further occasion will be offered to verify the same truth out of some of those arguments also which come now to be examined such is his great grace in beating downe of Popery and writing against him selfe The rest of his chapter consisteth of eight arguments culled together to shew that the Popes supremacy began in the tyme of Phocas the Emperour in the yeare of Christ 607 which in particular I will discusse But before I must haue a litle crash with him about the title which is of the Popes superroiall power for the word superroiall I suppose slylye mocketh at that which venerable antiquity confesseth and him selfe must not denye To content my selfe with the testimony of S. Chrisostom who speaking not only of Bishops but inferiour clergye men instructeth them how to deale with secular potentates comming vnworthyly to the Sacraments in this manner Yf a duke quoth he yf a Consull yf he that weareth Hom. 83. in Math. the crowne cometh vnworthyly stoppe and hinder him thow hast greater power then he and the minister denyeth that the late Quene might preach the Gospell or administer the Sacraments c. which Motiuos pag. 80. functions not withstanding other of their clergye might execute whereof it ensueth that in these spirituall pointes their power was aboue that of the Quenes and so truly in a good sence may be called superroiall which so much his superscoffing grauitye semeth to deride and taunt Now to his arguments An answere to Bels arguments against the supreame spirituall iurisdiction of the Pope FIrst then quoth he S. Polycarpus would not yelde to Anicetus Bishoppe of Rome in the controuersy abou◠Easter which for all that he would and must haue done yf the Bishoppe of Rome had had any true prerogatiue ouer him THE ANSWERE IT more argueth the Bishoppe of Rome his superiority that S. Polycarpus the scholler of the Apostles in his old yeeres vndertooke so longe a iorney to Rome to conferr with S. Anicetus then it proueth that he was not his superiour because S. Polycarpus retayned still his former opinion for why should he more haue trauailed to Rome then S. Anicetus haue gone to him to Smyrna being a man reuerent for his gray hayres and venerable for his acquaintance and conuersation with the Apostles had it not bene that he acknowledged superiority to Anicetus as being the successour of S. Peter But the reason why Polycarpus might
with this notable vntruth The Popes pardon quoth he is a rotten ragge of the new religion brought into the churche after a 1300. yeares by Pope Bonifacius the eighte This very tale he hath tolde vs diuers times before and therefore the more reason I haue to challenge it for a rotten ly of the Ragge-maister of Raicall That it is suche a one I haue proued in the foresayd Dolefull knelle both by the testimony of Pag. 52. 53. c. other catholicke writers and also of Kemnitius the Lutherance of Germany and Perkins the Puritane of Englande his deare brothers in the Lord. And to say somthing in this place I will adde one testimony more and it shalle be of our mortall enemyes the VValdenses called also Pauperes de Lugduno Who appeared to the world about the yeare 1270. as testifieth Claudius Cussordius and Libro contra waldenses Lib. de heresibus 4. parte Examinis pag. 375. Guido one of whose heresies was against the Popes pardons as is moste certayne and Kemnitius confesseth whiche argueth that pardons were long in vse before the yeare 1300. and therefore be it knowen to Bell that he hath often runge out a notorious vntruth Bels V. Chapter Of Popishe Purgatorie THE XXII VNTRVTHE IN this chapter after he hath disputed against purgatory with the authority of Roffensis of which els where I entend to speake more he cometh to his recapitulation and saith Secondly that the church of Rome beleeued it not that is purgatory for the space of 250. yeares after which time it encreased by litle and litle This either he meaneth is gathered out of the testimony of Roffensis that is not true for nothing doth Roffensis speake of 250. yeares or deny that Purgatrory was alwaies beleeued in the church although he confesseth that the doctrine thereof was not generally so well knowen as now it is which is farre different from this proposition Purgatory was not beleeued of the church of Rome for the speace of 250. yeares after Christ Or els he affirmeth of himselfe that Purgatory was not beleued vntil that time which I make no doubt but it is his meaning for as muche as he teacheth the same thinge in other of his bookes and then I must be so bould to tell him that it is also a manifest vntruth as I haue proued against him in the Dolefulle knelle out of S. Denis S. Pauls scholler Pag. 55. 56. and Tertullian yea and to his vtter confusion conuinced out of himselfe in this place I wille adde the testimony of his brother Perkins Who in his Problem confesseth that Purgatory in the church was first receiued by Tertullian the Montanist Verbo Purgatorium pag. 185. wherein is one open vntruth to witt that he was the first for he onely affirmeth it but proueth it not and no marueil when he can not seing most certaine it is that it came from the Apostles Non Hom. 69. ad populum Praier for the doade commeth from the Apostles temere c. Not without cause saith S. Chrysostome these thinges were ordained of the Apostles that in the dreadfull mysteryes commemoration should be made of the dead for they knowe that thereby much gaine doth come vnto them and much profitte Much more to the same purpose might be produced An other vntruth he hath but more secretly conueyed vz that the doctrine of purgatory is a braunche of Montanisme which is moste false none euer of antiquity notinge that in Tertullian for any erroneous doctrine which no question they would had they reputed that of like quality with the other Bell for that great skille which he hath in auncient monuments and great dexterity in discouering the origine of Popery whereof Suruey epi stle Dedicatorie he vaunteth to the solace of his soule shall do well to iustify these two pointes of his precise brother or if his leisure serue him not for so much at least let him defend himself from lyinge when as Tertullian by the testimony of Perkins confesseth Purgatory who was dead before the yeare two hundred and fiftye Here the iudicious reader may also note how the minister contradicteth himself In his Suruaye intreatinge of Purgatory he sayeth Thus by litle and Bel cōtradicteth him solse litle it increased till the late Bishoppes of Rome made it an article of Popishe fayth Where in the margent he noteth the time thus In the yeare of our Lord 250. Heere he sayth that the church of Rome beleued it not for the space of 250. yeares after which as he telleth vs it encreased by litle and litle and so in this place he maketh the seede of Purgatory not to haue been sowen before the yeare 250 and after ward to haue encreased till it came to perfection there he affirmeth that the seede was sowen before and encreased by litle and litle vntille it became ripe and perfect Popery which was in the yeare 250 and so Purgatory was sowen not sowen growen and not growen an article of fayth and not an article of faith in the same one yeare 250. I will not deny but the minister hath som skill in botching together of ould endes of diuinity gathered out of the ragge markett of Caluin such like Ceneua-merchants yet I feare me it will be to hard for him so to cobble the sayings together that the flawe of a contradiction appeareth not THE XXIII VNTRVTH IN the same place he writeth thus Fistly that the Primitiue Church was neuer acquainted with the Popes pardons nor yet with his counterfette and forged purgatory A notable vntruth for not to speake of pardons but of purgatory was it not the Primitiue churche which beleeued purgatory when as himself confesseth that it was made an article of Popishe fayth in the yeare 250. Suruey pag. 297 Lib. 2. cap. 2. pag. 3. at what time all the Popes were martyred for Christ and in his Funerall he acknowledgeth the first thirty for godly men saying that both they and diuers others taught the same doctrine which S. Peter had done afore them and most certaine that one of these thirty liued in the yeare 250. and so I trowe they were of the Primitiue Churche The Minister is full of distinctions and his braine a shoppe of solutions hauing many I sayes for the answear of any obiection yet it is to be feared that no deuise will free him from a gorsse vntruth affirming here that the Primitiue Church was not acquainted with Purgatory and yet teaching in his Suruey that Purgatory was made an article of fiath by the late Popes of Rome in the yeare 250. I lett passe how purgatory must by his owne cōfession be Apostolicall doctrine when it was taught by those Popes which he graunteth to haue holden the faith of S. Peter as I haue vrged against him in the Dolefull Knell I omitt also how falsely and ridiculously he calleth the Popes that liued 1450 yeares ago the late Popes of Rome veryly it
should seeme by his writinge that he litle careth what passeth from his penne so it be walking against the Pope and Popish doctrine Bels VI. Chapter Of Popish Auricular confession THE XXIIII VNTRVTH SCotus sayth Bell affirmeth resolutely that Popishe auricular confession is not grounded on the holy scripture but only instituted and commaunded by the Churche of Rome The minister resolutely slaundereth Scotus Where doth that learned man teach any such doctrine Viewe his margent and nothinge is there found Bell is old ipse he the man that had rather be credited vpon his empty worde then to haue the matter com to the trial of his quotation It helpeth him not to say that he hath noted the place in his Suruay both because many haue not that booke neither doth he here in this particular place of Scotus referr him to that booke and beside what reason can he giue not to quote the place also here But to wincke at this malitious cunninge of his how doth he proue him guilty of this assertion in his Suruay I will first sett downe the doctrine of Scotus and then examin what Bell bringeth for by this meanes the goode reader shal be the better inabled to iudge of the whole matter That learned man disputinge of the necessity of confession to be made to a Priest not mentioning the word auricular whatsoeuer Bell sayeth In 4. dist 17. quast 1. enquireth by what lawe a man is bound to confession and determineth first in generall that the precept must growe from one of these lawes either from the lawe of nature or the lawe positiue of God or the lawe of Churche and descending to particulars he resolueth first that we are not bound by the lawe of nature nextly he disputeth whether it groweth from the precept of the Churche and not liking that opinion he proceedeth to the next member and sayth Breuiter c. To be short it seemeth more reasonable to hould the second member that confession falleth vnder the positiue precept of God But then we must consider sayth Scotus whether it be found explicitely or in expresse tearmes in the Gospell immediatly from Christ because it is manifest quoth he that it is not in the old lawe 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 and published to the Church by the Apostles And hauing made this triple diuision how confefsion might com by the precept of God that is either first commaunded by him in the Ghospell or els secondly to be found in some of the Apostle writings or lastly instituted of Christ by word of mouth only And hauing disputed of the first two membres with dislike-of the second saying It appeareth therefore that it is not of the lawe of God published by Apostolicall scripture Wherevpon he concludeth thus Vel igitur tenendum est c. Therefore we must either hould the first member to witt that it cometh from the lawe of God published by the Gospell c. or if that be not sufficient we must say the third that it is of the positiue lawe of God published by Christ to the Apostles but published by the Apostles vnto the Church without all scripture as the Church houldeth many other things published in word only by the Apostles without scripture c. How saiest thow gentle reader hath Bellbelyed Scotus or no affirminge him to teach that Popishe auricular confession is not grounded on the holy scripture but only instituted and commaunded by the Church of Rome When as he maintaineth plainly that it is de iure diuino of the lawe of God instituted of Christ himself in the Gospell or by word of mouth deliuered to the Apostles and by them to the Church yea and bringeth good reasons which before I omitted to shewe that it was not instituted by the Church as for that the Church would not haue gone about to impose so hard a precept vpon all Christians vnlesse it had been the commaundement of God as also for that it is not found where this precept is imposed by the Church but that before it holy men did thinke that this precept of consession did binde For if they alleadg quoth Extra de Penitēt remissionibus he that chapter out of the Canon lawe Euery one of either sex c. it is euident that the constitution was made by Innocentius the third in the Councell of Laterane but S. Augustin was before that time more then eight hundred yeares who affirmed confession to be necessary as appeareth in his booke of true and false penance and certaine authorityes of his are putt here in the text and certaine in That is of the Master of the Sentences upō whom Scotus doth comment the Canon lawe And not only Scotus his owne wordes nowe cited doe discharge him from the ministers false imputatiō but also the minister himself in his Suruay where he intreateth of this point wholie freeth him for hauing cited Scotus his words to proue that confession to the Priest was not found in the lawe of God extant in any of the Apostles Epistles as before hath been touched he procedeth forward and saith Thus writeth their subtile schoole doctor Scotus Suruey pag. 502. who not able to establishe auricular cōfesiion in the fcriptures flieth to their last refuge to witt to vnwritten traditiōs for in the ende of all he addeth these wordes It appeareth therfore that it is not of the lawe of God published by Apostolicall scripture Therfore we must either houlde the first member to witt that it commeth from the lawe of God published by the Gospell or yf that be not sufficient we must say the thirde to witt that it is of the positiue lawe of God published by Christ to his Apostles but published by the Apostles vnto the Church without all scripture Out of which wordes of Scotus though recited by Bell in latin only we learne that he doth not only giue himself the lye when he sayth in his Suruey that Scotus his opinion is that confession came vnto vs by tradition and affirmeth here the contrary saying that Scotus his opinion is that it was only instituted and commaunded by the Church of Rome but also by the grace of his iugling sincerity playeth two or three Three prety trickes of Bel. The first other pretty prankes in his Suruay The first is when he sayth Scotus flieth to vnwritten traditions and specifieth not wat tradition Scotus speaketh of for it is not of any tradition Ecclesiasticall or Apostolicall but of diuine tradition coming form the lawe of God and instituted of Christ himselfe by his owne mouth declared vnto the Apostles and by them to the church as before hath bene sayd The second is this Scotus quoth Bell not able to establishe auricular confession The secōd in the scriptures flieth to their last refuge to witt vnto vnwritten traditions for in the words
no such rule of fayth in moderne Canonists adding notwithstanding that where obstinacy possesseth not the will but true obedience to the Church remayneth error may be incurred by humane infirmity negligence obscurity of the matter or the determination of the Church being not yet giuen or not knowen but by no meanes heresy albeit the thing it self may be contrary to fayth or good manners Thus much briefely for their excuse but how the minister can be defended is without the conceipt of all common capacitie I might add for a fourth vntruth how both here and in his Suruey he maketh Iosephus also to mention Rhenanus of whom he speaketh nothing at all But I haue done sufficiently for this Chapter let vs now see what followeth in the next Bels VII Chapter Of Popishe venial synnes THE XXVIII VNTRVTH COncerning his seuenth chapter wherein he disputeth of venial sinnes two things are to be noted before we come to his vntruthes The first is that all Catholick writers both old and new acknowledge and confesse some sinnes to be venial and not to deserue the euerlasting paine of hell fire as by and by shall more plentifully be proued The second is that there be two small things commonly called schole questions wherein diuers follow diuers opinions The first is whether venial sinnes be contrary to the commanundement or beside the commaundement som learned men houlding the one opinion and som embracing the other which is a curious quiddity disputable in scholes and nothing touching the hart of religion and besides none of these but willingly submitte them selues to the censure of the catholik Church and yet the minister as though it were some fundamental point noteth here very grauely out of Iosephus that the one opinion is now more common in the scholes then the other and out of that by maine dexterity of learning inferreth the mutability of our religion but he should haue done well to haue proued first that this concerned religion that is any point of fayth as he would haue it thoughte or els he sayth nothing to the purpose The second schole question though somwhat greater is from whence it cometh that som sinnes be mortal some venial whether from the nature of the sinnes them selues or from the mercy of God The common opinion most receiued and most sound is that some sinnes of their owne nature be small or venial others great and mortall Bishop Fisher and some fower other alleadged by Bell thincke that all sinnes of their owne nature be mortal that it proceedeth from the mercy of God that som be venial because he would not vpon diuers smaller synnes impose so great a punishment But not withstanding this small difference neither B. Fisher nor any of the others deny veniall sinnes as Bell and his consorts doth This being so let vs consider what a notable vntruth and that often rehearsed the minister offereth to the viewe of his readers when he sayth Almainus Durandus Gerson Baius and other famous Papists not able to answeare the reasons against veniall sinnes confesse the truth with the Bishop that euery sinne is mortall He doth cunningly abuse them in leauing out those wordes of it owne nature which ought to haue been added according to their opinion and he like wise doth adde in citing of Roffensis immediatly before doth not this dealing of his argue that he would haue his reader to thincke that these learned men denyed all veniall synnes which damnable doctrine of the Protestants they detest for example Bishop Fisher in his 22. article against Luther houldeth som synnes to be veniall that is such as take not away Gods grace Nec opinor te c. Neither doe I thincke saith Bishop Cont. Lâ— the um art 32. Fisher to Luther that thou wilt say but that a mortall synne so soone as it is committed banisheth grace from the soule and doth constitute the synner him self in the hatred of God and if a mortall synne doth take away Gods grace and not a veniall veryly it is manifest that there is no small difference betwixt a mortall and veniall synne Behould Roffensis teacheth som synnes to be veniall and that there is a greate difference betwixt a mortall and a veniall synne Of the same minde be the other though by his cunning handlinge he would make the to deny veniall synnes and to hould all mortall according to the new doctrine of the Protestants THE XXIX VNTRVTH AFter this vntruth immediately followeth an other Yea the Iesuit S. R. quoth he with the aduise of his best learned friends in his answeare to the downefall of Popery confesseth playnly and blusheth not thereat that the Church of Rome had not defined som synnes to be veniall vntill he dayes of pitts the fift and Gregory the thirtenth which was not fiftie yeares agoe In which words he blusheth neuer a whitt to slaunder that learned man and wholy to corrupt his meaning He saith not that the Church of Rome had not defined som synnes to be veniall vntill the dayes of pius the fift and Gregory the thirteenthe as this licentious cast-away corrupty fathereth vpon him for he knewe well that to beseue veniall synnes was an article long receiued before the times of those Popes but he affirmeth only that to hould veniall synnes to be only such by the mercy of God was censured and condemned by those Popes why did Sr. Thomas his sincerity cut a way these words by the mercy of God forsooth because that without lying and corruption he can obiect nothing against Catholick doctrine The same catholick writer noted him in the place cited by him selfe of two vntruths the one for calling B. Fisher the Pope canonized marty the other for stiling Gerson a Bishop neither of which be true but he slyly passeth ouer them as not knowing poore wretch what to say in his owne defence in to such straights doth this dominiring doctor driue him selfe by his talent of ouerlashinge THE XXX VNTRVTH STraight after this tricke of treachery he crieth out in the feruour of his soule O sweete Iesus what a world is this that silly foolishe Papists should be so bewitched as to thincke Popery the old religion and in that bitter pangue was deliuered of an other abominable ly for it followeth VV see it plainly confessed by our aduersaries that for the space of a thowsande fiue hundred and thre score years all synnes were deemed mortall Had not this minister renounced all modesty and true dealing neuer would he putt in print such palpable vntruths for no one Catholicke author can he name since Christ that denyed veniall synnes the ground of this vntruth is the precedent where he affirmed that the Church of Rome had not defined some synnes to be veniall vntill the dayes of Pius the fift Gregory the thirtebth which being most false as was there sayd it remayneth also that this can not be true which so bouldly here he maintayneth Many sentences of auncient fathers and other notable authors
and other articles of Christian fayth and I make no doubt but had Bell liued in the tyme of Constantius the Emperor the same argument should haue gone in behalf of Arrianisme for with as much probability might he haue vrged the same If he take it not in good part to haue his reputation so touched to omitte his changeable disposition let him giue some reason why this maketh more against Transubstantiation then against the consubstantialitie of the sonne of God That Transubstantiation was first hatched by Innocentius in the yeare one thowsand two hundred and fiftene he bouldly affirmeth but how truly remayneth nowe to be examined For either he meaneth only the name or the thing imported by the nametyf the first we easyly graunt it as he must also that the name consubstantiall was not heard of till the Nicene Councell for newe names may be inueÌ„ted by the Church the better more plainely to explicate an auncient mystery of fayth as Vincentius In suo Commâ—nitoriâ— Lirinensis that auncient father learnedly teacheth wherefore if he hath no other quarrell against Transubstantiation but the bare name it is very rediculous and foolishe for if the doctrine it self be found in the fathers and scriptures a poore spight it is to cauill at the name and with like grace may he descant vpon the words Consubstantiall Trinity Incarnation Deipara or Mother of God c. which if he like not to do then let him neither do it here or els giue some good reason of his so diuers a disposition But if by Transubstantiation he meaneth the very pointe of doctrine it self that is the chaunginge of the substance of bread into the body of Christ by the wordes of consecration then is it a most intolerable vntruth that Transubstantiation was first hatched by many pregnant profes being alleageable to the coÌ„trary To begin in the tyme of Leo the ninth about the yeare of Christ one thousand and fifty in a Romane Councell Berengarius was condemned whose heresy as thâ— Magdeburgians suppose came then to light vpon thâ— intercepting of his letters written to Lanfrancâ— concerning his opinion of the sacrament Berengariâ— Contur 9. col 454. 455. Andegauensis c. Berengarius say they deacon of Anioâ— perceiued that it was not truly taught that after the speakiâ— the words of the supper the supper the substance of the elemenâ— did quite vanishe and were transmutated or chaunged inâ— the very body and bloud of Christ Behould transubstanâ— tiation by the confession of our mortall enem yeâ— was taught in the Church much more then aâ— hundred years before the tyme which he assignet for the first beginning thereof The same Berengariâ— abiuring not long after his heresy in the Counceâ— of Rome vnder Nicholas the second and yet not lonâ—ge after returninge to his former vomitte and puâ—blishing a booke in defence thereof such a worth Bâ—rengarius father of the Sacramentaries a periured person Cent. 9. col 459. pillar and constant father haue the Sacramentarieâ— for their heresie Lanfrancus as the same Magdeburbians reporte opposed himself against it setting forth that booke against Berengarius which is yeâ— extant Primum autem But first of all say they he goetâ— about with many words to defend the doctrine of Transubâ—stantiation which which Berengarius did find fault with to witâ— that after consecration the bread was essentially conuerted into the body of Christ and the wine into his bloud Transubstantiation then was not first hatched at the tyme he speaketh of when as it was oppugned and defended many a faire yeare before that is about the year of Christ one thousand and three score as Bels deere brothers confesse An other brother of his one Perkins thoughâ— caste in a more precise moulde acknowledgeth Transubstantiation about fower hundred years before the time he mentioneth for speaking of the auncient fathers thus he writeth Et teneÌ„dum eos c. Rroblem verbo Realis presentia And it is to be houlden that they knewe not TransubstantiatioÌ„ at least for eight hundred yeares False it is that TraÌ„substantiation was not taught before as shall straight waies be iustified against Perkins but in the meane tyme the good reader hath to note how he giueth thely to Bell affirming Transubstantiation to haue bene about some fower hundred yeares before the time in which by Bels calculation it was first hatched The former Magdeburgians note S. Chrisostom and Centur. 5. 5. col 517. Theodoretus for teaching Transubstantiation Chrysostomus Transubstantiationem c. Chrysostom say they seemeth to confirme Transubstantiation for he writeth thus in his sermon of the Eucharist doest thou see bread doest thou see wine do they passe like other meates into the draught God forbidde doe not thinke so for euen as waxe putte into the fire is made like vnto it no substance therof remayneth nothing aboundeth euen so thinke here the mysteries to be consumed with the substance of the body and to this same effect they report straight after certayne words out of Theodoretus The same authors note how that S. Ambrose in his preparatiue praiers before the masse maketh mention of Transubstantiation and application for the liuinge and the dead True it is that they stile him only by the name of the author of the first praier preparatiue to Masse amongest S. Ambroses workes citing nothing els for prooffe but the censure of Erasmus as though the phantasticall and partiall affection of a moderne mutable man were an infallible rule to measure the fathers monuments Perkiâ— also very pertly censureth it for none of S. Ambrosâ— his workes but yet giueth a reason and that a pretty one ibi adoratio sacrameÌ„ti There quoth he is adoration of the sacrament Let such reasons as these runnâ— for sounde they are none of the fathers workeâ— because they are against vs and our doctrine and it will not be any difficulty at all to answear quickly whatsoeuer is produced out of antiquity yea or out of sacred scripture it self Did strong reason more preuaile then preconceipted fansy they would rather inferre thus adoration of the sacrament is allowed by S. Amhrose ergo it is no false superstitious or idolatrous doctrine Furthermore the same Lutheran historiographers reprehende Eusebius Emissenus who died in Contur 4. col 975. the time of Constantine as the same men report out of S. Hierom about Transubstantiation De caena Domini c. Concerning the supper of our Lord say they he spake nothing commodiously of Transubstantiation vpon the words of Christ vnlesse ye eat the fleshe of the sonne of man c. Behould a priest for euer according to the order of Melchisedech hath by his vnspeakable power turned bread and wine into the substance of his body and bloud Diuers other notable authorities might haue been alleadged but I made choise of these as being so playne that the mortall enemyes of Transubstantiation can not deny but that they make cleerly for that point and beside there