THE Catholique Triumph Conteyning A Reply to the pretensed Answere of B. C. a masked Iesuite lately published against the Tryall of the New Religion Wherein is euidently prooued that Poperie and the Doctrine now professed in the Romish Church is the New Religion And that the Fayth which the Church of England now mayntaineth is the ancient Romane Religion Psal. 22. v. 16. Dogges are come about mee and the councell of the wicked layeth siege against me Psal. 120. v. 3. What reward shall be giuen to thee thou false tongue euen mighty and sharpe arrowes with hot burning coales AT LONDON Printed for the companie of Stationers 1610. To the most reuerend Father my very good Lord TOBY the L. Archbyshop of Yorke his Grace Primate of England Fifteene yeares most reuerend Father are now fully expired since I first began to write against the professed aduersaries of the auncient Christian Catholike Apostolique and old Romane religion I meane the late Byshops of Rome the Romish Cardinals the Iesuites Iesuited Papistes and Gunpowder-popish-vassals In which space of time I haue published so many Bookes in defence of the Catholique Fayth as are in number correspondent to the yeares A very long time it was the argument in hand considered before I could any way extort any Answere to any of my Bookes Howbeit when the Iesuites after mature deliberation had seriously pondered with them-selues that through their long silence many Papistes did vtterly renounce Poperie and ioyfully embrace the Catholique Fayth this day sinceerely professed in our Church then they became so ashamed of their silence in that behalfe that in the yeare 1605. they published a litle Pamphlet tearming it The forerunner of Bels downefall wherein they auouched with brasen faces that they had written fiue Bookes fiue yeares afore that time against my Motiues and my Suruey of Poperie And least it should be obiected against them that it cannot be so seeing we can neither see them nor heare of them the Fore-runner telleth vs very grauely but to their endlesse shame that the Answere is suppressed and vpon iust occasion stayed from the publication Alasse alasse how are silly Papistes bewitched with the iugling and deceitfull dealing of these seducers They haue been buzzing about the answering of my two first Bookes as they them selues tell vs almost the space of sixe whole yeares and when after their great paines and labours of so many yeares they had framed the answere in the best manner they could deuise then they suppressed the same vpon iust occasiō as their Forerunner in their name telleth vs. What haue they bestowed fiue yeares in wryting fiue Bookes against two of my Bookes and dare not to this day publish any one of them Out vpon lying lippes Out vpon trayterous Iesuites and Iesuiticall deceyuers of the world The trueth is that there is no trueth in these men And it is an euident testimonie that they are not indeed able to answere for otherwise they would not for very shame haue protested so much in print and haue performed nothing lesse I am verily perswaded that they will neuer during my life which they wish to be short and therefore haue they prouided my Winding sheete and other indirect meanes to take away my life frame any full and direct Answere to the said Bookes because in trueth all the Iesuites in the Christian world are not able to performe it the trueth being so cleare forcible against them After the Fore-runner a pretensed Answere was published in the yeare 1606. against the Downe fall of Poperie For refutation of which silly Pamphlet I addressed my Booke intituled The Iesuites Antepast which seemeth to their daintie mouthes so vntouthsome that I deeme it will serue also for their Post-past as I had formerly published an other Reply intituled The Popes Funerall to the Fore-runner of the Downefall Now lately in the end of the yeare 1608. an other pretensed Answere a silly thing God wote was published against my Booke intituled The Tryall of the new religion This Pamphlet came to my handes in Nouember last at which time I was very ill in body and also distant aboue one hundred Myles from mine owne Librarie the want whereof at that time was farre more grieuous to me then were all my painefull infirmities of body In the midst of which whiles I am writing for the trueth I find no litle comfort The case so standing albeit your Grace was then aboue fourtie Myles from me yet did I presume to bemone my selfe vnto your Grace for the supply of my present want of Bookes with whom my suite found such intertainement as I neither did nor euer could expect Bookes indeed I expected but that your Grace should also send them to me vpon your owne charges most freely and Christianly offering to send me your whole Librarie which is indeed a Librarie most excellent if I shouldst and in need thereof it seemed to mee such an honorable sauour as that I could not now in duetie omit to make this publique acknowledgement thereof The Iesuites and Iesuited Gunpowder Papistes not able to endure the sound of my Tryall wherein Poperie was tearmed and prooued the New Religion haue suborned as it seemeth Robert Parsons that lewd companion and trayterous Fryer to publish that supposed Refutation the summe and substaunce whereof they had no doubt collected and framed to his handes His name he dareth not disclose least the great disgrace which can not but insue vpon that silly Answere should eternally cleaue vnto him as being one who not able to defend Poperie by honest and Christian-like proceeding bestirreth himselfe to effect the same by continuall forgerie by lying by coozenage and deceitfull dealing as in this Booke I shall make apparant Wherein what my selfe haue effected or rather God in mee let the iuditious and honest Reader iudge and for that which he findeth well done giue God the glorie Such as it is I dedicate vnto your Grace as vnto him who hath deserued my vttermost service The Almighty blesse your Grace with many happy yeares in this life and with eternall glory in the life to come Amen Iunij 3. 1609. Your Graces most bounden Thomas Bell. Briefe Instructions for the better vnderstanding of the Discourse following Instruction 1. THE Pope Cardinals Iesuites and all Papistes generally do beare the world in hand that the Church of Rome this day keepeth inuiolably that Fayth and Religion which S. Peter and S. Paul in their time planted there I hold and defende the negatiue proouing the same soundly and euidently throughout this whole Discourse Wee all agree in this that the Church of Rome had once the true auncient Christian catholique and apostolique Fayth which she receiued from S. Peter and S. Paul my selfe most willingly subscribing thereunto I neither impugne the old Romane religion nor reprooue the auncient Byshops there it is the Late vp-start-religion of the Romish Church that now is which I detest and write against in all
deteyned from them For while they gaue away their owne they vnawares and fondly deemed that they onely restored that which was not their owne in deed Instruction 8. The word Pope was not the proper and peculiar name to the Byshop of Rome for the space of 528. yeares after Christ. The Church of Rome was made the Head of all other Churches and the Byshops there the heads of all other Byshops by the imperiall constitution of Phocas 607. yeares after Christ. That the Pope could not erre iudicially was not authenticall in the Romish Church for 1500. yeares after Christ. That the Pope could vnmarrie persons lawfully married by Christes institution was neuer heard of in the Christian world vntill the yeare 1550. after Christ at which time Pope Iulius presumed to dissolue lawfull Matrimonie by his vnlawfull Dispensation It was neuer thought lawfull for the naturall Brother to marry his naturall Sister vntill the time of Pope Martin who by the instigation of the Diuell set the same abroach in the yeare 1418. after Christ. Popish Veniall sinnes were first hatched by Pope Pius 1566. yeares after Christ. That the Blood of popish Saints could worke mans redemptiō was neuer heard of for the space of 1161. yeares after Christ. The like may be sayd of many other Popish Articles for which I referre the Reader to my Tryall of the New Religion I deeme it enough for the present to insinuate to the Christian Reader that our Church hath onely abolished Superstition Errours and Heresies by litle and litle crept into the Church and doth still keepe all and euery iot of the Old Romane Fayth and Religion The Capucheenes at Rome did the like when they euen with the Popes good liking reformed the dissolute Franciscans Yea Pope Pius himselfe of late dayes did the like while he reformed the popish deformed missals and breuiaries in his late Councell gathered at Trent If hee that now is Byshop of Rome would reforme all the rest by abolishing all Nouelties by litle and litle brought into the Church as we haue done he should finde the remnant to be the Old Romane religion in verie deed Marke well the whole Discourse following where all this is soundly prooued as more cannot be wished The Contentes of the Chapters Chapter 1. Proouing THat the name and worde Pope was in the primatiue Church common to all Byshops aswell of Rome as else where That the Byshop of Rome neither is nor ought to be nor euer was called The vniuersall Byshop of the whole Church That the name Pope was not peculiar to the Bishops of Rome for more then 528. yeares after Christ. That the Iesuite volens nolens is enforced to graunt the same Chapter 2. Proouing That the Pope may not be controulled though he carry with him thousands vpon thousands into Hell That it is Sacriledge to dispute of the Popes power That the Pope with his Pardons can deliuer all soules out of Purgatory-fire That the Pope can dissolue that Matrimonie which is firme and stable by Christes institution That the Pope can dispense with the Brother to marrie his owne naturall Sister That the Pope hath as great power as Christ himselfe had on earth That the Pope may doe whatsoeuer pleaseth him That the Pope can make of nothing something That the counterfeit Donation of Constantine was the originall of all Popish superroyall power That whatsoeuer the Emperours of latter time gaue to the Church of Rome they were induced to do the same by the coozening trickes of the Byshops of Rome That the Popes Sozimus Bonefacius and Celestine falsified the Canons of the Nicene Councell so to aduance them-selues aboue all other Byshops That no Byshops nor Priestes ought to appeale to the Church of Rome That the Councell of Nice gaue the primacie of honour to the Church of Rome because it was the Seat of the Emperour and Caput Mundi That all Christians euen the Byshops of Rome are subiect to the Canons of the Nicene Councell That the Nicene Synode did confine and knit the iurisdiction of the Byshop of Rome Chapter 3. Proouing That Marriage of Priestes was euer lawfull during the time of the old Testament That the Marriage of Priestes is prohibited onely by the law of Man and not by any positiue constitution either of Christ or his Apostles That it was euer lawfull for the Byshops and Priestes of the East-church to marry and to beget children in time of their Priesthood That the Marriage of Priestes was euer lawfull also in the West-church vntill the time of Pope Siricius and in Germanie for the space of 1074. yeares after Christ. That all secular Priestes may Marry notwithstanding the Popish solemne Vow annexed That by Popish fayth and doctrine Marriage is of force after the single Vow of chastitie That the Vow single is of one and the same nature with the Vow solemne That the Marriage of Priestes is lawfull after the solemne Vow so it be done by the Popes Dispensation That the forced and coacted Chastitie of Priestes hath been so intollerable as nothing hath brought more shame to Priesthood more shame to Religion more griefe to godly men Chapter 4. Proouing That popish Pardons are neither found in the holy Scripture nor in the auncient Fathers That the popish Maister of sentences could finde no mention of them in the writinges of the holy Fathers That Byshoppe Fisher graunted the young age of late popish Pardons That the best learned Papistes are not able to defend the same Chapter 5. Proouing That the Greeke Church neuer beleeued Purgatorie That the Church of Rome beleeued it not for the space of 250. yeares That the Church of Rome beleeued it not all at once but by litle and litle That the inuention of Purgatorie was the birth of popish Pardons That the primatiue Church was neuer acquainted with the Popes Pardons nor yet with popish Purgatorie Chapter 6. Proouing That popish Auricular confession cannot be prooued out of the Old Testament That the New Testament doth not impose an heauier yoake vpon vs then did the Old That popish Auricular confession is not necessarie for mans saluation That it is neither commaunded by Christ nor yet by his Apostles That it is established by the meere law of man grounded only vpon a falsely imagined Apostolicall vnwritten tradition That it was not an Article of popish Fayth for the space of 1215. yeares after Christ. Chapter 7. Proouing That euery Sinne is Mortall of it owne nature That fiue famous popish Writers Roffensis Almaynus Bains Durandus Gersonus doe all confesse the same That the Jesuite S. R. graunteth freely that the Church of Rome had not defined some Sinnes to be Veniall vntill the dayes of Pius the fift which was not fiftie yeares agoe Chapter 8. Proouing That the Pope may erre both in Fayth and Doctrine iudicially That many Popes haue erred De facto That great learned Papistes did constantly confesse so
Byshoppe which hee was bold to present to the Popes Holynesse where it found kind acceptation and therefore is and must be authenticall though it giue our Holy Father a deadly blow Out of which learned Discourse I obserue these worthy Lessons First that euery Veniall sinne is against right reason Secondly that euery Veniall sinne is the transgression of some Law Thirdly that to doe any thing against right reason is to doe against the law of Nature Fourthly that the law of Nature commaundeth not to decline from the rule of right reason Fiftly that the temporall rule with which the goodnesse of our actions is measured is the right reason of our vnderstanding which is giuen to euery one in his creation birth or natiuitie Sixtly that the eternal rule with which the goodnesse of our actions ought to be measured is the Will of God Seuenthly that therefore our thoughtes wordes and workes are against right reason because they are against the Will of God which is the law Eternall Which Obseruations if they be duely pondered doe euidently prooue and plainely conuince that euery Sinne is Mortall of it owne nature Fiftly because euery one is accursed which keepeth not euery iote of the Law Sixtly because Christes blessed Apostle S. Iames telleth vs plainely That whosoeuer shall keepe the whole Law and but offende in any one precept is guiltie of all Seuenthly because God will destroy all manner of Liers and all workers of Iniquitie Odisti omnes qui operantur iniquitatem perdes omnes qui loquuntur Mendacium Thou hatest all workers of Iniquitie thou wilt destroy euery one that is a Lyer Thus saith the holy Prophet of God in the spirit and person of God Out of which wordes I obserue two poyntes of great consequence First that where all are comprised there not one among all is excepted and consequently the sacred Text is to be vnderstood euen of euery least Sinner and of euery least Lyer Secondly that where Destruction is for Punishment inflicted there Gods Law doubtles is transgressed and so is euery Popish Veniall sinne against the Law Eightly because Christ himselfe teacheth vs That besides the Law against the Law is all one in rei veritate in the trueth of the matter Qui non est mecum contramâ— est et qui non congregat mecuÌ„ spargit He saith our Maister Christ that is not with mee is against mee and hee that gathereth not with mee scattereth Ninthly because Durandus a famous and learned Popish Writer confuteth the fondly inuented distinction of their Popish Canonized Saint Aquinas which the Pope and his Jesuites hold for the maintenaunce of late start-vp Poperie to weete that Veniall sinnes are praeter Legem non contra Besides the Law but not against the Law These are the expresse wordes of Durandus Ad argumentum dicendum quod omne peccatum est contra Legem Dei naturalem vel inspiratam vel ab eis deriuatam To the Argument answere must be made that euery Sinne is against the Law of God either naturall or inspired or deriued from them And this opinion of M. Durand is this day commonly defended in the Schooles So doth Fryer Ioseph tell our holy Father the Pope these are his wordes D. Thomas et eius sectatores tenent peccatum Veniale non tem esse contra Legem quaÌ„ praeter Legem Sequitur Durandus tamen et alij permulti hanc sententiaÌ„ impugnant affirmantes peccata venialia esse contra mandata Et haec opinio modo in scholis videtur coÌ„munion S. Thomas and his followers hold that a Veniall sinne is not so much against the Law as besides the Law But Durand and very many others impugne this opinion auouching Veniall sinnes to be against the commaundementes And this opinion seemeth now adayes to be more common in the Schooles Heere I wish the reader to note by the way out of the word modo now adayes the mutabilitie of late start-vp Romish religion as also the dissentioÌ„ of popish Schoole-doctors in the misteries of their fayth and Doctrine For in that their Byshoppe the Fryer sayth modo now adayes he giueth vs to vnderstand that their Romish Doctrine is now otherwise then it was of old time and in former ages And in that he telleth vs of the great dissension amongest their Doctors he very emphatically layeth open to the Reader the vncertainty of Romish fayth and Religion For doubtlesse if their tyrannicall Inquisition and the dayly feare of Fire and Faggot were taken out of the way the Popes ridiculous and plaine Heathenish Excommunications with his Decrees and Definitions in matters of Fayth would be of small account and troden vnder foote This is a most worthy Note and must be well remembred For the Old Romane religion was Catholique pure and found and with it doe not I contend I onely impugne the late start-vp Romish Fayth and Doctrine which the Pope and his Romish Schoolemen haue brought into the Church Tenthly because Vega a great Learned Papist very famous in the Church of Rome doth not onely teach euery Veniall sinne to be against the Law but withall he constantly affirmeth that therefore none lyuing can possibly keepe the whole Law at once For albeit hee hold that euery part of the Law may be kept at some time yet doth he constantly denie that the whole 〈◊〉 kept at once because one partiâ—â—â—â—â— broken with Popish Venials against the Law while an other is kept The third Conclusion Albeit euery Sinne be Mortall of it owne nature yet are not all sinnes equall and alike but one greater then an other I prooue it first because our Lord Iesus doth distinguish the degrees of Sinnes while he affirmeth him that is angrie with his brother to be guiltie of Iudgement him that sayth to his brother Raca to be guiltie of a Councell him that calleth his brother Foole to be guiltie of Hel-fire Secondly because the holy Ghospell telleth vs that the Sinnes of the Sodomites and of the Gomorrhaeans shal be punished more remissely in the day of Iudgement then the sinnes of those Citizens who would not receiue the Apostles nor hearken to their preaching Thirdly because Tyrus and Sidon shall be more remissely dealt withall in iudgement then Corozain and Bethsaida The case is cleare I need not stand about it For euery Child can tell vs that it is a greater Mortall sinne to steale a goodly Gelding or a great fatte Oxe then it is to steale a fatte Calfe or a fatte Hogge Yea a greater sinne to kill a Man then to eate an Egge in Lent though Popish inflicted punishment doth not euer so insinuate But hereof more at large when I come to speake of Popish Lent The fourth Conclusion Veniall sinnes of their owne nature are against Charitie and doe breake friendshippe and amitie with God I prooue this Conclusion against the Pope his Iesuites and all Jesuiâ—ed Popelinges whether in England
Christ prayed for the Fayth of S. Peter and his successours that it should neuer fayle that Hel-gates should neuer preuaile against it Yet heere God be thanked for it their pride is somewhat abated Christ is now either distrusted of them which they dare not say or at least suspected not to haue promised to the Byshops of Rome that their Fayth should not fayle For if they beleeue not that Christ is faythfull in all his Promises they are flat Heretiques If they beleeue him to performe what hee hath promised then it must perforce either be with them an Article of popish Fayth that the Pope as Pope can not erre or else doubtlesse that Christ made no such Promise to the Byshops of Rome Vtrum â—orum manis accipe good sir Fryer for the better of them is able to giue the Pope his dinner For which respect S. R. that learned Iesuite as his deare brother B. C. calleth him telleth vs roundly that false Fayth can haue no accesse to S. Peters Chaire For which respect the same Jesuite telleth vs in an other place That wee must obey what hee decreeth or defineth iudicially as sitting in S. Peters Chaire though in heart he were an Heretique For which respect the same Iesuite telleth vs in his wordes following That Byshops must not examine the Doctrine which the Pope deliuereth iudicially out of S. Peters Chaire as supreame Pastor of Gods Church but onely that wherein he vttereth his owne priuate opinion Thus writeth S. R. that great Learned Jesuite truly telling vs the Popish Fayth Which Doctrine if any but a Papist had deliuered it few or none would haue giuen credite thereunto O sweete Iesus I woonder how any Papist hearing such Doctrine published in print by the Jesuites so deare and so neare to the Pope himselfe and duely pondering the vanitie thereof and the blasphemie therein conteyned can still be a Papist and not defie the Pope and his damnable Doctrine What shall we doe with the holy Scripture Is it the infallible rule of Fayth Is it superiour to the Popes Iudiciall sentence Must the Papistes depend vpon it rather then vpon the Popes Decree No no if the Pope define against it his Decree must be obeyed neither may any Byshop as our Fryer heere teacheth vs much lesse may euery Priuate man examine the same or once call it into question Of which more at large when I come to the Oath which Byshops make to the Pope Thirdly that when I say this Popish Article of Fayth was neuer heard of in the Church for the space of a thousand and fiue hundred yeares I meane not of bare vocall hearing but of hearing with approbation of which hearing this Text of the holy Ghospell is emphaticall Scimus quia peccatores Deus non audit Wee know that God heareth not sinners that is Approoueth not sinners in graunting their requestes For God knoweth seeth and heareth all Petitions vocally but theirs onely with approbation Which aske according to his will The Psalmograph vseth the like phrase in these wordes They shall cry but there shall be none to helpe them yea euen vnto the Lord shall they cry but he shall not heare them The Prophet Micheas doth second the Psalmograph in these wordes Then shall they cry vnto the Lord and he shall not heare them The Prophet Zacharie is consonant in these wordes Sic clamabunt et non exaudiam dicit Dominus exercituum So shall they cry and I will not heare them sayth the Lord of Hostes. All which places and the like must perforce be vnderstood not of bare vocall hearing but of hearing with approbation Which kind of hearing my selfe did plainly insinuate to the Reader when in my words following I excepted the Iesuites and Iesuited Papistes For if I had meant of bare vocall hearing I neither would nor truely could haue excepted the Iesuites whom I graunt to haue heard it both vocally with approbatioÌ„ Fourthly wheÌ„ our Fryer obiecteth ridiculously that Aquinas Antoninus Waldensis and Turrecremata taught the same Doctrine within 1500. yeares I answere thus first that Canus denieth Waldensis to hold that opinion Secondly that the vse of holy Writ is to speake of many as all and of few as none Which synecdochicall speach very frequent in the holy Scriptures were sufficient if need required as it doth not to iustifie my manner of speaking in this behalfe Thirdly that if I should admit so much as our sir Fryer desireth yet would it follow of necessitie that Poperie is the New Religion For we see heere as clearely as the Sunne shyning at noone day that this Popish Article the Pope as Pope can not erre was hatched a thousand two hundred and fourtie yeares after Christ. For the most auncient Father thereof which our Iesuite possibly is able to name is Aquinas as we haue seene who for al that liued more then 1240. yeares after Christ. To which I adde that the Church as the famous Papistes Panormitanus and Gersonus teach vs is either the Congregation of the faythfull or a generall Councell sufficiently representing the same This being so and my reasons duely pondered it is very cleare and euident that this Popish Article of Fayth was neuer heard of in the Church that is approoued of the Church for the space of 1240. yeares after Christ. For doubtlesse the approbation of Aquinas Antoninus and Turrecremata the Popes flattering Parasites can not establish the Religion and Fayth of the Church of Rome If our Iesuite dare say it let him publish it in print and then expect my Commentarie vpon the same See and note well the 29. and the 30. Chapters as also the Christian Dialogue page 24.27.30.38.41.60.63.65 B. C. One maine Lye with a prettie tricke of lieger-demaine For he is to prooue out of Alphonsus that the Pope might erre in Fayth iudicially for that is the question as appeareth in the Premisses and that this Article was neuer heard of 1500. yeares and yet in the foresayd wordes of Alphonsus no such thing is conteyned seeing he speaketh in them not of his iudiciall Decrees but of priuate Errours which may befall him in the exposition of the Scriptures and that Alphonsus must needes meane of his priuate opinions in writing or otherwise and not of his definitiue sentence is certaine For otherwise there be and were in his time that held the Pope could not be an Heretique iudicially or erre as Pope Much lesse doth Alphonsus say that it was neuer heard of for the space of 1500. yeares that the Pope could not erre in Fayth iudicially for of this poynt he hath not one word or syllable T. B. I answere thus first that I beleeue our Jesuite viz. while he telleth vs that his Pope may erre in expounding the holy Scriptures But withall I must needes tell him that his Pope may as truely erre in his iudiciall sentence The reason is euident
and place be correspondent thereunto I prooue it first because Christ himselfe saith That euery Tree which bringeth not foorth Good fruite shal be cut downe and cast into the fire Secondly because Christ sayth in an other place That whosoeuer loue him will keepe his Commaundementes Thirdly because S. Paul telleth vs in one place That God chose vs in Christ before the world was made that we should be holy in his sight And in an other place That we are Gods workmanship created in Christ Jesu vnto good workes which he hath prepared that we may walke in them The 5. Conclusion Good workes are the effectes of Predestination depending vpon it not it vpon them S. Paul prooueth it in these plaine golden and pithy wordes Whom he hath Predestinate them hath he Called and whom he hath Called them hath he Iustified and whom he hath Iustified those hath he also Glorified By this golden Chaine we may euidently perceiue that Glorification Iustification Vocation and consequently Good workes are the effectes of Predestination especially if we ioyne this with the other Conclusions afore going For if it be true as it is most true else th'Apostle should be a lyer that we were elected to be Holy and to doe Good workes it is also true it can not be denyed that Holy life and Good workes are the effectes of our Election and Predestination in Christ Iesus For this cause sayth that famous Papist Nicholaus de Lyra in this manner Dicendum quod predestinatio diuina est preparatio gratiae in presenti et gloriae in futuro Et ideo cum sit aeterna sicut ab aeterno predestinauit aliquem ad beatitudinem ita praeordinauit modum quo daret sibi illam beatitudinem I answere sayth this great learned Popish Doctor that Gods Predestination is the preparation of Grace in this world and of Glory in the world to come And therefore seeing it is Eternall as he hath predestinated any one from eternitie to endlesse Blisse or Beatitude so hath he also fore-ordayned the meane by which he would bring him to the same For this cause sayth the Popish Angelicall Doctor Aquinas whose doctrine sundry Popes haue confirmed for Authenticall that Predestination includeth Gods will of bestowing both Grace and Glorie And this Doctor so famous and authenticall addeth these wordes Nam predestinatio est causa et eius quod expectatur in futura vita a predestinatis scz gloriae et eius quod percipitur in presenti scz gratiae For Predestination is the cause both of that which is expected in the life to come that is to say of Glorie and also of that which the predestinate receiue in this life that is to say of Grace For this cause saith our Jesuiticall Cardinall Bellarminus that Good workes follow Predestination as effectes follow their causes These are his expresse wordes Itaque sunt opera bona effectus Predestinationis Therefore Good workes are the effect of Predestination Againe in other place the same Jesuite hath these wordes Itaque illa propositio Deus ab aeterno predestinauit hominibus dare regnum per opera bona praeuisa potest et vera esse et falsa Nam si illud per opera praeuisa referatur ad verbum predestinauit falsa erit Significabit enim Deum predestinasse homines quia opera illorum bona praeuiderat si referatur ad verbum dare vera erit Quia significabit executionem futuram esse per opera bona siue quod est idem glorificationem effectum esse iustificationis et operum bonorum sicut ipsa iustificatio effectus est vocationis et vocatio praedestinationis Therefore that proposition God fore-ordayned from eternitie to giue to men the Kingdome of heauen by their fore-seene Workes may both be true and false For if those wordes by their workes fore-seene be referred to the word Predestinauâ—t hee predestinated or fore-ordayned the sense and meaning is false For it will signifie God to haue Predestinated Men because he fore-saw their Good workes but if the same wordes be referred to the worde Dare to giue and bestow the sense and meaning will be true For it will signifie that the execution must be done by Good works or which is all one that Glorification is the effect of Iustification and Good workes euen as Iustification is the effect of Vocation and Vocation the effect of Predestination Againe in an othor place hee hath these wordes Non ideo pendet praedestinatio ab operibus sed opera a praedestinatione Therefore Predestination doth not depend of Workes but Workes depend of Predestination Againe in an other place he sayth thus Alia ratio est pradestinationis alia executionis Constituit N. in praedestinatione regnum caelorum dare certis hominihus quos absque vlla operum praeuisione dilexit tamen simul constituit vt quo ad executionem via perueniendi ad regnum essent bona opera There is one reason of Predestination an other of Execution For in Predestination God decreed to giue the Kingdome of Heauen to certaine men whom he loued without any fore-sight of Workes howbeit he decreed withall that in respect of the execution Good workes should be the way to come vnto the same For this cause doe our Râ—emistes tell vs that our first Iustification is of Gods Grace and not of our deseruinges because none of all our actions that were before our Iustification could merit or iustly procure the Grace of iustification Thus discourse these famous and great learned Popish Writers to whose Doctrine I subscribe with all my heart For as I haue often sayd else where I highly reuerence the Old Romane religion and to the vttermost of my small talent skill I both haue done doe and will defende the same Yea and iustifie the Doctrine of the Church of England to be the Old Romane Catholike and Apostolike religion which S Peter and S. Paul deliuered to the auncient and first Church of Rome Out of the Doctrine heere deliuered by these famous Papistes Lyranus Aquinas and Bellarminus I gather many excellent Notes First that the Grace Fayth and Good workes which we haue in this world and the Glory which we expect in the world to come doe all wholly proceed from Gods Predestination euen without all desertes of Man Secondly that as God prepared the Kingdome of heauen for his Elect euen before they were borne or had done any Good workes so did he also prepare the way and meanes by which he would bring them to the same Thirdly that no Workes done or fore-seene to be done did mooue God to predestinate any man to the ioyes of Heauen Fourthly that Good workes are not the Cause but the Effect of Predestination Fiftly that Good workes are the way and meanes which God ordayned for the execution of Predestination and for the accomplishment of Glorification Sixtly that not onely Predestination but also Iustification proceedes of
God Wherefore he requireth Gods Promise to be added to mans Merite as Aquinas Durandus and Angles had done before him In one place he hath these expresse wordes At vt bono operi debeatur merces ex iustitia conuentio vel promissio necessaria est Non enim tenetur vnus alterius obsequium acceptare nisi conuentio interuenerit Deus autem non promisit mercedem vitae aeternae nisi per Christi gratiam regeneratis et adoptatis But that reward be due of iustice to good Workes a couenant or promise is necessarie For one is not bound to accept the seruice of another vnlesse there be a couenant But God promised not the reward of eternall life saue onely to the regenerate through the grace of God In an other place he hath these words Sed facilis est responsio Nam dicitur Deus reddere debita nulli debens quia nihil vlli debet absolutè sed solum ex promissione dono suo Pari ratione dicimus Deo reade quia promisisti non dicimus redde quia accepisti quoniam fundamentum primum debiti diuini non in opere nostro sed in eius promissione consistit But the answere is easie For God is said to pay debts though he be debtor to none because he oweth nothing to any absolutely but onely in respect of his promise and free gift In like manner wee say to God giue because thou hast promised We say not giue because thou hast receiued Because the chiefe foundation of Gods debt doth not consist in our worke but in his Promise freely made vnto vs. In an other place he hath these wordes Primum igitur opera iustorum remoto pacto vel promissione non esse meritoria vitae aeternae ex condigno siue ex iustitia ita vt non possit Deus sine iniustitia talē negare mercedem satis probatum est scriptura siquidem patres vbicunque dicunt Deum fidelem esse iustum in reddendo praemio semper aut ferè semper mentionem faciunt promissionis First it is prooued sufficiently that the workes of the iust Gods couenant and promise set apart are not meritorious of eternall life condignely and iustly so as God can not deny such reward without iniustice For the Scripture and the fathers whensoeuer they say God is faithfull and iust in rendring reward do euer or almost euer make mention of his promise Thus writeth Cardinal Bellarmine that famous Iesuited Fryer Out of whose doctrine I obserue many worthy Lessons to the confusion of the Pope and all his Popish vassals First that Gods promise is so necessarie to attaine reward that without it no reward can iustly be required Secondly that no reward is due to any but onely to the regenerate Thirdly that the reward is not promised for any merit in mans worke but for Christs sake and merit Fourthly that man can require nothing of God absolutely but onely for his couenant and promise sake Fiftly that God is no mans debtour absolutely but onely by reason of his free gift and promise made to man Sixtly that the chiefe foundation of Gods debt consisteth in Gods free gift and promise made to man Seuenthly that the workes of the best liuers doe not merit eternall life iustly and condignely but onely by reason of Gods couenant and promise Eightly that both the Scripture and the Fathers do either euer or almost euer make mention of gods promise wheresoeuer they tell vs that God is faithfull and iust in rewarding mans workes Much more I could say out of Bellarmine but this is sufficient to euery indifferent Reader The 12. Conclusion Condigne merite of Workes was not an Article of popish faith for more then a thousand fiue hundred and fourtie yeares after Christ. And consequently it must needs bee a rotten ragge of the new Religion as which was hatched so long after the old Roman Catholique Apostolike religion The proofe of this Conclusion is at hand because the late popish Councell of Trent made it an Article of popish Faith accursing condemning to hell all such as deny or not beleeue the condigne merit of mans works The Iesuit S. R. in his pretensed answere to the Downfall of Poperie had no other shift in the world to saue the credite of their Councel and as it were to hide the nakednesse of that vnchristian and plaine diabolical course but to denie the councel to haue decreed cōdigne merite to be an Article of Popish faith For saith hee the Councell hath no word of condigne merit but onely of true merit And after he hath cited the words of the Councell he addeth these of his owne Here are good works defined to be true merite of Glory without determining whether they be condigne merite thereof or no. Thus saith our Iesuite shewing himselfe to be either too too malicious or else a very noddie For to merite truely and condignely is all one Otherwise our Iesuite must tell vs which is vnpossible to be done how one can merite a thing truely and for all that not worthily and condignely deserue the same Well we haue it freely granted because it can not be denied that the Councell of Trent defined true merite but not condigne merite of workes to bee an Article of popish faith And consequently the Iesuite must volens nolens confesse that the Councell defined condigne merit vnder the name of true merite For better confirmation whereof I will adde a testimonie that woundeth the Iesuite at the heart and is indeed incurable It is the Iesuites owne sword which he hath put into my hands to kil him as one wearie of his life because Poperie is prooued the new Religion These are his owne expresse words I neither adde nor take any word syllable or iote away as I desire to be saued Because as I thinke saith our Iesuit onely condigne merite is true merite O sweete Iesus O heauen O earth O all Saints in heauen and all creatures on earth be ye this day iudges betweene the Iesuites and mee The Iesuite denieth the Councell to define condigne merite but graunteth it to define true merite This done O wonderment of the world the same Iesuite within two leaues next following as a madde man bereeued of his wits and senses constantly affirmeth onely condigne merit to be true merit but doubtles if onely condigne merit marke well my words for Christs sake be true merite as the Iesuite truely writeth against himselfe his Pope and Councell and withall if the Councell defined true merit as the Iesuite likewise truely granteth and my selfe affirme it followeth of necessitie that the same Councell defined condigne merit equiualently and Poperie to be the new Religion The truth Gods name be blessed for it must needes in time preuaile now sir Fryer let vs heare your goodly sermon B. C. Bell denieth the Fathers to haue ascribed any Merite to Good workes proceeding from Grace for any dignitie or
can possibly be alleadged or produced out of the holy Fathers concerning this Subiect now in hand To this Booke in the third part and tenth Chapter I referre the Reader for his full satisfaction in this behalfe Secondly that aswell the thing it selfe as the name was first hatched in the Councell of Lateran For no Text in the Law of Moses no Sentence in the Prophets no Word in the Psalmes no Affirmation out of the Ghospell no Testimonie out of the Epistles of the Apostles no Verdict out of the holy Fathers no specialtie out of the auncient Councels can now or euer be found extant which once maketh mention either of Transubstantiation or of accidentes without subiectes Thirdly that this Popish fondly imagined Transubstantiation is farre different from that Reall presence with which the Pope and his Romish Synode most cruelly assayled Berengarius That Reall presence though most absurd as I haue prooued demonstratiuely in the Iesuites Antepast may well stand with Consubstantiation and nothing at all change the substaunce of Bread For it is a Popish foundation though foolish and ridiculous as is prooued in my Suruey that two Bodyes may be in one place at once This Transubstantiation sendeth the substance of Bread neither my selfe nor yet the Papistes can tell whither That Reall presence altereth not Christes Body but this Transubstantiation changeth the substaunce of Bread into Christes Body That Reall presence causeth not accidentes without subiectes but this Transubstantiation inferreth Miracles vpon Miracles aboue ten thousand times a day Popish Reall presence is one thing of which I dispute not in my Tryall Popish Transubstantiation is an other thing which is the subiect now in hand Fourthly that the Papistes them-selues doe not know what to thinke or say of their lately inuented Transubstantiation Durand as I haue prooued in the Downefall of Poperie affirmeth constantly that onely the forme of Bread is changed and that the matter of Bread remaineth still in the Eucharist Rupertus the Popish Abbot holdeth that the Bread is vnited Hypostatically to the Sonne of God Cardinall Caietanus Henricus and Capreolus are of an other different opinion Iohannes Parisionsis held also that the Bread was assumpted but in a different manner from the opinion of Rupertus An other opinion yet remaineth which affirmeth the Annihilation of the Bread Yet Cardinall Bellarmine holdeth with the Councell of Trent for hee that at Rome holdeth otherwise must be burnt that the Bread is transubstantiated into the Body of Christ. What Childe in the fyre would not come foorth to heare this harmonie Will yee heare what the learned Fryer S.R. sayth to this discordant melodie these are his expresse wordes in his pretensed Answere to the Downefall of Poperie The first Contradiction which this contradictions fellow findeth in the Masse is that Durand Caietan and foure Catholiques more before the Councell of Trent did otherwise explicate the manner of Christes Reall presence in the Eucharist then was trueth and since the Church hath defined and explicated in the sayd Councell Thus answereth S.R. that Learned man as B.C. his brother calleth him By whose learned Assertion we are giuen to vnderstand that Transubstantiation was not an Article of Popish sayth vndoubtedly vntill the late Popish Councell of Trent that is 1547. yeares after Christ. The Eleuenth Chapter of Popish Inuocation of Sainctes B. C. TV per Thomae sanguinem c. By the blood of Thomas which hee for thee did spend bring vs thyther ô Christ whyther Thomas did ascend I vtterly deny that any of these wordes or altogeather make Thomas a Mediator of Redemption or doe prooue that wee inuocate him as the Sonne of the liuing God and the onely Sauiour of the World T. B. I answere that this Popish manner of Praying prooueth euidently that Thomas Becket is to the Papistes a Mediator not onely of Intercession but also of Redemption I prooue it by sundry meanes and irrefragable reasons First because there is no Saluation in any but in Iesus Christ neither any other Name vnder Heauen whereby we must be saued Secondly for that the auncient Catholique Church hath euer desired Remission of sinnes of God the Father for and through Iesus Christ his onely Sonne and our onely Sauiour Thirdly because onely the Blood of Iesus Christ not the Blood of any other is able to bring vs to Heauen Fourthly because Iesus Christ with his owne Blood not the Blood of others hath perfectly accomplished the saluation of his Elect and that hath he done once for all Fiftly because an Angell came downe from Heauen and imposed the name Iesus vpon the Sonne of God yeelding this reason thereof for that he should saue Gods people from their sinnes Sixtly because all the workes of God are perfect Which for all that could not be so if Beckets Blood be a cause of our going to Heauen Seuenthly because all Gods Children are rewarded farre aboue their condigne desertes as I haue foundly and plentifully prooued in the Conclusions of the ninth Chapter immediately aforegoing Eightly because S. Austen affirmeth constantly that the best liuer vpon earth shall perish euerlastingly if he find not Mercie farre aboue his Desertes But doubtlesse hee that is rewarded aboue his Desertes and standeth in need of Mercie for his owne Sinnes that mans Blood is not a fit cause or meane to bring others vnto Heauen B. C. The Pope and many thousandes more vse the Romane Breuiarie Missall in neither of which any such Prayer is conteyned and as I suppose it is not found but in those of Sarum vse which be now antiquated and out of date T. B. I answere first that our Jesuite now beginneth to tell vs wonders euen the mutabilitie of Romish Fayth and Religion of which I disputed in the Chapter of Veniall sinnes Secondly that as the Pope hath reformed the Romish Fayth and Religion in this and some other poyntes euen so hath our English Church abolished all Popish errours and superstition whereby wee are the true Reformed Catholiques in very deed For as your Capuchones are the true reformed Franciscanes at Rome so are wee the true reformed Catholiques in England B. C. An vntrueth it is that Saintes merites are ioynt purchasers of saluation with Christes blood if he meane that the Merites of Christ and his Saintes doe alike availe to saluation T. B. I answere first that our Jesuite not able to defend Poperie nor to answere the reasons by mee produced doth highly blaspheame Christ and the sacred Merites of his most precious Blood For as we see hee absurdly and most impiously auoucheth that the Merites of Saintes may be ioynt purchasers of saluation with Christes most sacred Blood so it be not in the same degree Let his wordes be well marked for they import as much as I do say O monstrum horrendum What blasphemie what impietie what crueltie what infidelitie is diabolically implyed in rotten Poperie You were not saith
litle children the consonant sound reboundeth as it were an eccho with the surges of the Sea Iustinus Martyr hath these wordes Sub haec consurgimus communiter omnes et praecationes profundimus et sicuti retulimus praecibus peractis panis offertur et vinum et aqua Et praepositus itidem quantum pro virili sua potest praeces et gratiarum actiones fundit et populus faustè acclamat dicens Amen These thinges being done wee all arise togeather and make our Prayers and after our Prayers the Bread is offered with Wine and Water and the Minister as he is able prayeth and giueth thankes and the people with ioyfull acclamation say Amen Philo a very auncient and learned Writer awong the Iewes sheweth this old practise of our Christian Church in these wordes Quae omnia supra dictus vir eo ordine eademque consequentia qua apud nos geruntur expressit Et vt vnus ex omnibus consurgens in medio Psalmū honestis modulis concinat vtque praecinenti ei vnum versiculum omnis multitudo respondeat All which the aforenamed man he speaketh of Philo the Jew related in the same order and consequence in which our selues doe them And that one among all rising vp in the middest sing a Psalme with tunable voyce and that so soone as he hath sung one Verse all the people answere him S. Chrysostome speaketh so plainely of the peoples praying togeather with the Priest that euē in the time of the Liturgis or Masse as none doubtlesse that either read or heare his wordes can stand any longer in doubt thereof These are his expresse wordes In eisdem iterum horrendis mysterijs bene precatur Sacerdos populo et bene precatur populus Sacerdoti Nam cum spiritu tuo nihil aliud est quam hoc Ea quae sunt Eucharistiae id est gratiarum actionis communiae sunt omnia neque ille solus gratias agit sed etiam omnis populus prius N. accepta illorum voce deinde congregatis illis vt dignè et iustè hoc faciat incipit Eucharistiā Et quid miraris si populus cum Sacerdote loquitur In these dreadfull mysteries the Priest wisheth well to the people and the people desire Gods mercie to the Priest For these wordes with thy spirit haue no other meaning The thinges that pertaine to the Eucharist that is to the giuing of thankes are common to them all for he onely giueth not thankes but all the people also with him For he first receiueth their voyce after that they being gathered togeather that he may doe this reuerently and well he beginneth the Communion And what maruell is it to thee if the people pray with the Priest S. Cyprian testifieth the same practise to haue been vsuall in his time alleadging the very wordes that the common people answered to the Priest Thus doth he write in expresse tearmes Ideo et Sacerdos ante orationem praefatione praemissa parat fratrum mentes dicendo sursum corda vt dum respondet plebs habemus ad Dominum admoneatur nihil aliud se quam Dominum cogitare debere Therefore the Priest after the Preface before the Prayer prepareth the mindes of the brethren saying Lift vp your heartes that while the common people answere wee lift them vp vnto the Lord they may be instructed to thinke vpon no other thing but the Lord. What need is there to stand vpon this poynt any longer Sozomenus sheweth plainely in his Historie that in his time which was more then 400. yeares after Christ the people and the Clergie did sing Psalmes in the Church togeather So S. Hierome testifieth of the Church of Rome that in his time the people sounded out Amen with such an eccho as if it had been with an heauenly Thunder Nicolaus Lyranus that great learned popish Doctor in his Commentaries vpon S. Paul to the Corinthians affirmeth to his Readers very constantly that in the Primatiue Church both the Prayers and all other thinges were in the Vulgar tongue Yea S. Basil sayth that in his time all the people sang Psalmes togeather in the Church And he addeth therevnto that it was the custome of all Churches so to doe By these Testimonies it is cleare and euident that in the Primatiue Church and many yeares after the Church seruice was euerywhere in the Vulgar tongue S. Gregorie sometime Byshoppe of Rome himselfe reporteth the vsuall practise of the Greeke Church which he approoueth to haue been as we haue already heard out of S. Chrysostome and other famous Greeke Writers And that which our Fryer sayth of the same Gregorie is too too childish ridiculous as it is euident by that which is already said shall God willing be yet more euident before the end of this discourse Our Iesuite heere by way of a digression more then extrauagant giueth a very short but too too sweete an admonition In which he pleaseth himselfe more then a litle with his old doting foolerie and rusty rotten Poperie He telleth his Readers whom he would gladly perswade to giue credite to his wordes that our Ceremonies are pild patches of Protestanisme rusty ragges of the Reformed Congregation and withall forsooth that our Communion Booke it selfe was neuer heard of in the whole world till the late dayes of King Edward the sixt My answere to this extrauagant and foolish admonition I purpose in God to set downe in the last Chapter of this Discourse My reason hereof is this My scope intent and purpose in this present Booke is bipartite or two folde viz. to prooue soundly and plainely to lay open to all iudicious honest and indifferent Readers that the Religion Fayth and Doctrine of the late Byshoppes Church of Rome is indeed the New religion by litle and litle crept into the Church and distinctly to name the time when and the Authors by whom euery materiall poynt Article of the new Romish Fayth and Religion did first begin as also to prooue soundly and clearely that the Fayth and Doctrine this day established in the Church of England is Catholique Apostolicall and the Old Romane religion For which respect I haue thought it meete and conuenient first to accomplish and finish the former member in proouing Poperie the New Religion And that done to prooue the Doctrine and Fayth of our English Church to be the Old Religion Which to performe as is sayd I haue steadfast confidence in my mercifull GOD all sufficient who woonderfully preseruing me from many dangers almost ineffable seemeth to haue reserued me to that end and purpose God make me thankfull and euer to referre all that I well doe to his most holy name Non nobis Domine non nobis sed nomini tuo da gloriam Thou ô God who hast chosen the foolish things of this world to confound the wise and the weake thinges to confound the mightie things thou who by
quoniam est pars satisfactionis aliter enim Ecclesia deciperet paenitenies Such a Fast he speaketh of the Fastes which Priestes enioyne is sacramentally really and properly satisfactorie The reason is because it is a part of satisfaction for otherwise the Church should deceiue the Penitentes In an other place the same Iosephus Angles hath these expresse wordes Ieiunium quadragesimale eo modo quo ab Ecclesia seruatur nes suit a Christo institutum neque ab eo iussum sed ab hominibus atque ita non est de iure diuino sed humano duntaxat Christus enim nec tempus talis ieiunij nec modum neque cibos instituit Statim enim post Baptismum in desertum secessit et illic ieiunauit Christus nullum diem a ieiunio excepit in illo quadragenario numero Ecclesia vero dies dominicos excipit Christus tunc semel nec pluries commedit neque bibit In Ecclesia vero vna refectio tantum est concessa et in potatione nulla est limitatio Quare cum nec verbo neque facto hoc ieiunium instituerit ab Ecclesia institutum erit The Lent-fast as the Church obserueth it was neither instituted of Christ nor of him commaunded but of men so as it is not stablished by Gods Law but by mans onely for Christ neither instituted the time of such a Fast nor the manner nor the Meates for so soone as he was Baptized he went into the Desart and fasted there Christ excepted no day from fasting in his Fast of Fourtie dayes but the Romish Church excepteth the Sundayes Christ neither eate nor dranke more then once but the Church graunteth Meate once a day and for drinking maketh no restraint Wherefore seeing Christ neither appoynted Lent-fast by word nor by deed it must be ordayned of the Church Where I may not forget to adde that the same Byshoppe Angles telleth vs in an other place that albeit the Apostles ordeyned Lent-fast yet may the Pope free deliuer whom he will from the keeping thereof And he yeeldeth this reason for the same Because forsooth the Pope hath as great Power in the gouernement of the Church as the Apostles had Thus disputeth our Popish Byshop telling vs plainely that Christ did not ordaine Lent-fast which he prooueth by many reasons As also that none are bound to Fast in Lent who haue gotten the Popes Dispensation to free them from it no not if the Apostles appoynted it Thirdly he graunteth freely that the Papistes Fast to satisfie God for their sinnes I therefore must perforce conclude that the Popish Lent-fast is a rotten ragge of the New religion The 29. Chapter of the annulling of Popish Wedlocke B. C. WHatsoeuer sayth Bell the Byshoppe of Rome holdeth and defineth that must euery Papist hold beleeue and maintaine as an Article of his Fayth Though generally all Catholiques doe hold the Popes Definitions to be infallible and the contrarie opinion to be erroneous ye is it not an Article of Fayth T. B. Whosoeuer shall seriously peruse my Tryall this Answere of the Jesuite to the same and this my Reply in defence of my Tryall can not but vnderstand that Poperie is meere foolerie and flatly opposite to the sacred Word of God This in briefe is my Answere First that albeit this Chapter being the 29. of my Tryall arguing against the annulling of Popish Wedlocke conteyne not fully 26. lynes yet is the Jesuite so afrayde with the plentifull matter soundly handled therein yet in briefe manner as he dareth not once touch or name the same for feare of burning him For proofe whereof I wish the indifferent Reader to peruse my Tryall of the New religion Secondly that it is most true that what the Pope defyneth that must euery Papist hold and beleeue as an Article of his Fayth I prooue it by many inuincible reasons Couarrunias a very famous popish Byshop and renowned Canonist hath these expresse wordes Nec me later D. Thomam praeuia maxima deliberatione asserere Rom. Pontificem non posse propria dispensatione continentiae solemne Monactiorum votum tollere Et Paulo Post. oportet tamen primam opinionem defendere ne quae passim fiant euertantur omnino Neither am I ignorant that S. Thomas the popish Angelicall Doctor whose Doctrine sundry Popes haue confirmed affirmeth after great deliberation that the Byshop of Rome can not with his Dispensation take away from Monkes their solemne Vow of Chastitie This notwithstanding we must defend the first opinion least those thinges which are practised euery where be vtterly ouerthrowë The Popish canonized Saint Antoninus and Syluester Prieras some time maister of the Popes sacred Pallace and for his great Learning surnamed Absolutus Theologus tell vs plainely and constantly that whatsoeuer the Pope doth whether we can prooue the same or no◠yet must we beleeue it to be so And which passeth all the rest yea which is woonderfull if not incredible to proceed from a Papistes mouth S. R. that Learned man as our Fryer B. C. tearmeth him hath these expresse wordes in his pretensed Answere to the Downe-fall of Poperie Because Byshoppes must not examine the Doctrine which the Pope deliuereth iudicially out of S. Peters Chaire as supreame Pastor of Gods Churth but onely that wherein he vttereth his owne priuate opinion Aquinas himselfe shall giue the vpshot of this game these are his expresse wordes Christus poterat relaxare ergo et Paulus potuit ergo et Papa potest qui non est minoris potestatis in Ecclesia quam Paulus fuit Christ could pardone therefore Paul could pardone therefore the Pope also can pardone as who is of no lesse or meaner Authoritie in the Church then Paul himselfe was Thirdly that seeing our Fryer graunteth all Papistes generally to hold the Popes Definitions to be infallible and the contrary Opinion to be erroneous he sheweth himselfe to be a very noddie and at a flat non-plus in denying the same to be an Article of Popish fayth I prooue it marke well my wordes by a triple Argument First because the Pope his Cardinals Iesuites and all popish Diuines can not but abound with falsehood deceite coozenage and fraudulent trickes of Legierdemaine if they teach the people to hold and receiue that as true Doctrine which themselues beleeue not to be so Secondly because the Pope his Cardinals Iesuites and all Papistes generally are bound to beleeue euery trueth agreeable to Gods word And consequently that either all Papistes beleeue the Popes Definitions to be infallible and the contrary opinion to be erroneous or else that the same is not a trueth agreeable to Gods word Thirdly that Poperie must perforce be a most miserable dangerous wretched damnable Religion if all Papistes generally hold that for an vndoubted Doctrine which is no part of their Fayth and Religion For all Iesuites and Iesuited Papistes hold that the Church is built vpon Peter
second Chapter of this present Volume To this let vs adde a most notable testimonie of our Rhemistes which is comprised in these very wordes Notorious is the saying of S. Augustine concerning S. Cyprian who being a blessed Catholique Byshop and Martyr yet erred about the rebaptizing of such as were Christined by Heretiques If he had liued sayth S. Augustine to haue seene the determination of a plenarie Councell which he saw not in his life time he would for his great humilitie and charitie straight way haue yeelded preferred the generall Councell before his owne Iudgement and his fellow Byshops in a prouinciall Councell onely Thus dispute our Rhemistes confounding them-selues and their Pope vnawares For first they tell vs marke well my wordes that S. Cyprian was a blessed Byshop and Martyr and therefore would haue yeelded to the Decree of a generall Councell They tell vs secondly that S. Augustine was of the same opinion In which double Narration the Rhemistes confound them-selues with their Pope and all his deuoted Popelinges For they giue vs to vnderstand very plainely that neither the Pope is aboue a generall Councell neither yet his Iudgement infallible But how prooue I that This forsooth is a plaine demonstration thereof S. Cyprian and S. Augustine being both of them very Holy very Learned Fathers could not but know right well for their great Learning what Authoritie Power Priuiledges and Prerogatiues Christ had giuen to the Byshops of Rome And without all question it is it can not be denyed that for their great pietie and humilitie they would humbly haue acknowledged and highly reuerenced all Power giuen them by our Lord Iesus Yet true it is sir Fryer marke well my wordes that Pope Cornelius togeather with a nationall Synode of the Byshoppes of Jtaly had made a flatte decree concerning Rebaptization True it is likewise that Pope Stephanus had confirmed the same Decree and commaunded it to be obserued True it is thirdly that all Papistes of late dayes doe obstinately affirme as our Rhemistes in the name of all Papistes tell vs that the Pope is aboue a generall Councell that the Pope can not erre Iudicially that the Popes Iudgement is infallible Now this Decree made by Pope Cornelius and confirmed by Pope Stephanus S. Cyprian knew right well neither was S. Austen ignorant thereof Howbeit this notwithstanding S. Cyprian roundly withstood the Decree of Pope Stephanus and both sharpely reprooued him and vtterly contemned his falsely pretended Authoritie S. Austen in like manner held the same opinion with S. Cyprian concerning the Popes falsely pretended Prerogatiues infallibilitie of Iudgement neuer excusing any such thing in S. Cyprian as a fault neither once saying that the Pope was Christes Vicar or that Christ had prayed that his Fayth should not fayle but constantly telling the Reader for his full satisfaction on S. Cyprians behalfe that he would humbly haue yeelded to the Decree of a plenarie Councell if any such had been in his time In which wordes S. Austen giueth the Reader to vnderstand that though S. Cyprian did contemne both the definitiue Sentence of the Pope and the Decree of his prouinciall Councell because neither of their Iudgements was infallible yet would he haue yeelded to the Decree of a plenarie Councell as which he acknowledged to be infallible and to haue the assistannce of the holy Ghost Let vs adde further that the two hundred seauenteene Fathers in the Aphrican Councell whereof S. Augustine was one were so farre from acknowledging the Byshop of Rome to be Christes Vicar generall vpon earth to be aboue a plenarie Councell and his Iudgement to be infallible that they all with one assent refused vtterly to graunt any such Prerogatiue or Priuiledge vnto him constantly affirming that he was bound as well as they to obey the Decrees of the Nicene Councell For which cause neither would the said Fathers graunt greater Power and Prerogatiues to the Byshoppes of Rome neither did the Byshoppes of Rome them-selues challenge greater Power then the Canons of the Nicene Synode would affoorde them Of which poynt I haue disputed at large in the second Chapter afore-going Whosoeuer shall seriously peruse that whole Chapter from the beginning to the end thereof will vndoubtedly rest satisfied in this behalfe Ioyne this with my Tryall and Poperie will prooue it selfe the New religion The 31. Chapter conteyning according to my promise an Answere to the Iesuites short admonition in the 16. Chapter aforegoing as also to some other patches elsewhere dispearsed to the same effect T. B. HAuing euidently prooued and plainely conuinced by the power of God and the assistance of his holy Spirit that Poperie is the New religion it followeth consequently that I prooue the Fayth Doctrine this day professed and by Authoritie established in the Church of England to be the Old Religion I therefore heartily craue the gentle Readers attentiue hearing vnto the end of my Discourse I haue not hitherto in any of my former Bookes oppugned the Old Romane Religion which S. Peter and S. Paul deliuered to the Church of Rome while they liued heere on earth Neither doe I at this present or euer intend hereafter in any future worke to oppugne the same It is the late Fayth and late Romish Doctrine which I contend to be the New Religion euery maine poynt whereof I haue clearely conuinced when and by whom it first began Our Church of noble England constantly reteyneth euery Article and iote of the old Romane Religion onely reiecting and abolishing of the essentiall partes of late Romish Fayth and Doctrine so much as was Hereticall erroneous or superstitious and repugnant to the eternall trueth of Gods most sacred word And concerning late Romish ceremonies such so many as were either superstitious or ridiculous or vnprofitable to the Church of God So that wee are this day the true reformed Catholiques euen as the Fryers at Rome commonly called Capuchoâ—nes are indeed the true reformed Franciscans The Church of England doth not this day hold any Article of Fayth or Doctrine or vse any Ceremonie saue such onely as we are able to iustifie either by the expresse wordes of the holy Scripture and by the approbation of best approoued Antiquitie or else to deduce the same from thence by a necessarie ineuitable consequence Let vs now in Gods name heare attentiuely what our Iesuite in the name of all Papistes is able to obiect against the Fayth and Doctrine of the Church of England B. C. COncerning Ceremonies and such like Bell in his Regiment of the Church graunteth freely that the Church hath Authoritie to ordaine and abrogate to make or repeale Lawes as shall seeme most meete for the honour of God and the edification of Christian people T. B. Bell admitteth all this Say on good Fryer if happily thou haue any better Bread in thy Bagge seeing this is not worth a silly Ragge Howbeit our Fryer for want of matter
time and who they were that composed the partes thereof When as neither Durandus nor any other make the essentiall and very substantiall part of the Masse that is the wordes of Consecration to haue come from any other then the Sonne of God But they speake of the accidentall partes thereof to weet either deuout Prayers or Ceremonies which we willingly graunt to proceed from the institution of Christes Church T. B. I answere first that our Fryer giueth both the Pope and Poperie a deadly wound while he telleth vs that Durandus and others note at what time and who they were that composed the partes of their popish Masse Secondly that while our Fryer Iesuite maketh one onely essentiall part of their popish Masse that is the wordes of Consecration he graunteth that all the rest be Accidentall and so may be taken away from the same To which Doctrine I very willingly subscribe assuring the Iesuite that they and we shall soone agree if the Pope will thus reforme their Masse in abolishing all the accidentall partes here so named from the same Thirdly that I haue already prooued the word enim in the consecration of the Bread to be either of Mans institution or else the Deuils Fourthly that S. Thomas of â—â—quine Durâ—nâ— and other learned Papistes doe constantly affirme that God can not by his diuine power cause one the same body to be in diuers places at once And consequently that our Iesuites must either deny Christes body to be in Heauen contrary to the expresse wordes of holy Scripture or else that Christes body his flesh blood and bones can not be in their popish Masse or thirdly that the wordes of Popish Consecration came from some greater power then is in God which for all that no Papist dareth to auouch Fiftly that the wordes which are vsed in the popish Consecration of Wine came not from the Sonne of God I prooue it by the testimonie of Iosephus Angles that famous popish Byshoppe and learned Schoole-doctor whose expresse wordes are these Forma consecrationis Calicis qua Romana vtitur Ecclesia est sufficiens traditur enim ab Euangelistis et verba qua ab Ecclesia interpoâ—untur scilicâ—t nouâ— et aâ—erni testaments misterium fidei forma qua Christus consecrauit sensum handmutanâ— The forme of the Consecration of the Chalice or Cuppe which the Church of Rome vseth is sufficient for it is deliuered by the Euangelist and the wordes which the Church interlaceth to weet of the new and eternall Testament the misterie of Fayth doe not change the sense of the forme in which Christ did consecrate Thus writeth Byshop Angles plainely insinuating to his Readers that the Church of Rome vseth an other forme of Consecration then Christ himselfe did vse And consequently that the wordes of Consecration vsed in the Romish Church came not from the Sonne of God Ergo the Romish forme of Consecration is a Ragge of the New religion Sixtly that the Papistes can not tell indeed which be the precise wordes of their popish Consecration although that be the most principall and the very essentiall part of popish Masse and consequently of all popish Fayth and Religion I prooue it most euidently because Byshoppe Angles rehearseth foure seuerall opinions concerning this precise Article of popish Fayth these are his expresse words Quatuor sunt opiniones Prima S. Thomae qui omnia praedicta verba dicit esse de essentiaformae Secunda opinio est Alexandri D. Bonauenturae et Durandâ— qui affirmant de necessitate consecrationis Calicis esse haec sola verba scilicet hic est sanguis meus Tertia opinio dicit haec verba scilicet hic est sanguis meus qui pro â—ultis effundetur in remissionem peccatoruÌ„ esse de necessitate consecrationis praetermissis alijs verbis quae ab Ecclesia Romana adduntur qua forma vturtur Graeci Quarta opinio est Scoti qui ait de haec quastione nihil certitudinalitor esse nobis traditum There be foure opinions S. Thomas holdeth the first who auoucheth all the aforenamed words to be of the essence of the forme The second opinion is Alexanders Bonauentures and Durandus who affirme that these onely wordes are of the necessitie of the consecration of the Chalice or Cuppe to weet This is my blood The third opinion affirmeth these wordes This is my blood which shal be shed for many for remission of sinnes to be of the necessitie of ConsecratioÌ„ not the other wordes which the Church of Rome addeth to them Scotus the popish Doctor Subtilis holdeth the fourth opinion auouching that they know not certainely what to hold or thinke of this matter This is the best popish Diuinitie for the most essentiall part of all Poperie that the best learned Papistes are able to affoord vs so as euery child is well able to discerne that the now Romish Fayth is the New religion B. C. What doth Bell and such like Ministers that deride the Ceremonies and partes of the Masse but mocke and mow at their owne Communion-booke and partes thereof being borrowed from vs or in what they differ can shew no greater antiquitie then the late dayes of Edward the sixt at what time diuers Ministers did hammer them in the forge of their owne inuention T. B. This is that which the Pope and his deuoted Vassals neuer cease to instill into the hearts and eares of silly Papistes that so they may falsely perswade them that the Popish Fayth is the Old and ours the New Religion Wherefore albeit I haue againe and againe prooued most euidently that the Fayth and Doctrine which the Romish Church this day holdeth and teacheth is the New Religion neuerthelesse seeing these wordes heere obiected doe in some sort as it were insinuate to the Reader the most principall and maine poynt of the whole controuersie I am very willing to vndergoe the paines how great soeuer for the better contentment and full satisfaction of all such as desire to know the trueth I answere thus first that the Church of Rome receiued the true Catholique Apostolique Faith in the dayes of S. Peter and S. Paul which S. Paul himselfe testified while he affirmed their Fayth to he renowmed in the whole world Secondly that the Church of England receiued the same Catholique and Apostolique Fayth from the good Byshoppes of Rome at their first conuersion vnto the Fayth of Christ Iesus Explico Brutani now called England first receiued the Christian Fayth by Faganus and Deruvianus sent from Elutherius the good Byshoppe of Rome at the earnest request of Lucius then King of Brutani which was in the yeare 179. after Christ. After that Ethelbert the first Christian King of the Saxons was conuerted to the Fayth of Christ by Augustine Melitus Justus and others sent from Gregorie an other good Byshoppe of Rome in the yeare 596. after Christ. Thirdly that from that time vntill these our
dayes the Byshoppes of England now so called haue had and kept a continuall and vninterrupted succession of Byshoppes successiuely so sound firme and inuiolable as the Church of Rome is not able to shew the like This succession is so clearely prooued in my Christian Dialogue as none with right reasoÌ„ can deny the same Fourthly that the Church of England now so called hath euer since the time of King Ethelbert constantly kept all and euery Article of the old Romane Religion which she receiued from the auncient and purer Church of Rome No Papist liuing is able to giue any true instance against this irrefragable assertion Fiftly that as in processe of time many superstitious grosse and palpable errours yea flatte Heresies haue by litle and litle crept into the Church of Rome euen so hath our Church of England through the sway of the time been deeply stayned polluted with the same Sixtly that our Church in the time of King Henry the eight began to be reformed in some Articles of Fayth and Doctrine but the reformation was not perfect vntill the raigne of King Edward the sixt In which Reformation no New Article of Fayth or Religion is added to the former but the former Fayth and Religion is onely refyned purged purified and such Superstition Errours and Heresies abolished as were by litle and litle brought into the Church All and euery iote of the old Romane Religion remayneth still in our Church permanent and inuiolable But some perhappes will heere demaunde of me how the Church of Rome did so degenerate from the auncient Fayth and so foulely corrupt the old Romane Religion To whom I answere in this manner First with Egesippus that auncient and learned Father that during the life of Christes blessed Apostles the visible Church remayned a Virgin free from all Heresies and corruptions but after their death Errours by litle and litle crept into the Church as into a voyde and desart House Secondly with Franciscus a Victoria that famous popish Fryer and great learned Schooleman that by litle litle the Papistes were in his time brought to such inordinate dispensations and to so miserable a state that they were neither able to endure their owne griefes nor remydies assigned by the Pope for the same That Clemens Lâ—nus and Syluester were very good Byshoppes of Rome but that the latter Byshoppes comming after them successiuely were wicked men and nothing comparable to the olde Byshoppes there Thirdly with Iosephus Angles that famous Popish Byshoppe euen in that Booke which hee dedicated to the Pope himselfe that the Romish Religion changeth euery day Fourthly with the fiue famous Popish Doctors Iohannes Roffensis Jacobus Almaâ—nus Gersonus Durandus and Michael Baius that euery sinne is mortall of it owne nature and that the old Romane Church did so beleeue vntill the time of Pope Pius the fift that is about 1560 yeares after Christ at which time Veniall sinnes werâ— hatched in the Church of Rome This is such a constant knowen trueth as neither the Jesuite S. R. nor yet the Iesuite B. C. his deare brother can tell in the world what answere to frame to the same Fourthly with Polidorus Virgilius that famous Popish Writer that the Popish Legistes and Canonistes of latter dayes haue so wrested the holy Scriptures to their owne sense and liking as Coblers doe gnaw with their teeth and stretch out their filthy skinnes Fiftly with Platina the Popes deare Vassall and trustie Friend that in his dayes the Popedome was brought to that passe that who so could goe before others in Bribes and Ambition hee onely should haue the place Sixtly with Couarruuias that worthy popish Arch-byshoppe and learned Canonist that in these dayes either the Popes opinion must be defended or else Poperie can not stand Lastly with Iosephus Angles writing to the Popes deare Holynesse that albeit the old Church of Rome did by the commaundement of the Apostles excommunicate all non communicants in the time of the Masse or Liturgie yet hath the late Church decreed that it shall be lawfull for all Lay persons to receiue the Eucharist onely at Easter Much more I might and could say if I thought not this sufficient So then the Fayth and Doctrine this day professed and authorized in this our Church of England is indeed the old Romane religion purged refined and restored to the primatiue and most auncient puritie in King Edwardes dayes in whose happy raigne was the perfect and complete Reformation But the Fayth and Religion it selfe came from S. Peter and S. Paul yea euen from Christ himselfe their Jesus and our Jesus world without end To whom with the Father and the holy Ghost three in the distinction of persons and one in the vnitie of diuine essence be all Honour Maiestie Power Glory and Dominion now and euermore Amen A Caueat to the Christian Reader THE masked Jesuite in his Preface to the Reader laboureth with might and maine to perswade his Readers that I dare not performe that challenge which I made to the Fore-runner his wordes are these I the meanest of many millions doe accept of his Challenge and doe vndertake to defend not onely these two poynes of Iosephus Doctrine and Pope Martins Dispensation which he hath singled out as matters important but also all the rest so it may be with that equitie and fauour which was graunted to the Protestantes in France And vpon the same conditions doe prouoke him with a counter-challenge to the defence of his Bookes And a litle after he telleth his Reader That hee sendes me as many Challenges as will stand betweene Charing-crosse Chester and as many Dares as will reach from Darby to Darington To which I answere in this manner First that the Jesuites are accused and charged by their deare Breathren the popish Secular Priestes with Pride Ambition Couetousnesse Coozenage Theft Crueltie Murther Treason and all wickednesse that can be named Yea of Fryer Parsons that trayterous Iesuite they giue this testimonie in particular viz. by Parsons platformes Secular Priestes must depend vpon Blackwell and Blackwell vpon Garnet and Garnet vpon Parsons and Parsons the Priestes Bastard vpon the Deuill Peruse my Anatomy of popish Tyrannie and there thou shalt finde this trueth with great varietie of like matter Secondly that in all my Challenges I require but one onely Condition which the Iesuite passeth ouer in silence because he meaneth not to performe the same The Condition is this viz. That the Iesuite which shall accept the Challenge must put downe his name with his addition in print and send it to me Which if it be once performed during my life I promised vpon my saluation to doe what in me lyeth to procure a false conduct for the safe comming safe abyding and safe departure of him whosoeuer he be that shall accept and vndertake the true performance of the Challenge in maner aforesayd Thirdly that the Jesuite
ChristiaÌ„ Dialogue pag. 17.19 A.D. 1415. The Fryer killeth himselfe with his owne sword Note well the answere This is veriâ—â—ed in the Gun-powder Iesuited vassals Marke well this answere See my Anatomie where this is plainely prooued A.D. 1415. O new borne Popery where is thy mother where is thy Godfather where is thy christianitie None euer heard of thee for the space of 1414. yeares after Christ. A generall Councell is aboue the Pope Gers. in Serm. coram concil Const. V prim part Gers. prim part in tract de appellat a Papa circa med Gers. vbi supr in 2. propos Gers. in serm coram Concil Const. K. prim part To this doctrine I willingly agree See my Anatomy pag. 137. All Papistes are Heretikes Rhem. in 16. Mat. 22. Luk. 15. Act. 18. All Papistes are Heretikes Rhem. in 15. Act. v. 28. ex Aug. libr. 2. de baptis cap. 4. Florint Cypriauâ—â— A.D. 250. Aug. A.D. 419. Marke well this poynt Supr cap. 2. prope finem The old Romane religion was the true Catholique Church The Papistes are the deformed and wee the reformed Catholiques in very deed B.C. pag. 136. All this is true but nothing to the purpose B.C. page 138. The Iesuite is full of vanitie and lying Marke well the answere B·C. page 136. See the Regiment cap. 14. page 183 184.185.187 170.166.200 128.125.155.119 Act. 19. v. 24.25 Marke well this poynt The right end is edification 1. Cor. 14 v. 14. v. 26.16 See and note my Regiment pag. 183.185.200.198.199 1. Cor. 14. v. 27.40 Marke well gentle reader B.C. pag. 135. Beda lib. 2. hist. cap. 2. Super cap. 16. note the chapter well Aug. confess lib. 1 cap. 14. de doctr Christ. lib. 2. cap. 13. de Catechi rud cap. 9. et in Psal. 123.128 Foolish zeale doth much hurt to the Church 1. Cor. 14. v. 26 1. Cor. 14. per totum V. 8. V. 9. V. 11. V. 13. V. 14. Chrysost. in 1. Cor. hom 35. Theodoretus in 1. Cor. 14. Phoâ—ius ibideÌ„ V. 16. V. 19. V. 26. Suruey part 3. cap. 10. pag. 477. Lyran. in 1. Cor. 14. Basill in ep ad cler Neocaesar ep 62. Rhem. in 1 Cor. 14. v. 14. Marke well this answere V. 15. Mat. 15. v. 8. V. 13. et V. 28. Chrysost. in 1. Cor. hem 35. Loe S. Chrysostome doth very sharply reprooue them that haue the diuine Seruice in a tongue vnknowne Conc. Later sub Innoc. 3. cap 9. A.D. 1215. See Suruey et supra cap. 23. 1. Cor. 14. v. 26.40 Things good in their owne nature are prophaned in the popish Masse None but popish Priestes may say Dominus vobiscuÌ„ Popish Deacons may not say The Lord be with you 1. Cor. 14. v. 16.40 B.C. page 140. Marke well this reduplication Mat. 26.27 Mar. 14.22 Luke 22.19 1. Cor. 11.24 Math. 26.27 Luk. 22.19 Masse and Communion are all one in the true sense and meaning Confirmatio prima Ioseph Angles in 4. sentent part 1 p. 102. Marke the vncertaintie of popish Consecration Confirm 2. Sot apud Angels in 4. s. p. 102. Ios. Angl. in 4. s. p. 103. Apud 10. Angl. in 4. s. p. 144. Iosep. Angles vbi supra Angl. vbi supra p. 105. Mat. 26.27 Mar. 14.22 Luk. 22.19 1. Cor. 11.24 Quartò prinâ—ipaliter Deut. 4.2 Deut. 5.32 Deut. 12.32 Reuel 22.18 1. Cor. 14. v. 27. 1. Sam. 5.2 See my Suruey the Downefall the Iesuites Antepast 1. Cor. 10.31 Rom. 16.27 Ier. 9.24 Psal. 115.1 Gal. 1.5 Ephes. 1.12 B.C. pag. 140. Accidens potest adesse et abesse citra subiecti interitum Apud Ioseph Angles in 4 â— part 1. pag. 151. Act. 3.11 Chistes be dyâ— flesh blood bones in the popish Masse Ios. Angl. in 4. s. part 1. pag. 104. concl 1. Loe Popish Masse is the New religion Ios. Angles vbi supra pag. 104. Ios. Angles vbisupra pag. 104. B.C. pag. 141. Our Church was stayned with many errors vntill the time of King Edward when it was restored to the auncienâ— puritie of Fayth and Doctrine Rom. 1.8 A.D. 179. Tertio principaliter See the ChristiaÌ„ Dialogue chap. 4. pag. 66 The Papistes can name no â—ote of the old Romane religion which is not still kept in our Church of England See marke well my Dialogue chapter 4. pag. 92. Apud Euseb. hist. lib. 3. cap. 32. Victor de potest Papae et coÌ„c rel 4. pag. 151. et paulaâ—â—m c. Io. Angles in 2. sent pag. 275. part 2. See S. R. pag. 281. et B.C. pag. 76. Polyd. lib. 4. cap. 9. pag. 39. Couaâ—ruu to 1. c. 20. part 11. in med col 1. Angl. in 4. s. p. 1. pag. 133. Conc. Later Sic enim Apostoli statuerunt et sancta Romana tenet Ecclesia Preface pag. 15. Chalenges doe occupie no place they are adiectiues which can not stand without subiectes The Author still so protesteth that he will performe his promise The Iesuite dareth not dispute and therefore requireth new conditions Preface pag. 18.
inferioris gradus Clericos siue ipsos Episcopos suis Metropolitanis apertissimè commiserunt Prudentissimè N. iustissimèque prouiderunt quaecūque negocia in suis locis vbi orta sunt finienda nec vnicuique Prouinciae gratiam sancti spiritus defuturam qua aequitas a Christi sacerdotibus et prudenter videatur et constantissimè teneatur maximè quia vnicuique concessum est si iudicio offensus fuerit cognitorum ad concilia suae Prouinciae vel etiam vniuersale prouocare Nisi forte quisquam est qui credat vnicuilibet posse Deum nostrum examinis inspirare iustitiā et innumerabilibus congregatis in concilium sacerdotibus denegare Aut quomodo ipsum transmarinū iudicium ratum erit ad quod testiū necessariae personae vel propter sexus vel propter senectutis infirmitatem vel multis alijs intercurrentibus impedimentis adduci non poterunt Nam vt aliqui tanquam a tuae sanctitatis latere mittantur nulla inuenimus patrum Synodo constitutum Quia illud quod pridem per eundem Coepiscopum nostrum Faustinum tanquam ex parte Niceni concilij ex inde transmisistis in verioribus concilijs quae accipiuntur Nicena a sancto Cyrillo Coepiscopo nostro Alexandrinae Ecclesiae et a venerabili Attico Constantinopolitano antistite ex authentico missis quae etiam ante hoc per Innocentium Presbyterem et Marcellum subdiaconum per quos ad nos ab eis directa sunt venerabilis memoriae Bonifacio Episcopo praedecessori vestro a nobis trāsmissa sūt in quibus tale aliquid nō potuimus reperire Therefore due salutation premised wee heartily desire that hencefoorth you doe not easily receiue those that come from hence vnto your eares neither hereafter receiue into your communion such as be excomunicated by vs For this also is decreed by the Nicene Councell as your reuerence will easily perceiue For although it seeme there to be decreed onely of the Lay people or Clerkes of the inferiour order how much more doth the holy Councell intend it of the Byshops themselues least such as be suspended in their owne Prouince from the Communion should hastily abruptly or vnduely be by you restored to the same Let your holynes reiect the impious refuges of Priestes other inferiour Clarkes as it becommeth you because no Decree of the Fathers doth spoyle the Aphrican Church of this libertie and the Decrees of the Nicene Councell haue most plainely referred not onely Clarkes of inferiour degree but also the Byshops them-selues to their Metropolitanes For they haue most prudently and most iustly prouided that all businesses whatsoeuer shall be there ended where they began neither the grace of the holy spirit to be wanting to euery Prouince by which equitie among Christes Priestes may both prudently be foreseene and most constantly obserued especially because euery one hath freedome if iudgement giuen offende him to appeale either to a prouinciall or generall Councell vnlesse perhappes any be of this minde that God will inspire the iustice of examination to euery one at his pleasure and deny the same to a multitude of Priestes assembled togeather in Councell Or how shall iudgement beyonde the Sea be approoued where meete and necessarie witnesses can not be present either by reason of the sexe or through the infirmitie of old age or by many other intercurring impedimentes For that any should be sent from your Holynesse we finde it not defined by the Fathers in any Synode at all For that which you lately sent by Faustinus our fellow-Byshop as on the behalfe of the Nicene Councell in the true Councelles receiued from Nice sent authentically from S. Cyrill our fellow-Byshoppe of the Church of Alexandria and from venerable Atticus the Prelate of Constantinople which also we sent formerly to Byshop Boniface of venerable memorie your predecessour by Jnnocentius Priest and Marcellus Subdeacon by whom they were directed from them to vs we can not find any such thing Thus wrote these learned auncient and holy Fathers to Celestinus the Byshop of the citie of Rome Their narration and attestation though very long and plentifull I thought good to lay open to the Reader in their expresse wordes at large because they doe so liuely discouer Popysh forgerie Iesuiticall treacherie in the best beseeming colours and declare so euidently Poperie to be the New religion as nothing can be more Which most constant assertion of so many so auncient so holy so graue so learned Byshoppes whosoeuer shall prudently and duely ponder that man doubtlesse can not but detest and abhorre Poperie as a newly coyned Fayth and Religion For first these holy Fathers does not call Pope Celestine The vniuersall Byshoppe but simply and plainely Vrbis Romae Episcopum The Byshop of the citie of Rome Secondly they tell him constantly that hee may not receiue them whom they doe excomunicate and they yeeld this reason Because the Nicene Councell hath so defined it Thirdly they affirme resolutely that the Nicene Councell committed both inferiour Clerkes and Byshoppes them-selues to be censured and taxed by their Metropolitanes Fourthly they tell Celestine then Byshop of Rome that the Nicene Fathers prouided most prudently and most iustly that Dissentions all Controuersies whatsoeuer should be decided finished where they began Where I admonish the Reader to obserue seriously this word Iustissimè most iustly for doubtlesse if Iustice require to finish and determine causes where they began then doth the Pope vniustly when he seeketh to draw the hearing thereof to the Court of Rome Fiftly when any one findeth himselfe iustly grieued the Nicene Councell say they giueth him this freedome to appeale from his Byshoppe to the Metropolitane and from the Metropolitane vnto a generall Councell but neuer a word of appealing to the Pope Sixtly they tell the Pope roundly that it is a meere folly to thinke that God will better inspire him with the examination of Iustice then a multitude of Priestes assembled for that end Seuenthly they tell their brother Celestine for so they tearme him but not Vniuersall Byshoppe that if his proud and greedy desire were put in execution many mischiefes would insue therevpon Eightly they constantly auouch with one consent that no Fathers did euer decree in any Synode that the Pope should send any Deputie or Messenger to their Councels This would be duely pondered as a matter of great consequence For out of it doe follow two necessarie and ineuitable Corollaries corollary 1 The first Corollarie is this viz. That the Councell of Sardica is a falsely pretended and counterfeite Synode as which hath decreed that in fauour of the Pope which these Fathers of the Affrican Councell deny any Synode to haue done corollary 2 The second Corollarie is this viz. That neither the Councell of Nice nor yet any other lawfull Synode did euer decree transmarine Appeales to the Byshoppe of Rome I say transmarine because I willingly admit the Priestes and Byshoppes
great consequence may be perswaded by the aduise of his graue Councellours that his corporall presence were necessarie and therevpon resolue with himselfe to goe in proper person Yet in such a case it can neither truly nor properly be sayd That the King was sent of his Subiectes but that hee tooke the iourney in hand freely and of his owne accord though perhappes the rather by their aduise To that of our Iesuite where he sayth That S. Paul being inferiour to S. Peter reprehended him and that Bell if he were a Byshoppe would looke as the Diuell looked ouer Lincolne and none might admonish him of any fault I answere in this manner First that our Fryer doth too much iniurie to S. Paul while he maketh him inferiour to S. Peter and withall doth no little dishonour to his Popes who in all their Pardons Dispensations and such like trumperie doe euer rely vpon the ioynt authoritie of S. Peter and S. Paul grounding their power and soueraigntie in them both For S. Paul receiued not his Authoritie from any mortall man but from God himselfe immediately Yea himselfe sayth of himselfe that hee had as great Power as Peter th' one ouer the Iewes th' other ouer the Gentiles Secondly that euery Apostle receiued from Christ himselfe equall Power ouer the whole World euery one of the eleuen hauing the same Commission that Peter had Thirdly that our Jesuite seemeth better acquainted with the Diuell then he is with God as who beareth his Reader in hand that he knoweth how the Diuell looked ouer Lincolne Fourthly that not Bell but the Pope is the man who may carry thousandes of soules into Hell and yet no man may say vnto him Why doest thou so This is alreadie prooued in the Conclusions aforegoing Heere I deeme it not amisse for the complement of the Popes falsely pretended Soueraigntie to adioyne a testimonie of one of his holy Martyrs by way of digression The Digression THe Secular popish Priestes aswell French as English haue published in print may Bookes in which they haue most liuely pourtrayed and paynted out the Iesuites in their best beseeming colours They affirme constantly in their sayd Bookes of the Iesuites in generall that they be Proud men Tyrantes Coozeners Thieues Gypsies Murderours and men of no Religion Of Robert Parsons that trayterous and foule-mouthed Jesuite in particular that hee is a Bastard a notorious Drunkard a Deceiuer a Traytor a prouoker of others to Treason the Monster of mankind a Farie-brat begotten of some Incubus and what not All which are plainely and truly related in my Booke intituled The Anatomie of Popish tyrannie Which Booke hee that hath not seene and read may seeme to be ignorant of the deepest poyntes of Iesuiticall Theologie These Bookes do so gall wound the Jesuites at the very heart as they know not in the world what to say or answere in that behalfe Clerke and Watson lately executed for their most notorious treasons wrote sundry Bookes against the sayd Jesuites This Iesuite B. C. is so mightily assayled and turmoyled with that which I cite out of Watson that in one place to weete in his Epistle about the 27. page hee hath these wordes The Author he alleadgeth is some Quodlibetarian Minister though poore Watson beareth the name But in an other place to weete in the eight Chapter of this present Pamphlet he writeth thus Bell sheweth smal conscience in belying the dead and laying more faultes vpon him vniustly when alasse hee had otherwise too many Againe Watson speaketh of matters of fact In which twaine the Iesuite flatly contradicteth himselfe In the former hee would gladly finde out an other Author But in the latter hee vnawares fathereth the Booke vpon Watson telling Bell that hee belyeth the dead To which I adde that Watson vpon his death did acknowledge himselfe to be the Author The Iesuites third Chapter of the Marriage of Priestes and Ministers of the Church THe Jesuite greatly lamenting that the prohibition of the Marriage of Priestes can not be iustified not daring to deale with my Suruey where the same is most largly handled all Obiections and difficulties which possibly can be imagined distinctly soundly answered complayneth grieuously that I seeke to deceiue my reader in not proouing in my Tryall what I say for the same but referring the Reader to my Suruey The truth is this that in the Tryall I meant onely to shew to all simply seduced Papistes that late Popish Faith and Doctrine was not the old as they ignorantly beleeue but the new Religion in verie deede And my purpose was to effect the matter with such breuitie as euery one might buy the Treatise for a small peece of money and carry it in his Bosome about with him and so be able to poynt as it were with his Finger against all such as boast of Poperie as of the old Religion when and by whom euery maine poynt of late Papistrie first began Our Jesuite seeing their Pope confounded and their Fayth and Doctrine prooued to be the New religion can not tell in the world what to doe say or thinke for and in the defence thereof Let vs heare his owne wordes thus doth he write It serueth not the turne saith he to tell vs that he hath done it in his Suruay I therefore to content our Fryer Jesuite if it will be am heere resolued to set downe such speciall kindes of proofe deriued and taken out of my Suruay as are able to perswade all indifferent Readers that the Marriage of Priestes euer was and this day is both honest lawfull by Gods law and onely prohibited by the wicked and cursed Lawes of men the Byshops of Rome I meane The first Proposition All Ministers which are not Papistes nor subiect to the lawes and rules of Poperie may lawfully Marry euen by the doctrine of the Church of Rome I prooue it because all such Ministers are meere Lay-men by the iudgement of the Church of Rome which Church for all that and none other debarreth Priestes and other Ministers of the Church from the freedome of honourable Wedlocke This Assertion is plaine and euident it needeth no proofe at all The 2. Proposition Marriage was euer lawfull for all Priestes and other Ministers of the Church during all the time of the Old Testament This Proposition is cleare to all such as shall duely reuolue the holy Bibles For the holy Prophet Jeremie was the sonne of Helkiah who was one of the Priestes that were at Anathoth Hophni and Phinehaâ— were the sonnes of Helj the Priest Sephora was the daughter of Jethro the Priest of Midian S. John the Baptist who was the precursor of our Lord Iesus was the sonne of Zacharias the Priest Yea the High Priest was appoynted by God himselfe to marry a Mayde of his owne people so honourable was the mariage of Priestes in his most holy sight The 3. Proposition Marriage is lawfull for Priestes and
it is alreadie prooued in the third Conclusion To which I adde that the holy Fathers when they speake of Venial sinnes doe euer vnderstand Small sinnes respectiuely In which sense my selfe do willingly admit Veniall sinnes as also sinnes Veniall by the mercie of God But withall I wish the Reader euer to remember what Gersonus Almaynus Baius Durandus and Roffensis teach vs viz. that euery least Sinne is Mortall of it owne nature which is the flat Doctrine I heere defend Thirdly that the difference amongst the Learned Popish Doctors concerning Veniall sinnes is a matter of small importance which I exhort the Christian reader in the bowels of our sweete Redeemer neuer to forget For it doth plainely conuince if nothing else could be sayd in that behalfe that Poperie is the New religion What is Popish fayth a matter of Small moment Is it not necessarie to saluation If the Pope will say it I am ready to confirme it Roffensis Baius Almaynus Durandus and Gersonus all being both learned and zealous Papistes affirme constantly the force of trueth compelling them that euery Sinne is Mortall of it owne nature Contrariwise the Pope his Jesuites and Jesuited vassals affirme teach and beleeue as an Article of Popish Fayth that many Sinnes are Veniall euen of their owne nature This notwithstanding our Jesuite telleth vs roundly though nothing Clerkly that the difference is but small So then Articles of Popish fayth are small or great as it pleaseth the Pope His bare Will as we haue heard and seene is a warrant sufficient in euery thing as who can change the nature of thinges if we will beleeue him and of nothing make some thing Fourthly that my selfe hold no Opinion teach no Article of Fayth defend no Position but such Opinions Positions and Articles as the best learned Papistes haue holden taught and defended before mee For my woonted maner euer hath been is and shall be to wound the Papistes with their owne Weapons and to conâ—ound the Pope with his best Learned Proctors B. C. This being so let vs consider what a notable vntrueth the Minister offereth to the view of his Readers when he sayth Almaynus Durandus Gerson Baius and other famous Papistes not able to answere the reasons against Veniall sinnes confesse the trueth with the Byshop that euery Sinne is Mortall Hee doth cunningly abuse them in leauing out those wordes of it owne nature which ought to be added after their opinion and himselfe likewise doth adde in citing of Roffensis immediately before T. B. I answere first that the vntrueth our Fryer speaketh of proceedeth from his owne lying lippes as by and by it will appeare Secondly that our Fryer doth falsely peeuishly vnchristianly and impudently abuse both his Reader and mee when he chargeth me to abuse my Authors in leauing out their wordes What wordes sir Fryer haue I left out These wordes forsooth of it owne nature sayth our Iesuiticall Fryer O malitious Jesuite Where is thine Honestie where is thy Christianitie where is thy Fayth where is thy Conscience Art thou become a flat Atheist art thou at defiance with true dealing Thou seemes to make thy soule saleable for the Popes pleasure Doth not thine owne Penne condemne thee when thou grauntes that I added the same wordes in citing of Roffensis immediatly before Let the indifferent Reader be an indifferent Iudge betweene vs. I added the wordes immediatly before as our Fryer truely sayth it therefore had been an irkesome tantologie to cite them againe in the next wordes following especially seeing I affirme the Popish Doctors Almaynus Durandus Gersonus and Baius to hold and defend the selfe same opinion that Byshoppe Fisher affirmeth to be the trueth Againe the Controuersie consisteth precisely in this speciall poynt viz. Whether euery sinne be Mortall of it owne nature or no. I defende the affirmatiue the Iesuite the negatiue And consequently I must perforce speake of Sinnes as they are in their owne nature O worthy defender of late start-vp Poperie Thou perceiuest right well that Poperie is the New religion indeed and not able to withstand the truth nor to answere mine inuincible reasons and groundes Thou fleest from that which is in question to impertinent extrauagant and friuolous cauils so to dazell the eyes of thy Readers least they behold the newnesse of late Romish Religion Out vpon such beggerly Religion as which can not be defended but by cauils coozenage lying and deceitfull dealing B. C. After this vntrueth immediatly followeth another Yea the Jesuite S. R. quoth hee with the aduice of his best Learned friendes in his answere to the Downefall of Poperie confesseth plainely and blusheth not thereat that the Church of Rome had not defined some sinnes to be Veniall vntill the dayes of Pius the fift and Gregorie the 13. which was not fiftie yeares agoe In which wordes he blusheth neuer a whit to slaunder that Learned man and wholly to corrupt his meaning Hee sayth not that the Church of Rome had not defined some sinnes to be Venial vntill the dayes of Pius the fift and Gregorie the 13. as this licentious cast-away corruptly fathereth vpon him For he knew well that to beleeue Veniall sinnes was an Article long receiued before the times of those Popes But he affirmeth onely that to hold Veniall sinnes onely to be such by the mercie of God was censured and condemned by those Popes Why did Sir Thomas his sinceritie cut away these wordes by the mercie of God Forsooth because that without lying and corruption he can obiect nothing against Catholike doctrine T. B. I answere first that our impudent Fryer lyeth egregiously when he chargeth mee to slaunder S. R. his learned Brother For vpon my saluation I auerre it I deale christianly honestly and sincerely I neuer change adde or take away any one iote of that which I finde in mine Authors Would to God our Iesuites did so deale with mee Secondly our Fryer lyeth impudently when he vttereth these wordes Hee sayth not that the Church of Rome had not defined some sinnes to be Veniall vntill the dayes of Pius the fift and Gregorie the thirteenth For these are S. R. his expresse wordes True it is that Byshoppe Fisher and Gerson were in that errour but that was both before it was condemned in the Church as it was since by Pius the fift and Gregorie the thirteenth In which wordes the Jesuite S. R. telleth vs two memorable poyntes of Doctrine Th' one that Fisher and Gerson were in an Errour Th' other that the Errour was before the Church had condemned it So it onely remaineth duely to examine what the supposed Errour was The Iesuite B. C. heere telleth vs plainely if wee may beleeue him that the Popes Pius and Gregorius condemned that opinion onely which holdeth Venial sinnes to be onely such by the mercie of God I admit the Assertion I like the Narration I onely reiect the Popes friuolous vnchristian and
but that was both before it was condemned in the Church as it was since by Pius the fift and Gregorius the thirteenth Loe our Jesuite in the name of all Papistes for all Papistes must so beleeue blusheth not to publish to the World in print in perpetuam rei memoriam that Pope Pius was the Church in his time Pope Gregorie in his time and consequently euery Pope in his time For what he affirmeth of those two in this kind of subiect the same perforce he must approue in all other Popes successiuely So then this is a constant maxime in the Church of Rome that whensoeuer our Papistes say or write That the Church can not erre or The Church hath thus and thus defined they euer meane of the Pope and Church of Rome I therefore cannot but conclude with this ineuitable illation viz. that in true Popish sense and meaning the Pope is the onely Iudge in all controuersies of Religion B. C. That their Popes sayth Bell can not erre in Fayth iudicially is this day with Papistes an Article of their Fayth An vntrueth I say it is for though the more common and better opinion be That the Pope in his iudiciall and definitiue sentence can not erre in Fayth yet false it is that this is an Article of Fayth when as many Diuines both haue and doe hold the contrarie T. B. I answere first that I willingly acknowledge one trueth here vnawares vttered by our Iesuite viz. that there is great dissention amongest the Popish Doctors concerning matters of Fayth and Doctrine Of which dissention I haue discoursed at large in my Motiues Secondly that the best opinion in the Romish Church doth not make an Article of Romish Fayth Thirdly that he might be deemed a right wise man that could soundly discouer the Articles of Popish fayth For the Fryer heere telleth vs lustily that which is the common and better opinion euen the opinion of the Pope himselfe for his doubtlesse is the best prooueth not an Article of Popish fayth Fourthly that our Jesuite doth heere giue vs a generall rule how to discerne the Articles of Popish fayth For thus disputeth our Learned Fryer Although it be the more common and better opinion yet seeing many Diuines hold the contrarie it can not be an Article of Popish fayth This is a golden and most excellent Rule in deed for which I thanke our Jesuite with all my heart For no stronger reasons and proofes can be had in controuersies then the plaine confession of the aduerse part Hence are fitly deduced sundry golden and very memorable Corollaries The first whereof is this viz. that the Papistes this day haue either very few or flat none at all Articles of their Fayth The second Corollarie is this viz. that it is not against Popish fayth to beleeue and defend that the Pope may erre Iudicially that Christes naturall body is not in the holy Eucharist really that the Marriage of Priests is lawfull that the Pope is a Tyrant and Heretique a Firebrand of all mischiefe that a great number of zealous and faythfull Martirs of Iesus Christ were burnt in Queene Maries daies by force of the Popes tyrannicall Law who for all that held no Article against Popish fayth Out vpon late hatched Poperie Euerie child may see that it is the New religion The Jesuite with the helpe of his best Learned breathren for to defende Poperie froÌ„ the note suspition of the New religion the most Learned Iesuites put to their helping hands gaue their best aduise is not able in truth to say any thing for the antiquitie of the same How be it rather theÌ„ his proud heart shall yeeld to the trueth retract his former ignorance malice he wholly consecrates himselfe to very childish shiftes and most foolish ridiculous cauils B. C. Hee runneth vpon the Doctrine taught by Soto and generally holden of Catholikes viz. that the Pope can not erre in Fayth and confidently auoucheth that it was neuer heard of till of late dayes his wordes be these This onely will I say that this Popist Article the Pope can not erre in Fayth was neuer heard of in Christes Church for the space of a thousand and fiue hundred yeares A gallant vntrueth worthy of the reformed Minister Thomas Waldensis was long before that time as also Turrecremata who both hold that the Pope can not erre in Fayth And not onely late Writers but the auncient Fathers haue taught the same Doctrine relying them selues vpon the Promise of Christ in the Ghospell The wordes of Soto prooue very well that the Pope as Pope can not erre which the most and best Diuines doe also maintaine But no word hath he or syllable that this is an Article of Fayth which was the poynt that Bell should haue prooued and for which he pretended to cite his wordes T. B. I answere first that one Popish trueth here vnawares confessed by our Fryer Jesuite doth comfort my heart more then a litle viz. that the Pope as Pope can not erre For albeit it be most absurd and false in rei veritato as I haue plentifully prooued in my Christian Dialogue yet is it a Popish trueth or a flat lye which is the same and turneth Poperie vpside downe Secondly that though the Pope with his most and best Diuines doe hold that the Pope as Pope can not erre yet is it not an Article of Popish Fayth This Confession I likewise approoue and out of this double Graunt I inferre a double Corollarie corollary 1 First that seeing it is no Article of Popish Fayth to beleeue that the Pope can not erre a shame of all shames it is to the Pope and his deuoted Vassals to hold affirme and beleeue that the Councels can not erre which the Pope confirmeth nor those Councels decree a trueth which he reiecteth and condemneth For most absurde and execrable it is to burne with Fire and Faggot zealous Men and zealous Women because forsooth they will not beleeue that which the Pope himselfe doth not beleeue O tempora O mores The Pope himselfe doth not beleeue that hee can not erre as this sweete Doctrine of our sweete Sir Fryer teacheth vs. And yet must all be burnt with Fire and Fagot that say hee may erre in decreeing matters of Fayth corollary 2 Secondly that all the late Popes and Papistes are flat Heretiques The reason is euident because they beleeue not Christes promise made to Peter and the Byshops of Rome his successors as both the Pope and all his deuoted Vassals do beleeue For which respect the Fryer in this very place telleth vs peremptorily and blusheth neuer a whit thereat that not onely Walâ—ensis and Cardinall Turrecremata but Late Writers and the auncient Fathers also haue taught the same Doctrine For which respect the Iesuites and all Iesuited Papistes haue euer in their mouthes and continually obiect as an argument vnanswerable that
because Christes Prayer freed S. Peter from both And consequently if Christes Prayer were as effectuall and powerable for the Byshoppes of Rome as it was for Peter which the late Byshoppes of Rome Jesuites and Iesuiteâ— Papistes would enforce vs to beleeue they could no more erre in the one then in the other no more in their priuate opinions published to the world then in their definitiue sentences and iudiciall Decrees Nay it is in the Popes owne power to be as free from the one as from the other For when he expoundeth the Scriptures when he writeth Letters when he vttereth his opinion any way if he doe the same sitting in Peters Chaire he can not erre it is the vndoubted trueth Againe whatsoeuer he say or write as wee haue heard alreadie when he sitteth in Peters Chaire that we must obey and beleeue though in heart hee be an Heretique For no Byshoppe or Byshoppes in the Christian world how wise vertuous or learned soeuer they be may take vpon them to examine that which the Pope deliuereth out of Peters Chaire Thus S. R. that great learned Jesuite constantly auoucheth as wee haue alreadie seene Who doubtlesse could not be permitted to publish such Doctrine if it were not the Fayth and Doctrine of the Church of Rome Yea if any denie it where Poperie beareth the sway that person must feele the smart of Fire and Fagot for his reward He may be thought to know nothing who lyuing in Rome or Spaâ—ne knoweth not this to be so Secondly that Alphonsus that famous and learned Fryer spake not of the Popes priuate opinions as our Jesuite B. C. more impudently then Clerkly auoucheth who chooseth rather to say any thing then to graunt Poperie to be the New religion No no Alphonsus vtterly detested that Popish Article as a most prophane sottish and ridiculous Position though this day of Fayth with the Pope and with all his Iesuites and their Jesuited crew I prooue it by sundry testimonies layde open to the Readers by Alphonsus his owne penne First therefore these in one place are his expresse wordes Nouissimè fertur de Iohanne 22. quod publicè docuit declarauit et ab omnibus teneri mandauit quod animae purgata ante finale indicium non habent stolam quae est clara et faâ—ialis vâ—sio Det et vniuersitatem Parisiensem ad hoc induxisse diâ—itur quod nemo in ea poterat gradum in theologia adipisci nisi primitus hunc errorâ—m iurasset se defensurum et perpetiò eâ— adhaesurum Last of all it is reported of John the 22 of that name that hee publiquely taught declared and commaunded all Diuines to hold that the soules of the iust before the day of Iudgement haue not the stole which is the cleare and faciall vision of God And hee is reported to haue induced the Vniuersitie of Paris to this that none should take degree in Theologie there but he that did first sweare to defend this Errour and to adhere to it for euer Thus writeth Adrianus who himselfe was Byshoppe of Rome And Alphonsus a man of high esteeme in the Church of Rome after he had reckoned vp fiue Heresies setteth downe this for the sixt that the soules of the iust doe not see God till the day of Doome ascribing the sayd Heresie to the Armenians as to the authors thereof and to the Greekes togeather with Pope Iohn as to the patrons and defenders of the same Where the gentle Reader must obserue with mee seriously least he be seduced with the colourable glosse of the Jesuiticall Cardinall Bellarminus who seeing the force of this Testimonie and well perceiuing that it was able to ouerthrow the highest poynt in Poperie bestirreth himselfe mightily in defence thereof Hee telleth vs forsooth we may beleeue him if we lift that Pope Iohn erred indeed as Adrian and Alphonsus write But he did that as a priuate man sayth our Jesuite not as Pope of Rome This is that neuer enough detested Popish fallacie of the Popes double person wherewith the Pope his Jesuites and Iesuited Popelinges haue a long time seduced vs euen since that cursed Sect was first hatched and brought into the world the Sect of Fryers called Jesuites I meane But it is a most friuolous childish and ridiculous cauill a very fillie shift so sottish and so absurde as the Pope and all his Popelinges may be ashamed thereof The reason is euident euen to euery childe First because it is sayd Docuit Hee taught Secondly because it is sayd Publicè Publiquely Thirdly because it is sayd Mandauit Hee commaunded all Diuines to hold it Fourthly because none could be made Graduates in the Schooles of Theologie which held not this opinion Fiftly because euery Graduate was sworne to defend it and to sticke to it for euer perpetuò So then the Pope may erre and dè facto hath erred and that not only in his priuate opinion as a priuate man but euen in his iudiciall and publique sentence as a publique person and Pope of Rome This argument is insoluble it will neuer be truely answered while the world standes This is enough doubtles to euery indifferent Reader yet in way of congratulation to our Iesuite I am content to say a litle more These in an other place are Alphonsus his expresse wordes Celestinum Papam errasse circa matrimonium fidelium quorâ—m alter labitur in haeresim res est omnibus manifesta neque hic Celestini error talis fuit qui soli negligentiae imputari debuit ita vt illum errasse dicamus velut priuatam personam et non vt Papam qui in qualibet re seria definienda consulere debet viros dectos Quoniam huiusmodi Celestini definitio habebatur in antiquis decretalibus in cap. laudabilem titulo de conuersione infidelium quam ego ipse vidi et legi That Pope Celestine erred about Matrimonie of the faythfull whereof the one falleth into heresie it is a thing so manifest as all men know the same Neither was this errour of Pope Celestine such as it may be imputed to sole negligence so as wee may thinke him to haue erred as a priuate man and not as Pope who ought in the decree of euery serious matter to aske counsell of Learned men For that Definition and Decree of Celestine was in the old Decretals in the Chapter Laudabilem which I my selfe haue seene and read Out of these Golden words of the famous and great learned Fryer Alphonsus I obserue many very worthy lessons for the great good of the thankfull Reader First that Pope Celestine erred Secondly that he erred not as a priuate man but euen as Pope and publique person Marke gentle Reader for Christes sake I desire thee and for the saluation of thine owne soule For doubtlesse if thou ponder seriously this onely Testimonie of this great learned Papist all affection and partialitie set aside thou canst not
is baken in the Ouen and that is dressed in the Panne and in the frying Panne shall be the Priestes that offereth it And euery Meate offering mingled with Oyle and that is dry shall pertaine to all the sonnes of Aaron to all alike B. C. To the matter An vntrueth it is that priuate Masses were not before the time he mentioneth The twelft Councell of Toledo almost nine hundred yeares agoe reprehendeth those Priestes which offering Sacrifice did not communicate Quale illud Sacrificium c. What manner of Sacrifice is that sayth the Councell of which neither he that sacrificeth is knowen to be partaker Which wordes doe shew that none was present to communicate and yet the Councell requireth onely that the Priest himselfe doe Communicate S. Austen also recordeth how a Priest offered Sacrifice in a priuate forme for the freeing of that place from the molestation of wicked spirites In so particular and extraordinarie a place and for so particular a businesse no probabilitie that there were any other Communicantes T. B. I answere first that it is high time for our Jesuiticall Fryer to come once to the matter whose custome is seldome or neuer to be occupied in that honest kind of dealing Secondly that the Councell doth not so much as once name Priuat Masse much lesse doth it approoue the same Thirdly that if priuate Masse had then been vsed in some odde Churches yet would not that serue the Fryers turne The reason is at hand because that which commeth almost 700. yeares after Christ must needes be the New religion To that of S. Austen the same answere is correspondent and our Iesuite sheweth himselfe a very silly and ridiculous disputer while hee seeketh to stablish an Article of Fayth vpon iciune and barren probabilities Fourthly that all approoued antiquitie condemneth our Iesuite with his priuate Masse In the Canons of the Apostles I find these expresse wordes Si quis Episcopus Presbyter vel Diaconus vel ex Sacerdotali catalogo facta Oblatione non coÌ„municauerit causam dicat et si probabilis fuerit veniam consequatur sin verò minus segregetur vt qui populo â—ffensionis causa sit et suspicionâ—â— dedetit aduersus eum qui obtulit tanquam non dignâ— obtulerit If any Byshop Priest or Deacon or other of the Clergie shall not Communicate in time of the Oblation let him shew the cause or if it be found reasonable let him be pardoned but if otherwise let him be excommunicate as one that hath giuen scandall and brought him into suspition which offered as if he had done amisse The Popes owne Decrees are so cleare and manifest at nothing can be more One Canon commaundeth all such to be put out of the Church as do not receiue the holy Communion these are the expresse wordes Paracta Consecratione omnes comunicent qui noluerint Ecclesiaâ—ticiâ— câ—reâ—â—liminibus Sir N. Apostoli slatuerum et suncta Romaâ—â— tinet Ecclesia Whâ—â—â— Consecration is accomplished â—â—t all that will not Communicate be put out of the Church For so the Apostles haue ordeyned and so the holy Romane Church obserueth An other Canon hath these wordes Si quis 〈◊〉 Ecclesiam Dei 〈…〉 sua auertit se a Communione sacramenti et in obseruandis ministerijs declinat constitutam regulam disciplinae istum talem proijciendum de Ecclesia Catholica esse decernimus donec panitentiam agat If any come into Gods Church and heare the holy Scriptures and superstitiously auert himselfe from the Communion of the Sacrament and in obseruing the ministeries swarue from the set Rule of discipline wee decree such a one to be excommunicate vntill he repent An other Canon hath these wordes Omnes fideles qui conueniunt in solennitatibus sacris ad Ecclesiam et scripturas Apostolorum et Euangelium audiant Qui autem non perseuerant in oratione vsque dum missa peragatur nec sanctam Communionem percipiunt velut inquietudines Ecclesiae commouenies conuenit communione priuari All the faythfull which come to the Church in the time of sacred Solemnities must heare the Scriptures of the Apostles and the Ghospell But they that doe not continue in Prayer vntill Masse be done nor receiue the holy Communion ought to be excommunicate as disquieters of the congregation S. Chrysostome is so farre from approouing priuate Masse that he calleth them impudent and wicked that beeing present doe not communicate these are his wordes Ista videlicet et nunc ad omnes nos dicit qui impudenter hic et improbè astamus Quisquis Nâ—mysteriorum consâ—rs non est impudens et improbus astat These thinges verily he now sayth to vs all which stand by impudently and wickedly For whosoeuer standeth by and doth not communicate is impudent and wicked Oh what would this holy Father say if he were this day in Rome and should see many hundredes standing by gazing and the Priest onely deuowring all He would doubtlesse tearme them most impudent and vngratious people This Subiect is plentifully disputed in my Suruey to which place I referre the Reader The 14. Chapter of Pope Martins Dispensation for the Brother to marrie his naturall Sister ALL that our Jesuite sayth in defence of Pope Martins Dispensation is plaine silence in very deed For albeit I soundly confuted the forerunner in my Booke intituled The Popes Funeraâ—l there answering to euery sentence word and syllable which B.C. in his forerunner possibly could deuise yet S. R that Learned Iesuite in his pretensed Answere to the Downefull of Poperie not able to withstand or gainesay the dint of my Authorities Argumentes and Reasons passed ouer all the same being many and of great consequence in deepe silence In like manner this Jesuite fearing to suffer shipwracke vpon the same Rocke is afraid now either to reply vpon mine Answere in the Funerall or to answer my Authors plainely named in the Triall I prooued the Question soundly and clearely in the Popes Funerall by the Authorities and plaine Testimonies of Siluester Prieras sometime Maister of the Popes sacred Pallace and a Fryer so learned that he was surnamed Absolutus Theologus of Bartholomaeus Fumus a religious dominican Fryer a famous Popish summist and a man of great Authoritie in the Holy house of popish Inquisition of Angelus de Clauasio a Papist of great learning and reputation as who was Vicar generall of the Cismontani-Minors of Cardinall Caietain the most learned Papist of that crew and of Martinus Nauarrus a singular Writer and a most famous popish Canonist This notwithstanding all the answere that can any way be extorted from the Jesuites Penne is this and no other viz. that he hath answered me in the Dolefull Knell Which answere if it be pondered seriously with all the circumstaunces thereto apperteyning is able of it selfe if nothing els could be said to ouerthrow Poperie to turne it vpside downe Marke therefore gentle Reader very attentiuely what I
hath bestowed almost one whole Leafe of Paper in the recitall of my wordes Transeat It is impertinent B. C. If he inferre against our Ceremonies as he doth because they were instituted since Christ though very auncient That they be rotten rags of the New religion What shall become of their Ceremonies which either be borrowed from vs or of farre latter date What can they be else but pil◠patches of Protestanisme rusty Ragges of the Reformed congregation Nay what must their Communion Booke it selfe be neuer heard of in the whole world till the late dayes of King Edward the sixt and drawen from our Portesse and Masse-bookes as the thing it selfe speaketh and their Geneua Ghospellers often cast in their teeth T. B. I answere first that our Jesuite vnawares giueth Poperie a deadly wound while he maketh popish Masse and the Oath which popish Byshoppes make to the Pope to be no weighty poyntes of Religion For they are within the compasse of the eleuen Chapters of which he writeth in this manner These Chapters I shall soone dispatch seeing they concerne not any weighty poyntes of Religion but Ceremonies and such like Secondly that seeing by Popish free graunt neither popish Masse nor the popish Oath be matters of any weight to which I for my part willingly agree it followeth of necessitie that the Pope is a most cruell Tyrant while he suffereth no Byshoppes to haue voyces in Councels but such as take that wofull Oath As also while he burneth with Fire and Faggot all such as will not adore the popish Bread-god in the Idolatrous popish Masse Thirdly that our Fryer Jesuite is still like himselfe that is a most notorious lyer while he chargeth me to tearme all Ceremonies instituted since Christ though very auncient to be rotten Ragges of the New religion For I am so farre and so free from this false and plaine Diabolicall accusation as I approoue all Ceremonies consonant to Gods word at what time soeuer the Church did institute the same None that shall duely peruse my Regiment of the Church can be ignorant hereof Nay I say further that the Jesuite is not able to bring any one sentence out of any one of all my Bookes which denyeth Authoritie to the Church to institute new Ceremonies at any time so the same be consonant to Gods word and profitable for the circumstaunces of time place and persons Yea the Iesuite confesseth within twentie lines before this false and heynous slaunder that this is the very doctrine which I teach But his witte is so besotted in fighting and bickering against the manifest trueth that he forgetteth what he writeth so soone as a new reason pricketh him for he had rather heape lyes vpon lyes and slaunders vpon slaunders then forsake and condemne their gainefull Poperie which is to him and his fellowes as was the Temple of Diana to Demetrius and the other Craftes-men Fourthly that we vse no Ceremonies in our English Church but such as are both agreeable to the holy Scriptures and of farre greater antiquitie then the time of Poperie which I oppugne Albeit I doe not absolutely condemne all Ceremonies this day vsed in the Romish Church but respectiuely as they are superstitiously vsed and too vnlawfull or at least ridiculous or vnprofitable endes For I willingly graunt that sundry Ceremonies now vsed in the Romish Church are thinges indifferent of their owne nature and that the same were not to be condemned if the superstitious abuse and wicked intentes for which they are done were wholly remooued from them Where I wish the Reader to marke attentiuely these my words Absolutely Respectiuely Fiftly that in our Communion Booke two thinges must distinctly be obserued and Christianly distinguished viz. the Essentiall and the Accidentall partes thereof Touching the partes Essentiall they are all and euery of them as old as is the written Word of God it selfe The Aduersaries are not able to giue any true instance against the same Touching the partes Accidentall they are all in like manner old in the thing it selfe though of later date in the modification of the thing Thus in playner tearmes All the accidentall partes of our English Communion booke if we respect the matter it selfe conteined therein are as old as the holy Scripture it selfe though of farre latter date if we respect the order and disposition of the same This my Answere is grounded vpon this doctrine of S. Paul Omnia ad aedificationem fiant Omnia honestè et secundum ordinem fiant in vobis Let all thinges be done to edifying Let all thinges be done decently and according to order Sixtly that our Communion booke is drawne from the holy Scriptures as is already prooued and from the old Romane Missals or Communion-bookes in the Purer age of the Church long before the time of idolatrous and superstitious Poperie which I in all my Bookes oppugne B. C. More then foure hundred yeares before the time of S. Gregorie the auncient Brytaines receiued the same manner of seruing God from the blessed Pope and Martyr S. Eleutherius that is in the Latin tongue Which appeareth first because venerable Bede reporteth that there was not any materiall difference betwixt S. Austen sent by S. Gregorie and the Brytaine Byshops saue onely in Baptisme and the obseruation of Easter Secondly for that certaine it is that they had also since S. Austens time the Masse in the Latin tongue But to thinke that if they had been once in possession of the seruice in their owne vulgar Language that they could haue been brought from that without infinite garboyles especially the opposition betwixt them and the English Saxons in auncient time considered or that if any such contention had fallen out that it could haue been omitted by the curious Pennes of our Historiographers it were great simplicitie once to surmise Wherefore what followeth but that they receiued that custome at their first conuersion which was within lesse then two hundred yeares after Christ And consequently that by Bels allowance and the common Computation of others it is sound Catholique and Apostolicall and not any Rotten ragge of a New religion as this Ragge-maister gableth And that on the contrary to haue the publique Seruice in the vulgar tongue is a New patch of Protestanisme fetched from Wittenberge or that Mart of Martinistes the holy City of Geneua T. B. I answere first that I haue prooued already in the sixteene Chapter aforegoing that in the primatiue and auncient Church the publique Prayers and diuine Seruice were euery where in the vulgar Tongue Secondly that the Latin tongue was then vulgar to all the Nations of Italy Spaine Germanie France Africa and other Countries of the West For in those dayes the Latin tongue was commonly spoken and vnderstood wheresoeuer the diuine Seruice was in Latine Which is plaine and euident by S. Austens Doctrine in many places of his workes Thirdly that if the
potestatem excellentiae quam Christus alligatam sacramentis minimè habebat panem in suum corpus conuertisse deinde verò dedisse illud Apostolis dicendo hoc est c. Secunda opinio affirmat consecrasse quibusdam verbis nobis ignotis quando benedixit panem et non quando dixit hoc est c. Tertia opinio tuetur illa forma Christum consecrasse verum occultè scilicet quando benedixit panem deinde publicè illa vsum fuisse vt alios formam consecrandi doceret Quarta opinio tenet quando verba haec hoc est c. protulit simulque factam fuisse benedictionem Pope Innocentius holdeth the first opinion that Christ by the power of excellencie which in him was not tied to the Sacraments conuerted the Bread into his body and then gaue it to his Apostles saying This is my Body c. The second OpinioÌ„ holdeth that Christ Consecrated the Bread with certaine words to vs vnknowen when he blessed the Bread not when he sayd This is my Body The third Opinion affirmeth that Christ did Consecrate with that forme of Wordes but secretly when he blessed the Bread and after vsed the same forme of wordes to instruct others The fourth OpinioÌ„ holdeth that Christ did Consecrate when he spake these wordes This is my Body and that the blessing was done at the same time Behold here the mistery of profound Popish diuinitie I would not pittie his case who being in the middest of a great Fire would not come out to heare it But I pittie the case of silly ignoraunt Papistes who hazard aduenture their saluation in beleeuing such a fond and vncertaine Religion Secondly because by popish Religion when the Priest holdeth the Host ouer his head then the silly Papistes must adore the same as the euerliuing God And for all that euen by popish Fayth and Doctrine the popish so tearmed Host may onely be a peece of meere Bakers bread I prooue it sundry wayes First because Sotus that great learned popish Schoole-man surnamed for his deepe Learning Doctor Subtilis holdeth and constantly defendeth that it is vncertaine whether the Bread be transubstantiated into Christes body or no by these wordes of popish Consecration This is my Body Secondly because by popish Fayth the Bread is not made Christes body vnlesse the Priest haue intention so to make it But doubtlesse sundry cases and causes may fall out to take away the Priestes intention and so the silly people shall commit Idolatrie while they adore a peece of Bread for the lyuing GOD. Thirdly because Caietanus that famous Cardinall and learned popish Schoole-doctor affirmeth resolutely and boldly that no Text in the whole Ghospell prooueth effectually that these wordes This is my Body must be vnderstoode properly But doubtlesse if this be true which the learned Cardinall of Rome auoucheth to be most true the silly Papists must perforce be Idolaters while they adore the popish Host in the popish Masse And therfore doth the popish Byshop Angles giue his Reader this graue aduise Cautâ— legendum esse Caietanum Caietane must be read warily For indeed by Caietanes opinion the adoring of the popish Bread-god is flat Idolatrie Fourthly because in the consecration of the Wine the Priest as Josephus Angles telleth vs may haue Perueâ—sam intentionem a peruerse intention and so not consecrate at all For the Papistes agree about their Reall presence in their popish Masse like Dogges girning and fighting for a Bone albeit it be the most essentiall part of their Masse and consequently of all popish Religion Fiftly because they haue added one word of their owne forge and inuention to the words of Christes sacred Institution to weet the word enim which signifieth for S. Mathew S. Marke S. Luke and S. Paul haue all foure deliuered the expresse wordes of Christes sacred Institution and for all that not one of them doth so much as once name the word enim Fourthly that albeit there be some apparant colour of trueth in that which our Iesuite saith of the Pater noster yet will the same after due examination thereof tende wholly to the confusion of the Pope and all his popish Vassals I therefore answere that though the Pater noster in it selfe and according to Christes Institution be most holy pure and religious yet is the same by superstitious abuse in popish Masse become morally prophane impure and irreligious I prooue it by three seuerall and irrefragable reasons First because in the popish Masse it is mangled maimed and bereaued of a chiefe part of the integritie thereof For as hee that clippeth the Kinges Coyne is thereby a Traytor to an earthly King euen so hee that clippeth or curtalleth Gods sacred Word is thereby a Traytor to God the King of Heauen And consequently seeing the Pope in his idolatrous Masse hath curtalled the Pater noster taking from God his Kingdome his Power and his Glorie which three are plainely comprised in that originall Pater noster which Christ did institute it followeth by an ineuitable illation and necessarie consequence that the Pater noster as it is prophaned in the popish Masse is become a Ragge of the New religion Secondly because in the popish Masse it is vsed in a Tongue to the people vnknowne contrary to Apostolicall doctrine Thirdly because the Pater noster in the popish Masse marke well my wordes is made as it were a slaue to Satan and to serue Idolatrie euen against the euerliuing God to waite and attend vpon the popish Bread-God And so the Pater noster which afore was pure and Euangelicall is now by popish Superstition become impure and Diabolicall But some will here demaund how the Pater noster doth serue Idolatrie To whom I answere that euery thing in popish Masse is meere accidentall as the Jesuite hath freely graunted the popish Reall presence onely excepted to weet the popish so supposed Dagon or Bread-god And consequently al the rest in popish Masse must perforce be designed for the furtheraunce honour and seruice of the said popish Dagon or Bread-god Which seruice I haue elsewhere soundly prooued and plainely conuinced to be very flatte Idolatrie Neither ought this to seeme strange to the Reader for as holy Wordes in Coniurations Theftes Robberies Treasons and the like are by the abuse prophaned and morally become vnholy euen so the holy wordes of the Pater noster are in the popish Masse prophaned and become vnholy They are referred to a wicked and idolatrous end from whence all morall actes receiue their specification as all learned Papistes graunt But the euerliuing God is and ought to be the end of all and consequently whatsoeuer is referred to any other end the same is thereby prophaned ipso facto B. C. The Protestantes obiect how we make the Masse the Sacrifice of the New testament to haue been ordayned by Christ himselfe when as Durandus and others note at what
and his successors and that their fayth can not fayle B. C. What followeth What but that Bell hath abused the good Reader with an vntrueth T. B. I answere that this in very deed followeth and that of meere necessitie that our Iesuiticall Fryer is a most impudent and shamelesse lyer Which thing I haue prooued againe againe in euery Chapter most euidently I therfore must perforce conclude that seeing the late Byshops of Rome Pius Paulus Iulius haue taken in hand roundly and most Antichristianly as I haue prooued in my Tryal and more at large in the Downe-fall of Poperie to dissolue that Matrimonie which the true Church of God durst neuer dissolue for the space of more then fifteene hundred yeares after Christ the same can be nothing else but a very filthy rotten Ragge of the New Religion The 30. Chapter of the Popes pretended Superioritie ouer and aboue a generall Councell B. C. BELL beginning with false asseueration to tell vs of the late opinion of the Popes Superioritie ouer a Generall Councell interlaceth also an other shamelesse vntrueth against the Rhemists T. B. I answere that our Fryer still continueth one and the selfe-same man that is to say an impudent and shamelesse lyar as he first began For within foure lines hee compriseth and coucheth two most notorious Lyes The former is touching the late Opinion of the Popes Superioritie ouer a generall Councell I affirme that the Popish opinion which holdeth the Pope to be aboue a generall Councell is a late vpstart Fayth and Doctrine neuer knowne to the Church of God for the space of more then fourteene hundred yeares after Christ. This our Fryer calleth a False asseueration but prooueth it not at all Hee is an honest man we may if we will beleeue his bare word But I by the power of God shall prooue the contrary to be the trueth and that out of hand The latter is concerning the Rhemistes which shall be cleared God willing by and by B. C. The Rhemists quoth hee that Iesuited brood tell vs plainely if we will beleeue them that there is no necessitie of a Generall or Prouinciall Councell saue onely for the better contentation of the people Thus hee chargeth them yet not noting any particular place But I will helpe him it is in their Annotations vpon the Actes T. B. I answere that our Fryer sheweth himselfe what he is aswell heere as else where He is so full of Charitie forsooth that he will needes helpe me for his owne intended gaine though he be thereby prooued a lying swaine for in the next Page following hee hath these expresse wordes This vntrueth the Minister had set abroach once afore in his Downe-fall and quoteth the place very orderly in this manner Rhemes test in Act. 15. Loe in one page our Fryer chargeth me of purpose to haue omitted the quotation so to delude and deceiue the Reader In an other page he graunteth freely that I haue set it downe very orderly Behold this changeable Camelion who both accuseth and acquitteth me with one breath Concerning the slaundering of the Rhemists wherewith he chargeth me this is mine answere that in very deede the slaunder fitly agreeth to himselfe which he would vntruely impose vpon mee I prooue it First Because the Rhemists plainely declare their meaning in this briefe Marginall note Though the Sea Apostolique it selfe say the Rhemists haue the same assistance yet Councels be also necessarie for many causes In which wordes they graunt as much in effect as I either affirme or require Secondly because the causes which our Rhemists name may easily be reduced to that one of mine viz. For the better contentation of the people for the controuersie is this Whether the Popes Iudgement be infallible in it selfe without a Generall Councell or no. The Rhemists answere that Papistes hold the affirmatiue viz. That the Popes Iudgement is infallible and is assisted of God euen as a generall Councell Thirdly that if the Papistes will stand to the deny all of mine Assertion then must they perforce grant against them-selues which willingly they would not that they haue no infallible trueth in their Church saue onely the Determination of a generall Councell I heare it I receiue it I like it I willingly subscribe vnto it Let the Papistes therefore defend this Doctrine That the Popes Iudgement without a generall Councell is fallible that he may Iudicially erre and be deceiued and let a lawfull generall Councell determine all controuersies and no doubt all Christians in the world will yeeld thereunto But Sir Fryer Hic labor hoc opus est For in these last and worst dayes of ours the Pope will stay at home and whatsoeuer or howsoeuer the Councelles shal decree yet must nothing be of force saue that onely which the Pope liketh to confirme as he sitteth in his Chaire at Rome This I haue prooued at large in the Downe-fall of Poperie and in my Christian Dialogue by euident demonstrations B. C. What can Bell fetch from Alphonsus to iustifie his iniurious charge of the Rhemists Alphonsus was one of those Diuines that thinke the infallibilitie of Iudgement to be in a Councell and not in the Pope alone And hee bringeth this reason Because otherwise it were in vaine with so great labour to assemble so many Byshops togeather This informeth vs very well what Alphonsus his opinion was But where doth hee say that the Rhemistes teach that the Determination of a generall Councell is needlesse saue onely for the better contentation of the people because the Popes Iudgement is infallible Hee speaketh not one word of the Rhemists and no marueile for he could not being dead many a faire day before the Rhemes Testament was published T. B. I answere that I can fetch so much from the famous and learned Papist Alphonsus as is able to kill the Pope with all his Jesuites and Iesuited Popelinges For first the Pope with his Jesuites and Jesuited Popelinges auouch most impudently and would enforce all Christians to beleeue the same that Christ built his Church vpon S. Peter and vpon his successors the Byshops of Rome and also that Christ prayed for Peter and for the Byshops of Rome that their Fayth should neuer fayle But Alphonsus condemneth that opinion for Hereticall while hee affirmeth the infallibilitie of Fayth to rest in a generall Councell not in the Pope alone Secondly Alphonsus confuteth the Rhemists most soundly euidently while he affirmeth generall Councels to be gathered in vaine if the Popes Determination and iudgement were infallible Thirdly Alphoâ—sus is one of those Learned popish Writers euen by the Iesuites free confession in this place which I wish the Reader neuer to forget who defende the trueth with vs against the Pope his Iesuites and all his Iesuiteâ— Popelinges For I doe not hold or defend any Article or poynt of Doctrine as I haue often sayd and heere our Fryer vnawares graunteth the same such is the