much Chapter 9. Proouing That true Merite and condigne Merite is all one That the regenerate doe Good works and receiue reward aboue their desertes That Good workes doe follow Iustification but goe not before the same That the best Workes of the regenerate are stayned with sinne and in rigour of Iustice deserue eternall death That Good workes are so necessarie to attaine eternall life as the way and meanes by which God hath decreed to bring his chosen to it but not as the cause thereof as without them it can not be had That Good workes are the effectes of Predestination depending vpon it not it vpon them That Good workes in a godly sense may be called Meritorious that is they so please God that of mercie he rewardeth them That without the mercie and promise of God they doe not merite Heauen That Charitie is not the forme of Fayth That Fayth as a worker doth not iustifie but respectiuely as an instrument apprehending Christes merites and applying them vnto vs. That Good workes though they be neither the efficient nor the formall nor the finall cause of Iustification which euer goeth before them yet are they the materiall cause and cause sine qua non as the Schooles tearme it the cause or condition without which Iustification shall not haue effect That Good workes must be done for three respectes That Gods Promise doth not make Good workes to be condignely worthy of the reward That condigne merite of Workes was not an Article of Popish fayth for more then 1540. yeares after Christ. Chapter 10. Proouing That Transubstantiation is a Monster lately begotten in Germanie and borne in Rome Chapter 11. Proouing That popish Inuocation doth not onely make Saintes the mediatours of Intercession but also of Redemption That it maketh Saintes ioynt purchasers of saluation with Christes most sacred blood so it be not in the same degree That it was not hatched for more then 1160 yeares after Christ. Chapter 12. Of the popish Communion vnder one kind Chapter 13. Of popish priuate Masse Chapter 14. Of Pope Martins Dispensation Chapter 15 Of worshipping of Images Chapter 16. Of Church-seruice in the vulgar tongue Chapter 17. Of the peeces of popish Masse Chapter 18. Of the mysteries of the popish Masse Chapter 19. Of kissing the Popes feete Chapter 20. Of praying vpon Beedes Chapter 21. Of changing the Popes name Chapter 22. Of the Paschal Torch Chapter 23. Of the popish Pax and the mysterie thereof Chapter 24. Of the Popes Bulles Chapter 25. Of the popish Agnus-dei Chapter 26. Of Candelmas-day Chapter 27. Of the dolefull Oath which popish Byshops make to the Pope Chapter 28. Of the popish Lent-fast Chapter 29. Of the annulling of popish Wedlocke Chapter 30. Of the Popes falsely pretended Superioritie ouer and aboue a generall Councell Chapter 31. Proouing That the Fayth and Doctrine of the Church of England is the old Romane Religion The Iesuites Proeme B. C. INtending to note the principall vntruethes of Bels Pamphlet I haue thought good first to salute his Epistle and see what holsome stuffe hee presenteth in that to his Patrons T. B. I Answere First that If I should stand vpon euery falsehood slaunder and coozening tricke which the Iesuite hath published and handsomely paint him out in his best beseeming colours time would sooner fayle me then matter whereof to speake Howbeit as I meane for the most part to let passe his slaunders his rayling wordes his fooleries his absurdities his contradictions and his impertinent trifles so will I by Gods holy assistance confute all the partes and parcels of his foolish and ridiculous Pamphlet not omitting any thing of any moment in the same Secondly that our Iesuite hath passed ouer in deepe silence my principall and chiefest groundes argumentes authorities reasons as not able to say any thing against them which the iuditious and honest Reader will soone perceiue with all facilitie Thirdly that our Fryer doth but snatch at peeces heere there with the which he thought he might best deale at the least in some colourable shew of wordes But let vs hearken I pray you to that attentiuely which he saith he found in my dedicatorie Epistle B. C. The Minister falleth roundly to the matter presenting his Patrons with a tricke of his occupation in his very first entraunce his wordes be these The visible Church sayth Bell as writeth Egesippus remayned a Virgin free from all heresies and corruptions during the life of the Apostles that is to say about one hundred yeares after Christ to which time S. Iohn the Euangelist was liuing but after the death of the Apostles sayth hee errours by litle and litle crept into the Church as into a voyde and desart House This Collection which Bell hath made is powdred with lies and iugling trickes thicke and threefold Bell belyeth both Egesippus and also Eusebius whom be quoteth in the third Booke of his Historie in the two and thirtie Chapter as the relator of those wordes of Egesippus Read the place he that please no such thing shall there be found nor the name of Egesippus so much as once mentioned The Minister both abuseth his Patrons and others with a notorious vntrueth of his owne fathering that vpon Eusebius which is not there to be found Neither can this dealing of his proceed from other roote then meere malice as whose braines are employed about nothing more then the hammering of lyes cauils and corruptions against the Catholicke fayth T. B. I answere First that the Jesuites accusation which here he maketh against mee is too too grieuous and more then intollerable vnto godly eares For he chargeth mee first to haue powdred mine assertion with lyes and iugling trickes Then to haue done the same thicke and threefold Thirdly to haue belyed both Egesippus Eusebius Fourthly he impudently affirmeth that no such thing can possibly be found as I haue alleadged out of Eusebius Fiftly that my position is so false and so farre from the trueth that the name of Egesippus is not so much as once mentioned Sixtly that I haue of meere malice slaundered Egesippus and Eusebius being men of great learning Secondly that seeing the Diuell is the Father of Lyers the Jesuite may very well be thought to be his only Sonne But how shal this be prooued All that shal read his booke must needes thinke he sayth the trueth because he affirmeth it so impudently confidently I would say This text of Christes holy Ghospell may well be verified in the Jesuites their accursed Iesuited crew They loued the prayâ—e of men more then the glory of God The truth is neuer ashamed she will shew her selfe to the confusion of the newly hatched sect of Jesuites of the late start-vp Romish fayth and religion These are the expresse wordes of Eusebius as Ruffinus a very learned Father who liued aboue 1200. yeares agoe hath translated them Post haec idem scriptor
Gods meere fauour grace and good pleasure without all desertes of Man Seuenthly that our Vocation our Iustification and our Glorification are the effectes of Predestination I therefore conclude that Good workes are not the cause why Gods children possesse Heauen as their inheritaunce seeing it is the effect of Predestination yet that they are the ordinarie way and meanes by which God decreed in his eternall purpose to bring his Elect to Heauen For as he ordayned the end that is to say the Kingdome of Heauen or Eternall life so also ordayned he the way and meanes to attaine the same that is to say Vocation Iustification Fayth and Good workes Yea euen among Men whosoeuer intendeth the Ende intendeth also the Meanes The 6. Conclusion Good workes in a godly sense very vsuall frequent in the holy Fathers may truly be sayd to be meritorious that is to say they please God and are so acceptable in Gods sight that of mercie he rewardeth them farre aboue their desertes This Conclusion is sufficiently prooued by the reasons alleadged in the first Conclusion I will here onely annexe the testimonie of Bernard that famous and learned Popish Abbot In one place he hath these wordes Sic non est quod iam quaeras quibus meritis speremus bona praesertim cum audias apud Prophetam non propter vos sed propter me ego faciam dicit Dominus sufficit ad meritum scire quod non sufficiant merita So there is no cause that thou shouldest now aske by what merites we hope for Glorie especially since thou hearest the Prophet say I will doe it sayth the Lord not for your sake but for mine owne selfe It is enough to merite to know that our merites are not sufficient Againe in an other place the same Bernard hath these wordes Deest gratiae quicquid meritis deputas Noâ—â— meritum quod gratiam excludat Horreo quicquid de meo est vt sim meus nisi quod illud magis sorsitan meum est quod me meum facit Gratia reddit me mihi iustificatum gratis et sic liberatum a seruitute peccati It degenerateth from Grace whatsoeuer thou ascribest to Merit I will no Merite that excludeth Grace I abhorre whatsoeuer is of mine owne that I may be mine owne vnlesse perhappes that is more mine owne which maketh me mine owne Grace iustifieth me freely to my selfe and so deliuereth me from the bondage of sinne In an other place the same Bernard hath these wordes Iam vero de vita aeterna scimus quia non sunt condignae passiones huius temporis ad futuram gloriam nec si vnus omnes sustineat Neque N. talia sunt hominum merita vt propter ea vita aeterna debeatur ex iure aut Deus iniuriam aliquam faceret nisi cam donaret Nam vt taceam quod merita omnia Dei dona sunt et ita homo magis propter ipsa Deo debitor est quam Deus homini quid sunt merita omnia ad tantam gloriaÌ„ denique quis melior est Propheta cui Dominus ipse tam insigne testimonium perhibet dicens Virum inueni secundum cor meum Veruntamen et ipse necesse habuit dicere Deo non intres in iudicium cum seruo tuo Domine Now touching eternall life we know that the sufferinges of this time are not worthy of the glory to come no not if one endure all For the Merites of men are not such that for them eternall life is due by right or that God should do some iniurie if he gaue it not For to let passe that all Merites are the giftes of God and so man is rather debter to God for them then God to man What are all Merites to so great Glorie In fine who is better then the Prophet to whom our Lord giueth so worthy a testimonie saying J haue found a man according to my heart howbeit hee had need to say to God Enter not into iudgement with thy seruant O Lord. Thus writeth the deuote and religious Abbot Bernard who though he liued in the greatest mist of Poperie and so was carried away with some errours of his time yet did he teach most Christian doctrine almost in all his workes And because he was reputed a great Papist and of high esteeme in the Church of Rome his testimonie is euer most forcible against Papistes the Pope and Church of Rome Out of this his most learned and Christian Discourse I obserue many godly memorable Lessons First that our best workes doe merite nothing Secondly that our greatest and best merit is this viz. to know that our supposed merites are not sufficient Thirdly that how much soeuer be it more be it lesse We ascribe to Merites so much doe we derogate from Gods grace And consequently seeing we may not derogate from the Grace of God in any respect it followeth of necessitie that we cannot challenge any thing of Merite Fourthly that Grace doth iustifie vs freely and consequently that our Workes doe not iustifie at all Fiftly that though one man could suffer as much as all men doe yet could not that man condignely Merite heauen Sixtly that eternall life is not due to mans Merites Ex iure that is to say Condignely and of right Seuently that God should doe no man wrong if he gaue it not But doubtlesse if Good workes did merite Heauen God should doe wrong to many a man in not giuing it For to withhold and keepe a mans right from him is a notorious and knowen wrong Eightly that a Man is more indebted to God then God to Man And this reason my L. Abbot Bernard yeeldeth for the same viz. Because Heauen or Eternall life is the free gift of God The 7. Conclusion Good workes euen by Popish doctrine without the mercie and promise of God in his Sonne and our onely sauiour Christ Iesus doe not condignely merite Heauen This is soundly prooued by all the reasons of the third Conclusion But I will prooue it by other euident meanes S. Augustine hath these expresse wordes Vae eâ—iam laudabili vitae homiâ—â—m si remotu misericordia â—iscautias â—am Woe euen to the best liuers on earth if thou extend not thy Mercie to them For this cause doth the holy Prophet desire God Not to enter into iudgement with him And he addeth this reason Because 〈◊〉 mâ—n liuing can 〈◊〉 iustified in his sight Againe the same Prophet confesseth in an other place That if God deale extreamely in punishing what is done amisse none lyuing no not the best of all iâ— abâ—e to endure his iustice Abbot Bernard hath these expresse wordes Peccatum separans inter nos et Deum penitus auferri non poterit donec liberemur a corpore The sinne that separateth vs from God can not wholly be taken away while we remaine in this world He speaketh of Concupiscence euill desires Loe originall
condignitie of their Workes And the Fryers answere is childish and friuolous when he denieth the loane of the Cloake to haue such virtuall and proportionate equalitie to an Hundred poundes as mans Merites haue to Glory For first the Promise is equall and holdeth in both alike Secondly the Promise doth not adde any Worthines to the worke and consequently there is still as great inequalitie after the Promise as was before the same Thirdly there is infinite distance betweene God and Man the Worke and the Reward as their Angelicall Doctor hath well obserued But the distance and inequalitie betweene the Loane of the Cloake and the Hundred poundes is finite and limited in them both Thus much for this Conclusion If any desire a larger Discourse he may peruse my Suruey and the Downe-fall of Poperie where he shall find soundly answered what possibly can be obiected against the same Note well the eleuenth Conclusion following The 8. Conclusion The doctrine of the Popish Schoole-doctors in which they affirme Charitie to be the forme of Fayth is friuolous ridiculous false erroneous and absurd I prooue it first because in thinges distinguished intrinsecally one can not be the forme of another If our Fryer deny this he will prooue him selfe an Asse Si non actu at saltem in potentia For an Asse by this graunt may be his forme and so giue him the denomination of that worthy Beast Now that Fayth and Charitie are distinct Theologicall virtues S. Paul affirmeth it so plainely as no deniall can be made thereof Secondly because of thinges in perfect essence and nature the latter can not possiblely be the forme of the former and consequently seeing Fayth goeth before Charitie Charitie cannot possiblely be the forme thereof The antecedent is euident because whatsoeuer commeth to a thing after the essentiall constitution thereof is meerely extrinsecall accidentall to the same The consequent is likewise euident because we can neither please God nor yet come to God but by Fayth in him It is the flat and constant Doctrine of the chosen vessell of our Lord Iesus Thirdly because Charitie is the effect and worke of Fayth S. Augustine prooueth it in these golden wordes Oâ—us autem fidej iâ—sa dilectinest But Charitie it selfe is the worke of Fayth This testimonie striketh dead it plainely conuinceth it is vnanswerable The 9. Conclusion Fayth though it be a worke as the Papistes truly obiect yet doth it not iustifie as a worke or qualitie neither yet for any worthinesse or condignitie in the same Explico When we teach hold and defend according to the vniforme consent of the holy Fathers and constant doctrine of the Apostle That man is iustified by Fayth onely without Workes wee neither denie Fayth to be a worke nor yet affirme it to iustifie as a worke For Fayth being taken two wayes properly according to the nature of Fayth and respectiuely as it apprehendeth his obiect it is sayd to iustifie the latter way not the former not as it is an habite in vs but as it apprehendeth Christ without vs. Wee neither make Fayth a part nor yet a cause of our iustification either efficient or formall or finall albeit I willingly graunt hold defend and beleeue that it is the materiall cause that is as the Schooles tearme it Causa sine qua non the cause without which iustification shall not haue effect Which our sauiour Christ sheweth euidently when hee telleth vs That God so loued the World that hee gaue his onely Sonne that none beleeuing in him should perish but haue eternall life And in an other place That whosoeuer beleeue not shal be condemned To which the holy Apostle is consonant when he affirmeth it impossible to please God without Fayth I graunt yet further that when there be many graduall effectes of one and the same cause then the former may fitly be teaâ—med the Materiall cause of the latter and consequently although Good workes can not be any cause of Iustification which goeth before them yet may they be the Materiall cause and causa sine qua non of Saluation which followeth them For Good workes are in sort necessarie to Saluation as is already prooued in the fourth Conclusion For as Vocation Iustification Regeneration and Glorification are the effectes of Predestination euen so by Gods holy ordinaunce being Predestinate we are called by the hearing of his Word vnto Fayth which apprehending the righteousnesse of Christ Iesus is the cause of our Iustification After we be Iustified of our Iustification proceedes Regeneration as who hauing remission of our sinnes and being ingraffed in Christ by Fayth are indewed with more aboundant Grace of his holy spirite through which we are dayly more and more Regenerate and made new creatures in Christ. After we be Regenerate out of our Regeneration spring Good workes both internall and externall as who being made Good trees begin to bring foorth Good fruits and so continuing are brought at the length of Gods free Mercie to the perpetuall possession of Eternall life For the proofe of IustificatioÌ„ by Faith without Workes I referre the Reader to my Suruay which Booke if he once peruse and ponder it seriously he can not but be fully satisfied in this behalfe The 10. Conclusion Good workes though they neither be partes nor causes of Iustification nor merite eternall Glorie condignely as is alreadie prooued yet must wee doe them for these three respectes Gods Ours our Neighbours In respect of God for these three endes First because God hath so commaunded vs This is my Commaundement that ye loue one an other as I haue loued you Againe in these words If ye loue me keepe my coÌ„mandementes Againe thus Bring foorth fruites worthy of repentance Euery Tree that bringeth not foorth good fruite shal be cut downe cast into the fire Againe thus Thou shalt loue the Lord thy God with all thine heart with all thy soule and with all thy minde Againe in these words Bee yee therefore perfect as your heauenly Father is perfect Againe thus He chose vs in Christ that we should be holy in his sight Againe thus Wee are his workemanship created in Christ Iesus vnto good works which he hath prepared for vs to walke in Secondly for the Glory of God Let your Light so shine before men that they may see your good workes and glorifie your Father which is in Heauen Thirdly to shew our gratitude and thankfulnesse to God for which respect S Paul exhorteth the Râ—manes To offer vp their bodyes a liuely holy and acceptable Sacrifice vnto God Yea the Scriptures teach vs euery where to shew our thankefulnesse vnto God by our holy and godly liues In respect of our selues for sundry endes First to assure vs of our Election Saluation For thus is the Latine vulgar text extolled preferred before all other by the Popish Councell of Trent Quapropter
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
punire et damnare popoteram non simpliciter assumpsi sed elegi vos multis alijs neglectis ex massa corruptionis Sequitur docet igitur Christus hoc verbo quod ipse sit author nostrae salutis Deinde quod gratia est quicquid habemus siue sint dona illa iustificantia Fides Spes Charitas Spiritus sanctus c. Siue externa illa dona quae alio nomine dicuntur gratiae gratis datae I saith hee haue chosen you This Text may bee vnderstood either of Election to the Apostleship or of eternall Election to Saluation For in both there is grace but no merit and both are wrought by Christ for in him and through him did God chose vs euen before the world was made I saith he who am God and therefore stand in need of nothing I who can punish and condemne haue not simply taken you but reiecting many others haue chosen you out of the masse of corruption Christ therefore doth by these words teach vs that hee is the authour of our saluation Then that whatsoeuer we haue the same is grace whether they be those iustifying gifts faith hope charity the holy Spirit the like or other externall gifts which by another name are called graces freely giuen That which our Sauiour sayth of Marie Magdalene that many sinnes were forgiuen her because shee loued much doth serue well to illustrate that which is here obiected of the kingdome of heauen For Christes Argument is not drawne from the cause but from the effect as if Christ had sayd we may know by her great loue that great gifts are bestowed on her that many sinnes are forgiuen her for that not remission of her sinnes proceeded from her loue but her loue from the forgiuenesse of her sinnes the similitude of the debtors doth plainly insinuate the same vnto vs. Christ told Peter of two debters whereof the one owed fiue hundred pence the other fiftie and that when they had not wherewith to pay the creditour forgaue them both he therefore demaunded of Peter whether of the debtours loued the creditour more Peter answered that he to whom more was forgiuen Christ approoued Peters answere and concluded thereupon that seeing Marie Magdalene loued more he might know that shee had more forgiuen her Because saith Christ to whom little is forgiuen the same loueth little neither is it possible to draw any other meaning out of Christs wordes The reason is euident because Christ saith plainely that the debts were freely forgiuen the debters who were not able to pay the debts For otherwise Maries forgiuenesse could haue no coherence with the similitude of the debters Out of this discourse these points are euidently deduced First that wee are the sonnes of God not by nature for so wee are his enemies and the children of wrath but by grace and adoption in Iesus Christ. Secondly that God chose vs to be his children before wee were borne Thirdly that he chose vs not because wee were holy but that we might bee holy and immaculate in his sight Fourthly that he predestinated vs to be his children by adoption not for any good workes which we either had done or could doe but for his owne good pleasure to the glorie of his grace for as to doe any workes at all before we be borne is altogether impossible so to doe good workes when we are borne seeing we are conceiued in sinne borne in sinne and by nature the children of warth is impossible in like manner Fiftly that all our good Workes are the effects and fruites of our predestination For if it be true as it is most true els the Apostle were a lyer that we were elected to be holy and to doe good Workes it is also true it can neuer be denyed that holy life and good Workes are the effects of our Election and Predestination in Christ Iesus For this cause saith the Apostle that Predestination proceedes freely of Gods eternall purpose Iustification of Predestination and Glorification of Iustification For first he choseth vs in Christ then he iustifieth vs in Christ thirdly and lastly he glorifieth vs for his owne Names sake B. C. And beside in the same place Damnation is giuen to had Workes Get ye away from me ye cursed saith Christ into euerlasting fire which was prepared for the deuill and his angels For I was an hungry and you gaue mee not to eate Seeing then the Scripture declareth plainely that bad workes deserue damnation and hee the cause thereof as plainly doth it also signifie that good Workes merit heauen and be the cause thereof T. B. I answer that there is great disparitie between saluation damnation therefore that good works can not merit saluation though euil works be enough for damnation The reason hereof is euident both in Phylosophy and Diuinitie because as S. Dionysius Areopagita sayth and the popish angelicall doctour Aquinas approueth the same Bonum ex integra causa existet malum ex quolibet defectu Good is of an intire and whole cause but euill comes of euery defect Yea that more is required to good then to euill dayly experience teacheth vs for one may soone doe that hurt to his neighbour which can not without great cost and long time bee cured againe For euery childe can tell our Iesuite that one stroake is able to kill a man but twentie potions and twentie chirurgicall actions can not restore him to life againe So one leape is enough to cast one into the bottome of a pitte or deepe gulfe but twentie hops skippes or leapes will not bring him vp againe This Saint Austen well obserued when hee left in Writing to all posteritie That it is a greater thing to iustifie the Wicked man then to make Heauen and Earth Free-will of it selfe is able to doe euill in the highest degree but of it selfe it hath no power at all either to doe well or to will well For it is God that worketh in you saith the Apostle both the will the deed euen of his good pleasure Againe in an other place thus To will is present with me but I find no meanes to performe that which is good Againe in an other place thus No man can say that Iesus is the Lord but by the holy Ghost Againe in an other place thus we are not sufficient of our selues to thinke any thing as of our selues but our sufficiencie is of God All which and much more our sweete Sauiour compriseth in these few pethy and most golden wordes For without me yee can doe nothing Much more I could say to the same effect but I refraine for two respectes First because I haue regard to breuitie Secondly for that this matter is disputed at large and soundly prooued in the Conclusions afore-going especially in the first sixt and seuenth B. C. Wee find also in Scripture that men are sayd worthy of Reward That you may be counted worthy of
be so plainely deliuered by our Aduersaries may seeme a woonderment to the Christian world For it clearely turneth vpside-downe the chiefest Bulworke of Popish vnwritten Traditions and in effect all Popish Fayth and Religion The common good which commeth to the Church of God by writing against the Aduersaries of his Trueth is hence apparant to all the World For after the swaggering Iesuite S.R. with the aduise of Bellarmine and others had bickered so long with the Downefall of Poperie that the fall had almost broken their neckes then ouercome with the dint of Argumentes and force of the Trueth he was as it were violently compelled to write as we here see in defence behalfe of the Trueth To which for the better manifestation of this trueth so necessarie to be knowen I will adde yet an other Testimonie of our Jesuite in these wordes Truly sayd S. Epiphanius that we may tell the inuention of euery question out of the consequence of Scripture He sayd not Out of the Scripture For all cannot be taken thence as him selfe writeth but of the consequence of them Because all questions are resolued out of the Scriptures or out of that which followeth of them as the effect of the cause Thus the Iesuite approoueth vnawares the selfe same Doctrine which I in the Downefall doe defend And consequently the very weapons which our Aduersaries put into our handes are sufficient God be blessed for it to defend vs and our cause against them The Fourth Conclusion Popish Auricular Confession is not necessarie for mans saluation For first seeing all thinges necessarie for saluation are conteyned in the holy Scriptures as in the third Conclusion Secondly seeing all Preceptes and Promises of God in the New are contayned in the Old Testament as in the first Conclusion Thirdly seeing Popish Auricular Confession is not contayned in the Old Testament as in the second Conclusion it followeth by a necessarie and ineuitable consequution that Popish Auricular Confession is not necessarie for mans saluation This trueth will yet better appeare in the Conclusions following The Fift Conclusion Popish Auricular Confession is neither commaunded by Christ nor yet by his Apostles I prooue it because it is not contayned in the Old Testament as in the second Conclusion Which Testament for all that contayneth all the Preceptes of the New as may doth appeare to the indifferent reader in the first Conclusion The Sixt Conclusion Popish Auricular Confession was instituted and established by the meere Law of man grounded onely vpon a falsely imagined Apostolicall vnwritten Tradition I prooue it many wayes First because the Popes owne Decrees referre the matter to the iudgement of the Reader viz. Whether one be bound to Confession Auricular by Gods law or by Mans law These are the expresse wordes as Gratianus hath published the same Quibus authoritatibus vel quibus rationum firmamentis vtraque sententia satisfactionis et confessionis nitatur in medium breuiter exposuimus Cuj autem harum potius adhaerendum sit lectoris iudicio reseruatur Viraque N. fautores habet sapientes et religiosos viros Vpon what Authorities or foundations of Reasons either opinion is grounded I haue briefly shewed But to whether of them it is better to adhere that I leaue to the iudgement of the Reader for either opinion hath Wise and Religious men for the Patrons of the same Behold heere gentle Reader that not onely the Popes Doctors but his owne Canon-law and the Commenters vpon the same doe all confesse that Confession after Popish manner is onely solely grounded vpon Mans law Yea the Popish Glosse addeth That both Wise and Religious men doe so thinke though some others hold the contrary Secondly because the great Thomist who for his rare skill in Theologie was surnamed Absolutus Theologus Syluester Prieras doth deliuer his opinion in these wordes Quarto vtrum ad confessionem teneamur diuino iure vel humano Et dicâ— quod Canonistae videntur tenere quod sit de iure positiuo Et ad hoc est Glossa de paenit Dist. 5. In summa quae vult quod instituta sit a quadam vniuersali traditione Ecclesiae Ideo infert quam confiteri non tenentur infideles nec similiter Graeci ex quo non acceptauerunt huiusmodi constitutionem sicut nec votâ—â— castitatis It is demaunded fourthly sayth the great Learned Papist Syluester whether we be bound to Popish Confession by the law of God or by the positiue Law of man And I say the Canonistes hold that we are bound by the Law of man And of this opinion is the Glosse which is of this minde that Confession was instituted by a certaine vniuersall tradition of the Church Wherevpon the sayd Glosse inferreth that Infidels are not bound to Confession neither the Greekes in like maner seeing they did neuer approoue such Constitution as neither the vow of Chastitie Thirdly because the highly renowned Papist Martinus Nauarrus confesseth constantly and plainely that their solemne Glosse commonly receiued and approoued of all Canonistes holdeth Confession to be commaunded by the Church Fourthly because the famous Canonist most reuerend Arch-byshop and honourable Cardinall Panormitanus was of the same opinion with the Glosse For Couarruvâ—as a very learned Popish Arch-byshoppe deliuereth his minde in these wordes Quam ex nostris plerique sequuti sunt maximè Panormitanus ex ea asserentes confessionem sacramentalem quae Sacerdotibus fit iure humano institutam esse Which Glosse many of our Canonistes haue followed especially Panormitanus affirming out of that Glosse that Sacramentall confession made to Priestes was ordayned by the law of Man Fiftly because Scotus the Popish subtile schoole Doctor surnamed for his great skill Doctor subtilis after hee had largely disputed pro et contra of Popish Auricular confession concludeth in these wordes Apparet ergo istud non esse de iure diuino promulgato per scripturam Apostolicam Vel ergo tenendum est primum membrum scilicet quod sit de iure diuino promulgato per EuangeliuÌ„ vel si illud non sufficiat dicendum est tertium scilicet quod est de iure diuino positiuo promulgato a Christo Apostolis sed Ecclesiae promulgato per Apostolos absque omni scriptura It therefore appeareth that it is not of the law of God published by Apostolicall Scripture We must therfore either hold the first member to weeâ—e that it is of the law of God published by the Ghospell or if that will not suffice we must say the third that is to say that it commeth from the positiue law of God published by Christ to his Apostles but published by the Apostles to the Church without all Scripture Thus writeth the Popish Doctor subtilis who with all his subtiltie can not tell in the world what to say in defence of their Popish Auricular confession For after he hath discoursed to the vttermost of his wittes and imployed his
but perforce abhorre and detest Poperie as a New Religion by litle litle crept into the Church The Jesuites like Gypsies haue inuented a tricke of fast and loose assigning to their Pope a double person Priuate and Publique As a Priuate man they graunt he may both be deceiued himselfe and also deceiue others But that he can erre as a publique person or as Pope of Rome they vtterly deny For if they should once graunt this poynt which is a manifest and knowne truth Poperie would soone be turned vp-side downe Howbeit my saluation I gage for the tryall Fryer Alphonsus decideth the controuersie so plainely as all the Jesuites and Jesuited Papistes in the world are not in trueth able to withstand or gainesay the same Alphonsus sayth constantly and plainely without all And 's and Ifs that Pope Celestine erred not as a Priuate man but euen as Pope and publique person O sweete Iesus ô mercifull God! ô most louing Father how great is the malice and blasphemie of Iesuites and Jesuited Papistes against thine euerlasting Trueth and holy Name With what face can the Iesuiticall Cardinall Bellarmine tell vs that Pope Celestine erred onely as a Priuate man and not as Pope or Publique person When the Papistes like the Popes Decrees then they say hee defined as Pope and Publique person and that none may withstand his definitiue Sentence or once examine the same as is alreadie prooued to their euerlasting shame But when their Pope is conuinced to haue erred so grossely that they know not possibly how to defende him then they are not ashamed to say that hee erred but as a Priuate man Thirdly that the Pope erred in a poynt of great consequence euen in a matter of Popish Fayth viz. that Matrimonie was so dissolued by reason of Heresie that the faythfull man or woman might marrie againe the Hereticall partie lyuing Which thing sayth Alphonsus was manifest to euery one to be an Heresie and their late Councell of Trent hath defined it to be so Fourthly that this Decree and Definition of Pope Celestine was in those dayes enrolled in the Popes Decretals Fiftly that Alphonsus saw and read the same Sixtly that the sayd Decree can not this day be found amongst the Popes Decretall Epistles Where I note by the way and heartily wish the Reader to obserue the same that the decrees of our holy Fathers the Popes haue bin such so much against lately hatched Poperie as they are this day ashamed to bring the same to light But let this be our comfort herein that God hath at all times stirred vp some learned Papistes otherwise deuoted to the Pope who haue boldly vsed their Pennes and Wittes such is the force of trueth to discouer and lay open to the view of the world the deceit coozenage liegerdemayne and cunnicatching tricks of wicked Popes Jesuites all Iesuited Papistes so farre foorth I euer meane as is necessarie for the common good of his Church Now whether our Jesuite be a most notorious lyer or noe let the Reader iudge For if Alphonsus say that the Pope can not erre as Pope and Publique person I am content to be the lyer But if he constantly hold and defend the contrarie as the vndoubted trueth then iudge and censure our Fryer in this as in many other thinges for a shameles and impudent lyer best worthy of the Whetstone I wish he may haue it weare it about his necke as a testimonie of his condigne desertes The 9. Chapter Of the condigne so supposed merit of Good workes FOR the clearer manifestation and illustration of the trueth of this Controuersie I thinke it not amisse to proceed therein by way of Conclusions Which being soundly effected I purpose in God to answere and confute a thing very easie to be done the childish cauils ridiculous euasions and cunnicatching trickes which our Fryer vseth in pleading for the life of their New Religion The first Conclusion The Regenerate doe Good workes which are acceptable in Gods sight and receiue reward farre aboue their Condigne desertes This Conclusion is prooued by many textes of holy Writ Iob is enrolled among the Godly and those that feared God euen by the testimony of God himselfe Abel was slaine of his brother Cain because he feared God and did Good works The Scripture sayth that Noe was a iust man and perfect who therefore with his Familie found fauour in Gods sight in time of the generall Deluge The Angell of God saluting the blessed virgin Marie pronounced her holy aboue all Women Zacharias and Elizabeth his wife were both iust walked in all the Commaundements of God Abraham Moses Dauid Gedeon Sampson Samuel and many others did Workes acceptable in Gods sight Cornelius is highly commended in holy Writ for the Good workes he did Thus much for the former part And for the latter part the Scripture is likewise plentifull Christ himselfe promiseth to reward Good workes so liberally that he will not suffer so much as a Cuppe of cold Water giuen in his name to passe without reward For which cause Moses is said to haue had respect vnto reward And S. Paul teacheth vs that the passions of this life are not worthy of the glory to come In briefe the Popish Fryer Iohn de Combis a very learned Papist in his Theological Abridgement affirmeth it to be a maxime with God euer to reward vs aboue our well doinges and to punish vs lesse then our euill demerites These are his expresse wordes Et hoc pates quod Deus semper remunerat supra meritum sicut punit citra condignâ—m And this is euident because God euer rewardeth aboue our merites and punisheth vs lesse then we be worthy Where I may not passe ouer in silence the blasphemie of the Rhemistes against the effect of Christes Passion while they affirme Christ not to haue so fully satisfied for our sinnes but that wee are still bound to satisfie each man in particular for his owne sinnes For most true it is as I haue prooued in sundry places of this Discourse that Christ hath so sufficiently satisfied for all his Elect and so answered the iustice of God for punishment of their sinnes as they are freely discharged thereof Yet must they willingly suffer to be made conformable to Christ in Suffering as they looke to be like him in Glorie Their sufferings are indeed a condition required to their Glorification but neither a Cause thereof nor any Satisfaction for their sinnes The case is cleare the Scriptures doe euery where insinuate the same They are onely Conditio sine qua non of our Glorification and the necessarie and infallible effectes of our Predestination which they euer follow as Fruites doe the Tree for the afflictions of Gods children though they be a cause working eternall Glorie in the sense afore touched as they be the way by which God hath appoynted them to passe to Glorie yet neither are
And the Apostles doubted not to say It hath seâ—med good to the holy Ghost and to vs. If in these and such like speaches God and his Creatures be ioyned togeather without being made ioynt purchasers but as the Creator and the secondarie cause in like manner may the Merites of Christ and his Saintes be conioyned as hath been sayd T. B. I answere first that the more our sillie Iesuite striueth against the trueth the more he still woundeth rotten Poperie Fiue examples he heere produceth and neuer one to the purpose as by by God willing shall appeare Secondly that if Poperie were not the New religion in very deed such paultry and beggerly shiftes would neuer be vsed in defence thereof Thirdly that the question is not of those actes which Gods Saintes doe alone and of them-selues but of those effectes in producing whereof Gods Saintes are sayd to concurre and to be ioyned with Christ our Sauiour And therefore of the fiue Examples three are altogeather impertinent viz. the first the third the fourth For in the first place the Angel doth not connotate a Creature but God himselfe which I prooue by a double argument First because the Text speaketh of that Angel which deliuered Israel or Jacob from all euill which effect can not possibly be ascribed to any Creature but To God alone the fountaine of all Grace and giuer of euery good guift And it is confirmed because the same God which in the 15 verse is said To haue fed Israel all his life long is likewise sayd in the verse following To haue deliuered him from all euill Secondly because two other places of Scripture doe interpret the Angel to be God himselfe The God of Bethel the God that did keepe Jsrael whither soeuer he went In the third place as also in the fourth the actes are onely ascribed to the Israelites and to S. Paul but neither the Apostle nor the Jsraelites are sayd to concurre with Christ in producing the same effect Let the wordes be well marked and the case is cleare The second and fift or last Examples doe prooue indeed that Gods Saints are ioyned with Christ in producing the same effectes but for all that are as far from concluding the Iesuites purpose as Rome is distant from Roan or the East from the West For albeit I willingly graunt that Gods Saintes may concurre and be conioyned with Christ in producing al those effectes to which they are deputed of God as instrumentes meanes and inferiour causes vnder him hauing to that end receiued of him actiue power in some measure yet doe I constantly denie and vtterly defie that most vnchristian blasphemous and hereticall Popish assertion which brutishly and more then cruelly auoucheth that Beckets Blood and Christes most pretious Blood concurre in working mans Saluation For as the Israelites truely sayd that the Sword of God and Gideon destroyed their enimies so may it truely be sayd in like manner that God and the Phisition cure inward sores God and the Surgion externall woundes that God and Masons builde Churches God and Taylors make Garmentes God and Meate nourish men and so foorth But we can neuer truly say that Christes Blood and Beckets Blood doe worke mans Saluation The Sword of Gideon Masons Surgions Phisitions Meate and Taylors haue a certaine actiue power inherent in them to produce such effectes but mans Saluation is such a diuine supernaturall supereminent effect as Beckets Blood hath no actiue power at all neither more nor lesse to produce the same For this respect grauely writeth S. Augustine That if the best liuer on earth should be rewarded according to his best desertes yet could he not but perish euerlastingly For this respect wisely sayth the learned and religious Fryer Ferus That our Saluation consisteth onely and solely in the Merite of Christ not in our owne Workes He addeth the reason because we are not able to make satisfaction no not for the least sinne we commit For this respect sayth Abbot Bernard That the sinne which maketh deuision betweene God and vs can not be wholly taken away in this life This Subiect is handled at large in the ninth Chapter afore-going in the eleuenth Conclusion to which place I referre the Reader for his better satisfaction herein B. C. Bell else-where telleth vs That popish Inuocation and Adoration was not knowen vntill the yeare three hundred and seauentie Yet is it no thing comparable to thâ—s heere vttered making that Article a thousand yeares younger then in his former Booke T. B. I answere first that in my Suruey I haue disputed at large how Inuocation of Saints increased by degrees For the better cleering of which difficultie I there put downe many Canons and Conclusions In one Canon I affirmed the Church of God to haue liued vnacquainted with the Merites Intercession of the Saints in heauen for the space of two hundred thirtie yeares after Christ. In an other Canon I prooued soundly that the first seed of Popish inuocation of Saintes began not to besowen till about the yeare 233. after Christ. In an other Canon that about the yeare 250. after Christ some of the Fathers held constantly that the Saintes in heauen did pray for the lyuing vpon earth In an other Canon that some of the Fathers about the yeare 350. after Christ did by Rhetoricall Apostrophes apply their Orations to the dead Many other thinges concerning the Inuocation of Saintes I disputed in that Booke at large To which Booke though published about thirteene yeares agoe neither this Jesuite nor any other euer had any courage to this day to frame any answere at all In my Tryall of the new Religion which this Jesuite hath taken in hand to confute I constantly affirme that to Pray to be saued by the Blood of Thomas Becket is flat blasphemy against the Sonne of God And as I affirmed afore in my Suruey that Poperie sprang vp by degrees in such and such yeares so now I constantly auouch that to be saued by the Blood of Becket was vnknowen to the Church for the space of a thousand yeares and odde In the Margent the Printer hath negligently set downe 1407 for 1047. yeares after Christ. I would that were the least of many schores of faultes which haue escaped in my Bookes partly of ignoraunce and partly through the negligence of careles Printers Now where I assigne diuers times and yeares precisely and distinctly to the birth of seuerall degrees of Poperie our Iesuite being at a flat non-plus what to answere fleeth malitiously to ridiculous cauils and most foolish and false imputations Yea the Fryer Iesuite B.C. bloody cut-throate if his name so be doth bewray his owne malice vnawares For these are his expresse words Let him be vrged with that which he teacheth else where and then his refuge will be that he speaketh not of the Inuocation of Saints in
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