with this notable vntruth The Popes pardon quoth he is a rotten ragge of the new religion brought into the churche after a 1300. yeares by Pope Bonifacius the eighte This very tale he hath tolde vs diuers times before and therefore the more reason I haue to challenge it for a rotten ly of the Ragge-maister of Raicall That it is suche a one I haue proued in the foresayd Dolefull knelle both by the testimony of Pag. 52. 53. c. other catholicke writers and also of Kemnitius the Lutherance of Germany and Perkins the Puritane of Englande his deare brothers in the Lord. And to say somthing in this place I will adde one testimony more and it shalle be of our mortall enemyes the VValdenses called also Pauperes de Lugduno Who appeared to the world about the yeare 1270. as testifieth Claudius Cussordius and Libro contra waldenses Lib. de heresibus 4. parte Examinis pag. 375. Guido one of whose heresies was against the Popes pardons as is moste certayne and Kemnitius confesseth whiche argueth that pardons were long in vse before the yeare 1300. and therefore be it knowen to Bell that he hath often runge out a notorious vntruth Bels V. Chapter Of Popishe Purgatorie THE XXII VNTRVTHE IN this chapter after he hath disputed against purgatory with the authority of Roffensis of which els where I entend to speake more he cometh to his recapitulation and saith Secondly that the church of Rome beleeued it not that is purgatory for the space of 250. yeares after which time it encreased by litle and litle This either he meaneth is gathered out of the testimony of Roffensis that is not true for nothing doth Roffensis speake of 250. yeares or deny that Purgatrory was alwaies beleeued in the church although he confesseth that the doctrine thereof was not generally so well knowen as now it is which is farre different from this proposition Purgatory was not beleeued of the church of Rome for the speace of 250. yeares after Christ Or els he affirmeth of himselfe that Purgatory was not beleued vntil that time which I make no doubt but it is his meaning for as muche as he teacheth the same thinge in other of his bookes and then I must be so bould to tell him that it is also a manifest vntruth as I haue proued against him in the Dolefulle knelle out of S. Denis S. Pauls scholler Pag. 55. 56. and Tertullian yea and to his vtter confusion conuinced out of himselfe in this place I wille adde the testimony of his brother Perkins Who in his Problem confesseth that Purgatory in the church was first receiued by Tertullian the Montanist Verbo Purgatorium pag. 185. wherein is one open vntruth to witt that he was the first for he onely affirmeth it but proueth it not and no marueil when he can not seing most certaine it is that it came from the Apostles Non Hom. 69. ad populum Praier for the doade commeth from the Apostles temere c. Not without cause saith S. Chrysostome these thinges were ordained of the Apostles that in the dreadfull mysteryes commemoration should be made of the dead for they knowe that thereby much gaine doth come vnto them and much profitte Much more to the same purpose might be produced An other vntruth he hath but more secretly conueyed vz that the doctrine of purgatory is a braunche of Montanisme which is moste false none euer of antiquity notinge that in Tertullian for any erroneous doctrine which no question they would had they reputed that of like quality with the other Bell for that great skille which he hath in auncient monuments and great dexterity in discouering the origine of Popery whereof Suruey epi stle Dedicatorie he vaunteth to the solace of his soule shall do well to iustify these two pointes of his precise brother or if his leisure serue him not for so much at least let him defend himself from lyinge when as Tertullian by the testimony of Perkins confesseth Purgatory who was dead before the yeare two hundred and fiftye Here the iudicious reader may also note how the minister contradicteth himself In his Suruaye intreatinge of Purgatory he sayeth Thus by litle and Bel cōtradicteth him solse litle it increased till the late Bishoppes of Rome made it an article of Popishe fayth Where in the margent he noteth the time thus In the yeare of our Lord 250. Heere he sayth that the church of Rome beleued it not for the space of 250. yeares after which as he telleth vs it encreased by litle and litle and so in this place he maketh the seede of Purgatory not to haue been sowen before the yeare 250 and after ward to haue encreased till it came to perfection there he affirmeth that the seede was sowen before and encreased by litle and litle vntille it became ripe and perfect Popery which was in the yeare 250 and so Purgatory was sowen not sowen growen and not growen an article of fayth and not an article of faith in the same one yeare 250. I will not deny but the minister hath som skill in botching together of ould endes of diuinity gathered out of the ragge markett of Caluin such like Ceneua-merchants yet I feare me it will be to hard for him so to cobble the sayings together that the flawe of a contradiction appeareth not THE XXIII VNTRVTH IN the same place he writeth thus Fistly that the Primitiue Church was neuer acquainted with the Popes pardons nor yet with his counterfette and forged purgatory A notable vntruth for not to speake of pardons but of purgatory was it not the Primitiue churche which beleeued purgatory when as himself confesseth that it was made an article of Popishe fayth in the yeare 250. Suruey pag. 297 Lib. 2. cap. 2. pag. 3. at what time all the Popes were martyred for Christ and in his Funerall he acknowledgeth the first thirty for godly men saying that both they and diuers others taught the same doctrine which S. Peter had done afore them and most certaine that one of these thirty liued in the yeare 250. and so I trowe they were of the Primitiue Churche The Minister is full of distinctions and his braine a shoppe of solutions hauing many I sayes for the answear of any obiection yet it is to be feared that no deuise will free him from a gorsse vntruth affirming here that the Primitiue Church was not acquainted with Purgatory and yet teaching in his Suruey that Purgatory was made an article of fiath by the late Popes of Rome in the yeare 250. I lett passe how purgatory must by his owne cōfession be Apostolicall doctrine when it was taught by those Popes which he graunteth to haue holden the faith of S. Peter as I haue vrged against him in the Dolefull Knell I omitt also how falsely and ridiculously he calleth the Popes that liued 1450 yeares ago the late Popes of Rome veryly it
should seeme by his writinge that he litle careth what passeth from his penne so it be walking against the Pope and Popish doctrine Bels VI. Chapter Of Popish Auricular confession THE XXIIII VNTRVTH SCotus sayth Bell affirmeth resolutely that Popishe auricular confession is not grounded on the holy scripture but only instituted and commaunded by the Churche of Rome The minister resolutely slaundereth Scotus Where doth that learned man teach any such doctrine Viewe his margent and nothinge is there found Bell is old ipse he the man that had rather be credited vpon his empty worde then to haue the matter com to the trial of his quotation It helpeth him not to say that he hath noted the place in his Suruay both because many haue not that booke neither doth he here in this particular place of Scotus referr him to that booke and beside what reason can he giue not to quote the place also here But to wincke at this malitious cunninge of his how doth he proue him guilty of this assertion in his Suruay I will first sett downe the doctrine of Scotus and then examin what Bell bringeth for by this meanes the goode reader shal be the better inabled to iudge of the whole matter That learned man disputinge of the necessity of confession to be made to a Priest not mentioning the word auricular whatsoeuer Bell sayeth In 4. dist 17. quast 1. enquireth by what lawe a man is bound to confession and determineth first in generall that the precept must growe from one of these lawes either from the lawe of nature or the lawe positiue of God or the lawe of Churche and descending to particulars he resolueth first that we are not bound by the lawe of nature nextly he disputeth whether it groweth from the precept of the Churche and not liking that opinion he proceedeth to the next member and sayth Breuiter c. To be short it seemeth more reasonable to hould the second member that confession falleth vnder the positiue precept of God But then we must consider sayth Scotus whether it be found explicitely or in expresse tearmes in the Gospell immediatly from Christ because it is manifest quoth he that it is not in the old lawe or whether it be from him expressely in some of the Apostles doctrine or if neither so nor so whether then it was giuen of Christ by word only and published to the Church by the Apostles And hauing made this triple diuision how confefsion might com by the precept of God that is either first commaunded by him in the Ghospell or els secondly to be found in some of the Apostle writings or lastly instituted of Christ by word of mouth only And hauing disputed of the first two membres with dislike-of the second saying It appeareth therefore that it is not of the lawe of God published by Apostolicall scripture Wherevpon he concludeth thus Vel igitur tenendum est c. Therefore we must either hould the first member to witt that it cometh from the lawe of God published by the Gospell c. or if that be not sufficient we must say the third that it is of the positiue lawe of God published by Christ to the Apostles but published by the Apostles vnto the Church without all scripture as the Church houldeth many other things published in word only by the Apostles without scripture c. How saiest thow gentle reader hath Bellbelyed Scotus or no affirminge him to teach that Popishe auricular confession is not grounded on the holy scripture but only instituted and commaunded by the Church of Rome When as he maintaineth plainly that it is de iure diuino of the lawe of God instituted of Christ himself in the Gospell or by word of mouth deliuered to the Apostles and by them to the Church yea and bringeth good reasons which before I omitted to shewe that it was not instituted by the Church as for that the Church would not haue gone about to impose so hard a precept vpon all Christians vnlesse it had been the commaundement of God as also for that it is not found where this precept is imposed by the Church but that before it holy men did thinke that this precept of consession did binde For if they alleadg quoth Extra de Penitēt remissionibus he that chapter out of the Canon lawe Euery one of either sex c. it is euident that the constitution was made by Innocentius the third in the Councell of Laterane but S. Augustin was before that time more then eight hundred yeares who affirmed confession to be necessary as appeareth in his booke of true and false penance and certaine authorityes of his are putt here in the text and certaine in That is of the Master of the Sentences upō whom Scotus doth comment the Canon lawe And not only Scotus his owne wordes nowe cited doe discharge him from the ministers false imputatiō but also the minister himself in his Suruay where he intreateth of this point wholie freeth him for hauing cited Scotus his words to proue that confession to the Priest was not found in the lawe of God extant in any of the Apostles Epistles as before hath been touched he procedeth forward and saith Thus writeth their subtile schoole doctor Scotus Suruey pag. 502. who not able to establishe auricular cōfesiion in the fcriptures flieth to their last refuge to witt to vnwritten traditiōs for in the ende of all he addeth these wordes It appeareth therfore that it is not of the lawe of God published by Apostolicall scripture Therfore we must either houlde the first member to witt that it commeth from the lawe of God published by the Gospell or yf that be not sufficient we must say the thirde to witt that it is of the positiue lawe of God published by Christ to his Apostles but published by the Apostles vnto the Church without all scripture Out of which wordes of Scotus though recited by Bell in latin only we learne that he doth not only giue himself the lye when he sayth in his Suruey that Scotus his opinion is that confession came vnto vs by tradition and affirmeth here the contrary saying that Scotus his opinion is that it was only instituted and commaunded by the Church of Rome but also by the grace of his iugling sincerity playeth two or three Three prety trickes of Bel. The first other pretty prankes in his Suruay The first is when he sayth Scotus flieth to vnwritten traditions and specifieth not wat tradition Scotus speaketh of for it is not of any tradition Ecclesiasticall or Apostolicall but of diuine tradition coming form the lawe of God and instituted of Christ himselfe by his owne mouth declared vnto the Apostles and by them to the church as before hath bene sayd The second is this Scotus quoth Bell not able to establishe auricular confession The secōd in the scriptures flieth to their last refuge to witt vnto vnwritten traditions for in the words
and other articles of Christian fayth and I make no doubt but had Bell liued in the tyme of Constantius the Emperor the same argument should haue gone in behalf of Arrianisme for with as much probability might he haue vrged the same If he take it not in good part to haue his reputation so touched to omitte his changeable disposition let him giue some reason why this maketh more against Transubstantiation then against the consubstantialitie of the sonne of God That Transubstantiation was first hatched by Innocentius in the yeare one thowsand two hundred and fiftene he bouldly affirmeth but how truly remayneth nowe to be examined For either he meaneth only the name or the thing imported by the nametyf the first we easyly graunt it as he must also that the name consubstantiall was not heard of till the Nicene Councell for newe names may be inueÌ„ted by the Church the better more plainely to explicate an auncient mystery of fayth as Vincentius In suo Commâ—nitoriâ— Lirinensis that auncient father learnedly teacheth wherefore if he hath no other quarrell against Transubstantiation but the bare name it is very rediculous and foolishe for if the doctrine it self be found in the fathers and scriptures a poore spight it is to cauill at the name and with like grace may he descant vpon the words Consubstantiall Trinity Incarnation Deipara or Mother of God c. which if he like not to do then let him neither do it here or els giue some good reason of his so diuers a disposition But if by Transubstantiation he meaneth the very pointe of doctrine it self that is the chaunginge of the substance of bread into the body of Christ by the wordes of consecration then is it a most intolerable vntruth that Transubstantiation was first hatched by many pregnant profes being alleageable to the coÌ„trary To begin in the tyme of Leo the ninth about the yeare of Christ one thousand and fifty in a Romane Councell Berengarius was condemned whose heresy as thâ— Magdeburgians suppose came then to light vpon thâ— intercepting of his letters written to Lanfrancâ— concerning his opinion of the sacrament Berengariâ— Contur 9. col 454. 455. Andegauensis c. Berengarius say they deacon of Anioâ— perceiued that it was not truly taught that after the speakiâ— the words of the supper the supper the substance of the elemenâ— did quite vanishe and were transmutated or chaunged inâ— the very body and bloud of Christ Behould transubstanâ— tiation by the confession of our mortall enem yeâ— was taught in the Church much more then aâ— hundred years before the tyme which he assignet for the first beginning thereof The same Berengariâ— abiuring not long after his heresy in the Counceâ— of Rome vnder Nicholas the second and yet not lonâ—ge after returninge to his former vomitte and puâ—blishing a booke in defence thereof such a worth Bâ—rengarius father of the Sacramentaries a periured person Cent. 9. col 459. pillar and constant father haue the Sacramentarieâ— for their heresie Lanfrancus as the same Magdeburbians reporte opposed himself against it setting forth that booke against Berengarius which is yeâ— extant Primum autem But first of all say they he goetâ— about with many words to defend the doctrine of Transubâ—stantiation which which Berengarius did find fault with to witâ— that after consecration the bread was essentially conuerted into the body of Christ and the wine into his bloud Transubstantiation then was not first hatched at the tyme he speaketh of when as it was oppugned and defended many a faire yeare before that is about the year of Christ one thousand and three score as Bels deere brothers confesse An other brother of his one Perkins thoughâ— caste in a more precise moulde acknowledgeth Transubstantiation about fower hundred years before the time he mentioneth for speaking of the auncient fathers thus he writeth Et teneÌ„dum eos c. Rroblem verbo Realis presentia And it is to be houlden that they knewe not TransubstantiatioÌ„ at least for eight hundred yeares False it is that TraÌ„substantiation was not taught before as shall straight waies be iustified against Perkins but in the meane tyme the good reader hath to note how he giueth thely to Bell affirming Transubstantiation to haue bene about some fower hundred yeares before the time in which by Bels calculation it was first hatched The former Magdeburgians note S. Chrisostom and Centur. 5. 5. col 517. Theodoretus for teaching Transubstantiation Chrysostomus Transubstantiationem c. Chrysostom say they seemeth to confirme Transubstantiation for he writeth thus in his sermon of the Eucharist doest thou see bread doest thou see wine do they passe like other meates into the draught God forbidde doe not thinke so for euen as waxe putte into the fire is made like vnto it no substance therof remayneth nothing aboundeth euen so thinke here the mysteries to be consumed with the substance of the body and to this same effect they report straight after certayne words out of Theodoretus The same authors note how that S. Ambrose in his preparatiue praiers before the masse maketh mention of Transubstantiation and application for the liuinge and the dead True it is that they stile him only by the name of the author of the first praier preparatiue to Masse amongest S. Ambroses workes citing nothing els for prooffe but the censure of Erasmus as though the phantasticall and partiall affection of a moderne mutable man were an infallible rule to measure the fathers monuments Perkiâ— also very pertly censureth it for none of S. Ambrosâ— his workes but yet giueth a reason and that a pretty one ibi adoratio sacrameÌ„ti There quoth he is adoration of the sacrament Let such reasons as these runnâ— for sounde they are none of the fathers workeâ— because they are against vs and our doctrine and it will not be any difficulty at all to answear quickly whatsoeuer is produced out of antiquity yea or out of sacred scripture it self Did strong reason more preuaile then preconceipted fansy they would rather inferre thus adoration of the sacrament is allowed by S. Amhrose ergo it is no false superstitious or idolatrous doctrine Furthermore the same Lutheran historiographers reprehende Eusebius Emissenus who died in Contur 4. col 975. the time of Constantine as the same men report out of S. Hierom about Transubstantiation De caena Domini c. Concerning the supper of our Lord say they he spake nothing commodiously of Transubstantiation vpon the words of Christ vnlesse ye eat the fleshe of the sonne of man c. Behould a priest for euer according to the order of Melchisedech hath by his vnspeakable power turned bread and wine into the substance of his body and bloud Diuers other notable authorities might haue been alleadged but I made choise of these as being so playne that the mortall enemyes of Transubstantiation can not deny but that they make cleerly for that point and beside there
is no better boxing of Bell then with the holy fistes of his croked brethren Lastly what man of any insight not furiously transported with the passion of noucltie can persuade himself satisfy his conscience or once imagiâ—e if the Reall presence and Transubstantiation â—ad not been taught by Christ and his Apostles â—hat it could euer haue come into the Church and anished the former opinion especially that being mystery so far surpassing the reach of reason and â—he other so fittinge common conceipt and easy to â—nderstande Could I say a doctrine so newe and â—ifficult possesse the world and exterminate former fayth coming from the Apostles and so easy to â—pprehend without infinite garboiles and contradictioÌ„s or is it possible if any such thing had bene that it could haue escaped the pennes of all writers none euer either of loue to truth or hatred to falshood complayning of that great ruyne of veriâ—ie and straunge ouerflowe of superstition The ProtestaÌ„ts here can say nothing to giue true real satisfaction to any sincerely desirous of saluation On the contrary we can tell them that when the doctrine of the Real presence and Transubstantiation began to be impugned how it was straight resisted by learned men and diuers Councels as before was touched intreatinge of Berengarius which is an argument that our religion is auncient and Apostolicall and his a filthy ragge of hereticall nouelty And thus haue I abundantly proued that Transubstantiation began not vnder Innocentius in the yeare one thousand two hundred and fiue as Bell affirmeth but is far more auncient being taught by the old doctors of Christs Church yea that it cometh from our Sauiour himself and his blessed Apostles Bels XI Chapter Of Popish inuocation of Saintes THE XLII VNTRVTH OMitting Sr. Thomas his irreligious and iniurious snatching at that most constant martyr of Christ S. Thomas of Canterbury let vs consider what els he bringeth The Papists quoth he in their fond Popishe inuocation ascribe that to Saints which is only and solely proper vnto Christ himself I proue it because they make the Saints departed not only mediators of intercession but also of redemption Moste false it is that we make them mediators of redemption and saluation as he may learne out of the Councell of Trent where it is decreed that it is good and profitable to inuocate Saints Sâ—ss 25. and to flie vnto their praiers help and assistance for the obtayning of benefits by his sonne Iesus Christ our lord who is our only Redeemer and Sauiour But let vs heare what potent prooffe Bell bringeth Thomas Becket quoth he sometyme Bishop of Canterbury is inuocated of the Pope and all his Popishe crewe not barely and absolutely as an holy man but as the sonne of the liuinge God and the only Sauiour of the world Terrible wordes and fearfull speaches what will be the end of this boisterous blaste it followeth This assertion to the godly may seeme wonderfull but it is such a knowne truth as no Papist whatsoeuer he be can without blushing deny the same by that time the matter is examined I verily thinke all modest Protestants will blushe at the impudency of this lying Minister that maketh such a solemne preface to so notorious and shamelesse an vntruth Now followeth the deadly cracke and terrible threatned thunder clappe These are quoth he the expresse words of their â—hymne which they both say and singe vpon that day which they keepe holy for his praise and honour Tu per Thomae sanguinem c. By the bloud of Thomas which he for thee did spende bringe vs thither o Christ whether Thomas did ascende I vtterly deny that any of these words or all together make S. Thomas a mediator of redemption or do proue that we inuocate him as the sonne o f the liuing God and the only Sauiour of the world as the Ministers lying lippes lashe out nay I add more that as no words here import any such thing so some there be that on the contrary free vs from that imposed blssphemy for we inuocate and desire Christ that he would for the merit of his martyrdome bringe vs to heauen but did we make S. Thomas a mediatour of redemption and inuocate him as the sonne of the liuing God as Bell chargeth vs then would we not inuocate Christ as his superiour which yet we doe and so a moste outragious vntruth it is that we make s. Thomas a mediator of redemption or inuocate him as the sonne of the liuing God and the only Sauiour of the world as Saintles Sr. Thomas auoucheth I passe ouer with silence how falsely he also affirmeth that the Pope and all his Popishe crewe do vpon the feast of S. Thomas inuocate him in that manner Bels lippes are his owne he may imploy them that way which best pleaseth him for the Pope and many thousands more vse the Romane Breuiary and Missal in neither of which any such praier is contayned and as I suppose not founâ— but in those of Sarum vse which be now anâ—tiquated and out of date as both that and all otheâ— long since were with Bell howbeit the words import not any blasphemy at all for the meaning oâ— the praier is no other but that Christ would bring vs to heauen by that singular and especiall merit oâ— S. Thomas in giuing his life and sheddinge his bloud for the loue of him for if one may merit vpon earth as the Catholique Church teacheth that â— man by the grace of God and the merits of Iesus Christ may then none will deny but the act of Martyrdome and shedding of our bloud for the testimony of truth is meritorious as being the most high and soueraigne worke of charity fortitude fayth patience c. that we can possibly do in this world And if the merits of Saints do profitte vs and we may pray to God by their merits as straightwaies shall be proued then may we pray to Christe by the merits of S. Thomas and by that especiall merit of the shedding his bloud for his honour and that without any iniury to his merits or bloud S. Thomas his merits being inferiour to the merits of Christ these being the heauenly fountayne from whence both the merits of S. Thomas and the merits of all other glorious martyra and Saintes haue flowed and receiued all their force and vertue Thus we are freed from the wicked slaunder of the Minister that blusheth not to say that we make S. Thomas a mediatour of redemption and inuocate him as the sonne of the liuing God and the only Sauiour of the world and together is declared how the praier coÌ„tayneth not any blasphemy but sound good doctrine taken in the true sence though now not vsed in the Catholique Church THE XLIII VNTRVTH AFter this praier to S. Thomas he citeth a sentence out of Polanchus added in the end of Absolution to witt this The passion of our Lord Iesus Christ the merits of the blessed virgin Mary and
a man of his profession charge vs with so strange paradoxicall and blasphemous an assertion and so iniurious to the sacred bloud of the Redeemer of the whole world and that both of men and women without recoilinge of Conscience we denye what he saith how doth he proue what so boldly he affirmeth Postellus the Iesuit quoth he teacheth this execrable dnctrine which he proueth out of the Iesuits Cathechisme That Postellus was one of that order is more then I doe knowe or more then I list yet to beleue vntill I see better prooffes but yf he were he was no other then such a religious man as Luther was that ranne out of his cloister to lay the foundation of the Gospell I finde him in the Indice of the Councell of Trent commonly annexed thereunto enrolde for an heretike and so discharged from vs albeit I can hardly beleue that euer he could be so madde as to broach any such ridiculous sensles and blasphemous doctrine To iustify this of Postellus Mr. Rogers voucheth the Iesuits Catachisme that is a most scandalous and slaunderous libel made by one Pasquiere a French heretike in disgrace of that renowmed order as he knoweth full well when he citeth out of the same Catachisme two infamous verses tendinge deepely to the Pag. 187. touch of their liues which none so simple to thinke that they would publishe of themselues They are so far from being the authors of that filthie and hereticall booke that one Richeome a learned man of that Society hath sette forth a confutation thereof Should a Catholike compose a like treatise bearinge title The Church of Englands Catechisme fraught with abhominable and most odious opinions and such in truth as they vtterly detest and should I produce out of it most loathsom stuffe against them in disgracè of their religion would he not condemne both the author for a monster of the world and me for an extreame malitious slaunderer to presse them with any such damnable testimony I leaue the application to himself Pag. 17. He condemneth it in vs as an error and dreame that Christ descended downe into hell to deliuer the Soules of our forefathers and that most iniuriously for to omitte what may be brought out of sacred scripture we can not be condemned herein but the auncient fathers must beare vs company and that by the testimony of our aduersaries The fable quoth Casuin of a place vnder the 2. Instit. cap. 16. §. 9. ground called Limbus albeit it hath greate authors yet it is nothing els then a fable Sutcliffe confesseth that S. Hierom and other fathers beleued that Lib. 1. de Purgato cap. 4. there was a simbus patrum before the comming of Christ But he addeth that they affirmed it rather scholasticaliy then dogmatically which yet he neither doth nor can proue we take what he graunteth of their beleuinge the other we deny Willet also can not gainesay the same We confesse In his sâ—nopsis of the editioÌ„ 1600. pag. 353. quoth he that the fathers for the most part of them to haue bene in this error To conclude this doctrine is taught by the church of Englande when as in the Geneua Psalms allowed and authorized by receiued custome amongest them this article of the Crede He descended into hell is turned thus into meeter His soule did after this discende into the lower parts To them that longe in darkenes were the true light of their harts By what warrant therfore Mr. Rogers expoundeth them here to the contrary I know not him selfe can best tell Pag. 23. many Papistes quoth he and namely the Franciscans blushe not to say that S. Francis is the Holy Ghost Mr. Rogers blusheth not notoriously to iniury vs with the imputation of so blasphemous an assertion He quoteth in the margent for prooffe the Alcaron of the Franciscans a most shamelesse and scurrilous booke sett out by modern heretikes against that worthy and religious order It seemeth he bestoweth much of his tyme in such spirituall books as these and willingly entertaineth such witnes against vs as the Scribes and Phariseis did against Christ vntill he dischargeth himself better this iniurious and blasphemous vntruth must ly vpon him self Pag. 29. Speaking of our behauiour to the scriptures he Antidot euang in Luc. 16. p. 528. saith To the same purpose but more blasphemously Stapleton saith as the Iewes were to beleue Christ so are we simply and in euery thinge to beleue the Church of Rome whether it teacheth truth or errors He fathereth a grosse vntruth vpon Stapleton his words be these Certum est c. It is certayne that the Iewes ought to haue obeâ—ed Christ so far forth as he gaue testimony to the truth but whether he did that or no belonged not to the Iewes to make any doubt of but simply to beleue Wherefore as the Iewes ought to haue beleued Christ so ought we simply to beleue the Churche not verily whether Note these wordes against Mr. Rogers it teacheth true thinges or not but whether that be certayne to vs or not We ought not to doubt but as the father sending Christ coÌ„maunding him to be heard so Christ sending his church and commaunding that to be heard hath by his wisdom disposed that without all daunger of errour as well the Churche should be heard of vs as Christ of the Iewes True therefore it is not that Stapleton saith we are simply and in euery thinge to beleue the Church whether it teacheth truth or errors for he affirmeth the contrary and his words contayne not any impious or absurd doctrine though Mr. Rogers by ouerlashing and not reciting his wordes truly would make him to speake both impiously and falsely Pag. 49. He taxeth vs for teachinge free will and these words he citeth as out of the Councell of Trent Man Ses 6. cap. 1. hath free will to performe euen spirituall and heauenly thinges VVhat error can this be when straight after Mr. Rogers setteth downe this proposition Man may performe and do good works when he is preuented by the grace of Christ and renued by the Holy Ghost But he will say that the Councell of Trent teacheth that good workes may be done without the grace of Christ and therefore he citeth this doctrine of ours as erroneous and contrary to a former proposition of his which is this Man can not do any good worke that good is and godly being not yet regenerate But herein he doth slaunder the Councell of Trent In the very place by him quoted it rather hath the contrary and in the first Canon of that Session most plainely which is this Yfany shall say that a man is iustified before Ses 6. can 1. God by his workes which are done either by the force of humane nature or the doctrine of the lawe without diuine grace by Iesus Christ be he accursed Iudge nowe gentle Reader whether Mr. Rogers hath dealt truly with vs and the Councell of Trent or
no when he would perswade the world that we beleue that man hath free will to performe euen spiritual heauenly things without the grace of God In the same page and very next line he entreateth the Rhemists in like manner where he citeth these words of theirs Men beleue not but of there owne free will True it is they say so but they exclude not in those wordes Gods grace as moste iniuriously he chargeth them alleadging their words for that purpose for els where they acknowledge that Gods grace and free will must both concurre 2. Cor. 3. in ver 5. pag. 447. Beside the better to infame them he hath corrupted the sentence chopping of the last words which be these August lib. 1. ad Simplicianum q. 2. so that the charg of heresy or error toucheth S. Augustin from whom those words be drawne Mr. Rogers without all scruple cutteth those away to make his slaunder the more colourable against the Rhemists not hauing any list to quarrell with S. Augustin Pag. 65. S. Francis quoth he attayned vnto the perfection of holines and could not synne at all A most iniurious slaunder In the margent he may seeme to quote somethinge to the ignorant sor iustification of his bold assertiō but there is nothing saue a latin sentece which in Englishe is this Wilt thou come to the toppe or perfection attend to the life and manners of Blessed Francis but these words proue not that he could not synne and who is the author of them none is here named at all Is not this great sincerity of Mr. Rogers to vent out such an egregious vntruth and then to cousin his ignorant Reader with a quotation of his owne which yet proueth not that for which it is alleadged Pag. 97. Speaking of the Popes he enrolleth diuers of them for heretikes Some quoth he haue bene heretikes For Siricius Calixtus Leo 9. Paschalis condemned the marriage of Priests A notorious vntruth proceeding from a soule insected with heresy Let Mr. Rogers name is he can any old approued father or later writer not tainted with his leuin that euer condemned S. Siricius for an heretike For if it be heresy to condemne the marriage of Priests then was the auncient and holy Councell of Carthage heretikes nay then were their forefathers yea and the Apostles them selues heretikes yf Concil Carth. 2. can 2. we may beleue them It doth please vs all saith that Councell that Bishoppes Priests and deacons and such as handle the Sacraments being keepers of chastity should abstaine them selues from wiues that what the Apostles taught and antiquity it self hath kept we also should obserue And if it please him to reade Bels 12. 13. vntruths in this treatise he shall finde other authenticall authorities for the single life of the clergye yea euen by the testimony of his owne dere brethren the Lutherans of Magdeburge which being so I make no doubt but that the discreet Reader will rather condemne this moderne Minister of a notable vntruth then so many worthy fathers of the Primatiue Church for heretikes Pag. 102. He slaundereth vs most palpably as though we taught this doctrine viz that The Church hath power to chaunge the Sacramēts ordained euen by Christ himself we vtterly deny it what euidence doth he bring to conuince vs He quoteth in the margent Concil Trid. ses 5. cap. 2. where no such thing is to be foūd He must giue vs leaue to suspect that he vsed art in setting downe the quotation when the thing is most false which he obiecteth against vs. The place he meaneth is Ses 21. cap. 2. where the Councell deliuereth this doctrine Praeterea declarat c. Furthermore the Councell declareth that this power hath alwaies bene in the Church that it might in the dispensation of the Sacramentes their substance remayning sound and vntouched appoint or change those things which it should iudge to be more expedient for the profit of those that receiue them or that veneration which is due to the Sacraments according to the varietie of things tymes and places The Councell in expresse termes affirmeth that the substance of the Sacraments can not be altered and consequently that the Sacraments ordained by Christ can not be changed which yet Mr. Rogers directly contrary to their owne words fathereth vpon them Pag. 112. Som write quoth he as Busgradus that yf the Pope beleue that there is no life to come as som Popes haue done we must beleue it as an article of our faith VVho this Busgradus is I knowe not and as little where the place is to be founde neither am I like by Mr. Rogers for he neither telleth the one nor quoteth the other It is not vnlike but that he is one of his Suersbies some odde compannion or other which he hath in store for such holy purposes The vntruth is so abhominable that it smelleth before God and man Himself must father it vntill he can name some knowne Catholike for author thereof which he will neuer doe before the wordls ende Pag. 115. Yf S. Hierom quoth he had bene away at Chalcedon that Councell had erred Then surely did it erre seing certaine it is that he could not be there hauinge ended his daies before vnder Honorius the Emperour The authority of Iewell Prosper in Chronico anno Christi 422. who died most miserably in our memorie whom he quoteth is to light for so waighty a matter No maruail if Mr. Rogers runne into many vntruths yf he followeth such a lying master as was of rare note for that qualitie Pag. 116. By Councels quoth he the Traditions and bookes of foolishe men haue bene made of Ses. 4 decret equall authority with the word of God as by the Councell of Trent He meaneth the Histories of Toby Iudith and the Machabees c. as I suppose and not all there admitted for Canonicall least he sweepe away the whole Bible And were not I beseche him these bookes authorised also for Canonicall by the third Councel of Carthage twelue hundred yeares ago in which glorious S. Augustin Can. 47. was present VVill he also lightely reiect this Councell as Popishe and condemne them also for authorising the bookes of foolishe men it were plaine dealing I confesse but far better manners rather so to censure himself for contradictinge such a learned auncient and venerable Synode Again shall the Apocalyps or Reuelation of S. Iohn be the booke of a foolishe man because it was made Canonicall by the Councell of Trent and the third of Carthage For as the bookes of Toby and the Machabees were before doubted of by diuers and not ratified by the decree of any Councell before that of Carthage so was the Apocalypse of S. Iohn and therefore theire case is all one Furthermore be it that Mr. Rogers alloweth them not for Canonicall yet ought he not to terme them the bookes of foolishe men for then may we giue that name to all the bookes of the
Vdal to insringe his solutions which giueth me iust cause to suspect that he is with the preconceipted sincerity of his owne doctors carryed away into error and so looketh little into the Originals which if he did he could not but finde that which he pretendeth to seeke for if he shutte not his eies against the truth as he professeth he will not VVhich that he may doe I shall not forgett to cōmend him to his mercy who desireth not the death of a sinner but that all should com to the knowledg of his name But yf it shall sal out that he will stil proceede forward in his fourmer course yet I would wishe him in writinge to abstayne from all biting and bitter words which somtyme he breaketh into that the quarrell of God may not he prosecuted like the quarrels of this world but with that modesty which becometh the prosessors of diuinity and religion And for my part sory I am that Bell hath so far giuen the raynes to his passion as with such virulent termes and insupportable insolency to cast forth his gantlet of defiance and to insult against the whole Church of God which hath made my stile before in the Preface more stirring and quicke then otherwise I would or thought conuenient least we might be condemned of cowardize or seare to the preiudice of truth which so often and so opprobriously he obiecteth against vs. Thus much of these matters now it remaineth to encounter Bell and to examin and make triall what substantiall stuffe is contayned in his Triall of the newe religion B. C. BELS TRIAL EXAMINED CENSVRED AND REFVTED The Proeme ENtending to note the principall vntruthes of Bels Pamphlet the principall part and fundamentall substance thereof I haue thought goode to take my worke orderly before me first to salute his Epistle and see what holsome stuffe he presenteth in that to his Patrones Bells Epistle Dedicatory THE 1. VNTRVTH THE Minister standeth vppon coales till his fingers be at worke and his penne busied about his harts delight and therfore not to loose any time hefalleth roundly to the matter presenting his patrons with a tricke of his occupation in his very first entrance His wordes be these The visible church quoth he as writeth Egesippus Egesip apud Eusebium host lib. 3. cap. 32. remayned a virgin free from all heresies and corruptions during the lise of the Apostles that is to say about one hundred yeares after Christ to which time S. Iohn the Euangelist was liuinge But after the death of the Apostles sayth he errors by litle and litle crept into the church as into a voyd and desert house This assertion is dolefull ynoughe and yet very profitable against all Popish Recusants of our time as who are not ashamed impudently to auouch that after so many hundred yeares from Christes ascension there hath bene no error at all in their Romish Babilon This collection will proue dolefull ynough to him selfe and not very profitable to the congregation by that time we haue sifted his words and examined the authoritye alleadged for it is powdreed with lies and iugling tricks thicke and three-sould For first if he meaneth any such error as may stand with the integritie of the Catholike faith most false it is that we deny any such error may creepe into the Church for we willingly confesse that Papias S. Ireneus and some others held the error of the Chiliastes as him selfe mentioneth straight after that S. Ciprian and diuers others with him were carryed a way in to the error of rebaptization but yet notwithstandinge these their errors they were true members of the Catholicke church seing that in questions newly springing vp error may be incurred but not allwayes heresy which importeth not only an error in the vnderstandinge but also malice and obstinacie in the will by contemninge the Church her decree and determination But if by error he meaneth heresie as no question he doth both because he saith that during the liues of the Apostles the Church was free from all heresies and corruptios but after their death error by litle and litle crept in and also for that he termeth our Church Romish Babilon or as he speaketh in his Suruey where he handleth the very same matter whorish Babylon by which Page 342. wordes it is plaine that he meaneth hereticall errors for such only maketh our Church Babylon and to forsake her true spouse Christ and to comit spirituall fornication by cleauing to newe damnable and hereticall opinions and lastly for that otherwise he proueth nothing against vs the scope of his booke being to shewe that our religion is not old but newe as being far different from the pure faith of the Apostles This then being his meaning most false it is I say that any such errors crept into the Church I meane with the corruption of the Churches sincere doctrine though I willingly graunt that diuers of the Church haue by heresie falne from true doctrine as namely the minister him selfe eyther in the Apostles time or shall doe vntill the worldes end and that by the singular prouidence of Christ who promised that hell gates should not preuayle Math. 16. against his Church and many like places to that purpose might be alledged But what say we to the authoritye of Egesippus who liued straight after the Apostles cited by Bell for iustification of that he affirmed Nothing els but that he belieth both Egesippus and also Eusebius whome he quoteth in the third booke of his history cap. 32. as the relator of those wordes of Egesippus Reade the place he that please no such thing shall there be found nor the name of Egesippus so much as once mentioned The minister was not content to Bels epistle dedicatorie borrowed frō his suruey pag. 341. 342. present his Patrons with a cast paragraffe of his Suruey makinge it the begininge of his Epistle for almost two pages together but he must also abuse both them and others with a notorious vntruth of his owne fatheringe that vppon Eusebius which is not there to be found Neyther can this dealing of his proceede from other roote then meere malice for immediatly after this sentence cited out of Eusebius in the 32. chapter of his third booke he produceth out of the 33. chapter of the same booke how Papias and Ireneus were infected with the error of the Chiliastes and that very truly which sheweth that he perused the place And in his Suruey the foresayd Pag 341. 342. places be found in like manner alleadged the one truely and the other most falsely Can this procedinge of his stewe from any other sinke then the filthy puddle of his owne corrupt conscience Beside this who knoweth not acquainted any thinge in antiquitie that Simon Magus set his heresie abroach in the Apostles time and before the death of S. Peter as Eusebius recounteth whose Lib. 2. hist cap. 12. death was long before the death of S. Iohn
following cited by Bell in his Suruay Scotus doth as wel establishe confession for the word auricular he hath not though Bell doth forst it in by the lawe of God fouÌ„ded in the God spell as by traditioÌ„ comming from Christ as before hath been noted out of Scotus and this may passe for a notorious vntruth The third is that to conceale this his abusing both of Scotus and also of the The third good reader he cited Scotus his wordes in latin only not vouchsasing to putt them into Englishe but he is to be pardoned for that were not only to ly but also to hould the candle for other to viewe his treachery What sweete stuffe doth he preach to his auditors out of the pulpitt where he is free from all controulment that publisheth such vntruthes and playeth such cunnicatching trickes in the viewe of the whole realme THE XXV VNTRVTH AT the heeles of the former vntruth follow in the same chapter diuers others his wordes be these The Popish Glosse of great credit with the Papists telleth them roundly that auricular confession can no way be desended bnt by tradition of the church he runneth on lying very roundly in this manner Panormitanus Richardus Durandus Bonauentura Hugo and all the Popishe Canonists generally approue and followe the same Glosse In which fewe words be contayned at least three vntruthes of that quality that they may iustly deserue the whetstone The first is that Richardus ioyneth in opinion with the glosse and thinketh sacramentall confession to com from the institution and tradition of the Church for he teacheth the flatt opposite doctrine Respondeo quod omnes c. I aunsweare 4. SeÌ„ dist 17. ar 1. ques 1. quoth Richardus that all are bound of necessity to confesse their sinnes to the Priest because Christ hath commaunded this c. and he proueth it both otherwise and specially out of these wordes of our Sauiour Ioan. 20. Receiue you the holy Ghoste VVhose sinnes you shal forgiue they are forgiuen them and whose you shall retaine they are retained There is one notable vntruth for the minister to tyer vpon THE XXVI VNTRVTH THe second vntruth and that a chopper is that Durandus is also of the same opinion with the glosse when as he doth directly maintayne the contrary his wordes be these De consessione 4. SeÌ„ 1. dist 17. quait 8. autem stricte accepta c. But of confession taken strictly which is a manisestation of our sinnes before a Priest with hope of obtayning pardon it is to be sayd that it is not of the lawe of nature nor of any lawe that is pure humane but of the lawe of God deliuered in the Gospell And after he hath proued that it cometh noâ— from any law that is meere humane he concludeth thus Propter quod relinquitur c. VVherefore remayneth that sacramental confession of which 〈◊〉 speake is only by the law of God and straight after hâ— inueigheth very earnestly against the glosse foâ— houlding the contrary What may not this Minister proue out of any authour and quickelâ— conuince vs by our owne doctors if when theâ— say one thinge he can without all scruple mayntayne them to teache the cleane contrary THE XXVII VNTRVTH THe third vntruth followeth no lesse shal melesse then the former so that it seemeth that he was now in the right vaine of lying foâ— how doth he proue that against Richardus and Dâ—randus which so bouldly he affirmeth For proofâ— straight after he voucheth his Suruay with quotation in the margent and also his Motiues but without any quotation at all Comming to his Suruey there he telleth the same tale against Richardus and Durandus referring him self for thâ— Suruey pag. 502. credit of that he sayeth to Iosephus Angles whom he quoteth in the margent thus Vide Ioseph Angle 4. S. pag. prim I haue not missed it one letter oâ— tittle and yet viewe that place he that will nothing shall be there found it may be he would or at least should haue sayd pag. 209. for I make some doubt whether euer he meant to cite the place truly seing there is in my conceipt some difference betwixt the number of one and the number of 209. and suppose that this booke weare in quarto which is a larger size yet must it much exceede the number of an hundred Perhapps he would haue sayd quest 1. de confessione for the syllables pag. quest resemble one an other so liuely that he might easilye mistake the one for an other The truth is this good reader if any probable coniecture may be admitted that he willingly peruerted the quotation Whether I haue reason to iudg so or no I leaue it to thy censure vpon the examination of the matter not to vrge therefore how in his pamphlet he vsually omitteth all citations of the authors them selues which ministreth iust cause of ielousy nor to speake how vnlikely it is that he could so grosly mistake it I stand only vpon this whether Iosephus Angles hath any such sentence by him alleadged or no if he hath then equity willeth vs to interpret all the the best but if Iosephus hath no such thinge neither doth so much as name Richardus or Durandus then can it not be denyed but that he hath not only belyed those two but also slaundered and corrupted Iosephus by foisting in those two names not founde in him for the concealing of this his treachery quoted him not at all in this pamphlet and gaue a false quotation in his Suruay but the truth is that Iosephus maketh not any mention of Richardus or Durandus In 4. sent quest de consess ar 1. pag. 209. Editionis 1584. apud Bellerum his words be these Confessio sacramentalis is c. Sacramental consession is instituted of Christ Iesus and confequently by the luwe of God c There haue bene six errors which are confuted in this first conclusion The first is of the Glosse of the decret in the begining of the fift distinction Panormitan vpon the chapter omnis vtriusque sexus c. S. Bonauenture and he citeth the authority of Hugo all which affirme that this sacrament was instituted by the Church Howe sayest thou goode reader is not Bell a trusty gospeller for a man to rely his soule vpon God grauntall good people to take heed of such an inward wolfe roabed outwardly with shepes clothing that is protestation of truth and sincerity Yf any obiect here and say that at least the Glosse and Panormitan were of that opinion I willingly graunt them to haue been in an error S. Ciprian erred about rebaptization and yet dyed a glorious martyr yf wefollow not the fathers though otherwise neuer so auncient or learned when they swarue from the common opinion and tradition of the Catholicke Churche doth he thinck that the erroneous conceipt of a moderne doctor or two shal ouersway the Church to the following of their particular and priuat opinions We acknowledge
custome as newly brought in and contrary to the practise of the Church or institution of Christ which is an argument that it is passing auncient and was neuer reputed for false doctrine or repugnarite to sacred scripture Bels XIIII Chapter Of Pope Martins dispensation for the brother to marry his naturall sister THE XLIX VNTRVTH SVch is Bels malice against the Pope that when better matter faileth he fetcheth lies out of the â—ard flint his words be these Pope Martin sayth Part. 3. tit 1. cap. 11. prope finem Antoninus the Popishe Archbishop and canonized Saint â—oke vpon him to bispense with one that he might marry his â—wne naturall sister A magnificall vntruth twice â— old before and shall againe if he haue any more â—ookes to publishe for his latter bookes be nothing els but certaine ragges drawen from the â—unghill of his former what he saith of Pope Martin is a notable vntruth as is apparante out of S. Antoninus owne wordes which for loue to sincerity he would not cite intierely in his Downfall where this knocker crept first foorth some he alleadged but so corruptly that hauing bene wel canuased for that his treacherie both in the Pag. 33. 34. c. Lib. 2. cap. 7. pag. 226. c. Forerunner and also in the Dolefull Knell and not knowing how to defend himself he hath for all that still intertayned the vntruth but wholy concealed the words for more sure dealing S. Antoninus his wordes be these hauing relation to others precedent which make also against Bell. Neuerthelesse it is found that Pope Martin the fift did dispense Part. 3. tit 1. cap. 11. with a certayne man who had contracted and consummated matrimony with a certayne naturall sister of her with whom he had committed fornication yet with great difficulty and because the matter was secret and the man not fitt for religion or to remoue into any other countrey and so scandall would haue followed of the diuorce if it had been made Pope Martin then dispensed not with a man to marry his owne natural sister but to remayne stille in marriage with her whose naturall sister before marriage he had carnally knowen this is so playne and perspicuous that the good reader can not but behould it and perceiue that the Minister had good reason not to alleage Antoninus words the more handsomly to conuay the vntruth Of this shamelesse dealing of his I haue in treated so plentifully in the Dolefull Knell Lib. 2. cap. 7. examining all the particular circumstances of Antoninus his discourse and answeared also what heâ— bringeth there out of Siluester Fumus Angelus Nauar and Caietan obiected also by him before in his Funerall that I take it for a vaine labour to intreate againe of the same matter Wherefore to proceede Bels XV. Chapter Of worshipping of Images THE L. VNTRVTH RVnning with his penne against the veneration giuen to sacred images he saith Yeâ— Gregory the great in his tyme sharply reproued the worshippâ— done to images albeit he disliked Serenus the good Bishop of Massilia for breaking the same in the Church Neither S. Gregory nor Serenus any thing help Bell and such I conomachall companions but both of them stande in mortall defiance against him S. Gregory Lib. 6. ep 5. seuerely reproued Serenus for his rashe breaking downe the images of the church attempting to doe that which as he saith neuer any Bishoppe had done before him Whereof I inferre that images in the Primatiue Church were in vse yea and kept in sacred places and consequently that our Englishe Protestans be coÌ„trary to venerable antiquitie that suffer not any such holy monumeÌ„ts in the Church out rase and deface them with all spight and cruelty contrary also to S. Gregory who reprehending Serenus though nothing so guilty would not I think haue spared Bell and his fraternity for their enormous impious proceeding herein Were I desirous to imitate the minister very handsomly might I come vpon him with a concludinge inference in this manner ergo this beating downe of images is a rotten ragge of the newe Caluinian religion borrowed from Iewes Mahometans and such misbeleeuing miscreants But S. Gregory saith Bell sharply reproued the worshippe done to images true it is but what kinde of worshippe was it The minister would haue the reader to thinke that it was the same which the Catholike Church alloweth and teacheth which is nothing so for it was passing far different for as much as S. Gregory allowed conuenient adoration as shal straight be said Cardinal Bellermin thincketh that this erroneous worship was giuen by certain new ChristiaÌ„s surely such were most likely to fall into that grosse sinne of whom it is not so much to be maruailed if accustomed before to idols they behaued themselfes in like maÌ„ner to wards sacred images and adored them for gods as in Paganisme they were taught practised Serenus vpoÌ„ this abhominable accideÌ„t moued with zeale but not according to knowledge ouerthre we those images which S. Gregory reproued in him for that he ought to haue instructed them reformed what was amisse and not so depely to haue scaÌ„dalized the Church with such a strange fact as S. Gregory in expresse wordes signifieth that he did and therfore aduiseth himafter due instruction giuen to the people to restore the images to ther former places This was the adoration which that holy Pope disliked VVhat adoratioÌ„ of images S. Gregorie disliked for that he denyed not all kind of veneration is most certayne for writing to one Ianuaring a Bishoppe about the image of the blessed virgin and the crosse which he willeth to be taken from the Synagogue of the Iewes where they had been putt he speaketh thus VVe exhort you in these words that the image and crosse be taken from thence with that Lib. 7. epis 5. veneration which is worthy And in an other place writing to one Secundinus who had sent vnto him for the image of our Sauiour his words be these I knowe verilie that you doe not therfore desire the image of our Sauiour that you may worshippe it as thoughe it were god but that by remembrance of the sonne of God you may wax warme in his loue whose image you see And we fal Lib. 7. epis 53. prostrate before it not as it were before the diuinity What hath Bell gott by vouching the authority of S. Gregory About the retayning of images in Churches he is directly against him as he can not deny concerning their adoratioÌ„ also he nothing helpeth him but teacheth that which nothing pleaseth his reformed spirit and therfore true it is not that he reproued the worshippe done to images as Bell affirmeth speaking of that worshippe which the Church alloweth as the minister would haue his reader to thincke for the other worshippe we detest as much as he Albeit sufficieÌ„t hath been said to she we that he wrongeth S. Gregory yet is not this the vntruth which I intended
quoteth Durandus in the margent whom notoriously he abuseth as also Pope Sergius For Durandus is so far from saying Lib. 1. cap. 6. that this was done that the Christian Romans should not be inferiour to the Pagan Romans in heathenishe superstition as Bell writeth that he affirmeth Pope Sergius to haue chaunged that Paganicall fashion in melius into a better thinge signifyinge playnely that this ceremony was instituted for the abolishinge of that heathenishe custome which is a thing so far from iuste reprehension that on the contrary it is most highely to be commended as a most religious pollicy tending to the distruction of superstition and encrease of piety and deuotion Neither doth Durandus make this the only cause of that ceremonie for the reckoneth vp six in all whereof this is the second in order Bels XXVII Chapter Of the doubtfull oath which Popish Bishoppes make to the Pope IN this chapter he complayneth that whereas Bishoppes had free accesse to Councels to speake the truth out of the scripture in former Anno Dō 1229. Decret Lib. 2. tit 24. cap. 4. tymes Gregory the ninth ordayned that none should haue voices in Councels but such as sware obedience to the Pope and promised with an oath to defend his Canon lawe adding that the expresse words of the oath the Reader may finde in the Downesall of Poperie but he should withall haue added also here that the forme of that oath is iustifyed against his cauils by one S. R. Art 7. chap. 14. in his learned answear to that booke of his where he sheweth that the like oath was made to Gregory the great Bell not hauing yet deuised with himself what to say in his owne defence dissembleth the answear though in an other place of his pamphlett he confesseth to haue seene S. R. his Chap. 9. booke and so he is freshe vp with this oath as though it had neuer bene answeared or he had neuer spoken of it before when as he had it also Pag. 60. vp in his Motiues and in his next worke not vnlikely but we may heare newes of it againe such is his grace in writinge and the great choise he hath of abundant matter Here I am to admonishe the good reader of newes which I receiued lately and that is after I had written thus much Bels reply called The Iesuits Antepast came piping hoat to mine hands from the pallace of his kitching in defence of his Douwnesall against the answear of S. R. and therefor making no doubt but that he had at least attempted to batter in pieces all that S. R. had said in defence of that oath and so spoiled also the grace of that which I had brought out of him I thought good to take a taste wherevpon I fell abord with his Antepast opened the dishes and found there a miserable poore pittance all the fatte through the cookes negligence being fallen into the fire for S. R. disputeth for the lawefulnes thereof Art 30. chap. 14. in this manner As for the oaths of Bishops made to the the Pope the lawfulnes thereof appeareth because it is made with all Catholique Princes consent and meant only in iust and lawfull things which are according to Gods lawe and holy Canons and it hath bene vsed aboue a thousand yeares agoe as is euident by the like oath made by a Bishoppe vnto S. Gregory the great and S. Bonifacius Lib. 10. ep 31. Baron ann 723. See cōcil Tolet an 11. can 10. the Apostle of Germany and worthyest man that euer England bredde did sweare when he was consecrated Bishoppe to concurre with the Pope and commodities of his Church in which words is contayned that which I said in defence thereof To all which this kitchin minister saith not one worde and yet in great brauery he writeth thus Say on good frier thou shalt be heard with all fauour To Antepast pag. 147. imitate his vaine may I not rather say it is not so Sir Lyer thou hast curtald a way the beginning of his answeare of good moment and very sufficient for the iustification of that oath in generall is this to be heard with fauour not so but it is with coosenage to abuse the good reader which carryeth with it a stinking sauour The rest of that which he iangleth about the oath I leaue to S. R. yet this will I briefly say that for as much I haue here readd his answear stādeth sound without the losse of any one droppe of bloud notwithstāding the terrible Cānon shott of Bels Antepast And the principall of that which he mustereth together for the refelling thereof is contayned in this his Triall about which I nowe labour in the eight chapter where he intreateth of the Popes fayth Let that be perused which I haue said before in the examination of that chapter and it will sone appeare that it is not the buckler of his Antepast that can defend our newe cooke from the wounding of his old carcas Thus much of his eleauen chapters Here for a conclusion I must adde a word or two The first is that how truly or falsely he hath alleadged authors I knowe not hauing perused the places of fewe because the subiect was not waighty but only of ceremonies or matters of small moment The second is which I noted also before that grauntinge authority to the Church to ordaine ceremonies he goeth against his owne doctrine in calling them rotten ragges of a newe religion teacheth others how to entertayne those ceremonies which either they haue borrowed from vs or els brought forth by a later generation The last is that where as he confesseth many of our ceremonies to be very auncient as the Introit of the masse which was instituted as he saith by Celestine the Pax brought in by Innocentius and the Paschall torch ordained by Sozimus all which Popes liued about some twelue hundred years agoe with what face or grace can he speake so scornfully of them calling them rotten ragges when as disputinge against the Puritanicall fraternity in defence of English ceremonies in his booke called The Regiment of the Church antiquity is vrged the practise of the Church inculcated with all his learning he laboureth to procure credit to their ceremoniall lawes institutions as is euident out of all that treatise And to speake som what in particular To proue the vse of the Surplesse or albe he alleadgeth a Can. 14. Canon of the fourth Councell of Carthage which he doth highly extol in this manner At this Councel In his Regiment cap. 8. pag. 82. quoth he were present two hundred and fourtene Bishoppes of which S. Augustin was one and yet all those holy men liuing in those dayes when no corruption of religion had crept into the Church affirme constantly c. Behould good reader ther chaūgable conditiō of this Chameleon The Albe or Surplesse is a commendable ceremony and reuerent rite because it was allowed in the tyme of
S. Augustin when no corruption had crept into the Churche but the Introite in the masse the Pax the Paschall torche instituted by those Popes in S. Augustinus tyme are rotten ragges and intreated in all scornfull manner though no other difference can be founde but only the ministers pleasure hauinge one doctrine and other principles to followe when he disputeth against vs and an other when he argueth against the See his RegimeÌ„t in the Preface Puritanes whom he calleth Cursed broodes vntimely hatched detested of God and irksome to the world God open the eies of good people to take heede howe they followe the ianglinge of such a Bell that can clincke what religion youe thinke and committe their soules to the direction of suche a mutable minister I omitte here howe before he would haue the Church straight after S. Iohns tyme to haue bene Bel coÌ„tradicteth himselfe infected with errors because that serued him well against vs in that place here the Church was in S. Augustins tyme cleare from all corruption in doctrine which was three hundred yeares after because it standeth him here in great stead against the Puritanes for it were an infinite labour to pursue him in all his trickes quirckes corruptions contrarieties and absurdities himself saying that in one place which he vnsaith in an other prouinge that here which els where he disproueth sailing with that winde which bloweth and making his commoditie of that which may help the present necessity Such be the conditions of the reformed minister trusty Sir Thomas Bels XXVIII Chapter Of the Popish fast of fourtie daies commonly called lent THE LVI VNTRVTH Many mad gambols doth the minister fetch in this chapter and among others he will nedes proue that the lenton fast is hurtfull both to the soule and body and disputeth out of Hippocrates like a pretty pettisogger in Physike to shewe that it is hurtfull to our health This albeit I dot not doubt but it is a notorious vntruth yet because it is not my profession to argue of any such subiect I leaue him to the mercy of the Phisitians who I thinke vpon the feeling of his pulse are like ynough for the curing of such an extrauagant conceipt to condemne him to Hyppocrates bands omittinge this lett vs see what followeth The fast of the auncient Churche quoth he was free voluntary and not commanded by any lawe An vntruth for it was a tradition of the Apostles to fast in Lent â— so not free VVe saith S. Hierom in the whole yeaâ— Epis. ad Marcellam Serm. 6. de Quadrages Sabbato post Dom. Quinquag de tempore serm 62. Synne not to fast in Lent 4. Instit cap. 12. § 20. CeÌ„tur 5. col 686. do faste one Lent according to the tradition of the Apostle S. Leo calleth it also the institution of the Apostle to faste fourty daies and S. Augustin thus exhorteth his auditors in the beginning of Lent beseech youe moste deerly beloued brethren that in this most conuenient and holy time exceptinge the Sundaies none presume to dine vnlesse haply such a one as sicknes doth no permitt to fast because to fast on other daies is a remedy or reward not to fast in Lent is sinne Iohn Caluin speaking of the Primatiue Church saith that the superstitiouâ— obseruation of Lent had preuailed euery where And the Lutherane Centurists reproue S. Augustin for speaking in commendation of the Lenton fast in the same place they write of him in this manner And verylie in the third chapter of his thirtith booke against Faustus the Manichee he doth expressely say that throughout the world Lent is kept in the Catholique Church euery where with great diligence Lastly was not Aerius scored vp by S. Epiphamis Heres 75. Heres 53. and S. Augustin for an heretique because he denyed the solemne and appointed fastes of the Church And yet decree the Apostles what they will about these Lent fasts let S. Augustin call it a synne not to fast in Lent Let Caluin and the Lutherans assure vs of the obseruation of Lent in the Primitiue Church To conclude let S. Augustin and Epiphanius condemne Aerius of heresy for maintaining freedom and liberty of fastinge yet will Bell defend that was free voluntary and not commanded by any lawe how truly I say no more but report me to that which hath bene said That which he bringeth concerning S. Spiridion his eating of fleshe in lent all circuÌ„stances considered hurteth not vs but maketh against himself for we deny not but that in some cases fleshe may be eaten without violation of that fast But that holy Spiridion did most strictly obserue it and that it was also the common custom of the Church is gathered out of the same story which doth condemne the licentiousnes of our fleshly Gospellers Bels XXIX Chapter Of the annulling of Popish wedlocke THE LVII VNTRVTH VVHatsoeuer saith Bell the Bishop of Rome houldeth and defineth that must euery Papist hould beleue and mayntaine as an article of his fayth Though generally all Catholiques do hould the Popes definitions to be infallible and the contrarie opinion to be erroneous yet is it not an article of fayth whatfolloweth what but that Bell hath abused the goode Reader with in vntruth See before pag. 84. 85. Bels XXX Chapter Of the Popes pretended superioritie ouer and aboue a generall Councell THE LVIII VNTRVTH BEll beginninge with false asseueration to tel vs of the late opinion of the Popes superioritâ— ouer a generall Councell interlaceth also an other shamelesse vntruth against the Remists The Rhemists qhoth he that Iesuited broode tell vs plainely if will beleue them that there is no necessity of a generall â— prouinciall Councell saue only for the better contentation of the people Thus he chargeth them yet not nothing any particular place but I will helpe him it is in their annotations vpon the Acts where they write thus Yf againe it be demaunded what nede is there to expect Chap. 15. v. 27. the Councels determination if the Popes or See Apost dikes indgement be infallible and haue the assistance of God also as the Catholiques affirme we answeare that sor the catholike and peacable obedient children of the Church it is a comfort to haue such various meanes of determination triall and declaration of the truth and that it is necessary for theÌ„ recouery of heretiques and for the contentation of the weake who not alwaies giuing ouer to one mans determination yet will either yeld to the iudgement of all the learned men and Bishoppes of all nations or els remayne desperate and condemned before God and man for euer And as I said before this assistance of the holy Ghost promised to Peters See presupposeth humane meanes of searching out the truth which the Pope alwaies hath vsed and will and must vse in matters â—â— great importance by calling Councels euen as here you see â—â—eter and Paul themselues and all the Apostles though inâ—â—â—d with the holy Ghost yet
thought it notwithstanding neâ—â—sary for further triall and clearinge of truth and maintainance of vnity to keepe a Councell Let these words of the Rhemists be compared with those of Bels where he maketh them to say that there is no necessitye of a generall or prouintiall Councell saue only for the better contentation of the people and I leaue it to any whether he hath not iniuriously slaundered them yea this very note of theirs in the margent Though the See Apostolike it selfe haue the same assistance yet are Councels also necessary for many causes doth proclaime them innocent from his false imputation they acknowledge the necessity of Councels for many causes he affirmeth them to teach no other necessity of them saue only for the better contentation of the people This vntruth the minister had sert abroach once afore in his Downefall and quoteth the place Pag. 128. very orderly in this manner Rhems test in act 15. but being taken vp for halting by S. R. in his answear Pag. 418. and yet not willinge to giue ouer his slaunderinge of Catholique writers he hath here brought vs the same vntruth to lightagaine but without any note where this place might be founde hoping that by this newe kind of brandishing it might passe with credit to the Gospell and not be so subiect to the controlment of the most of his aduersaryes Here I must admonishe the good reader as before that after this was written and shortly to goe to the presse I was grieted with Bels newe Antepast wherevpon turning to see what he said in his owne defence for charginge the Rhemists 〈◊〉 falsely I found him to behaue himself in such phaâ—tasticall In his Antepast pag. 158. fashion that his friends can not but ashamed of their Minister Bell quoth Bell himselfâ— chargeth you and your Rhemists truly Thus he standetâ— to his former assertion but marke for Gods louâ— how effectually he doth proue it It followeth Aâ— your religious frier quoth he Alphonsus de Castro shall bâ— the vmpier in this mystery and he citeth straight waieâ— Alphonsas lib. 1. cap. a. fol. 4. 1. after these words of his That the Pope alone withouâ— the assembly of a Councell may erre in things pertayning tâ— fayth many diuines of good authority doe affirme yea it iâ— sound that som Popes haue erred in sayth Again if the authority of the Pope alone were as great as the whole Counceâ— fully and lawfully assembled in vaine were so great labour taken for the gathering together of a Councell What can Bell fetch from hence to iustify his iniurious charge of the Rhemists Alphonsus is one of those diuines that thinke the infallibility of iudgement to be inâ— Councell and not in the Pope alone as before waâ— Pag. 84. 85. handled and he bringeth this reason because otherwise quoth he in vaine it were with so great labour to assemble so many Bishoppes together This informeth vs very well what Alphonsâ—â— his opinion was but where doth he say that the Rhemists teach that the determination of a generall Councell is nedelesse saue only for the better contentation of the people because the Popes iudgment is infallible he speaketh not one word of the Rhemists that they should be of the same opinion and no maruail for he could not being dead many a faire day before the Rhems testament was published what can the reader here thinke pondering the matter attentiuely but that Bell is giuen vp into a reprobat sence when with broade face he would defend oneâ—ly with an other I hope the indifferent reader though otherwise affected to him must in so apparant an vntruth either sentence him to haue offended of mere malice or els in his excuse pleade the weakenes of his braine the cause of such crazed conceipts of which the first can not but condemne him and the seconde yf him selfe or his friendes will confesse it freeth vs from further labour of answearing THE LVIII VNTRVTH THe minister maintayneth that the opinion of the Popes superiority ouer a Councell is an vpstart faith and doctrine neuer knowen to the Church for the space of one one thousand fower hundred and fiftene yeares after Christ that is to say vntill the generall Councell of Constance and how doth he proue this it followeth immediatly in Bell. VVhich Councell defined by a firme and resolute decree as a matter of faith that a generall Councell was aboue the Pope So the dexteritie of this minister in disputing He pretended to proue out of the Councell of Constance that the superiority of the Pope was neuer knowne tille that tyme and he proueth the cleane contrary The Councel defined quoth he that a Councell is aboue the Pope What is this to the superiority of the Pope aboue a Councell which he vndertoke to iustifie out of the Councell and not only that but also that it was neuer before verily had Bell that care of his credit which he ought neuer would he suffer his discourse to passe abroade with such with such absurd and phantasticall connexion But not to speake any more of his little grace in formall disputinge let vs come to the great gifte he hath in bould lyinge Cardinall Camer acensis quoth he Abbas Panormitanus Nicholaus Cusanus Adrianus Papa Cardinalis Florentinus Iohannes Gersonus Iacobus Almainus Abulensis and other learned Papists generally the Iesuits and their Iesuited crewe excepted doe all constantly defend as an vndoubted truth that a generall Councell is aboue the Pope In which words for a parting blowe he clappeth two vntruths together The first is that the doctrine of the Popes authority aboue a Councell is no older then the Iesuits for that sence his words doe plainly insinuate The second is that none teach it but the Iesuits their Iesuited crewe as he speaketh both which shall be conuiuced with one and the self same testimonies Not to speake therefore of many learned men that either be nowe liuinge or wrot since the name of Iesuits was of any fame in Christendom for all these will be turned ouer for birds of that feather I will name only those which shall hould the ministers nose to the grind-stone Wherefore to begin S. Antoninus and Iohannes de Turre cremata 3. part â—it 22. cap. 6. Lib. 2. cap. 93. 104. Summe ecclesiâ— neither of them being Iesuits but both of the order of S. Dominicke nor yet Iesuited as liuing before that name was heard of in Christendom maintayne that the Pope is aboue a generall Councell To these learned men I will adde the testimony of the Lateran Councell vnder Leo the tenth which This Councel was holden in the yeare 1513. Sess 11. deliuereth the same doctrine in these words That only the Bishoppe of Rome as hauing authority ouer all Councels hath full right and power to call Councels to translate them and to dissolue them is manifestly certain not only by the testimony of sacred scripture the sayings of holy fathers and other Bishoppes of Rome but by the confessions of all the same Councels Neither can Bell except and say that this Councell was Iesuited where neuer a Iesuite was present nay when as their Society was not yet begonne For Bell telleth vs that they began in the yeare of our Lord one thousand fiue hundred and Suruey pag. 535. fourty which was many years after the tyme of his Lateran Synode Diuers other notable authorities might be produced but these are sufficient for his condemnation Only one remayneth which I wil adde more potent then the former especially in respect of Bell and that is of himself who when he saith that this doctrine was not knowen to the Church of God vntill the tyme of the Councell of Constance graunteth that then it began at least to be taught and so neither proceeded from Iesuits or Iesuited persons as being of longer standing by his owne graunte False also it is that this doctrine was not knowen to the Church before the tyme of the Councel of Constance The glorious Martyr our Dist 40. cap. Si Papuâ— worthy countrey man S. Bonifacius saith that the Pope is to iudge all and to be iudged of none except he be knowen to erre from the faith S. Gelasius an eleauen hundred yeares agoe is a witnesse of the same truth Appeales Epist. ad episcopos Dardaniâ— quoth he may be made to the Apostolike see from any part of the world but none is permitted to appeale from that and he speaketh not only of appealinge from priuate Bishops but also from a Councell for he addeth after in the same epistle that the Bishops of Rome haue loosed them whom Councels haue vnâ—iustly bounde And before we proued how Pope Leo irritated and made of no force a decree enact Pag. 17. in the Councell of Chalcedon which argueth his sâ—periority ouer the Councell And so I concluâ— that not only in this pointe but in so many beforâ— mentioned Bell hath a rare talent in the art oâ— ouerlashinge as I report me to the particulars of this treatise THE CORRECTION OF faultes escaped Pag. 6. line 4. reade the Pag. 7. line 17. reade No nor it is to be imagined Pag. 33. line 20. reade his mortal Pag. 36. line 7. reade condemning him so deepely Pag. 41. line 32. read altercation