necessary to be actually beleeued of euery one that hath vse of reason are actually contained in the Scripture Now out of these wordes I note First that the Scriptures were written for our remembrance and good Secondly that nothing is omitted in the Scripture which is necessary for our saluation Thirdly that the Prophets and Euangelists wrote many things not so necessary for vs and therefore would in no case omit those thinges which were necessary for our soules health Fourthly that all thinges which euery one is bound to beleeue actually are actually set downe in the Scripture This being true as it is most true indeed I am content to stand to the censure of euery indifferent Reader whether by the Iesuites confession and free graunt the Scripture be a totall rule of our Faith or no. For doubtlesse that which containeth all necessary points of Christian Faith cannot be a partiall rule but a total and consummate rule of our faith S. R. The most that Bell hath out of S. Cyprian is That what is no true Tradition must be prooued by Scripture which I willingly graunt Saint Cyprian thought the Pope onely to erâ—e in a Commandement to be done Bell condemneth him in his iudiciall sentences of Faith Whereas S. Cyprian professeth that false Faith can haue no accesse to S. Peters Chaire T. B. I haue prooued in the Downefall that though our Papists of late daies do impudently affirme that their Pope cannot erre when hee defineth iudicially yet this notwithwithstanding Saint Cyprian teacheth and telleth vs plainly and roundly that in his time the Byshop of Rome had no such authority as this day he proudly Antichristianly taketh vpon him For he roundly withstood the decree of Pope Stephanus who was then the Bishop of Rome and both sharpely reprooued him and stoutly contemned his falsely pretended authority And for all that Saint Cyprian was euer reputed a very holy Byshoppe in his life time and a glorious Martyr beeing dead But if the Byshop of Rome had beene Christs Vicar and so priuiledged as our Papists beare the World in hand hee is then doublesse Saint Cyprian must needes haue beene an Heretique and so reputed and esteemed in the Church of GOD For if any Christian shall this day do or affirme as Saint Cyprian did in his time or publiquely deny the Popes falsely pretended prymacy in any place Country Territories or Dominions where Popery beareth the sway then without all peraduenture he must bee burnt at a stake with fire and Fagot for his paines Now what doth our Iesuite answere to this discourse Forsooth that whatsoeuer is no true Tradition the same must be tryed by the Scripture Alasse alasse Who seeth not that our Iesuite and consequently all Papistes seeing hee hath the aduise of all the learned among them is at a Non plus I contend that Traditions ought to bee tryed by the Scripture whether they bee true and sound or no Our Fryer answereth that false Traditions and such as bee not true must be so tryed What a iest is this The Scripture is the Touch-stone by which wee must try false and true Traditions and so we cannot know them to be true Traditions before we try them by the Scripture How fondly therefore aunswereth our Fryer that if they bee not true they must be tryed by the Scripture We deny these and these Traditions to bee true and therefore appeale to the Scripture for the tryall thereof No no saith our Iesuite these may not bee tryed by the Scripture because they are true Traditions Marry Sir this is indeed an aunswere answerlesse For ye take all the tryall to your selfe and leaue none at all to the Scripture You will first set down in your iudgements which be true Traditions and which be false and that done we must goe try those to be false by the Scripture which you hold for false but with the other we must not deale at all By this kind of dealing I must needes say the Scripture is but a partiall rule of Faith indeed And what shal be the total rule of our saith Our Iesuite here tels vs that it is the Popes iudiciall sentence whose faith cannot faile For false Faith saith he can haue no accesse to Saint Peters chaire as though forsooth Saint Cyprian did thinke that the Byshop of Romes Faith could not faile where hee meaneth nothing lesse then to ascribe such a priuiledge to the Church of Rome For if he had beene of that minde he would neuer haue vrged Pope Stephanus to be tryed by the Scriptures No no Saint Cyprian speaketh not of errour in Faith or Doctrine but of neglect of discipline and false dealing of Schismatiques to whose false tales and reportes the Romaines would neuer yeelde their consent As if he hadde said The Schismatickes which wee haue driuen out of Affrica seeke intertainement at Rome but the Romans whose Faith the Apostle praised will neuer hearken vnto them or giue credite to their reportes He speaketh of one Felicissimus and other bad fellowes his Companions whose naughty dealing Saint Cyprian thought Cornelius and the godly Romaines would neuer fauour But such beggerly shifts as these be are good enough for Popish falsly pretended prymacy Of which subiect I haue written at large in the Hunting of the Romish Foxe S. R. Bell citeth Saint Ambrose who biddeth vs not beleeue Argument and disputations but to aske the Scriptures Apostles Prophets and Christ. But it maketh for vs because it alloweth enquiring of others besides the Scriptures namely of Apostles from whom the churches Traditions came T. B. Our Iesuite is a notable couetous Fellow he will haue all to make for him though it bee neuer so much against him Because Saint Ambrose after hee hath willed vs to haue recourse to the Scriptures and there to know the resolution of all doubts doth forthwith name the Apopostles Prophets and Christ he will haue S. Ambrose Will he Nil he to send vs to others besides the scriptures vvhereas Saint Ambrose dooth onely explicate himselfe telling vs vvhat Scriptures wee shall search viz not Oâ—ids Metamorphosis nor Tullies Offices but of the Prophets of the Apostles of Christ himselfe S. R. Bell citeth S. Chrysostome who saith that if any thing be spoken without Scripture the hearers mind wauereth somtimes doubting somtimes assenting otherwhiles denying But maruell it is that he would touch Saint Chrysostome who Hom. 42. Thessal Vpon these wordes Hold Traditions saith Hence it appeareth that the Apostles deliuered not all things by Letters that one aswell as the other are worthy of the same credite Wherefore we thinke the Churches Traditions to deserue beleefe It is a Tradition aske no more T. B. Here I might tell our Iesuite that Saint Chrysostome hath but fiue Homelies in all to the second of the Thessalonians though he name it the 42. Our Fryer would exclaime if he could â—ind such a fault in my writings True it is that Saint Chrysostome and other of
Church vnlesse Bell will impute the fault of some few to the whole And by this is aunswered vvhat he bringeth out of Socrates touching the diuersity of time and meate vsed in the fast of Lent Albeit what Socrates sayth of the Romane Church fasting but three weekes before Easter and not on Saterday is an vntruth See the eight distinction of the Popes decrees and note it well T. B. I prooued in the Downefall out of Eusebius Caesariensis the vncertainty of Popish vnwritten Traditions by the great diuersity about the keeping of Lent Because some thought they ought only to fast one day some two daies others more daies and some forty I prooued semblably out of Socrates that the people did differ no lesse in theyr manner of eating then they did in their daies of abstayning For some saith he would eate no liuing thing othersome of liuing things eat onely Fish some together with fish did ate also Birdes but some ate onely Bread and others at night eate all kind of meats without difference yea hee telleth vs in the same place that the Romans fast three weekes before Easter besides the Sabbaoth and the Lords day And that the Illirians and Alexandrians doe fast sixe weekes and yet doe they all tearm their fast Lent Here I inferred in the Downefall the vncertainty of Popish vnwritten Traditions Now our Fryer thinketh to answere all this though a Bulwarke inuincible with his onely bare Word viz in telling his Reader that Bell sheweth his want of iudgement in bringing a place cleerely against himselfe Mary Sir this is a ready answere indeede If such answeres will serue in vaine is all disputation But our Fryer would seeme to yeelde a reason of this his answere And what is that Forsooth that in the beginning all obserued one manner of Fast though some afterward either of ignorance or negligence he cannot tell whether did breake it To my Testimony out of Socrates he saith it is an vntruth because the Romains fasted the Saterdaies But I answere thus First that the vncertainety of Traditions is heereby so apparant as it is great impudency to deny the same For how can there bee any certainty where not onely the time of fasting but also the meats that must be eaten is vncertaine Both which happen is this case Secondly that the ancient Cannons of the Apostles cōfirme Socrates his affirmation for there is it thus written Si quis dominicū diem aut Sabbathū vno solo dempto ieiunare deprehendatur deponitor If any shal be conuicted to fast the Sunday or Sabbaoth one onely excepted let him bee depriued So then either our Fryer must graunt that Socrates spake the truth that he hath falsly accused him or else if hee like this better that the Pope contemned the cannon Apostolicall Yea the sixt Synod generall of Constantinople affirmeth it to bee against the Tradition of the Church to fast on Saterdaie Behold here the comely certainety of Popish Traditions The Tradition of the church saith We must not fast on Saterday the Pope holdeth the contrary and yet saith our Iesuite Traditions are most certaine S. R. Popish Traditions saith Bell tell vs that all the Bishops of Rome one after another haue taught successiuely the same Doctrine with Saint Peter howbeit theyr owne deere Fryer and learned Doctor Nicholaus de Lyra auoucheth plainely roundly and boldly to the whole Christian world that many Byshoppes of Rome haue falne away from the faith and become fit Apostataes But well may one bee an Apostata and yet teach the Doctrine of his Predecessor As S. Peter denyed his Maister and yet taught no contrary Doctrine Saint Marcellin offered sacrifice to Idols and yet taught no Idolatry Caiphas murdered Christ and yet prophesied T. B. Marke Gentle Reader the case is so plaine that Popes haue swarued from the right faith of Christ that our Frier cannot deny the same They may saith he be flat Apostataes forsake the Faith yet neuer preach a false faith They may sacrifice to Idolles yet neuer preach Idolatry They may deny Christ yet neuer preach against Christ. And indeed for preaching it may be true in an vsual Popish sense meaning For since they came to their Lordly primacy they haue abandoned preaching with solemnity Well hee that list to know what your Popes haue beene and what Faith they held I refer him to my book of Suruey and to my Motiues For I desire to be breefe especially since our Iesuite bringeth nothing to be aunswered which was not in effect confuted before it came to light S. R. Bell telleth vs of Constantius baptisme but it is a meere Historicall Tradition concernes no matter of saluation it is vnawares contested by Bel himself when he saith that he hath seene at Rome the Font and that Constantine is worthily called great T. B. I wrote in the Downfall that by Popish Tradition the Emperor Constantine was baptized at Rome in a Font remaining there to this day that my selfe haue seen the Fons in which as they say hee was baptized Howbeit Hyeronymus Eusebius Socrates Theodoretus Sozomenus Cassiodorus and Pompontus doe all affirme very constantly that he was baptized at Nichomedia But our Iesuite thinkes it enough to say that it concerns no matter of faith that my selfe confesse vnawares that I haue seene the Font in which they say Constantine was Baptized I aunswere to the former that if a man shall go to Rome and there reprooue any Tradition which the Pope holdeth or practiseth he shal be burnt as an Heretique To the latter that I onely report what I haue seene I neyther say Constantine was christned in it nor deny the same This I cōstantly affirme that since so many learned menne deny it it must needes argue great vncertainty in Popish vnwritten Traditions S. R. The Papists saith Bell by their Popish Traditions make some to honour Heretiques for Saintes For both theyr owne deare friende Platina and their famous Byshoppe Martinus Polonus doe tell vs that the dead corps of Hermannus were worshipped for a Saints Reliques at Ferrara the space of twenty yeares together who for all that Oh impious Idolatry and Idolatrous impiety was a knowne Heretick as the same Platina auoucheth Is not this a strange thing to make the error of common people a Popish tradition Besides Platina affirmeth no such thing himselfe but onely that some others write so T. B. Platina writeth as other Historiographers do that which he hath learned by credible report And he addeth that he verily deemed that Hermannus to bee one è fraticellis whose sect at that time abounded But their Bishop Martinus Polonus or whosoeuer was the Authour of the appendix ioyned to his Chronicle telleth vs plainely that the Maisters of the Inquisition sought out the truth of the matter and caused Harmannus his body to be digged out of the Graue and to bee burnt as an Heretique and his sumptuous shrine to bee
wresting the holy scriptures that their owne deere brethren and great Doctors cannot for shame deny or conceale the same Polydorus virgilius a famous Papist hath these wordes Non secus isti c. These Popish Legists and Canonists doe now and then so wrest and wrieth the holy Scriptures to that sence which themselues like best euen as Coblers doe gnaw with theyr teeth and stretch out their filthy skinnes This is that which the famous Papist Doctor Fisher the late bishop of Rochester did freely confesse in his answere to the Articles of maist Luther which he could not in truth withstand or gain-say These are his expresse wordes Contendentibus itaque nobiscum haereticis nos alio subsidio nostram oportet tuâ—re causam quam scriptura sacra Therefore when hereticks contend with vs we must defend our cause by other meanes then by the holy Scripture These are the expresse wordes I neyther adde any thing nor take any thing away of their famous popish Byshop of their holy saint of their glorious martyr a learned man indeed who laboured with might maine for the Popes vsurped soueraignty and defended the same in the best manner he was able and to the vttermost of his skill and yet for all that he hath bolted out vnawares against his will such is the force of truth so much in plain tearmes as is enough to ouerthrow all Poperie for euer and to cause all people that haue any care of their saluation to renounce the Pope and his abhominable Doctrine to their liues end For our learned Popish bishoppe being put to his best Trurmpe telleth vs very plainely and without all dissimulation his mouth being now opaned by him whoe caused Balaams Asse to speake that they must not because forsooth they cannot defend and maintaine their popery by the authority of the Scripture but by some other way and meanes viz by mans forged inuentions and popish vnwritten vanities which they terme the Churches Traditions Now gentle Reader how can any Papist who is not giuen vppe in reprobum sensu for his former sinnes and iust deserts read sueh testimonies against Popery freely confessed and plainly published to the world and that by the pennes of most learned and renowned Papists euen while they bestir themselues busily to defend their Pope and his popish doctrine and for all that continue Papists still and carryed away headlong into perdition beleeuing and obeying that doctrine which as themselues confesse can not be defended by the holy Scripture Methinkes they should be ashamed to hold and beleeue that doctrine in defence whereof they can yeeld no better reason Covorruvius a famous Canonist and reuerend Popishe Byshop hath these wordes Nec me latet c. Neither am I ignorant that Saint Thomas affirmeth after great deliberation that the byshop of Rome cannot with his dispensation take away from Monkes their solemne vow of chastity this notwithstanding we must defend the first opinion least those things which are practised euerie where be vtterly ouerthrowne Behold here gentle Reader that howsoeuer the popes opinion be the same we must defend of necessity and the reason is added because otherwise popery cannot consist Fie vpon that Religion which must haue such poore and beggerly shiftes for the maintenance thereof Much like stuffe I might recount of Popish pardons and Purgatorie c. but for those matters I referre the Reader to my Booke Intituled The wofull cry of Rome CHAP. 2. ¶ Conteining a sound confutation of the Iesuites answere framed to my argumentes against the Popes primacy THe Iesuite S. R. in the first Chapter against my first Article is so troubled to answer my reasons grounds and authorities that one while hee affirmeth otherwhiles denyeth the selfe-same thing so mightily confounding both himselfe and his Reader In the down-fall of Popery I proued euidently that the Pope taketh vpon him to depose Kings and Emperours from their royall thrones and to translate their Empires and regalities at his good will and pleasure To which S. R. answeareth that I belie the Pope but let vs heare his owne wordes S. R. I must needes tell him that he vntruly auoucheth vs to say that the Pope is spiritually aboue all powers and Potentates on earth T. B. I must needes tell you Maist. Iesuite that you vntruly charge me with vntruth yea that you roundly controule your selfe and giue your selfe the lye I proue it first because your selfe confesse the wordes which I alledged out of Bellarmine that Popish and Iesuiticall Cardinall to be truly fathered vpon him viz that when any Prince of a sheepe is made an hereticke or swarueth from the Romish religion which is all one with you Papists then the pope may driue him away by excommunication and withal coÌ„maund the people not to obey him and therefore depriue him of his dominion ouer his Subiects Secondly because you M. Iesuite confesse freely that Pope Zachary did iustly depose Childrick King of Fraunce Thirdly because ye likewise grant freely that the Pope deposed king Henry the eight and Queene Elizabeth and for better assurance hereof you tell vs the same tale in another place But let all indifferent Readers hearken seriously what the Popes owne deare Fryer telleth vs his wordes are set downe in the Down-fall of Popery but S. R. could not see them because he knewe not what to say to them thus doth he write Vt pace omnium c. To speake by the fauour of all good men this sole nouelty I will not say heresie was not yet knowne in the worlde that his priests who maketh an hypocrit to raigne for the sinnes of the people should teach the people that they owe no subiection to wicked Kinges and that although they haue taken the Oath of fealty yet do they owe them no allegiance neyther are periured that thinke ill against the king yea he that obeyeth the king is this day reputed an excommunicate person and he that taketh part against the king is absolued from the crime of Iniustice and periury Thus writeth Sigebertus a Learned popish Fryer so liuely painting out our very case this day in England as if hee were liuing euen now amongst vs. Where we see that the popes own Monks friers haue thought as il of the popes dealings in former times as we think of his proceedings in these latter daies as also that to absolue Subiectes from their allegeance is not onely a Nouelty but euen a flat Heresie Let all popish Recusants marke this point well and defie the Pope and all his absolutions from their allegeance for as the secular popish Priests haue truely written Popery is this day inseparably linked with Treason But what saith S. R. Let vs heare him againe S. R. And much lesse did we euer tell you that the pope hath temporall superiority ouer all Princes on earth but teach the quite contrary Againe if Bell reply that some Cannonists
thing the King scorned to do Yea the constitution is expressely related in the Popes Extrauagant which beginneth thus Vnam sanctum set downe in the sixt book of the Decretals And as Gratianus reporteth Pope Nicolas taught the same Doctrine How impudent therefore is our fund Iesuite which denyeth such a manifest trueth But let vs heare what their famous Pope Gregory saith Si ego servus eorum in morte Longobardorum me miscere valuissem hodie Longobardorum gens nec regem nec duces nec conâ—ites haberet atque in summa confusione esset deuisa Sed quia deuÌ„ times in mortem cuiuslibet hominis me miscere formido If I their seruant woulde haue intangled my selfe in the death of the Lombardes the Nation of the Lombardes shoulde this day neyther haue had a King nor Dukes nor Counties but should haue bene in the greatest confusion But because I feare GOD I am affraide to intrude my selfe into the death of any man Loe Gentle Reader for the space of 600. yeares and odde the Byshops of Rome durst not deale in absoluing subiects from their alegeance nor in murdering of Kings and Emperors And why I pray you This their owne deare Saint Gregory surnamed the great telleth vs because he feared God consequently the late Bishops of Rome dare embrue their harts hands in the bloud of Gods anointed because they haue not the feare of GOD before their eyes Yea the Popes owne Monke as wee haue heard out of Sigebert already pronounced it flat Heresie to absolue subiects from the allegeance due vnto their Soueraigne And what saith theyr Pontaus Burdegalensis these are his words Hic primus caepit francos iuramento fidlitatis absoeluere This Pope Zachary was the first that absolued the Frenchmen from the oath of their fealty and allegeance This Pope liued about the yeare of our Lord God 752. so that it was neuer heard of among the French-men for the space of 750. yeares that the Byshop of Rome tooke vpon him to absolue subiects from their oth allegeance to their Soueraigne And Sigebertus proceedeth further reproueth it as a Nouelty or rather Heresie lately crept into the Church And who I pray you can doe this but Christ Iesus as true God so true man Doth not he challenge the right at the least of the spirituall sword that taketh vpon him to absolue subiects from the oth of their allegeance Nay doth hee not take vnto him the right of both swords For absolution I am well assured is euen by popish Doctrine an act of spirituall iurisdiction and to serue the prince is a secular and meere ciuil act Antoninus sometime Arch-byshop of Florence and a Popish cannonized Saint telleth vs without blushing that the Pope is Christs Vicar on earth hath equal power with God almighty These are his expresse words Cum auteÌ„ Vicarius Christi si papa c. For seeing the Po. is the Vicar of Christ none can lawfully withdraw himselfe from his obedience as none can lawfully withdraw himselfe from Gods obedience And as Christ receiued of his father the Dukedome and scepter of the Gentiles arising of Israel ouer all principality and power and aboue euery thing that hath being that to him euery knee may bend euen so Christe hath committed most full power to Peter and his successors Thus writeth our holy Arch-byshop Antoninus Out of whose wordes I obserue first that as Christ is the the head ouer his Church so is the Pope or Byshoppe of Rome head of the same Secondly that as Christ receiued of God the Dukedom ouer all power so hath the Pope receiued the same power of Christ. Thirdly that as Christ hath power aboue and ouer euery thing whatsoeuer hath any being so hath the Pope Fourthly that as to Christ euery knee must be bowed so also to the Pope Now if this be not to challenge the royall right of both swords let the indifferent Reader iudge Neither is it to the purpose to say that hee challengeth not Royall right For I weene our Iesuite will not deny Royall right vnto Christ who is Lord of heauen and earth true God true priest and true King And yet doth Antoninus ascribe and yeeld vnto the pope all power ouer all that hath any being in as ample and large manner as Christ himselfe hath it Yea that Omnia genna al knees must bow to the pope And the vsuall practise of papists do confirme the same euen to the popes good liking For he must be carried vpon mens shoulders and men kneeling must kisse the shoo of his foot or else not be thought to loue Christ or S. Peter This my selfe being an eye-witnesse thereof am able to testifie When Gregory the thirteenth of that name came to the English Colledge in Rome all the Students vvere appointed by the Iesuite then maister of the Colledge to come two after two before him sitting in a â—haire and to kneele downe on both knees in a great chamber three seueral times before they offred to kisse his foot And while they kissed his foot or the shoo of his foot one after another the rest followed as it wer in procession falling down three times as is already said But let vs heare the Verdict of Fryer Austen de Ancona The Pope saith he as he that is the Vicar of the sonne of the heauenly Emperor hath Vniuersal iurisdiction ouer al kingdomes and Empires And is not this power ouer both swordes Is not this to challenge power proper to God alone I weene it is let others iudge S. R. But the words which Bell most vrgeth are that the Pope can make something of nothing For saith he it is a thing propper to God alone to make something of nothing in all cases and at all times T. B. I say so good Iesuite neither are you able with the help of all your Iesuiticall broode whom for all that I confesse to be very learned to proue the contrarie while the world stands S. R. But besides that the glosse neither saith that the pope can make De nihilo aliquid but de nullo aliquid neyther yet in al cases and at al times as Bell addeth the foresaid words are taken our of Iustinian C. de rei vxor act lib. 1. where the Emperor saith that because he can make to be accounted a stipulation where none is much more he can an insufficient stipulation to be sufficient And the like authority in humane contractes touching spirituall matters the glosse attributeth to the Pope And this hee meant when he said the Pope can de nullo facere aliquid of no contract make one Which Bell would apply to creation and making creatures of nothing as God made the world T. B. For Christs sake gentle Reader be heere an indifferent iudge betweene our Iesuite and mee Which if thou shalt truely affirme thou canst not but cleerly behold that our Iesuite is at his wits end what to say or write
I say our Iesuite remaine aliue and be not killed I will subscribe to this his doctrine And yet is it cleere that in this case his body bloud shold be put apart where they were not before But our Iesuite seemeth to ayme at a farther mark What is that at the creating of Christs body and bloud Is it so indeed Is it possible so to thinke It is very so For these are his words as you heare else God should kill a man if hee created a Soule and body apart Well now I remember an old said saw which doubtles is as foolish as it is old that the priest in the popish masse can create his God God so blesse me and all good Christians that we neuer harken to such Theology CHAP. 4. Containing the confutation of the lesuites fourth Chapter of the second Article IN this fourth Chapter our Iesuite rehearseth sundry absurdities which are found in the Popish Masse But the more hee busieth himselfe to discharge their Masse thereof the more the same absurdities do increase Let vs take a tast of one for all Bell saith he inferreth that either Christs Sacrifice was vnperfect in his last Supper or else that it was needles in his bitter passion on the crosse To which he answereth that neyther of both dooth follow For saith he Christs Sacrifice at his Supper was a most perfect vnbloudy Sacrifice and yet his Sacrifice on the Crosse was needfull as the peculiar price which GOD exacted at his handes for the redemption of the World Loe he granteth freely that Christs Sacrifice at his Supper was most perfect and yet the heathen Philosopher can tell him that Perfecto nihil addi potest To that which is perfect nothing can bee added This notwithstanding he affirmeth these three things First that the Sacrifice on the Crosse was needfull Secondly that it was the peculier price which GOD exacted Thirdly that it was for the redemption of the world Which three points being as truely marked and remembred as they are truely granted all but such as are Sensus communis inopes men without all both sense reason will plainely perceiue and constantly hold that Christs Sacrifice at his last Supper was either imperfect vvhich our Iesuite denieth or else no real sacrifice at al which I defend All the rest of the chapter is full of the like vanity for consideration whereof it is enough to peruse The Downefall of Popery CHAP. 5. Containing the Iesuites confutation touching Berengarius VVHere in The downefall of Popery I related truely the cruell dealing of the Pope and his Popish councell with Berengarius our Iesuite would gladly excuse the Pope and his Sinod but it will not be S. R. Bell exclaimeth mightily because Berengarius was compelled to beleeue that Christ in the Eucharist is sensibly touched broken with the hands of Priests torne with the teeth of the faithfull T. B. Bell doth so Idque merito He hath iust cause so to do R. S. Neuerthelesse Christes body is said to be toucht broken and chewed in the Eucharist because the signe of bread in which it really is is so vsed As GOD is said to haue beene crucified because the humanity in which hee was was so handled and Christ touched when his garment was touched T. B. Heere is all that confessed which I intended for to prooue viz That the bread of the Eucharist is called Christs body because it is the signe and Sacrament of his body And therefore that Berengarius was most cruelly and villanously dealt withall when he was enforced eyther to bee burnt with fire and Fagot or else to sweare that he beleeued in his hart that Christs body was truely touched and broken with the hands of Priests and truely torne with the teeth of the faithfull When for all that many learned Papists Bellarmine Melchior Canus and others with this our Iesuite who would and dooth say the best he can for the Popes defence do freely graunt and plainely confesse that Christes body can neither bee broken with hands nor yet torne or chewed with teeth Loe Berengarius was compelled to beleeue as an article of his faith that Christes body was truely in veritate broken with the hands of Priests and torne with teeth and yet the truth is farre otherwise as both Bellarmine Canus and our Iesuite do confesse Fie on such religion hang vp such Popish Faith accursed be such doctrine S. R. The holy Fathers Saint Cyprian Saint Chrysostome and others do teach vs plainlie that Christs body is broken with hands and chewed with teeth yea Christ himselfe saith This is my body which is broken VVill Bell now condemne Christ and these holy Fathers of wickednesse villany blasphemy and horrible impiety Nay will he condemne both English many forraine Protestants whose doctrine saith he is that Christs body is broken torne and consumed with mouth and teeth Behold good Reader For Papists to say Christs body is touched broken and torne is villany and horrible impiety but for Protestants to say the same and adde consuming too is good doctrine T. B. I prooued out of Cardinall Bellarmine that famous Iesuiticall Fryer that Christs body cannot bee broken and torne saue only in a figure or Sacrament And that by his doctrine it may be sayd to bee broken and torne when the signe thereof is broken and torne Out of whose doctrine I inferred this golden Colorrary viz that if it be true to say Christs body is broken and torne because the signe of his body is broken torne then truely may we say and truely do we say that Christes body is in the Eucharist because the signe of his body is there because the Sacrament of his bodye is there because the representation of his body is there And much more truely might Christ himselfe say This is my body when he gaue the signe and Sacrament of his body I then added that it is the constant doctrine of the church of England which also many other reformed Churches approoue therein that Christs body is receiued broken torne and consumed with mouth teeth figuratiuely significantly mystycally sacramentally And consequently if the Papistes would be iudged by this doctrine which by the pen of the Iesuite Bellarmine they heere deliuer the controuersie would soone bee at an end Now I referre my self to the indifferent Reader whosoeuer he be whether the Iesuite S. R. bee an honest man or no. For first hee beareth the Reader in hand that I condemne Christ and the holy Fathers Secondly that I condemne both the English Churche and many forraine Christians Thirdly he chargeth mee to hold the same Doctrine which I vtterly condemne in Popery Fourthly he iustifieth the condemnation of Berengarius whose doctrine for all that both Bellarmine and Melchior Canus do iustify and himselfe vnawares in this chapter If I should deale with the Papists in this manner all the world would exclaime against me If any indifferent Reader shall
duly and truely all affection and partialitie set apart read both The Downefall of Popery and the Iesuites answere to it I perswade my selfe hee will detest both the Pope and popery vntill his liues end S. R. Saint Austen saith Bell telleth vs that the bread which the Apostles ate was our Lord. I would Bell had marked this himselfe for it is the vpshot of this Controuersie and vnanswerable by any Protestant For if as Bell noteth out of Saint Austen the bread which the Apostles are was our Lord How can Protestantes deny it and say it was bare bread Or if as S. Austen speaketh they are bread our Lord how can Bell say they are not our Lord but bare bread T. B. Here our Iesuite triumpheth before the victorie and boasteth that that which I saide was the vpshot on my side is the vpshot on his side but how truely hee saith he will declare Saint Austen saith the Apostles are Panem Dominum The bread our Lord but that Iudas ate Panem Domini the bread of our Lord. Marke well the words gentle Reader Saint Austen putteth a cleere difference betweene that which the Apostles are and that which Iudas ate The Apostles saith hee are the Bread which is our lord but Iudas the bread of our lord This assertion of this holy father say I confoundeth the Papists for if our Lord maker be present really in flesh bloud bone vnder the accidents of bread and that so long as the same accidents remaine vncorrupt as the popish faith holdeth the doubtles Iudas should haue receiued his redeemer theÌ„ perforce Iudas should also haue receiued PaneÌ„ dominuÌ„ theÌ„ Iudas could not by any possibility haue barely receiued PaneÌ„ Domini which yet S. Austen affirmeth most constantly For first if it were true as it is not that after Popish supposed consecration the substance of bread were transubstantiated into Christes body naturall as it truely consisteth of flesh bloud and bone And again if it were also true that the self-same body remained vnder the forme of bread vntill it were corrupted as Popish Doctrine telleth vs then say I and it will bee prooued an vndoubted truth that all the Papistes in Europe and else-where are neuer able to shew me how Iudas did not receiue Panem Dominum the bread which is the Lord but Panem Domini The bread of our Lord. That is to say how Iudas could receiue the forme of bread with the Flesh bloud and bones of Christs Organicall and naturall body hidden vnder the same and for all that not receiue Christ himselfe and Panem dominum as the other Apostles did This indeed is the vpshot of this Question and striketh the Papistes starke dead they can neuer answere it truely while the world standes Now where our fond Iesuite asketh mee how I can say the Apostles are bare bread seeing they are the bread which Saint Austen saith is the Lord I answer that though perhaps he haue a great head yet seemeth he to haue but little wit For I willingly graunt with the same Saint Austen that Iudas ate the price of our Redemption with Saint Cyprian that the bread which Christ gaue to his disciples was his true flesh with Saint Chrysostome that Christ offered to Iudas the bloud which he had sold but al this sacramentally mystically figuratiuely and significantly For his sacred true and organicall body was is and must be really in Heauen vntill his second Aduent yet is it Sacramentally in the holy Eucharist Alasse alasse must Berengarius be enforced with fire and Fagot to sweare that Christes body was truely broken and truely torne with mens teeth and that onely because the figure of his body is broken and torne and we for all that and the holy fathers may not once say that christs body bloud is in the holy Eucharist Sacramentally Yea the holy Fathers do often call it the vnbloudy sacrifice and the bloud that issued out of Christs side whatsoeuer else is truely verified of his naturall and organicall body indeede and this they do because it is the sacrament and representation of that most sacred body and Sacrifice which was offered for our sins vppon the Altar of the crosse All that possibly can be obiected in these cases is fully and soundly answered in my Suruey of Popery CHAP. 6. Conteining the confutation of the Iesuites sixt Chapter touching coâ—radictions in the Masse S. R. THe Papists say that Christes body is the same in the Masse which was on the crosse and yet confesse it to be a figure thereof This Bell proueth to be a contradiction because Bellarmine saith a figure must needs be inferior to the thing figured But I deny euery figure to be inferior to the thing figured For God the Son is the figure of the substance of his Father and yet true God And Seth an Image of Adam and yet true man and such a figure of Christ is the Eucharist T. B. Our Iesuite may learne in the Schooles that Nullum simile est idem no similitude is the same with the thing whereof it is a similitude Which if it bee true as true it must bee graunted or else farewell Schoole-Doctrine then doubtlesse Christes body beeing the same in the Masse as Papists tell vs which was on the crosse cannot possibly bee a figure thereof But our Iesuite obiecteth that the Sonne of GOD is the figure of GOD and yet true God withall Likewise that Seth was the Image of man and yet true man withall I answer to the former with the auncient Father and reuerend Bishoppe Haymo Halberstatensis whose expresse wordes are these Quantum ad hominâ—s pertinet aliud est figura aliud est substantia quia dum pingitur imago figura alicuius hominis in pariete non est illud figura quod est substantia Apostolus autem figuraÌ„ in hoc loco pro ipsa substantia pro aequalitate essentiae posuit Concerning men a figure is one thing and substaunce another thing because whiles an image and figure is painted in the Wall the figure is not that which the substance is But the Apostle in this place put the figure for the substance and for the equality of Essence And the Popes owne deare Doctor Nicolaus de Lyra teacheth the selfe-same Doctrine These are his wordes Dicitur imago vel figura substantiae 1. Eiusdem substantiae cum patre Hee is called the Image or figure of his substance that is to say He is of the same substance with his father By which doctrine thus deliuered by these two learned writers we see euidently that the Apostle vnderstandeth by figure Substance so as this is the sence he is of the same substance with the Father For as the same Haymo saith in the same place as in the fire three things are inseparable the fire the heate and the brightnesse and in the brightnes is shewed to vs the fire and heat though humaine things may
Fooleries and Contradictions the Papistes fall while they busie themselues to fight against the truth S. R. Bell Obiecteth out of Theodoretus that the Haebrewe Bookes were Translated into all Languages This is nothing against vs who deny not but Scripture hath bin and may bee vpon iust and vrgent causes translated into all languages so it be not vulgarly vsed and common to all kind of vulgar people T. B. You say you deny not but Scripture hath beene and also may bee Translated into the vulgar Languages yet you adde two restrictions by which you in effect vnsay that which you had saide before First you say it may be in the Vulgar languages so it bee not vulgarly vsed What is this Fast and loose your Legierdemaine To what end I pray you shall it and may it bee turned into the vulgar Languages That the vulgar people may Read it or no If you say yea then may it be vulgarly vsed For that is to bee vulgarly vsed to be read vulgarly If you say no then in vaine do you graunt it to be Translated into the vulgar tongue Secondly you say it may also be Translated so it be doone vppon iust and vrgent causes You should haue doone well to haue named those iust and vrgent causes But Sir seeing the thing may bee doone and seeing also there may bee iust and vrgent causes why it should bee doone how commeth it to passe that none may doe it vnlesse the Pope licence him thereunto How happeneth it that none may read it when it is translated vnlesse hee haue the Popes licence so to doe How chanceth it that it was neuer done since the Bishop of Rome aspired to his vsurped prymacy This would I learne S. R. The Holy Fathers affirme that there are vnwritten Apostolicall Traditions Bell and some few start-vp Heretiques deny it Whether beleeue ye Christians T. B. Bell denyeth not simply that there bee no vnwritten Apostolicall Traditions It is a notorious calumny sor I willingly admit vnwritten Traditions as is apparant by my Bookes published to the World But I constantly reiect all vnwritten Traditions whatsoeuer which are obtruded as necessary to saluation or as necessary parts of doctrin because al such things are contained in the written Word Other Traditions not contrary to Gods Word which the Church obserueth I am so farre from condemning them that I both willingly admit them and highly reuerence the same And if you were constant to your own writings you would subscribe to this my doctrine For you graunt in many places that all thinges necessary for saluation are contained in the holy Scripture Which being granted you contradict your selfe when yee vrge vnwritten Traditions as necessary points of Christian Faith S. R. There are certaine and vndoubted Apostolicall Tradions This is against Bell. T. B. It is not against Bell for Bell admitteth as we haue seen already such vnwritten Traditions as are repugnant to the holy Scripture and haue euer beene approued of the whole Church But such neither are Articles of the Chrian faith neither necessary to Saluation S. R. But I prooue it because the Traditions of the Bible to be Gods word of the perpetuall virginity of our blessed Lady of the transferring of the Sabboath and such like are certaine and vndoubted T. B. Crambe bis posita mors est saith the Prouerbe This Cuckow song soundeth often in our eares This irkesome Tautology of yours doth you good seruice The perpetuall virginity of the most blessed Virgin I admit with all reuerence and semblably I approoue the translation of the Sabboath As this is not the first time ye vrged thē so neither the first time I answere them But neither are they repugnāt to the holy Scripture nor necessary points of Doctrine To the Tradition of the Bible which is euer your last and best trump aunswere shall bee made God willing in the ende of this Article It is the most colourable thing you can alleadge and the onely foundation vppon which you continually relie I therefore reserue it for the vpshot and to entertaine you with such a collation as may be to your best liking S. R. Bels conclusion is that Traditions are so vncertain as the learnedst Papists contend about them and hee prooueth it because S. Victor contended with the Byshop of Asia Saint Policarpe with Saint Anicetus Surely he meaneth that these men were Papists or else his conclusion is vnprooued and consequently Papistes and Popery were 1400. yeares agoe T. B. Two thinges our Fryer vrgeth neither of which vvill do him any seruice viz my meaning and the proofe of my conclusion My meaning is cleerely vttered when in the Downefall I affirmed Saint Policarpus Saint Policrates and other holy Fathers to bee so farre from acknowledging the Byshop of Rome to bee the supreme head of the Church and that he could not erre that they all reputed themselues his equals touching gouernment Ecclesiasticall that they all reprooued him very sharpely that they all with vniforme assent affirmed him to defend a grosse errour to hold a false opinion and therefore they with might and maine withstand his proceedings Whereas this day if any Bishops Magestrates or other Potentates in the World where Popery beareth the sway should doe the like they might all roundly be excommunicated and not onely deposed from their iurisdiction but also to be burnt with fire and Fagot for their pains Thus I then wrote so as our Fryer could not doubt of my meaning but that malice carryeth him away to lying Well but how is my conclusion proued Thus forsooth I alleaged this great contention among the holy Fathers to proue the vncertainty of obtruded vnwritten Traditions in these our dayes My Argument was A maiori ad minus as the Scooles tearm it viz that if the Fathers of the most ancient Church when she was in good estate and stained with very few or no corruptions at all could finde no certaintie in vnwritten Traditions much lesse can wee trust to vnwritten Traditions in these dayes when the Pope and his Iesuited Popelinges employ all their care study industry to bury the truth of Christs Gospell vnder the ground And so haue I both prooued my conclusion and also our Fryer to be either full of malice or a very foole S. R. Bell denyeth the keeping of Lent to be Apostolicall because Saint Crysostome writeth That Christ did not bid vs imitate his fast but be humble and to bee certaine because Eusebius out of Ieremy writeth That in his time some thought wee ought to fast one day some two daies others more and some fortie Here Bell sheweth his lacke of iudgment in citing a place clearely against himselfe For here Saint Ireney Eusebius affirme cleerely that at the beginning there was one manner of fasting Lent appointed though some afterward either of ignorance or negligence did breake it Which prooueth not the said Tradition to be vncertain in the whole
must sweare that the Pope can depose all Emperors and Kings in the Christian world Secondly they sweare to admit the Popes decrees whō they freely grant may bee an Heretick Thirdly they sweare obedience to him in matters of Faith whom as themselues confesse they can depose for heresie Fourthly that the pope is not supreme Iudge of controuersies seeing Bishops may examine and iudge whether what he commandeth be agreeable to Gods word the Canons Lastly that they swear flat rebellion against their soueraigns seeing they sweare to defend the Popes primacy against all men whomsoeuer T. B. Let vs examine this honest tale made in the behalfe of the Pope and for the benefite of the Reader let vs both heare it and answer it particularly S. R. As for the first point it is vntrue as appeareth by the answer to the first article T. B. The first point is that the Pope can depose Emperours and Kings Our Fryer denyeth it and sendeth the Reader to the first Article I agree also that the Reader peruse my reply with the Downefall then yeeld his censure accordingly for that the Pope challengeth such power though the Iesuite for shame here denieth it it is as cleere as the Sunne shining at noone-day S. R. The second and third containe no inconuenience For we must obey what he decreeth or defineth iudicially as sitting in S. Peters chaire though in hart he were an Hereticke as our Sauiour commaunded the Iewes to follow what the Scribes taught out of Moses Chaire but to abstaine from their priuate Leauen T. B. The second point was that the Bishops sweare to admit his Canons and decrees whom they freely grant may bee an Heretique The third point was that the Bishops sweare obedience to him in matters of Faith whom they can depose for heresie These pointes which our Iesuite proposeth couertly because he would not haue the Reader to vnderstand thē must neuer be forgotten We must saith our Fryer obey beleeue what the Pope decreeth iudicially though in hart he be an Heretick This is strange Doctrine to a Christian hart though approued of all Papists It is not amisse here to adde the Testimony of their graue Quodl betist These are his words As the prudent Greeke appealed from Alexander furious to Alexander sober and Bishoppe Crostate from Pope Adrian priuate to Pope Adrian publique and as Summus pontifex in Cathedra Petri so may the Seculars appeale from the Pope as Clemens vnto his holinesse as Peter These words are expressely set downe Quodl 6. art 10. By this Doctrine so plainely deliuered which is a constant position in the Romish Church the Secular Priests giue vs to vnderstand that execrable and neuer enough detested fallacy wherewith the Pope his popelings haue a long time seduced a great part of the Christian world viz that the Pope may erre as a priuate man but not as a publicke person Of which absurd Doctrine I haue written at large in my Treatise intituled The Hunting of the Romish Foxe I will therefore for the present onely speake thereof as these words giue me fit occasion First then we see heere that if we meane to wring any truth out of the Popes nose we must haue recourse to his holines at such time as he is sober not when he is furious least he become starke mad forget for euer the knowledge of the truth Secondly we must haue his aduise when he is a publike person not a priuate man Thirdly we must go vnto him not as he is indeed this or that Pope but as he is S. Peter that blessed Apostle of our Lord Iesus Thus much is deduced out of this popish Doctrine by euident and necessary consecution These points if they be well marked will vtterly confound all popish Doctrine and turne it vpside downe For first it is a constant Axiome in all popish Doctrine that the Pope and none but the pope must be the Iudge in all controuersies of faith and Doctrine This notwithstanding wee see by this popish doctrine which is currant in the Romish Church that if the Pope Iudge of any matter as he is furious and not sober as he is a priuate man and not a publike person as hee is Clemens Sixtus Adrianus or some other like pope and not Saint Peter himselfe then may hee erre and so both bee deceiued himselfe and deceiue all others Whereupon it followeth of necessity that euery one must well examine the popes Doctrine and Iudgement before he beleeue it otherwise doubtles he may receiue poyson for medicine falshood for truth and erroneous for Orthedoxe Christian doctrine Nay otherwise he cannot possibly tell when he shall appeale from the pope as a false teacher and seducer of the people Secondly the time cannot be named in which the Byshop of Rome shall be the Byshop there not a publick person at the selfe-same time for euen then when hee is a sleepe he is a publicke person or else no Byshop doubtlesse For once a Byshop euer a Byshop by Popish indeleble Character Yet I willingly graunt that a publique person may do some act which may be censured the acte of a priuate man but that cannot serue their turne Thirdly If the Papists will neuer apeale to the pope nor haue any intercourse with him vntill he be Saint Peter they shall neuer do it till the worlds end Fourthly if he be Peter by Office or calling then is hee alwayes Peter vnlesse perhaps hee be sometime Lucifer which were a rare Metamorphosis Fiftly this Popish distinction may fitly be termed a trick of fast and loose For if the Pope define a truth they may thē say he defined as a publick person But if he define an error then they say he defined as a priuat mā So doubtles it may be said indeed that he can neuer erre but some mā in his robes or some Deuill vnder his pall Briefely on the one side as we haue heard already the Pope commands vpon paine of Sacriledge not to dispute of his power nor to examine his doings and yet on the other side we must know whether he speake and define as a publicke person or as a priuate man before we beleeue his decrees which knowledge for al that can no way be had but by due examination of the popes doings What remaineth but to exclaime and complaine to our trusty friendes as the great learned Papist Gielerius did that by this Popish Doctrine no man can go to heauen S. R. For we must obey and beleeue what he decreeth iudicially though in hart he be an Hereticke T. B. Then sir we must examine the doctrine which the pope deliuereth to know whither it proceedeth from the Pope as a publique person or as a priuate man For otherwise we may as soone receiue deadly poyson as wholy medicine and as soone worship Harmannus the Heretiques bones as the reliques of S. Peter or S. Paule But this examination the Pope forbids and your selfe Maister Fryer
religious Fryer Alphonsus de Castro shall be the vmpire in this mystery These are his words At papam solum absque congregatione concilij posse in ijs quae ad fidem spectant errare multi non contemnendae authoritatis theologi asseruerunt imò aliquos pontifices summos in fide errasse comperâ—uns est Deinde si tanta esset solius Papae authoritas quanta totius concilij plene recte congregati frustra tantus labor pro conciliorum congregatione sumeretur That the Pope alone without the assembly of a Councell may erre in thinges pertayning to the Faith many Diuines of high esteeme doe hold and affirme yea it is most certain that some Popes haue erred in the Faith Againe if the Popes authority alone were as sure sound as the whole Councell fully and lawfully assembled then doubtlesse in vain should such paines bee taken in calling a Councell together Thus writeth this learned Popish Fryer affirming stoutly and resolutely mine illation against the Rhemists For this which I haue often tolde the Papistes will in the ende be found an vndoubted and inuincible truth viz that I defend no point of Doctrine against the Papists which the best learned Papists doe not approoue in their printed Bookes And heere by the way I note out of this Popish Doctor that many great learned Papistes doe constantly affrim that the Pope may erre in matters of faith as also that sundry Popes haue De facto erred already Now in Gods name let vs proceed to the mighty Traedition viz of the Bible it selfe S. R. Whence haue we the Apostles Creede but by Tradition as testifie Saint Hierome Saint Austen and Ruffinus VVhence the perpetuall virginity of our blessed Lady VVhence the lawfull transferring of the Sabbaoth day from Saterday to Sunday Whence many other thinges as testifie S. Hierome S. Cyprian and others but by Tradition But especially whence haue we the Bible it selfe Whence haue we that euery Booke Chapter and verse of it is Gods word and no one sentence therein corrupted in all these 1600. yeares T. B. This is nothing else but ridiculous and irkesome Tantologie It is answered againe and againe The Apostles Creede wee haue by Tradition in compendious manner but it is conteyned in the written Word As the Fathers admit many Traditions so doe I with the Church of England For we reiect no Tradition vnlesse it bee either repugnant to holy Writ or else obtruded as a necessary point of Saluation Which if the Reader marke seriously hee shall finde the Iesuite at a Non plus Concerning the Bible that it hath not beene corrupted for these 1600. yeares I aunswere that this blessing commeth not from the late Romish Church but from the GOD of Heauen who preserued the old Testament from corruption wheÌ„ it was longer in the handes of the wicked Iewes Howe we know it to be the word of GOD I haue shewed at large in the Downefall and thinke it needlesse heere to iterate the same Yet as our Iesuite shall giue occasion some more shall be added by way of reply S. R. Bels first aunswere is that there is great difference betwixt the primatiue Church the Church of late daies For the Apostles heard Christes Doctrine saw his Miracles and were replenished with the Holy-Ghost and consequently they were fit witnesses of all that Christ did and taught which adiunctes the Church of Rome hath not Here Bell blasphemeth Christes Church of late dayes auouching her neither to be replenished with the Holy-Ghost contrary to our creede professing her to be holy and Christs promise that the Holy-Ghost should remaine with her for euer Nor to be a fit Witnesse of his truth contrary to Saint Paule calling her the Pillar of Truth T. B. The blasphemy proceedeth from your selues from your pope to whom you ascribe such a prerogatiue as is proper to God alone when you tell vs he cannot erre I therefore answere that the true Church of God is holy hath the assistance of the Holy-Ghost and is a constant witnesse of Christs truth But these promises pertaine not to the church of Rome but to the whole congregation of the faithfull This Congregation is the pillar of Truth this Congregation hath the Holy-Ghost this Congregation is holy this Congregation cannot erâ—e in things necessâ—â—y to eternall life This proposition is prooued at large in my Suruey of Popery It is now enough to admonish the Reader thereof For I haue prooued it both by the Testimony of the holy Fathers and of the best approued Popish Writers One or two shall now suffice Alphonsus that famous Popish Fryer hath these wordes Ecclesiamilâ—tans est fidelium omnium congregatio quae corpus vnum est cuius caput est Christus The Church militant is the Congregation of all the faithfull which is one body whereof Christ is the head Thus writeth our religious Fryer VVho would haue thought that a Popish Fryer should or would thus haue defined the Church The Iesuites will not thus define it Heere is no mention of the pope and yet of the Popish Church he is the head He that opened the mouth of Balaams Asse opened now the mouth of our Fryer Alphonsus The truth must and will in time preuaile Panormitanus a Popish Abbot a Popish Arch-â—ishop and a Popish Cardinall hath these expresse wordes Licet concilium generale representet totamecclesiam uniuersalem tamen in veritate iâ—i non est vera ecclesia vn uersalis sed reprâ—sentatiuè quia vniuer salis ecclesia constituilur excollectione omnium sidelium vnde omnes sideles orbis constitunt istam ecclesiam vniuersaleÌ„ cuius capâ—t sponsus est Christus Sequ tur ista est illa ecclesia que errare non potest Although a generall Councell represent the whole vniuersall Church yet in truth there is not the true vniuersall Church but representatinely for the Vniuersall Church consisteth of the collection of all the faithfull Wherefore all the faithfull in the world make this Vniuersall Church whose head and Spouse is Christ. And this Church is it that cannot erre yea the Popes owne glosse vpon his owne Decrees dooth most liuely describe that Church which cannot erre to bee the congregation of the faithfull Thus is it there written in expresse wordes Quaero de qua ecclesia intelligas quod hic dicitur quod non possit errare Siipso papa certum est quod papa errare potest Respondeo ipsa congregatio sidelium hic dicitur ecclesia talis ecclesia non potest nonesse I aske thee O pope Luci of what Church thou vnderstands that which thou tellest vs in this place To wit that the church cannot erre For if thou vnderstandest it of the pope himself it is very certaine that the pope may erre I answere therfore that the church is here taken for the congregation of the faithfull such a church can neuer erre indeed Out of these words of these great