THE Catholique Triumph Conteyning A Reply to the pretensed Answere of B. C. a masked Iesuite lately published against the Tryall of the New Religion Wherein is euidently prooued that Poperie and the Doctrine now professed in the Romish Church is the New Religion And that the Fayth which the Church of England now mayntaineth is the ancient Romane Religion Psal. 22. v. 16. Dogges are come about mee and the councell of the wicked layeth siege against me Psal. 120. v. 3. What reward shall be giuen to thee thou false tongue euen mighty and sharpe arrowes with hot burning coales AT LONDON Printed for the companie of Stationers 1610. To the most reuerend Father my very good Lord TOBY the L. Archbyshop of Yorke his Grace Primate of England Fifteene yeares most reuerend Father are now fully expired since I first began to write against the professed aduersaries of the auncient Christian Catholike Apostolique and old Romane religion I meane the late Byshops of Rome the Romish Cardinals the Iesuites Iesuited Papistes and Gunpowder-popish-vassals In which space of time I haue published so many Bookes in defence of the Catholique Fayth as are in number correspondent to the yeares A very long time it was the argument in hand considered before I could any way extort any Answere to any of my Bookes Howbeit when the Iesuites after mature deliberation had seriously pondered with them-selues that through their long silence many Papistes did vtterly renounce Poperie and ioyfully embrace the Catholique Fayth this day sinceerely professed in our Church then they became so ashamed of their silence in that behalfe that in the yeare 1605. they published a litle Pamphlet tearming it The forerunner of Bels downefall wherein they auouched with brasen faces that they had written fiue Bookes fiue yeares afore that time against my Motiues and my Suruey of Poperie And least it should be obiected against them that it cannot be so seeing we can neither see them nor heare of them the Fore-runner telleth vs very grauely but to their endlesse shame that the Answere is suppressed and vpon iust occasion stayed from the publication Alasse alasse how are silly Papistes bewitched with the iugling and deceitfull dealing of these seducers They haue been buzzing about the answering of my two first Bookes as they them selues tell vs almost the space of sixe whole yeares and when after their great paines and labours of so many yeares they had framed the answere in the best manner they could deuise then they suppressed the same vpon iust occasiō as their Forerunner in their name telleth vs. What haue they bestowed fiue yeares in wryting fiue Bookes against two of my Bookes and dare not to this day publish any one of them Out vpon lying lippes Out vpon trayterous Iesuites and Iesuiticall deceyuers of the world The trueth is that there is no trueth in these men And it is an euident testimonie that they are not indeed able to answere for otherwise they would not for very shame haue protested so much in print and haue performed nothing lesse I am verily perswaded that they will neuer during my life which they wish to be short and therefore haue they prouided my Winding sheete and other indirect meanes to take away my life frame any full and direct Answere to the said Bookes because in trueth all the Iesuites in the Christian world are not able to performe it the trueth being so cleare forcible against them After the Fore-runner a pretensed Answere was published in the yeare 1606. against the Downe fall of Poperie For refutation of which silly Pamphlet I addressed my Booke intituled The Iesuites Antepast which seemeth to their daintie mouthes so vntouthsome that I deeme it will serue also for their Post-past as I had formerly published an other Reply intituled The Popes Funerall to the Fore-runner of the Downefall Now lately in the end of the yeare 1608. an other pretensed Answere a silly thing God wote was published against my Booke intituled The Tryall of the new religion This Pamphlet came to my handes in Nouember last at which time I was very ill in body and also distant aboue one hundred Myles from mine owne Librarie the want whereof at that time was farre more grieuous to me then were all my painefull infirmities of body In the midst of which whiles I am writing for the trueth I find no litle comfort The case so standing albeit your Grace was then aboue fourtie Myles from me yet did I presume to bemone my selfe vnto your Grace for the supply of my present want of Bookes with whom my suite found such intertainement as I neither did nor euer could expect Bookes indeed I expected but that your Grace should also send them to me vpon your owne charges most freely and Christianly offering to send me your whole Librarie which is indeed a Librarie most excellent if I shouldst and in need thereof it seemed to mee such an honorable sauour as that I could not now in duetie omit to make this publique acknowledgement thereof The Iesuites and Iesuited Gunpowder Papistes not able to endure the sound of my Tryall wherein Poperie was tearmed and prooued the New Religion haue suborned as it seemeth Robert Parsons that lewd companion and trayterous Fryer to publish that supposed Refutation the summe and substaunce whereof they had no doubt collected and framed to his handes His name he dareth not disclose least the great disgrace which can not but insue vpon that silly Answere should eternally cleaue vnto him as being one who not able to defend Poperie by honest and Christian-like proceeding bestirreth himselfe to effect the same by continuall forgerie by lying by coozenage and deceitfull dealing as in this Booke I shall make apparant Wherein what my selfe haue effected or rather God in mee let the iuditious and honest Reader iudge and for that which he findeth well done giue God the glorie Such as it is I dedicate vnto your Grace as vnto him who hath deserued my vttermost service The Almighty blesse your Grace with many happy yeares in this life and with eternall glory in the life to come Amen Iunij 3. 1609. Your Graces most bounden Thomas Bell. Briefe Instructions for the better vnderstanding of the Discourse following Instruction 1. THE Pope Cardinals Iesuites and all Papistes generally do beare the world in hand that the Church of Rome this day keepeth inuiolably that Fayth and Religion which S. Peter and S. Paul in their time planted there I hold and defende the negatiue proouing the same soundly and euidently throughout this whole Discourse Wee all agree in this that the Church of Rome had once the true auncient Christian catholique and apostolique Fayth which she receiued from S. Peter and S. Paul my selfe most willingly subscribing thereunto I neither impugne the old Romane religion nor reprooue the auncient Byshops there it is the Late vp-start-religion of the Romish Church that now is which I detest and write against in all
appointed King Dauid King Salomon did in like maner shew their supreame authoritie both ouer all their Subiectes and in all maner of causes For larger discourse whereof I referre the Reader to my Golden Ballance of Tryall Now if euery King haue within his Dominions the chiefe Power Soueraigntie ouer all persons causes it must needes follow it can not be denyed that the Confirmation of Councels belongeth not to the Pope Which consequence will appeare most euidently throughout the Sections following To which I adde that seeing there is but one Bishopricke whereof euery Byshop hath a part in solidū as is already prooued the Confirmatiō of Councels can belong no more to the Byshop of Rome then it doth to other Byshops For with that whole to which many haue equall title and right no one of them hath more to doe then an other This in generall may suffice I haste to the particulars The second Section of the Councell of Nice The first generall Councell of Nice of 318. Byshops in which Arius denying the consubstantialitie of the Sonne of God was condemned was celebrated in the yeare 327. after Christ not by the appoyntment of the Pope who in those dayes was but reputed as other Byshops but by the flat and expresse commaundement of the Emperour Constantinus worthily surnamed the great All the Fathers assembled in the sacred Councell of Nice wrote to the Church of Alexandria and to the inhabitants of Egypt Lybia and Pentopolis in these expresse wordes Quoniam per gratiam Dei et pientissimum Imperatorem Constantinum qui nos ex varijs ciuitatibus et Prouincijs congregauit magna ac sancta a Synodus Nicaeae collectae est omnino necessarium visum est vt ad vos quoque a sacro Synodo darentur literae quo cognoscere possitis cum quae mota et examinata tum probata sint et obtenta Because through the grace of God and by the commaundement of the most holy Emperour Constantine who hath called vs out of diuers Cities and Prouinces the great and holy Councell of Nice is assembled it seemeth necessarie that the whole Councell send Letters to you by which yee may vnderstand as well those thinges that were called into question as the things that are decided and decreed in the same Out of these wordes of the famous Historiographer Socrates I obserue these memorable documents for the good of the Reader First that this testimonie is of greatest credite and without all exception as which was not published by one or two but by more then three hundred Byshoppes as writeth Nicephorus who were the most vertuous and learned Priestes in the Christian world Secondly that these Fathers so many so holy so learned so wise doe not once name the Pope in their Letters so farre were they in those dayes from ascribing the chiefe Prerogatiue in Councels to the Byshop of Rome Thirdly that the Byshoppe of Rome himselfe was also commaunded by the Emperours Letters euen as other Byshoppes were Albeit both hee and the Byshop of Constantinople by reason of infirmities were excused and their Messengers allowed in their absence So writeth the famous Historiographer Nicephorus This Obseruation would be marked as which striketh the Pope starke dead For the Pope was so farre from being the Commaunder of all that himselfe was cōmaunded as the rest Fourthly that Pope Syluester could not confirme the Nicene Councell as the Popes flattering Popelinges tell vs because Julius as Sozomenus and others doe constantly affirme was at that time Byshoppe of Rome Fiftly that all the Fathers of this most sacred and famous Synode doe plainely confesse in their ioynt Letters that the Emperour called the Councell assigned the day and the place when and where it should be kept and charged all Byshoppes to be there present at the day by him appoynted Sozomenus hath these wordes Verum cum institutum hoc Imperatoris conceptae spei non respondisset nec conciliari contentiosi potuissent et iam qui ad conciliandam Pacem missus fuerat reuersus esset Synodum Nicaeae Bythiniae celebrandam conuocauit et omnibus vbique Ecclesiarum praesidibus vt ad indictum diem adessent scripsit But after the matter succeeded otherwise then the Emperour expected neither could the contentious persons be reconciled but Hesius that was sent to make peace was now returned he caused a Synode to be kept at Nice in Bythinia and wrote to all Byshops euery where to be present at the day appoynted Nicephorus hath these expresse words Quapropter infectis rebus ad Impetatorem redijt qui ad pacem componendam missus fuerat Hosius itaque Imperator decantatissimam illam in Bithynia Nicaenam Synodum promulgat et literis locorum omnium Episcopos ad constitutam Diem eò euocat Wherefore Hosius who went to make peace returned to the Emperour not hauing accomplished the matter the Emperour therefore doth publish the famous Synode of the world to be celebrated at Nice in Bithynia and with his Letters calleth thither the Bishops of all Countries and Prouinces to be present at the day appoynted Theodoretus in his Historie Ecclesiasticall plainely testifieth the same trueth Thus we see euidently by the vniforme testimonie of foure very graue Historiographers whereof three liued more then a thousand and one hundred yeares agoe that the Byshop of Rome had no more to doe in Generall Councels then other Byshops had They tell vs first that the Emperour sent Hosius the Byshoppe of Corduba in Spaine to make peace to bring the contentious to vnitie if it could be Secondly that when he saw that would take no place then he proclaymed a Councell to be holden at Nice in Bythinia Thirdly that he commaunded all Byshops euen the Byshop of Rome himselfe to come to Nice at the day by him appoynted The third Section of the Councell of Constantinople The second Generall Councell holden at Constantinople against Macedoneus his complices for denying the Diuinitie of the Holy Ghost was called by the commaundement of the Emperour Theodosius the great about 384. yeares after Christ. Socrates hath these wordes Impeperator vero nihil cunctatus Synodum suae fidej Episcoporū ad hoc conuocat vt Nicanam fidem confirmantes Constantinopolitanae Ecclesiae Episcopū ordinent sperans autem futurū vt illis et Macedoniani coadvnarentur etiam illius haeresis Episcopos conuocat The Emperour Theodosius with all expedition calleth a Councell of Byshops imbracing the right Fayth that aswell the Fayth of the Nicene Councell might be confirmed as that a Bishop might be appoynted at Constantinople and because he was in hope to make the Macedonians agree with the Byshops of the right Fayth he calleth also the Byshops that were of the Macedonian-sect Sozomenus is consonant to Socrates in one place and in an other place addeth these words Theodosius vero Imperator Paululū post
proofe that it is most certaine that one of the Heresies of the Waldenses was against the Popes Pardons let him know from mee that therein he is a fowle mouthed lying Fryer For Platina their deare friend the Popes Abbreuiator Apostolâ—â—us hath these expresse words Iubilaeum idem retulit anno millesimo trecentesimo quo plenam delictorum omnium remissionem his praestabat qui limina Apostolorum visitassent ad exemplum veteris testamentj Pope Boniface brought againe the Iubilee after 1300. yeares and gaue full Pardon of all sinnes to such as did visite S. Peters Church and S. Pauls in Vaticano at Rome after the example of the old Law Out of these wordes I obserue these golden Lessons First that the old Iubilee was neuer heard of in Christes Church till the time of Boniface the Iewish Pope I prooue it by the word retulit hee brought againe from the Iewes Secondly that the Church was free from Popish Pardons 1300. yeares Thirdly that this Pope pardoned not onely the paine but euen the sinne it selfe yea all sinnes whatsoeuer Fourthly that this Pope brought againe the Iewish ceremoniall Law Fiftly that the remission of the old Law which our Papistes pretend apishly to imitate was not of Sinnes but of Debts Landes Bondage and such like which the Pope vseth not to pardon and yet forsooth hee would be thought to bring the Iubilee againe Of this Iubilee see woonderfull Popish coozening trickes liuely discouered in their colours in my Suruay of Popery The Perioch of the Chapter First therefore seeing the Popes Pardons can not be found in the Holy Scriptures Secondly seeing the holy Fathers in old time were not acquainted with them Thirdly seeing they depend intrinsecally vpon Purgatorie which the Greeke Fathers neuer beleeued as God willing shall be made euident in the next Chapter Fourthly seeing Pope Boniface was the first that gaue generall Pardons for all Sinnes in the yeare 1300. after Christ I must perforce conclude against the Pope and Poperie that the Popish Pardons are a Rotten Ragge not of the Old but of the New Religion This Chapter connotateth an intrinsecall order to the next following and so must be coupled togeather with the same The Iesuites 5. Chapter of Popish Purgatorie B. C. IN this Chapter after he hath disputed against Purgatorie with the authoritie of Roffensis hee commeth to his recapitulation and sayth Secondly that the Church of Rome beleeued it not for the space of 250. yeares after which time it increased by litle and litle T. B. Whosoeuer shall but with an indifferent iudgement peruse my Tryall of the new Religion togeather with this Answere of the Jesuite which is not of one man alone but of many togeather as will appeare before the end of this my Reply God willing that man doubtles can not but see as clearely as the noone day that Poperie is the New Religion This is mine Answere let it be well marked For my life and soule I dare gage that the Iesuites Answere sheweth euidently to all iudicious and indifferent Readers that it is the trueth which I defend and that all the Papistes in the world are not able in trueth to confute the same His miserable shiftes his silly euasions and coozening trickes doe euery where and in euery Chapter declare that the Jesuite is at a Non plus and knoweth not for his life how to defend the Pope For first he neuer setteth downe my wordes truely Secondly he doth but snatch at some of them which seeme to be of the least force and strength which for all that haue more force in them then he is able to deale withall His first coozening tricke in this present Chapter is this viz. That hee not daring to alleadge all mine Assertion which truly containeth the true meaning of their famous Martyr so supposed late Byshop of Rochester as which are his owne wordes in deed hee at the first leapeth ouer 40. lynes almost in which the force of my Disputation resteth and onely toucheth my Recapitulation This coozening tricke being after his maner performed hee combineth an other with it implying a greater coozening by many degrees This coozenage is contayned in these wordes Secondly that the Church of Rome I prooue it first because euery Child knoweth that the first goeth before the second Secondly because the first which the Fryer would not because he durst not touch at all contayneth nay prooueth the maine poynt in this controuersie the poynt is this This Byshop was a Learned man a great Papist and said for Poperie what possibly he could yet doth he graunt many thinges of such force is the trueth which quite ouerthrow Poperie and turne it vpside-downe First wee see by his free assertion that the Greeke Church neuer beleeued Purgatorie to his dayes and so it was to them vnknowne 1517. yeares All this the Iesuite passeth ouer in deepe silence and beginneth at Secondly Loe M. Fisher that Learned Byshoppe for so I graunt hee was telleth vs plainely and resolutely that the Holy Fathers and Learned men of the Greeke Church neuer beleeued Purgatorie vntill his time that is for the space of 1517. yeares after Christ. But our Iesuite is so blind that hee could not see these wordes Nay rather hee durst not acknowledge them because hee can not frame any colourable answere to them This is the trueth in very deed His third coozening tricke is in the omission and not speaking of these wordes Thirdly that the Church of Rome did not beleeue Purgatorie all at once but by litle and litle These wordes our Fryer Jâ—suite durst not once name least they should haue giuen him a mortall wound For in deed to speake the trueth they strike dead They shew plainely that as the holy Fathers of the Greeke Church neuer beleeued Purgatorie so neither did the Fathers of the Latine Church beleeue it all and wholly at one and the same time but by litle and litle Ah poore Purgatorie thy birth by peece-meale maketh thee the New Religion Thou art a Monster among the Iesuited Papistes Thou wast neither begotten nor borne at once but by litle and litle O sillie Poperie O new Religion His fourth coozening tricke is implyed in omitting these wordes Fourthly that the inuention of Purgatorie was the birth â—f Popish Pardons as which could haue no place till Purgatorie was found out by feigned reuelations Marke how gallantly our Jesuite confuteth Bell. You see hee is not able to endure the sound of the Bell Of fiue poyntes of great consequence he durst name onely two the Second forsooth and the Fift Of the fiue three seemed euery way vnanswerable To the second and the fift he thought he could say something in shew of wordes albeit very nothing in the trueth of the matter Which God willing shall soone appeare after the due examination of his wordes But first because the controuersie is a maine poynt of Popish Religion and the ground of Popish Pardons I
be so plainely deliuered by our Aduersaries may seeme a woonderment to the Christian world For it clearely turneth vpside-downe the chiefest Bulworke of Popish vnwritten Traditions and in effect all Popish Fayth and Religion The common good which commeth to the Church of God by writing against the Aduersaries of his Trueth is hence apparant to all the World For after the swaggering Iesuite S.R. with the aduise of Bellarmine and others had bickered so long with the Downefall of Poperie that the fall had almost broken their neckes then ouercome with the dint of Argumentes and force of the Trueth he was as it were violently compelled to write as we here see in defence behalfe of the Trueth To which for the better manifestation of this trueth so necessarie to be knowen I will adde yet an other Testimonie of our Jesuite in these wordes Truly sayd S. Epiphanius that we may tell the inuention of euery question out of the consequence of Scripture He sayd not Out of the Scripture For all cannot be taken thence as him selfe writeth but of the consequence of them Because all questions are resolued out of the Scriptures or out of that which followeth of them as the effect of the cause Thus the Iesuite approoueth vnawares the selfe same Doctrine which I in the Downefall doe defend And consequently the very weapons which our Aduersaries put into our handes are sufficient God be blessed for it to defend vs and our cause against them The Fourth Conclusion Popish Auricular Confession is not necessarie for mans saluation For first seeing all thinges necessarie for saluation are conteyned in the holy Scriptures as in the third Conclusion Secondly seeing all Preceptes and Promises of God in the New are contayned in the Old Testament as in the first Conclusion Thirdly seeing Popish Auricular Confession is not contayned in the Old Testament as in the second Conclusion it followeth by a necessarie and ineuitable consequution that Popish Auricular Confession is not necessarie for mans saluation This trueth will yet better appeare in the Conclusions following The Fift Conclusion Popish Auricular Confession is neither commaunded by Christ nor yet by his Apostles I prooue it because it is not contayned in the Old Testament as in the second Conclusion Which Testament for all that contayneth all the Preceptes of the New as may doth appeare to the indifferent reader in the first Conclusion The Sixt Conclusion Popish Auricular Confession was instituted and established by the meere Law of man grounded onely vpon a falsely imagined Apostolicall vnwritten Tradition I prooue it many wayes First because the Popes owne Decrees referre the matter to the iudgement of the Reader viz. Whether one be bound to Confession Auricular by Gods law or by Mans law These are the expresse wordes as Gratianus hath published the same Quibus authoritatibus vel quibus rationum firmamentis vtraque sententia satisfactionis et confessionis nitatur in medium breuiter exposuimus Cuj autem harum potius adhaerendum sit lectoris iudicio reseruatur Viraque N. fautores habet sapientes et religiosos viros Vpon what Authorities or foundations of Reasons either opinion is grounded I haue briefly shewed But to whether of them it is better to adhere that I leaue to the iudgement of the Reader for either opinion hath Wise and Religious men for the Patrons of the same Behold heere gentle Reader that not onely the Popes Doctors but his owne Canon-law and the Commenters vpon the same doe all confesse that Confession after Popish manner is onely solely grounded vpon Mans law Yea the Popish Glosse addeth That both Wise and Religious men doe so thinke though some others hold the contrary Secondly because the great Thomist who for his rare skill in Theologie was surnamed Absolutus Theologus Syluester Prieras doth deliuer his opinion in these wordes Quarto vtrum ad confessionem teneamur diuino iure vel humano Et dicâ— quod Canonistae videntur tenere quod sit de iure positiuo Et ad hoc est Glossa de paenit Dist. 5. In summa quae vult quod instituta sit a quadam vniuersali traditione Ecclesiae Ideo infert quam confiteri non tenentur infideles nec similiter Graeci ex quo non acceptauerunt huiusmodi constitutionem sicut nec votâ—â— castitatis It is demaunded fourthly sayth the great Learned Papist Syluester whether we be bound to Popish Confession by the law of God or by the positiue Law of man And I say the Canonistes hold that we are bound by the Law of man And of this opinion is the Glosse which is of this minde that Confession was instituted by a certaine vniuersall tradition of the Church Wherevpon the sayd Glosse inferreth that Infidels are not bound to Confession neither the Greekes in like maner seeing they did neuer approoue such Constitution as neither the vow of Chastitie Thirdly because the highly renowned Papist Martinus Nauarrus confesseth constantly and plainely that their solemne Glosse commonly receiued and approoued of all Canonistes holdeth Confession to be commaunded by the Church Fourthly because the famous Canonist most reuerend Arch-byshop and honourable Cardinall Panormitanus was of the same opinion with the Glosse For Couarruvâ—as a very learned Popish Arch-byshoppe deliuereth his minde in these wordes Quam ex nostris plerique sequuti sunt maximè Panormitanus ex ea asserentes confessionem sacramentalem quae Sacerdotibus fit iure humano institutam esse Which Glosse many of our Canonistes haue followed especially Panormitanus affirming out of that Glosse that Sacramentall confession made to Priestes was ordayned by the law of Man Fiftly because Scotus the Popish subtile schoole Doctor surnamed for his great skill Doctor subtilis after hee had largely disputed pro et contra of Popish Auricular confession concludeth in these wordes Apparet ergo istud non esse de iure diuino promulgato per scripturam Apostolicam Vel ergo tenendum est primum membrum scilicet quod sit de iure diuino promulgato per EuangeliuÌ„ vel si illud non sufficiat dicendum est tertium scilicet quod est de iure diuino positiuo promulgato a Christo Apostolis sed Ecclesiae promulgato per Apostolos absque omni scriptura It therefore appeareth that it is not of the law of God published by Apostolicall Scripture We must therfore either hold the first member to weeâ—e that it is of the law of God published by the Ghospell or if that will not suffice we must say the third that is to say that it commeth from the positiue law of God published by Christ to his Apostles but published by the Apostles to the Church without all Scripture Thus writeth the Popish Doctor subtilis who with all his subtiltie can not tell in the world what to say in defence of their Popish Auricular confession For after he hath discoursed to the vttermost of his wittes and imployed his
because Christes Prayer freed S. Peter from both And consequently if Christes Prayer were as effectuall and powerable for the Byshoppes of Rome as it was for Peter which the late Byshoppes of Rome Jesuites and Iesuiteâ— Papistes would enforce vs to beleeue they could no more erre in the one then in the other no more in their priuate opinions published to the world then in their definitiue sentences and iudiciall Decrees Nay it is in the Popes owne power to be as free from the one as from the other For when he expoundeth the Scriptures when he writeth Letters when he vttereth his opinion any way if he doe the same sitting in Peters Chaire he can not erre it is the vndoubted trueth Againe whatsoeuer he say or write as wee haue heard alreadie when he sitteth in Peters Chaire that we must obey and beleeue though in heart hee be an Heretique For no Byshoppe or Byshoppes in the Christian world how wise vertuous or learned soeuer they be may take vpon them to examine that which the Pope deliuereth out of Peters Chaire Thus S. R. that great learned Jesuite constantly auoucheth as wee haue alreadie seene Who doubtlesse could not be permitted to publish such Doctrine if it were not the Fayth and Doctrine of the Church of Rome Yea if any denie it where Poperie beareth the sway that person must feele the smart of Fire and Fagot for his reward He may be thought to know nothing who lyuing in Rome or Spaâ—ne knoweth not this to be so Secondly that Alphonsus that famous and learned Fryer spake not of the Popes priuate opinions as our Jesuite B. C. more impudently then Clerkly auoucheth who chooseth rather to say any thing then to graunt Poperie to be the New religion No no Alphonsus vtterly detested that Popish Article as a most prophane sottish and ridiculous Position though this day of Fayth with the Pope and with all his Iesuites and their Jesuited crew I prooue it by sundry testimonies layde open to the Readers by Alphonsus his owne penne First therefore these in one place are his expresse wordes Nouissimè fertur de Iohanne 22. quod publicè docuit declarauit et ab omnibus teneri mandauit quod animae purgata ante finale indicium non habent stolam quae est clara et faâ—ialis vâ—sio Det et vniuersitatem Parisiensem ad hoc induxisse diâ—itur quod nemo in ea poterat gradum in theologia adipisci nisi primitus hunc errorâ—m iurasset se defensurum et perpetiò eâ— adhaesurum Last of all it is reported of John the 22 of that name that hee publiquely taught declared and commaunded all Diuines to hold that the soules of the iust before the day of Iudgement haue not the stole which is the cleare and faciall vision of God And hee is reported to haue induced the Vniuersitie of Paris to this that none should take degree in Theologie there but he that did first sweare to defend this Errour and to adhere to it for euer Thus writeth Adrianus who himselfe was Byshoppe of Rome And Alphonsus a man of high esteeme in the Church of Rome after he had reckoned vp fiue Heresies setteth downe this for the sixt that the soules of the iust doe not see God till the day of Doome ascribing the sayd Heresie to the Armenians as to the authors thereof and to the Greekes togeather with Pope Iohn as to the patrons and defenders of the same Where the gentle Reader must obserue with mee seriously least he be seduced with the colourable glosse of the Jesuiticall Cardinall Bellarminus who seeing the force of this Testimonie and well perceiuing that it was able to ouerthrow the highest poynt in Poperie bestirreth himselfe mightily in defence thereof Hee telleth vs forsooth we may beleeue him if we lift that Pope Iohn erred indeed as Adrian and Alphonsus write But he did that as a priuate man sayth our Jesuite not as Pope of Rome This is that neuer enough detested Popish fallacie of the Popes double person wherewith the Pope his Jesuites and Iesuited Popelinges haue a long time seduced vs euen since that cursed Sect was first hatched and brought into the world the Sect of Fryers called Jesuites I meane But it is a most friuolous childish and ridiculous cauill a very fillie shift so sottish and so absurde as the Pope and all his Popelinges may be ashamed thereof The reason is euident euen to euery childe First because it is sayd Docuit Hee taught Secondly because it is sayd Publicè Publiquely Thirdly because it is sayd Mandauit Hee commaunded all Diuines to hold it Fourthly because none could be made Graduates in the Schooles of Theologie which held not this opinion Fiftly because euery Graduate was sworne to defend it and to sticke to it for euer perpetuò So then the Pope may erre and dè facto hath erred and that not only in his priuate opinion as a priuate man but euen in his iudiciall and publique sentence as a publique person and Pope of Rome This argument is insoluble it will neuer be truely answered while the world standes This is enough doubtles to euery indifferent Reader yet in way of congratulation to our Iesuite I am content to say a litle more These in an other place are Alphonsus his expresse wordes Celestinum Papam errasse circa matrimonium fidelium quorâ—m alter labitur in haeresim res est omnibus manifesta neque hic Celestini error talis fuit qui soli negligentiae imputari debuit ita vt illum errasse dicamus velut priuatam personam et non vt Papam qui in qualibet re seria definienda consulere debet viros dectos Quoniam huiusmodi Celestini definitio habebatur in antiquis decretalibus in cap. laudabilem titulo de conuersione infidelium quam ego ipse vidi et legi That Pope Celestine erred about Matrimonie of the faythfull whereof the one falleth into heresie it is a thing so manifest as all men know the same Neither was this errour of Pope Celestine such as it may be imputed to sole negligence so as wee may thinke him to haue erred as a priuate man and not as Pope who ought in the decree of euery serious matter to aske counsell of Learned men For that Definition and Decree of Celestine was in the old Decretals in the Chapter Laudabilem which I my selfe haue seene and read Out of these Golden words of the famous and great learned Fryer Alphonsus I obserue many very worthy lessons for the great good of the thankfull Reader First that Pope Celestine erred Secondly that he erred not as a priuate man but euen as Pope and publique person Marke gentle Reader for Christes sake I desire thee and for the saluation of thine owne soule For doubtlesse if thou ponder seriously this onely Testimonie of this great learned Papist all affection and partialitie set aside thou canst not
much Chapter 9. Proouing That true Merite and condigne Merite is all one That the regenerate doe Good works and receiue reward aboue their desertes That Good workes doe follow Iustification but goe not before the same That the best Workes of the regenerate are stayned with sinne and in rigour of Iustice deserue eternall death That Good workes are so necessarie to attaine eternall life as the way and meanes by which God hath decreed to bring his chosen to it but not as the cause thereof as without them it can not be had That Good workes are the effectes of Predestination depending vpon it not it vpon them That Good workes in a godly sense may be called Meritorious that is they so please God that of mercie he rewardeth them That without the mercie and promise of God they doe not merite Heauen That Charitie is not the forme of Fayth That Fayth as a worker doth not iustifie but respectiuely as an instrument apprehending Christes merites and applying them vnto vs. That Good workes though they be neither the efficient nor the formall nor the finall cause of Iustification which euer goeth before them yet are they the materiall cause and cause sine qua non as the Schooles tearme it the cause or condition without which Iustification shall not haue effect That Good workes must be done for three respectes That Gods Promise doth not make Good workes to be condignely worthy of the reward That condigne merite of Workes was not an Article of Popish fayth for more then 1540. yeares after Christ. Chapter 10. Proouing That Transubstantiation is a Monster lately begotten in Germanie and borne in Rome Chapter 11. Proouing That popish Inuocation doth not onely make Saintes the mediatours of Intercession but also of Redemption That it maketh Saintes ioynt purchasers of saluation with Christes most sacred blood so it be not in the same degree That it was not hatched for more then 1160 yeares after Christ. Chapter 12. Of the popish Communion vnder one kind Chapter 13. Of popish priuate Masse Chapter 14. Of Pope Martins Dispensation Chapter 15 Of worshipping of Images Chapter 16. Of Church-seruice in the vulgar tongue Chapter 17. Of the peeces of popish Masse Chapter 18. Of the mysteries of the popish Masse Chapter 19. Of kissing the Popes feete Chapter 20. Of praying vpon Beedes Chapter 21. Of changing the Popes name Chapter 22. Of the Paschal Torch Chapter 23. Of the popish Pax and the mysterie thereof Chapter 24. Of the Popes Bulles Chapter 25. Of the popish Agnus-dei Chapter 26. Of Candelmas-day Chapter 27. Of the dolefull Oath which popish Byshops make to the Pope Chapter 28. Of the popish Lent-fast Chapter 29. Of the annulling of popish Wedlocke Chapter 30. Of the Popes falsely pretended Superioritie ouer and aboue a generall Councell Chapter 31. Proouing That the Fayth and Doctrine of the Church of England is the old Romane Religion The Iesuites Proeme B. C. INtending to note the principall vntruethes of Bels Pamphlet I haue thought good first to salute his Epistle and see what holsome stuffe hee presenteth in that to his Patrons T. B. I Answere First that If I should stand vpon euery falsehood slaunder and coozening tricke which the Iesuite hath published and handsomely paint him out in his best beseeming colours time would sooner fayle me then matter whereof to speake Howbeit as I meane for the most part to let passe his slaunders his rayling wordes his fooleries his absurdities his contradictions and his impertinent trifles so will I by Gods holy assistance confute all the partes and parcels of his foolish and ridiculous Pamphlet not omitting any thing of any moment in the same Secondly that our Iesuite hath passed ouer in deepe silence my principall and chiefest groundes argumentes authorities reasons as not able to say any thing against them which the iuditious and honest Reader will soone perceiue with all facilitie Thirdly that our Fryer doth but snatch at peeces heere there with the which he thought he might best deale at the least in some colourable shew of wordes But let vs hearken I pray you to that attentiuely which he saith he found in my dedicatorie Epistle B. C. The Minister falleth roundly to the matter presenting his Patrons with a tricke of his occupation in his very first entraunce his wordes be these The visible Church sayth Bell as writeth Egesippus remayned a Virgin free from all heresies and corruptions during the life of the Apostles that is to say about one hundred yeares after Christ to which time S. Iohn the Euangelist was liuing but after the death of the Apostles sayth hee errours by litle and litle crept into the Church as into a voyde and desart House This Collection which Bell hath made is powdred with lies and iugling trickes thicke and threefold Bell belyeth both Egesippus and also Eusebius whom be quoteth in the third Booke of his Historie in the two and thirtie Chapter as the relator of those wordes of Egesippus Read the place he that please no such thing shall there be found nor the name of Egesippus so much as once mentioned The Minister both abuseth his Patrons and others with a notorious vntrueth of his owne fathering that vpon Eusebius which is not there to be found Neither can this dealing of his proceed from other roote then meere malice as whose braines are employed about nothing more then the hammering of lyes cauils and corruptions against the Catholicke fayth T. B. I answere First that the Jesuites accusation which here he maketh against mee is too too grieuous and more then intollerable vnto godly eares For he chargeth mee first to haue powdred mine assertion with lyes and iugling trickes Then to haue done the same thicke and threefold Thirdly to haue belyed both Egesippus Eusebius Fourthly he impudently affirmeth that no such thing can possibly be found as I haue alleadged out of Eusebius Fiftly that my position is so false and so farre from the trueth that the name of Egesippus is not so much as once mentioned Sixtly that I haue of meere malice slaundered Egesippus and Eusebius being men of great learning Secondly that seeing the Diuell is the Father of Lyers the Jesuite may very well be thought to be his only Sonne But how shal this be prooued All that shal read his booke must needes thinke he sayth the trueth because he affirmeth it so impudently confidently I would say This text of Christes holy Ghospell may well be verified in the Jesuites their accursed Iesuited crew They loued the prayâ—e of men more then the glory of God The truth is neuer ashamed she will shew her selfe to the confusion of the newly hatched sect of Jesuites of the late start-vp Romish fayth and religion These are the expresse wordes of Eusebius as Ruffinus a very learned Father who liued aboue 1200. yeares agoe hath translated them Post haec idem scriptor
come from Cyrillus Byshop of Alexandria Atticus Byshop of Constantinople which tryall being duely made by the true Copies the Popes forgerie was manifest and the holy Fathers protested constantly that they could no longer endure such arrogant and smoakie statelinesse B. C. Bell also both in his other Bookes and in this Pamphlet in the next Chapter obiecteth out of Socrates That a Canon was made in the Nicene Councell by the suggestion of Paphnutius which permitted Priestes to remaine with their former Wiues But this Canon is no where to be found amongst those twentie T. B. I answere first that if a Penall Law were made to hang vpon the Gallowes all falsaries and lying wretches then ought this impudent shamelesse Iesuite to be hanged many times where once would serue the turne For if we shall search froÌ„ the East to the West from the North to the South yet shall we neuer be able to find out a more shamelesse lyar or a more notorious falsary then is this Iesuite Secondly that if Popery were not the New Religion in verie deed such forgerie such lying and such deceitfull dealing would not be vsed in defence thereof Out vpon lying Jesuites fie vpon rotten Popery away with all such beggerly trumperie Thirdly that the Doctrine by me deliuered both in the next Chapter and in my Suruay is so farre from being as the lying Jesuite impudently auoucheth who seemeth to be composed intrinsecally of lying that it is flatte against the same and able to torment the Jesuites conscience if he haue any left while breath is in his body God for his mercy-sake either soundly conuert such lying wretches or else confound them euerlastingly The Iesuite durst not deale with mee as I do with him and others that is set downe my expresse wordes and that done make application of the same Hee began with lying euen in the highest degree hee continueth still in lying and hee hath no other meanes in the world but either to end with lying or else to confesse Poperie to be the new Religion This is such an vndoubted trueth as I am not afrayde to die in the same My words in the next Chapter concerning this poynt are in one place these viz. For this respect did holy Paphuntius stand vp in the Councell of Nice at such time as the Fathers then there assembled thought to haue seuered married Priestes and Byshops from their Wiues and told them according to Gods word that to forbid marriage to Priestes was too seuere a Law In an other place of the selfe same Chapter my wordes to the same effect are these Thirdly seeing Priestes marriage was holden for lawfull in the famous Councell of Nice and that the holy Byshoppe Paphuntius did pronounce openly in the same that the coniugall actes of married Priestes was true chastitie whose sentence was approued of the whole Councell and therevpon the matter was left as indifferent for euery Priest either to marry or not to marry at his owne free choyce In my Suruay likewise two places doe manifestly conuince our impudent lying Jesuite In the former place these are my expresse wordes Thirdly that although Socrates Sozomenus ascribe it to the old traditioÌ„ of the Church for vnmarried Priestes so to continue yet doth not Casioâ—orus make any mention thereof in his Tripartite Collection And howsoeuer Paphuntius alleadged Tradition to mitigate the seuere Lawes intended by the Councell yet is it very certaine that such Tradition was neither generall nor diuine In the latter place these are my very wordes I say fourthly that the Tradition which Socrates and Sozomenus speake of was by example not by doctrine as both Gratianus the Glosse expounde them These are my very wordes in foure seuerall places which doe so condemne the Iesuite in his owne conscience that hee durst not for his Lugges once name them or truely set them downe For I was so farre from saying That the Nicene Fathers made any Canon in this behalfe that my wordes now truely recounted do plainely conuince the flat contrary But marke well the third place in my said Suruay where I haue these expresse wordes The Law which the Fathers theÌ„ thought to haue made was a new Law neuer heard of before I prooue it Because Socrates hath these words Visum erat Episcopis legem nouaÌ„ in EcclesiaÌ„ intraducere The Byshoppes thought indeede to haue brought a new Law into the Church But the Councell was perswaded with Paphuntius his oration and referred the whole matter to euery Priestes free election making no Law in that behalfe For Cassiodorus hath these expresse wordes Synodusque laudauit sententiam eius et nihil ex hac parte sanciuit sed hoc in vniuscuiusê™ voluntate non in necessitate dimisit And the Synode commended his opinion and so decreed nothing in the matter but left it in euery mans election to doe what hee thought good without compulsion I therefore conclude that albeit the Byshops in the Councell of Nice assembled would indeed haue made a new and strange Law against the marriage of Priestes yet did the spirit of God speaking in Paphuntius vtterly disswade them from that vngodly purpose These are my wordes truely recounted both out of my next Chapter and out of my Suruay which being so what reward ought our Jesuite to haue Euen an Halter about his necke and to be hanged vp on the Gibbet for his horrible falsehood and most notorious lying Bell sayth our Iesuite obiecteth out of Socrates that a Canon was made in the Nicene Councell by the suggestion of Paphuntius Bell saith the true Bell indeed truly affirmeth out of Socrates that the Fathers thought to haue made a new Law but through the perswasion of holy Paphuntius made none indeed True Bell saith that the spirit of God speaking in Paphuntius did vtterly diswade the Fathers from that vngodly purpose Bell saith the Fathers intended to haue made a Law but made none indeed Hold fast this trueth The Jesuite saith Bell affirmeth the Fathers to haue made a Law Remember this shamelesse lyer To be short Bell had rather want both his Armes both his Legges and both his Eyes then to vse such lying false-dealing and coozening trickes as our Iesuite hath in common vse and custome For it is one thing to intend the making of the Law an other thing to make the Law indeed B. C. These Canons of Appeale being found formally in the Councell of Sardica where Appellations to Rome are ratified and confirmed both Pope Sozimus and others call them by the name of the Nicene Canons though they be found in the Councell of Sardica And the reason is for that these two Councels are accounted for all one both because the same Fathers that were present at Nice were also a great number of them at Sardica and also for that no new thing touching Fayth was there enacted T. B. I answere first that if Pope
in the fift Proposition Sixtly seeing the Marriage of Priestes was euer lawfull also in the West Church vntill the cursed and vntimely inuented Prohibition of Pope Siricius almost 400. yeares after Christ as is prooued in the sixt Proposition Seuenthly seeing Siricius his Prohibition notwithstanding Priestes were still Married in many places a long time and in Germanie aboue a thousand yeares after Christ without restraint euen vntill the dayes of the vngratious Pope Hildebrand as is prooued in the 7. Proposition Eightly seeing all secular Priestes are so free from the Vow which is annexed to Ecclesiasticall orders by the Church of Rome that the supposed dissoluing impediment thereof notwithstanding their Marriages are true perfect and of force Ninthly seeing that by Popish Fayth and Doctrine the single Vow of Chastitie neither doth nor can dissolue Matrimonie as is prooued in the ninth Proposition Tenthly seeing the Vow single is of one and the same nature with the Vow solemne not distinguished by any essentiall but meere accidentall difference as is prooued in the tenth Proposition Eleuenthly seeing Matrimonie of Monkes Fryers and Nonnes euen after their solemne Vow of Religion is with the Pope his Iesuites and Iesuited Popelinges very lawfull and of force so it be done by and with the Popes Dispensation as is prooued in the eleuenth Proposition Twelfthly seeing the forced and coacted Chastitie of popish Priestes hath been such and so intollerable euen by the best learned Papistes their free confessions as nothing in the whole world hath brought more shame to Priesthood more harme to Religion more griefe to godly men as is prooued in the 12. Proposition Thirteenthly seeing the Fathers of the famous Councell of Nice thought it not agreeable to Gods word to make any Law against the Marriage of Priestes as is prooued in the 13. Proposition I can not I may not but must of necessitie conclude with this ineuitable and irrefragable illation ergo the Prohibition of Priestes Marriage is but a rotten ragge of the new Religion The Refutation of the Friers third Chapter In these 13. Propositions if due application be made thereof all the vntruethes lyes miserable shiftes and colourable euasions of our Fryer Jesuite will easily appeare and vanish away as doth the smoake of a Fire especially if my Discourse in the Suruay of Poperie bee duely pondered with these 13. Propositions For all that our Fryer hath sayd in this Chapter and whatsoeuer else any other Iesuite or Iesuited Papist in the world is able to say against the Marriage of Priestes is verie largely distinctly and soundly resuted in my Suruay of Poperie The Jesuite full of nothing but Winde Vanitie Rayling and lying would dazell the eyes of his Reader with crying out against Vntruethes when indeed all vntruethes proceed onely from his owne lying lippes Two thinges onely may seeme to the vulgar Reader to carry some shew or colour of trueth which both are soundly confuted in my Suruay Howbeit for the better satisfaction of the indifferent Reader especially of such as perhappes haue not read my Suruay I am content once againe to examine the same The former colour of trueth pretended by our Frier is this in very deed viz. That Saint Paphuntius in the Councell of Nice perswaded the Fathers onely vnto this to weete That they which were called to the Priesthood beeing Married should not be separated from their Wiues which they had for it was the old Tradition of the Church sayth our Fryer That those which were made Priestes beeing not yet Married should not afterward marrie Wiues Thus pleadeth our Jesuite out of Sozomenus and Socrates Marke now my Answere to the same The Answere I answere first that the Marriage of Priestes is onely prohibited by the Law of man and not by any positiue Constitution either of Christ or his Apostles This I haue prooued in the 4. Proposition by the flat testimonie of many famous Popish Writers yea out of the Popes owne Decrees Read the Proposition to the end and marke it seriously Secondly that it was euer lawfull for Priestes in the East Church to be Married and to beget children in time of their Priesthood This trueth is cleared in the fift Proposition euen out of the Popes owne Decrees Thirdly that it was lawfull in the West Church for Priestes to be Married for the space of one thousand yeares after Christ This is made euident in the sixt and seuenth Propositions Fourthly that Secular Priestes are not Votaries and that therefore their Marriage is lawfull This trueth is soundly prooued in the 8. and 9. Propositions Let them be well marked Fiftly that the Marriage of Priestes is their owne proper right and that therefore restitution must be made for taking the same away This trueth is prooued in the 12. Proposition and it striketh dead Now seeing first that no positiue Constitution against Priestes Marriage can truely be deriued either from Christ or his Apostles seeing secondly that it was euer lawfull for Priestes in the East Church to be Married seeing thirdly that it was lawfull for Priestes euen in the West Church to Marrie euery where for the space almost of 400. yeares and in Germanie aboue a thousand yeares after Christ seeing fourthly that Secular Priestes are no Votaries seeing fiftly that the Pope is bound to Restitution for taking away of Priestes Marriage I must perforce conclude against our Iesuite that the Tradition which Socrates and Sozomenus speake of was neither Generall nor Diuine howsoeuer Paphuntius alleadged it so to mittigate the rigorous and seuere Lawes intended by the Councell I prooue it by a double argument First because if there had been any such Tradition generall or diuine the Greekes could not be excused who neuer yeelded therevnto Secondly because so many Learned Papistes doe constantly affirme and teach that neither Christ nor his Apostles made any Law against Priestes Marriage To which I must needes adde that if there had been any such Tradition receiued either from Christ or his Apostles neither would holy Paphuntius haue pleaded against it neither yet the famous Councell haue yeelded to him in that behalfe But the Councell of Carthage will some say maketh mention of Apostolicall tradition to the same effect I answere with the Popes owne deare Glosse vpon his Decrees in these expresse wordes Ergo Apostoli dâ—cuerunt exemplo et admonitione non institutione vel constitutione Therefore the Apostles taught it by example and admonition and not by any Law or Constitution But how by Admonition and Example did the Apostles teach the single life of Priestes S. Paul albeit he were some time a marryed-man as S. Clement very probably deduceth out of the holy Scriptures yet did he after that liue a single life and withall exhorted others that had the gift to liue as he did But here three things must seriously be obserued First that th' Apostle wished Lay-men aswell as he did Ecclesiasticall persons
the matter Yet such a Booke I neuer saw to this day neither can I learne that any other hath seene the same But more hereof to speake fitter occasion will be offered hereafter And if I liue to see such a Booke extant it shall not God willing be long vnanswered Thirdly that I prooued it in the Tryall euen in this very Chapter to be a very rotten Ragge of the New religion And this I did performe in that place many wayes First by the expresse wordes of Syluester Pryeras a man so profound and learned that hee was by the Papistes surnamed Absolutus Theologus who constantly affirmeth that the Popes Pardons were neuer knowne to vs neither by the Scriptures nor yet by the auncient Fathers but onely by the late Writers Loe the Popes Pardons are so new that neither the Holy Scriptures nor yet the old Fathers knew them but the late Writers onely Ergo they must needes be Ragges of a New Religion How can the Fryer denie this withoutblushing His owne conscience accuseth him Hee can not tell doubtles what in the world to say or thinke Hee seeth euidently that Poperie is prooued the New Religion Hee perceiueth right well that hee is not able with all the helpe of his best friendes to defend the Pope from vtter shame Secondly by the flat testimonie of the Popish canonized Saint Antoninus sometime Archbyshop of the famous Citie of Florence who deliuereth the selfe same Doctrine that Syluester did Thirdly by the Doctrine of Petrus Lombardus their famous Maister of Sentences who though he with great diligence collected into one Volume all the worthy Sentences of the old Fathers could neuer for all that find the Popes Pardons or any mention thereof in any of their Writinges For as Syluester and Antoninus truely write the Old Writers were not acquainted with any such thing Fourthly by the free confession of M. Fisher that famous Popish so supposed Martir sometime Byshop of Rochester in noble England who in his Answere to M. Luthers Articles was enforced to admit the Newnes of the Popes Pardons To all which and much more plainely set downe in the Tryall our Iesuite sayth not one word Hee was so frighted forsooth with the Conclusion that hee durst not once touch the Premisses but passing them ouer in deepe silence hee curâ—alleth the Ergo and seuereth it from the Consequent because it did connotate plainely lay open to the Reader that the Premisses went before I wish the Reader to peruse the Tryall that so hee may see the coozening trickes of the proud Fryer Marke the Complement following The Complement of this Chapter FOr the better instruction of the Christian Reader and the vtter confusion of our Fryer and of all other Fryers Jesuites and Iesuited Popelinges let vs seriously ponder and constantly remember that there be two kindes of Pardons Th' one De pamtentijs iniunctis th' other Dâ—remissione peccatorum Concerning the former kinde which were onely relaxations or mittigations of Discipline and Canonicall Penance inioyned by the Church I graunt very willingly that in the primatiue and auncient succeding Churches they were very frequent and vsuall For in those dayes and ages such as were notorious offendours and had giuen publike scandall to the Church were enioyned by the Church to doe publique penaunce for their publique faultes before they could be admitted into the Church againe Which godly Discipline is this day obserued God be thanked for it in all particular Churches throughout this Realme of noble England Yea in the auncient Churches many yeares of penaunce or publique exercises of humiliation were ordained for euery publique grieuous Offence Wherevpon it came that when many penitent persons gaue euident signes of true internall remorse for their former scandalous conuersation then the Church thought good to giue to such penitent persons some relaxation of their so inioyned publique penaunce Which kind of Pardons the famous Councell of Nice of Arles of Ancyra and others did vsually giue to penitent persons Of which manner of pardoning the auncient Fathers Tertullianus Cyprianus Jrenaeus Eusebius Sozomenus and others doe often make relation But concerning the latter kind of late Popish Pardons that is of applying to whom they list and when they list aswell to the liuing as to the dead the Merites of Christ and of his Saintes as condigne satisfaction for their Sinnes no Scripture no Councell no Father no auncient approoued Historiographer maketh any mention at all Which trueth I haue so plainely prooued in my Booke of Motiues as no Papist in Europe is able to answere the same The Booke hath been extant in print now 15. whole yeares and to this day no answere though often promised will appeare But let our Iesuite proceed in his wonted maner B. C. I will adde one testimonie more of our Enemies the Waldenses who appeared to the world about the yeare 1270. as testifieth Claudius Cussordius and Guido one of whose Hereâ—â—es was against the Popes Pardons as is most certaine and Kemnitius confesseth which argueth that Parâ—ons were long in vse before the yeare 1300. And therefore be it knowen to Bell that he hath runge out a notorious vntrueth T. B. I answeare first that Waldenses appeared to the world one hundred yeares before the time our Fryer nameth viz. about the yeare 1169. and so hath hee in this poynt runge one notorious vntrueth though but a very small one in respect of his other manifold and most impudent lyes Secondly that Chemnitius doth not confesse as our Fryer impudently affirmeth But wisemen may and will beleeue him at leasure seeing hee referreth them for the proofe to his inuisible Booke The dolefull Knell For I protest to all the world that I can neither see it nor find out any man who hath seene that same Booke And therefore I haue great reason to thinke that no such Booke is extant in deed especially because the Iesuites haue long sithence and many times affirmed both in wordes and writinges that my Motiues and Suruay were answered which for all that was such a notorious lye as the sayd Bookes remayne to this day vnanswered insomuch as some of their dearest and most deuoted vassals are ashamed of their sylence in that behalfe and beginne to stagger and to doubt of the Popish Fayth and Religion My Motiues were printed in the yeare 1593. And my Suruay of Poperie in the yeare 1596. So as the Jesuites haue had the former in their handes now 15. yeares fully compleate and the latter 12. yeares with the vantage of a large assisse But more of this subiect in the 9. Chapter following God willing toward the end of the same Thirdly that our Fryers two Witnesses Guide and Cussordius are in honestie and credite comparable to himselfe base fellowes men of no reputation Knightes of the Post who will say or sweare any thing for the Popes pleasure Fourthly that where our Fryer sayth without
whole care industrie and diligence to see what helpe might be had in that behalfe his best resolution is to say with the old doting man of Carlton That it is either one thing or other For first he freely confesseth that it is not in the Old law Secondly that it is not in the Scripture of th'Apostles Thirdly that we must either hold this or that but he can not tell whether Fourthly that how soeuer we thinke or say of this Popish Auricular confessioÌ„ this perforce we must resolue to be the trueth viz. that it is grounded vpon Vnwritten tradition without all maner of Scripture This is it which our Papistes must euer flie vnto as to their best and last trumpe For which respect their learned and canonized Martyr the late Byshoppe of Rochester confessed plainely that the holy Scriptures will not serue their turne these are his expresse wordes Contendentibus itaque nobiscum Hareticis nos also subsidio nostram oportet tueri causam quam scriptura sacra Therefore when Heretiques contende with vs we must defend our cause by other meanes then by the holy Scripture Thus writeth Byshoppe Fisher the Popes canonized Saint and glorious Martyr a Learned man indeed who as we see for all his Learning was not able to defend Poperie by Gods word and therefore he fled from the holy Scriptures to vnwritten Traditions as Scotus did afore him And for the same respect Couarruuias a famous Popish Bishoppe and a great learned man confessed and published to the whole world that howsoeuer the trueth was that which their Pope did must of necessitie be defended These are his expresse words Nec mâ—latet c. Neither am I ignorant that S. Thomas affirmeth after great deliberation that the Byshoppe of Rome can not with his Dispensation take away from Monkes their solemne Vow of Chastitie This notwithstanding wee must defend the first opinion least those thinges which are practised euery where be vtterly ouerthrowne Behold here gentle Reader that howsoeuer the Popes opinion be whether true or false that skilleth not the same wee must defende of necissitie And why I pray you must this be done Because forsooth sayth Couarruutas otherwise Poperie will be turned vpside downe Sixtly because their famous Cardinall Caietanus affirmeth roundly that Auricular and Secret confession is against Christes institution as also the Precept that vrgeth vs to the same For albeit hee approoue Confession as instituted by Christ yet doth he adde a double restriction First that it was Voluntarie then that it was neither Secret nor of All sinnes Which twaine for all that the late Byshoppes of Rome affirme and vrge as necessarie to Saluation Marke well the next Conclusion out of the Popes owne Decrees The Seuenth Conclusion Popish Auricular Confession was not an Article of Popish Fayth for the space of 1215. yeares I prooue it because their famous Fryer and reuerend Popish Byshop Iosephus Angles affirmeth peremptorily and without all And 's or Ifs that none were Heretikes for the deniall of the necessitie of Popish confession vntill the Decree of their late Councell of Latheran which was holden 1215. yeares after Christ. And the Fryer Byshoppe yeeldeth this reason for the same viz. Quia nondum erat ab Ecclesia declaratum Because the Church of Rome had not before that time declared it to be so To which I adde for the complement of this controuersie that the Holy Auncient Fathers those stout Champions and mighty Pillers of Christes Church were neuer acquainted with Popish Auricular confession I prooue this by a double argument First by the fact of the holy Byshop Nectarius then by the ioynt-testimonies of Nicephorus and Rhenanus Concerning Nectarius that holy and worthy Byshoppe of Constantinople hee abolished the Law made for Confession so to auoyde the great Vices which ensued therevpon Where the Reader must obserue two thinges with mee th' one that in the Auncient church Publike Penaunce was inioyned to those who publikely denyed the Fayth in time of Persecution And that some were so zelous and so highly esteemed the sacred Ministerie that although they did not denie the Fayth publikely yet for that they had some doubtes therein and were troubled in their mindes they voluntarily disclosed their secret griefes to Gods Ministers humbly desired their Godly aduise submitted themselues to doe what was thought expedient by those Ministers whom the Church had placed to inioyne Penance for publike sinnes Th' other that notwithstanding the whoredome of the Deacon and other vices neither would that holy Byshop Nectarius euer haue attempted to abolish Confession if it had been Gods ordinance neither would so many famous Byshops haue imitated his fact And yet is it most certaine as shal be seene by and by that all for the most part Easterne-Byshops did follow his opinion Yea euen S. Chrysostome who succeeded Nectarius at Constantinople that goodly Patriarchall seate of the World Concerning Nicephorus and Rhenanus their owne expresse wordes shall heere be layde open to the Reader Nicephorus after he hath told vs what Nectarius did immediatly addeth these wordes Quem etiam ferè Orientales Episcopi omnes sequuti sunt Whom almost all the Byshoppes of the East did follow and imitate Againe he addeth toward the end of that Chapter these wordes Itaque de quorundam maximè vero Eudaemonis Ecclesiae eius Presbyteri patria Alexandrini Consilio ne postea in Ecclesia Presbyter paenitentiarius esset Nectarius statuit suadentibus illis vt cuique permitteretur pro conscientia et fiducia sua communicare et de immaculatis mysterijs participare Therefore Nectarius being aduised by sundry especially by Eudaemon an Elder of that Church borne in Alexandria made a Decree through their perswasion that from that day no Priest should heare the Confessions of the penitentes but that euery one should be permitted to communicate and to be partaker of the holy Mysteries as his owne Conscience and Fayth did mooue him Beatus Rhenanus after he had discoursed at large how the Auncient Church appoynted Priestes ouer the penitent that they might giue them counsaile how to make satisfaction according to the Canons which themselues did not vnderstande and withall had prooued out of S. Cyprian S. Chrysostome S. Basill S. Ambrose S. Hierome S. Bede Tertullian Hesychius Theodulphus Theodorus Bertramus Rabanus and Nectarius all which he alleadged for his opinion he deliuered his owne iudgement in these wordes Non aliam ob causam complurimi hic testimonijs vsi sâ—mus quam ne quis admiretur TertullianuÌ„ de clancularia illa admissoruÌ„ confessione nihil loquutum quae quantum coijcimus penitus id temporis ignorabatur For no other cause haue I heere vsed the testimonies of so many Writers but least any should maruell that Tertullian spake nothing of that secret Confession which as I thinke was vtterly vnknowen at that time Loe Tertullian spake not one word of Auricular confessioÌ„
plaine hereticall condemnation For I pray you sir Fryer are not those sinnes Mortall of their owne nature which are onely Veniall by mercie and fauour Doth not Veniall onely by Mercie exclude Veniall by all other wayes and meanes For doubtles whatsoeuer is Veniall of it owne nature can not be Veniall onely by Mercie Onely our fond Iesuiticall Fryer not able to defend Poperie from being the New religion is forced for want of matter to say it The nature of euerie thing is intrinsecall and essentiall to the thing and can not be taken away from the thing without the vtter destruction of the same But euerie meane Logitian euerie young Gramarian euerie wittie Ploughman and euerie Boy of discretion is able to teach and tell our Jesuite that Mercie is extrinsecall and meere accidentall to the thing and may be added or taken away from the thing without the destruction of the same Ergo whatsoeuer is Veniall not any other way but by the Mercie of God onely is vndoubtedly Mortall of it owne nature And consequently seeing all Sinnes were Mortall of their owne nature vntill the dayes of Pius and Gregorius as our Jesuites freely graunt it followeth by a necessarie and ineuitable illation that Veniall sinnes of their owne nature were neuer knowne to the Church of God vntill the irreligious and plaine hereticall Decrees of Pius the fift and Gregorie the thirteenth that is to say for the space of one thousand fiue hundred threescore and fiue yeares after Christ. For the supposed errour of Roffensis Gersonus Almaynus Baius and Durandus who all were verie learned Papistes and for all that taught and defended euery Sinne to be Mortall of it owne nature was not condemned as we see and heare it freely confessed by our Aduersaries vntill the time of Pius the fift of that name The trueth therefore is this viz. that the Church for the space of 1565. yeares after Christ beleeued euerie Sinne to be Mortall of it owne nature For as we haue seene alreadie in the first Conclusion of this Chapter God may most iustly condemne euerie least Sinne to eternall Death and Hell fire Yea as M. Gerson learnedly writeth he that holdeth the contrarie must perforce hold withall that in some case Sinne may be done lawfully and be no Sinne at all And it is but a very childish and friuolous cauill to say at our Fryer heere doth viz. that it was an Article of Popish Faith long before Pius the Pope to beleeue Veniall sinnes For such Venialles were of necessitie such either of their owne nature or else of mercie onely If our Jesuite graunt the latter I haue my desire it is the trueth which I defende If the former a double refutation is at hand First because the opinion of Almaynus Roffensis Baius Durandus and Gersonus was verie currant in the Romish Church vntill the dayes of Pius and Gregorius as our Iesuite S. R. affirmeth and the Fryer B. C. his deare Brother willingly admitteth Againe because to be Veniall both by Mercie by Nature implieth contradiction The reason is euident both for that sinnes Veniall of their owne Nature stand not in need of any Mercie and also for that Mercie mittigateth that punishment which by the Nature of the subiect might iustly be inflicted O miserable Poperie What sillie shiftes and childish cauils are inuented to defend thee from being the New Religion If any shall hencefoorth call or thinke thee the Old Religion that shall heare thine age truely discouered I shall thinke him so wise as not to know when to come out of the raine Thirdly that our Iesuite sheweth himselfe more impudent then Impudencie it selfe while he beareth his Readers in hand that I haue cut away these wordes of mine Author the Iesuite his Learned brother By the Mercie of God For I referre my selfe to the expresse wordes of the Iesuite in his pretensed Answere to the Downe-fall of Poperie which I haue truely recited in the Tryall of the New religion as I will answere at the dreadfull day of doome But our Jesuite not able to defend Poperie from being the New Religion addicteth himselfe wholly to forgerie falsehood and lying for otherwise both hee and all his Jesuited crew are at a Non-plus and haue nothing at all to say B. C. The same Catholike writer noted him in the place cited by himselfe of two vntruthes The one for calling Byshoppe Fisher the Popes Canonized Martyr the other for styling Gerson a Byshoppe Neither of which be true but he skely passeth ouer them as not knowing poore wretch what to say in his owne defence into such straites doth this dominering Doctor driue himselfe by his talent of ouerlashing T. B. I answere first that the Pope may haue a cold heart when he seeth Poperie bleeding vnto death and no Popish Doctor able to stanch the same Our controuersie is of the Nature and Essence of Sinnes whether euerie Sinne be Mortall of it owne nature or no Our Jesuite being confounded and not able to prooue any sinne to be Veniall of it owne nature answereth me thus That neither Fisher is a Popish canonized Martir nor yet Gerson a Popish Byshoppe O worthie defender of the Pope and of the late Romish Religion I demaunde of our Fryer Iesuite how farre it is to London Hee forsooth answereth a Pokefull of Plumbes I aske him What hee saith to his learned Popish Doctors Almaynus Baius Roffensis Durandus and Gersonus who all with vniforme assent affirme resolutely as the Fryer hath confessed that euerie Sinne is Mortall of it owne nature The Fryer almost frighted out of his wittes telleth mee roundly and blusheth not thereat That neither Gerson is a Byshop nor Fisher a Canonized Martyr Is not this a Learned and Clerkly answere trow yee Hath not the Jesuite much to say for the antiquitie of Poperie when he fleeth to such miserable shiftes pitifull digressions sillie cauils and ridiculous euasions What if Byshoppe Fisher were not a Popish canonized Martir What if M. Gerson the famous Chauncellour of Paris were not a Byshoppe yee know the Prouerbe Cucullus non facit Monachum Your selues can not denie that both Fisher and Gerson were verie learned Popish Writers and so it skilleth not whether the one was a Byshoppe and the other a canonized Martir or no. Secondly that our Jesuite belieth mee heere as his wonted manner is else where I referre the censure hereof to mine Answere in the Downe-fall it selfe Thirdly that M. Gerson was in his old dayes the Byshop of Paris as a litle Treatise published by the Doctors of Paris and sometime printed or bound in one volume with the Maister of Sentences plainely auoucheth to the Reader Fourthlie that Fisher was Canonized priuately at the least as Alphonsus the rector of the English Colledge at Rome did Canonize Campian in my time with a White Surplesse on his backe himselfe then singing a collect of Martirs and
but perforce abhorre and detest Poperie as a New Religion by litle litle crept into the Church The Jesuites like Gypsies haue inuented a tricke of fast and loose assigning to their Pope a double person Priuate and Publique As a Priuate man they graunt he may both be deceiued himselfe and also deceiue others But that he can erre as a publique person or as Pope of Rome they vtterly deny For if they should once graunt this poynt which is a manifest and knowne truth Poperie would soone be turned vp-side downe Howbeit my saluation I gage for the tryall Fryer Alphonsus decideth the controuersie so plainely as all the Jesuites and Jesuited Papistes in the world are not in trueth able to withstand or gainesay the same Alphonsus sayth constantly and plainely without all And 's and Ifs that Pope Celestine erred not as a Priuate man but euen as Pope and publique person O sweete Iesus ô mercifull God! ô most louing Father how great is the malice and blasphemie of Iesuites and Jesuited Papistes against thine euerlasting Trueth and holy Name With what face can the Iesuiticall Cardinall Bellarmine tell vs that Pope Celestine erred onely as a Priuate man and not as Pope or Publique person When the Papistes like the Popes Decrees then they say hee defined as Pope and Publique person and that none may withstand his definitiue Sentence or once examine the same as is alreadie prooued to their euerlasting shame But when their Pope is conuinced to haue erred so grossely that they know not possibly how to defende him then they are not ashamed to say that hee erred but as a Priuate man Thirdly that the Pope erred in a poynt of great consequence euen in a matter of Popish Fayth viz. that Matrimonie was so dissolued by reason of Heresie that the faythfull man or woman might marrie againe the Hereticall partie lyuing Which thing sayth Alphonsus was manifest to euery one to be an Heresie and their late Councell of Trent hath defined it to be so Fourthly that this Decree and Definition of Pope Celestine was in those dayes enrolled in the Popes Decretals Fiftly that Alphonsus saw and read the same Sixtly that the sayd Decree can not this day be found amongst the Popes Decretall Epistles Where I note by the way and heartily wish the Reader to obserue the same that the decrees of our holy Fathers the Popes haue bin such so much against lately hatched Poperie as they are this day ashamed to bring the same to light But let this be our comfort herein that God hath at all times stirred vp some learned Papistes otherwise deuoted to the Pope who haue boldly vsed their Pennes and Wittes such is the force of trueth to discouer and lay open to the view of the world the deceit coozenage liegerdemayne and cunnicatching tricks of wicked Popes Jesuites all Iesuited Papistes so farre foorth I euer meane as is necessarie for the common good of his Church Now whether our Jesuite be a most notorious lyer or noe let the Reader iudge For if Alphonsus say that the Pope can not erre as Pope and Publique person I am content to be the lyer But if he constantly hold and defend the contrarie as the vndoubted trueth then iudge and censure our Fryer in this as in many other thinges for a shameles and impudent lyer best worthy of the Whetstone I wish he may haue it weare it about his necke as a testimonie of his condigne desertes The 9. Chapter Of the condigne so supposed merit of Good workes FOR the clearer manifestation and illustration of the trueth of this Controuersie I thinke it not amisse to proceed therein by way of Conclusions Which being soundly effected I purpose in God to answere and confute a thing very easie to be done the childish cauils ridiculous euasions and cunnicatching trickes which our Fryer vseth in pleading for the life of their New Religion The first Conclusion The Regenerate doe Good workes which are acceptable in Gods sight and receiue reward farre aboue their Condigne desertes This Conclusion is prooued by many textes of holy Writ Iob is enrolled among the Godly and those that feared God euen by the testimony of God himselfe Abel was slaine of his brother Cain because he feared God and did Good works The Scripture sayth that Noe was a iust man and perfect who therefore with his Familie found fauour in Gods sight in time of the generall Deluge The Angell of God saluting the blessed virgin Marie pronounced her holy aboue all Women Zacharias and Elizabeth his wife were both iust walked in all the Commaundements of God Abraham Moses Dauid Gedeon Sampson Samuel and many others did Workes acceptable in Gods sight Cornelius is highly commended in holy Writ for the Good workes he did Thus much for the former part And for the latter part the Scripture is likewise plentifull Christ himselfe promiseth to reward Good workes so liberally that he will not suffer so much as a Cuppe of cold Water giuen in his name to passe without reward For which cause Moses is said to haue had respect vnto reward And S. Paul teacheth vs that the passions of this life are not worthy of the glory to come In briefe the Popish Fryer Iohn de Combis a very learned Papist in his Theological Abridgement affirmeth it to be a maxime with God euer to reward vs aboue our well doinges and to punish vs lesse then our euill demerites These are his expresse wordes Et hoc pates quod Deus semper remunerat supra meritum sicut punit citra condignâ—m And this is euident because God euer rewardeth aboue our merites and punisheth vs lesse then we be worthy Where I may not passe ouer in silence the blasphemie of the Rhemistes against the effect of Christes Passion while they affirme Christ not to haue so fully satisfied for our sinnes but that wee are still bound to satisfie each man in particular for his owne sinnes For most true it is as I haue prooued in sundry places of this Discourse that Christ hath so sufficiently satisfied for all his Elect and so answered the iustice of God for punishment of their sinnes as they are freely discharged thereof Yet must they willingly suffer to be made conformable to Christ in Suffering as they looke to be like him in Glorie Their sufferings are indeed a condition required to their Glorification but neither a Cause thereof nor any Satisfaction for their sinnes The case is cleare the Scriptures doe euery where insinuate the same They are onely Conditio sine qua non of our Glorification and the necessarie and infallible effectes of our Predestination which they euer follow as Fruites doe the Tree for the afflictions of Gods children though they be a cause working eternall Glorie in the sense afore touched as they be the way by which God hath appoynted them to passe to Glorie yet neither are
shall heere truely relate as I will answere for it at the dreadfull day of Doome the Iesuite B.C. in his Forerunner hath these expresse words He may very well liue to see it and yeâ— die much sooner then he would Let him not be dismayed for I can assure him of mine owne knowledge that our consciences do not condemne vs neither do we know that we are not able to performe as great a matter as that To giue the more credite to my wordes and somewhat to reuiue his dead spirits I will heere giue him a note of the number of the Bookes and their particular contentes they be in all fiue written against his Motiues and Suruey fiue yeares agoe Thus writeth the Jesuite B. C. in his Forerunner To which let vs truely adde that which the Jesuite E.O. writeth in his Detection against M. D. Sutclâ—ffe and M. Willet These are his expresse wordes But I altered my purpose partly vpon other considerations but especially because the Confutation of his worthy Workes is alreadie vndertaken and to be published if it shall be thought necessarie Thus writeth E. O. that Learned man as B. C. his brother Jesuite tearmeth him Now sir marke well for Christes sake the detector E. O. That coozening Iesuite telleth vs mordicùs that the Confutation of my Bookes was but vndertaken by his fellowes when he published his Detection that is to say it was then concluded amongst his Breathren that my Bookes should be answered Hence commeth it it can not be denied that the supposed Answere to my Books was in the yeare 1602. for at that time was the Detection published at the most but in fieri not in facto esst to speake as the Schooles doe viz. the Answere was then but in hand or in doing at the most not done or finished in very deed Nay it was but then resolued amongst them as I prooued in my Counterblast out of the prouinciall Garnets Letter that some Answere should be made vnto my Bookes And therefore sayth the detector that he was once determined to haue said something against my Bookes but hearing that his fellowes were about the same matter he altered his purpose Heere is a most coozening legierdemain heere the Iesuites play their partes and shew themselues not onely egregious lyars and most cursed deceiuers but also as the secular Priestes write of them the most wicked men that liue vpon the earth It was not without great cause that the learned Papistes in France published a Booke against them which they teaâ—med The Iesuites Catechisme In which Booke they shew at large that the further a Jesuite goes the lowder he lyes An other Booke called The franke Discourse affirmeth resolutely that the Iesuites neuer harboured in their heartes any other proiect but the subuertion of States disauthorizing of Magistrates and seducing of Subiectes from their naturall allegeance In briefe thus the case standeth S. R. that learned Iesuite affirmeth constantly that at the publication of his Detection which was in the yeare 1602. my Bookes were not answered but at the most in fieri as is already said B.C. that famous Jesuite singeth an other song and auoucheth peremptorily that my Bookes my Motiues and my Suruey were answered fiue yeares before he published his fore-runner That is in plaine English foure yeares before that time in which his brother Jesuiteâ—elleth â—elleth vs that his fellowes were but aboue to answere them And least it should be obiected against B. C. that bloody cutthroate for so may his name be till he more plainely disclose it that his brother Jesuite S. R. accuseth him of a most notorious Lye therein hee to preuent that Obiection telleth vs that the Answere is suppressed and vpon iust occasion staied and not published These are his expresse wordes in the Contentes of his third Chapter That Bels Bookes haue long since receiued their answere though vpon iust occasion it hath hitherto bin suppressed yet shortly by Gods grace to be set foorth Thus discourseth the Fryer for the honour and life of his Pope which he manageth so gallantly as if his reward should be a Rope These Jesuites their seuerall asseuerations are much like to Sampson Foxes their Tayles are fast tyed togeather but their Heades are farre asunder So then this must needes be the conclusion though it imply a flat and plaine contradiction viz. that my Motiues and Suruey were answered about tenne yeares agoe at the least and yet vnanswered to this day This in my conceipte is not onely a Riddle but a plaine Jesuiticall Miracle Yet such a Miracle euer vnderstand as the Iesuites wrought vpon Sebastian the late King of Portugall Well all the world may see by this their dealing that they are at their wittes end what to say or write turning them selues this way that way and euery way by coozening lying iugling by what other meanes they possibly can deuise so to stay the out-cries of the people and their Popish vassals for being so long silent touching the answere of my Bookes Alasse alasse Who seeth not the nakednesse of late hatched Romish religion to what impudent desperate most damnable shiftes are the Papistes driueÌ„ for the defence therof How dare they confesse to the whole world that they haue bin buzzing about the Answere of my Motiues and Suruey for the space of sixe whole yeares or more and that when they had framed their Answere after their best manner they haue suppressed the same for the space of fiue years The trueth is that their falsely pretended Answere which should consist of fiue Books can not to this day befound extant in rerum natura When the Iesuites and Seminaâ—ie-Priestes consulted with Garnet their Prouinciall what course was best to be taken in hand for the Answere of my Bookes because their silence in that behalfe was verie dangerous to their Pope and Poperie the Father Jesuite hauing on his cappe of Consideration answered very peremptorily though neither clerkly nor honestly That they must either not meddle with the matter at all or else deale rather with my Person then with my Doctrine Yet he addeth very grauely these words Neuerthelesse for this matter as yee shall all agree for I doubt not but so many and such will see what is best Where wee haue to obserue by the way in perpetuam rei memoriam that not one onely Iesuite or Seminarie-priest writeth against mee but euen the whole broode tagge and ragge haue bent their Bowes to shoote their Arrowes at mee For though one odde Companion be singled out to take the quarrell in hand and to penne the Answere yet is the same fellow garded and assisted with the ioynt counsell aduise iudgement and helpe of all the rest But to what end is this my digression Doubtlesse to insinuate to the Reader that seeing I can neither see nor yet learne who hath seene this dolefull Knell to which I must resort for Answere I