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.

T. B.

I answere; [ 1] first, that the Pope may haue a cold heart, when he seeth Poperie bleeding vnto death, and no Po∣pish Doctor able to stanch the same. Our controuersie is of the Nature and Essence of Sinnes;* 1.1 whether euerie Sinne be Mortall of it owne nature, or no? Our Jesuite be∣ing confounded, and not able to prooue any sinne to be Veniall of it owne nature, answereth me thus: That nei∣ther 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 an∣swereth: 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,* 1.2 of it owne nature? The Fryer al∣most 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 ri∣diculous 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 lear∣ned Popish Writers: and so it skilleth not, whether the one was a Byshoppe, and the other a canonized Martir, or no. [ 2] Secondly, that our Jesuite belieth mee heere, as his wonted manner is else where; I referre the censure here∣of, to mine Answere in the Downe-fall it selfe. [ 3] 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 Mai∣ster of Sentences, plainely auoucheth to the Reader. [ 4] Fourth∣lie, that Fisher was Canonized priuately at the least;* 1.3 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 Mar∣tirs, and causing the M. of the Musicke to sound the Or∣ganges, and all the Studentes to singe (Te Deum;) as al∣so, the Arch-priest, the Prouinciall, the Jesuites, and Jesui∣ted Papistes euerie where, doe after their best manner canonize Sherewin, Nelson, Ballard, and the Gun-powder Iesuited Popelinges; * 1.4by praying vnto them, and by re∣seruing their Blood, Bones, Haire, and whatsoeuer once touched them, as the Reliques of Gods holy Martirs. Other like impertinent Vanities he vseth in this Chap∣ter: but he euer fleeth from my Reasons, and slylie pas∣seth ouer the chiefest matters. I haue soundly refuted the Fryers Answere, not omitting any thing of moment. See, and note well the Triall.

Notes

• * 1.1

  The Iesuite truely is at a Non plus.
• * 1.2

  A Poke full of Plumbes, is the defence of Poperie.
• * 1.3

  Egomet tum eram testis oculatus.
• * 1.4

  Their Blood, Bones, Haire, and Apparell, are reserued & honoured, as the Reliques of Gods Mar∣tirs.