Bels trial examined that is a refutation of his late treatise, intituled. The triall of the nevve religion By B.C. student in diuinitie. VVherein his many & grosse vntruthes, with diuers contradictions are discouered: together with an examination of the principal partes of that vaine pamphlet: and the antiquitie & veritie of sundry Catholike articles, which he calleth rotten ragges of the newe religion, are defended against the newe ragmaster of rascal. In the preface likewise, a short viewe of one Thomas Rogers vntruthes is sett downe, taken out of his booke called. The faith doctrine and religion, professed and protected in the realme of England, &c. with a short memorandum for T.V. otherwise called Th. Vdal.

BELS TRIAL EXAMINED CENSVRED AND REFVTED.

The Proeme.

ENtending to note the principall vntruthes of Bels Pamphlet, (the principall part and fundamentall substance thereof) I haue thought goode (to take my worke orderly before me) first to salute his Epistle, and see what hol∣some stuffe he presenteth in that to his Patrones.

Bells Epistle Dedicatory.

THE 1. VNTRVTH.

THE Minister standeth vppon coales, till his fingers be at worke, and his penne busied about his harts delight, and therfore not to loose any time, hefalleth roundly to the matter, presenting his patrons with a tricke of his occu∣pation

in his very first entrance. His wordes be these. The visible church (quoth he) as writeth Egesip∣pus, * 1.1 remayned a virgin free from all heresies and corruptions during the lise of the Apostles, that is to say, about one hundred yeares after Christ, to which time S. Iohn the Euangelist was liuinge. But after the death of the Apostles sayth he, errors by litle and litle crept into the church, as into a voyd and desert house. This assertion is dolefull ynoughe and yet very profitable against all Popish Recusants of our time, as who are not ashamed impudently to auouch, that after so many hundred yeares from Christes ascension, there hath bene no error at all, in their Romish Babilon. This collection will proue dolefull ynough to him selfe, and not very profitable to the congrega∣tion, by that time we haue sifted his words, and examined the authoritye alleadged, for it is powdreed with lies, and iugling tricks, thicke and three-sould. For first if he meaneth any such error, as may stand with the integritie of the Ca∣tholike faith, most false it is, that we deny any such error may creepe into the Church: for we wil∣lingly confesse that Papias, S. Ireneus, and some others held the error of the Chiliastes (as him selfe mentioneth straight after) that S. Ciprian, and di∣uers others with him, were carryed a way in to the error of rebaptization: but yet notwithstan∣dinge these their errors, they were true members of the Catholicke church, seing that in questions newly springing vp, error may be in∣curred but not allwayes heresy, which importeth not only an error in the vnderstandinge, but also malice and obstinacie in the will, by contemninge the Church her decree and determination. But

if by error, he meaneth heresie, as no question he doth, both because he saith, that during the liues of the Apostles the Church was free from all heresies and corruptios, but after their death, error by litle and litle crept in, and also for that he termeth our Church Romish Babilon or as he speaketh in his Suruey (where he handleth the very same matter) whorish Babylon; by which * 1.2 wordes it is plaine, that he meaneth hereticall errors, for such only maketh our Church Babylon, and to forsake her true spouse Christ, and to comit spirituall fornication by cleauing to newe, damna∣ble, and hereticall opinions: and lastly for that otherwise he proueth nothing against vs, the scope of his booke being to shewe, that our religion is not old, but newe, as being far different from the pure faith of the Apostles.

This then being his meaning, most false it is I say that any such errors crept into the Church (I meane with the corruption of the Churches sin∣cere doctrine, though I willingly graunt that di∣uers of the Church, haue by heresie falne from true doctrine, as namely the minister him selfe) eyther in the Apostles time, or shall doe vntill the worldes end, and that by the singular prouidence of Christ, who promised that hell gates should not pre∣uayle * 1.3 against his Church, and many like places to that purpose might be alledged. But what say we to the authoritye of Egesippus who liued straight after the Apostles, cited by Bell for iustification of that he affirmed? Nothing els, but that he belieth both Egesippus and also Eusebius, whome he quoteth in the third booke of his history cap. 32. as the relator of those wordes of Egesippus. Reade the

place he that please, no such thing shall there be found, nor the name of Egesippus so much as once mentioned. The minister was not content to * 1.4 present his Patrons, with a cast paragraffe of his Suruey, makinge it the begininge of his Epistle, for almost two pages together, but he must also abuse both them and others with a notorious vntruth of his owne, fatheringe that vppon Euse∣bius which is not there to be found.

Neyther can this dealing of his, proceede from other roote then meere malice: for immediatly after this sentence cited out of Eusebius in the 32. chapter of his third booke, he produceth out of the 33. chapter of the same booke how Papias and Ireneus were infected with the error of the Chiliastes, and that very truly, which sheweth that he perused the place. And in his Suruey the fore∣sayd * 1.5 places be found in like manner alleadged the one truely and the other most falsely. Can this procedinge of his stewe from any other sinke then the filthy puddle of his owne corrupt conscience. Beside this, who knoweth not acquainted any thinge in antiquitie, that Simon Magus set his here∣sie abroach in the Apostles time, and before the death of S. Peter, (as Eusebius recounteth,) whose * 1.6 death was long before the death of S. Iohn the Euangelist, no lesse then fiftye yeares by Bels owne computation: for S. Peter was crucified as he sayth * 1.7 at Rome vnder Nero, the fourtith and fourth yeare after Christe: Nay the same Eusebius noteth though breifely, how Simon Magus was ouercome by S. Peter. Cerinthus also the heretike was in the * 1.8 Apostles time, for Ireneus maketh mention how

S. Iohn the Euangelist, comming to wash him selfe * 1.9 in the bath, finding there Cerinthus suddainly de∣parted, saying, that he feared least the bath would fall, for as much as the enemye of truth was then in it. But what doe I dispute further in a matter so euident, for certaine it is out of sacred scripture that heresies were taught long before the death of S. Iohn. S. Paule (who was beheaded * 1.10 at Rome the same day and yeare with S. Peter as Bell confesseth) writing that Hymenaeus and Phi∣letus erred from the truth, saying the resurrection is done * 1.11 already, and had subuerted the fayth of some: which conuinceth playenly that their doctrine was he∣reticall, otherwise it could not haue subuerted faith. Doth not S. Iohn also him selfe speake of the damnable Nicolaites. This being so, could Egesippus or Eusebius men of greate learninge, and conuer∣sant * 1.12 in the scriptures, be ignorant of this, or knowing it, can it enter into any mans imagina∣tion, that they would write as Bell alleadgeth them, directly contrary to the truth, and opposit to their owne knowledge: will not any soner beleeue, that the minister hath grosly slaundered them, and coyned this f••ction in the forge of his owne braines, imployed about nothing more, then the hammering of lyes, cauils, and cor∣ruptions against the Catholicke fayth.

The minister proceding forward, laboureth to shew how errors crept in after the death of S. Iohn, and telleth out of Eusebius, that Papias and Ire∣neus were Chiliastes, which I willingly graunt: but withall deny, that they were therefore here∣tikes, as before hath bene sayd, and so they helpe

his cause nothinge at all, for he speaketh of such errors as be ioyned with heresie, from which they wer free. Melchior Canus also (quoth he) opposeth him selfe against all the Thomists and Sco∣tists, both the old and latter Papists: and this he bringeth to proue that hereticall errors haue crept into the Church. He slandreth that great learned man and professor of diuinity, when he woulde make him of his owne opinion: what he thought of the Churches infallibility in not erring, he deli∣uereth in these conclusions. The first. The fayth * 1.13 os the Church can not faile. The second conclusion. The Church can not err in beleeuing. The third conclusion. Not only the old Church could not err in fayth, but neyther the church which now is, and which shall be to the end of the world, eyther can or shall err in fayth. And yet the mi∣nister produceth him as I sayd, to proue that he∣resies crept into the church, after the time of the Apostles: how truly let the reader iudge. The question then wherof Canus speaketh, concerneth not any poynt of faith; as in expresse termes he there affirmeth, but a matter debatable in scholes. True it is that Bell maketh him to say that he doth oppose him selfe against all the Thomists and Scotists, both the old and latter Papistes: but the worde (Papistes) is foisted in by him selfe, by which he would haue the reader to thinck that he spake of auncient fathers, when as he talketh only of old and new Scholemen, as he might learne out of the very title of that chapter, which is Of the authoritye of the Schole Doctors. The like may be sayd of Caietanus, Nauarrus, and Roffensis, alledged for the same purpose by Bell: all which

liued in our age, and were well known not to haue swarued from any thinge defined by the Ca∣tholicke church, as I could shew and in particular demonstrat how he abuseth them, were it not to be tedious, especially about the Epistle, wherof I was once determined to haue sayd nothinge at all. Yet must I not omitt S. Augustin cited by Bell: What sayth he? any thinge perhapps to proue that the Church straight after S. Iohn was infected with hereticall error. Mary (quoth Bell) he reputed * 1.14 no mans writings wholy free from errors saue only the writers of the holy scriptures. This serueth not the turne: S. Augustin must speake of hereticall errors, or else he nothinge helpeth Bell: but I trowe he will not make all others beside the writers of the scriptures to haue runn into any such errors: No nor it is not be imagined, that he will graunt that the Communion booke, or the late Prouin∣ciall councell of England confirmed by roiall as∣sent, and least of all his owne bookes to be stayned with any such errors, yea or any errors at all: and yet if S. Austens words be true as Bell alledgeth them, how these will be excused I know not, vnlesse he will tell vs that S. Austens spake of his owne & former times, & not of those which shold follow after, and so attribute more prerogatiue to moderne writers, then to the venerable & learned fathers of the Primitiue church, which were a des∣perate shift, meete for a man of his shifting condi∣tions. But where I beseche him hath S. Augustin these wordes? He quoteth, epis. ad Hierom. ep. 19. Where no such thinge will be founde: only he faith, that no bookes are comparable for truthe

with the bookes of the Prophetes and Apostle which is not to censure all writers for erroneou•• but not to match them with the Prophetes al•• Apostles. That holy doctor was far ynoughe fro•• thincking that the church could err. Speaking the church of Rome, and that blessed successi•• he saith: Number the Priestes yea euen from the ve•• * 1.15 seate of Peter, and in that order of fathers see who succ∣ded whom: that is the rocke which the proude gates of h•• doe not ouercome. And to generall councels, I•• which the church is represented he did attribu•• so much, that he excuseth Cyprian from here•• * 1.16 because in his time, there was no generall Counc•• which had defined that question of rebaptization which sheweth euidently that he thought the could not err. And the custome and authorit•• of the church he reputed so infallible that h•• saith: To dispute against that which the vniuersall chur•• * 1.17 holdeth is most insolent madnes. Colde comfort dot•• S. Augustin afforde Bell to proue that heretica errors haue crept into the churche.

An other sentence alleadged out of S. Austi•• where that holy Father saith, that he doth not re∣pute * 1.18 S. Cyprians writings as canonicall, but iudge them •• the canonicall, and whatsoeuer doth not agree with t•• scriptures, that by his leaue he doth refuse might ver well haue bene spared, for who taketh them fo•• canonicall? nay who knoweth not that some •• his writings be erroneous, though not errorneou•• in that sence which Bell pretendeth? and so h•• sayth much but to litle purpose, vnlesse it be t•• shew with what facilitye he can cite author•• vntruely, making them to iustifie that, to which

their wordes can not be drawne. The premisses duly pondered, the prudent reader can not but vn∣derstand that I haue dealt frendly with Bell, noting him only for one vntruth, when as diuers might very well haue runne vppon the reckoninge.

The rest of his Epistle conteyneth litle els, but a recapitulation of the cheife contents of his boo∣kes, or a bundle of vntruthes trussed vp toge∣ther, which must be examined in the chapters fol∣lowing: only here, wheras according to his great modesty he sayth, that he will sett before the eyes of all indifferent readers as clerely as a glasse of christall the originall and dayly excrements of Popery, I can not but add, that the excrements of the Catho∣licke church be principally such Apostates as Lu∣ther, Bucer, Peter Martir, and many more, that forsooke their professiō of chastitie & a religio{us} li∣fe, and the better to lay the foundations of the new gospell, betoke them selues to the mortification of new wiues, drawne out of Nunneries or other places, where they could best meete with such kind of cattle. Had it not bene for these and such like other excrements of ours, the congregation would haue had poore increments, and hardly would they haue bene furnished with Apostles, had not our church voyded forth such Apo∣states. Veryly he might with far lesse harme to his soule employ his talent by setting downe their originall and procedinge, then he doth in discoue∣ring the beginning & encreasing of Popery, espe∣cially * 1.19 if he would remember an old acquaintance of his, one Sir. Thomas of Rascall that excrementicall

companion, for I knowe not a man in the parish, that can better performe it, beinge furnished with a rude rusticall stile, fitt for such a subiect: and one that hath perfect intelligence of his heauenly con∣uersation, and righteousnes of life. The counts being cast, and the summe sett downe, what hath he gott by his voluntary error, to degorge his ma∣lice against vs (for his disposition considered, and the qualitye of the fault, I can not thincke other∣wise) or what hathe he gayned by his grosse gir∣dinge, and filthy fleeringe at the excrements of Poperie.

Bels I. chapter Of this name and worde (Pope.)

THE II. VNTRVTH.

DIsputing of this name (Pope) and shewing out of S. Ciprian and others, that it was giuen in old tyme to other Bishops, and not only to the Bishoppe of Rome, he addeth these words. But aster that the Emperour Iustinianus, had in his legall constitutions, named the Bishoppe of Rome (Pope), the arrogant Bishopps of Rome, began to challenge the name, as if it were proper to them alone. An vntruth: why did he not name those arrogant Bishops of Rome, that challenged the pro∣pertie of this title, or some author of creditt that reporteth it? And what reason had the Bishops of Rome to lay hold vppon the Emperors words, ra∣ther then the words of the generall Councell of Chalcedon (which was many yeares before) in

which he was called by that name, as shal straight be handled. This therfore must remaine for one vntruth, vntill he can better discharge him selfe. One thinge I must here add, which wil litle please the minister, and that is, albeit the name (Pope) was attributed also to other Bishops, yet was it in such speciall manner giuen to him, that it did suffi∣ciently declare his supreame authoritye ouer all other, which appeareth first, because when any was called Pope without further addition, it was vnderstoode only of the Bishoppes of Rome, as is euident out of the Councell of Chalcedon where it * 1.20 is sayd: The most blessed and Apostolicke man the Pope doth command vs this thinge. Secondly because the Bishop∣pe of Rome was called Pope of the whole church, as we reade in the same Councell, where Leo is cal∣led Pope of the vniuersall church: and Liberatus affir∣meth, * 1.21 that there is no Pope ouer the church of the whole world, but the Bishoppe of Rome. Thirdly because he is called the Pope or father of generall Councels, and of the whole world, but he calleth not other Bishops Popes or fathers, but his bre∣thren or sonnes, as is apparant out of an epistle of Pope Damasus to the Easterne Bishoppes, recited by Theodoretus: and in the Epistle of the Councell of * 1.22 Chalcedon to Pope Leo. To this may be added, that seing (Pope) signifieth (father) as Bell according to the truth confesseth, it followeth that the Bi∣shoppe of Rome was in old time reputed superiour to all, in that he was called the Father of fathers: for Steuene Bishoppe of Carthage, writinge to Pope Damasus in the name of three Councells, celebrated in Affricke giueth him this title. To Pope Damasus our * 1.23

most blessed Lord, exalted with Apostolical dignity, the holy father of fathers. And this may be the reason; that al∣beit sometime in the Primitiue Church, the name was also giuen to other Bishopps, yet seing in fore∣sayd manner it agreed peculiarly to the Bishoppe of Rome, as declaring his soueraigue authoritye ouer others, the former custome ceased, and so it remayned alone to him.

THE III. VNTRVTH.

VVIth the former he hath copled an other, saying thus. And so in processe of time the Bi∣shopps of Rome were solely and only called Popes, and of late yeares Our holy father, and, His holynes, is his vsuall name. A grosse vntruth, for the name of (his holines) is not of late yeares, beinge long since giuen to the Pope by Iustinian the Emperour, and Theodoretus writinge to * 1.24 Pope Leo vseth the same phrase. Obsecro vestram san∣ctitatem I besech your Holynes sayth that learned and ve∣nerable * 1.25 father: and the Councell of Chalcedon in their letters to the same Pope Leo, inuaighing aga∣inst Dioscorus the heretike, that presumed to ex∣communicate the Pope sayth thus, Etpost haec omnia. * 1.26 And after all these things he did also extend his madnes against him, to whom the custody of the vineyard was com∣mitted by our Sauiour, that is against thy Apostolike holines. And if S. Ciprian, and S. Augustin, were called most blessed Popes, as Bell here confesseth, can any mar∣uaile that the title of holines should be giuen to their superior, and yet doth he neuer make scruple to say that it is a title only of late yeares, making it to haue sprung vp long after that the title of Pope.

was appropriated (as he would haue it) to the Bishoppe of Rome, which appropriation as he saith was about the yeare of Christ 528. and so the na∣me of his holines much later: and yet is that title mo∣re auncient then the sayd yeare of Christ 528. as is euident out of Theodoretus, and the Councel of Chal∣cedon, both which were long time before the sayd time as Bell will not denye.

THE IIII. VNTRVIH.

PRosecuting his former matter he sayth. But this Emperour (that is Iustinian) liued after Christ his birth about 528. yeares, Ergo this pointe of Poperie is a rotten ragge of the new religion. In which words he venteth out an vntruth, for be it that it was then appro∣priated to the Pope as he sayth, yet how can it be new, which by his owne confession was vsed an eleuene hundred yeares agoe, that is so many ages before the foundations of his religion were layd, or the name of a Protestant heard of in the whole world. I omitt here how many ecclesiastical names haue bene brought into the church as, Homousios or Consubstantiall against the Arrians, Incarnation against other heretikes, the better by a new name to de∣clare an aunciēt article of faith. Will Bell for al that call these words rotten raggs of a new religion. He nauer dare offer it, & yet with no lesse reason may he doe it, then he doth here the name of the Pope.

As for his rustical scoffinge (the special grace of his writinge) at the sylly people for reputing the word Pope a most sacred thing though ignorāt as he saith what is mēt by the name I say no more but that he

may with like grace runne vppon the name of Iesus Christ: for thousands amōgst the Protestants which reuerence thē for sacred, can tel as litle what is vn∣derstoode by it, as we can by the name of the Pope. But we are beholding to Bell that he vouch safeth to explicate the originall of that name, telling vs that it signifieth Father: and for that after so terri∣ble a persecution of those few letters, as though so∣me misterye of iniquitie had lurked in them, (in such sort that in the time of Henry the eight it was rased out of all bookes) and after many spight∣full termes, and most odius conceipts framed in the minds of the vulgar sort concerning that name, he hath discharged it from all suspition of secret ve∣nim, assuring good people, that it is indede venera∣ble, as that which was giuen to most holy and aun∣cient Bishopps, and might in his opinion be giuen to him selfe, could he haue the lucke to finger that dignitye. Thus much of the Popes name, now we are come to talke of his office and authoritye.

Bels II. Chapter Of the Popes superoiall power.

THE V. VNTRVTH.

TO season the begining of his chapter with a litle of his mendacious powder, he writeth thus, Bonifacius Bishoppe of Rome, and the third of that na∣me, aboue six hundred yeares after Christ, obteyned of Phocas then Emperor of Rome, that Rome should be the head of all churches. Before which time no authenticall writer can be

named, who euer ascribed the headship and vniuersall go∣uernment of all churches to the church of Rome. To con∣uince this manifest vntruth, somethinge hath bene sayd in the precedent chapter: but plentifully haue I proued the contrary in The doleful knell, publi∣shed not long since against his Ministership both * 1.27 out of other authorities, as also by the confession of the Lutherane Centuristes, his deere brethren: and lastly out of his sweete selfe, that more cannot be desired. Somthinge also shall be sayd in the se∣quell, his owne wordes ministring iust occasion, and here I will adioyne a litle more. In the Coun∣cell of Chalcedon, Maximus Bishoppe of Antioch, was * 1.28 confirmed by S. Leo the first: Pope Iulius the first also restored Athanasius Patriarch of Alexandria to his seate; Paulus Patriarch of Constantinople, and Marcellus Bishoppe of Ancyra, depofed vinustly by an Easter∣ne synode as writeth Sozomenus, whole words be these. For as much as the care of all did belonge to him for * 1.29 the dignitye of his sea, he restored to euery of them their church: And a litle after. Athanastus and Paulus doe returne to their seates and sent the letters of Tulius to the East. Bels best and most spedy answere to these prooffes will be, to say that he was superiour to the Patriarches, and other Bishops, but had not any authority ouer inferior ministers. Alas poore soule, to what pityfull straights hath he brought him selfe, whiles vpō zeale he lyeth for the credit of the cōgregatiō.

THE VI. VNTRVTH.

IN his arguments propounded against the supe∣riority of the Bishoppe of Rome (wherof

afterward I meane more fully to entreat) this is one. Seauently the famous councel of Chalcedon gaue the Bi∣shope of Constantinople equall authority with the Bishope of Rome in all ecclesiasticall affaires. In which words is one vntruth cunningly couched: for he calleth that here the decree of the Councell, which was by the ambi∣tion of Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople, effected in the absence of the Romane legates. Yf Bell can proue that this surreptitious decree of the Eas∣terne Bishopes, was euer confirmed, then were it some thinge which he bringeth. But the Bishop of Rome his legates withstood that their indirect proceedinge, pronouncing it to be contrary to the decrees of the Nicene Councel, and Lucentius in parti∣cular * 1.30 spake confidently saying, that the Apostolicke sea ought not to be abased in their presence, with other notable wordes tendinge to the same pur∣pose. And Pope Leo him selfe in his Epistle to Anato∣lius did bitterly inueigh against him for this his pre∣sumption and going against the Nicene canons, ad∣monishing him also how his legates which in his stead wer presidents of the Councell, did withstand that his vnlawfull attempt, for which cause he dis∣claymeth vtterly for giuing his consent. Far be it * 1.31 (quoth he) from my conscience, that so wicked a desire should be holpen with my labor, and of all that minde not high things, but consent to the humble: and he giueth the rea∣son: because it were (as he sayth) to infringe the Canons of the Nicene Councell, and to depriue the sea of Alexandria, of beinge the second in dignitye, and Antioch of beinge the third, and all Metropolitane Bishops of their honour.

About the same matter. he wrott also to the Emperour, shewing his great dislike of Anatolius

ambition, putting him in minde, what special fauour he had afforded him concerning his conse∣cration: insinuating playnly, how he deserued to haue bene deposed, for falling into the heresie of Eutiches, and for beinge wickedly promoted by Dioscorus of Alexandria, to be Bishoppe of Constanti∣nople: yet because he renounced his heresie, & at the entreaty of the Emperour, the Pope dispēsed with him. VVe (sayth Pope Leo) hauing respect to your fayth * 1.32 and intercession, whereas the beginings of his consecration were not sound, by reason of them that did it, desired rather to be gratious then iust, to the end we might thereby, by ap∣plying of remedies pacifie all stirres, which the deuill had pro∣cured, which things ought rather to haue made him modest then immoderate: & in the end, he exhorteth the Em∣perour to labour about the repressing of his inso∣lencie. Endeuour (quoth he) to doe that, which becom∣meth Christian and royall piety, to witt that the foresayd Bishoppe would be obediēt to the fathers, haue regard to peace, and not to thinke that it was lawfull for him to ordaine the Bishoppe of Antioch without any example, against the decrees of Canons as he presumed, which thinge we would not make void, for the desire we haue to restore faith & preserue peace.

Lastly writinge to the Empresse Pulcheria about the same argument, he vtterly maketh voyd what∣soeuer Anatolius had cunningly caused to be decreed cōcerning the Primacye of Constantinople. VVe make * 1.33 voyd (quoth he) the consent of the Bishopps repugning to the rules of holy Canons established at Nice by the vnited piety of your fayth with vs, and by the authoritye of the blessed Apostle Peter doe with our generall definition wholy frustrate and make of no effect.

Now, to return to Bell, I say that he ouerreacheth

when he enfourmeth his reader, that the famous Councell of Chalcedon, gaue the Bishope of Constanti∣nople equall authoritye with the Bishop of Rome in all ecclesiastical affaires: for it cannot truly be called a decree of the Councel, which was not confirmed by the head. Should a Parlament in England make ten seuerall acts, nine very good and beneficiall to the realme, but one cleane opposite to former acts, and preiudiciall to the soueraigne dignitye of his Maiestie, wherevppon he confirmed the nine, but the tenth he did vtterly irritate and make voyde; would Bell call that an act of Parlament, or could he with out an vntruth so terme it in true and good meaninge? most certayne he could not: what followeth I leaue to Bels collecting vaine. But it may be he will say, that the confirmation of the Councell belonged not to the Pope. It is not possi∣ble that he dare offer it: will he make Pope Leo so auncient for time, so renoumed for vertue, so fa∣mous for learning, such a simple or arrogant crea∣ture, as to send his legats to be Presidents of the Councell in his place, to write vnto the Empresse, how he did make frustrate that decree, yf his au∣thoritye had not bene certayne in that behalfe, and so made him selfe a laughing stocke to the Empire, and the whole world: and would the Councell haue admitted of his legates, or euer haue made suite to him for the confirmation of their de∣crees, as they did, when they wrote to him in this manner. And we beseech thee (say they) honour our iudg∣ment * 1.34 with thy decrees, and as we with willinge mindes haue agreed together in good things, so thy highnes also would ac∣complish that for thy children which is conuenient: which * 1.35

petition of theirs is also formally recorded by the Lutheranes of Magdeburge.

The good reader hath also further to note, that this pride of Anatolius was so exorbitant, that at length he gaue it cleane ouer, excusing him selfe to Pope Leo, as we reade in the letters of the same Pope, which he wrote vnto Anatolius, in which after he had giuen order about certayne things in the church of Constantinople (an argument of his iurisdi∣ction in that place) he cometh to that excuse which Anatolius alleadged in his owne behaulfe for hauing laboured about the primacye of his owne church, and writeth thus. But as touching that synne * 1.36 which you committed as you say by the persuasion of others concerninge the encrease of authoritye, your charity should more effectually and sincerely haue washed away, if that which could not be attempted without your likinge, you had not layd only vppon the counsell of the clergie: for as offence is committed by giuing of bad counsel, so likewise by giuing of badd consent. But it is very gratefull to me most derely be∣loued brother that your charitye professeth, that it doth now displease you, which ought not then to haue liked you. The profession of your charitye, and the attestation of the Christian Prince is sufficient for your returne into common grace, neyther doth that amendment seeme late, which is accompanied with so venerable a witnes. Let the desire of vnlawfull authoritie which made dissension be wholy cast away. This w•••• at that tyme, the end of that arrogant presumption: but had Bell then liued it seemeth he would haue stoode more to his tackling, and neuer haue shewed him selfe so base minded, as to haue giuen ouer any title of honour, or any wise submitted him selfe to the Pope, who now pleadeth so earnestly

in defence of that outragious ambition:

Here also the good reader hath to note, that as the minister doth make that the decree of a Coun∣cel, which as hath bene sayd was non at all, so doth he make bold with truth beside a tricke of corru∣ption: for no where doe I read in the actes of that Councell that it gaue equall authoritye to the Bi∣shop of Constantinople, with the Bishop of Rome in all ecclesiasticall affaires, as Bell affirmeth: that worde (all) is foisted in by the malice of his ministership, neyther haue they the word (authoritye) but (priuiledges) which consisted, for as much as I can learne out of those Actes, in these two pointes. The first was, that the Metropolitanes of the dio∣ceses of Pontus, Asia, and Thrace, should only be conse∣crated and ordained by the Bishops of Constantinople, as also such Bishops as liued in the same place a∣mongst barbarous people. The second was, that Constatinople might haue the second place in dignity next after Rome. These I say were the priuiledges which Anatolius desired should be confirmed by the Pope: for to thinke that he desired to haue euery wayes superiority, and as Bell writeth, equall au∣thoritye in all ecclesiasticall affaires with Rome is contrary to all reason, and not agreable to the reci∣ted words out of the Actes, for though Anatolius with others decreed that Constantinople should haue equall priuiledges, yea in ecclesiasticall matters, yet is that straight limited to the consecration of Me∣rropolitanes, and to haue the second place in digni∣tye, as before was sayd and is euident also out of the 15. Action can. 28. and out of the 16. Action and lastly out of their relation to the Pope, in

which they craued his confirmation: for there they mention nothinge of equall priuiledges and aduancemēt in ecclesiasticall causes, causes, but only speake of consecratinge the Metropolitanes of Asia, Pontus, and Thrace, and of hauing the next place after Rome, and yet they affirme that they did there signifye vnto him all the force of the Actes: whereof it followeth that other priuiledges or eminencye in ecclesiasticall dignitye was not then desired: and su∣rely it were meere madnes to thinke that Anatolius would euery way haue had equall authority in all ecclesiasticall causes, as the minister affirmeth, seing then we must graunt that he desired iurisdiction in Italie and Rome it selfe; nay what were it els but to condemne Anatolius of grosse foolerye in suyng for that superextrauagant grace of the Pope to the iniury of his owne See and dignitie.

Much more might be sayd to the same purpose, but it shall not neede, when as the thinge is so cleere that our mortall enimies confesse it: for the Magdeburgian historiographers, after relation how the Roman Legates with-stood the audacious attempt of Anatolius and his confederates, write thus. VVherfore the iudges of the Synod decreed that the * 1.37 principall primacye and honour, was to be left vnto the Bishop of Rome, and that notwithstanding, somethinge was to be giuen to the Church of Constantinople, because that city was adorned with the dignitye of the Empire, and was called newe Rome, that it might haue power to ordayne Metropolitanes, in the dioceses of Asia, Pontus, and Thrace, yet so, that it might be lawfull for the Me∣tropolitanes of euery prouince to ordayne Bishops. This was that dignity, and equalitye of priuiledge

which they desired: which notwithstandinge they obteyned not, Pope Leo wholy irritating that de∣cree as hath bene saide. Thus haue we not only conuinced Bell of lying and corruption, but so far pr••uayled against him, that by meanes of that de∣cree by which he would ouerthrowe the superio∣ritye of the church of Rome, we haue abundantly proued the contrary, and so we may say with the Prophet. The arrowes of litle ones are become their woundes. * 1.38 Neuer had gallant Minister worse fortune, for not only his blowe is still defeated, but his weapon dis∣gratiously beaten backe vppon his owne face. What sayth he now to the famous Councell of Chalcedon? The Popes authoritye maugre his malice is cleerely proued out of that as hath bene sayd, and so nothinge found there, that can relieue his cause, but such Vnguentum baculinum as he list not to med∣dle with al, and that not only touching the Popes superiority wherof we haue spoken sufficiently, but also other matters: for example, that Councell decreed thus Virginem, &c. It is not lawfull for a vir∣gine * 1.39 which hath consecrated her selfe to God, and likwise a Monke to contract Matrimonye. But if they be found doing any such thinge, let them be excommunicated. Did Bell for all that neuer in his whole life heare of any such creatures, that remayne so far from being excom∣municated, that they be highly commended as the principall aduauncers of the Gospell? and doth he not knowe a deare freind of his, that hath written * 1.40 in defence of such wicked and filthy wedlocke. Gladly then would I be enformed, how his Mini∣stershippe can eyther defend such sacrilegious wretches, from the force of that Canon, or his

friende from beinge opposite to the doctrine of that Councell. To deny the authoritye of that Si∣node which him selfe vrgeth, calling it a famous Councell were a base shift, and nothing becom∣ming his grauity and constancy, but rather the le∣uitie of some mutable minister, especially that being authorised by Act of Parlament, which for certayne reasons he must defende, but how in this case God knoweth that knowes all things.

THE VII. VNTRVTH.

IT followeth immediatly in Bels booke. Eightly the Councell of Nice prescribed limites as well to the Bi∣shop of Rome, as to other Patriarches. This is a manifest vntruth, and that by the iudgment of any that is indifferent. The place he mea∣neth * 1.41 (for he noteth none) is in the sixt canon in these wordes Let auncient customes be kept throughout Egipt, Libia, and Pentapolis, that the Bishop of Alexandria haue power of all these because the Bishop of Rome hath that custome. Out of which wordes so far of it is, that the iurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, is con∣fined within any limits, that her ample and vni∣uersall superioritye is confirmed: for nothinge is here determined concerning the church of Rome, but that is made the rule of other churches, as Po∣pe Nicholas the first noteth, who also affirmeth * 1.42 that the Nicene Councell appoynted nothing a∣bout the Romane church, because the authoritye therof was not from men, but from God. In the

former vntruth diuers, times was it mentioned our of Pope Leo, as also out of his legates in the Councell of Chalcedon, that the Grecians went against the Nicene Canons in their presumpreous attempt. But to make the matter most clere, to w••tt that the Councell of Nice did not limitt the Pope•• iurisdiction, but contrary wise allowed and approued nis supreame authoritye, beside the resti∣mony of Pope Nicholas alread, alledged, I will de∣monstrate the same out of the Chalcedon Synode which Bell calleth a famous Councell (as it was in deede, and therfore worthyly admitted by our country) In the sixtene session Paschasinus the Popes legate cited this very Canon for the Popes Pri∣macye, for after the iudge had sayd: Let both sides pro∣pound * 1.43 canons, ••t followeth in these words. The reue∣rend man Paschasinus Bishop and vicar of the Apostolike sea recited The sixt canon of the three hundred and eightene holy fathers: That the Church of Rome hath alwayes had the * 1.44 Primacye. But let Egipt hould that the Bishop of Alexan∣dria haue power of all, because the Bishop of Rome hath this custome. Behold Paschasinus proueth the Popes supre∣macye out of that canon, from which Bell would deduce the contrary. And the Grecian Bishops were so far from contradicting this; (which no question they would, had the canon bene plaine to the contrary sen••e, as the minister ma••ntay∣neth) that their silence confessed it to be most true. Yea the iudges them selues though desirous to aduance the dignitye of Constantinople, yet were they so ouercome with the light of truth shining in that canon, that vppon the former euidence

they sayd. VVeperfectly perceiue all primacy and principall * 1.45 honour according to the canons, to be kept for the Archbishop of old Rome, most beloued of God. The true mea∣ning ••nertore of the canon is, that the Bi∣shope of Rome, before the definition of any Councell, vsed to committ the gouernement of Egipt, Libia, and Pentapolis, to the Bishop of A∣lexandria, as Pope Nicholas the first doth expound it, and is plaine out of the Councell of Chal∣cedon: which being so, Bell remayneth guilty of an vntruth, and the Popes eminent authority con∣firmed by that very canon, which he brought to ouerthrowe it. What an vnlucky hand hath this minister, that striking at others, still woun∣deth him selfe.

THE VIII. IX. AND X. VNTRVTHES.

AFter Bell had produced many arguments against the Popes soueraigne superioritye, he maketh a recapitulation of them all, but so hand∣somly, that for their better grace he doth florish them ouer with new lyes. To stande vpon one, that hath a couple of followers. Fourthly (quoth he) seing Polycarpus, S. Polycrates, S. Ireneus, and S. Ciprian, with many Bishops of Europe, Asia, and Affrica, contemned the Bishop of Rome his decrees and supposed supremacye. That S. Polycarpus contem∣ned the Popes decrees is most false, and vn∣truly collected out of his former argu∣ment,

in which no mention is made of any decree concerninge the keeping of Easter (the matter then in question) as shall appeare afterwarde when we come to answere that argument, how could he then contemne that which was not extant. See the scrupulous conscience of the minister, be∣cause before he passed ouer the matter without the marke of his occupation, he hath here made lewde restitution clapping three vntruthes toge∣ther, one in the necke of an other. The first is now recited, and to make it the more manifest I will adioyne what he writeth of this matter in his Motiues. His wordes be these In like manner (quoth he) though with more modesty dissented Anicetus * 1.46 an other Bishoppe of Rome, from S. Polycarpe, Bishoppe of Smyrna: where I desire the good reader to note his malicious dealinge & his rooted hatred against those Popes, whom he confesseth to haue bene blessed Martyrs. Anicetus (quoth he) dissented from S. Polycarpe: and why I beseech him doth he not rather say, that S. Polycarpe dissented from Anicetus: I trust he will not deny but that S. Anicetus had the better quarrell, except he list to condemne the church of Englād, and the whole Christian world that obserue Easter according to the custome of Rome. Besides this, is it not most certayne that S. Polycarp was far inferiour in dignitye to S. Anicetus, when as so much is euident out of the premisses, in which we haue heard how the Patriarche of Constantinople, did emulate some prerogatiues of Rome, and not any of Smyrna. An other tricke of his rācour also sheweth it selfe, when as the one is with him plaine Anicetus, the other S. Polycarpe, why

I beseech him, was not blessed Anicetus also a mar∣tyr as well as S. Polycarpe? it can not be denyed: and yet doth this minister out of his damnable deuotion to the sea of Rome, entreate him in this disgratious manner. But sufficient it is for my purpose, that he confessethe dissention betwixt S. Anicetus, and S. Polycarpe to haue bene with more modesty (to witt then it was betwixt S. Victor and the Bishops of Asia) which argueth playnely, that no decree was made by S. Anicetus, for then the dissention could not haue bene conteyned within the limitts of modesty, yf Polycarpus had resisted his decree, neyther could he haue bene in better case then the Bishopps of Asia were, who with∣stood S. Victors decree, and so the dissention had bene as immodest: which seing Bell denyeth, con∣sequently he graunteth, that he hath dealt falsy in accusing S. Polycarpe to haue contemned S. Anicetus decree, when as he neuer published any such, what soeuer Bell with lying lippes affirmeth to the contrary. This is the first vn∣truth.

The next is where he saith, S. Polycrates contemned the Bishoppe of Rome his decrees, for where doth he find him enrold for a Saint? not in the Romane martyrologe, not in Eusebius or S. Hierom. no nor in the Centuries of Magdeburge where they talke of him. He is a Saint only of Bels canonization, because he resisted the Pope, which title if it will procure any such grace, the minister him selfe is like to proue a great and monsterous Saint, for neuer (I dare say) did Polycrates carry him selfe so in∣solently, and in such vnspeakable contumelious

manner, as Sir Thomas doth.

The third vntruth is, that S. Ireneus contemned the Bishoppe of Rome his decrees, and his supposed supremacie: for what father so auncient as he, writeth more clerely for his supremacye. Speaking of the Romane church these be his words. To this church by reason of the more potent principalitye, it is ne∣cessary * 1.47 that euery church should come, that is those faythfull people which be euery where, in which that tradition which came from the Apostles, hath bene kept of them which be in all partes. Thus he writeth in defence therof: but that euer he oppugned the Popes decrees, or contemned his supremacy is most falsly affirmed by Bell, as shall appeare when we come to examin his second argument against the Popes Supre∣macy, from whence he would seme to haue col∣lected this: but before I come to that pointe, I must here admonish the good reader, that whereas Bell desperatly affirmed that the Bishoppe of Romes superioritye was not hearde of till six hundred yeares after Christ, the contrary hath not only bene proued sufficiently before, out of other authorityes, but also out of those testimo∣nies, which he bringeth as most clere against it, to wittout of the Chalcedon and Nicene Councels, and also out of S. Ireneus as in the premisses hath bene sayd: and yet further occasion will be offe∣red to verify the same truth out of some of those arguments also, which come now to be exami∣ned, such is his great grace in beating downe of Popery, and writing against him selfe.

The rest of his chapter consisteth of eight ar∣guments culled together, to shew that the Popes

supremacy began in the tyme of Phocas the Em∣perour, in the yeare of Christ 607: which in par∣ticular I will discusse. But before I must haue a litle crash with him about the title which is of the Popes superroiall power, for the word (superroiall) I suppose slylye mocketh at that which venera∣ble antiquity confesseth, and him selfe must not denye. To content my selfe with the testimony of S. Chrisostom who speaking not only of Bishops, but inferiour clergye men, instructeth them how to deale with secular potentates comming vnworthyly to the Sacraments, in this manner. Yf a duke (quoth he) yf a Consull, yf he that weareth * 1.48 the crowne, cometh vnworthyly, stoppe and hinder him, thow hast greater power then he: and the minister denyeth that the late Quene might preach the Gospell or administer the Sacraments &c. which * 1.49 functions not withstanding other of their clergye might execute: whereof it ensueth that in these spirituall pointes their power was aboue that of the Quenes, and so truly in a good sence may be called superroiall, which so much his superscoffing grauitye semeth to deride and taunt. Now to his arguments.

An answere to Bels arguments against the supreame spirituall iurisdiction of the Pope.

FIrst then (quoth he) S. Polycarpus would not yelde to Anicetus Bishoppe of Rome in the controuersy abou••

Easter, which for all that he would and must haue done, yf the Bishoppe of Rome had had any true prerogatiue ouer him.

THE ANSWERE.

IT more argueth the Bishoppe of Rome his su∣periority that S. Polycarpus, the scholler of the Apostles, in his old yeeres vndertooke so longe a iorney to Rome, to conferr with S. Anicetus, then it proueth that he was not his superiour because S. Polycarpus retayned still his former opinion: for why should he more haue trauailed to Rome then S. Anicetus haue gone to him to Smyrna, being a man reuerent for his gray hayres, and venerable for his acquaintance and conuersation with the Apostles, had it not bene, that he acknowledged superiority to Anicetus, as being the successour of S. Peter. But the reason why Polycarpus might still keepe his former custome of celebrating Easter, and also performe due obedience to Anicetus was, because Anicetus would not for so smal a contro∣uersi•• or variety breake peace, but was content to tolerate the same, and therfore false it is, that Bell sayth, to witt that Polycarpus would and must haue yelded to Anicetus, if he had acknowledged him for his superiour, seing no such thinge was commaunded him, but the matter left to his owne election.

Bels II. obiection.

SEcondly Ireneus, and other holy and learned Bishopps of Fraunce ioyning with him, reproued Victor then

Bishoppe of Rome very sharply and roundly, as one that had not due respect to the peace and vnity of the church: which doubtelesse those holy and learned Bishops would not haue done, if the Bishoppe of Rome had had in those dayes the supreame soueraignty ouer them.

THE ANSWERE.

HAd Bell recounted the cause why those Bishopps reprehended so roundly (as he speaketh) Pope Victor, with other necessary circum∣stances, he had marred all his market, and proued the Popes superiority by that argument, by which as he perfidiously handleth the matter, he would ouerthrowe it. The blessed martyr Ireneus, with other reprehended Victor, not for any wrong opi∣nion about the keeping of Easter (him selfe, & they being of the Popes minde, as also the Prorestantes now be) but for that he excommunicated the Bishops of Asia, refusing to conforme them selues to the Church of Rome: neyther did S. Ireneus this vppon conceipt, that the Pope exceeded the limits of his power, for no such thing appeareth in Eusebius from whom this story is fetched, but for that he did vse it out of due season, to the great trouble of the Church, and for a small matter, as he and they thought: which sheweth playnely, that they made no doubt of his authority, otherwise many misliking his fact, would easyly haue contemned his censure, and iustly haue ob∣iected presumption, in vsurping that authoritye which belonged not to him, where of no men∣tion is made.

Superiours, yea and the Pope him selfe, may with due respect be admonished and reprehended, especially by Bishoppes, yf any great scandall or trouble of the Church be feared. S. Paul resisted S. Peter in face because he was reprehensible: * 1.50 wherof our Protestants absurdly gather, that S. Peter had no sup riority ouer the Apostles: a col∣lection not known to an iquitye, when as the matter was then so famous and certaine, that wicked Porphiry that Paganicall philosopher, re∣proueth S. Paul of sawcines, for that he presumed * 1.51 to reprehend Peter the Prince of the Apostles, as S. Hierom reporteth. S. Cyprian highly commendeth the humil••ty of S. Peter, that tooke so quietly the reprehension of S. Paul being his inferiour. For neyther Peter (sayth S. Cyprian) whom our Lord chose the first, and vppon whom he built the church, when Paul dispu∣ted with him about circumcision, arrogantly tooke any thinge to him self, saying that he had the primacy, and therfore * 1.52 the latter disciples ought rather to obey him. S. Augustin sheweth excellently by this example, that S. Cyprian erring about rebaptization could not nor would not haue bene offended, to haue bene admonished by others his followers or inferiours, much lesse by * 1.53 a Councell. VVe haue learned (sayth he) that Peter the Apostle, in whom the Primacy of the Apostles by excellent grace is so praeeminent, when he did otherwise concerning circumcision, then the truth required, was corrected of Paule the later Apostle. I thincke (without any reproach vnto him) Cyprian the Bishoppe may be compared to Peter the Apostle, howbeit I ought rather to seare least I be iniu∣rious to Peter, sor who knoweth not, that the principalitye of Apostleshipp, is to be perferred before any dignity of Bishoppe

whatsoeuer: but yf the grace of the chaires differ, yet the glory of the martyrs is one.

These authorities shew two things: the first is, that S. Peter was reputed with the auncient fathers, head and prince of the Apostles, and also that the very Pagans were not ignorant of that thinge, which I suppose will not greatly content Bell, for certayne deductions that may be drawne from thence. The second (which is the cause why I haue alledged this of S. Peter and S. Paul) is, that dislike or reprehension of an other mans action, doth not argue the man reproued not to be the others superior, how soeuer Bell would inferr that: when as hath bene sayd, S. Paul inferiour to S. Peter, reprehended him. And therefor the most that can deduced out of the ministers idle di∣scourse is, that if him selfe wer a Bishoppe he would looke as the deuill (God blesse vs) is sayd to haue looked ouer Lincolne: and none might without incurring of is mortall indignation admonish him of any fault or scandalous demeanure. Great pitty surely it is, that one qualified as he is, and endowed with such an humble spirite, should not be pre∣ferred to an Episcopale or (to vse his owne phrase) some ouerseing dignitye, Thus by dismol destiny, Bels argument hath rather hurt him, then giuen him any help at all.

But one necessary adiunct belonged to this con∣trouersie, which he thought good not to touch, for scalding of his fingers, to witt that S. Victor excommunicated the Bishopps of Asia as I noted before: for seing Bell confesseth, that the old * 1.54 Bishopps of Rome, were very godly men and taught

the same doctrine which S. Peter had done afore them: and most certayne that S. Victor was one of those holy Martyrs, it followeth that he vsurped no authority, but exercised that which lawfully he might, neyther that he taught any doctrine, but that which S. Peter had done before him: Out of which and the precedent discourse three or foure memorable notes may be inferred against Bell. The first and principall is, that the Primacye of the Bishoppe of Rome, began not six hundred yeares after Christ, as befor he mayntayned, hauing bene practised four hundred yeares before by S. Victor, and descended to him from S. Peter. The second is, that Bels argumēt against the supreame authority of the Bishoppe of Rome, being duly and truly exa∣mined, proueth the cleane contrary. The third is, that the minister cunningly cōcealed the cause why S. Ireneus reproued S. Victor, as nothing fitting his purpose. The fourth may be, that most perfi∣diously he inferreth out of the reprehension of S. Ireneus, that he contemned the Bishoppe of Rome his decrees, and supposed supremacy as before hath bene noted.

I add lastly, that whatsoeuer S. Ireneus and others thought, yet blessed Pope Victor proceded most prudently, for as much as he perceiued how that obseruation (which in the time of Anicetus was only variety of rite, without preiudice of religion) be∣gan now to corrupt the soundnes of the Catholike fayth, one Blastus (who liued in Victors time, as * 1.55 Eusebius sayth) vnder colour of that, cunningly la∣bouring to bring in Iudaisme, as Tertulliā recordeth. And this sentēce of Victor was afterward approued

in the Councell of Nice, as is manifest out of Euse∣bius, * 1.56 and afterward those that held the Asian error, wer accounted heretikes as appeareth in S. Augustin and S. Epiphanius.

Bels III. obiection.

THirdly S. Policrates, and many Bishopps of Asia did stoutly withstand the same Victor then Bishoppe of Rome in his presumpteous procedings touching Easter.

THE ANSWERE.

ANd how many Emperours and Kings, as we reade partly in scriptures, partly in pro∣phane histories, haue bene resisted, most disgra∣ciusly entreated, and abused by their subiects: were they not for all that their superiours? yea Iesus Christ him selfe suffered many indignities at the Iewes handes, was he not for all that their Creator, king, and Sauiour? His cānonization of Polycrates rather sheweth his malitious cunninge then any wayes bettereth his cause, wherof I haue spoken before, and here can not but adioyne as a matter of note, that the letters of Polycrates and other to S. Victor in defence of them selues, make more for his ecclesia∣sticall superiority, then their disobedient resistance sheweth that he had not authority ouer them, when as many haue withstood their lawfull Pa∣stors. For why should they haue neded any such Apologeticall letters more to him, then to any other Patriarch or Bishop, had it not bene for the dignitye of his sea: or can it sincke into any mans

head, that the Asian Bishopps would not haue re∣prehended his vsurped authoritye (had they bene of Bels minde) for censuring them, that were not subiect to his iurisdiction. His terminge S. Victors proceedinges presumpteous, sheweth his inueterat malice to that blessed Pope and martyr: and beside declareth his folly in condemning him so depelie, whom els where he commendeth so highely.

Bels IIII. obiection.

SAint Cyprian roundly opposed himselfe against Stephanus then Bishoppe of Rome, contemning his decree and deri∣dinge his reasons.

THE AVNSWERE.

VVEre not Bell one of Chams cōfraterni∣ty, he would neuer mention that which turneth to the disgrace of that blessed martyr, and nothing toucheth the authoritie of the Pope at all. For that S. Cyprian was in an error I dare say Bell will not deny, and therfore the more roundly he wrott to the Pope, the more is his fault encreased. Far was blessed S. Austen from the spirit of this mi∣nister, who wholy to take away, or at least to di∣minish * 1.57 this stayne of S. Cyprian, sayth, that eyther those writings be none of his, in which these things be found, as som then saide, or else that after∣ward he repented him of his errour, & chaunged his opinion, though the retractation be not found. As for the authoritye of the Pope it doth nothing preiudice that at all, for albeit the Pope cōmanded that rebaptization should not be practised (the

pointe of controuersie betwixt them two) yet did he not define that questiō, nor pronounce any cen∣sure against Cyprian or others of his opinion, much lesse was it cōdemned by a generall Coūcell, which reason also S. Augustin bringeth in his defence, and * 1.58 so it was free for him without daūger of heresie to persist in his owne opinion especially seing he had on his side a prouincial Councell of fowerscore Bishops, & as he thought much probability for his part. Many good men no question both haue, and hereafter may be carried awaye with ignorant zeale to defende an erroneous opinion, yet with all subiection to the Pope, remayning all wayes with ready minde (when they shall see ther error ouerthrown by Apostolicall definition) to submitt them selues with all obedience.

Bels V. obiection.

FIftly the Apostles at Ierusalem, sent Peter and Iohn to confirme the faythfull in Samaria, and consequently if the Pope be not aboue Peter, but his supposed successour, he may be sent of Bishopps his bretheren as S. Peter was. But who is that Bishoppe, and where dwelleth he, that at this day dareth do the now Pope such supposed villanie.

THE ANSWERE.

NOt any supposed, but the true and reale folly of the minister appeareth in this argument: for he would inferr, because S. Peter was sent of the Apostles that therefore he was not the cheife and Prince of the Apostles: but yf his illation be of any force to bereaue him of his superiority,

which Bell vrgeth, it hath the like strength to make him their inferiour (which I thinke he will not graunte) for commonly they be such that be sent of others. Wherfore I answeare that althoughe it be no vsuall thinge, yet sometyme in greate and important affaires, superiours are sent of their inferiours, not by power and autho∣ritie: but by request and entreatie, to which they may yelde yf they thinke it expedient for the common goode, or refuse it yf they lyke not to vndergoe that charge. A greate question arising at Antioch about circumcision and other legall cere∣monies, Paul and Barnabas were sent by the faith∣full * 1.59 there to Ierusalem, to conferr aboute that pointe with the Apostles: Will Bell therfore inferr, that Paul and Barnabas were their infe∣riours. Iosephus also reporteth, how the Iewes * 1.60 hauing a controuersie against Agrippa their kinge, and Festus their President, sent vnto Nero the Em∣perour, tenne legates of the principall Iewes, and with them Ismaell the highe Priest, and Chelcias the Treasurer, who semed next to him in dignitie. For as much therfore as the conuersion of the Samaritans was a matter of greate moment, they being reputed in as bad case yf not worse, then the Gentils, For which cause our Sauiour saide: Into the waye of the Gentils goe ye not, and * 1.61 into the cities of the Samaritanes enter ye not S. Peter and S. Iohne were sent as most mete for that busines: S. Peter being the cheife and to whom the managing and disposing of fuch matters appertayned: but not by any authoritye or commande, but only by request and petition as

hath bene saide, in which manner both in former tymes, and hereafter in like cases of the common goode, Princes and superiours without any touch of their highe office or dignitie, may be sent by their inferiours: their sending proceding from pe∣tition, nothing empeacheth their highe soueraign∣tie, and their willing vndertaking such a charge for the common goode, proclayminge their greate loue to God and their countrie.

Bels VI. obiection.

SIxtly the fathers of the famous African councell, in which S. Austen, that holy father and most stoute champion of Christs Church was present to the great ho∣nour and credit thereof, woulde in no wise yelde to Ce∣lestine then Bishoppe of Rome, in the controuersy of Appeales concerning Appiarius. And when Pope Celestine alleadged for himselfe and his supposed soueraygnty, that the auncient and famous councell of Nice gaue liberty to appeale to Rome, the Fathers of the Councell answered roundly, that the true copies of the decree were otherwise: where I wish the reader to obserue with me these two points seriously: Frist that the Pope coulde not, and therefore did not, alleadge any better reason sor his vsurped and falsely pretended supremacy, then the authority and decree of that famous Councell of Nice. Secondly that the Pope Celestine falsified the canon and decree of the Councell, so to gayne credit and authority to himselfe if it might be.

THE ANSWERE.

TO the first of these two points I answere; that there was no question betwixt them,

whether the Popes iurisdiction did extende into Afsrike or no: or whether appeals in rigor might not be made to Rome: but whether it were a thinge cō∣uenient: for on the one side, not to allowe appea∣les, seemeth to giue occasion to Metropolitanes and Bishops, to oppresse their subiects: and on to the cōtrary to allowe appeales, seemeth the next way to make endlesse quarells, & often to vexe Bishop∣pes without all cause: of which inconuenience and great trouble of the church, holy men haue com∣plained. This doubtfull pointe then was defined by the Councell of Nice, or Sardica, which declared that it was expedient for Priestes, to appeale from their Bishoppes vnto a prouinciall Councell: and for Bishoppes to appeale vnto Rome: For that it was lawfull and vsuall before the tyme of this Councel to appeale vnto Rome, is euident out of S. Cyprian, who reporteth how Fortunatus and Felix deposed by himselfe, appealed vnto Cornelius Bishope of Rome. * 1.62 And one Basilides deposed in Spaine, appealed to Pope Stephen, as the same S. Ciprian recounteth. Not to speake of Marcion that auncient heretike, * 1.63 who excōmunicated of his Bishope in Pontus, came to Rome for absolution, as Epiphanius relateth: and * 1.64 therefore Pope Leo calleth it an auncient custome to appeale vnto Rome. This was the cause why * 1.65 the Bishoppe of Rome vrged especially the decree of the Nicene councell, to shewe that it was not only lawfull, but also very expediēt: sor albeit the Affri∣cane Bishoppes desired, that Appeales might not easily be admitted, for the great iniury to iustice, & vaine protraction of sutes, which they dayly per∣ceiued to followe thereof: yet knowing full well,

that they coulde not forbid such appeales of them selues, they humbly made petition to the Pope, for more moderation therein. In their epistle which they wrote to Pope Celestinus, these be their wor∣des. The office of dutifull salutation premised, wee earnestly beseech you that hereafter you woulde not easily giue audience to such as come from hence. Had they bene of Bels minde, they woulde neuer haue vsed any depreca∣tory petition, but haue roundly and readily told him, that he had no authority to admit any ap∣peales, neither was his iurisdiction ouer them, and therefore that they did owe him no obedience or subiection.

But farre were they from any such conceipt, as being not ignorant of his iurisdiction ouer them, according to which beliefe they proceeded in like manner, For which cause the same verie Bishops of Affrica, when this matter of Appeales and the Nicene councell, was one foote, and Pope Sozi∣mus had sent vnto their councell three legates, wrote vnto Bope Bonifacius the Successour of Sozimus in this maner. Because it hath pleased our Lord concerning such thinges as our holy hrethren haue handled with vs, Faustinus our fellow Bishop, and Philippe, and Asellus, our fellowe Priests, that our humilitye can not write vnto Sozimus a Bishop of bles∣sed memory, from whom they brought both precepts and letters, but to your veneration, who by Gods ordinance, are succeded in his place, we ought briesely to insinuate those thinges, which by the agreement of both parts were determined, in which we stayed indeede without breach of charity, but not without great altercation: in which wordes making relation of their Acts to

Pope Bonifacius, and testifinge that they had recei∣ued precepts or commandements from his prede∣cessor Pope Sozimus, what do they els, but acknow∣ledge their obedience and subiection to the Apo∣stolicke sea. Beside, not longe after this Councell * 1.66 Pope Leo writinge to the Bishops of Mauritania in Affrike, saith that he restored the communion to Bishop Lupicinus, because he appealed to him out of Affrike: and likewise that he sent vnto them for his legate, Bishop Potentius who shoulde in his steade, haue care of the affaires of Affrike. All which abun∣dantly testify, both the authority of the Bishop of Rome in Affrica, and that appeales were made to him, and also that the Affricane fathers denied not this, though for the reason before alleadged, they desired more moderation therein to be vsed.

And albeit S. Augustine was one of these Bishops, and so his voyce passed in the common letters with others, yet because Bell doth here so magnify him, as though he had bene a mighty enemy to the Popes supremacy, I will in particular shewe out of that venerable and learned father, what re∣uerence, subiection, and dutifull respect, he carried to the Pope, contenting my selfe only with that, which hee writeth of this very pointe, or of the three Popes in whose tymes this matter of appea∣les was handled, and some of which, the minister very bodly, yf not some-what saucily, but out of all question most falsly, pronounceth to haue cor∣rupted the Nicene canons. This holy father wri∣tinge most plainly, how him selfe and other Bi∣shops came to Cesarea, by the commaundement of Sozimus, what doth he but clerely proclaime his

primacy ouer Affrica. The same Augustine was most * 1.67 subiect and deare to Pope Bonifacius as we learne out of the beginninge of his first booke, against the two epistles of the Pelagians, directed to the same Bonifacius. The same Augustine writing to Pope Celestinus, referreth the cause of a certayne Africane * 1.68 Bishop to him after this manner. O holy Pope, most blessed Lorde, venerable for piety, and with dutifull charity to be receiued: labour together with vs, and commaunde all thin∣ges which are sent, to be recited vnto thee: and on the con∣trary Pope Celestinus doth highly commende S. Au∣gustine * 1.69 as one that had alwayes remayned in the communion of the Romaine church and had bene reputed alwayes of him selfe, & his predecessours, for a great Doctor.

Out of that which hath bene saide, the ministers first doubt is solued, why the Pope rather alleadged the decrees of the Nicene Councel, then any other prooffe out of the Gospell, because as I said the question was not about his supremacy in generall, as Bell cuningly or malitiously maketh it, but of Appeales, which though it be a thinge consectary to his supreame iurisdiction, yet for the reasons be∣fore mentioned, som doubt might be made about the exercise thereof: for the satisfying of which, no better resolution coulde be deuised then of a gene∣rall Councell. The good reader also can not but sufficiently gather out of the premises, an answere to the second question, to witt, that neither Cele∣stinus the Pope, nor any of his predecessors forged any canons, as Bell and such like with lying lippes affirme, (who measure others according to them selues) both for that, they appealed to Rome, out of

Affrike, before the tyme of the Nicene councell, and so litle needed they (had they bene so wicked) to forge any thinge to proue that which was pra∣ctised before: and for that straight after appeales were likewise admitted, and also for that the Bi∣shop of Rome, had his Legate there resident a∣mongst them, for the dispatch of ecclesiasticall busines, as out of Pope Leo hath bene declared. The same thinge also appeareth, in that neither the Affricane Bishops nor S. Austen euer obiected any such crime of forgery to any of those Popes, as the ministeriall fraternity of forgers doe, but contrariwise behaued them selues in most dutifull manner, giuing them very reuerent & honourable titles, protestinge also their obedience and subie∣ction to them as hath bene saide: and so they be far vnlike to our Protestāt professours, that persecute them with scrrilous and odius termes. As there∣fore the vnseemely carriage, and bitter accusation of our Gospellers doth manifestly argue their spighte to these Popes, and that they condemne them as guilty of forgery, so their dutifull and obedient deportment towardes those holy Popes, giue the worlde to vnderstande that they were far from any such malitious conceipt: and therefore albeit I might content my selfe with that which hath bene saide, yet more to cleare them from the venim of Bels aspish lippes, and to free them wholy from the malitious imputation of the minister, and that in the iudgement of any in∣different reader.

I say further that these canons of the Nicen•• councell allowing appeales to Rome, might be in

that Councell though nowe not founde there, nor yet extant then in those copies sent from the East to the Bishops of Affrike: for as much as most certayne it is, that there were diuers canons more, then be nowe founde, or were sent to Affrike, many being perished either by the malice of the Ar∣rians, whose power ouerswaied the Easterne churches, and were most mortall enemies to that Councell, which is very probable: els by some other dismoll accident of fire or otherwise. How soeuer it be, that many canons be wantinge is most certayne, for one of the canons of that Coun∣cell, was about the obseruation of Easter day, as testifieth Constantine in his epistle, and also Epi∣phanius * 1.70 and Athanasius: but this canon is in none of those twenty which be nowe extant, and of which only so many yeares since Ruffinus maketh mention in his history. It was prohibited also in the same Councell, that there shoulde be two Bishops in one place, as S. Austen affir∣meth: but no such canon or decree now appea∣reth. And to omitt diuers other particulars: not only other Protestants, but Bell also both in his other bookes, and in this pamphlet in the next cha∣pter, obiecteth out of Socrates that a canon was ma∣de in the Nicene councell by the suggestion of Pa∣phnutius, which permitted Priests to remayne with their former wiues. but this Canon is no where to be founde amongst amongst those twenty. Where∣fore yf Pope Celestinus must be condemned for a falsary, because he cited a canon which is not now extant, nor mentioned by Ruffinus: by the same reason, must Constantinus, Athanasius, Epiphanius,

Augustinus, Socrates, yea and not other Protestants only, but Bell him selfe be sentenced of forgery, for citinge of that canon which is not now extant amongst those twenty.

Albeit that which hath bene saide, may giue full satisfaction to any man of moderation yet more to musle the mouth of the minister, I adde and say, that these canons of appeale being founde formally in the Councell of Sardica, where in most ample and playn words, both in the fourth & seuenth ca∣nons, * 1.71 appellations to Rome are ratified and confir∣med: both Pope Sozimus and others, call them by the name of the Nicene canons, though they be founde 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 pre∣sent at Nice, were also a great number of them at Sardica, and also for that no newe thinge touching faith was there enacted: whereas in other Coun∣cels, newe heresies were condemned: and this is the cause, why it maketh not any number, for being a generall and approued Councell, it should be the secōd in order, being celebrated an eleauene yeares after the death of Constantine the great, as the Magdeburgians them selues relate out of Socra∣tes, * 1.72 Theodoretus, and Sozomenus: for they solemnely report the whole councell together with these two canons of appellations to Rome, where Bell for his colde comfort may reade them, it shoulde I say be the second, being some yeares before that of Constantinople, but that for the reason alleadged, it is reputed all one with that of Nice, and so maketh not any number.

This also is confirmed, for that in the copie of one Dionisius, who a thousand yeares since, transla∣ted the Nicene Councell out of the Greeke ton∣gue, (yet extant in the Abbey of S. Vedastus at Arras, * 1.73 as Cardinall Bellarmine reporteth) all the canons of the Coucell of Sardica are founde adioyned with those of Nice, as of one Councell. What maruaile then yf Pope Sozimus or Bonifacius, cite the canons of the Councell of Sardica, for the canons of Nice, when as they were accounted for all one, and in all probabi∣lity founde them in their copies so ioyned to∣gether.

Bels great difficulty is dissolued, and the Pope discharged from all forgery, and false packing. Now to come vpon him, and to beate the ende of his owne weapon vpon his owne face: what saith he to the canons of the Councell of Sardica, or Ni∣ce, which graunt appeales to Rome, as the Legates of the Pope veryfyed to the Affricane Bishops? were they founde formally in the Nicene councel, Bell were ouerthrowne for euer: but they be in the Councell of Sardica, celebrated straight after, which is reputed one with this of Nice, and of so∣ueraigne authority: what starting hole will he fin∣de out to auoyde this blowe? O miserable minister whose carcase is still beaten like an anuile, with the hammers of his owne arguments. His other reasons out of the Councell of Chalcedon, and Nice, are answered before.

Bels III. Chapter Of the marriage of Priests and ministers of the Church.

THE VI. VNTRVTHE.

THe minister pleading here hard for the wi∣uing of Priests, hath these wordes. For this re∣spect did holy Paphnutius stande vp in the Councell of Nice, at such times as the Fathers then and there assembled together, thought to haue seuered married Priests and Bishops from their wiues, and tolde them according to gods worde, that to forbidde marriage to Priests, was too seuere a lawe: He yel∣ded this reason, because marriage is so honourable in all sorts of men. Thus writeth Cassiodorus, thus writeth Socrates, thus writeth Sozomenus. And thus lieth the minister, for none of these there speake any one worde that Paphnutius shoulde tell them, that according to Gods worde to forbid marriage to Priests was too seuere a lawe: he speaketh not one syllable of such as were Priests already, as though he woulde haue them permitted to marry as Bell falsely re∣porteth in the fore alledged words, and more plai∣nely in the page following, where he saith that Paphnutius motion 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 choice. False I say it is, that either Cassiodorus, Socrates, or Sozomenus speake any one worde of the marriage of Priests, or haue any such thinge that the matter was left

indifferent for euery Priest to marry or not to marry at his owne choyce. Why did he not quote the places where his reader might haue tried the truth of his relation? what meaneth this flying of the light? what els, but that he had rather haue his bare worde taken, then the matter examined. It will not sorue his turne, that in the ende of his Chapter, he referreth the reader to his Suruay, where those places be cited: for that booke is not alwayes at hand, and beside no such speciall place is there named, that without difficulty what is de∣sired can not be founde. But view the places who please, and the fidelity and sincere conscience of the minister will soone appeare, for as much as the contrary of that Bell affirmeth, remayneth there vpon recorde.

Cassiodorus the author of the tripartite history in the place quoted By Bell, citeth Sozomenus, from whom he receiueth that which he there reporteth which is this, speaking of the Nicene Councell, that it did seeme good to some to bring in a lawe that Bishoppes, and Priests, Deacons, and Subdeacons, shoulde not sleepe with their wiues, which they had married before consecration. But Paphnutius the confessor rising yp in the midst, withstode it, consessing marriage to be honourable, and sayinge that the comapny of a mans owne wife was chastity, and he aduised the Councell not to make any such lawe, affirminge that it was a greate cause, which might be to them or their wiues, the occasion of fornication. This doth he alleadge out of Sozomenus, leauing yet some∣thing out which that author hath, the cause as I suppose (yf any place be left for coniecture)

why Bell rather quoted Cassiodorus then Sozomenus. For Sozomenus addeth also these words of Paphnutius immediatly following. And that the old tradition of the church was, that those which were made Priests being not yet married, should not afterwarde marry wiues: but they which were called to that order being married, shoulde not be separated from their wiues which they had. The very same thinge hath Socrates. By which the good rea∣der may iudge what a conscience the minister hath, when he blusheth not to say, that the Coun∣cell left it indifferent for euery Priest to marry or not to marry at his owne choyce, when as there is no one worde spoken of those that married after taking of holy orders, but only of those that were ordered after they were married, as both Cassiodorus out of Sozomenus, and Sozomenus him selfe together with Socrates ioyntly asfirme: nay when as Sozome∣nus and Socrates both say, that the olde tradition of the Church was, that those which tooke holy or∣ders vnmarried, might not marry at all. This being so, who will deny that the minister had not great reason, neither to cite their wordes, nor quote their places, fathering so grosse an vn∣truth vpon them.

But some will say, yet at least it appeareth out of the former authors, that those which were married folke, and afterwarde became Priests, might still vse the company of their wiues, which is agaynst the practise of the Romayne Church. To this I say first, that our question is not now about that pointe, but whether Bell hath not slaundered these authors, when he maketh them to say that thinge, which they say not, but haue the

cleane contrary. Secondly notwithstanding I an∣swere, that this may seme to make for the custo∣me of the Grecians, who retayne still those wi∣ues, which they had married before entring into holy orders: but it helpeth nothinge at all our late Apostates, that after their consecration and vowe of chastity, without all scruple, nay yf we list to belieue them, with the testimony of a good con∣science, prouided them selues of younge yoake fel∣lowes, for the comfort of their declining yeares, and spirituall begetting the liberty of the newe gospell: yet in truth doth it neither releue the cau∣se of the Grecians: for so much as neither any such thinge is extant in the Nicene Councell, and pre∣gnant proffes to shewe that no such thing was euer there decreed: for Sozomenus and Socrates being knowne heretiks, deserue no credit, especially the first of them, being noted by blessed S. Gregory for * 1.74 one that hath many lyes: and Socrates knowne for a man of like quality, as I coulde easily shewe, were it not that I desire all conuenient breuity, but principally for that S. Hierom and S. Epiphanius (who liued more nere to the time of the Nicene Coun∣cell then the other twayne did) affirme so much of the custome of the Eastern church as can not stande with their former testimonies, as straight after shall be handled. Wherefore seing it must nedes be, that either Sozomenus and Socrates erre from the truth, or S. Hierome, and S. Epiphanius, none I thinke of indifferēcy, but will preferre Ca∣tholikes before heretikes: and those that liued nea∣rer to the tyme of the Nicene Councell, then tho∣se that were farther of: and this is so certayne, that

I durst remitt the matter to Bell him selfe, and such like, did it not concerne so much their owne freholde, and that the ponderous passion of wi∣uing without all respect of reason, did beare dow∣ne the ballance to the wronge side. But howsoeuer this shall fall out (whereof by and by I shall haue more occasion to speake) Bell the Ragmaster re∣maineth conuicte of a Notorious vntruth, not∣witstanding his often protestation of sincerity and plaine dealinge.

THE XII. VNTRVTHE.

IN the same third Chapter, pursuing still his for∣mer subiecte, he vttereth two vntruthes with one breath in these wordes: For this respecte was it, that Priests were euer marryed in the Easte Churche vntill these our daies, and in the west churche generallye, for the space of three hundred eightie and fiue yeares, at which tyme Pope Siricius excited by Satan, prohibited mariage as an vn∣lawfull thinge. Heer (I say) be two rouzinge vn∣truthes. The first is, Priests were euer maryed in the Easte churche. For S. Epiphanius an auncient father, and one of the Greeke church, testifieth the cleane contrary. Sanctum sacerdotium &c. The ho∣lie * 1.75 Preishoode (quoth he) is for the most parte of virgins or of vnmarryed folke, or if those be not sufficient for the ministe∣rye, of those which conteyne them selues from their owne * 1.76 wiues: And in another place. But the Churche (quoth he) doth not admitt the husbande of one wife yet liuinge and begetting children: S. Hierom likewise writing against. Vigilantius saith. VVhat shall the Churche of the Easte doe,

what the Churche of Egipte, and the Apostolike sea, which take virgins for their Clerks, or contynent, or if they be marryed, giue ouer to be husbandes. Will Bell for all this tell vs, that Priests were euer marryed in the Easte churche, and with out all respect giue S. Epi∣phanius and S. Hierom •• worde of disgrace: it would beseeme him ••••ch better, quietlye to dis∣gest it him selfe, his iust desertes allotting him that speciall fauour.

Out of these two testimonies also the good rea∣der may note, whether Sozomenus and Socrates are to be credited, affirminge that by permission of the Nicene Councell, Easterne Priests marryed before orders might still haue the company of their former wiues, as in the precedent section was handled. Nay the same is most certaine out of the very Nicene Synode it selfe, wher it * 1.77 is forbidden Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, to keep any wemen in their house, beside their mother, sister or aunt: no mention is made of any wife, which yet should haue bene in the first place, if any such tolleration at the suggestion of Paphnutius had bene graunted. And if their former wiues were, as our aduersaries pretend out of So∣crates and Sozemenus, permitted them, why should the cohabitation of other wemen be interdicted? Did they allowe them theire wiues and not suffer them to haue maydes, for the dispatche of houshold busines, and bringinge vp of the leuiticall frye, which cōmonly is plentiful in that generatiō, if we may gesse by those of our tyme: who so simple as seeth not the incongruitye of these two, or percei∣••eth not, that the Councell for biddinge any mayde

seruante to dwell in Priests howses, did neuer graunte them the cohabitation and carnall compa∣nye of their wiues, as our Protestantes pretende. Furthermore how can it be true, that the Nicene Councell permitted (as the same authors reporte) Bishops to enioye the companye of their former wiues: when as some hundred yeares after, in the false Synode of Constantinople holden in Trullo, * 1.78 howsoeuer the raynes were loosed to other of the Clergie, yet Bishops were forbidden to dwell with their former wiues: which conuinceth that no such leaue was graunted by the Councell of Nice, and so crazeth the creditt of them, which affirme that Synode to haue permitted Bishops, Preists, &c. to remaine still with their former wiues.

To these former testimonies and reasones, I will adioyne one more, both against Bell, that despera∣tlie mainteyneth, that the mariage of Ecclesiasti∣call persons hath alwaies bene vsed in the Easte churche, vntill these our dayes, and also against Socrates, and Sozomenus, saying that the Councell of Nice did permitt them to enioye the company of those wiues, which they hadd maried before ta∣kinge of holie orders: and it shalbe of a Greek Do∣ctor, that liued in the tyme of the Nicene Coun∣cell, to witt Eusebius, whose wordes be these: Ve∣runtamen: Notwithstandinge it is meete, that they should * 1.79 refraine them selues from the companye of their wiues who are consecrated and busied in the ministerie, and seruice of God. What plentye of authorities mighte be brou∣ght, to ouerthro We this palpable vntruth: but what neede more, when as these already, tickle

the Minister, and fetche blood: for they are so farr of to be auoyded any cauillinge shifte, that the Lutheran Magdeburgians dislike two of these fathers, bycause they speake not herein according to their mynde, as is euident in their fourthe Cen∣turye, where they note S. Epiphanius as erringe * 1.80 aboute that pointe, citinge parte of his wordes, be∣fore by me produced: and afterwardes they accuse many doctors for inclyning too much vnto that opinion, yea that they did publiklye professe, that it was not lawfull for Priests to haue wiues: and amongst others, they tax Eusebius for one, cyting the very wordes by me alledged, But what doe I dispute in a matter so plaine, when as the errati∣call Councell of Constantinople, holden in Trullo, (which Bell so solemnly alleageth in his Suruey * 1.81 for the proofe of Priests mariage) is in this pointe directly against him: for thoughe it allowed such Priests as after mariage receiued orders, to conti∣nue still with their former wiues, yet did it vtterly forbid Priests, after orders to mary, as appeareth out of the sixth Canō; Nay to this day, the Greeks haue no such custome, which is sufficient to confound the bolde assertion of the minister, if nothing els were added. Thus much of his first vntruth.

THE XIII. VNTRVTHE.

THe next vntruth, fellowe to the former is, that in the West churche, the marryage of Priests was generally lawfull, till the tyme of

Siricius. For refutation whereof, I haue spoken so plentifullye in my late book against Bell, that it is * 1.82 in vaine to say more There I haue by irrefragable testimonies proued that Priests marriage was pro∣hibited before, and by diuers reasons drawen out of Siricius owne epistle, made it manifest, that he was not the firste who enacted that lawe, but that commaunded the due obseruation of that which Apostolicall antiquitie had in that behalfe ordey∣ned. To that place thefore I referre the good reader, for I loue not alwaies to be iangling of one thinge, after the manner of the great Bell of Rascall. Here sufficient it is, to chamber his clap∣per, to oppose vnto him the wordes a litle before alleadged out of S. Hierom against Vigilantius, and to choke him with the authoritie of his Magde∣burgian brethren, who reprehend S. Hierom for writinge thus in defence of his bookes against Iouinian. The Apostles are chosen either virgins, or con∣tynent * 1.83 after marryage: Bishops, Priests, Deacons, are chosen either virgins, or onely such as for euer remaine chaste after priosthood: which wordes of Saint Hierom they much mislike: and to hamper him with the graue autho∣ritie of the second Councell of Arles, celebrated about the yeare of Christe three hundred twen∣tye sixe, according to the accounte of the Centu∣ristes * 1.84 of Magdeburge, which decreed, that non ought to be assumed to Preisthood being maryed, vnles conuersion were promised. What conuer∣sion could this be, but the forsakinge of his wiues carnall company?

THE XIIII. VNTRVTH.

SIr Thomas continuing still his declamation in behalfe of Priests marriage, procedeth also for∣warde in lying writing thus. Yea Priests continued still marryed in Germany, for the space of one thousand seuenty fower yeares, vntill the dayes of the vngratious Pope Hilde∣brand, who termed himselfe Gregorie the seuenth: so soone as he had crept into the Pope dome by naughty meanes. What this graceles gospeller writeth of blessed Pope Gre∣gorie (whom generally the Historiographers of that tyme, & diuers of them saintes in heauen do highly cōmend) litle importeth: a sufficiēt argumēt for his innocēcie, & zeale of true religiō it is, that all no∣uelling sectmasters bād against him: neuer shall Bell shew that he crept into the popedome by naughty meanes, thoughe most easie to proue, that his mini∣stership ran frō his priesthoode vpon no holie mo∣tiues. But to the matter. An vntruth it is that Priests still cōtinued married in Germanie for the space of one thousand seuenty sower yeares, as he boldlye affirmeth, which I haue proued most de∣mōstratiuelie against him in the Dolefull knell. For his * 1.85 manner is, againe and againe to inculcate the same thing, & so neuer lacketh matter for newe bookes, thoughe botched together of such rotten raggs, as were handled els where, so that Bell cann make a new title and a litle chaunge of the order, to begett a new pamphlet at any tyme vpon small war∣ninge. But I liste not to imitate his vaine thoughe iustely I mighte, for why may not I singe the same songe, if he fiddle still the same tune; Wherfor referringe the good reader to

the former place I will here only adioyne one te∣stimony not mentioned before, and it is of Pope Zacharie who liued eight hundred years agoe, and so, longe before the tyme he mentioneth. This good Pope writing to S. Bonifacius our worthy countryman, then Bishopp, & the apostle of Ger∣many, hath these wordes, speaking of Priestes. From the day of taking priesthode, they are to be forbidden, yea euen from their owne wiues. Of this decree the * 1.86 Magdeburgians make mention. True it is, that they score it vp for one of his errors (thatiudge∣ment proceeding from the error of their doctrine) but it giueth vs a sufficient warrante, to score vp that also for a notorious vntruth, which the mi∣nister speaketh of the longe lawfull liberty of Ec∣clesiasticall wiuinge in Germany.

THE XV. XVI. XVII. XVIII. AND XIX, VNTRVTHES.

NOwe followeth a litter of diuers lyes, con∣teyned in three or fower lynes, of which I must speake in particular. Pleading still for the marriage of the clergie he saith. For this respecte was it that many learned and holie bishops were maryed in the auncient tyme, and flourishinge state of the Church, vz S. Gregorie, S. Clement, S. Spiridion. S. Philogonius, S. Eupsichius and others. This he bringeth to proue, that they marryed after receiuinge of holie orders, or at least vsed still the carnall company of their former wiues, or els he proueth nothinge. But in these wordes is conteyned a notorious lye, with

siue followers and others. Why hath he not noted in his margent sufficient authoritie to iustify what he saith? will these tricks of trustie sir Thomas neuer be lefte? It serueth not the turne to tell vs, that he hath done it in his Suruey, and that for two reasons. The first is, because many haue not that booke, and no reasone can he alleadge for not addinge the quotations here, but onlye that he would haue his ignorant reader, to take all vpon the reporte of his worde; Secondly for that I finde not in all his Suruey any Clement noted for a marryed bishop, and yet haue I viewed ouer the third and fourth chapters of his third parte, where he entreateth of that matter: But to runne ouer his particular catalogue.

That S. Gregorie, the father of S. Gregorie Nazian∣zen. did marry after he was Bishopp is one vn∣truth: for he was marryed before euer he was christened, as he may learne out of that funerall Oration of Nazianzen, which in his Suruey he * 1.87 citeth to proue him a marryed bishoppe. That S. Clement after the dignitie of bishopp tooke any wife, is a second vntruth: for I challeng him con∣fidently, thoughe litle knowinge what Clement he meaneth. That S. Spiridion was marryed I graunte, but Bell must proue, that it was after he was created Bishopp, and not before, or at leaste that he vsed the company of his wife which he will neuer doe, and so that maketh the third vntruth. The verie selfe same thinge I say of S. Cheremon, and S. Philogonius which make vpp the fourth and fift vntruthes.

THE XX. VNTRVTH.

OF Saint Eupsichius more consideration is to be had, for Bell not onely here maketh him a marryed bishoppe, but also in his Suruey * 1.88 saith, that he was Bishopp of Cesarea and a marryed man, and soone after his marryage martyred for lesus Christe. For if this be true, which so confidentlye he affirmeth, it seemeth very plaine, that his marryage did followe holie orders. But out vpon the currupt conscience of this casta way. I vtterly deny that he was euer Bishopp, or in any sacred orders at all, being only a laye man, and of an honorable family. How doth he proue the con∣trary? For iustification of that he saith, he quoteth in the margent the Tripartite historie, and Nice∣phorus. * 1.89 The wordes of the tripartite historie be∣these. Furthermore at that tyme, they say that Basilius a Priest of the churche of Ancyra, ended his life by martir∣dome, and Eupsichius a citizen of Cesarea in Cappadocia hauing latelie marryed a wife, being yet as it were a brydgroome. Where is here any mention of his being Bishoppe. Sozomenus from whom Cassiodorus (the compiler of the triparaite historie) tooke those Wordes saith, that Eupsichius was ex patricys, of the senators or nobilitie, without any mention of his Episcopall dignitie.

Nicephorus his second authour deliuereth the story in this manner Hoc ipso tempore &c. At this verie tyme Basilius also a priest of the Church of Ancyra ended his life by martirdome, and likewise Eupsichius of Cesarea in Cappadocia, borne of an auncient family, and

honorable kinred, who a litle before had marryed a wife. and was as yet a bridegroome. And this is so certaine, that the Lutheran Centurists who would as wil∣linglie heare newes of a bishopp marryed after his consecration as Bell, but being heerin not so impudent as he (that seemeth to be ashamed of nothing but truth and honestie) teporte him onely to haue bene a noble man. Eupsichius (say they) was * 1.90 of the Cittie of Cesarea, discended of the nobilitie of Cap∣padocdia, slaine by the Citizens of Cesarea &c. and they cite Sozomenus before mentioned. Whether this be not a gallant vntruth meet for such a reformed minister, and professor of the sincere gospell, I referre me to the iudgement of the prudent and indifferent reader: & I cannot perswade my selfe, but had he not wholy consumed his conscience, with continuall custome of carelesse sinninge, it could not posibly be, that he would euer sette abroache such manifest, grosse, and shamelesse vntruths.

Bels IIII. Chapter Of the Popish execrable Pardons.

THE XXI. VNTRVTH.

THis chapter though it be but short, yet it lacketh not the seale of his occupation: for his conclusion is adorned with this notable vn∣truth: The Popes pardon (quoth he) is a rotten ragge of the new religion, brought into the churche after a 1300. yeares, by Pope Bonifacius the eighte. This very tale

he hath tolde vs diuers times before, and therefore the more reason I haue to challenge it for a rotten ly of the Ragge-maister of Raicall. That it is suche a one, I haue proued in the foresayd Dolefull knelle, both by the testimony of * 1.91 other catholicke writers, and also of Kemnitius the Lutherance of Germany, and Perkins the Puritane of Englande, his deare brothers in the Lord. And to say somthing in this place, I will adde one testimony more, and it shalle be of our mortall enemyes the VValdenses, called also Pauperes de Lugduno: Who appeared to the world about the yeare 1270. as testifieth Claudius Cussordius, and * 1.92 Guido: one of whose heresies was against the Popes pardons as is moste certayne, and Kemnitius confesseth, whiche argueth that pardons were long in vse, before the yeare 1300. and therefore be it knowen to Bell that he hath often runge out a notorious vntruth.

Bels V. Chapter Of Popishe Purgatorie.

THE XXII. VNTRVTHE.

IN this chapter after he hath disputed against purgatory, with the authority of Roffensis (of which els where I entend to speake more) he cometh to his recapitulation and saith. Secondly, that the church of Rome beleeued it not (that is purgatory) for the space of 250. yeares, after which time, it encreased by litle and litle. This either he meaneth is gathered

out of the testimony of Roffensis & that is not true, for nothing doth Roffensis speake of 250. yeares, or deny that Purgatrory was alwaies beleeued in the church, although he confesseth that the doctrine thereof was not generally so well knowen as now it is, which is farre different from this proposition: Purgatory was not beleeued of the church of Rome for the speace of 250. yeares after Christ: Or els he affirmeth of himselfe, that Purgatory was not beleued vntil that time, which I make no doubt but it is his meaning, for as muche as he teacheth the same thinge in other of his bookes: and then I must be so bould to tell him, that it is also a manifest vntruth, as I haue proued against him in the Dolefulle knelle, out of S. Denis S. Pauls scholler, * 1.93 and Tertullian: yea and to his vtter confusion, con∣uinced out of himselfe: in this place I wille adde the testimony of his brother Perkins. Who in his Problem confesseth, that Purgatory in the church was first receiued by Tertullian the Montanist, * 1.94 wherein is one open vntruth, to witt that he was the first, for he onely affirmeth it, but proueth it not, and no marueil when he can not, seing most certaine it is, that it came from the Apostles. Non * 1.95 temere &c. Not without cause (saith S. Chrysostome) these thinges were ordained of the Apostles, that in the dreadfull mysteryes, commemoration should be made of the dead: for they knowe that thereby much gaine doth come vnto them, and much profitte. Much more to the same purpose, might be produced.

An other vntruth he hath, but more secretly conueyed vz that the doctrine of purgatory is a braunche of Montanisme: which is moste false,

none euer of antiquity notinge that in Tertullian for any erroneous doctrine: which no question they would, had they reputed that of like quality with the other. Bell for that great skille which he hath in auncient monuments, and great dexte∣rity in discouering the origine of Popery, whereof * 1.96 he vaunteth to the solace of his soule, shall do well to iustify these two pointes of his precise brother: or if his leisure serue him not for so much, at least let him defend himself from lyinge, when as Tertullian by the testimony of Perkins confesseth Purgatory, who was dead before the yeare two hundred and fiftye.

Here the iudicious reader may also note how the minister contradicteth himself. In his Suruaye intreatinge of Purgatory he sayeth: Thus by litle and * 1.97 litle, it increased, till the late Bishoppes of Rome made it an article of Popishe fayth. Where in the margent he noteth the time thus: In the yeare of our Lord 250. Heere he sayth, that the church of Rome beleued it not for the space of 250. yeares; after which (as he telleth vs) it encreased by litle and litle: and so in this place he maketh the seede of Purgatory not to haue been sowen before the yeare 250, and after ward to haue encreased till it came to perfection: there he affirmeth, that the seede was sowen before. and encreased by litle and litle vntille it became ripe and perfect Popery, which was in the yeare 250: and so Purgatory was sowen & not sowen: growen and not growen: an article of fayth, and not an article of faith, in the same one yeare 250. I will not deny but the minister hath som skill in botching together of ould endes of diuinity

gathered out of the ragge markett of Caluin & such like Ceneua-merchants: yet I feare me it will be to hard for him, so to cobble the sayings together, that the flawe of a contradiction ap∣peareth not.

THE XXIII. VNTRVTH.

IN the same place he writeth thus. Fistly, that the Primitiue Church was neuer acquainted with the Popes pardons, nor yet with his counterfette and for∣ged purgatory. A notable vntruth, for not to speake of pardons, but of purgatory: was it not the Primitiue churche which beleeued pur∣gatory, when as himself confesseth, that it was made an article of Popishe fayth in the yeare 250. * 1.98 at what time all the Popes were martyred for Christ:and in his Funerall he acknowledgeth the first thirty for godly men, saying, that both they and diuers others taught the same doctrine which S. Peter had done afore them, and most certaine that one of these thirty liued in the yeare 250. and so I trowe they were of the Primitiue Churche. The Minister is full of distinctions, and his braine a shoppe of solutions, hauing many I sayes for the answear of any obiection: yet it is to be feared, that no deuise will free him from a gorsse vntruth, affirming here that the Primitiue Church was not acquainted with Purgatory, and yet teaching in his Suruey that Purgatory was made an article of fiath by the late Popes of Rome in the yeare 250. I lett passe how purgatory must by his owne cōfession be Apostolicall doctrine, when it was taught by

those Popes which he graunteth to haue holden the faith of S. Peter, as I haue vrged against him in the Dolefull Knell: I omitt also how falsely and ri∣diculously he calleth the Popes that liued 1450 yeares ago, the late Popes of Rome. veryly it should seeme by his writinge that he litle careth what passeth from his penne, so it be walking against the Pope and Popish doctrine.

Bels VI. Chapter Of Popish Auricular confession.

THE XXIIII. VNTRVTH.

SCotus (sayth Bell) affirmeth resolutely, that Po∣pishe auricular confession is not grounded on the holy scripture: but only instituted and commaunded by the Churche of Rome. The minister resolutely slaun∣dereth Scotus. Where doth that learned man teach any such doctrine? Viewe his margent and nothinge is there found. Bell is old ipse he, the man that had rather be credited vpon his empty worde, then to haue the matter com to the trial of his quotation. It helpeth him not to say, that he hath noted the place in his Suruay, both be∣cause many haue not that booke, (neither doth he here in this particular place of Scotus referr him to that booke) and beside what reason can he giue not to quote the place also here? But to wincke at this malitious cunninge of his, how doth he proue him guilty of this assertion in his

Suruay. I will first sett downe the doctrine of Scotus, and then examin what Bell bringeth, for by this meanes the goode reader shalbe the better inabled to iudge of the whole matter.

That learned man disputinge of the necessity of confession to be made to a Priest (not mentio∣ning the word auricular, whatsoeuer Bell sayeth) * 1.99 enquireth by what lawe a man is bound to con∣fession, and determineth first in generall, that the precept must growe from one of these lawes, either from the lawe of nature, or the lawe posi∣tiue of God, or the lawe of Churche: and descen∣ding to particulars, he resolueth first, that we are not bound by the lawe of nature: nextly he disputeth whether it groweth from the precept of the Churche, and not liking that opinion, he proceedeth to the next member and sayth. Bre∣uiter &c. To be short, it seemeth more reasonable to hould the second member, that confession falleth vnder the posi∣tiue precept of God: But then we must consider (sayth Scotus) whether it be found explicitely (or in expresse tearmes) in the Gospell immediatly from Christ, because it is manifest (quoth he) that it is not in the old lawe, or whether it be from him expressely in some of the Apostles doctrine: or if neither so nor so, whether then it was giuen of Christ by word only, and published to the Church by the Apostles: And hauing made this triple diuision, how confefsion might com by the precept of God, that is either first commaunded by him in the Ghospell: or els secondly to be found in some of the Apostle writings: or lastly instituted of Christ by word of mouth only. And ha∣uing disputed of the first two membres with

dislike-of the second, saying: It appeareth therefore that it is not of the lawe of God published by Apostolicall scripture. Wherevpon he concludeth thus: Vel igitur tenendum est. &c. Therefore we must either hould the first member, to witt that it cometh from the lawe of God published by the Gospell &c. or if that be not suffi∣cient, we must say the third, that it is of the positiue lawe of God, published by Christ to the Apostles: but published by the Apostles, vnto the Church, without all scripture: as the Church houldeth many other things, published in word only by the Apostles without scripture, &c.

How saiest thow gentle reader hath Bellbelyed Scotus or no, affirminge him to teach that Popishe auricular confession is not grounded on the holy scripture, but only instituted and commaunded by the Church of Rome: When as he maintaineth plainly that it is de iure diuino of the lawe of God, insti∣tuted of Christ himself in the Gospell, or by word of mouth deliuered to the Apostles, and by them to the Church, yea and bringeth good reasons, which before I omitted, to shewe that it was not institu∣ted by the Church, as for that the Church would not haue gone about to impose so hard a precept vpon all Christians, vnlesse it had been the commaundement of God: as also for that it is not found, where this precept is imposed by the Church, but that before it holy men did thinke that this precept of consession did binde. For if they alleadg (quoth * 1.100 he) that chapter out of the Canon lawe. Euery one of either sex &c. it is euident that the constitution was made by Innocentius the third, in the Councell of Laterane: but S. Augustin was before that time more then eight hun∣dred yeares, who affirmed confession to be necessary, as appea∣reth in his booke of true and false penance, and certaine au∣thorityes

of his are putt here in the text, and certaine in * 1.101 the Canon lawe.

And not only Scotus his owne wordes nowe ci∣ted doe discharge him from the ministers false im∣putatiō, but also the minister himself in his Suruay (where he intreateth of this point) wholie freeth him: for hauing cited Scotus his words, to proue that confession to the Priest was not found in the lawe of God extant in any of the Apostles Epistles, as before hath been touched, he procedeth forward and saith: Thus writeth their subtile schoole doctor Scotus, * 1.102 who not able to establishe auricular cōfesiion in the fcriptures, flieth to their last refuge, to witt to vnwritten traditiōs for in the ende of all he addeth these wordes. It appeareth therfore that it is not of the lawe of God, published by Apostolicall scripture: Therfore we must either houlde the first member to witt that it commeth from the lawe of God, published by the Gospell, or yf that be not sufficient, we must say the thirde, to witt, that it is of the positiue lawe of God, published by Christ to his Apostles, but published by the Apostles, vnto the Church without all scripture. Out of which wordes of Scotus (though recited by Bell in latin only) we learne that he doth not only giue himself the lye when he sayth in his Suruey, that Scotus his opinion is, that confession came vnto vs by tradition, and affirmeth here the contrary saying that Scotus his opinion is that it was only instituted and com∣maunded by the Church of Rome: but also by the grace of his iugling sincerity, playeth two or three * 1.103 other pretty prankes in his Suruay.

The first is, when he sayth Scotus flieth to vn∣written traditions, and specifieth not wat tradi∣tion Scotus speaketh of, for it is not of any tradi∣tion

Ecclesiasticall or Apostolicall, but of diuine tradition coming form the lawe of God, and insti∣tuted of Christ himselfe, by his owne mouth decla∣red vnto the Apostles, and by them to the church, as before hath bene sayd. The second is this, Sco∣tus (quoth Bell) not able to establishe auricular con∣fession * 1.104 in the scriptures, flieth to their last refuge, to witt vnto vnwritten traditions: for in the words following cited by Bell in his Suruay, Scotus doth as wel establishe confession (for the word auricular he hath not, though Bell doth forst it in) by the lawe of God foūded in the God spell, as by traditiō comming from Christ, as before hath been noted out of Scotus, and this, may passe for a noto∣rious vntruth. The third is, that to conceale, this his abusing both of Scotus, and also of the * 1.105 good reader, he cited Scotus his wordes in latin only, not vouchsasing to putt them into Englishe, but he is to be pardoned, for that were not only to ly, but also to hould the candle for other to viewe his treachery. What sweete stuffe doth he preach to his auditors out of the pulpitt, where he is free from all controulment, that publisheth such vntruthes and playeth such cunnicatching trickes in the viewe of the whole realme.

THE XXV. VNTRVTH.

AT the heeles of the former vntruth, follow in the same chapter diuers others, his wordes be these: The Popish Glosse, of great credit with the Papists, telleth them roundly, that auricular

confession can no way be desended bnt by tradition of the church: he runneth on lying very roundly in this manner. Panormitanus, Richardus, Durandus, Bonauentura, Hugo, and all the Popishe Canonists generally approue and followe the same Glosse. In which fewe words be contayned at least three vn∣truthes, of that quality that they may iustly de∣serue the whetstone.

The first is, that Richardus ioyneth in opinion with the glosse, and thinketh sacramentall con∣fession, to com from the institution and tradi∣tion of the Church: for he teacheth the flatt opposite doctrine. Respondeo quod omnes &c. I aun∣sweare * 1.106 (quoth Richardus) that all are bound of necessi∣ty to confesse their sinnes to the Priest, because Christ hath commaunded this, &c. and he proueth it both otherwise, and specially out of these wordes of our Sauiour Ioan. 20. Receiue you the holy Ghoste: VVhose sinnes you shal forgiue, they are forgiuen them: and whose you shall retaine, they are retained. There is one notable vntruth, for the minister to tyer vpon.

THE XXVI. VNTRVTH.

THe second vntruth and that a chopper is, that Durandus is also of the same opinion with the glosse, when as he doth directly maintayne the contrary, his wordes be these. De consessione * 1.107 autem stricte accepta &c. But of confession taken strictly, which is a manisestation of our sinnes before a Priest, with hope of obtayning pardon, it is to be sayd, that it is not of the lawe of nature, nor of any lawe that is pure hu∣mane: but of the lawe of God deliuered in the Gospell.

And after he hath proued, that it cometh no•• from any law that is meere humane: he conclu∣deth thus. Propter quod relinquitur &c. VVherefore remayneth, that sacramental confession, of which 〈◊〉〈◊〉 speake, is only by the law of God: and straight after h•• inueigheth very earnestly against the glosse, fo•• houlding the contrary. What may not this Mi∣nister proue out of any authour, and quickel•• conuince vs by our owne doctors, if when the•• say one thinge, he can without all scruple, mayn∣tayne them to teache the cleane contrary.

THE XXVII. VNTRVTH.

THe third vntruth followeth, no lesse shal melesse then the former: so that it seemeth that he was now in the right vaine of lying: fo•• how doth he proue that against Richardus, and D••∣randus, which so bouldly he affirmeth. For proof•• straight after he voucheth his Suruay, with quotation in the margent, and also his Motiues, but without any quotation at all. Comming to his Suruey, there he telleth the same tale against Richardus and Durandus, referring him self for th•• * 1.108 credit of that he sayeth to Iosephus Angles, whom he quoteth in the margent thus: Vide Ioseph. Angle 4. S. pag. prim. I haue not missed it one letter, o•• tittle: and yet viewe that place, he that will, no∣thing shall be there found: it may be he would, or at least should haue sayd, pag. 209. for I make some doubt, whether euer he meant to cite the place truly, seing there is in my conceipt, some diffe∣rence betwixt the number, of one, and the number

of 209. and suppose that this booke weare in quarto, which is a larger size, yet must it much exceede the number of an hundred. Perhapps he would haue sayd, quest. 1. de confessione, for the syl∣lables pag. & quest resemble one an other so liuely that he might easilye mistake the one for an other.

The truth is this (good reader) if any probable coniecture may be admitted, that he willingly per∣uerted the quotation: Whether I haue reason to iudg so or no, I leaue it to thy censure, vpon the examination of the matter: not to vrge therefore how in his pamphlet he vsually omitteth all cita∣tions of the authors them selues, which ministreth iust cause of ielousy: nor to speake how vnlikely it is, that he could so grosly mistake it: I stand only vpon this, whether Iosephus Angles hath any such sentence by him alleadged or no: if he hath, then equity willeth vs to interpret all the the best, but if Iosephus hath no such thinge, neither doth so much as name Richardus or Durandus, then can it not be de∣nyed, but that he hath not only belyed those two but also slaundered, and corrupted Iosephus, by foi∣sting in those two names, not founde in him, & for the concealing of this his treachery, quoted him not at all in this pamphlet, and gaue a false quo∣tation in his. Suruay: but the truth is that Iosephus maketh not any mention of Richardus or Durandus: * 1.109 his words be these: Confessio sacramentalis is &c. Sacra∣mental consession is instituted of Christ Iesus, and confe∣quently by the luwe of God &c: There haue bene six errors which are confuted in this first conclusion. The first is of the Glosse of the decret, in the begining of the fift distinction: Panormitan vpon the chapter, omnis vtriusque sexus &c.

S. Bonauenture (and he citeth the authority of Hugo) all which affirme that this sacrament was instituted by the Church. Howe sayest thou goode reader, is not Bell a trusty gospeller, for a man to rely his soule vpon? God grauntall good people to take heed of such an in∣ward wolfe, roabed outwardly with shepes clothing, that is protestation of truth, and sin∣cerity.

Yf any obiect here and say, that at least the Glosse and Panormitan were of that opinion, I willingly graunt them to haue been in an error: S. Ciprian er∣red about rebaptization, and yet dyed a glorious martyr: yf wefollow not the fathers, though other∣wise neuer so auncient or learned, when they swarue from the common opinion, and tradition of the Catholicke Churche: doth he thinck that the erroneous conceipt of a moderne doctor or two, shal ouersway the Church, to the following of their particular and priuat opinions. We ac∣knowledge no such rule of fayth in moderne Ca∣nonists, adding notwithstanding, that where ob∣stinacy possesseth not the will, but true obedience to the Church remayneth, error may be incurred by humane infirmity, negligence, obscurity of the matter, or the determination of the Church being not yet giuen, or not knowen, but by no meanes heresy, albeit the thing it self may be contrary to fayth, or good manners. Thus much briefely for their excuse: but how the minister can be defended is without the conceipt of all common capacitie. I might add for a fourth vntruth how both here and in his Suruey he maketh Iosephus also to men∣tion Rhenanus, of whom he speaketh nothing at all:

But I haue done sufficiently for this Chapter, let vs now see what followeth in the next.

Bels VII. Chapter Of Popishe venial synnes.

THE XXVIII. VNTRVTH.

COncerning his seuenth chapter wherein he disputeth of venial sinnes, two things are to be noted, before we come to his vntruthes. The first is, that all Catholick writers both old and new, acknowledge and confesse some sinnes to be venial, and not to deserue the euerlasting paine of hell fire, as by and by shall more plentifully be pro∣ued. The second is, that there be two small things (commonly called schole questions) wherein di∣uers follow diuers opinions. The first is whether venial sinnes be contrary to the commanundement, or beside the commaundement: som learned men houlding the one opinion, and som embracing the other: which is a curious quiddity, disputable in scholes, and nothing touching the hart of religion, and besides none of these, but willingly submitte them selues to the censure of the catholik Church: and yet the minister as though it were some fun∣damental point, noteth here very grauely out of Iosephus, that the one opinion is now more com∣mon in the scholes, then the other, and out of that by maine dexterity of learning inferreth the mu∣tability of our religion: but he should haue done

well to haue proued first that this concerned reli∣gion, that is any point of fayth, as he would haue it thoughte, or els he sayth nothing to the pur∣pose.

The second schole question though somwhat greater is, from whence it cometh, that som sinnes be mortal, some venial, whether from the nature of the sinnes them selues, or from the mercy of God. The common opinion, most receiued and most sound is, that some sinnes of their owne na∣ture be small or venial, others great and mortall. Bishop Fisher, and some fower other alleadged by Bell, thincke that all sinnes of their owne nature be mortal: & that it proceedeth from the mercy of God that som be venial, because he would not vpon diuers smaller synnes impose so great a pu∣nishment. But not withstanding this small diffe∣rence, neither B. Fisher, nor any of the others deny veniall sinnes, as Bell and his consorts doth.

This being so let vs consider what a notable vn∣truth (and that often rehearsed) the minister offe∣reth to the viewe of his readers, when he sayth: Almainus, Durandus, Gerson, Baius and other famous Pa∣pists, not able to answeare the reasons against veniall sin∣nes, confesse the truth with the Bishop that euery sinne is mortall. He doth cunningly abuse them in lea∣uing out those wordes of it owne nature, which ought to haue been added according to their opi∣nion, and he like wise doth adde in citing of Roffensis immediatly before: doth not this dealing of his argue that he would haue his reader to thincke, that these learned men denyed all veniall synnes, which damnable doctrine of the Protestants they

detest: for example Bishop Fisher in his 22. article against Luther houldeth som synnes to be veniall: (that is such as take not away Gods grace) Nec opinor te &c. Neither doe I thincke (saith Bishop * 1.110 Fisher to Luther) that thou wilt say, but that a mortall synne so soone as it is committed, banisheth grace from the soule, and doth constitute the synner him self in the hatred of God: and if a mortall synne doth take away Gods grace, and not a veniall, veryly it is manifest, that there is no small difference betwixt a mortall and veniall synne. Behould Roffensis teacheth som synnes to be veniall, and that there is a greate difference bet∣wixt a mortall and a veniall synne. Of the same minde be the other, though by his cunning handlinge he would make the to deny veniall synnes, and to hould all mortall, according to the new doctrine of the Protestants.

THE XXIX. VNTRVTH.

AFter this vntruth immediately followeth an other: Yea the Iesuit S. R. (quoth he) with the aduise of his best learned friends, in his answeare to the downefall of Popery, confesseth playnly, and blu∣sheth not thereat, that the Church of Rome, had not defined som synnes to be veniall, vntill he dayes of pitts the fift, and Gregory the thirtenth, which was not fiftie yeares agoe: In which words he blu∣sheth neuer a whitt to slaunder that learned man, and wholy to corrupt his meaning. He saith not that the Church of Rome had not defined som synnes to be veniall, vntill the dayes of pius the fift,

and Gregory the thirteenthe, as this licentious cast∣away corrupty fathereth vpon him: for he knewe well that to beseue veniall synnes, was an article long receiued before the times of those Popes: but he affirmeth only that to hould veniall synnes to be only such by the mercy of God, was censured and condemned by those Popes: why did Sr. Tho∣mas his sincerity, cut a way these words by the mercy of God? forsooth because that without lying and corruption, he can obiect nothing against Catho∣lick doctrine.

The same catholick writer, noted him in the place cited by him selfe of two vntruths, the one for calling B. Fisher the Pope canonized marty: the other for stiling Gerson, a Bishop: neither of which be true, but he slyly passeth ouer them, as not knowing poore wretch what to say in his owne defence, in to such straights doth this dominiring doctor driue him. selfe by his talent of ouerla∣shinge.

THE XXX. VNTRVTH.

STraight after this tricke of treachery, he crieth out in the feruour of his soule. O sweete Iesus what a world is this, that silly foolishe Papists should be so be∣witched, as to thincke Popery the old religion, and in that bitter pangue was deliuered of an other abomina∣ble ly, for it followeth, VV see it plainly confessed by our ad∣uersaries that for the space of a thowsande fiue hundred, and thre score years, all synnes were deemed mortall. Had not this minister renounced all modesty and true dea∣ling,

neuer would he putt in print such palpable vntruths: for no one Catholicke author can he na∣me since Christ, that denyed veniall synnes: the ground of this vntruth is the precedent, where he affirmed that the Church of Rome, had not defined some synnes to be veniall vntill the dayes of Pius the fift, & Gregory the thirtebth, which being most false, as was there sayd, it remayneth also that this can not be true which so bouldly here he main∣tayneth.

Many sentences of auncient fathers and other notable authors doe encounter vs euery where, teaching playnely and perspicuously some synnes to be veniall. To name one or two before the late tyme he for the confusion of the mini∣ster. The Councell of Trent confirmed by pius the fourth, and so in orderly reckoning before Pius the fift, hath these words Albeit in this mort all life, holy and * 1.111 iust men doe fall somtymes, at least into light and dayly synnes, which are also called veniall: yet they cease not for all that to be iust, for that saying of iust men is humble and true, forgiue vs our debts. Glorious S. Augustin, teacheth the same doctrine in diuers places: one I will cite, in which he hath the very name. Aly (quoth he) can not there∣fore * 1.112 be sometime commended, because we do sometymely to saue others, wherfore it is a synne, but veniall which beneuo∣lence doth excuse. But there is no better way to coole the heate of this challenger, then to cause his bro∣ther Perkins to lette him bloud. How doth he like * 1.113 these words of his? A veniall sinne that is beside the lawe not against the lawe of God, and that which of his owne na∣ture bindeth only to the guilt of tempor all payne, was not knowen to the fathers, at least for seuene hundred yeeres after

Christ, after ward began openly to be taught and defended. This Minister dealeth very niggardly with vs, yet very bountyfully to proue Bell alyer for none I think will beleue him saying, that we denyed all synnes to bemortal for a thowsand, fiue hundred yeeres, when as our mortall enymy con∣fesseth, that veniall synnes were taught and defen∣ded, nine hundred yeares agoe. This being so, may not I farre more truly, treading in his steppes cry out, and say? O sweet Iesus that any Protestant•• should be so bewitched as to giue credit to such•• creature, that hath Apostated from his Priesthoo•• and showen a faire paire of heeles to the congre∣gation: on giuen ouer so to shamelesse lyinge, that no cloake of defence can be founde to shrowd him nay when the case is so cleere, that his owne bro∣ther doth depose against him: or that they shold be so inueigled by him or others, as to thinck our religion to be newe, which was planted in our dee∣re * 1.114 countrey a thowsande years agoe by S. Gregory, as all our Chronicles, and auncient monuments te∣stify, and the ruines of many Abbies, do cry out and lamentably proclaime: and which that holy Pope receiued from S. Peter, by the current of his blessed predecessours: or so much as once dreame, that Pro testantisme can be the old faith, which licentious Luther not long since began, neither the name being * 1.115 euer heard of before, nor any of that profession knowne then in the whole world, nor for many ages before, as their silence being therein vrged, maketh them to confesse and neuer indede as we most constantly defend, and can easyly by ineuita∣ble demonstrations conuince and proue: and whose

doctrine so litle pleaseth our English Protestants, * 1.116 namely about the reall presence, that drawe cutts they will, one parte can not be excused from he∣esy, and for that crime, be in daunger of euerla∣sting damnation.

Bels VIII. Chapter Of the Popes faithe.

THE XXXI. VNTRVTH.

BEfore I come to his vntruths, I will speake a litle of the entraunce of his chapter, in which he that hath chaunged diuers fayths, will needes dispute of the Popes faith: and he beginneth in his coffing grauity, after this manner: VVisdome with the whole troupe of vertues were needesull for him, that should dispute of the holy fathers faith, or power. Very well, we penetrate his meaning: neither wisdom nor any vertues be needefull for such a one: what then? it followeth I therfore post deosculationempedum, humbly pray to be heard in defence of truth, wherein I will desire no more of his Holynes, but that only he will graunt me so much to be true, as I shall proue to be true by thetestimony of the best learned Popishe writers. Note good reader the profoūd wisdom of the Minister: because neither wisdom nor vertue is requisite, for one to dispute of the Po∣pes faith & power, therfore he will take the matter in hād. Indeede were it graunted that none but so qualyfied as he describeth, were to intreate of the Popes faith & power: all voices I thinke would go

cleare both of his side and ours, that he were the most meete to intreate of that subiect. Of his gra∣celesse gyrninge at the kissing of the Popes feece I haue in the Fore-runner said so much, that in his pamphlette called the Popes Funerall (the pretended answeare of the Forerunner,) not knowing what re∣ply to make, he smoothly ouer slipped that point, as I haue noted in the Dolefull knell: and yet still he hath * 1.117 it by the end, so much the conceipt doth please his hart. Agame also he is flinging at the title of his Ho∣lynes, but of that I haue spoken sufficiently before••

His smaller vntruths I do not meane shall here make tale, as where he fathereth a certaine booke vpon the Seminary Priests, and yet a fewe lines after, saith that the booke was written by Watson in the name of all the rest: whether Watson faith so or no I little know, neuer seing my self any such booke of his: but one thinge am I most sure of, that most false it is, that any such booke was sett out by the Seminary Priestes: or that they gaue consent to any such book, seing very fewe Seminary Priests or none at all as I verily thincke can be named, that liked of that his proceeding, as I haue handled a∣bundantly in the Dolefull knell, where the good rea∣der * 1.118 may finde, what little creditte is to be giuen to Watsons infamous workes, which so oftern and so∣solemnly this Minister alleadgeth. Now to examin that which followeth.

Bell proceeding forward, collecteth out of the said Watsons bookes, in this formall manner. First therefore if we meane to wringe any truth out of the Popes nose we must haue recourse to his Holines, at such tyme as he is sober and not when he is furious, least he becom starke mad

and forget the knowledge of the truthe: as though Wat∣son had said that the Pope is some tyme sober, and sometyme furious: he doth much wrong him, for his words reported by Bell him self in this very chapter, contayne no such thinge: only he saith that as the prudent Greeke appealed from Alexander, fu∣rious, to Alexander sober, so may the seculars not∣with standing any decree, sette downe by his Holi∣nes by wrong information, appeale euen from the Pope as Clemens, vnto his Hohnes as Peter: he spea∣keth of Alexander surious and sober: and not of the Pope. Bell she weth small conscience in belyinge the dead and laying more faultes vpon him vniu∣stly, when alas he had other wise too many. Againe Watson speaketh of matters of fact, wherein the Pope may by wronge information be deceiued, & not of questions of fayth, as the Minister cunningly insinuateth, if not plainely affirmeth, wherein Wat∣son would neuer haue admitted, that the Pope might be deceiued: and so the foundation of all his cauilling against the Pope, as a priuate or publicke person, falleth to ground, as shall straight more clerely appeare.

His rusticall immodesty and childishe scoffinge at the Popes nose, little becometh the grauity of his ministership, and as I think little contenteth his best fauourits: but he that is ledde vp and downe by the nose like a Buffalo, by the Prince of this world, must to gratify his master, imploy his ray∣ling talent according to his blacke inspiratiō. God giue him true pennance, for these and many more like synnes, least fruitles penāce in the next world, be the reward of such monsterous wickednes.

Not long after he hath these words For first it is a constant maxime (quoth he) that the Pope, and none but the Pope, must iudge in all controuersyes of fayth and doctrine. Nay it is rather a most constant Maxime, that Bell seldom writeth any thing that is true: false it is that the Pope, and none but the Pope, is the iudge in all matters of fayth and doctrine: for a generall Councell also is iudge, yea and by the opinion of many learned diuines, the Pope iudginge alone without a generall Councell may erre, as shall straight appeare, and that out of Bell him self.

THE XXXII. VNTRVTH.

THe next vntruth is contayned in these words: That their Pope can not erre in faith iudicially is this day with Papists an article of their faith. An vntruth I say it is, for though the more common and better opinion be, that the Pope in his iudiciall and defi∣nitiue sentence can not erre in faith, yet false it is that this is an article of faythe, when as many di∣uines both haue, and do hould the contrary. To proue which thinge, I neede no better witnes then Bell him self, whose great grace it is, to say that in one place, which he denieth in an other, making the winde to blowe, as serueth best for the traf∣ficke of such a marchant.

In his motiues he setteth downe this conclu∣sion. * 1.119 Not only the Pope as Pope may erre, in his publike de∣crees, when he alone defineth matters of fayth or manners, but also when he so defineth with a prouinciall Romishe Councell.

This conclusion is certayne and vndoubtedly true, euen by the testimony of best learned Papists, and because Bellarminus doth not deny this to be so, I willalleage his words which be these: Secunda opinio est &c. The second opinion is, that the * 1.120 Pope euen as Pope may be an heretike and teach heresy, if he define without a generall Councell, and that this in very deede hath chaunced so. This opinion doth Nilus followe, and defend in his booke against the Popes primacye: the same opinion. haue some of the vniuersity of Paris follouced: as Gerson and Almain in their bookes of the churches power: and of their opinion also are Alphonsus, and Adrian, who all do not ascribe the infallibillity of iudgement to the Pope, but to the church or to a generall Councell only, in all matters of fayth.

Out of these words of his I inferre, first, that he trippeth when he sayeth: that their Pope can not erre in matters of faithe iudicially, is this day with the Papists an article of their faith, for here he confesseth the contrary. I deduce secondly, that he grossely contradicteth himself, affirming that in one place which he denieth in an other. I gather thirdly, that he ouer-reached (as I noted before) when he affirmed, that we make none but the Pope iudge of all controuersies, for generally all Catholicks make a Councell with the Pope also the iudge, and some as hath nowe been said, in no case make the Pope alone the iudge, but iointly with a generall Councell.

THE XXIIII. VNTRVTH.

AN other followeth immediately in the next words, in which he will needes proue cut of

Sot{us}, that it is this day an article of faith, that the Po∣pe can not erre iudicially. That their Pope (quoth he) can not erre in fayth iudicially, it is this day wit•• Papists, an article of their faith: the famous Papist Dominicus Soto, shall be the spokes man for the rest: alber saith he the Pope as Pope, can not erre, that is to say, can not sett down any errour, as an article of fayth, because the holy Ghost will not permitte that, neuerthelesse as he is a priuat person, so he may erre euen in fayth, as he may do other synne These words of Soto proue very well, that the Po∣pe as Pope could not erre, which the moste an best diuines doe also maintayne, but no worde on syllable hath he, that this is an articl of faith: which was the pointe that Bell should haue proued, and for which he pretended to cite his words, but in them no suche thinge appeareth, and therfore the minister doth knowe what followeth.

THE XXXIIII. VNTRVTH.

IN the words ensuing straight after, he runneth vpon this doctrine taught by Soto, and generally houlden of Catholickes, vz that the Pope can not erre in fayth: and confidently auoucheth, that it was neuer heard of, till of late daies: his wordes be * 1.121 these. This only will I say, that this Popishe article: the Pope can not erre in faith, was neuer heard of in Christs Churche for the space of a thowsande fiue hundred yeares. A gallante vntruth worthy of the reformed minister. Thomas waldensis, was longe before that time, as also Turre∣cremata, both which hould that the Pope can not erre in fayth: and not only late writers but the

auncient fathers haue taught the same doctrine, re∣ying them selues vpon the promise and words of our Sauiour in the Gospell: to name two or three. S. Augustin. Numerate sacerdotes &c. Number the Priests * 1.122 (saith he) yea euen from the very seat of Peter: in that order of fathers, see who succeeded whom: that is the rocke, which the proude gates of hell do not ouercom. S. Cirill, mentio∣ned by S. Thomas Aquinas, speakinge of that promise * 1.123 of Christe, Math. 16. hath these words. According to this promise, the Apostolicall Church of Peter, remayneth pure from all deceipt, and hereticall circumuention. Innocentius the third. He vnderstandeth (saith this holy and lear∣ned * 1.124 Pope) that the greater causes of the Churche, specially such as he about articles of faith are to be referred to the see of Peter, that knoweth how our Lord prayd for him, that his fayth might not fayle,

And to be short, his deere brother Perkins once * 1.125 more shall testify against him. The Pope (saith he) hath not infallible iudgement determinatiue: so all haue taught yea the Papists them selues for fower hundred yeares: insinuating sufficiently, that after that tyme, it was taught: which though it be an vntruth, seing it was taught before, yet it serueth to proue Bell no sincere minister, who may taineth confidently, that no suche doctrine was heard of till the year a thowsand fiue hundred: To conclude Bell him self contradicteth els where what he saith here, and so giueth himself the ly: By the vniforme consent * 1.126 (quoth he) of all learned Papists, (Albertus Pigghius only excepted,) the Pope in his owne priuate person may be a Iudas, a fornicatour, a Simonist, an homicide, an vsurer, an Atheist, an hereticke, and for his manifould iniquityes dam∣nedin hell: That this is the doctrine of all Papists, as well

concerning the Popes priuate person, as touching his iudicia definitions, is confessed by Robertus Bellarmnius, Bartholomen Caranza, Melchior Canus, Dominicus Soto, Thomas Aquinas Antoninus, Caietanus, Couarruuias, and others: but that the Pope as Pope, and publique person can erre, that all the said Papists, with their complices, constantly deny, as which only pointe once confessed, would vtterly confound them, and make frustrate their whole religiō. I leaue it nowe to the good reader, to giue his verdicte, whither Bell hath no ouer-reached, and also contradicted himself, affir∣ming both that this Popishe article, the Pope can∣not erre in faith, was neuer heard of in Christe Churche, for the space of a thowsand fiue hundred years: and yet affirminge, that Antoninus, and Thomas Aquinas, maintayned the very same opinion, the la∣test of which, died many a faire year before the ty∣me he mentioneth.

THE XXXV. VNTRVTH.

THe next is found in that very sentēce, which he bringeth for the proffe of his former false assertion, to witt, that this article, the Pope can not erre in saith, was neuer heard of in Christs Church, for the space of a thowsand fiue hundred years. Many famous Papists (quoth he) I might alleaga, but one Alphonsus will suffice: we doubt not (saith he) whe∣ther * 1.127 one may be a Pope and an heretique both together, for I beleeue there is none so shamelesse a flatterer of the Pope, (euer except our Iesuits and Iesuited Papists) that will ascribe this vnto him, that he can neither erre, nor be deceiued in the ex∣position of the scriptures. One mayne ly, with a prety tricke of lieger-demayn: for he is to proue out of Alphonsus that the Pope might erre in fayth iudi∣cially,

for of that is the question, as appeareth in the premisses: and that this article, was neuer heard of, for the space of a thowsand fiue hundred years, and yet in the foresaid words of Alphonsus, no suehe thing is contayned, seing he speaketh in them not of his iudiciall decrees, but of priuate errors, which may befalle him in the exposition of the scriptu∣res: and that Alphonsus must needes meane of his pri∣uate opinions in writinge or otherwise, and not of his deflnitiue sentence, is certayne: for other∣wise there be, and were in his tyme, that held the Pope could not be an heretique iudicially or erre as Pope, as in the precedent vntruth hath been handled: much lesse doth Alphonsus say, that it was neuer heard of for the space of a thousand fiue hun∣dred yeares, that the Pope could not erre in fayth iudicially, for of this pointe he hath not one word or syllable.

Beside this vntruth there lurketh in the same sentence, an other cunnicatching tricke of the Mi∣nister, proceeding from his rancour, and inueterate malice: for these words, euer except out Iesuits and Iesui∣ted Papists are none of Alphonsus, but a dānable drāme of his owne deuotiō: for with malitious slight, hath he inserted those words in the very same letter, with the other of Alphonsus, but included them in a Parenthesis, so that by this artificiall coosenage of his, he hath laide a pittefall for the ignorant, and prouided a buckler of defence against any accusa∣tion: for what meaneth the printing of them both in the same character, but to haue the ignorant or vnwary reader, to take thē for Alphonsus his words, directed by him, against the flattery of Iesuits

and other Iesuited Papists as he termeth them? Charge him with this iugling of his, and then he will pleade, that he intended no such thing, but spake them of himself, and therefore distinguished them by a Parenthesis: but had not his meaning been corrupt, he would haue putt the matter out of doubt, by printing them also in a distinct letter: Which because he did not, his deuout dependants may thinke him cleere from all sinister dealing: we that are so well acquainted with his little con∣science of puttinge in practise any sleight, & frau∣dulent inuention, that may tende to the disgrace of Catholickes, and Catholike religion, can not but iustly suspect him of sinister and malitious dealinge.

THE XXXVI. VNTRVTH.

IN the recapitulation he taketh his leaue with a cast of his occupation. And thirdly (quoth he) seing this straunge faith was not hatched, or heard of in the world, for the space of a thowsand fiue hundred yeares, no not in Alphonsus his dayes as we haue heard already. For in these words he adioyneth an other vntruth vz, that to say the Pope can not erre as Pope, was not heard of in Alphonsus his tyme, that is about some fifty or three score yeres agoe, when as Dominicus Soto who liued in his time defendeth the same opi∣nion, as before was shewed: nay when as Caran∣za, Canus, Caietan, Antoninus, and S. Thomas teach the same doctrine, as a litle before out of Bell himself was proued, all which were in his tyme, or before him: and Alphonsus in the former place alleadged,

hath not any thinge to relieue Bell: for neyther doth he say there, that the Pope as Pope may erre, and though he did, yet were it a notorious vntruth that none taught otherwise till his tyme, or in his tyme, when as Alphonsus saith no such thinge: but on the contrary, that many in his dayes and before, taught that the Pope iudicially, or the Pope as Pope, could not erre, as out of Bell himself hath been proued: and so I leaue the minister, plunged into a labyrinth of vntruthes.

Bels IX. Chapter. Of the condigne so supposed merit of workes.

THE XXXVII. VNTRVTH.

THis chapter is bestowed against the merits of goode woorkes, wherein diuers vntruthes are intermnigled to giue it the better outward glosse, and to make the matter he speaketh of more probable to the ignoraunte reader. The holy Fathers (quoth he) doe often vse the word meritte, and call the workes of the saithfull meritorious: yet this they doe, not for any worthines of the workes, but for Gods acceptation, and promise sake, who hath promised, and will performe, not to suffer so much as one cuppe of could water giuen in his name, to passe without reward. So he de∣nieth the fathers to haue ascribed any meritt to good workes proceeding from grace, for any digni∣ty or worthines in the workes themselues, but

only from Gods promise and mercyfull accepta∣tion, for the worthines and merits of his sonnet This I challenge for a manifest vntruth, when as plentifull testimonies want not, to proue that workes proceeding of grace are meritorious, not only for his promise or acceptation, but also for the dignity of the workes: yea the scriptures are euident in this point. Call the workemen and pay them * 1.128 their hyer: where reward is giuen to the workes: where of it followeth that workes descrued it: like∣wise our Sauiour saith: Com ye blessed of my father, * 1.129 possesse you the kingdome prepared for you, from the foun∣dation of the world: for I was an hungred, and you gaue me me to eate. Where our Sauiour signifyeth, that hea∣uen was giuen to good workes: for in more vsuall significant words it can not be spoken, that heauen is giuen as a reward to the workes of mercy, and beside in the same place, damnation is giuen to bad works. Gett you away from me ye cursed (saith Christ) * 1.130 into fier euerlastinge, which was prepared for the diuel and his angles: for I was an hungry and youe gaue me not to cate &c. Seing then the scripture declareth plainly, that bad workes deserue danation, & be the cause thereof: as plainly doth it also signify, that good workes meritt heauen, and be the cause thereof.

We find also in scripture that men are said worthy of reward, as: That you may be counted worthy of the kingdome of God, for the which also you suffer: * 1.131 and, They shall walke with me in wh ites, because they are worthy: Yea the word (meritt) is found in the scripture: in Ecclesiasticus we reade thus. All mercy shall make place to euery one according to the meritt of his workes. Bell in his Suruay giueth two

answears. The first is, that the booke is not Canoni∣call as which (saith he) was not founde written in the holy tongue. A pitifull shifte, for who knoweth not that many parts of the Canonicall scriptures be not written in the Hebrue tongue, as all or almost all the new testament: and sundry bookes be written in that tongue, which be fabulous and of no authority: and where did Bell larne, that a booke, could not be canonicall yea in the old lawe, except it were written in the Hebrue tongue? We haue as good authority to proue it Canonicall, as he hath for the Apocalips, which I trust he will not deny: and that is the auncient Councell of Carthage, wherein S. Augustin was * 1.132 present: and be it that it were not Canonicall, yet is the authority thereof very waighty, and of more credit then other authors, though learned, vertuous, and auncient: other wise why is it read in the Englishe Churches, in that very place and order in which the Canonicall scriptu∣res are.

This solution not fully satisfyinge him, he gi∣ueth a second, which is, that the text is not truly translated, inuaighing against the vulgar edition, and the Councell of Trent, that authorized the same: for it should haue been translated saith he, according to his workes: but this is a poore cauil, for in true sence, what difference is there betwixt these two, according to his workes: and accordinge to the merit of his workes: veryly the old interpreter, as learned as Bell, and of as good a conscience, more then twelue hundred yeres agoe, and S. Hierom not inferiour to Bell, in Latin,

Greeke, or Hebrue, translateth thus: that we m•• sight against Gabaa Beniamin and render vnto it for to * 1.133 workes it deserueth, and yet the formall word (dese•• ueth) is neither in the Greeke or Hebrue, but thu according to all the foolishnes which, they haue done Israel. The second place is in S. Paul where h•• saith. And beneficence and communion do not forgett, so * 1.134 with such hostes God is promerited: be hould here all the word (meritt.)

But because Bell speaketh of the Fathers, will briefly showe, that he doth slaunder the•• when he saith that they did terme workes meri∣torious, because God hath promised to accept them •• worthy, for the worthines of his sonne, and for his merits reward them with heauen, as if they had merited the same for they teach that good workes proceeding from grace, and in the vertue of Christes moritts, hau•• worthines in themselfes, & be meritorious, which Bell denieth them to hould, and no maruaile when as himself teacheth, that good workes are so farre from hauing any worthines in them, that he maintayneth this paradoxicall proposition Good workes are imperfect, polluted with synne, and i•• rigour * 1.135 of iustice worthy of condemnation. Wherefore t•• name one of the Greeke Churche, and an othe•• * 1.136 of the latin: S. Chrisostom writeth thus. If God (quoth he) be iust, he will render both to them, and these according to their merits. Note that he acknowled∣geth merits of iustice, and so not only of mercy, liberality and free acceptation: s. Augustin sayth, * 1.137 As death is rendred to the meritte of synne, as a stipend: so eternall life to the meritt of iustice, is rendred as a sti∣pend.

More might be produced, but these are sufficiet, being of auncient, and learned fathers: and to say the truth, greatly requisit it is not to labour about the proof of this point, when as Caluin con∣fesseth not only that the auncient doctours vsed the name of merit, but also addeth that he did moste * 1.138 wickedly prouide for the sincerity of faith that first inuented that name: for had they meant no other thing by it, then Bell would persuade vs, the sincerity of the faith had no waies been touched, neither neded he to haue vsed any suche bitter accusation: but this complaint of his, argueth that they intended more by that name, then he did admittt for true, and so I leaue Bell conuicted of an vntruh.

But saith Bell, the Fathers commonly ioyned merits and grace together. I willingly graunt it, for without grace, our works are of no price, di∣gnity, or merit, in the sight of God, and therfore the second Councell of Arausica, saith excellently well: Rewarde is due to good workes if they be they be done: but * 1.139 grace which was not due goeth before, that they may be done. In which golden sentence, the merit of good workes is taught: & the fountayne from whence they springe, openly declared. That which he alleadgeth out of S. Bernard, to witt: It is sufficient to meritte, to knowe that our merits are not sufficient: be∣cause it serued not his purpose it may be that he did of purpose quote it false, for it is not in the 18. sermon, but in the 78. sermon vpon the Canticles: and as that whiche he hath all eadged, doth no∣thing helpe him, so that which followeth, and omitted by him worketh his bane. It is sufficient to meritte (faith S. Bernard) to knowe that our meritts are

not sufficient. Very well, then he acknowledgeth merits: but that which commeth after pertayneth to beate downe presumption of merites, and not to deny them, for it followeth. But as it is ynough to merit, not to presume of merits, so ynough is it to iudgemēt, to want merits: and a little after. VVerfore see that thou haste merits, hauing them knowe that they are giuen thee: had hefaithfully cited all these sentences, there could no scruple haue troubled the reader, what S. Bernards opinion was about merits. That holy man acknowledgeth merits, but like a true spiri∣tual father laboureth to plant humility, and to keepe downe pride and presumption.

THE XXXVIII. VNTRVTH.

TRue it is likewise (saith Bell) that not only the fathers generally, but the best Popishe schole doctors also, Durandus, Aquinas, Gregorius Ariminensis, Dominicus Soto, Marsilius, VValdensis, Burgensis, and sundy other, do vnisormly and constantly affirme, that no mans workes, how holy so euer they be, either are or can be meritorious pro perly, but only meritorious in an improper, and large kinde of speache, as is already saide: This is proued at large, in my other bookes. This indeede is handled in his other bookes: for his speciall grace is, with the same matter, to make many newe pamphlets: but whe∣ther it be proued or no, is an other questiō. Should I shake vp, & in particular examin these authors, many vntruthes would be discouered: but I in∣tende it not, partly because it would be tedious, partly for that some of those authors, be not as hand, and lastely for that one S. R. in his learned

answere to his Challenge of The downefall hath canuased all these authorities, and laied open his fraudulent and lying proceeding. To that booke * 1.140 therfore for sifting of this sentence, I refer the reader. Here only I say briefly. First that all these Catholique writers, and all others do acknow∣ledge that good workes are meritorious of eternal life: only some of them named by Bell, vary about the manner of speache, for they would not haue the words condigne or congrual to be vsed: but only that we should say, that the workes of iuste men proceeding from grace be meritorious of eternall life, as waldensis, and Burgensis. Others will haue good workes to be meritorious condignely, that worde being taken in a large manner. So Durandus and Ariminensis. Secondly I say that neither Aqui∣nas, Gregorius Ariminensis, Dominicus Soto, Marsilius, VValdensis, or Burgensis, do allowe that good workes proceeding from grace, are not otherwise me∣ritorious, saue only for the promise of Christ, and his free acceptation, as moste bouldely he affirmeth, and therefore doth he therein slaun∣der them, when he saieth that all the former authors, doe affirme workes only meritorious in an vn∣proper and large kinde of speache as is already said, that is according to his precedent doctrine, that they be meritorious only for the promise of God, and his free acceptation, and not otherwise: this is an vntruth I say, speaking thus of them all in general, for one particular instance to the contrary ouerthroweth him, yet I will adde a couple. S. Thomas Aquinas shalbe the first, who tea∣cheth, that a man in grace may meritte euerlasting

life condignely: and he giueth the reason, because euerlasting life is rewarded according to the iudgement of * 1.141 iustice, according to that 2. Timoth. 4. Concerning the rest there is layed vp for me a crowne of iustice, which our Lord will render vnto me in that day, a iuste iudge. Behould Aquinas acknowledgeth reward of iusti∣ce, prouing it out of S. Paul, and so not of mercy only and Gods free acceptation: he confesseth also as is euident out of the very title of his article, meritte of condignity, which Bell a little before calleth a monster lately borne at Rome: so we see that S. Thomas attributed more to the merit of workes proceding from grace, then pleaseth his humour, and consequently that he doth greatly abuse him, when he would haue him teach no other merit of workes, then by Christes only pro∣mise and free acceptation.

The second shalbe Dominicus Soto, cited here also by Bell, who aknowledgeth that workes procee∣ding from grace, doe merit cōdignely. The workes of * 1.142 a iust man (quoth he) which are good in their nature and circumstances, all are condigne merits both ofencrease of gra∣ce, and also of eternall life. And a little after, he refu∣teth two common solutions of Protestantes. The first of which is that-vrged here by Bell, vz that rewarde is due to our workes, not in respect of them selues, but for the promis of God. Melancthon quoth he) and his companions do answere, that euerlasting life is called a••rewarde, not because it is due to our workes, but to the promis of God: which answeare of theirs, he doth there examin and vtterly reiect. And will the minister for all this tell vs, that Soto doth affirme workes only meritorious, in an vnproper and large

kinde of speache: that is as Bell saith, not for any worthines of the workes, but for Gods acceptation and promis sake. He may yf he please, but he must giue vs leaue whether we will beleeue him or no.

They that desire to knowe more of his iugling trickes, and vntruths, touchinge these authors may reade the foresaid author S. R. in his an∣sweare to Bells downefal of Popery. * 1.143

THE XXXIX. VNTRVTH.

IN his third paragraphe he citeth Iosephus Angles, who saith, that good workes proceeding of grace without the promise of God are wholy vnworthy of eternall life. This he alleageth, as though it were mortall doctrine to vs: where as if himself were this day at Rome, and cleere in all other things, neuer would he be called in question about that pointe: and yet doth he make a mighty matter of it, vr∣ginge it almoste in all his bookes. If the good reader desire a more ample discourse herof he may find it in the Dolefull Knell, where Iosephus his wordes are throughly examined, and the minister * 1.144 for many mad trickes very handsomly laid out in his colours.

Here I will note only one egregious vntruth of his, cunningly commended to the viewe of his readers: for hauing produced Iosephus, (though not citing his whole sentēce, but the last words only,) to shewe that workes proceeding from grace, are not meritorious of eternall life, without the promise of God, but wholy vnworthy: he inferreth thus. Then doubtelesse the best workess of all, can no way

be meritorious: which is a false conclusion, gathered out of the premisses, for it should haue bene thus: then doubtlesse the best workes of all can no way be meritotious without the promise of God: why did he persidiously curtall a way these words, and make Iosephus absolutely to conclude against the merits of workes, when as in that very place, he teacheth the merits of workes, proceeding from grace, together with the promise of God? To make his prooffe the more probable and passable, he would not cite any more of Iosephus Words then were for his turne. This is the sincerity of trusty S. Thomas: and yet after suche a shamefull pranke, as though he had giuen vs a great blowe, he addeth with triumphant exultation in this manner. VVhen any Papist in the world, can truly disproue this illation, let me be his bondslaue for his rewarde. The illation is di∣sproued, let him therefore prouide himselfe to per∣forme that pennaunce, which he hath said vpon himself, & try whether he that hath had such bad speede in the ministry, and ill successe in his Priest∣hood, can finde any better fortune in the newe vo∣cation of seruitude and slauery. Of his fourth pa∣ragrasse, I shal haue better occasion to speake straight waies: wherefore to his fift, in which the fourth also shalbe dispatched.

THE XL. VNTRVTH.

TRue it is fiftly (quoth Bell) that the late Popishe Councell of Trent hath accursed all such as deny, or not beleue the condigne meritte of mans workes, & con∣fequently it hath made that an article of Popishe fayth,

(O wonderment of the world) which was no point of fayth, for the space of a thousand fiue hundred and fourty yeares, viz: the condigne merit of mans workes, a monster lately borne at Rome. The minister mistaketh the matter: the monster he speaketh of, was borne at Trent in Germany and not at Rome in Italy, as the beginninge of his words do testify: beside it was not in the yeare one thousand fiue hundred and fourty, but one thousand fiue hundred fourty and seauen, as appeareth out of the sixt session of that Councell.

But more thoughly to examine, whether this by any such monstrous doctrine as he speaketh of, or whether it was neuer heard of before, or rather whether he be not a monster for malice and lyinge, I would knowe what he meaneth when he saith: the late Popishe Councell of Trent, hath accursed all such as deny or not beleeue the condigne merit of wans workes: and a little after. The condi∣gne merit of mans workes a monster lately borne at Rome: for if he vnderstandeth suche workes as proceede from man only, by the force of his owne free will, and nature, without the help of Gods grace (for some cause haue I to suspect that he may meane so, both because barely he termeth them mans workes, and am not ignorant, how they com∣monly infame vs with that doctrine) if (I say) that be his meaning, then doth he most shamefully bely the Councell of Trent, as I reporte me to the very first canon of the sixt Session, which is this. Yf any shall say, that a man can be iustifyed before God, by * 1.145 his workes which are done by the force of humane nature, or by the doctrine of the lawe without diuine grace by Iesus Christ, be he accursed.

Mary if as he ought, he speaketh of mans wo•• kes proceedinge from Gods grace, as I rather su••∣pose he doth, then moste false it is, that it is a•• newe doctrine, or monster, as the newe monst•• of the ministry would make it, as I could abu•• dantly shewe, both out of scriptures and father•• and something hath been touched before: heere •• conuince him of a grosse vntruth. I will haue n•• other witnes against him then himselfe: for •• the precedent paragraffe, he hath these forma•• words: True it is fourthly that the Iesuit S. R. Ro∣bert Parsons, indeede I challenge the man, in his suppose and pretended answere to the Downefall of Popery, hat•• sett downe these conclusions against both the Pope, an•• himselfe. The first conclusion. There is merit of eter•• nall life, and our supernaturall workes done by Gods grace•• are meritorious of eternal life and glory. The secon•• conclusion. Good workes done in Gods grace, are con∣dignely meritorious of eternall life. The third conclusion, This condigne meritt is not absolute, but supposeth the condition of Gods promise, made to rewarde it. These are the Iesuits conclusions, sette downe by the best aduise of his best learned friends, among whom the Iesuiticall Cardinall Bellarmin must needes be one, which con∣clusions for all that do euidently proue as much as I desire.

But these words of his, doe manifestly proue, that either he little knoweth or careth what he desireth: before he came vpon the Councell of Trent, for accursing all such, as did deny or not beleeue the condigne merits of mans works, and inuaighed against that doctrine, as a monster lately borne at Rome: and yet now the same

doctrine is against the Pope, and the Iesuit S. R. and it doth euidently proue as much as he desireth: and so that doctrine which before was false and mon∣struous, is now becom sound and heauenly: was there euer such an other changeable Cameleon, that as it were with one breath, denyeth and af∣firmeth one and the self same thing? Certainly the poore man hath more neede of a cunning Surgeon, to putt his braines in ioint, then of inke and paper to write such lunaticall pam∣phlets.

Of his false coniecture, proceeding from lofty vanity, in making F. Parsons the author of the an∣swear to his Downefall, what shall I say, but that it is a ministeriall pangue coming from the rare conceipt of his monuments, which must be also bumbasted by addinge, that he was assisted by the best aduise of his best learned friends, among whom the Iesuiticall Cardinal Bellarmine must needes be one: thus patching onely vpon an other, for his owne credit and reputation, as though forsoth one lear∣ned man were not any matche for him, except he had the help of Christendom, Cardinall Bel∣larmine himself. A certaine fond fellowe of meane fortune, had a conceipt, that all the ship∣pes that came into the hauen of Athens were his owne: and Bell hath such a spice of foolery fallen vpon him, that he thinketh all the learned Iesuites of Christendom to be mightily troubled, about the answearing of his bookes, when he hath been so contemned, that none for many yeares euer stirred penue against him: and hath lately

bene so banged and canuased, that I do thinke h•• hath often wished, that he had been a sleepe, or el••playing at the boules, when he published those ri•• diculous and phantasticall challenges.

Bels x. Chapter Of Transubstantiation in Popish masse.

THE XLI. VNTRVTH.

TRansubstantiation (quoth he) is not only repugnant to all philosophy, but also so absurd in Christian speculation, that it was vnknown to the Church of God, and to all approued Councels, Fathers, and histories, for the space of one thousand, and two hundred yeares: it was first hatched by Pope Innocentius, the third of that name, in the late Councell of Laterane, which was houl∣den one thousand two hundred and fiften yeares after Christ. A world of vntruths be here packed together, did tyme serue to range at large: to be as brief as I may, I say first that the mystery of Transubstantiation is no more repugnante to philosophy, nor absurde in Christian speculation, then the mystery of the ineffable Trinity, and other articles of Christian fayth: and I make no doubt, but had Bell liued in the tyme of Constan∣tius the Emperor, the same argument should haue gone in behalf of Arrianisme, for with as much probability, might he haue vrged the same: If he take it not in good part to haue his reputation so touched, to omitte his changeable disposition,

let him giue some reason why this maketh more against Transubstantiation, then against the con∣substantialitie of the sonne of God.

That Transubstantiation was first hatched by Innocentius, in the yeare one thowsand two hundred and fiftene, he bouldly affirmeth, but how truly re∣mayneth nowe to be examined. For either he meaneth only the name, or the thing imported by the nametyf the first we easyly graunt it, as he must also that the name consubstantiall was not heard of till the Nicene Councell: for newe names may be inuēted by the Church, the better & more plainely to explicate an auncient mystery of fayth, as Vincen∣tius * 1.146 Lirinensis that auncient father learnedly tea∣cheth: wherefore if he hath no other quarrell against Transubstantiation, but the bare name, it is very rediculous and foolishe: for if the doctrine it self be found in the fathers and scriptures, a poore spight it is to cauill at the name, and with like grace may he descant vpon the words Consubstan∣tiall, Trinity, Incarnation, Deipara, or Mother of God, &c. which if he like not to do, then let him neither do it here, or els giue some good reason of his so diuers a disposition.

But if by Transubstantiation, he meaneth the very pointe of doctrine it self, that is the chaun∣ginge of the substance of bread, into the body of Christ by the wordes of consecration, then is it a most intolerable vntruth, that Transubstantia∣tion was first hatched by many pregnant profes being alleageable to the cōtrary. To begin: in the tyme of Leo the ninth, about the yeare of Christ one thousand and fifty, in a Romane Councell,

Berengarius was condemned: whose heresy as th•• Magdeburgians suppose, came then to light, vpon th•• intercepting of his letters. written to Lanfranc•• concerning his opinion of the sacrament. Berengari•• * 1.147 Andegauensis, &c. Berengarius (say they) deacon of Anio•• perceiued that it was not truly taught, that after the speaki•• the words of the supper, the supper, the substance of the elemen•• did quite vanishe and were transmutated or chaunged, in•• the very body and bloud of Christ. Behould transubstan•• tiation by the confession of our mortall enem ye•• was taught in the Church, much more then a•• hundred years, before the tyme which he assignet for the first beginning thereof: The same Berengari•• abiuring not long after his heresy in the Counce•• of Rome, vnder Nicholas the second, and yet not lon••∣ge after returninge to his former vomitte, and pu••∣blishing a booke in defence thereof, (such a worth) * 1.148 pillar, and constant father, haue the Sacramentarie•• for their heresie) Lanfrancus, as the same Magdebur∣bians reporte, opposed himself against it setting forth that booke against Berengarius, which is ye•• extant. Primum autem But first of all (say they) he goet•• about with many words, to defend the doctrine of Transub••∣stantiation which which Berengarius did find fault with, to wit•• that after consecration, the bread was essentially conuerted in∣to the body of Christ, and the wine into his bloud. Transub∣stantiation then was not first hatched at the ty∣me he speaketh of, when as it was oppugned and defended, many a faire yeare before, that is about the year of Christ, one thousand and three score, as Bels deere brothers confesse.

An other brother of his, one Perkins, though•• caste in a more precise moulde, acknowledgeth

Transubstantiation, about fower hundred years before the time he mentioneth, for speaking of the auncient fathers thus he writeth. Et tenēdum eos, &c. * 1.149 And it is to be houlden, that they knewe not Transubstantiatiō at least for eight hundred yeares. False it is, that Trāsub∣stantiation was not taught before, as shall straight waies be iustified against Perkins, but in the meane tyme the good reader hath to note how he giueth thely to Bell, affirming Transubstantiation to ha∣ue bene about some fower hundred yeares before the time, in which by Bels calculation it was first hatched.

The former Magdeburgians note S. Chrisostom and * 1.150 Theodoretus for teaching Transubstantiation. Chryso∣stomus Transubstantiationem, &c. Chrysostom (say they) seemeth to confirme Transubstantiation, for he writeth thus in his sermon of the Eucharist, doest thou see bread? doest thou see wine! do they passe like other meates into the draught? God forbidde, doe not thinke so, for euen as waxe putte into the fire is made like vnto it, no substance therof remayneth, nothing aboundeth: euen so thinke here the mysteries to be consumed with the substance of the body: and to this same effect they report straight after, certayne words out of Theodoretus.

The same authors note how that S. Ambrose in his preparatiue praiers before the masse, maketh mention of Transubstantiation, and application for the liuinge and the dead. True it is, that they stile him only by the name of the author of the first praier preparatiue to Masse, amongest S. Ambroses workes, ci∣ting nothing els for prooffe, but the censure of Eras∣mus, as though the phantasticall and partiall affe∣ction of a moderne mutable man, were an infalli∣ble

rule, to measure the fathers monuments. Perki•• also very pertly censureth it for none of S. Ambros•• his workes, but yet giueth a reason, and that a pret∣ty one: ibi adoratio sacramēti There (quoth he) is adora∣tion of the sacrament. Let such reasons as these runn•• for sounde, they are none of the fathers worke•• because they are against vs and our doctri∣ne, and it will not be any difficulty at all to an∣swear quickly, whatsoeuer is produced out of an∣tiquity, yea or out of sacred scripture it self. Did strong reason more preuaile, then preconceipted fansy, they would rather inferre thus: adoration of the sacrament is allowed by S. Amhrose, ergo it is no false, superstitious or idolatrous doctrine.

Furthermore the same Lutheran historiogra∣phers reprehende Eusebius Emissenus, (who died in * 1.151 the time of Constantine, as the same men report out of S. Hierom) about Transubstantiation. De caena Do∣mini &c. Concerning the supper of our Lord (say they) he spake nothing commodiously of Transubstantiation, vpon the words of Christ, vnlesse ye eat the fleshe of the sonne of man, &c. Behould a priest for euer according to the order of Melchisedech, hath by his vnspeakable power, turned bread and wine, into the substance of his body and bloud. Diuers other notable authorities might haue been allead∣ged, but I made choise of these as being so playne, that the mortall enemyes of Transubstantiation, can not deny, but that they make cleerly for that point: and beside, there is no better boxing of Bell, then with the holy fistes of his croked bre∣thren.

Lastly, what man of any insight, not furiously transported with the passion of noucltie, can per∣suade

himself, satisfy his conscience, or once imagi∣••e if the Reall presence and Transubstantiation, ••ad not been taught by Christ and his Apostles, ••hat it could euer haue come into the Church, and anished the former opinion, especially that being mystery so far surpassing the reach of reason, and ••he other so fittinge common conceipt, and easy to ••nderstande. Could (I say) a doctrine so newe and ••ifficult possesse the world, and exterminate for∣mer fayth, coming from the Apostles, and so easy to ••pprehend, without infinite garboiles and contra∣dictiōs: or is it possible if any such thing had bene, that it could haue escaped the pennes of all wri∣ters, none euer either of loue to truth, or hatred to falshood, complayning of that great ruyne of veri∣••ie, and straunge ouerflowe of superstition. The Protestāts here can say nothing, to giue true & real satisfaction, to any sincerely desirous of saluation. On the contrary, we can tell them, that when the doctrine of the Real presence and Transubstantia∣tion began to be impugned, how it was straight re∣sisted by learned men, and diuers Councels, as be∣fore was touched intreatinge of Berengarius, which is an argument, that our religion is auncient and Apostolicall, and his a filthy ragge of hereticall nouelty.

And thus haue I abundantly proued, that Tran∣substantiation began not vnder Innocentius in the yeare one thousand two hundred and fiue, as Bell affirmeth: but is far more auncient, being taught by the old doctors of Christs Church: yea that it co∣meth from our Sauiour himself, and his blessed Apostles.

Bels XI. Chapter. Of Popish inuocation of Saintes.

THE XLII. VNTRVTH.

OMitting Sr. Thomas his irreligious and in∣iurious snatching, at that most constant mar∣tyr of Christ, S. Thomas of Canterbury, let vs consider what els he bringeth. The Papists (quoth he) in their fond Popishe inuocation ascribe that to Saints, which is only and solely proper vnto Christ himself: I proue it, because they make the Saints departed, not only mediators of intercession, but also of redemption. Moste false it is, that we make them mediators of redemption and saluation, as he may learne out of the Councell of Trent, where it is decreed, that it is good and profitable to inuocate Saints, * 1.152 and to flie vnto their praiers, help and assistance, for the obtay∣ning of benefits, by his sonne Iesus Christ our lord, who is our only Redeemer and Sauiour. But let vs heare what po∣tent prooffe Bell bringeth. Thomas Becket (quoth he) sometyme Bishop of Canterbury, is inuocated of the Pope, and all his Popishe crewe, not barely and absolutely as an holy man, but as the sonne of the liuinge God, and the only Sauiour of the world. Terrible wordes, and fearfull speaches: what will be the end of this boisterous blaste? it fol∣loweth. This assertion to the godly may seeme wonderfull, but it is such a knowne truth, as no Papist whatsoeuer he be, can without blushing deny the same, by that time the matter is examined. I verily thinke all modest Protestants will blushe at the impudency of this lying Mini∣ster, that maketh such a solemne preface to so noto∣rious

and shamelesse an vntruth. Now followeth the deadly cracke and terrible threatned thunder clappe. These are (quoth he) the expresse words of their ••hymne, which they both say and singe, vpon that day which they keepe holy for his praise and honour. Tu per Thomae san∣guinem, &c. By the bloud of Thomas which he for thee did spende: bringe vs thither o Christ, whether Thomas did as∣cende.

I vtterly deny, that any of these words, or all to∣gether, make S. Thomas a mediator of redemption, or do proue, that we inuocate him, as the sonne o f the liuing God, and the only Sauiour of the world, as the Ministers lying lippes lashe out: nay I add more, that as no words here import any such thing, so some there be, that on the contrary free vs from that imposed blssphemy: for we inuocate and desire Christ, that he would for the merit of his martyrdome bringe vs to heauen: but did we make S. Thomas a mediatour of redemption, and in∣uocate him as the sonne of the liuing God, as Bell chargeth vs, then would we not inuocate Christ, as his superiour, which yet we doe, and so a moste outragious vntruth it is, that we make s. Thomas, a mediator of redemption, or inuocate him as the sonne of the liuing God, and the only Sauiour of the world, as Saintles Sr. Thomas auoucheth.

I passe ouer with silence, how falsely he also af∣firmeth, that the Pope and all his Popishe crewe, do vpon the feast of S. Thomas inuocate him in that manner: Bels lippes are his owne, he may imploy them that way which best pleaseth him, for the Pope, and many thousands more, vse the Romane Breuiary, and Missal, in neither of which, any such

praier is contayned, and as I suppose not foun•• but in those of Sarum vse, which be now an••∣tiquated and out of date: as both that, and all othe•• long since were with Bell: howbeit the words im∣port not any blasphemy at all, for the meaning o•• the praier is no other, but that Christ would bring vs to heauen, by that singular and especiall merit o•• S. Thomas, in giuing his life and sheddinge his bloud for the loue of him: for if one may merit vpon earth, as the Catholique Church teacheth, that •• man by the grace of God and the merits of Iesus Christ may, then none will deny, but the act of Martyrdome, and shedding of our bloud for the testimony of truth is meritorious, as being the most high, and soueraigne worke of charity, for∣titude, fayth, patience, &c. that we can possibly do in this world. And if the merits of Saints do pro∣fitte vs, and we may pray to God by their merits, as straightwaies shall be proued, then may we pray to Christe by the merits of S. Thomas, and by that especiall merit of the shedding his bloud for his honour, and that without any iniury to his me∣rits or bloud, S. Thomas his merits being inferiour to the merits of Christ, these being the heauenly fountayne, from whence both the merits of S. Tho∣mas, and the merits of all other glorious martyra and Saintes, haue flowed, and receiued all their force and vertue.

Thus we are freed from the wicked slaunder of the Minister, that blusheth not to say, that we ma∣ke S. Thomas a mediatour of redemption, and inuo∣cate him as the sonne of the liuing God, and the only Sauiour of the world: and together is decla∣red,

how the praier cōtayneth not any blasphemy, but sound & good doctrine, taken in the true sence, though now not vsed in the Catholique Church.

THE XLIII. VNTRVTH.

AFter this praier to S. Thomas, he citeth a sen∣tence out of Polanchus added in the end of Ab∣solution, to witt this. The passion of our Lord Iesus Christ, the merits of the blessed virgin Mary, and of all Saintes, and all the good thou doe, and the punishement thou shalt suffer, be to thee for remission of thy synnes, for increase of grace, and for the reward of eternall lise: which words of Polanchus he doth prosecute with this lying glosse. Lo the me∣rits of Saints, are ioint purchasers of saluation with Christs bloud, and our workes procnre vs remission of our synnes, in∣creafe of grace, and eternall glory. An vntruth it is, that the merits of Saints are ioynt purchasers of salua∣tion with Christs bloud, if he meane that the me∣rits of Christ and his Saints doe alike auaile to sal∣uation, as he must meane, or els he saith nothing: for the merits of Christ, are as I saied before, the wellspring, from whence all the merits of all mens actions doe proceede, and they he for the infinit dignity of the person acceptable of them felues, in the sight of his father: but the merits of Saints, are derieued from Gods grace, by the merits of Christ, and are not grateful in the eies of God, but for his sacred merits and passion: the merits therefore of Christ and his Saints, may auaile vs for the obtayning of spirituall gists: the merits of Christ, as the principall cause: the merits of

Saints, as dependent of his, and the secondary cause.

And that God and his creatures may in this manner, without any iniury to his name be ioy∣ned together, we learne out of sacred scripture: Ia∣cob * 1.153 desired God and his Angell to blesse his chil∣dren. The Israelites cryed out; the sword of our Lord and Gedeon. In Exodus we reade thus. They be∣leeued * 1.154 our Lord and Moises his seruante. S. Paul testified before Christ Iesus, and the elect Angels. And the Apostles doubted not to say: It hath seemed good to the holy Ghost and to vs. If in these and such like speaches, God and his creatures be ioyned together, with∣out being made ioynt purchasers, (for I trust Bell hath not the courage to vtter any such word) but as the creator, and the secondary cause: in like manner may the merits of Christ, and his Saints be conioyned, as hath been sayed.

THE XLIIII. VNTRVTH.

AFter a fitt of railing at this doctrine of the Catholique Church, in praying to God by the merits of his Saints, he saith: No scripture, no Councell; no approued history, was euer acquainted with this newly inuented heresy, neuer knowne to the Church of Christ, for the space of one thousand yeares and odde. An vntruth it is, that it is any heresy to pray to God by the merits of his Saints, as the heretical minister bouldly afflrmeth: but alleageth neither scripture, Councell or father, or approued history, to giue credit to his assertion, so much he presumeth vpon

his owne authority. Falsealso it is, that it was ne∣uer knowen for the space of a thousand yeares. To proue one and the other against Bell: In the old te∣stament, for so much as iust men then dying went not straight to heauen their raunsom being not paied, as here I suppose according to the Catholique doctrine, nor they ordinaryly knowing the praiers of the liuing: therefore they did not in those tymes vse to pray vnto them for∣mally saying, S. Abraham pray for vs, as we in the newe testament do: yet did they pray vnto God by the merits of his seruaunts, as we read in sundry places: neither doth that auoid the argument which Bell answeareth in his Suruey, viz, that * 1.155 not the merits of his Saints were vrged, but his owne promise and couenant sett before him: for * 1.156 their merits also be remembred, and not only the couenant of God: for example Salomon prayeth to God, by the merits of his father Dauid, saying. Re∣member o Lord Dauid and all his meekenes: and a little after: For Dauid thy seruant turne not away the face of thy Christ and in the booke of Kings we reade: For Da∣uid, our Lord God gaue him a candle in Israel, that he might raise vp his sonne after him because that Dauid had done right in the eies of our Lord. S. Augustin relying vpon these & such like sayings, teacheth that the merits of his Saints may auayle vs in the sight of God. * 1.157 Admonemur cum merita nostra, &c. we are admonished (quoth he) that when our owne synnes do ly heauy vpon vs, that we be not loued of God, that we may be holpen with him by their merits whom God doth loue.

In the newe Testament we find the same do∣ctrine confirmed. The sicke man of the palsey

was cured for their fayth, which brought him to our Sauiour: for the sacred text saith: and Iesus seing * 1.158 their fayth, said to the sicke of the palsey, haue a good hear•• sonne, thy synnes are sorgiuen thee. Yf the fayth of hi•• seruants liuing vpon earth, and dayly offendin•• him, procured mercy to others, how much mor•• may the burning charity of his Saints in heauen free from all daunger of synning, obtayne for v•• spirituall benefits at the hand of our heauenly fa∣ther? Much more might be brought, but not neces∣sary when as Perkins confesseth sufficient to ouer∣throwe Bell, for reprehending the auncient fa∣thers as attributing to much vnto the intercession of Saints, he citeth these words of S. Leo as offen∣ding * 1.159 in that kinde. VVe beleue and trust that to obtayn•• the mercy of God, we shall alwaies be holpen by the praiers o•• our speciall patrones, that so much as we are kept down by our owne synnes, so much we may be listed vp by the merits of the Apostles. And yet Bell inuaigheth against this doctrine as blasphemous, and more confidently then truly affirmeth, that no scripture, no Coun∣cell, no father, no approued history, euer knewe it, and that it was neuer knowen to the Church, for the space of one thousand years and odde, how truly how sincerely, I referre me to the pre∣misses.

THE XLV. VNTRVTH.

I Must therfore conclude (saith the Minister) with this meuitable illation: ergo Popishe inuocation of Saintes, but a rotten ragge of the newe religion: and to shewe ••ow new it is, he quoteth in the margēt the yeare, ••fter this manner: that is in the yeare of our Lorde ••ne thousand fower hundred and seauen: which * 1.160 ••s some two hundred yeares agoe. But I may far ••etter inferre, that for grosse vntruths and cun∣••ing lying, he may be let loose to any of the Mi∣••isterie. what one of Bels dependants that reade ••he former wordes, or any other, not acquainted with his trickes, would not veryly thinke, that praying to Saints as it is vsed in the Catholique Church, is not aboue two hundred years old, as the tenor of his wordes import? and yet I doe not thincke he will stande to that, for yf he shoulde most certaine it is that it is a grosse and god∣lesse vntruth, as himself I suppose will not de∣ny, when as he telleth vs in diuers others of * 1.161 his bookes, that Popishe inuocation and adoration, was not knowen till the year three hundred and seauenty. which though it be a loud lye, as I haue proued in the Dolefull knell. shewing the vse of inuoca∣cation and adoration, before the yeare three hundred and seauenty: yet is it nothing com∣parable to this here vttered, making that article a thousand yeares younger then in his former bookes, and playnly contradicting here what he saith in those former places. Content he was, that his ignorant reader shoulde gather that sence, and for that ende deliuered the wordes in such a cunning manner: but

let him be vrged with that which he teacheth el•• where, and then his refuge will be, that he spea∣keth not of the inuocation of Saintes in generall•• but of the particular manner of praying by their merites, or by the bloude of Thomas: such be the•• slightes of the minister. But to prosecute him•• flyinge: albeit that be his meaning, (yf it be so, for•• it may be that I haue construed his wordes, to a•• better sence then euer he intended) yet I say that•• praying to God by the merits of his Saints, is also•• older then the yeare one thousand fower hundred and seauen, and that both by his owne confession, who in the precedent words saith, that it was ne∣uer knowen to the Church of Christ, for the space of one thousand yeares and odde: signifying that not long after it came in, which is almost two hun∣dred yeares before the tyme here assigned: as also by the verdict of his brother Perkins, who censu∣reth S. Leo, that liued twelue hundred yeres agoe for the same doctrine: but according to truth it self, it is as auncient as the Gospel, and the former daies of the Patriarches and Prophetes as before was said. Lastly that very particular praier to S. Thomas, which he mentioneth, is as I make no doubt more auncient then the tyme he noteth, seing S. Thomas was martired more then fower hundred yeares agoe, and canonized straight after his death: and so in no sence his words can by any meanes be excused from an vntruth, and in that which they represent to common vnderstanding, from a monstrous ly and palpable contradi∣ction.

Bels XII. Chapter. Of the Communion vnder one kinde.

THE XLVI. VNTRVTH.

THe Minister speaking of the Communion vnder one kinde, and desirous to shewe that we haue broken the institutiō of Christ, like a god∣••esse Gospeller corrupteth the very text of sacred Scripture. And S. Paul (saith he) vrging Christes insti∣••ution to the Corinthians, telleth them playnely and reli∣••iously, that they must receiue the holy Eucharist vnder both * 1.162 kindes, which last words he printeth also in a di∣stinct letter, to shewe that they be the Apostles wordes, and quoteth accordingly in the margent the particular place vz 1. Cor. 11. 27. but viewe it he that will, if he finde S. Paul to haue those words, we yeld him the victory: if not, let his fa∣uorites consider how they venture their soules with such a minister, that offereth violence to the very word of God, which he would seeme so much to reuerence. The words of S. Paul be these. Therfore whosoeuer shall eate this bread or drinke the chalice of our Lord vnworthyly, he shall be guilty of the body and of the bloud of our Lord: which be far different from these: That they must receiue the holy Eucharist vnder both kindes, affirmed by him to be the very sentence of S. Paul. The most that can be gathered out of S. Paules wordes truly cited is, that in his tyme the Eucharist was ministred to lay people vnder both

kindes, which we deny not: but they proue n•• that it neither was, nor might be giuen vnd•• one kind. Mary out of the wordes as he cite•• them, the matter is made cocke-sure, and t•• text framed fitte for their purpose: giue him t•• leaue that he may coyne scripture as he plea•• and no question but as he hath vpon a doub•• change of religion, alwaies found the word God for his warrant, so will he still (chaun•• what chaunce may) neuer lacke it to back him all his actions.

No shelter can shrowd him from the cryn•• of corruption. For to tell vs that it is the me••∣ning of S. Paul, as it is most false, so can it n•• iustify his falsification: for then might any ci•• the text, according to that interpretation whic•• he thinketh agreable thereunto, and as the ve•••• wordes of the text, which is most impious •••• be saide. For example. The Catholiques alleadge•• against the Arrians, to proue Christ to be of o•• and the same nature with his father, this sen∣tence of S. Iohn I and the father are one: which pla•••• * 1.163 in truth by the circumstance of the letter, an•• exposition of venerable antiquity proueth s•• much: yet who euer haue presumed, or no•• dare to cite it after Bels manner, and say, th•• Euangelist S. Iohn reporting Christes wordes affir∣meth plainely and religiously that Christ an•• his father be all of one nature and substance for allow this, and the Arrians may with lik•• authority cite it to the contrary, and rehears•• the tex•• after Bels manner thus: The Euan∣elist

S. Iohn reporting Christes words teacheth ••laynely and religiously that Christ and his fa∣••her be not one in nature and substance but in ••onsent of will: which licentious proceeding being once brought in, nothing will be found sincere, nothing true and sound, but the broade gate sett open to all corrupt dealing and falsifi∣cation.

Let vs but acknowledge any tradition of Christ or his Apostles, not expressely found in the written word, though neuer so much warran∣ted by antiquity: and straight in great zeale, he is vpon vs with the curses and threats out of Deutronomie, and the Apocalipse, of them that adde or take away any thinge from the word: and yet himself, I knowe not vpon what dis∣pensation, corrupteth, choppeth, and chan∣geth as hath bene said, and would be loth for all that, to be reputed for any other then a sincere preacher of the word, and one that handleth the scripture with great respect and reuerence: but I hope such as carry due re∣garde to their soules, will looke better to his fingers, and vpon triall of his treachery, auoi∣de him for a false teacher, and detestable Doctor.

THE XLVII. VNTRVTH.

PRosecuting still the same matter of communi∣cating vnder both kindes he saith. This was the practise of the auncient Church for the space of one

thousande two hundred and thirty yeares after Christ: abo•••• which tyme they began in some odde Churches, to leaue the cuppe and to minister the sacrament in bread only: b•• that was done as Aquinas consesseth in some fewe places onl•• * 1.164 An vntruthe it is, that the communion vnder on•• kinde, was not in vse till the yeare one thousan•• two hundred and thirty, as more bouldly the•• truly he affirmeth. Sozomenus and Nicephorus, re∣port * 1.165 how a certayne woman infected with th•• heresy of Macedonius the better to conceale her re∣ligion, came to the Church, and receiued the sacra∣ment from the hand of S. Chrysostome, as it wer•• with a minde straight waies to eate it: but sh•• cunningly gaue it to her maide, and receiued of he•• other bread brought from home: which when she went about to eate, she found it straight turne•• into a stone. This fact sheweth that all then re∣ceiued not the chalice: for then this woman could not haue dissembled, both because the chalice was not giuen into her owne hands, (as the consecra∣ted hoast then was) and though it had, no such euasion is imaginable.

An other example we haue in Pope Leo the * 1.166 first, who saith that the Manichees to conceale their heresy, vsed to receiue the consecrated hoast with Catholiques, but not the chalice: which argueth that it was free at that tyme to receiue the chalice or not, for had they bene all bound to re∣ceiue the chalice, the Manichees could not but ha∣ue bene knowen, as they which neuer tooke the chalice: and therfore S. Leo, commaundeth not to obserue them, who somtyme did receiue the cha∣lice; and somtyme did not, but those which did

••uer receiue it at all: for at that tyme, it was a ••te of a Manichee, that sect detesting the drin∣••••ge of wine, as a thinge vtterly vnlawfull and ••••linge it the deuils gall. I omitt much more ••hich might be brought out of antiquity, yea out •••• scripture it self, some thing before hath bene ••••uched, and more to that purpose very strongly ••ight be vrged, but breuity to which I am infor∣••••d, maketh me to passe ouer many things.

Only for a conclusion, I can not but note, how ••••norant Sir Thomas of Rascall, entreateth lear∣••ed S. Thomas of Aquine, whom first he maketh by ••••nning insinuation to say, that about his tyme, ••hey began in some odd Churches to leaue of the ••uppe, and to minister the sacrament in bread ••nly: whereof he hath not one word, and no ••arualle, when it was of far greater continuance ••s hath been said: but more plainely doth he ••aunder him, when he maketh him to say that to ••inister the Sacrament in bread only, was done ••n some fewe places only, his words are these. Therefore prouidently in some Churches it is obserued that * 1.167 ••he bloud be not giuen to the people to be receiued, but be ••nly taken of the Priest: Where he doth not say, that ••his was in some fewe places only, as Bell maketh ••im to speake, but that in some Churches it was ••o obserued, which might be very many, as well as some fewe, and that this was the reall and true meaninge of S. Thomas in the same very place, is gathered out of his owne discourse, for hauing propounded some arguments after the manner of Scholes against the truth, to witt that it was not lawfull to receaue the body of Christ without his

bloud: he cometh to the contrary opinion, which * 1.168 he there defendeth and saith. But contrary to this i•• the vse of many Churches, in which the body of Christ au•• not his bloud, is giuen to the people that communicateth. In which wordes blessed S. Thomas enformeth vs, that the body of Christ and not his bloud was giuen to the people in many Churches: Saintlesse Sir Tho∣mas maketh him to say, that the body of Christ was giuen in some fewe places only, when as he hath neither the words nor the sence, but the clean opposit wordes and meaninge. Halensis also more auncient then S. Thomas (as who was his master) testifieth that in his time, it was almost a generall custome to receiue vnder one kinde. Very lawfull it is (saith that learned man) to receau * 1.169 the body of Christ vnder the forme of bread only, a∣lay men do almost euery where in the Church: and yet all this not witstandinge, the minister blusheth not to father the direct contrary opinion vpon blessed S. Thomas.

Bels XIII. Chapter. Of priuate Masse.

THE XLVIII. VNTRVTH.

THat any Prieste in the Primatiue Churche said priuate Masse, that is receiued the my∣steries all alone, none being to communicat with him, our aduersaries generally denie, houlding that they euer had other participants in that sacred

ction. This was (saith Bell) the vse and practise of the hurche euery where, for more then a thousand yeares together. But afterward when the peoples deuotion began to be remisse, the Priestes then deuoured vp all alone. This minister that hath deuoured vp all conscience, little areth in what manner he speaketh of those my∣teries, which antiquity so reuerenced, that they would not speake of them but in couert tearmes before infidels: and S. Chrysostom calleth tremēda myste∣ria, * 1.170 dreadsull mysteries: and yet he speaketh of them as homely, as though he were talking of the En∣glish cōmunion, wich is had in such high reueren∣ce, that the cōmunion booke prescribeth, that the fragments remaininge, shall be for the ministers priuate vses, and so giueth him leaue to feede with them his chickens, or to soppe his pottage.

To the matter: an vntruth it is, that priuate masses were not before the tyme he mentioneth. The twelft Councell of Toleto almost nine hun∣dred yeares agoe, reprehendeth those Priests which offering sacrifice did not communicate. Quale illud sacrificium &c. what manner of sacrifice is * 1.171 that (saith the Councell) of whiche neither he that sacrificeth is knowen to be partaker: which words do shewe that none was present to com∣municate, and yet the Councell requireth only that the Priest himself doth communicate. S. Augu∣stin also recordeth how a Priest offered sacrifice in * 1.172 a priuate farme, for the freeing of that place, from the molestation of wicked spirits. In so particu∣lar and extraordinarie a place, and for so particular a busines, no probability that there were any other communicants.

But to com vpon him with the authority •• his brother Perkins, who confesseth that th•• * 1.173 kinde of priuate masses, were not knowen to th•• Church for the space of eight hundred yeares: n•• denying but afterward they were vsed, which •• two hundred yeares more then Bell will graunt•• In the same place he cōfe sseth, that priuate masse•• began first in monasteries, for proosse whereof he citeth S. Gregory: which both conuinceth Be•• of ouerreaching, and seemeth not very well t•• agree with his former assertion: for how wer•• not priuate Masses knowen to the Church for th•• space of eight hundred yeares, yf S. Gregory maketh mention of them two hundred yeares before. The truth is (good reader) that no beginning here o•• can be showen, nor any authenticall author i•• former tyme, that complayned or opposed himself against any such custome as newly brought in, and contrary to the practise of the Church or institu∣tion of Christ: which is an argument that it is passing auncient, and was neuer reputed for false doctrine, or repugnarite to sacred scripture.

Bels XIIII. Chapter Of Pope Martins dispensation for the bro∣ther to marry his naturall sister.

THE XLIX. VNTRVTH.

SVch is Bels malice against the Pope, that when better matter faileth, he fetcheth lies out of the

••ard flint: his words be these. Pope Martin sayth * 1.174 Antoninus the Popishe Archbishop and canonized Saint, ••oke vpon him to bispense with one, that he might marry his ••wne naturall sister. A magnificall vntruth twice •• old before, and shall againe, if he haue any more ••ookes to publishe: for his latter bookes, be no∣thing els but certaine ragges drawen from the ••unghill of his former: what he saith of Pope Martin is a notable vntruth, as is apparante out of S. Antoninus owne wordes; which for loue to since∣rity he would not cite intierely in his Downfall, where this knocker crept first foorth: some he al∣leadged but so corruptly, that hauing bene wel canuased for that his treacherie both in the * 1.175 Forerunner, and also in the Dolefull Knell, and not knowing how to defend himself, he hath for all that still intertayned the vntruth, but wholy con∣cealed the words, for more sure dealing.

S. Antoninus his wordes be these, hauing relation to others precedent, which make also against Bell. Neuerthelesse it is found that Pope Martin the fift, did dis∣pense * 1.176 with a certayne man, who had contracted and con∣summated matrimony, with a certayne naturall sister of her, with whom he had committed fornication: yet with great difficulty, and because the matter was secret, and the man not fitt for religion, or to remoue into any other countrey, and so scandall would haue followed of the diuorce if it had been made. Pope Martin then dispensed not with a man, to marry his owne natural sister, but to re∣mayne stille in marriage with her, whose naturall sister, before marriage he had carnally knowen: this is so playne and perspicuous, that the good reader can not but behould it, and perceiue that

the Minister had good reason not to alleage Anto∣ninus words, the more handsomly to conuay the vntruth. Of this shamelesse dealing of his I haue in treated so plentifully in the Dolefull Knell * 1.177 examining all the particular circumstances of An∣toninus his discourse: and answeared also what he•• bringeth there out of Siluester, Fumus, Angelus, Nauar and Caietan obiected also by him before in his Fu∣nerall, that I take it for a vaine labour, to intreate againe of the same matter. Wherefore to proceede

Bels XV. Chapter. Of worshipping of Images.

THE L. VNTRVTH.

RVnning with his penne against the venera∣tion giuen to sacred images, he saith: Ye•• Gregory the great in his tyme sharply reproued the worshipp•• done to images, albeit he disliked Serenus the good Bishop of Massilia for breaking the same in the Church. Neither S. Gregory nor Serenus any thing help Bell and such I conomachall companions, but both of them stande in mortall defiance against him S. Gregory * 1.178 seuerely reproued Serenus for his rashe breaking downe the images of the church, attempting to doe that which as he saith, neuer any Bishoppe had done before him. Whereof I inferre that images in the Primatiue Church were in vse, yea and kept in sacred places, and consequently that our Englishe Protestans be cōtrary to venerable antiquitie, that suffer not any such holy monumēts in the Church,

out rase and deface them with all spight and cruel∣ty: contrary also to S. Gregory who reprehending Serenus though nothing so guilty, would not I think haue spared Bell and his fraternity, for their enor∣mous & impious proceeding herein. Were I desi∣rous to imitate the minister, very handsomly might I come vpon him, with a concludinge inference in this manner: ergo this beating downe of ima∣ges, is a rotten ragge of the newe Caluinian reli∣gion, borrowed from Iewes, Mahometans, and such misbeleeuing miscreants.

But S. Gregory (saith Bell) sharply reproued the wor∣shippe done to images: true it is, but what kinde of worshippe was it? The minister would haue the reader to thinke, that it was the same, which the Catholike Church alloweth and teacheth: which is nothing so, for it was passing far different, for as much as S. Gregory allowed conuenient adoration, as shal straight be said. Cardinal Bellermin thincketh that this erroneous worship was giuen by certain new Christiās: & surely such were most likely to fall in∣to that grosse sinne, of whom it is not so much to be maruailed if accustomed before to idols, they be∣haued themselfes in like māner to wards sacred ima∣ges, and adored them for gods, as in Paganisme they were taught & practised. Serenus vpō this abhomi∣nable accidēt, moued with zeale, but not according to knowledge, ouerthre, we those images: which S. Gregory reproued in him, for that he ought to haue instructed them, & reformed what was amisse, and not so depely to haue scādalized the Church with such a strange fact, as S. Gregory in expresse wor∣des signifieth that he did: and therfore aduiseth

himafter due instruction giuen to the people, to restore the images to ther former places.

This was the adoration which that holy Pope disliked, * 1.179 for that he denyed not all kind of venera∣tion is most certayne, for writing to one Ianuaring a Bishoppe about the image of the blessed virgin and the crosse, which he willeth to be taken from the Synagogue of the Iewes where they had been putt, he speaketh thus: VVe exhort you in these words that the image and crosse be taken from thence, with that * 1.180 veneration which is worthy. And in an other place writing to one Secundinus, who had sent vnto him for the image of our Sauiour, his words be these: I knowe verilie that you doe not therfore desire the image of our Sauiour, that you may worshippe it as thoughe it were god: but that by remembrance of the sonne of God, you may wax warme in his loue whose image you see. And we fal * 1.181 prostrate before it, not as it were before the diuinity. What hath Bell gott by vouching the authority of S. Gre∣gory? About the retayning of images in Churches, he is directly against him, as he can not deny: con∣cerning their adoratiō also he nothing helpeth him, but teacheth that, which nothing pleaseth his re∣formed spirit, and therfore true it is not, that he re∣proued the worshippe done to images as Bell affir∣meth, speaking of that worshippe which the Church alloweth, as the minister would haue his reader to thincke: for the other worshippe we de∣test as much as he.

Albeit sufficiēt hath been said, to she we that he wrongeth S. Gregory, yet is not this the vntruth which I intended here especially to note, though willing I was, to purge our Apostle from his false

imputation: but it is touching a learned scholeman, one Gabriel Biel, whom moste notoriously he slaun∣dereth writing thus. Yea Gabriel Biel a religious Po∣pishe frier and a very learned schole doctor, who liued longe after Gregory and Serenus, euen one thousand fower hundred eighty and fower yeares after Christ, doth sharply in∣uaigh and reproue the worshippe done to images. This I challenge for a grosse vntruth. Where doth Biel thus sharply inuaigh, & reproue the worship∣pe done to images, he quoteth him in Can. Missae ••ect. 40. Where nothing is handled of any such sub∣iect: it may be he would say lect. 49. A small fault especially in Bell, being one of such knowē truth that he neuer vseth any such slightes, vnlesse it be for the better passage of the Gospell. To lette that passe, why hath he not cited his words? he may pre∣tēd what reasō he please, but he must giue me leaue to thincke that there is none other, saue only that he knewe not truly where to finde them: he shame∣fully slaundereth Gabriel Biel, he is so far frō sharply reprouing worshippe done to images, that he teacheth plainly, that they are to be worshipped.

That learned man, propoūdeth two opiniōs con∣cerning * 1.182 this matter: the one of them that hould, that the image is to be honored with the same ho∣nour which is due to the prototypon or first sample: & after he hath bronght authorities for that, with an explicatiō of the same, he cometh to the secōd opi∣niō, which seemeth cōtrary to the former, teaching that images are not permitted in the Churches to be adored, but to the end that the mindes of faithful people, may be stirred vp to reuerence and honour those whom they represent: & this opinion Gabriel

supposeth to be Holcotes. Hauing deliuered these two opinions, betwixt which (as he saith) there is more disagreement in wordes then in the thinge it self, and di∣sputed of them both, and the operation of our soule, as well in respect of that which is represen∣ted by the image, as the image it self, he conclu∣deth in this manner. But the question (quoth he) is, whether that act or operation by which I an carryed to the image, ought to be called adoration: to which I say, that it is called adoration analogically and improperly, & not properly because it is in respect of a creature. In which wordes Gabriel houldeth that images may be adored, though not properly, that is with that honour and adoration peculiar only to God, called Latria: but with a lesser kind of adoration, which he calleth Analogicall or improper, because it is infinitly infe∣riour to the former, and due only to the image, for that respect and relation, which it hath to that which it doth represent. Iudge now (good reader) whether Bell hath not most grossely slaundered him, when so confidently he auoucheth that he doth, sharply inuaighe and reproue the worshippe done to images, when as he is so far from reprouing it, that he alloweth it in manner before specifyed.

An other thinge here occurreth worth the nothinge, and that is where as Bell hath the same matter on foote in the pamphlet of his woefull crys * 1.183 (as his manner is of the same very matter to make diuers bookes) he citeth as Gabriels words, those which be not his, but rather Holcots, though allead∣ged by Gabriel, which also he doth interpret to a good sence, as before was sayed. But here without euer setting downe any wordes of Gabriel at all, he

maketh him sharply to muaighe against the adora∣tion of images (when no such sharpe wordes he loth or can name) and so iniuriously abuseth him both in the one place, and the other, so little respect ••arrieth he to religion or fidelitie, though he would seeme to be the only sincere teacher, and of he moste tender conscience in the whole worlde.

Bels XVI. Chapter. Of Church seruice in the vulgar tongue.

THE LI. VNTRVTH.

TO proue that the publique seruice of the Church, ought to be in the vulgar tongue, he citeth the names of many authors, without euer setting dowue their sentences, thinking it sufficient to referre the reader to his Suruay where he hath laid out their words at large. Howe truly he behaueth, himself in diuers of them, I knowe not, hauing not viewed the quotations, partly for that my purpose is not to examin his whole Triall: partly for lacke of tyme, partly for that some of them make not so much as any outward showe against vs: & therefore a vaine labour to bestowe any tyme that way. One only will I speake of, and that shall be of S. Gre∣gory our blessed Apostle, whom Bell abuseth so grossely, that it can not but appeare straight to the eye of the attentiue reader: for he bringeth * 1.184 forth his formall words, and then prosecuteth

them with a false glosse directly repugning to his wordes. Pope Gregory himself (quoth he) confirmeth the doctrine in these wordes. Sed & Dominica oratio apud Gre∣cos * 1.185 ab omni populo dicitur, apud nos autem a solo sacerdot Furthermore among the Greekes, all the people say the Lord praier, but with vs, the Priest alone saith it. This prouer not that the publique seruice of the Churche was in any other language, then in the sacred tongue of the Greek, Latin, &c. for the Grecians might vnderstand the Priest though their seruice were i•• Greke, because that tongue was to them the vul∣gar and common. But suppose that it had been s decaied, that it was not vnderstood of the cōmo people, yet might they say the Lords praier with them, for generaly all Catholickes at this tym though ignorāt of the latin tongue, can say our lor∣des prayer in latin, & so might now say it together with the Priest, did the custome permitte it.

But I inuite here the good reader, to the noting •••• a prety slight, other wise called a false pranke of S. Thomas. After the former words of S. Gregory, he ad∣deth this glosse of his owne, flatte opposite to the text. Behold (quoth he) this Gregory liued fiue hundred and ninty yeares after Christes sacred incarnation, & yet it his daies the people of Rome prayed with the Minister euen the tyme of masse. S. Gregory telleth vs, that the Prie•• alone said the lords praier: Sr. Thomas maintay neth out of those words of S. Gregorie, that the pe∣ople praied with the minister euen in the tyme of masse. What may not his mā proue or disproue, y•• when a father affirmeth one thing, he can without all conscience, not only collect an other much dif∣ferent, but also the flatt contrary.

That the publique seruice of the Church was in auncient tyme in that tougue which the people commonly vnderstood not, omitting other argu∣ments, I will proue it briefly out of the practise of of our countrey, in which the masse was alwaies in latin, from the first conuersion, vntill our owne memory, Yf Bell deny this, lett him for that great skille which he hath, in hunting out the originall of Poperie and superstition, tell vs at what tyme, bet wixt the first conuersion, and the late daies of Edward the sixt, the vse of latin seruice crept in. Shal we thincke that S. Gregory, whom Bell confes∣seth to haue been an holy Bishoppe indede, would euer * 1.186 haue permitted that custom to haue been brought into our countrey, if he he had thought it supersti∣tious & wicked, nay if he had not reputed it requi∣site, good, and Apostolicall.

More then fower hūdred yeares before the time of S. Gregory, the auncient Bryttaines receaued the same manner of seruing God, from the blessed Pope and martyr S. Eleutherius, that is in the latin tongue, which appeareth first, because venerable Bede * 1.187 reporteth that there was not any materiall diffe∣rece betwixt S. Austen sent by S. Gregory, and the Bri∣tain Bishoppes, saue only in Baptisme and the ob∣seruation of Easter. Secondly, for that certaine it is, that they had also since S. Austens tyme, the masse in the latin tongue: but to thincke that if they had bene once in possession of the seruice in their owne vulgar language, that they could haue bene brought from that without infinite garboils, espe∣cially the opposition betwixt them, and the En∣glish Saxons, in auncient tyme considered, or that if

any such contention had fallen out, that it could haue bene omitted by the curious pennes of our historiographers, it were greate simplicitie once to surmise. Wherfore what followeth, but that they receiued that custom at their first conuersion which was within lessen then two hundred yeares after Christ: and consequently that by Bels al∣lowance, and the common cōputation of others it is sounde, Catholicke, and Apostolicall, and no•• any rotten ragge of a newe religion, as this ragge master gableth: and that on the contrary, to haue the publique seruice in the vulgar tongue is a newe patch of Protestanisme, fetched from VVit∣tenberge or that mart of Martinists, the holy city of Geneua.

A short admonition concerning Bels eleuen chapters following.

THese chapters I shall soone dispatch, seing they concerne not any weighty points of re∣ligion, but ceremonies, and such like: in which the Chureh hath authority to ordaine, and abro∣gate, to make, or repeale lawes, as shall seeme most meete for the honour of God, and the edifi∣cation of Christian people. For prooffe whereof I could alleage many Protestants, but I will con∣tent my self only with one, whose authority the minister will not refuse being a deere frend of his owne, the first letters of his name are Thomas Bell, who in a booke sett out not long since

against the Puritanicall presbitery, called by him The regiment of the Church, disputeth earnestly for * 1.188 the authority of the Church in thinges indiffe∣rent, namely in his seauenth chapter, where he deliuereth these two Aphorismes. The first of things de facto altered in the Church: for prooffe whereof he reckoneth vp sixe particular pointes recorded in scripture yet chaunged by the Church. The first is to receiue the communion in the morning, though Christ did it after supper. The second is, to celebrate it in leauened bread, though Christ did it in vnleauened bread. The third is, that the Apo∣stles receiued the communion sitting, but now it is receiued kneeling. Fourthly, Christ premised wa∣shing of feet, which is nowe omitted. Fiftly, the Apostles commaunded abstinence from bloud, and that which is strangled: and yet the Church hath abrogated that decree. Sixtly, S. Paul prescribed prophesying to be done with bare head, yet small account is made thereof.

The second aphorisme is of thinges not expressed in scri∣ture, and yet decreed by the Church to be obserued and kept: and this he proueth by the dedication of Salomons temple, for seauene daies: and out of * 1.189 the festiuall daies appointed by Mardocheus and the Machabees: and afterward vpon this ground in his eigth chapter he iustifieth diuers things in particular instituted by the Church: as the obser∣uation of festiuall daies, kneeling at the commu∣nion, Surplesses, Tippets, and square capps, the ring in marriage, and such like.

This being so what an old house hath this mi∣nister brought vpon his owne head: neuer did old

Elderton so tickle the Iesuits with gentle iyrks, as Sr. Thomas hath prouided roddes for the runni∣gate of Rascall: for if he inferre against our ceremo∣nyes as he doth, because they were instituted since Christ, though very auncient, that they be rotten ragges of the newe religion: what shall become of their ceremonies, which either be borrowed from vs, or of far later date? what can they be els, but pild patches of Protestanisme, and rusty raggs of the reformed congregation? nay what must their communion booke it self be, neuer heard of in the whole world, till the late daies of king Edward the sixt, and drawen from our Portesse and masse bookes, as the thing it self speaketh, and their Gene∣ua Gospellers often cast in their teeth? Was euer braue Ministers wittes so misledde by I knowe not what night ghoste or colepixen, as to say that in one place with good grace, which in an other turneth him to great shame and disgrace: where is nowe Sr. Thomas, and how beates his pulse? are ceremonies instituted since the tyme of Christ and and his Apostles rotten ragges or no? if not: why is he so hotte on foot, to persecute them so eagerly, and intertaineth them with such homely termes? if they be rotten ragges, as here he saith, how can he defend the English congregation, that ruffleth in such raggs, or himself that disputeth for the au∣thority of the Church in that case, or with what face can he euer looke vpon the Geneua generation of the mocking Martinists? Certainly were he not habituated to chopping of faiths, and chaunging of religion, and that careles contempt had armed him to disgest any disgrace, these newes were able

to bring the panges of death: but he that hath swal∣lowed down mil-stones, wil neuer make bones at such small choking oisters. How his Regiment of the * 1.190 Church, written against Puritanes agreeth with The triall of the newe religion published against Papists, or this with that, be curious points of scrupulosity. Bell careth neither for contradiction, nor con∣science, but only seeketh the glory of God and the aduauncement of that Gospell, which for the ty∣me present, and duringe the same reuelation, he fir∣mely beleueth to be the euerlastinge truth. But to runne ouer some of his chapters a little more in particular.

Bels XVII. Chapter. Of the antiquitie of Popish masse and the partes thereof.

THe minister very profoundly scoffeth both at other parts of the Masse, and also at these fol∣lowing, writing thus. Gregory added the Kyrie eleyson. Telesphorus Gloria in excelsi is Deo. Gelasius the collects. Hie∣ronymus the Epistle and Gospell. The Creed was receiued of the Nicene Councell. Pope Sergius the Agnus Dei: after which he concludeth both of these and others which he there mentioneth, as the Introite, Halle∣luia, the commemoration of the dead, Incense, and the Pax in this manner. This being so, I can not but con∣clude that euery patch and peece of the Romishe Masse is but a rotten ragge of the newe religion So earnest he is to make euery peece of the Masse a rotten ragge, that

he hath also made many parts of their owne Com∣munion booke patches and peeces, and rotten rag∣ges, (to the great exultation of all truly deuoted to the Geneua discipline) in which Kyrie eleison. Gloria in excelsis. The Collectes, Epistle and Gospell, Nice∣ne Crede, and Agnus Dei be founde no lesse then in our Masse bookes. I omitte here how falsely and blasphemously, he concludeth euery peece of the Masse, to be rotten ragges: for are the words of consecratiō, the most essentiall part thereof, which came not from any man, but from the institution of Christ himself, as also the Pater noster, rotten rag∣ges? who durst say it but Sr. Thomas.

And here by the way, the attentiue reader may easily answear a common and friuolous obiection of the Protestāts, that maruaile how we make the Masse the sacrifice of the new testamēt to haue be∣ne ordayned by Christ himself, when as Durandus & others, note at what tyme, and who they were, that composed the parts thereof: when as neither Durandus, nor any other make the essential and very substantiall part of the masse, that is the wordes of consecratiō, to haue come from any other then the sonne of God: but they speake of the accidentall parts thereof, to witt either deuoute prayers, or ceremonies, which we willingly graunt to pro∣ceede from the institution of Christes Church.

The like may be said of the Protestants commu∣nion, which they pretend to deriue not from any other, then Christ himself: and yet many of their praiers & ceremonies which accōpany that actiō, they can not shewe out of Gods word, but must confesse to come from later institution, & can not

finde more auncient authors then be alleaged for ours, the moste of which liued more then a thou∣sand years since, and be glorious Saints in heauen: and therfore what doth Bell, and such like Mini∣sters, that deride the ceremonyes and parts of the Masse, but frump and flout at sacred and venera∣ble antiquity from whom they come, as Sr. Tho∣mas here confesseth: and mocke and mowe at their owne communion booke and partes thereof, being borrowed frō vs, or in what they differ can shewe no greater antiquity then the late daies of Edward the Sixt, at what tyme diuers ministers did ham∣mer them in the forge of their owne inuention.

Bels XVIII. Chapter. Of the profounde mysteries of Popish masse.

IN this chapter the minister maketh himself some pastime for that one ceremony vsed in for∣mer tymes, is now giuen ouer and out of vse: as though the Church hath not that authority as be∣fore out of Bell was proued. The Englishe congre∣gation, allowed by act of Parlamēt in kinge Edwards time the newe communion booke, for sound and agreable to Gods word: & yet was it in the same kings daies, and not long after abrogated, & a newe deuised, not only differēt in ceremonyes, but also in points of more importance. For exāple: in the first cōmunion book, in the supper of the Lord or newe masse, (for that name also they mention) they pray for the dead, saying: VVe commend vnto thy * 1.191

mercy o Lord, all other thy seruants, which are departed hen∣ce * 1.192 from vs, with the signe of fayth, and nowe do rest in the sleepe of peace. Graunt vnto them we beseche the, thy mercy and euerlastinge peace, &c. But this doctrine was straight reformed, and no such thing found in the next. And the minister himself in one Queenes daies chaunged his fayth twice, and would I make no doubt chaunge it twice more, if any newe and pleasing reuelation should blowe in the skye. He and his congregation, that haue made so maine mutations no waies maintainable, may be silent with shame, and not speake of the change of a small ceremony, which both according to vs and himself, is lawfull, and may be done by the Church, as the honour of God, and edifications of others shall require the same.

Bels XIX. Chapter Of kissinge the Popes feete.

THis chapter of his, flingeth at the kissinge of the Popes feete, which yet he confesseth here an Emperour to haue done, nine hundred yeares agoe. Let him answear what I wrote of that poin∣te in the Forerunner, (for in his Funerall he hath not * 1.193 done it, which yet is the pretended answear to that treatise) or for shame commaunde the clapper to silence.

Bels XX. Chapter. Of prayinge vpon Beades.

HEre the minister runneth vpon Rosaries, and praying vpon beades, making the beginning thereof some fiue hundred years agoe, before that tyme he saith the people of God vsed altogether godly boo∣kes of praier. And what praiers I besech him did they vse, that could not reade at all, or doe now amon∣gest them which lacke that skille? of which sort the number is not fewe. This inconuenience with vs is auoided by sayinge of the beades, which none so ignorant but can vse, and so fruitfully spend their tyme. Mary with the Protestants they must vse bookes, that can neuer a letter on the booke, or praye by speciall reuelation. As the Church setteth forth diuers bookes of praiers, for the benefitt of them that can reade: so may she institute the bea∣des, for those that can not. Let him shewe, that the praiers vpon the beades be not good, or that no manner of praier though good may be vsed, which was not in the Apostles tyme (neither of which he will euer be able to shewe) or els all his babling against the beades is not worth a rotten beade. Thomas Sternhold, Robert VVisdom, and such like, haue inuented long since the coming vp of the beades, the harmonious canticles of Geneua psalmes: will he for all that say as he doth of the beades, that the rehearsall of the originall is sufficient confuta∣tion, and call them a rotten ragge of the newe reli∣gion. Veryly I will not deny, but he may do it truly

were it not that their religion indeede is so newe that the ragge as yet can scarse be rotten. The ve∣ry same obiection, which he maketh against the beades, may proceede against the very communio•• book it self, and that far more iustly, seing it is a la•• crabstocke of their owne planting, as before hat•• benesaid. It were better for him to looke vnto hi•• owne fripperie and the cast canions of the congre∣gation, then to meddle with the sacred wardroa•• of the Catholique Church.

Bels XXI. Chapter. Of chaunging the Popes name.

IN this chapter, he doth reuell at the chaunging of the Popes name: which no question is a fun∣damentall point of religion. Yf our Sauiour Chris•• constituting Simon head of the Church chaunged his name, and called him Peter: what inconuenien∣ce * 1.194 or absurdity is it that the Pope assumpted to that dignity, should imitate the same, and make choice of some one of his predecessors names, the∣reby to be stirred vp to follow his vertue and sol∣licitude, in gouerning the Church of Christ. Bell himself did but Apostate from his religion and Priesthood, and he had straight a newe name, M. Thomson for sooth the Queenes pensioner, and yet is he carping and cauillinge at chaunginge of names, vpon far better grounde and reason.

Bels XXII. Chapter. Of the Paschall torche.

THis chapter of his, is directed against the auncient and laudable ceremony of the Pas∣••chall torch, into which vpon Easter eue be inserted fiue hallowed graines of frankincense crosse∣wise, to signify vnto good people, how our Sa∣uiour Christ at that tyme rose from death, with his fiue wounds, and appeared sundry tymes: for representation whereof it is lighted at certaine tymes, and vpon Ascension day at the Gospell, after the Ascension of our Sauiour into heauen is readd, that taper is put forth, and not any more vsed. What is there in this ceremony, that may offend any that loue Christ, and desire to remem∣ber the benefits which he hath bestowed vpon vs? But it was inuented first (saith Bell) by Pope Sozimu••, almost twelue hundred years agoe: what then, the more auncient it be, the more venerable also it is, and therefore little doth it become his ministershippe, so lightly to contemne it, especially himself graunting as hath bene said, that the Church hath power to ordaine ceremonies, and being himself a member of that congregation, which had the first beginninge more then a thou∣sand years after.

Bels XXIII. Chapter. Of the Popish Pax, and mysteries thereof.

IN this chapter, he is out of charity and all pea∣ce, with the ceremony of the Pax, giuen in Mas∣se a little before the sacred communion, both to signify, and also to putte good people in minde that none ought to approache vnto that heauenly banquett but with peace of mind, and charity to∣wards God, and their neighbour: which ceremony as it is holy and good, so haue I heard it much liked of some Protestants. The institution thereof Bell referreth vnto Pope Innocentius the first, who liued according to his owne account in this place, twelue hundred years agoe, and therefore the more to be esteemed. But the principall thing that disgusteth the minister is, for that the Pax is not giuen in a Masse for the dead: the reason whereof as he saith Durandus assigneth, for that * 1.195 the dead are not nowe in the troubles of this world, but rest hence forth in the Lord. At which reason as ridiculous, the ridiculous minister ma∣keth himself much sport. For if the with holdinge of the Pax (quoth he) doth signify their rest in the Lord, then doubtlesse is the Masse idolatricall, which is offered for their purgation. Againe if the soules be in Purgatory and so stand in neede of the Masse, then is their ceremony false and phantasticall, which signifieth them to be at rest.

To this fearfull and horned argument of his I answear, that the Soules in Purgatory, be in mu∣••uall peace and charity one with an other, and without all fear of falling from that happy state, and this signifieth the withoulding of the Pax or kisse of peace in a masse for the dead: yet are they not in rest from those torments, which the iustice of God inflicteth vpon them for their former synnes, and so we pray for their rest in this kinde, and offer vp the sacred hoast for their purgation, and release from those paines. What is now beco∣me of his dilemmaticall argument? the hornes haue missed vs, and be runne into his owne sides. The rest of his chapter is the degorging of his mali∣ce against religio{us} men, not worth the answearing. Some thinge notwithstanding he may heare he∣reafter if God send life and meanes.

Bels XXIIII. Chapter. Of the Popes Bulles.

HEre he talketh of the Popes Buls, which as he saith began to be sealed with leade, in the yeare seauen hundred seauenty two: is not this a waighty point of diuinity meete for such a Rab∣bin as Bell? and what if they had neuer bene so sea∣led with leade at all, but with waxe only. The poore man lacketh matter when he maketh his wittes to worke vpon so meane a subiect.

Bels XXV. Chapter. Of the Popish Agnus Dei.

THE LII. VNTRVTH.

HIs fiue and twentyth chapter talketh much against Agnus Dei, though he confesseth that he can not finde out their originall which is no•• smal maruail: for in his Suruey he promised liuely * 1.196 to discouer, when, where, and by whom, and vpon what oc∣casion, all Popishe errors, heresies, and superstitions, hau•• crept into the Church: and yet in the same booke he intreated of Agnus Dei (from whence he hath bor∣rowed, * 1.197 what here he writeth) but telleth not when, nor by whom, nor vpon what occasion, they crept into the Church: and in this place al∣though he graunteth franckly, that he is ignorante of the first author, yet he affirmeth confidently, that they began of late yeares. The Church of God (quoth he) was aboue a thousand two hundred yeares, without the vse or knowledge of this Agnus Dei. And he noteth the tyme in the margent, of the first beginning thereof, thus. Ann. Dom. 1247. that is in the year of Christ, a thousand two hundred fourty and seauen: and his followers, if any he hath, may securely beleue him, for though he nei∣ther proueth what he saith, and beside confesseth that he readeth not who was the author, yet he assureth all his good people, that they be of no greater antiquity then he affirmeth. Where he had it, or howe he knoweth so much, that

••••ttle importeth, they must captiuate their vn∣••erstandinge, and thinke that he may haue rea∣••••n for what he saith, though none of them can ••••e it.

Thus Bell like an other Pythagoras, may preache •••• his owne disciples, but he must giue vs leaue, to ••••kamin his Ministership, where he founde this ••••octrine which here he deliuereth: Verily ••ood reader no where els, but in his owne ••inge storehouse. A shamelesse vntruth it is, ••nd contrary to the knowledge of his owne con∣cience. For the booke of the Sodality, which ••e quoteth twice in this chapter, not only brin∣••ech very good reason, to shewe that it is passing * 1.198 ••uncient, as instituted in the first springe of Chri∣••tian religion: but also in particular noteth, how Pope Leo the third, about eight hundred yeares ••goe, bestowed an Agnus Dei vpon the Emperour, Charles the great.

The auncient booke also called Ordo Romanus ••he author whereof, that did gather it together, Baronius affirmeth the more constant opinion to * 1.199 ••e, that it was Gelasius the Pope, who liued about ••n eleauen hundred yeares agoe. In this aun∣cient booke, mention is made of Agnus Dei: for speaking of the Octaue of Easter commonly cal∣led Dominica in Albis (that is, the Sunday in whi∣••es, because those whiche were baptised on Easter eue, putte of those white garments, which they receiued at their Baptisme, as S. * 1.200 Augustin noteth) he hath these wordes. In the same Sunday after the whites, that is in the Octaue of Easter, lambes of waxe in the city of Rome are giuen to the

people, by the Archdeacon in the Church after masse and th•• communion. This may serue to reproue the bould l•• centiousnes of the Minister, affirming their begin∣ning to haue bene in the yeare a thousand tw•• hundred fourty and seauen.

THE LIII. VNTRVTH.

PRoceeding forward in his declamation again•• Agnus Dei, he saith. VVith this kinde of paltery stuff (such is the phrase of the paltery minister) th•• world is so bewitched that infinit numbers do ascribe part •• their saluation thereunto: which is an iniurious slaun••∣der, taking it in that sence which I make no doub•• he doth, and the ignorant reader quickly may. Fo•• the more playne explication whereof I say, tha•• our saluation may be ascribed vnto diuers things•• though with great diuersity: Men liuing in thi•• world and subiect to dayly sinning, may be said to saue vs. For this doing (saith S. Paul to Timothy) tho•• shalt both saue thy self, and them that heare the. And I can * 1.201 not perswade my self, that Bell would quarrell with any, that should say that he, or his bookes, •• had saued many. The principall cause of our salua∣tion is our Sauiour Christ, and his merits. Secon∣dary and instrumentall causes are many things as the sacraments, and men that cooperate vnto our saluation: yea other consecrated thinges, as holy Water, Agnus Dei &c. though nothing comparable to Sacraments, may also in a good sence be said to helpe vs to obtaine saluation, by the merits of Christ, for as much as all holy things haue force to

produce supernaturall effects, as namely to chase ••way wicked spirits, and to extinguishe the fiery ••artes of the enemy, which none will deny but ••inder vs from saluation, and be the cause of many •• mans destruction, and so that which doth any ••aies cooperate, to preserue our Soule from the ••enemous infection of the deuil, may be said to ••ett vs forwards in the Way of saluation, and be a ••meanes though very remote, and in the vertue of Christs passion, to bring vs to heauen.

Albeit this doctrine thus expounded be sounde, ••nd nothing preiudiciall to our redemption, wrought by Christ: yet in that sence which Bell meaneth it, and it is commonly taken of good peo∣ple, I say it is most false, that infinite numbers ascri∣••be their saluation or any part thereof to Agnus Dei: and the reason is, for that when we speake of sal∣uation, all generally vnderstand the principall cause, and first fountayne thereof, which is God himself, and the moste pretious merits of his holy life, and bitter passion, and not his sacraments, much lesse Sacramentales, and least of all such oc∣casionall meanes, as often tymes notwithstanding diuine prouidence vseth for the conuersion of ma∣ny. An other reason is, for that the Sacraments, the conduits of diuine grace, and all holy things, or what els soeuer, that any waies concurre to the good of our soule and saluation thereof, re∣ceiue their force and worke not any thinge, but in the merits of that most innocent lambe, which taketh away the synnes of the world: and so whatsoeuer herein is attributed either to sacra∣ments, or men holy things, or what els you

will, redoundeth to the honour & glory of Chr•••••• from the infinite treasure of whose grace and m••••∣rites all spirituall benefits, greater or lesser 〈◊〉〈◊〉 proceede and come. Lastly, for that thousan•••• there be, that neuer sawe, nor perhaps euer hea•••• of Agnus Dei, and yet notwithstandinge, be sau•••• very well: which sheweth that when we speak of saluation, our intention and vnderstanding runneth to the principall cause thereof Christ Ies•••• himself, and not to the sacraments though with out some of them none can be saued, much lesse 〈◊〉〈◊〉 such hallowed things, as Agnus Dei, without whic•• any may be saued.

THE LIIII. VNTRVTH.

AN other thinge that disliketh him abou•• Agnus Dei, he deliuereth in these words. He th•••• hath an Agnus Dei about him must beleue as he is taught 〈◊〉〈◊〉 our Iesuits, that he shall be deliuered by sea and by land from all tempests, thunder, earthquakes, from haile, thunde•• boultes suddaine death and from all euill. For the iustifica∣tion whereof, he referreth vs to the former booke of the Sodality of the Blessed Virgin. He slaunde∣reth the Iesuits most egregiously: they haue no•• such thing of beleuing the effectes he speaketh, of nay they insinuate sufficiently that these effectes be not infallible, when they write thus, in the same place. VVherefore not seldom wonderfull effectes, not without diuine miracle doe followe: and againe. For as * 1.202 much therefore as experience doth passinge often teache vs, that these things are graunted of God, these Agnus

Dei are not rashely to be reiected, but to be carried about vs with great deuotion. In which words they signify, that diuers tymes they haue not any such effect, and consequently they do not teache, that men must beleue as he faith that such effectes shall fol∣lowe. And the reason heareof may be giuen, for that such hallowed things, haue not any such for∣ce, by the expresse couenante or institution of God, as the Sacraments haue, and therefore worke not infallibly, but the vertue in them pro∣cedeth from the praiers of the Church, and deuo∣tiou of those that vse them: Beside this it is not alwaies haply couuenient that we should be deli∣uered from such crosses and afflictions. Howbeit Gods name be blessed, who in these tymes when such miscreants as he speake their pleasure both against other holy things, and also Agnus Dei, he hath vouchsafed to worke many straunge and miraculous effectes, and that in our owne countrey as I could in particular relate, might I doe it as securely, as I may most truly.

Bels XXVI. Chapter. Of Candlemas daye.

THE LV. VNTRVTH.

THis chapter is bestowed against the ceremo∣ny of bearing candles, in the feast of our Blessed Ladies Purification. His words be these. The old Pagane Romans in the Calends of February, vsed to honour Februa the mother of Mars,

whom they supposed to be the God of battaile: the honour they did exhibit vnto her, was this, they went vp and downe the streets with candles and torches burning in their hands: in regard hereof, that the Christian Romans should not be inferiour to the Pagane Romans in heathenishe superstition Pope Sergius decreed, that vpon the day of the Purification of the blessed Virgin, being the second of February, they should goe in procession with burning candles in their hands, thereby signifying the blessed virgin to be pure and free from synne. For proffe of this, he quoteth Durandus in the margent, whom notoriously he abuseth as also Pope Sergius. For Durandus is so far from saying * 1.203 that this was done, that the Christian Romans should not be inferiour to the Pagan Romans in heathenishe superstition, as Bell writeth, that he affirmeth Pope Sergius to haue chaunged that Pa∣ganicall fashion in melius, into a better thinge: signi∣fyinge playnely, that this ceremony was instituted for the abolishinge of that heathenishe custome which is a thing so far from iuste reprehension, that on the contrary it is most highely to be com∣mended, as a most religious pollicy, tending to the distruction of superstition, and encrease of piety and deuotion. Neither doth Durandus make this the only cause of that ceremonie, for the reckoneth vp six in all whereof this is the second in order.

Bels XXVII. Chapter. Of the doubtfull oath which Popish Bishoppes make to the Pope.

IN this chapter he complayneth, that whereas Bishoppes had free accesse to Councels to

speake the truth out of the scripture in former * 1.204 tymes, Gregory the ninth ordayned, that none should haue voices in Councels, but such as sware obedience to the Pope, and promised with an oath to defend his Canon lawe: adding that the expresse words of the oath the Reader may finde in the Downesall of Poperie: but he should withall haue added also here that the forme of that oath is iustifyed against his cauils, by one S. R. * 1.205 in his learned answear to that booke of his, where he sheweth that the like oath was made to Grego∣ry the great. Bell not hauing yet deuised with himself what to say in his owne defence, dissem∣bleth the answear, though in an other place of his pamphlett he confesseth to haue seene S. R. his * 1.206 booke, and so he is freshe vp with this oath, as though it had neuer bene answeared, or he had neuer spoken of it before, when as he had it also * 1.207 vp in his Motiues: and in his next worke not vn∣likely but we may heare newes of it againe; such is his grace in writinge, and the great choise he hath of abundant matter.

Here I am to admonishe the good reader of newes, which I receiued lately, and that is after I had written thus much, Bels reply called The Iesuits Antepast came piping hoat to mine hands, from the pallace of his kitching, in defence of his Douwnesall against the answear of S. R. and therefor making no doubt but that he had at least attemp∣ted, to batter in pieces all that S. R. had said in de∣fence of that oath, and so spoiled also the grace of that which I had brought out of him, I thought good to take a taste: wherevpon I fell abord with his Antepast, opened the dishes, and found there

a miserable poore pittance, all the fatte through the cookes negligence being fallen into the fire: for S. R. disputeth for the lawefulnes thereof * 1.208 in this manner. As for the oaths of Bishops made to the the Pope, the lawfulnes thereof appeareth, be∣cause it is made with all Catholique Princes consent, and meant only in iust and lawfull things which are according to Gods lawe, and holy Canons, and it hath bene vsed aboue a thousand yeares agoe, as is euident by the like oath made by a Bishoppe vnto S. Gregory the great: and S. Bonifa∣cius * 1.209 the Apostle of Germany and worthyest man that euer England bredde, did sweare when he was consecra∣ted Bishoppe, to concurre with the Pope and com∣modities of his Church, in which words is con∣tayned that which I said in defence thereof. To all which this kitchin minister saith not one wor∣de, and yet in great brauery he writeth thus. Say on good frier, thou shalt be heard with all fauour. To * 1.210 imitate his vaine, may I not rather say, it is not so Sir Lyer, thou hast curtald a way the begin∣ning of his answeare of good moment, and very sufficient for the iustification of that oath in generall: is this to be heard with fauour? not so, but it is with coosenage to abuse the good reader, which carryeth with it a stinking sauour.

The rest of that which he iangleth about the oath, I leaue to S. R. yet this will I briefly say, that for as much I haue here readd, his answear stādeth sound without the losse of any one droppe of bloud, notwithstāding the terrible Cānon shott of Bels Antepast. And the principall of that which he mustereth together, for the refelling thereof,

is contayned in this his Triall (about which I nowe labour) in the eight chapter, where he intreateth of the Popes fayth. Let that be perused which I ha∣ue said before in the examination of that chapter, and it will sone appeare that it is not the buckler of his Antepast, that can defend our newe cooke from the wounding of his old carcas.

Thus much of his eleauen chapters. Here for a conclusion, I must adde a word or two. The first is, that how truly or falsely he hath alleadged authors I knowe not, hauing perused the places of fewe, because the subiect was not waighty, but only of ceremonies or matters of small moment. The second is, which I noted also before, that grauntinge authority to the Church to ordaine ceremonies, he goeth against his owne doctrine, in calling them rotten ragges of a newe religion, & teacheth others how to entertayne those cere∣monies which either they haue borrowed from vs, or els brought forth by a later generation. The last is, that where as he confesseth many of our ceremonies to be very auncient, as the Introit of the masse, which was instituted as he saith by Ce∣lestine: the Pax brought in by Innocentius: and the Paschall torch ordained by Sozimus: (all which Popes liued about some twelue hundred years agoe) with what face or grace, can he speake so scornfully of them, calling them rotten ragges, when as dis∣putinge against the Puritanicall fraternity, in de∣fence of English ceremonies in his booke called The Regiment of the Church, antiquity is vrged, the practise of the Church inculcated, & with all his learning he laboureth to procure credit to their

ceremoniall lawes institutions, as is euident out of all that treatise.

And to speake som what in particular, To proue the vse of the Surplesse or albe, he alleadgeth a * 1.211 Canon of the fourth Councell of Carthage which he doth highly extol in this manner. At this Councel * 1.212 (quoth he) were present two hundred and fourtene Bishop∣pes, of which S. Augustin was one, and yet all those holy men, liuing in those dayes when no corruption of religion had crept into the Church, affirme constantly, &c. Behould good reader ther chaūgable conditiō of this Chame∣leon: The Albe or Surplesse is a commendable ce∣remony, and reuerent rite, because it was allowed in the tyme of S. Augustin, when no corruption had crept into the Churche: but the Introite in the masse: the Pax: the Paschall torche, instituted by those Popes in S. Augustinus tyme, are rotten ragges, and intreated in all scornfull manner, though no other difference can be founde but only the mi∣nisters pleasure, hauinge one doctrine and other principles to followe, when he disputeth against vs, and an other, when he argueth against the * 1.213 Puritanes, whom he calleth. Cursed broodes, vntimely hatched, detested of God, and irksome to the world. God open the eies of good people, to take heede howe they followe the ianglinge of such a Bell, that can clincke what religion youe thinke, and committe their soules to the direction of suche a mutable minister.

I omitte here, howe before he would haue the Church straight after S. Iohns tyme to haue bene * 1.214 infected with errors, because that serued him well against vs in that place: here the Church was in

S. Augustins tyme, cleare from all corruption in do∣ctrine, which was three hundred yeares after be∣cause it standeth him here in great stead against the Puritanes: for it were an infinite labour to pursue him in all his trickes, quirckes corruptions, contrarieties, and absurdities, himself saying that in one place, which he vnsaith in an other: pro∣uinge that here, which els where he disproueth: sailing with that winde which bloweth, and ma∣king his commoditie of that which may help the present necessity. Such be the conditions of the reformed minister trusty Sir Thomas.

Bels XXVIII. Chapter. Of the Popish fast of fourtie daies commonly called lent.

THE LVI. VNTRVTH.

Many mad gambols doth the minister fetch in this chapter, and among others he will nedes proue, that the lenton fast is hurtfull both to the soule and body, and disputeth out of Hippocrates, like a pretty pettisogger in Physike, to shewe that it is hurtfull to our health. This albeit I dot not doubt but it is a notorious vntruth, yet because it is not my profession to argue of any such subiect, I leaue him to the mercy of the Phisitians, who I thinke vpon the feeling of his pulse, are like ynough for the curing of such an extrauagant conceipt, to condemne him to Hyppocrates bands.

omittinge this, lett vs see what followeth. The fast of the auncient Churche (quoth he) was free, volun∣tary, and not commanded by any lawe. An vntruth: for it was a tradition of the Apostles to fast in Lent, •• so not free. VVe (saith S. Hierom) in the whole yea•• * 1.215 do faste one Lent according to the tradition of the Apostle S. Leo calleth it also the institution of the Apostle to faste fourty daies: and S. Augustin thus exhor∣teth his auditors in the beginning of Lent. beseech youe moste deerly beloued brethren, that in this most conuenient and holy time, exceptinge the Sundaies none presume to dine, vnlesse haply such a one, as sicknes doth no permitt to fast, because to fast on other daies is a remedy or reward, not to fast in Lent is sinne. Iohn Caluin speaking of the Primatiue Church saith, that the superstitiou•• obseruation of Lent had preuailed euery where. And the Lutherane Centurists reproue S. Augustin, for speaking in commendation of the Lenton fast: & in the same place, they write of him in this man∣ner. And verylie in the third chapter of his thirtith booke against Faustus the Manichee, he doth expressely say that throughout the world Lent is kept in the Catholique Church euery where with great diligence.

Lastly was not Aerius scored vp by S. Epiphamis * 1.216 and S. Augustin for an heretique, because he denyed the solemne and appointed fastes of the Church, And yet decree the Apostles what they will, about these Lent fasts, let S. Augustin call it a synne not to fast in Lent: Let Caluin and the Lutherans assure vs of the obseruation of Lent in the Primitiue Church: To conclude let S. Augustin and Epiphanius condemne Aerius of heresy, for maintaining free∣dom and liberty of fastinge: yet will Bell defend that

was free, voluntary, and not commanded by any lawe: how truly I say no more, but report me to that which hath bene said.

That which he bringeth concerning S. Spiridion his eating of fleshe in lent, all circūstances conside∣red hurteth not vs, but maketh against himself: for we deny not, but that in some cases fleshe may be eaten without violation of that fast. But that holy Spiridion did most strictly obserue it, and that it was also the common custom of the Church, is gathe∣red out of the same story, which doth condemne the licentiousnes of our fleshly Gospellers.

Bels XXIX. Chapter. Of the annulling of Popish wedlocke.

THE LVII. VNTRVTH.

VVHatsoeuer saith Bell the Bishop of Ro∣me houldeth and defineth, that must euery Papist hould, beleue, and mayntaine, as an ar∣ticle of his fayth. Though generally all Catholi∣ques do hould the Popes definitions to be infalli∣ble, and the contrarie opinion to be erroneous, yet is it not an article of fayth, whatfolloweth? what but that Bell hath abused the goode Reader with in vntruth. See before pag. 84. 85.

Bels XXX. Chapter. Of the Popes pretended superioritie, ouer and aboue a generall Councell.

THE LVIII. VNTRVTH.

BEll beginninge with false asseueration, to tel vs of the late opinion of the Popes superiorit•• ouer a generall Councell, interlaceth also an other shamelesse vntruth against the Remists. The Rhe∣mists (qhoth he) that Iesuited broode, tell vs plainely if will beleue them, that there is no necessity of a generall •• prouinciall Councell, saue only for the better contentation of the people. Thus he chargeth them yet not nothing any particular place: but I will helpe him: it is in their annotations vpon the Acts, where they write thus. Yf againe it be demaunded what nede is there to ex∣pect * 1.217 the Councels determination, if the Popes or See Apost di∣kes indgement be infallible, and haue the assistance of God al∣so as the Catholiques affirme? we answeare that sor the ca∣tholike and peacable obedient children of the Church, it is a comfort to haue such various meanes of determination, triall, and declaration of the truth: and that it is necessary for thē re∣couery of heretiques, and for the contentation of the weake, who not alwaies giuing ouer to one mans determination, yet will either yeld to the iudgement of all the learned men and Bishoppes of all nations, or els remayne desperate and con∣demned before God and man for euer. And as I said before, this assistance of the holy Ghost promised to Peters See pre∣supposeth humane meanes of searching out the truth, which

the Pope alwaies hath vsed, and will, and must vse in matters •••• great importance by calling Councels, euen as here you see ••••eter and Paul themselues, and all the Apostles though in∣••••••d with the holy Ghost, yet thought it notwithstanding ne∣••••sary, for further triall and clearinge of truth, and main∣tainance of vnity, to keepe a Councell.

Let these words of the Rhemists, be compared with those of Bels, where he maketh them to say, that there is no necessitye of a generall or prouin∣tiall Councell, saue only for the better contenta∣tion of the people, and I leaue it to any whether he hath not iniuriously slaundered them: yea this ve∣ry note of theirs in the margent. Though the See Apo∣stolike it selfe haue the same assistance, yet are Councels also necessary for many causes, doth proclaime them inno∣cent from his false imputation: they acknowledge the necessity of Councels for many causes: he affir∣meth them to teach no other necessity of them, saue only for the better contentation of the people.

This vntruth the minister had sert abroach once afore, in his Downefall, and quoteth the place * 1.218 very orderly in this manner: Rhems: test: in act. 15. but being taken vp for halting by S. R. in his an∣swear, * 1.219 and yet not willinge to giue ouer his slaun∣deringe of Catholique writers, he hath here brought vs the same vntruth to lightagaine, but without any note where this place might be founde, hoping that by this newe kind of brandi∣shing, it might passe with credit to the Gospell, and not be so subiect to the controlment of the most of his aduersaryes.

Here I must admonishe the good reader as

before, that after this was written, and shortly to goe to the presse, I was grieted with Bels newe Antepast, wherevpon turning to see what he said in his owne defence for charginge the Rhemists 〈◊〉〈◊〉 falsely, I found him to behaue himself in such pha••∣tasticall * 1.220 fashion, that his friends can not but ashamed of their Minister. Bell (quoth Bell himself•• chargeth you and your Rhemists truly: Thus he standet•• to his former assertion, but marke for Gods lou•• how effectually he doth proue it. It followeth. A•• your religious frier (quoth he) Alphonsus de Castro shall b•• the vmpier in this mystery: and he citeth straight waie•• * 1.221 after, these words of his, That the Pope alone withou•• the assembly of a Councell may erre in things pertayning t•• fayth, many diuines of good authority doe affirme, yea it i•• sound that som Popes haue erred in sayth: Again if the autho∣rity of the Pope alone were as great as the whole Counce•• fully and lawfully assembled, in vaine were so great labour ta∣ken for the gathering together of a Councell. What can Bell fetch from hence, to iustify his iniurious char∣ge of the Rhemists. Alphonsus is one of those diuines that thinke the infallibility of iudgement to be in•• Councell and not in the Pope alone, as before wa•• * 1.222 handled: and he bringeth this reason, because otherwise (quoth he) in vaine it were with so great la∣bour to assemble so many Bishoppes together

This informeth vs very well, what Alphons•••• his opinion was, but where doth he say that the Rhemists teach, that the determination of a gene∣rall Councell is nedelesse, saue only for the better contentation of the people, because the Popes iudgment is infallible: he speaketh not one word of the Rhemists, that they should be of the same

opinion, and no maruail, for he could not, being dead many a faire day, before the Rhems testa∣ment was published. what can the reader here thinke, pondering the matter attentiuely, but that Bell is giuen vp into a reprobat sence, when with broade face he would defend one••ly with an other. I hope the indifferent reader though other∣wise affected to him, must in so apparant an vn∣truth either sentence him to haue offended of mere malice, or els in his excuse pleade the weakenes of his braine the cause of such crazed conceipts, of which the first can not but condemne him: and the seconde, yf him selfe or his friendes will confesse it, freeth vs from further labour of answearing.

THE LVIII. VNTRVTH.

THe minister maintayneth, that the opinion of the Popes superiority ouer a Councell is an vpstart faith and doctrine, neuer knowen to the Church for the space of one one thousand fower hundred and fiftene yeares after Christ, that is to say vntill the generall Councell of Constance: and how doth he proue this? it follo∣weth immediatly in Bell. VVhich Councell defined by a firme and resolute decree as a matter of faith that a generall Councell was aboue the Pope. So the dexteritie: of this minister in disputing. He pretended to proue out of the Councell of Constance that the superiority of the Pope, was neuer knowne tille that tyme: and he proueth the cleane contrary. The Councel defined (quoth he) that a Councell is aboue the Pope. What is this to the superiority of the Pope aboue a Coun∣cell which he vndertoke to iustifie out of the

Councell, and not only that, but also that it was neuer before. verily had Bell that care of his credit, which he ought, neuer would he suffer his discour∣se to passe abroade with such with such absurd and phanta∣sticall connexion.

But not to speake any more of his little grace in formall disputinge, let vs come to the great gifte he hath in bould lyinge. Cardinall Camer acensis (quoth he) Abbas Panormitanus, Nicholaus Cusanus, Adrianus Pa∣pa, Cardinalis Florentinus, Iohannes Gersonus, Ia∣cobus Almainus, Abulensis, and other learned Papists generally, (the Iesuits and their Iesuited crewe excepted) doe all constantly defend as an vndoubted truth, that a gene∣rall Councell is aboue the Pope. In which words for a parting blowe, he clappeth two vntruths toge∣ther. The first is, that the doctrine of the Popes au∣thority aboue a Councell is no older then the Ie∣suits, for that sence his words doe plainly insinuate. The second is, that none teach it but the Iesuits & their Iesuited crewe, as he speaketh, both which shall be conuiuced with one and the self same testi∣monies. Not to speake therefore of many learned men, that either be nowe liuinge, or wrot since the name of Iesuits was of any fame in Christendom, for all these will be turned ouer for birds of that feather: I will name only those which shall hould the ministers nose to the grind-stone. Wherefore to begin. S. Antoninus and Iohannes de Turre cremata, * 1.223 neither of them being Iesuits but both of the order of S. Dominicke, nor yet Iesuited, as liuing before that name was heard of in Christendom, maintayne that the Pope is aboue a generall Councell.

To these learned men, I will adde the testimony

of the Lateran Councell vnder Leo the tenth, which * 1.224 deliuereth the same doctrine in these words. That only the Bishoppe of Rome, as hauing authority ouer all Coun∣cels, hath full right and power to call Councels, to translate them, and to dissolue them, is manifestly certain, not only by the testimony of sacred scripture, the sayings of holy fathers, and other Bishoppes of Rome, but by the confessions of all the same Councels. Neither can Bell except and say, that this Councell was Iesuited where neuer a Iesuite was present: nay when as their Society was not yet begonne. For Bell telleth vs, that they began in the yeare of our Lord, one thousand fiue hundred and * 1.225 fourty, which was many years after the tyme of his Lateran Synode. Diuers other notable authori∣ties might be produced, but these are sufficient for his condemnation. Only one remayneth which I wil adde, more potent then the former, especially in respect of Bell, and that is of himself, who when he saith that this doctrine was not knowen to the Church of God vntill the tyme of the Councell of Constance. graunteth that then it began at least to be taught, and so neither proceeded from Iesuits or Iesuited persons, as being of longer standing by his owne graunte, False also it is, that this doctrine was not knowen to the Church before the tyme of the Councel of Constance. The glorious Martyr, our * 1.226 worthy countrey man S. Bonifacius saith, that the Po∣pe is to iudge all and to be iudged of none, except he be knowen to erre from the faith. S. Gelasius an eleauen hundred yeares agoe is a witnesse of the same truth. Appeales * 1.227 (quoth he) may be made to the Apostolike see, from any part of the world, but none is permitted to appeale from that: and he speaketh not only of appealinge from pri∣uate

Bishops, but also from a Councell, for he ad∣deth after in the same epistle, that the Bishops of Rome haue loosed them, whom Councels haue vn••∣iustly bounde. And before we proued, how Pope Leo irritated, and made of no force, a decree enact * 1.228 in the Councell of Chalcedon, which argueth his s••∣periority ouer the Councell. And so I conclu•• that not only in this pointe, but in so many befor•• mentioned, Bell hath a rare talent in the art o•• ouerlashinge, as I report me to the particulars of this treatise.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Egesip. a∣pud Euse∣bium host. lib. 3. cap. 32.
• * 1.2

  Page 342.
• * 1.3

  Math. 16.
• * 1.4

  Bels epistle dedicato∣rie bor∣rowed frō his suruey pag. 341. 342.
• * 1.5

  Pag 341. 342.
• * 1.6

  Lib. 2. hist. cap. 12.
• * 1.7

  Suruey pag. 172.
• * 1.8

  Lib. 2. hist. cap. 1.
• * 1.9

  Lib. 3. cap. 3.
• * 1.10

  Suruey pag. 172.
• * 1.11

  2. Tim. 2. v. 18.
• * 1.12

  Apoc. 2.
• * 1.13

  Lib. 4. de locu cap. 4.
• * 1.14

  Epist. ad Hierō. 19.
• * 1.15

  In Psal. cont. partē Donati.
• * 1.16

  Lib. 1. de Baptismo cap. 18.
• * 1.17

  Epist. 118.
• * 1.18

  Cōt. Cres∣con. lib. 2. cap. 32.
• * 1.19

  Bel borne at Rascal in Yorke∣shire.
• * 1.20

  Act. 16.
• * 1.21

  Act. 16. In Bre∣uiario cap. 22.
• * 1.22

  Lib. 5. c. 10.
• * 1.23

  Epis. ad. Damrsam.
• * 1.24

  In epis. ad Ioa••. 2.
• * 1.25

  Epist. ad Leonem Papam.
• * 1.26

  Epist. ad Lenem ••apam.
• * 1.27

  Pag. 45. 46. &c.
• * 1.28

  Act. 7.
• * 1.29

  Lib. 3. cap. 7.
• * 1.30

  Se the 16. Action.
• * 1.31

  ••pist. 53.
• * 1.32

  Epist. 54.
• * 1.33

  Epist. 55.
• * 1.34

  Act. 3. in fine.
• * 1.35

  Cētur. 4. ••ol. 551.
• * 1.36

  Epist. 71.
• * 1.37

  Centur. 5. col. 949.
• * 1.38

  Psal. 63.
• * 1.39

  Sessi. 16. ••••n. 16.
• * 1.40

  See Bels suruey pag. 231. 235. &c.
• * 1.41

  Can. 6.
• * 1.42

  Epist. ad Michaëlē.
• * 1.43

  Concil. Chalced. Act. 16.
• * 1.44

  These wor∣des are more cle∣re in ••h•• Nicene Councel ••t selfe See a little be∣fore.
• * 1.45

  Act. 16.
• * 1.46

  pag. 145.
• * 1.47

  Lib. 3. cap. 3.
• * 1.48

  Hom. 83. in Math.
• * 1.49

  Motiuos pag. 80.
• * 1.50

  Galat. 2. v. 11.
• * 1.51

  Proaem. com. in Galatas. & epis. 11. ad Aug. inter epi∣stolas Au∣gustini.
• * 1.52

  Epist. 71. ad Quin.
• * 1.53

  Lib. 2. de Baptis. cap. 1.
• * 1.54

  In his F••∣neral. lib. 2. cap. 2.
• * 1.55

  Lib. 5. hist. cap. 15. De pro∣script. in fine.
• * 1.56

  Lib. 3. de vita Con∣stantini. cap. 13. Heres. 53. Heres. 75.
• * 1.57

  Epist. 48. ad Vincē∣••iam.
• * 1.58

  Lib. 1. do Baptism. cap. 18.
• * 1.59

  Act. 15.
• * 1.60

  Lib. 20. Antiq. cap. 7.
• * 1.61

  Math. 10.
• * 1.62

  Lib. 1. ep. 3.
• * 1.63

  Lib. 1. ep. 4.
• * 1.64

  Heres. 42.
• * 1.65

  Epist. 89.
• * 1.66

  ••pist. 87.
• * 1.67

  Epist. 157.
• * 1.68

  Epist. 221.
• * 1.69

  Epist. ad Gallos.
• * 1.70

  Apud Eu∣seb. lib. 3. de vita Constan∣tini. Heres. 69. Epist. do Synodis Arimin. & Seleu∣cien. Lib. 10. hist. cap. 6. Epist. 110. Lib. 1. cap. 8.
• * 1.71

  Can. 4. & 7.
• * 1.72

  Centur 4. col. 747.
• * 1.73

  Lib. 2. de Roman•• pontif. cap. 25.
• * 1.74

  Lib. 6. ep. 31.
• * 1.75

  Ad finem operis cō∣tra here∣ses.
• * 1.76

  Heres. 59.
• * 1.77

  Can. 3.
• * 1.78

  Can. 48.
• * 1.79

  Lib. 1. De∣monstrat. euang. cap. 9.
• * 1.80

  Cētur. 4. col. 303.
• * 1.81

  Pag. 224. and 227.
• * 1.82

  The Dole∣ful knel. pag. 51. and pag. 97. 98.
• * 1.83

  Cent. 4. col. 477.
• * 1.84

  Cent. 4. col. 604. Can. 2.
• * 1.85

  pag. 101. 102.
• * 1.86

  Centur. 8. Cel. 704.
• * 1.87

  Pag. 222.
• * 1.88

  Pag. 222.
• * 1.89

  Lib. 6. cap. 14. Lib. 10. cap. 10.
• * 1.90

  Centur. 4. Col. 1430.
• * 1.91

  Pag. 52. 53. &c.
• * 1.92

  Libro con∣tra wal∣denses. Lib. de he∣resibus. 4. parte Examinis pag. 375.
• * 1.93

  Pag. 55. 56.
• * 1.94

  Verbo Pur∣gatorium. pag. 185.
• * 1.95

  Hom. 69. ad popu∣lum. Praier for the doade commeth from the Apostles.
• * 1.96

  Suruey epi stle Dedi∣catorie.
• * 1.97

  Bel cōtra∣dicteth him solse.
• * 1.98

  Suruey pag. 297 Lib. 2. cap. 2. pag. 3.
• * 1.99

  In 4. dist. 17. quast. 1.
• * 1.100

  Extra de Penitēt & remissio∣nibus.
• * 1.101

  That is of the Ma∣ster of the Sentences. upō whom Scotus doth com∣ment.
• * 1.102

  Suruey pag. 502.
• * 1.103

  Three prety tric∣kes of Bel. The first.
• * 1.104

  The secōd.
• * 1.105

  The third.
• * 1.106

  4. Sē dist. 17. ar. 1. ques. 1.
• * 1.107

  4. Sē 1. dist. 17. quait. 8.
• * 1.108

  Suruey pag. 502.
• * 1.109

  In 4. sent. quest. de consess. ar. 1. pag. 209. Edi∣tionis 1584. apud Bellerum.
• * 1.110

  Cont. L•• the um art. 32.
• * 1.111

  sess. 6. cap. 11.
• * 1.112

  In Enthi rid cap. 22.
• * 1.113

  In his Problem verbo Peccatu•••• veniale. pag. 74.
• * 1.114

  Catholike religion planted in Englaud a thow∣sand yea∣••••s agoe∣
• * 1.115

  The be∣ginninge of the Protestā∣tes reli∣gi••n.
• * 1.116

  Luthera religion. detested of English Prote∣stante••.
• * 1.117

  Pag. 247.
• * 1.118

  Pag. 36. 37. &c.
• * 1.119

  Pag. 47.
• * 1.120

  Lib. 4. de Roman. Pont. cap. 2.
• * 1.121

  Lib. 2. Doctrina. lis fidei cap. 47. & 48. Lib. 2. Summe cap. 109. &c.
• * 1.122

  In psal. contr. partem Donati.
• * 1.123

  In Cate∣na.
• * 1.124

  Epist. ad episc. Are∣latens.
• * 1.125

  Verbo Pri∣matus num. 17.
• * 1.126

  Motiutes pag. 18.
• * 1.127

  Lib. 1. de heres. cap. 4.
• * 1.128

  Math. 10. ••. 8.
• * 1.129

  Math. 25. ••. 34.
• * 1.130

  Ibidem.
• * 1.131

  2. Thessal. 1. v. s. Apocal. 3. v. 4. Cap. 16. v. 15. Suruay pag. 398.
• * 1.132

  Carthag. 3. can. 47.
• * 1.133

  Iudic. 20.
• * 1.134

  Mebr. 13. v. 16.
• * 1.135

  Suruey pag. 400.
• * 1.136

  Hom. 4. de Lazaro. ••irca me∣dium.
• * 1.137

  Epist. 105. ••d sixtā.
• * 1.138

  Institut. cap. 15. §. 2.
• * 1.139

  Can. 18.
• * 1.140

  Art. 5. chap. 60
• * 1.141

  12. quest. 114 art. 3.
• * 1.142

  Lib. 3. de Natura & gratia. cap. 8.
• * 1.143

  Art. 5. cap. 9.
• * 1.144

  Lib. 2. cap. 5. sect. 3.
• * 1.145

  Sess. 6. can. 1.
• * 1.146

  In suo Comm••∣nitori••.
• * 1.147

  Contur. 9. col. 454. 455.
• * 1.148

  B••renga∣rius fa∣ther of the Sa∣cramen∣taries, a periured person. Cent. 9. col. 459.
• * 1.149

  Rroblem. verbo Realis presentia.
• * 1.150

  Centur. 5. 5. col. 517.
• * 1.151

  Contur. 4. col. 975.
• * 1.152

  S••ss. 25.
• * 1.153

  Genes. 48. v. 15. 16.
• * 1.154

  Iud. 7. v. 20. Exod. 14. v. 31. 1. Timoth. v. 21. Act. 15. v. 28.
• * 1.155

  Pag. 318.
• * 1.156

  The me∣rits of ho∣ly men prescnted before God. Psal. 131. 3. Reg. 15.
• * 1.157

  Quest. 149. in Exodi••.
• * 1.158

  Math. 9. v. 2.
• * 1.159

  Problem. verbo In∣tercessio, inuocatio, &c.
• * 1.160

  An. Dom. 1407.
• * 1.161

  Funeral. lib. 1. cap. 4. pag. 4. Suruey pag. 536. pag 57.
• * 1.162

  1. Corint. 11. v. 27.
• * 1.163

  Ioan. 10. v. 30.
• * 1.164

  3. Part. quaest. 80. art. 12. in Cor.
• * 1.165

  Lib. 8. hist. cap. 5. Lib. 13. cap. 7.
• * 1.166

  Serm. 4. de Qua∣••irages.
• * 1.167

  3. par. q. 40. art. 22.
• * 1.168

  3. par. quast. 80. ar. 12.
• * 1.169

  Part. 4. quast. 11. memb. 2. art. 4. num. 3.
• * 1.170

  Hom. 69. ad Pepu∣lum.
• * 1.171

  Can. 5.
• * 1.172

  Lib. 22. de ciuit cap. 8.
• * 1.173

  Problem. verbo Missa priua∣ta.
• * 1.174

  Part. 3. tit. 1. cap. 11. prope finem.
• * 1.175

  Pag. 33. 34. &c. Lib. 2. cap. 7. pag. 226. &c.
• * 1.176

  Part. 3. tit. 1. cap. 11.
• * 1.177

  Lib. 2. cap. 7.
• * 1.178

  Lib. 6. ep. 5.
• * 1.179

  VVhat a∣doratiō of images S. Gregorie disliked.
• * 1.180

  Lib. 7. epis. 5.
• * 1.181

  Lib. 7. epis. 53.
• * 1.182

  In can. Missae lect. 49.
• * 1.183

  Cap. 18.
• * 1.184

  Suruey pag. 477.
• * 1.185

  Lib. 7. ep. 25. cap. 63.
• * 1.186

  Woeful cry pag. 62. Suruey pag. 187.
• * 1.187

  Lib. 2. hist. cap. 2.
• * 1.188

  Imprin∣ted by T. C. &c. anno 1606. In his Re∣giment of the church cap. 7. pag. 53.
• * 1.189

  2. Para∣lip. 7. Hoster cap. 3. & 9. 1. Ma chab. 4.
• * 1.190

  Bels boo∣kes con∣trary one to an other.
• * 1.191

  Fol. 11••.
• * 1.192

  Praier for the dead in the first En∣glishcom∣munion booke.
• * 1.193

  Pag. 43. See also the Dole∣ful knel. pag. 148.
• * 1.194

  Ioan. 1. v. 42. Math. 16. v. 18.
• * 1.195

  Lib. 4. cap. 53.
• * 1.196

  Suruey ••pis. De∣dicat.
• * 1.197

  Suruey pag. 492.
• * 1.198

  Lib. 4. cap. 13.
• * 1.199

  Tomo 8. anno Christi 693.
• * 1.200

  Serm. 110 de tēpore.
• * 1.201

  1. Timoth. 4. v. 16.
• * 1.202

  Lib. 4. cap. 12.
• * 1.203

  Lib. 1. cap. 6.
• * 1.204

  Anno Dō 1229. Decret. Lib. 2. tit. 24. cap. 4.
• * 1.205

  Art. 7. chap. 14.
• * 1.206

  Chap. 9.
• * 1.207

  Pag. 60.
• * 1.208

  Art. 30. chap. 14.
• * 1.209

  Lib. 10. ep. 31. Baron. ann. 723. See cōcil. Tolet an. 11. can. 10.
• * 1.210

  Antepast pag. 147.
• * 1.211

  Can. 14.
• * 1.212

  In his Re∣giment. cap. 8. pag. 82.
• * 1.213

  See his Regimēt in the Preface.
• * 1.214

  Bel cōtra∣dicteth himselfe.
• * 1.215

  Epis. ad Marcel∣lam. Serm. 6. de Qua∣drages. Sabbato post Dom. Quin∣quag. de tempore serm 62. Synne not to fast in Lent. 4. Instit. cap. 12. § 20. Cētur. 5. col. 686.
• * 1.216

  Heres. 75. Heres. 53.
• * 1.217

  Chap. 15. v. 27.
• * 1.218

  Pag. 128.
• * 1.219

  Pag. 418.
• * 1.220

  In his Antepast pag. 158.
• * 1.221

  Alphonsas lib. 1. cap. a. fol. 4. 1.
• * 1.222

  Pag. 84. 85.
• * 1.223

  3. part. ••it. 22. cap. 6. Lib. 2. cap. 93. & 104. Sum∣me eccle∣si••.
• * 1.224

  This Councel was hol∣den in the yeare. 1513. Sess. 11.
• * 1.225

  Suruey pag. 535.
• * 1.226

  Dist. 40. cap. Si Papu••.
• * 1.227

  Epist. ad episcopos Dardani••
• * 1.228

  Pag. 17.