will take the paines to lay open to the Reader the expresse wordes of the Byshop their glorious Martyr Thus doth hee write I will not alter adde or take away one word vpon my saluation to answere it Sed et Graecis ad hunc vsque diem non est creditum Purgatorium esse Legat qui velit Graecorum veterum commentarios et nullum quantum opinor aut quam rarissimum de Purgatorio sermonem inueniet Sed neque Latini simul omnes at sensim huius rei veritatem conceperunt Et Paulo post non absque maxima sancti spiritus dispensatione factum est quod post tot annorum curricula Purgatorij fines et Indulgentiarum vsus ab orthodoxiâ— generatim sit receptus Quamdiu nulla fuerat de Purgatorio cura nemo quaesiuit Indulgentias nam ex illo pendet omnis Indulgentiarum existimatio Si tollas Purgatorium quorsum Indulgentijs opus erit His. N. si nullum fuerit Purgatorium nihil Indigebimus Contemplantes igitur aliquandiu Purgatorium incognitum fuisse deinde quibusdam pedetentim partim ex reuelationibus partim ex Scripturis fuisse creditum atque ita tandem generatim eius fidem ab orthodoxa Ecclesia fuisse receptissimam facillime rationem aliquam Indulgentiarum intelligimus Quum itaque Purgatorium tam sero cognitum ac receptum Ecclesiae fuerit vniversae quis iam de Indulgentijs mirari potest quod in principio nascentis Ecclesiae nullus fuerat earum vsus Caeperunt igitur Indulgentiae postquam ad Purgatorij cruciatus aliquandiu trepidatum erat The Greekes to this day doe not beleeue there is a Purgatorie Read who will the Commentaries of the auncient Greeke Writers and he shall either find very seldome mention of Purgatorie or none at all But neither did the Latine Church conceiue the veritie of this matter all at one time but by litle and litle Neither was it done without the woonderfull dispensation of the Holy Ghost that after so many pluralities of yeares Catholikes both beleeued Purgatorie and receiued the vse of Pardons generally So long as there was no care of Purgatorie no man sought for Pardons for of it dependeth all the estimation that wee haue of Pardons If thou take away Purgatorie to what end shall wee need Pardons For if there be no Purgatorie wee shall neede no Pardons Considering therefore how long Purgatorie was vnknowne then that it was beleeued of some by litle and litle partly by Reuelations and partly by Scriptures and so at the last beleeued generally of the whole Church wee doe easily vnderstand the cause of Pardons Since therefore Purgatorie was so lately knowne and receiued of the Vniuersall Church Who can now admire Pardons that there was no vse of them in the primatiue Church Pardon 's therefore began after the people stood in some feare of Purgatorie These are the wordes of M. Fisher sometime our Byshoppe of Rochester a Popish so supposed glorious Martyr and a man for his great Learning renowned throughout the Christian world who writing against M. Luther in defence of Poperie to which he was woonderfully addicted spared not so say and to plead what possibly he could inuent for the free passage and credite of the same Whose best pleading which hee possibly was able to affoorde the Pope and Poperie doth roundly and clearely turne it vp-side downe I desire the Reader right heartily euen in the bowels of our Lord Iesus to marke attentiuely and then to iudge and giue his censure Christianly betweene the Jesuite and my selfe Which if he shall indeed performe all partialitie set apart hee can not but euidently perceiue my life I gage for the tryall that Poperie is the New Religion He can not but see that the trueth is that which I defend He can not but behold as clearely as the noone day that the Fryer is condemned in his owne conscience and can not tell what to say For first their most Learned Byshoppe and glorious Martyr telleth vs constantly and plainely that the famous Fathers and Writers of the Greeke Church neuer beleeued Purgatorie And who were those Greeke Writers S. Basill for his great skill surnamed the great S. Gregorie Nazianzene for his surpassing knowledge in Diuinitie surnamed Theologus S. Chrysostome for his Learning and Eloquence surnamed the Golden mouth to say nothing of all the rest If these auncient Fathers these Holy men these so learned and so famous Writers with all the rest of the Greeke Church did not beleeue there was a Popish Purgatorie for the space of 1517. yeares for so long after Christ was this Byshoppe lyuing who for all that as we haue seene affirmeth vnawares against himselfe the Pope and Poperie that they beleeued it not in his time What noddies what fooles how voyd of all feeling of all sense of all reason may they iustly be censured Who to the eternall perill of their soules and saluation will needs beleeue such erroneous hereticall and most execrable Doctrine such diabolicall Fayth and plaine Heathenish Religion Secondly that the Latine Church and consequently the Church of Rome did not beleeue the aforenamed Purgatorie for many hundreds of yeares after S. Peters death whose successor the Pope boasteth himselfe to be Thirdly that this Purgatorie was not beleeued of the Latine Church at one and the same time but by litle and litle Fourthly that Purgatorie was beleeued in the latter age by speciall Reuelation of the Holy Ghost Fiftly that Pardons came not vp vntill Purgatorie was found out as which without Purgatorie can haue no vse Sixtly that Purgatorie was a long time vnknowne Seuently that Purgatorie could not be found in the Scriptures of a long time Eightly that it was not wholly found out by the Scriptures but partly by Reuelations Ninthly that Pardons were not heard of or knowne to the primatiue Church Tenthly that then Pardons began when men began to feare the paines of Purgatorie Behold heere gentle Reader what a worthy Fisher was my Popish Lord of Rochester hee hath caught with his Net at one draught tenne goodly Fishes that is to say tenne golden and worthy Lessons for Christian edification Which effect will appeare more euidently before the end of this Chapter B. C. Secondly that the Church of Rome beleeued it not that is Purgatorie for the space of 250. yeares after which time it increased by litle and litle This either hee meaneth is gathered out of the testimonie of Roffensis and that is not true for nothing doth Roffensis speake of 250. yeares or deny that Purgatorie was alwayes beleeued in the Church although hee confesseth that the Doctrine thereof was not so well knowen as now it is which is farre different from this Proposition Purgatorie was not beleeued of the Church of Rome for the space of 250. yeares after Christ. Or else he affirmeth of himselfe that Purgatorie was not beleeued vntill that time and then must I be so bold to tell him that it
quoniam est pars satisfactionis aliter enim Ecclesia deciperet paenitenies Such a Fast he speaketh of the Fastes which Priestes enioyne is sacramentally really and properly satisfactorie The reason is because it is a part of satisfaction for otherwise the Church should deceiue the Penitentes In an other place the same Iosephus Angles hath these expresse wordes Ieiunium quadragesimale eo modo quo ab Ecclesia seruatur nes suit a Christo institutum neque ab eo iussum sed ab hominibus atque ita non est de iure diuino sed humano duntaxat Christus enim nec tempus talis ieiunij nec modum neque cibos instituit Statim enim post Baptismum in desertum secessit et illic ieiunauit Christus nullum diem a ieiunio excepit in illo quadragenario numero Ecclesia vero dies dominicos excipit Christus tunc semel nec pluries commedit neque bibit In Ecclesia vero vna refectio tantum est concessa et in potatione nulla est limitatio Quare cum nec verbo neque facto hoc ieiunium instituerit ab Ecclesia institutum erit The Lent-fast as the Church obserueth it was neither instituted of Christ nor of him commaunded but of men so as it is not stablished by Gods Law but by mans onely for Christ neither instituted the time of such a Fast nor the manner nor the Meates for so soone as he was Baptized he went into the Desart and fasted there Christ excepted no day from fasting in his Fast of Fourtie dayes but the Romish Church excepteth the Sundayes Christ neither eate nor dranke more then once but the Church graunteth Meate once a day and for drinking maketh no restraint Wherefore seeing Christ neither appoynted Lent-fast by word nor by deed it must be ordayned of the Church Where I may not forget to adde that the same Byshoppe Angles telleth vs in an other place that albeit the Apostles ordeyned Lent-fast yet may the Pope free deliuer whom he will from the keeping thereof And he yeeldeth this reason for the same Because forsooth the Pope hath as great Power in the gouernement of the Church as the Apostles had Thus disputeth our Popish Byshop telling vs plainely that Christ did not ordaine Lent-fast which he prooueth by many reasons As also that none are bound to Fast in Lent who haue gotten the Popes Dispensation to free them from it no not if the Apostles appoynted it Thirdly he graunteth freely that the Papistes Fast to satisfie God for their sinnes I therefore must perforce conclude that the Popish Lent-fast is a rotten ragge of the New religion The 29. Chapter of the annulling of Popish Wedlocke B. C. WHatsoeuer sayth Bell the Byshoppe of Rome holdeth and defineth that must euery Papist hold beleeue and maintaine as an Article of his Fayth Though generally all Catholiques doe hold the Popes Definitions to be infallible and the contrarie opinion to be erroneous ye is it not an Article of Fayth T. B. Whosoeuer shall seriously peruse my Tryall this Answere of the Jesuite to the same and this my Reply in defence of my Tryall can not but vnderstand that Poperie is meere foolerie and flatly opposite to the sacred Word of God This in briefe is my Answere First that albeit this Chapter being the 29. of my Tryall arguing against the annulling of Popish Wedlocke conteyne not fully 26. lynes yet is the Jesuite so afrayde with the plentifull matter soundly handled therein yet in briefe manner as he dareth not once touch or name the same for feare of burning him For proofe whereof I wish the indifferent Reader to peruse my Tryall of the New religion Secondly that it is most true that what the Pope defyneth that must euery Papist hold and beleeue as an Article of his Fayth I prooue it by many inuincible reasons Couarrunias a very famous popish Byshop and renowned Canonist hath these expresse wordes Nec me later D. Thomam praeuia maxima deliberatione asserere Rom. Pontificem non posse propria dispensatione continentiae solemne Monactiorum votum tollere Et Paulo Post. oportet tamen primam opinionem defendere ne quae passim fiant euertantur omnino Neither am I ignorant that S. Thomas the popish Angelicall Doctor whose Doctrine sundry Popes haue confirmed affirmeth after great deliberation that the Byshop of Rome can not with his Dispensation take away from Monkes their solemne Vow of Chastitie This notwithstanding we must defend the first opinion least those thinges which are practised euery where be vtterly ouerthrowë The Popish canonized Saint Antoninus and Syluester Prieras some time maister of the Popes sacred Pallace and for his great Learning surnamed Absolutus Theologus tell vs plainely and constantly that whatsoeuer the Pope doth whether we can prooue the same or no◠yet must we beleeue it to be so And which passeth all the rest yea which is woonderfull if not incredible to proceed from a Papistes mouth S. R. that Learned man as our Fryer B. C. tearmeth him hath these expresse wordes in his pretensed Answere to the Downe-fall of Poperie Because Byshoppes must not examine the Doctrine which the Pope deliuereth iudicially out of S. Peters Chaire as supreame Pastor of Gods Churth but onely that wherein he vttereth his owne priuate opinion Aquinas himselfe shall giue the vpshot of this game these are his expresse wordes Christus poterat relaxare ergo et Paulus potuit ergo et Papa potest qui non est minoris potestatis in Ecclesia quam Paulus fuit Christ could pardone therefore Paul could pardone therefore the Pope also can pardone as who is of no lesse or meaner Authoritie in the Church then Paul himselfe was Thirdly that seeing our Fryer graunteth all Papistes generally to hold the Popes Definitions to be infallible and the contrary Opinion to be erroneous he sheweth himselfe to be a very noddie and at a flat non-plus in denying the same to be an Article of Popish fayth I prooue it marke well my wordes by a triple Argument First because the Pope his Cardinals Iesuites and all popish Diuines can not but abound with falsehood deceite coozenage and fraudulent trickes of Legierdemaine if they teach the people to hold and receiue that as true Doctrine which themselues beleeue not to be so Secondly because the Pope his Cardinals Iesuites and all Papistes generally are bound to beleeue euery trueth agreeable to Gods word And consequently that either all Papistes beleeue the Popes Definitions to be infallible and the contrary opinion to be erroneous or else that the same is not a trueth agreeable to Gods word Thirdly that Poperie must perforce be a most miserable dangerous wretched damnable Religion if all Papistes generally hold that for an vndoubted Doctrine which is no part of their Fayth and Religion For all Iesuites and Iesuited Papistes hold that the Church is built vpon Peter
all then hee doth in setting one onely at libertie as it is already prooued by Syluester and Viguerius Secondly Plenarie Pardons are so common at the houre of death as none that either haue friendes or money are or can be destitute thereof which notwithstanding is a more vndiscreet poynt then the other Thirdly the three conditions required for the legitimation of Popish pardoning concurre as sweetly in deliuering all togeather ioyntly as in deliuering one by one seuerally The Popes inordinate affection of lucre is hereby conuinced in that albeit hee can with one onely Pardon set open the gates of Purgatorie and set all the prisoners there at libertie yet will hee not extende that compassion to them but taketh this course with them that they shall appoynt Ptalegata by their last Willes and Testamentes for Masses Diriges and Trentals to be sayd yearely or rather perpetually if their abilitie will extend so farre with which Masses Diriges Trentals his Pardons shal concur so deliuer theÌ„ by policie discretion By reasoÌ„ of which couetously deuised policie we may this day behold in Spaine Rome Italy so many Alters erected so many Churches sumptuously decked so many Priestes richly maintayned especially in S. Gregories Church at Rome for which Masses Diriges Trentals huge summes of money are giuen dayly yearely perpetually not for the Masses formally concedo but yet formally for the Priestes panis and materially for the Masses constanter assero The fourth Conclusion The Pope hath often by his most wicked and execrable Dispensations taken vpon him to dissolue that Matrimonie which is firme stable by Christes owne institution The former part is prooued by the popish learned Canonist and great Diuine Martinus Nauarrus in these expresse wordes Diuiditur MatrimoniuÌ„ ante consummationem per dispensationem Papae iusta de causa sactam Matrimonie is dissolued before Consummation by the Popes Dispensation vpon iust cause graunted Now to prooue that the Pope may this doe Nauarre taketh it for a good ground that the same hath been often practised by the Pope Thus doth he write Quorum opinio adeo obseruatur quod etiam ter vel quater ad petitiones meo consilio antequaÌ„ in vrbem venissem oblatas Paulus 3. et Pius 4. per suas dispensationes dissoluerunt quaedam matrimonia omnino clandestina nondum consummata in remedium animarum alioquin probabiliter periturarum Whose opinion he speaketh of the Canonistes is so obserued that three or foure times before my comming to Rome vpon petitions made by mine aduise Paulus the third and Pius the fourth with their Dispensations dissolued certaine secret Matrimonies not yet consummate for the sauegard of soules which by likelyhood would otherwise haue perished Couarruuias an other very learned and most famous popist Canonist doth confirme the same while he telleth vs constantly that Pope Paulus the fourth and Pope Julius the third dispensed in like maner Now for proofe of the latter viz. that holy Matrimonie before consummation or copulation is firme and perfect and cannot be dissolued by the power of man our Sauiour himselfe teacheth vs when he sayth Quod Deus coniunxit homo non separet That which God hath conioyned let not man put asunder Againe in an other place thus Omnis qui dimittit vxorem suam et alteram ducit maechatur Euery one that putteth away his Wife and marryeth an other committeth adulterie Yea S. Paul sayth plainely That if the Wife depart from her Husband she must either remaine vnmarried or else be reconciled to him againe But our holy Father the Pope in his Decretals doth answere this matter very lustily though nothing clerkely in these words Non enim homo sed Deus separat quos Romanus pontifex qui non puri hominis sed veri Dei vicem gerit in terris ecclesiarum necessitate vel vtilitate pensata non humana sed diuina potius authoritate dissoluit For not man but God doth separate those whom the Byshop of Rome who beareth the person not of pure man but of the true God heere on earth dissolueth not by humane but rather diuine authoritie as the necessitie or vtilitie of the Church requireth The popish Saint and angelicall Doctor Aquinas proceedeth further vttering these expresse wordes Christus poterat relaxare ergo et Paulus potuit ergo et Papa poâ—est qui non est minoris potestatis in Ecclesia quâ—m Paulus suit Christ could pardon or dissolue Matrimonie therefore Paul could pardon therefore the Pope also can pardon as who is of as great authoritie in the Church as Paul himselfe was So then a primo ad vltimum by Aquinas his doctrine the Pope can doe as much as Christ. Hee can no doubt make the deafe to heare the dumbe to speake the lame to walke the blind to see and the dead to rise againe to life But our holy Father must pardon mee if I beleeue not these thinges before I see them done And yet doe these thinges follow by an ineuitable and irrefragable consequence of that Doctrine which the Pope and his angelicall Doctor haue taught vs. The Fift Conclusion The Pope can Dispense with a Monke already professed that he may become a married man Nauarrus that famous popist Canonist is and may be a witnesse sufficient of this popish Theame these are his expresse wordes Papa potest dispensare cum Monacho iam professo vt contrahat matrimoniuÌ„ imo de facto multi Papae dispensarunt The Pope can dispense with a Monke already professed that he may be a married man yea many Popes haue de facto dispensed so indeed Hereof see more at large in the 3. Chapter and the eleuenth Proposition The Sixt Conclusion The Pope can Dispense with the full Brother to marry his owne naturall and full Sister of the same Father the same Mother This may seeme very strange to the Christian reader But I haue prooued it plentifully in the Popes Funerall Pope Martin the fift of that name did Dispense as is already sayd but for the better contentation of the Reader let him ponder seriously the 14. Chapter following Where God willing Pope Martins Dispensation shal be examined to the bottome The Seuenth Conclusion The Pope may doe whatsoeuer pleaseth his Holinesse as whose bare will is a sufficient warrant so to doe The Popes owne deare glose vpon his Decretals telleth vs peremptorily without blushing that this Conclusion is true these are the expresse wordes Quia in his quâ— vult et est pro ratione voluntaâ— For in those thinges which the Pope will doe his will is a reason sufficient And it followeth in the same place Nec est qui eâ— dicat cur ita facis Neither may any say to him Why doest thou so Pope Boniface in his Decrees yeeldeth the reason hereof if wee will beleeue him pleading for himselfe these are his wordes Quia cunctos
Ethnickes Publicanes vntill they giue true signes of vnfeyned repentance But withall this must euer be remembred and most loyalty obserued of all Byshoppes in Christes Church viz. That the Prince though full of manifest vices most notorious crimes in the world may neuer be shunned neither of the people nor yet of the Byshoppes The reason is at hand Because God hath appoynted him to be their Gouernour Much lesse may the people forsake their obedience to his sacred prerogatiue Royall and supereminent Power And least of all for it is most execrable damnable and plaine diabolicall may either the people alone or the Byshoppes alone or both ioyntly togeather depose their vndoubted Soueraigne though a Tyrant Heretique or Apostatate for euen in that case all loyall obedience and faythfull seruice in all ciuill affayres and whatsoeuer else is lawfull must of duetie be yeeled vnto them Hee may be admonished by Gods true Ministers in the pulpit court of Conscience if his vices be publike scandalous to the Church but he may neuer be iudged in the court of their Consistorie touching his power Royall and Princely prerogatiue Their power is onely to admonish and rebuke him and to pray to God to amende what is amisse Hee hath no Iudge that can punish him but the great Iudge of all euen the God of Heauen The popish Cardinall Hugo deliuereth this most Christian doctrine though to the vtter confusion of the Pope Tibi soli quia non est super me alius quam tu qui possit punire ego N. sum Rex et non est aliquis preter te super me To thee onely sayth Cardinall Hugo because there is not any aboue mee but thy selfe alone that hath power to punish mee for I am a King and so besides thee there is none aboue mee And the popish Glosse doth giue this sense meaning of the Prophets words Rex omnibus superior tantum a Deo puniendus est The King is aboue all and he can be punished of none but of God alone But for a larger Discourse of this Subiect I referre the Reader to the Downefall of Poperie Thirdly that no Minister may admit any impenitent Person knowne to be such no not him that weareth the Golden Crowne vnto the Holy mysteries for otherwise that Minister should sinne damnably as partaker of his sinne yea the holy Canons of our English Church doe flatly prohibit the same Fourthly that our Iesuite doth shew himselfe to be a sillie disputer while he argueth the defect of power Royall for that the King in some respect is as it were subiect to the Minister For I pray your worship good sir Fryer doth not your Pope himselfe fall downe prostrate before the feete of a silly Minister or Priest when he confesseth his sinnes vnto him Doth he not humbly submitte himselfe vnto the same sillie Priest Is not the sillie Priestes power aboue the Popes while he absolueth the Pope from his sinnes Is not the sillie Priestes Power aboue the Popes while he inioyneth Penance to the Pope I wote he is though not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and absolutely yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in some respect or sort If any Papist shall this deny I can prooue by his Popish denyall all their Popes to perish euerlastingly B. C. S. Cyprian opposing himselfe against the Pope doth nothing preiudice the Authoritie of the Pope For albeit the Pope commaunded Rebaptization not to be practised yet did he not define the question or pronounce any censure against Cyprian or others of his opinion much lesse was it condemned by a generall Councell with reason S. Augustine bringeth in his defence and so it was free for him without daunger of Heresie to persist in his owne opinion T. B. I answere first that though Cornelius then Byshoppe of Rome togeather with the whole nationall Synode of all the Byshops of Jtaly had made a flatte decree touching Rebaptization and though also Pope Stephanus had confirmed the same Decree straightly commaunding to obserue the same and though thirdly our Papistes of late dayes doe obstinately affirme that their Pope can not erre when he defineth iudicially yet this notwithstanding S. Cyprian teacheth and telleth vs plainely that in his dayes the Byshoppe of Rome had no such Power or preheminent prerogatiues as hee this day proudly and Antichristianly taketh vpon him For hee roundly withstood the Decree of Pope Stephanus who then was Byshoppe of Rome and both sharply reprooued him and contemned his falsely pretended Primacie And for all that S. Cyprian was euer reputed an Holy Byshoppe in his life time and a glorious Martir being dead But if the Byshoppe of Rome had been Christes Vicar and so priuiledged as our Papistes beare the world in hand hee is then doubtlesse S. Cyprian must needes haue been an Heretike and so reputed and esteemed in the Church of God Yea if any Christian shall this day doe or affirme as S. Cyprian did or publikely deny the Popes falsely pretended Primacie in any place countrey territories or dominions where Poperie beareth the sway then without all peraduenture hee must be burnt at a Stake with Fire and Faggot for his paines Of which Subiect the Reader may find a larger Discourse in my Christian Dialogue Secondly that while S. Austen sayth that S. Cyprian would haue yeelded to the Decree of a generall Councell albeit he made no reckoning of the Popes Decree euen ioyned with the nationall Synode of all the Bishoppes of Jtaly hee giueth vs to vnderstande two memorable poyntes of Doctrine which I wish the Reader to obserue attentiuely Th' one that the Definitiue sentence of the Byshoppe of Rome is not infallible although he define ioyntly with an whole nationall Synode And consequently that his Definitiue sentence may much more be false and erroneous when he decreeth and defineth without a Councell For if S. Augustine had been of that minde that the Byshoppe of Rome could not haue erred in his Iudiciall and Definitiue sentence either apart or with a nationall Councell hee neither would nor could haue excused S. Cyprian who scorned and constantly refused to yeeld to the same Yea S. Cyprian himselfe would for his great pietie haue humbly yeelded to the Popes sentence if he had knowne him to haue receiued such a Priuiledge and Prerogatiue from Heauen But neither did the Byshoppe of Rome in those dayes stand vpon any such Prerogatiue of not erring neither did any learned Father of that age euer dreame of any such extraordinarie Priuiledge No no the most that the Byshoppes of Rome could say and alleadge for their falsely pretended Soueraigntie when S. Augustine and the other Fathers of the Aphrican Councell reiected and condemned appeales to Rome was onely this and no other thing viz. that the Fathers of the Nicene Councell had graunted such Priuiledge Primacie to the Church of Rome And therefore did S. Austen both grauely and prudently excuse S. Cyprian for
Suruay and The Tryall I meane out of which our Fryer Jesuite who may seeme to be begotten of some Fayrie Bratte as the Secular popish Priestes write of the Iesuite Robert Parsons the Author of this scurrilous shamelesse impudent and lying Libell would seeme to conclude and finde out against mee a strange Contradiction viz. that in the one Booke I make the seede of Purgatory not to haue been sowen before the yeare 250. And afterward to haue increased till it came to perfection And that this notwithstanding in my other Booke I make the seede sowen before and to haue increased by litle and litle vntill it became ripe and perfect Poperie which was in the yeare 250. And therevpon he inferreth that Purgatorie was sowen and not sowen growen and not growen an Article of Fayth and not an Article of Fayth in one and the same yeare Now to this lusty Gallant a poore begging Fryer by profession though as the Secular Priestes their brethren in Poperie tell them they shame with that occupation as who must haue their Chambers Perfumed Gentlewomen to pull off their Bootes them-selues to trowle vp and downe from good cheare to good cheare at their owne good pleasures I returne this Answere which if nothing else would is able to strike him dead First that hee hath vttered as many Lyes as hee hath done lines His first Lye is this viz. That I say in my Suruay of Poperie that the seed of Purgatorie was sowen before the yeare 250. His second Lye is this viz. That I affirme in my sayd Suruay that Poperie was ripe and perfect in the yeare 250. His third Lye is this viz. That I make Poperie sowen and not sowen in one and the same yeare His fourth Lye is this viz. That I make Purgatorie growen and not growen in one the same yeare His fift Lye is this viz. That I make Poperie an Article of Fayth and not an Article of Fayth in one and the same yeare that is to say in the 250. yeare after Christ. Secondly that albeit hee charge mee with sundry vntruethes and more then a litle please himselfe therewith yet is there no vntrueth at all but those false accusations which proceed from his owne lying lippes No other proofe need be made thereof but the bare recitall of my wordes For doubtles the Jesuite either speaketh against his owne knowledge or else he is so besotted blinded with malice that he can not see Wood for Trees Thirdly that our Fryer sheweth himselfe to be a right Iesuite that is to say a shamelesse and impudent Lyer For the Letters and Figures in the Margent A.D. 250. doe not connotate the wordes following but the wordes immediatly afore-going Which no man of iudgement and reason can for shame denie For first I say plainely that Origen fayned many odde thinges touching Purgatorie Againe I say expressely that after Origen others began to call it into question Where I wish the indifferent Reader to obserue seriously these two poyntes with mee First that Purgatorie could not be ripe and perfect when it began but to be called into question Then that this calling into question was after Origen who was lyuing about 250. yeares after Christ And consequently that the 250. yeares must needes haue relation to the time of Origen and his immediate followers as who all approoued Chronographers testifying the same lyued about that time And this is confirmed because I do not speake of the Byshoppes of Rome barely and absolutely but with a restriction implyed in this word late I in all my Bookes doe euer repute S. Austen S. Chrysostome and others that lyued 400. yeares after Christ not late Writers but old and auncient Fathers which is an euident argument that I applyed my Marginall note to the time of Origen of his immediate followers and not to the late Byshoppes of Rome whom I contend to be men not of the Old but of the late and New Religion So as euery child may see that our Iesuite not able to defend Poperie nor to withstand the trueth and yet vnwilling to yeeld to the trueth and to condemne Poperie in which and by which he liueth in wealth pompe and glorie imployeth himselfe and his wittes with might and maine heaping Lyes vpon Lyes furnished with notorious coozening trickes euery where so to dazell the eyes of his Reader least he behold the trueth and so condemne the rotten Ragges of Poperie for the New Religion He is at a non plus his Backe is at the Wall all his pleading for late start-vp Poperie is fraughted with nothing else but coozening trickes notorious cauils impudent calumnies and false dealing B. C. In the same place he writeth thus Fiftly that the primatiue Church was neuer acquainted with the Popes Pardons nor yet with his counterfeit and forged Purgatorie A notable vntrueth for not to speake of Pardons but of Purgatorie was it not the primatiue Church which beleeued Purgatorie when as himselfe confesseth that it was made an Article of Popish Fayth in the yeare 250. at what time all the Popes were martyred for Christ and in his Funerall he acknowledgeth the first thirtie for godly men saying that both they and diuers others taught the same doctrine which S. Peter had done before them and most certaine that one of these thirtie lyued in the yeare 250. and so I trow they were of the primatiue Church The Minister is full of distinctions his braine a shoppe of solutions hauing many I-sayes for the answere of any Obiection Yet it is to be feared that no deuise will free him from a grosse vntrueth affirming heere that the primatiue Church was not acquainted with Purgatorie and yet teaching in his Suruay that Purgatorie was made an Article of Fayth by the late Popes of Rome in the yeare 250. T. B. I answere first that our Fryer is willing heere as afore to passe ouer in deepe silence the Popes Pardons as a thing not possible to be defended Secondly that our Jesuite seemeth more impudent then Impudencie it selfe as who is not ashamed againe and againe to iterate most grosse palpable and shamelesse Lyes I haue already refuted him plentifully and honestly discharged my selfe of that vntrueth which he would gladly impose vpon mee concerning the making of Purgatorie an Article of Popish Fayth Thirdly that I doe not in any one of all my Bookes impute the inuention of Purgatorie to any one of the first thirtie Byshops of Rome as whom all I honour in mine heart haue euer spoken and written reuerently of them Fourthly that I doe not onely trow but am well assured that our Iesuites trowing is a meere leasing while he auoucheth 250. yeares to be within the compasse of the primatiue Church I prooue it because all Christes Apostles who were the primatiue Church were dead long before that time of which our Fryer speaketh Fiftly that our Fryers feare is a flatte Lye
and so not able to kill a Flie albeit it be more then Crambè bis posita and most irkesome Tantologie or rather plaine and meere foollerie B. C. I let passe how Purgatorie must by his owne confession be Apostolicall doctrine when it was taught by those Popes which he graunteth to haue holden the Fayth of S. Peter as I haue prooued against him in the Dolefull Knell I omit also how falsely and ridiculously he calleth the Popes that liued 1450. yeares agoe the late Popes of Rome Verily it should seeme by his writing that hee litle careth what passeth from his Penne so it be walking against the Pope and Popish doctrine T. B. I answere first that by my confession as also by my euident and plentifull demonstration our Jesuite is a most shamelesse impudent and lying Fryer from whose answere if wee shall once take away his notorious calumnies his miserable cauils his coozening trickes and his deceitfull dealing litle or rather nothing at all will remaine to the Reader Secondly that not onely this Jesuite himselfe if he had not a face of Brasse but all other Iesuites his Jesuited breathren would blush to publish so often and so falsely the same assertions so often confuted and turned vpside downe Thirdly that for want of matter our Fryer doth often referre his Reader to an vnknowen and inuisible Booke of which more hereafter called by him The Dolefull Knell Fourthly that I haue so soundly confuted his false ridiculous Cuckow-song and most irkesome Tantologie concerning the late Byshoppes of Rome as I must needes say hee is maliciously bent against the trueth Fiftly that it is apparent to all the world that our Iesuites will publish any thing though neuer so ridiculously if it may any way but seeme to saue the life of rotten Poperie Peruse and marke well the Chapter aforegoing because popish Purgatorie is the Mother of popish Pardons The Iesuites sixt Chapter of Popish Auricular Confession OF this Subiect albeit I haue disputed sufficiently in my Motiues more at large in my Suruay yet that the Christian reader may the better be assured that Poperie is the New Religion I will in this place summarily prooue the same by such inuincible and irrefragable argumentes as euery Child with all facillitie may perceiue that Popish Auricular Confession is but a rotten Ragge of the New Religion Which being performed the Fryers wordes shall be examined and refuted to his confusion The first Conclusion Whatsoeuer Christ commaunded in the New Testament the same is comprised and conteyned in the Old I prooue it sundry wayes First because S. Paul sayth plainely in one place That he vttered the whole counsaile of God And because withall he sayth as plainely in an other place That hee taught nothing at all saue those thinges onely which the Prophets and Moses did say should come to passe And heere if any admire how S. Paul could shew vnto men all the Counsaile of God Nicolaus Lyranus and Dionysius Carthusianus two Learned and famous Papistes teach vs thus to answere That th'Apostle meaneth not simply of All the Counsaile of God but of All the Counsaile of God so farre foorth as appertayneth to mans saluation Secondly because Christ himselfe telleth the Jewes That if they had beleeued Moses they would also haue beleeued him But for that they would not giue credite to the Writinges of Moses neither would they beleeue his Wordes Which illation of our Lord Iesus should be friuolous and of no force at all if the New testament were not contayned in the old Thirdly because S. Augustine affirmeth constantly that the new Testament is so largely comprised in the Old as no precepts can be found in the New which are wanting in the Old these are his expresse words In eo tanta praedicatio et praenuntiatio noui testamenti est vt nulla in Euangelica atque Apostolica disciplina reperiantur quamuis ardua et diuina praecepta et promissa quâ— illis etiaÌ„ libris veteribus desint In the Old Testament the New is so largely preached and foreshewed that nothing can be found in the discipline or Doctrine of the Gospell and of Th'apostles although they be hard and Diuine Precepts and promises which are wanting in those old Bookes Thus we see out of this holy Father that the New-testament is largely conteyned in the olde The Second Conclusion Popish auricular confession is not conteyned in the olde Testament It is enough for the proofe hereof that no learned Papist euer did doth or can deny the same Yet will I heere adde the expresse wordes of a zealous and learned Papist whose name is Polydorus Ante Christs Aduentum sâ—t â—rat mente fateri Deo Commissa Before the Aduent and comming of Christ it was enough in minde to confesse our sins to God Thus writeth Polydorus and it is the Generall Doctrine of all learned Papists And doubtles the holy Gospell which is the law of Christian liberty doth not impose vpon vs an heauier Yoke then did the olde Law which was the Law of bondage The Third Conclusion All things necessary for Mans saluation are perfectly and plainely conteined in the Holy Scripture This Conclusion I haue plentifully prooued in the Downefall of Poperie But heere I will prooue the same to the admiration of many by the expresse words of a knowen aduersarie euen of the Jesuite S. R. in his pretended answere to the said Downefal First therfore the Jesuite hath these words All such poyntes of Christian fayth as are necessarie to be actually beleeued of euery one that hath vse of reason though he be neuer so simple are actually contained in Scripture either clearely or obscurely Thus writeth our Jesuite affirming the same to be the doctrine of their Cardinall Bellarmine Secondly the Jesuite hath these expresse wordes For surely the Prophets Euangelistes writing their Doctrine for our better remembraunce would omit no one poynt which was necessarie to be actually knowen of euery one especially seeing they haue written many thinges which are not so necessarie And this Conclusion teacheth S. Austine when hee sayth That those thinges are written which seemed sufficient for the saluation of the Faythfull Thus writeth our Iesuite affirming the Doctrine to be the flatte opinion of S. Augustine that holy Father and stout Champion of Christes Church Thirdly the Jesuite hath these expresse wordes Mee thinkes S. Augustine plainely auoucheth that God hath procured euery thing to be clearely written which to know is necessarie to euery mans saluation The same teacheth S. Cyrill saying Not all thinges which our Lord did are written but what the writers deemed sufficient as well for Manners as for Doctrine that by right Fayth and Workes we may attaine to the Kingdome of Heauen And S. Chrysostome What thinges soeuer are necessarie are manifest out of Scripture Thus writeth our Jesuite in his pretensed Answere to the Downefall of Poperie Which Doctrine to
but that was both before it was condemned in the Church as it was since by Pius the fift and Gregorius the thirteenth Loe our Jesuite in the name of all Papistes for all Papistes must so beleeue blusheth not to publish to the World in print in perpetuam rei memoriam that Pope Pius was the Church in his time Pope Gregorie in his time and consequently euery Pope in his time For what he affirmeth of those two in this kind of subiect the same perforce he must approue in all other Popes successiuely So then this is a constant maxime in the Church of Rome that whensoeuer our Papistes say or write That the Church can not erre or The Church hath thus and thus defined they euer meane of the Pope and Church of Rome I therefore cannot but conclude with this ineuitable illation viz. that in true Popish sense and meaning the Pope is the onely Iudge in all controuersies of Religion B. C. That their Popes sayth Bell can not erre in Fayth iudicially is this day with Papistes an Article of their Fayth An vntrueth I say it is for though the more common and better opinion be That the Pope in his iudiciall and definitiue sentence can not erre in Fayth yet false it is that this is an Article of Fayth when as many Diuines both haue and doe hold the contrarie T. B. I answere first that I willingly acknowledge one trueth here vnawares vttered by our Iesuite viz. that there is great dissention amongest the Popish Doctors concerning matters of Fayth and Doctrine Of which dissention I haue discoursed at large in my Motiues Secondly that the best opinion in the Romish Church doth not make an Article of Romish Fayth Thirdly that he might be deemed a right wise man that could soundly discouer the Articles of Popish fayth For the Fryer heere telleth vs lustily that which is the common and better opinion euen the opinion of the Pope himselfe for his doubtlesse is the best prooueth not an Article of Popish fayth Fourthly that our Jesuite doth heere giue vs a generall rule how to discerne the Articles of Popish fayth For thus disputeth our Learned Fryer Although it be the more common and better opinion yet seeing many Diuines hold the contrarie it can not be an Article of Popish fayth This is a golden and most excellent Rule in deed for which I thanke our Jesuite with all my heart For no stronger reasons and proofes can be had in controuersies then the plaine confession of the aduerse part Hence are fitly deduced sundry golden and very memorable Corollaries The first whereof is this viz. that the Papistes this day haue either very few or flat none at all Articles of their Fayth The second Corollarie is this viz. that it is not against Popish fayth to beleeue and defend that the Pope may erre Iudicially that Christes naturall body is not in the holy Eucharist really that the Marriage of Priests is lawfull that the Pope is a Tyrant and Heretique a Firebrand of all mischiefe that a great number of zealous and faythfull Martirs of Iesus Christ were burnt in Queene Maries daies by force of the Popes tyrannicall Law who for all that held no Article against Popish fayth Out vpon late hatched Poperie Euerie child may see that it is the New religion The Jesuite with the helpe of his best Learned breathren for to defende Poperie froÌ„ the note suspition of the New religion the most Learned Iesuites put to their helping hands gaue their best aduise is not able in truth to say any thing for the antiquitie of the same How be it rather theÌ„ his proud heart shall yeeld to the trueth retract his former ignorance malice he wholly consecrates himselfe to very childish shiftes and most foolish ridiculous cauils B. C. Hee runneth vpon the Doctrine taught by Soto and generally holden of Catholikes viz. that the Pope can not erre in Fayth and confidently auoucheth that it was neuer heard of till of late dayes his wordes be these This onely will I say that this Popist Article the Pope can not erre in Fayth was neuer heard of in Christes Church for the space of a thousand and fiue hundred yeares A gallant vntrueth worthy of the reformed Minister Thomas Waldensis was long before that time as also Turrecremata who both hold that the Pope can not erre in Fayth And not onely late Writers but the auncient Fathers haue taught the same Doctrine relying them selues vpon the Promise of Christ in the Ghospell The wordes of Soto prooue very well that the Pope as Pope can not erre which the most and best Diuines doe also maintaine But no word hath he or syllable that this is an Article of Fayth which was the poynt that Bell should haue prooued and for which he pretended to cite his wordes T. B. I answere first that one Popish trueth here vnawares confessed by our Fryer Jesuite doth comfort my heart more then a litle viz. that the Pope as Pope can not erre For albeit it be most absurd and false in rei veritato as I haue plentifully prooued in my Christian Dialogue yet is it a Popish trueth or a flat lye which is the same and turneth Poperie vpside downe Secondly that though the Pope with his most and best Diuines doe hold that the Pope as Pope can not erre yet is it not an Article of Popish Fayth This Confession I likewise approoue and out of this double Graunt I inferre a double Corollarie corollary 1 First that seeing it is no Article of Popish Fayth to beleeue that the Pope can not erre a shame of all shames it is to the Pope and his deuoted Vassals to hold affirme and beleeue that the Councels can not erre which the Pope confirmeth nor those Councels decree a trueth which he reiecteth and condemneth For most absurde and execrable it is to burne with Fire and Faggot zealous Men and zealous Women because forsooth they will not beleeue that which the Pope himselfe doth not beleeue O tempora O mores The Pope himselfe doth not beleeue that hee can not erre as this sweete Doctrine of our sweete Sir Fryer teacheth vs. And yet must all be burnt with Fire and Fagot that say hee may erre in decreeing matters of Fayth corollary 2 Secondly that all the late Popes and Papistes are flat Heretiques The reason is euident because they beleeue not Christes promise made to Peter and the Byshops of Rome his successors as both the Pope and all his deuoted Vassals do beleeue For which respect the Fryer in this very place telleth vs peremptorily and blusheth neuer a whit thereat that not onely Walâ—ensis and Cardinall Turrecremata but Late Writers and the auncient Fathers also haue taught the same Doctrine For which respect the Iesuites and all Iesuited Papistes haue euer in their mouthes and continually obiect as an argument vnanswerable that
Christ prayed for the Fayth of S. Peter and his successours that it should neuer fayle that Hel-gates should neuer preuaile against it Yet heere God be thanked for it their pride is somewhat abated Christ is now either distrusted of them which they dare not say or at least suspected not to haue promised to the Byshops of Rome that their Fayth should not fayle For if they beleeue not that Christ is faythfull in all his Promises they are flat Heretiques If they beleeue him to performe what hee hath promised then it must perforce either be with them an Article of popish Fayth that the Pope as Pope can not erre or else doubtlesse that Christ made no such Promise to the Byshops of Rome Vtrum â—orum manis accipe good sir Fryer for the better of them is able to giue the Pope his dinner For which respect S. R. that learned Iesuite as his deare brother B. C. calleth him telleth vs roundly that false Fayth can haue no accesse to S. Peters Chaire For which respect the same Jesuite telleth vs in an other place That wee must obey what hee decreeth or defineth iudicially as sitting in S. Peters Chaire though in heart he were an Heretique For which respect the same Iesuite telleth vs in his wordes following That Byshops must not examine the Doctrine which the Pope deliuereth iudicially out of S. Peters Chaire as supreame Pastor of Gods Church but onely that wherein he vttereth his owne priuate opinion Thus writeth S. R. that great Learned Jesuite truly telling vs the Popish Fayth Which Doctrine if any but a Papist had deliuered it few or none would haue giuen credite thereunto O sweete Iesus I woonder how any Papist hearing such Doctrine published in print by the Jesuites so deare and so neare to the Pope himselfe and duely pondering the vanitie thereof and the blasphemie therein conteyned can still be a Papist and not defie the Pope and his damnable Doctrine What shall we doe with the holy Scripture Is it the infallible rule of Fayth Is it superiour to the Popes Iudiciall sentence Must the Papistes depend vpon it rather then vpon the Popes Decree No no if the Pope define against it his Decree must be obeyed neither may any Byshop as our Fryer heere teacheth vs much lesse may euery Priuate man examine the same or once call it into question Of which more at large when I come to the Oath which Byshops make to the Pope Thirdly that when I say this Popish Article of Fayth was neuer heard of in the Church for the space of a thousand and fiue hundred yeares I meane not of bare vocall hearing but of hearing with approbation of which hearing this Text of the holy Ghospell is emphaticall Scimus quia peccatores Deus non audit Wee know that God heareth not sinners that is Approoueth not sinners in graunting their requestes For God knoweth seeth and heareth all Petitions vocally but theirs onely with approbation Which aske according to his will The Psalmograph vseth the like phrase in these wordes They shall cry but there shall be none to helpe them yea euen vnto the Lord shall they cry but he shall not heare them The Prophet Micheas doth second the Psalmograph in these wordes Then shall they cry vnto the Lord and he shall not heare them The Prophet Zacharie is consonant in these wordes Sic clamabunt et non exaudiam dicit Dominus exercituum So shall they cry and I will not heare them sayth the Lord of Hostes. All which places and the like must perforce be vnderstood not of bare vocall hearing but of hearing with approbation Which kind of hearing my selfe did plainly insinuate to the Reader when in my words following I excepted the Iesuites and Iesuited Papistes For if I had meant of bare vocall hearing I neither would nor truely could haue excepted the Iesuites whom I graunt to haue heard it both vocally with approbatioÌ„ Fourthly wheÌ„ our Fryer obiecteth ridiculously that Aquinas Antoninus Waldensis and Turrecremata taught the same Doctrine within 1500. yeares I answere thus first that Canus denieth Waldensis to hold that opinion Secondly that the vse of holy Writ is to speake of many as all and of few as none Which synecdochicall speach very frequent in the holy Scriptures were sufficient if need required as it doth not to iustifie my manner of speaking in this behalfe Thirdly that if I should admit so much as our sir Fryer desireth yet would it follow of necessitie that Poperie is the New Religion For we see heere as clearely as the Sunne shyning at noone day that this Popish Article the Pope as Pope can not erre was hatched a thousand two hundred and fourtie yeares after Christ. For the most auncient Father thereof which our Iesuite possibly is able to name is Aquinas as we haue seene who for al that liued more then 1240. yeares after Christ. To which I adde that the Church as the famous Papistes Panormitanus and Gersonus teach vs is either the Congregation of the faythfull or a generall Councell sufficiently representing the same This being so and my reasons duely pondered it is very cleare and euident that this Popish Article of Fayth was neuer heard of in the Church that is approoued of the Church for the space of 1240. yeares after Christ. For doubtlesse the approbation of Aquinas Antoninus and Turrecremata the Popes flattering Parasites can not establish the Religion and Fayth of the Church of Rome If our Iesuite dare say it let him publish it in print and then expect my Commentarie vpon the same See and note well the 29. and the 30. Chapters as also the Christian Dialogue page 24.27.30.38.41.60.63.65 B. C. One maine Lye with a prettie tricke of lieger-demaine For he is to prooue out of Alphonsus that the Pope might erre in Fayth iudicially for that is the question as appeareth in the Premisses and that this Article was neuer heard of 1500. yeares and yet in the foresayd wordes of Alphonsus no such thing is conteyned seeing he speaketh in them not of his iudiciall Decrees but of priuate Errours which may befall him in the exposition of the Scriptures and that Alphonsus must needes meane of his priuate opinions in writing or otherwise and not of his definitiue sentence is certaine For otherwise there be and were in his time that held the Pope could not be an Heretique iudicially or erre as Pope Much lesse doth Alphonsus say that it was neuer heard of for the space of 1500. yeares that the Pope could not erre in Fayth iudicially for of this poynt he hath not one word or syllable T. B. I answere thus first that I beleeue our Jesuite viz. while he telleth vs that his Pope may erre in expounding the holy Scriptures But withall I must needes tell him that his Pope may as truely erre in his iudiciall sentence The reason is euident
maketh I graunt that Good workes with the Promise of God are Meritorious the Iesuite graunteth the same I graunt that Good workes without the Promise of God are altogeather and wholly vnworthy of eternall life Iosephus Angles graunteth the same yea the Jesuite himselfe graunteth the very same euen while he desireth to impugne the same I say that Good workes are onely one way Meritorious and no way else that is as they are ioyned to and with the Promise of God Josephus and the Jesuite say the very same with me I say that Good workes are not properly of them selues Meritorious seeing they be Meritorious onely for the Promise of God Iosephus sayth the same I say that Good workes of them selues doe not merite Heauen properly as whose Merite dependeth wholly of the Promise of God Iosephus freely grauÌ„teth the same I say that Good workes of them selues are vnworthy of eternall life as which are wholly vnworthy thereof without the free Promise of our mercifull God Josephus willingly sayth the very same Marke euer these words prorsus indigna wholly and altogeather vnworthy They cut the Jesuites throate the Popes throate and the throates of all Jesuites and Iesuited Papistes in the world For that can not haue any Merite properly of it selfe whose Merite dependeth onely solely and wholly of an other And consequently seeing Good workes haue no Merite at all saue onely of from through and for the Promise of God as both Iosephus and our Iesuite freely graunt it followeth of necessitie that they neither doe nor properly can condignely Merite eternall life B. C. The Minister mistaketh the matter the Monster hee speaketh of was borne at Trent in Germany and not at Rome in Italie as the beginning of his wordes doe testifie Besides it was not in the yeare one thousand fiue hundred and fourtie but one thousand fiue hundred fourtie and seauen as appeareth out of the sixt Session of that Councell T. B. I answere first that our Jesuite not able in trueth to defend Poperie from being the New religion fleeth to impertinent digressions ridiculous cauils and most sillie euasions as a franticke man that hath lost his wittes Secondly that the Monster which both my selfe and the Fryer speake of is the non-age of late hatched Poperie The Iesuite vseth two reasons in defence of Poperie but alasse the Popes cares will tingle when he heareth them His former supposed gallant reason is this viz. That the Monster was borne at Trent not at Rome I answeare that this reason pleaseth me well as which graunteth Poperie to be a Monster borne out of time Concerning the place I answere that I doe not mistake the maâ—ter as our Fryer dreameth For although the Monster was begotten at Trent in Germanie yet borne was it at Rome in Iâ—aly The reason hereof is euident because the decreeing of the matter at Trent was of no force or effect vntill the Pope had confirmed the same at Rome His latter and second reason is euery way as strong as his former I keeping my selfe within my boundes and speaking sparingly and fauourably of the newnesse of Poperie affirmed the Condigne merite of Workes not to haue been an Article of Popish fayth for the space of one thousand fiue hundred and fourtie yeares after Christ. Our Iesuite vnawares helpeth me against his will by adding seauen yeares more to the number B. C. Before he came vpon the Councell of Trent for accursing all such as did denie or not beleeue the Condigne merites of mans workes and inueighed against that doctrine as a Monster lately borne at Rome and yet now the same doctrine is against the Pope and the Iesuite S. R. and it euidently prooueth as much as he desireth And so that Doctrine which before was false and monstruous is now become sound and heauenly Was there euer such an other changeable Camelion that as it were with one breath denyeth and affirmeth one and the selfe-same thing Certainely the poore man hath more need of a cunning Surgion to put his braines in ioynt then of Incke and Paper to write such lunaticall Pamphlets T. B. I answere first that our Iesuite seemeth to haue lost both his braines his witte and his honestie and that in such sort as no Surgion is able to remedie the same Secondly that I can not reprooue the Councell of Trent vnlesse I also condemne the Pope the chiefe Author of the same as is already prooued Thirdly that whatsoeuer maketh against the Councell must perforce make also against the Jesuites and all others that approoue the same Fourthly that the doctrine which afore was false monstruous is still as false bad monstruous as euer it was if not rather more Fiftly that the change which the Jesuite speaketh of is in him selfe but not in Bell For Bell doth not affirme that Doctrine to be found heauenly which afore hee tearmed false and monstruous but hee only plainely sheweth that the Jesuite striuing against the trueth doth by the force of trueth vnawares confesse the trueth against himselfe And consequently that hee vnwittingly vnwillingly graunteth the trueth against himselfe which is as much as I desire I prooue it briefly and soundly because the Iesuite hauing in his second Conclusion affirmed Good workes done in Gods grace to be condignely Meritorious of eternall life by and by addeth in the third Conclusion this restriction viz. that the condigne Merite he speaketh of is not absolute but supposeth the condition of Gods Promise made to reward it Which doubtlesse is the flat Doctrine that I defend For if Gods Promise must be supposed there is no condigne Merite without the same Let the indifferent Reader be an indifferent Iudge betweene the Iesuite and mee I willingly admit his third Conclusion and so make an end of this Chapter For all that is heere sayd or possibly can be sayd in defence of Condigne merite of Workes is clearly and foundly refuted in the Conclusions of this present Chapter if due application be made thereof And consequently this Article of Popish fayth neuer knowne for the space of more then 1540. yeares after Christ must of necessitie and without all peradâ—enture be a rotten ragge of the New religion The Tenth Chapter of Transubstantiation in Popish Masse ALL that the Iesuite sayth in this Chapter is pithyly refuted both in the Downefall of Poperie and in the Jesuites Antepast And consequently I haue no need to stand here vpon the same The Fryer freely graunteth that Transubstantiation touching the name was not hatched till their Lateran Councell which was holden 1215. yeares after Christ. But he sayth withall that the poynt of Doctrine it selfe that is the changing of the substaunce of Bread into the Body of Christ by the words of Consecration was taught by the auncient Fathers and came from Christ himselfe his blessed Apostles My answere is this First that I haue very soundly and copiously refuted in my Suruey of Poperie whatsoeuer
egregious and notorious lye the Fryer set abroach so to maintaine if it were possible the falsely pretended Antiquitie of rotten Poperie The Fryer durst not cite the wordes of his Authors though my selfe neuer fayle therein least his cogging forgerie and false dealing should haue been discouered by that meanes These are the expresse wordes of Sezomenus Vir quidam è Macedoniana haeresi vxorem eiusdem opinionis habebat Hic cum Johannem quomodo de Deo sentiendum esset docentem andisset dogma illius laudabat et vxorem quoque vt secum sentiret hortabatur Cum vero illa magis nobilium mulierum sermonibus quam illius consuetudini obtemperaret et post frequentes admonitiones vir illius nihil effecisset nisi inquit in diuinis mihi consors fueris neque in vitae communione posthac eris Mulier hoc audito et consensum pollicita rem eam famulae cuidam communicat quam sibi fidam esse iudicabat illiusque opera ad fallendum viruÌ„ vtitur Circa tempus autem mysteriorum illa quod accepit continens quasi oratura procuÌ„bit famula astans clauculum illi dat quod secum in manu attulerat Hoc cum dentibus admoueretur in lapidem congelascit A certaine man infected with the Heresie of Macedonius had a wife of the same opinion hee hearing the doctrine of S. Iohn Chrysostome how he ought to thinke and beleeue of God commended his Doctrine and exhorted his wife to beleeue as he did But when she hearkened rather to the Tales of Noble women then to his admonition so as her husband preuayled nothing by his exhortations vnlesse sayth he thou wilt ioyne with mee in matters diuine I will not hencefoorth ioyne with thee in secular affayres His wife hearing this and promising her consent imparteth the matter to one of her Maydes in whom she reposed great confidence and vseth her helpe to defraude her Husband While the mysteries were in hand she keeping that which she had receiued looketh downe as if she would pray Her Mayde standing by giueth her priuily that which she brought with her in her hand Which when she began to eate it was chaunged into a Stone Nicephorus reciteth the same Storie in the selfe same manner I haue cited the wordes at large that the indifferent Reader may behold the false dealing of the Fryer and be an indifferent iudge betweene him and mee Sozomenus and Nicephorus do both ioyntly and constantly affirme that the Woman receiued the Sacramentall bread which she did not eate so to defraud and deceiue her Husband The Jesuite impudently auoucheth that she being a Macedonian Heretique did so the better to conceale her Religion Which notorious lying of the shamelesse Jesuite not onely the Historie it selfe doth confute but also the due consideration of the Heresie which the woman held For neither the eating neither the not eating of the Sacramentall bread did either further or hinder the Macedonian Heresie If she had been an Arian the Fryers assertion might haue had some colour of truth but seeing she was a Macedonian it is too too foolish and ridiculous For the Heresie of Macedonius consisted in this that the Holy Ghost was not God Secondly that neither Sozomenus nor Nicephorus sayth as the Jesuite beareth his Readers in hand viz. that the Sacrament of our Lords Body and Blood was then ministred vnder one kind but onely this and nothing else viz. that the Woman deceiued her Husband in taking the Bread which she did not eate Thirdly that our Iesuite falsely sayth that the Cuppe was not then giuen into the handes of the Communicantes his Authors affirme nothing lesse Fourthly that whatsoeuer our Fryer saith howsoeuer he imagine that the Woman could not haue had the same euasion in taking the Cuppe which she had in taking the Bread yet doe I constantly affirme and experience will prooue the same that she might haue seemed to drinke of the Cuppe yet haue tasted no Wine at all Fiftly that Pope Gelasius doth contest with me that the Lay people did in his time which was 492. yeares after Christ at the least receiue the holy Eucharist vnder both the kinds yea he affirmeth it to be Sacriledge to receiue but the one kind alone These are his expresse wordes Comperimus autem quod quidam sumpta tantummodo corporis sacriportione a Caâ—ice sacratiâ—ruoris abstineant Qui procul dubio quoniam nescio qua superstitione docentur astringi aut integra sacramenta percipiant aut ab integris arceantur Quia diuisio vnius eiusdemque mysterij sine grandi sacrilegio non potest peruenire We vnderstand that some receiue onely the portion of the sacred Body and abstaine from the Cuppe of the holy Blood Who for that we know not how they are taught to be superstitious shall either receiue the whole Sacramentes or else be excluded from the whole Thus writeth Pope Geâ—asius the first whom Genebrard truly calleth the most learned Pope That some odde persons in his time did not receiue the Eucharist in both kindes whom hee therefore condemneth of flat Sacriledge because the one kind may not be taken without the other But I will yet touch and tickle our Jesuite more strictly and tell him that which will make his eares to tingle Gabriel Biel a very learned Schoole-doctor and a religious Popish Fryer in his Commentaries vpon the Canon of popish Masse telleth vs very constantly that it was a right generally vsed in the primatiue Church to receiue the holy Eucharist vnder both kindes But withall he affirmeth very resolutely that the Church of Rome in processe of time brought into the Church an other Custome of receiuing in one kind onely In the end he determineth decideth the controuersie in these expresse wordes Olim quaestio illa poterat esse dubia sed nunc post determinationeÌ„ concilij Constantiensis veritateÌ„ catholica determinantis dicere coÌ„munionem sub vtraque specie esse de necessitate salutis omni fideli est haeresis ibidem publice condemnata In former times it was lawfull to doubt of that QuestioÌ„ But in these latter dayes after the Councell of Constance which hath determined the Catholique veritie therein to say that all the faythfull must vpon necessitie of saluation Communicate vnder both kindes is a flatte Heresie publiquely condemned in the sayd Councell Thus disputeth this great Learned Papist out of whose words I gather these worthy obseruations First that the Church of Rome can make Heresies at her good will and pleasure I prooue it because that which was Catholique doctrine in the Primatiue Church is now made a flatte Heresie by Popish constitutioÌ„ Secondly that the Laicall Communion vnder one kind was consonant to the Catholique fayth vntill the late Councell of Constance that is to say for the space of one thousand foure hundred and foureteene yeares For so long was that Councell holden after Christ. Thirdly that no mortall man no pure
can not but thinke that it is hid vnder a Pipkin so to be kept from Sun-burning euen as the other Fiue Bookes are prepared so many yeares agoe Howbeit if either it or any other Booke shall happen to come to my handes while God shall of his great mercie graunt me life health and sight the two last whereof doe in an hie degree begin to fayle me it shall God willing receiue a speedy Answere Let this Jesuite and all the rest so perswade them-selues as also that God giueth me comfort more then a litle in all my conflictes against them The 15. Chapter of Popish worshiping of Images B. C. SAint Gregorie sayth Bell sharply reprooued the Worship 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 Catholique Church alloweth and teacheth which is nothing so For it was passing farre different for as much as S. Gregorie allowed conuenient Adoration as shall straight be sayd T. B. I answere first that I approoue our Iesuites Answere while he confesseth truely that Gregorie sharpely reprooued the Worshippe done to Images Secondly that I can not but withall condemne his fond interpretation of S. Gregories wordes For it is most cleare and euident that Gregorie neuer approoued religious Worship giuen to Images Thirdly that our Fryer falsely imagineth the Church of Rome to be the Catholique Church Of which Subiect I haue disputed at large in my Christian Dialogue B. C. Cardinall Bellarmine thinketh that this erroneous Worshippe was giuen by certaine new Christians 〈◊〉 surely such were most likely to fall into that grosse sinne of whom it is not so much to be marueyled if accustomed before to Idols they behaved themselues in like manner towardes sacred Images and adored them for Gods as in Pagain sinne they were taught and practised T. B. I answere first that woe is to those silly and simply seduced Christians who are enforced to beleeue and receiue as Catholique Doctrine whatsoeuer Bellarmine and his Iesuited complices shall coniecture imagine to be the trueth Yet is is true that all must be burnt with Fire and Faggot in Rome Spaine and Portingale that will not beleeue as the Pope and his Cardinals teach them Secondly that the Worship which the Papistes this day giue to Images is of like nature qualitie semblance and condition in euery respect with that which was giuen to Idols euen in the time of Paganisme I prooue it out of your popish Reformed Portesse or Breuiarie where I find this Prayer made to the Crosse. O Crux aue spe vnica hoc passionis tempore auge pijs iustitiam reisque dona veniam All hayle ô Crosse our only hope in this time of the Passiō increase Iustice to the Godly and eke to sinners Pardon giue To which I adde the manner of Worship which the Papistes doe to the Crosse on Good-fry day to say nothing of other times Vpon that day the Crosse is couered and in time of popish Prayers the Priest by degrees doth vncouer the same first on the right side with low reuerence done vnto it Then on the left side with the like reuerence exhibited Lastly the whole Crosse is reuealed and made manifest to the people And the like superstitious dotage is vsed in the Songe made to the Crosse. For in euery of the three degrees the tune is eleuated and made higher then afore Which being thus done the Priest putteth off his Shooes and prostrate vpon the ground adoreth and kisseth the Crosse. After the Priest follow the rest aswell of the Temporaltie as of the Clergie euery one in his order and degree And because none may come empty to the Lordes House many rich Oblations are made euen with the good liking of the Priest But if any refuse to adore and worshippe the Crosse he shall be burnt as an Heretique If any desire to know the mysteries of Popish worshippe done to the Wooden Crosse with the profound significations thereof he may find the same in Byshoppe Durand who hath bestowed great labour in that behalfe But say on sir Fryer it is not yet time to goe to dinner B. C. Bell quoteth Biel where nothing is handled of any such Subiect A small fault especially in Bell being one of such knowen trueth that he neuer vseth any such sleightes vnlesse it be for the better passage of the Ghospell To let that passe Why hath he not cited his Wordes He may pretend what reason he please but he must giue me leaue to thinke that there is none other saue onely that he knew not truely where to find them T. B. I answere first that our Iesuite is so addicted to lying as the Diuell may seeme to haue begotten him If I should stand to examine and refute all the Lyes which our Iesuite poureth out in his Pamphlets time doubtlesse would sooner fayle me then matter whereof to speake Secondly that our Jesuite is condemned in his owne Conscience as who accuseth me of that which is proper to himselfe and whereof he knoweth me to be innocent Is this possible to be prooued It is not onely possible but so easie a thing for me to prooue it that if I fayle herein I will desire no credite to be giuen me in other matters For the manifestation of the trueth herein I desire the honest and indifferent Reader to obserue two thinges with mee Th' one that the Iesuite hath seene read and taken note or notes out of my little Booke intituled The wofull cry of Rome For so much himselfe confesseth in his Preface to the Reader Th' other that in the selfe-same Wofull cry I haue both truly quoted the place and sincerely cited the expresse wordes of Biel there I write in this manner Yea Gabriel Biel a religious Popish Fryer and a very learned Schoole-doctor who liued long after Gregorie and Serenus euen one thousand foure hundred eightie and foure yeares after Christ doth sharply inueigh and reprooue the Worshippe giuen to Images Hee hath a large Discourse of this Subiect in which the Reader may finde these expresse wordes Quod vero Christiana religio Imagines sustinet in Ecclesia et oratorijs non permittit eo fine vt ipsae adorentur Sequitur Neque adoro Imaginem Christi quia lignum nec quia Imago sed adoro Christum coram imagine Christi quia scilicet imago Christi excitat me ad amandum Christum Whereas Christian religion tolerateth Images in the Church and in Oratories it doth not permit them for this end that they may be adored Neither doe I adore the Image of Christ because it is Wood neither for that it is an Image but I adore Christ before the Image of Christ because the Image of Christ doth allure me to loue Christ. Thus much and plentifull other matter against popish Worshippe of Images the Reader may find in that Booke And therefore I must not giue the Fryer that leaue
a Vaile hanging in the Doores of the same Church dyed and painted which had the Image as it were of Christ or some Saint for I doe not well remember whose Image it was Therefore when I saw in the Church of Christ a mans Image against the authoritie of the Scriptures I tore it in peeces and aduised the Keepers of that place of the Church in Anablatha to burie some poore body with it I pray you commaund that hencefoorth such Vailes which make against our Religion be not hanged vp in the Church of Christ. The same Epiphanius in an other place hath these expresse wordes Re vera sanctuÌ„ erat corpus Mariae non tamen Deus Re vera virgo erat ipsa virgo et honorata sed non ad adorationem nobis data sed ipsa adorâ—ns eum qui ex ipsa carne genitus est de caelis vero ex finibus paternis accessit Sequitur Neque Helias adorandus est etiamst in viuis sit Neque lohannes adorandus neque Thecla neque quisquam Sanctus adoratur Non. N. dominabitur nobis antiquus error vt relinquamus viuentem et adoremus ea quae ab ipso sacta sunt Sequitur Sit in honore Maria Pater et Filius ei Spiritus sanctus adoretur Muriam nemo adoret non dico mulierem imò neque virum Deo debetur hoc mysterium Neque Angeli capiunt talem glorificationem Sequitur Etsi pulcherrima est Maria et sancta et honorata a non ad adorationeÌ„ The body of Mary was holy indeed but she was not God The Virgin was a Virgin indeed and honorable but not giuen to vs to be adored But she adoreth him who being borne of her according to the flesh came downe from Heauen euen from his Fathers Throne Helias ought not to be Worshipped if he were this day liuing amongst vs. Neither is John to be Adored neither Thecla neither any other Saint For the old Errour may not so farre ouerrule vs that we forsake the liuing God and Adore the Workmanshippe of his handes Let Mary be had in honour let the Father the Sonne and the Holy Ghost be Adored Let none Adore Mary I say not the Woman but neither the Man this mysterie is due to GOD alone The Angels are not capable of such glorification Though Mary be most beautifull and holy and honourable yet is she not to be Adored Thus discourseth S. Epiphanius affirming resolutely that onely GOD ought to be Worshipped and Adored not any Saintes in Heauen or on Earth much lesse their Images The 16. Chapter of Church seruice in the Vulgar tongue B. C. TO prooue that the Publique Seruice of the Church ought to be in the Vulgar tongue he citeth the names of many Authors without euer setting downe their Sentences thinking it sufcient to referre the Reader 〈◊〉 his Suruey where he hath layd out their wordes at large T. B. I answere first that our Jesuite is so troubled with my Bookes as he seemeth to haue lost his wittes For in his Preface of this present Pamphlet hee obiecteth against me as a fault that I iterate some thinges in one Booke which I haue published in an other Neuerthelesse heere he chargeth me of insufficiencie for that I referre the Reader to my Suruey where I haue handled the controuersie at large What a fellow is this Jesuisicall Fryer If I iterate that which afore I vttered in an other Booke hee is like a madde man and cryeth out that I trouble him with often repetitions If I referre him to that which I haue written else where he accuseth me as in this place that it is not sufficient so to deale Secondly that himselfe in the .14 Chapter of this Pamphlet yeeldeth no other Answere touching Pope Mâ—rtins Dispensation saue onely that he referreth me to an vnknowen and as yet inuisible Booke which he calleth The dolefull Knell B. C. This prooueth not that the Publique Seruice of the Church was in any other Language then in the sacreâ— Tongues of the Greeke Latine c. For the Grecians might vnderstand the Priest though their Seruice were in Greeke because that Tongue was to them the vulgar and common T. B. I answere first that our Iesuite confesseth plainely that his purpose is not to examine my whole Tryall and I beleeue him in this point albeit this Chapter consisteth onely of sixteene lines But those few lines containe such sound and pithy Doctrine as all the Jesuitees in Christendome are not able truely to answere the same Secondly that I am heere content to iterate part of that which I haue else where set downe at large and yet I can hardly thinke that the same will be to our Fryers contentation Howbeit volens nolens he must put it vp seeing he hath prouoked me thereunto Theodoretus a great Learned man and a very famous Historiographer who liued almost one thousand and two hundred yeares agoe affirmeth constantly that in his time the Scriptures were translated into all maner of Languages and that they were not onely vnderstood of Doctors and Maisters of the Church but euen of the Lay people and common Artificers also These are his expresse wordes Hebraici verò Libri non modo in Graecum idioma conuersi sunt sed in Romanam quoque linguam Aegyptiam Persicam Indicam Armenicamque et Scythicam atque adeo Sanromaticam semelque vt dicam in linguas omnes quibus ad hanc diem nationes vtuntur Sequitur Fossoresque adeo ac bubuleos inuenias plantarumque consitores de diuina Trinitate rerumque omnium creatione discertantes The Hebrew Bookes are turned not onely into the Greeke tongue but also into the Romane language into the Egyptian Persian Indian Armenian and Scythian as also into the Sanromaticall tongue and to speake all in a word into all tongues which this day are in vse amongst Nations We may find Ditchers Deluers Neatheards and Gardiners disputing euen of the blessed Trinitie and of the Creation of all thinges Thus discourseth this auncient Father and great learned Writer shewing most clearely vnto his Readers that in the auncient Church and old time euery Nation had the holy Scriptures in their Vulgar language and that in those dayes all Christians did read the holy Scriptures so seriously that both men and women of all trades and conditions were able to dispute of the holy Trinitie and of the Creation of the world Which two poyntes for all that are the most difficult obscure hard and intricate Articles in the whole course of Theologie S. Ambrose hath these expresse wordes In oratione totius plebis tanquam vndis refluentibus stridet tum responsorijs Psalmorum cantu virorum mulierum Virginum parvulorum censonus vndarum sragor resultat When all the people pray togeather there is a noyse as if the Waues of the Sea did beate one against an other then with the answering of Psalmes with the singing togeather of men women maydes and
the Apostles which Pope Zepherinus and Pope Leo the ninth haue approoued no mention is made of Lent Secondly because S. Clement whoÌ„ S. Peter a litle before his death chose to be his successour at Rome if Popish writinges be true publishing eight whole Bookes of Apostolicall Constitutions doth not in any place so much as once make any mention of the Quadragesimall fast or Lent as it is hath bin kept in Rome of the late Byshops there and their Popish vassals Thirdly because the first foure auncient and approoued generall Councels doe not once name the sayd Quadragesimall fast Fourthly because th'Apostles setting downe a law how to keepe Easter say nothing at all of keeping the Lenton-fast Fiftly because the Apostles haue made a flat Law against the Fast of euery Saturday one onely excepted which was the day of Christs sacred Funerall These are the wordes of S. Clement so supposed Sabbathum et Dominicum diem Festum agite quoniam illud naturae conditae est Monumentum hic resurrectionis Vnum autem Sabbathum seruandum vobis est in toto anno quod pertinet ad Sepulturam Domini in quo iciunare oportet non festum agere Keepe as a holy Feastiuall day the Saturday and the Sunday because the one is the Monument of the Creation th' other of the Resurrection But one Saterday onely ye must keepe in the whole yeare which perteyneth to our Lordes Funerall in which we must Fast and not keepe it Holy-day I answere thirdly that the Popish Lent-fast is very Superstitious plaine Hereticall and too iniurious to the sacred blood of Christ Iesus I prooue it first because they superstitiously absteine from Flesh as did the Heretiques condemned by S. Paul The Papistes Mordicus and impudently deny this but their owne Durand their trustie and faythfull Byshoppe shall confound them these are his expresse wordes Tempore ieiuniorum praetiosae vestes deponuntur et humiles assumuÌ„tur et carnes tam solidae quaÌ„ liquidae dimittuntur Sed cum Pisces sint Caro quare hoc tempore comeduntur Responsio Deus non maledixit Aquis quoniam per Aquam baptismi futura crat remissio peccatorum Hoc enim elementum dignissimum est quod sordes abluit et super quod spiritus Domini ante mundi constitutionem ferebatur Terrae verò maledixit in operibus hominis Inde est quod omne genus carnis quod in terra versatur tam quadrupedia quam Aues in ieiunijs non licet comedere While we Fast costly Garmentes are laide away and base Attyre assumed and Flesh aswell solide as liquide is dismissed But seeing Fish is Flesh wherefore is Fish eaten in Lent I answere that God cursed not the Waters because by the Water of Baptisme we were to receiue remission of our sinnes for this Element is most worthy as which washeth away our filth and vpon which the Spirit of our Lord was carried before the World was made But God cursed the Land in the workes of Man Hence commeth it that euery kind of Flesh liuing on the land aswell foure footed Beastes as Birdes may not be eaten in time of our Lent-fast Thus disputeth our popish Bishop Durand auouching plainely that we may not eate Flesh in Lent because God accursed the fruites of the Earth Which assertion is very Superstitious and plaine Hereticall For aswell may our Jesuite conclude against Bread and Wine in the holy Eucharist vnles he denie them to be the fruites of the Earth Secondly because in their holy Lent-fast sayth their so supposed S. Clement they must pray for the damned which doubtlesse is a damnable Heresie These are his expresse wordes Ieiunantes in ea omnes cum timore et tremore crantes per eos dies pro ijs qui pereunt All fast Lent with feare and trembling praying all those dayes for them that perish This hath a stronge taste of the Originall Heresie that the Diuels shal be saued at the latter day Thirdly because the Papistes beleeue teach that their popish Lent-fast doth merit remission of sinnes increase of grace and eternall glory this is plainely and soundly prooued in my Suruey of Popery Yea the Popish Byshoppe Durand resolutely affirmeth the very same in these expresse wordes Est autem ieiunium communis omniuÌ„ membrorum satisfactio vt scibect membra satisfaciant secunduÌ„ peccatum quod commiserunt vel gesserunt vt si gula peccauit â—eâ—unet et sufficit Fasting is the common satisfaction of all our members so to weete as our members may make satisfaction according to the sinne which they haue done As if any haue sinned in Gluttony let him fast and it is sufficient Which is confirmed by that Popish Fast which they call the Fast of Compassion Thus the same Durandus doth deliuer it Ieiunium compassionis est vt si Sacerdos alicui dicat pro hoc peccato fac cantare duas missas et ieiuna et ego pro te cantabo et tres dies ieiunabo Propter hoc tamen debet aliquid recipere quia Sacerdos debet compati proximo suo et orare pro eo There is a Popish Fast of compassion as if the Priest say to one Cause some Priest to sing two Masses for this sinne and fast and I my selfe shall sing for thee and I shall also fast three dayes for thee Marry for this compassion the Priest must haue some thing because he must haue compassion on his Neighbour and pray for him Heere is a merriment of merry Poperie in very deed The Priest so taketh compassion on his penitent that he maketh him relieue his need This compassion is coosen germane to the Iesuites Exercise of which I haue written at large in my Anatomy of popish Tyranny by which while they pretend to send their supplyantes to heauen they get all their Lands Goods and Money to them selues Iohn Gerard caused Henry Drurie to enter into their Iesuiticall Exercise and thereby got him to sell the Mannor of Lozell in Suffolke and other Landes to the value of 3500. poundes and got all the money himselfe The same Gerard by the same Exercise got from Anthony Rowse aboue a thousand poundes from Edward Walpoole whom he caused to sell the Mannor of Tuddenham about one 1000. Markes from Iames Linacre 400. pounds from Edward Huddlestones aboue 1000. poundes Much more like stuffe the Reader may find in mine Anatomie which I passe ouer for breuitie sake This Jesuiticall Exercise hath no smal semblance with the siluer Temples of Diana which being made by Demetrius brought great gaines to the Craftes-men there I answere fourthly that to make choyse of Meates for Merite or Religion is the badge of an Infidell I prooue it first because by meanes hereof many haue beleeued false doctrine to be the word of God not onely so but they haue also iudged and condemned them-selues for transgressing mans Traditions as if they
potestatem excellentiae quam Christus alligatam sacramentis minimè habebat panem in suum corpus conuertisse deinde verò dedisse illud Apostolis dicendo hoc est c. Secunda opinio affirmat consecrasse quibusdam verbis nobis ignotis quando benedixit panem et non quando dixit hoc est c. Tertia opinio tuetur illa forma Christum consecrasse verum occultè scilicet quando benedixit panem deinde publicè illa vsum fuisse vt alios formam consecrandi doceret Quarta opinio tenet quando verba haec hoc est c. protulit simulque factam fuisse benedictionem Pope Innocentius holdeth the first opinion that Christ by the power of excellencie which in him was not tied to the Sacraments conuerted the Bread into his body and then gaue it to his Apostles saying This is my Body c. The second OpinioÌ„ holdeth that Christ Consecrated the Bread with certaine words to vs vnknowen when he blessed the Bread not when he sayd This is my Body The third Opinion affirmeth that Christ did Consecrate with that forme of Wordes but secretly when he blessed the Bread and after vsed the same forme of wordes to instruct others The fourth OpinioÌ„ holdeth that Christ did Consecrate when he spake these wordes This is my Body and that the blessing was done at the same time Behold here the mistery of profound Popish diuinitie I would not pittie his case who being in the middest of a great Fire would not come out to heare it But I pittie the case of silly ignoraunt Papistes who hazard aduenture their saluation in beleeuing such a fond and vncertaine Religion Secondly because by popish Religion when the Priest holdeth the Host ouer his head then the silly Papistes must adore the same as the euerliuing God And for all that euen by popish Fayth and Doctrine the popish so tearmed Host may onely be a peece of meere Bakers bread I prooue it sundry wayes First because Sotus that great learned popish Schoole-man surnamed for his deepe Learning Doctor Subtilis holdeth and constantly defendeth that it is vncertaine whether the Bread be transubstantiated into Christes body or no by these wordes of popish Consecration This is my Body Secondly because by popish Fayth the Bread is not made Christes body vnlesse the Priest haue intention so to make it But doubtlesse sundry cases and causes may fall out to take away the Priestes intention and so the silly people shall commit Idolatrie while they adore a peece of Bread for the lyuing GOD. Thirdly because Caietanus that famous Cardinall and learned popish Schoole-doctor affirmeth resolutely and boldly that no Text in the whole Ghospell prooueth effectually that these wordes This is my Body must be vnderstoode properly But doubtlesse if this be true which the learned Cardinall of Rome auoucheth to be most true the silly Papists must perforce be Idolaters while they adore the popish Host in the popish Masse And therfore doth the popish Byshop Angles giue his Reader this graue aduise Cautâ— legendum esse Caietanum Caietane must be read warily For indeed by Caietanes opinion the adoring of the popish Bread-god is flat Idolatrie Fourthly because in the consecration of the Wine the Priest as Josephus Angles telleth vs may haue Perueâ—sam intentionem a peruerse intention and so not consecrate at all For the Papistes agree about their Reall presence in their popish Masse like Dogges girning and fighting for a Bone albeit it be the most essentiall part of their Masse and consequently of all popish Religion Fiftly because they haue added one word of their owne forge and inuention to the words of Christes sacred Institution to weet the word enim which signifieth for S. Mathew S. Marke S. Luke and S. Paul haue all foure deliuered the expresse wordes of Christes sacred Institution and for all that not one of them doth so much as once name the word enim Fourthly that albeit there be some apparant colour of trueth in that which our Iesuite saith of the Pater noster yet will the same after due examination thereof tende wholly to the confusion of the Pope and all his popish Vassals I therefore answere that though the Pater noster in it selfe and according to Christes Institution be most holy pure and religious yet is the same by superstitious abuse in popish Masse become morally prophane impure and irreligious I prooue it by three seuerall and irrefragable reasons First because in the popish Masse it is mangled maimed and bereaued of a chiefe part of the integritie thereof For as hee that clippeth the Kinges Coyne is thereby a Traytor to an earthly King euen so hee that clippeth or curtalleth Gods sacred Word is thereby a Traytor to God the King of Heauen And consequently seeing the Pope in his idolatrous Masse hath curtalled the Pater noster taking from God his Kingdome his Power and his Glorie which three are plainely comprised in that originall Pater noster which Christ did institute it followeth by an ineuitable illation and necessarie consequence that the Pater noster as it is prophaned in the popish Masse is become a Ragge of the New religion Secondly because in the popish Masse it is vsed in a Tongue to the people vnknowne contrary to Apostolicall doctrine Thirdly because the Pater noster in the popish Masse marke well my wordes is made as it were a slaue to Satan and to serue Idolatrie euen against the euerliuing God to waite and attend vpon the popish Bread-God And so the Pater noster which afore was pure and Euangelicall is now by popish Superstition become impure and Diabolicall But some will here demaund how the Pater noster doth serue Idolatrie To whom I answere that euery thing in popish Masse is meere accidentall as the Jesuite hath freely graunted the popish Reall presence onely excepted to weet the popish so supposed Dagon or Bread-god And consequently al the rest in popish Masse must perforce be designed for the furtheraunce honour and seruice of the said popish Dagon or Bread-god Which seruice I haue elsewhere soundly prooued and plainely conuinced to be very flatte Idolatrie Neither ought this to seeme strange to the Reader for as holy Wordes in Coniurations Theftes Robberies Treasons and the like are by the abuse prophaned and morally become vnholy euen so the holy wordes of the Pater noster are in the popish Masse prophaned and become vnholy They are referred to a wicked and idolatrous end from whence all morall actes receiue their specification as all learned Papistes graunt But the euerliuing God is and ought to be the end of all and consequently whatsoeuer is referred to any other end the same is thereby prophaned ipso facto B. C. The Protestantes obiect how we make the Masse the Sacrifice of the New testament to haue been ordayned by Christ himselfe when as Durandus and others note at what
Platina Carranza Sigeberius Nanclerus Marke well the answere Petr. Dam. Mar. Polonus The Buffaloes are Beastes as terrible as Lyons Many yet liuing know this to be most true The Iesuit Alphonsus was then the Maister of the English Colledge A thing neuer heard nor knowne before Iohn 4 v. 24. 1. Iohn 5. v. 14. Sap. 8.1 Ephes. 1. v. 4.11 Rom. 9. v. 11.15.16 c. Ephes. 6.12 Act. 9. v. 1.2.3 c. Act. 8. v. 1.3 See the Anatomie for this point and note it well Loe the Fryer confoundeth both himselfe and his Pope The Author with the Church of England defendeth euery iote of the old Romane Religion Three very Memorable pointes See the oath Infra Cap. 27. All must be as the Pope will See the Oath which Bishops make to the Pope infra Cap. 27. The Popes pretended prerogatiues must euer be defended Rhemistes in Act. 15. The Pope can not erre The Pope in the Church say the Iesuites S. R. pag. 281. marke this well When Papists speake of the Church they euer meane the pope The Iesuite cuts the Popes throate Marke well the answere See my Booke of Motiues Cap. 8. The Popish Church holdeth no poynts of fayth Marke well for Christes sake this poynt of doctrine The first Corollarie The second Corollarie All this is meere folly Praecedunt ista in B.C. page 86. Marke this confession The Pope as Pope by Popish graunt can not erre Vnderstand this poynt well for Christes sake See and note well my ChristiaÌ„ Dialogue Chap. 2. Pag 14. Argumentum ad hominem See and note well the 29. the 30. Chapters Christ neuer prayed that the Pope should not erre This DileÌ„ma is insoluble S.R. Pag 315. Pag. 417. Loe we must beleeue his doctrine that is an Heretike See and note my Reply to the 29. Chapt. S. R. in the name of the Pope proclaimeth the Popes fayth and doctrine Inferius Cap. 27. Ioh. 9 3â— 1. Ioh. 5. v. 14. Psal. 18. v. 41. Mich. 3.4 Zach. 7. v. 13. Poperie is the new religion Vixit Aquinas A.D. 1243. For the space of 1240. The Fryer dare not do it for his lugges Loe the Pope as Pope by Popish doctrine can not erre The Iesuite how he is beleeued Luke 22. vers 32. Alas alas Poperie is wounded vnto death S. R. pag. 417. Out vpon Poperie who is able to endure it S. R. pag. 417. The Iesuite is shameles and impudent Alphons lib 3. aduers. haereses prope finem This is wonderfull Bellarmine speaketh against his owne knowledge O childish vanitie A.D. 1538. Marke well for Christes sake if thou loue thine owne soule Alphons lib. 1. cap. 4. aduers haeres Marke well this poynt striketh dead The Iesuites are Gypsies Loe the Pope is wounded at the heart hee can no longer liue A note worthy the remembrance The Iesuite hath deserued the whetstone Iob. 1.8 1. Ioh. 3. v. 12. Gen. 6· v. 9. Luke 1.28 Luke 1.6 Heb. 11. Act. 10. v. 2. Mat. 10. v. 42. Heb. 11. v. 27. Rom. 8. v. 18. Io. de Comb. lib. 5. Theol. ver cap. 11. Rhem. Rom. 8. v. 17. in annotae Heb. 11.6 Mat. 7. v. 18. Rom. 14. v. 23. Mat. 7.17 Aug. de fide ex operib cap. 14. tom 4. Esa. 64.6 Bernard de verb. Esa. Serm. 5. p. 405. Phil. 3.12 1. Cor. 1.30 Bernard vbi super D. 2. Ioh. 3.9 Rom. 6.23 Iac. 3.2 Bernard de grat et lib. Arb. p. 1189 Aug. in Ps. 11â— con 2. in fine Bernar. de aduent Dom. Serm. â— To. 1. See my Suruay pag. 389. 2. Cor. 5. v. 19. Vulgaâ—a editio Marke this poynt well Note the Seuenth Conclusion Mat. 7.19 Ioh. 14. v. 23. Ephes. cap. 1. v. 4. et cap. 2. v. 10. Rom. â— v. 30. Esa. 59.2 Ephes. 2. .v. 3.5 Lyr. in Cap. 6 Matt. See the Conclusion and note it Loe Good workâ— are the way which lead vs to heauen Aquin. p. 1. q. 23. art 3. ad 2. Bellar. To. 3. col 627. et col 628. The foresight of workes no cause of predestination Bellarm. To. 3. Col. 628. Bellarm. To. 3. Col 626. et Col. 628. Workes are not the cause of saluation yet the way by which we must come vnto it I defend the old Romane religion God in his eternall purpose prepared both eternall glory for his elect and the way or meanes to attaine the same Bern. super Cant. Ser. 68. Loe the confession of our vnworthines is our best merite Bern in Canâ—â— ser. 67. Bern. ser. 1. in Annunâ— B.M.V. This testimonie is wonderfull Marke it well The Popish Abbot woundeth the Pope at the very heart Vixit Bernardus A.D. 1110. Marke this well Note this ex iure This reason can not be answeared See and note well the 11. Conclusion Aug. lib. 9. Confess cap. 13. Psal. 143. v. 2. Psal. 130. v. 3. Bern. de adu dom serm 6. tom 1. Bernard in annue B.V. serm 1. No Workes can merite Glory Durand in 2 sent dist 27. q 2. in medio Condigne merite is so farre aboue mans capacitie as no man possiblely can haue it Suruey part 3. cap. 9. Soro de nat et gr lib. 3. cap. 6. pag. 138. Popish satisfaction is impossible Arist. in 8. Ethic. cap. 7. Luke 17. v. 20. Iac 3 v. 2. Aquin. 1.2 q. 114. ar 1. in corp Loe man can not merite any thing condignely or properly There is no proper merite in man Marke vnderstand this poynt aright Angles in 2. sent pag. 103. Loe the Papistes graunt as much as we desire Philip. 3.9 Rom. 10.4 Tit. 3.5 1. Cor. 1.30 2. Cor. 5.19 Rom. 8. v. 1 2.3.4 Rom. 5. v. 14. Reu. 7. v. 14. Reu. 3. v. 4. All this is already proued Marke the Cardinals wordes wel vnderstand them soundly Bellar. de iustif tom 3. col 1296. ct col 1298. All the good deedes we can possibly doe are Gods owne and so we can merite nothing of God with them Marke well for Christes sake for Poperie bleedeth vnto death Aug. lib. 9. Confess cap. 13. Marke this well Secundò principaliter Angles in 2. sent pag. 107. The Byshoppe confuteth him selfe he needeth no aduersarie A very fond distinction inuented without rime or reason Tit. 1. v. 2. Heb. 6.10 2. Tim. 4.8 Iac. 1.12 Iac. 2.5 Psal. 130.3 Psal. 143.2 S. R. pag. 257. Note well the eleuenth Conclusion following 1. Cor. 13. v. 13. Heb. 11. v. 6. Aug. in Epist. IohaÌ„ tract 10. in initio Ioh 6. v. 29. Rom. 3 28. Rom. 5.1 Rom. 10. v. 3.4 Act. 13.39 Phil. 3 9. Fides sumitur dupliciter propriè et sinapliciter seu figuratè et re latiuè By Fayth Christes obedience merites are applyed to vs. By Fayth Christes obedience merites are applyed to vs. Ioh. 3. v. 17. Mar 16 v. 7. Hâ—b 11. v. 7 Bona opera sunt medium sine quo non salutis Supâ—rius concl 4. See the 5. Conclusion and note it Rom. 5.1 1. Cor. 1.3 2. Cor. 4.16 Gal. 6.15 Mat. 7.17 Ioh. 15.12 Ioh. 14. v. 1â—