be so plainely deliuered by our Aduersaries may seeme a woonderment to the Christian world For it clearely turneth vpside-downe the chiefest Bulworke of Popish vnwritten Traditions and in effect all Popish Fayth and Religion The common good which commeth to the Church of God by writing against the Aduersaries of his Trueth is hence apparant to all the World For after the swaggering Iesuite S.R. with the aduise of Bellarmine and others had bickered so long with the Downefall of Poperie that the fall had almost broken their neckes then ouercome with the dint of Argumentes and force of the Trueth he was as it were violently compelled to write as we here see in defence behalfe of the Trueth To which for the better manifestation of this trueth so necessarie to be knowen I will adde yet an other Testimonie of our Jesuite in these wordes Truly sayd S. Epiphanius that we may tell the inuention of euery question out of the consequence of Scripture He sayd not Out of the Scripture For all cannot be taken thence as him selfe writeth but of the consequence of them Because all questions are resolued out of the Scriptures or out of that which followeth of them as the effect of the cause Thus the Iesuite approoueth vnawares the selfe same Doctrine which I in the Downefall doe defend And consequently the very weapons which our Aduersaries put into our handes are sufficient God be blessed for it to defend vs and our cause against them The Fourth Conclusion Popish Auricular Confession is not necessarie for mans saluation For first seeing all thinges necessarie for saluation are conteyned in the holy Scriptures as in the third Conclusion Secondly seeing all Preceptes and Promises of God in the New are contayned in the Old Testament as in the first Conclusion Thirdly seeing Popish Auricular Confession is not contayned in the Old Testament as in the second Conclusion it followeth by a necessarie and ineuitable consequution that Popish Auricular Confession is not necessarie for mans saluation This trueth will yet better appeare in the Conclusions following The Fift Conclusion Popish Auricular Confession is neither commaunded by Christ nor yet by his Apostles I prooue it because it is not contayned in the Old Testament as in the second Conclusion Which Testament for all that contayneth all the Preceptes of the New as may doth appeare to the indifferent reader in the first Conclusion The Sixt Conclusion Popish Auricular Confession was instituted and established by the meere Law of man grounded onely vpon a falsely imagined Apostolicall vnwritten Tradition I prooue it many wayes First because the Popes owne Decrees referre the matter to the iudgement of the Reader viz. Whether one be bound to Confession Auricular by Gods law or by Mans law These are the expresse wordes as Gratianus hath published the same Quibus authoritatibus vel quibus rationum firmamentis vtraque sententia satisfactionis et confessionis nitatur in medium breuiter exposuimus Cuj autem harum potius adhaerendum sit lectoris iudicio reseruatur Viraque N. fautores habet sapientes et religiosos viros Vpon what Authorities or foundations of Reasons either opinion is grounded I haue briefly shewed But to whether of them it is better to adhere that I leaue to the iudgement of the Reader for either opinion hath Wise and Religious men for the Patrons of the same Behold heere gentle Reader that not onely the Popes Doctors but his owne Canon-law and the Commenters vpon the same doe all confesse that Confession after Popish manner is onely solely grounded vpon Mans law Yea the Popish Glosse addeth That both Wise and Religious men doe so thinke though some others hold the contrary Secondly because the great Thomist who for his rare skill in Theologie was surnamed Absolutus Theologus Syluester Prieras doth deliuer his opinion in these wordes Quarto vtrum ad confessionem teneamur diuino iure vel humano Et dicâ— quod Canonistae videntur tenere quod sit de iure positiuo Et ad hoc est Glossa de paenit Dist. 5. In summa quae vult quod instituta sit a quadam vniuersali traditione Ecclesiae Ideo infert quam confiteri non tenentur infideles nec similiter Graeci ex quo non acceptauerunt huiusmodi constitutionem sicut nec votâ—â— castitatis It is demaunded fourthly sayth the great Learned Papist Syluester whether we be bound to Popish Confession by the law of God or by the positiue Law of man And I say the Canonistes hold that we are bound by the Law of man And of this opinion is the Glosse which is of this minde that Confession was instituted by a certaine vniuersall tradition of the Church Wherevpon the sayd Glosse inferreth that Infidels are not bound to Confession neither the Greekes in like maner seeing they did neuer approoue such Constitution as neither the vow of Chastitie Thirdly because the highly renowned Papist Martinus Nauarrus confesseth constantly and plainely that their solemne Glosse commonly receiued and approoued of all Canonistes holdeth Confession to be commaunded by the Church Fourthly because the famous Canonist most reuerend Arch-byshop and honourable Cardinall Panormitanus was of the same opinion with the Glosse For Couarruvâ—as a very learned Popish Arch-byshoppe deliuereth his minde in these wordes Quam ex nostris plerique sequuti sunt maximè Panormitanus ex ea asserentes confessionem sacramentalem quae Sacerdotibus fit iure humano institutam esse Which Glosse many of our Canonistes haue followed especially Panormitanus affirming out of that Glosse that Sacramentall confession made to Priestes was ordayned by the law of Man Fiftly because Scotus the Popish subtile schoole Doctor surnamed for his great skill Doctor subtilis after hee had largely disputed pro et contra of Popish Auricular confession concludeth in these wordes Apparet ergo istud non esse de iure diuino promulgato per scripturam Apostolicam Vel ergo tenendum est primum membrum scilicet quod sit de iure diuino promulgato per EuangeliuÌ„ vel si illud non sufficiat dicendum est tertium scilicet quod est de iure diuino positiuo promulgato a Christo Apostolis sed Ecclesiae promulgato per Apostolos absque omni scriptura It therefore appeareth that it is not of the law of God published by Apostolicall Scripture We must therfore either hold the first member to weeâ—e that it is of the law of God published by the Ghospell or if that will not suffice we must say the third that is to say that it commeth from the positiue law of God published by Christ to his Apostles but published by the Apostles to the Church without all Scripture Thus writeth the Popish Doctor subtilis who with all his subtiltie can not tell in the world what to say in defence of their Popish Auricular confession For after he hath discoursed to the vttermost of his wittes and imployed his
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
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
because Christes Prayer freed S. Peter from both And consequently if Christes Prayer were as effectuall and powerable for the Byshoppes of Rome as it was for Peter which the late Byshoppes of Rome Jesuites and Iesuiteâ— Papistes would enforce vs to beleeue they could no more erre in the one then in the other no more in their priuate opinions published to the world then in their definitiue sentences and iudiciall Decrees Nay it is in the Popes owne power to be as free from the one as from the other For when he expoundeth the Scriptures when he writeth Letters when he vttereth his opinion any way if he doe the same sitting in Peters Chaire he can not erre it is the vndoubted trueth Againe whatsoeuer he say or write as wee haue heard alreadie when he sitteth in Peters Chaire that we must obey and beleeue though in heart hee be an Heretique For no Byshoppe or Byshoppes in the Christian world how wise vertuous or learned soeuer they be may take vpon them to examine that which the Pope deliuereth out of Peters Chaire Thus S. R. that great learned Jesuite constantly auoucheth as wee haue alreadie seene Who doubtlesse could not be permitted to publish such Doctrine if it were not the Fayth and Doctrine of the Church of Rome Yea if any denie it where Poperie beareth the sway that person must feele the smart of Fire and Fagot for his reward He may be thought to know nothing who lyuing in Rome or Spaâ—ne knoweth not this to be so Secondly that Alphonsus that famous and learned Fryer spake not of the Popes priuate opinions as our Jesuite B. C. more impudently then Clerkly auoucheth who chooseth rather to say any thing then to graunt Poperie to be the New religion No no Alphonsus vtterly detested that Popish Article as a most prophane sottish and ridiculous Position though this day of Fayth with the Pope and with all his Iesuites and their Jesuited crew I prooue it by sundry testimonies layde open to the Readers by Alphonsus his owne penne First therefore these in one place are his expresse wordes Nouissimè fertur de Iohanne 22. quod publicè docuit declarauit et ab omnibus teneri mandauit quod animae purgata ante finale indicium non habent stolam quae est clara et faâ—ialis vâ—sio Det et vniuersitatem Parisiensem ad hoc induxisse diâ—itur quod nemo in ea poterat gradum in theologia adipisci nisi primitus hunc errorâ—m iurasset se defensurum et perpetiò eâ— adhaesurum Last of all it is reported of John the 22 of that name that hee publiquely taught declared and commaunded all Diuines to hold that the soules of the iust before the day of Iudgement haue not the stole which is the cleare and faciall vision of God And hee is reported to haue induced the Vniuersitie of Paris to this that none should take degree in Theologie there but he that did first sweare to defend this Errour and to adhere to it for euer Thus writeth Adrianus who himselfe was Byshoppe of Rome And Alphonsus a man of high esteeme in the Church of Rome after he had reckoned vp fiue Heresies setteth downe this for the sixt that the soules of the iust doe not see God till the day of Doome ascribing the sayd Heresie to the Armenians as to the authors thereof and to the Greekes togeather with Pope Iohn as to the patrons and defenders of the same Where the gentle Reader must obserue with mee seriously least he be seduced with the colourable glosse of the Jesuiticall Cardinall Bellarminus who seeing the force of this Testimonie and well perceiuing that it was able to ouerthrow the highest poynt in Poperie bestirreth himselfe mightily in defence thereof Hee telleth vs forsooth we may beleeue him if we lift that Pope Iohn erred indeed as Adrian and Alphonsus write But he did that as a priuate man sayth our Jesuite not as Pope of Rome This is that neuer enough detested Popish fallacie of the Popes double person wherewith the Pope his Jesuites and Iesuited Popelinges haue a long time seduced vs euen since that cursed Sect was first hatched and brought into the world the Sect of Fryers called Jesuites I meane But it is a most friuolous childish and ridiculous cauill a very fillie shift so sottish and so absurde as the Pope and all his Popelinges may be ashamed thereof The reason is euident euen to euery childe First because it is sayd Docuit Hee taught Secondly because it is sayd Publicè Publiquely Thirdly because it is sayd Mandauit Hee commaunded all Diuines to hold it Fourthly because none could be made Graduates in the Schooles of Theologie which held not this opinion Fiftly because euery Graduate was sworne to defend it and to sticke to it for euer perpetuò So then the Pope may erre and dè facto hath erred and that not only in his priuate opinion as a priuate man but euen in his iudiciall and publique sentence as a publique person and Pope of Rome This argument is insoluble it will neuer be truely answered while the world standes This is enough doubtles to euery indifferent Reader yet in way of congratulation to our Iesuite I am content to say a litle more These in an other place are Alphonsus his expresse wordes Celestinum Papam errasse circa matrimonium fidelium quorâ—m alter labitur in haeresim res est omnibus manifesta neque hic Celestini error talis fuit qui soli negligentiae imputari debuit ita vt illum errasse dicamus velut priuatam personam et non vt Papam qui in qualibet re seria definienda consulere debet viros dectos Quoniam huiusmodi Celestini definitio habebatur in antiquis decretalibus in cap. laudabilem titulo de conuersione infidelium quam ego ipse vidi et legi That Pope Celestine erred about Matrimonie of the faythfull whereof the one falleth into heresie it is a thing so manifest as all men know the same Neither was this errour of Pope Celestine such as it may be imputed to sole negligence so as wee may thinke him to haue erred as a priuate man and not as Pope who ought in the decree of euery serious matter to aske counsell of Learned men For that Definition and Decree of Celestine was in the old Decretals in the Chapter Laudabilem which I my selfe haue seene and read Out of these Golden words of the famous and great learned Fryer Alphonsus I obserue many very worthy lessons for the great good of the thankfull Reader First that Pope Celestine erred Secondly that he erred not as a priuate man but euen as Pope and publique person Marke gentle Reader for Christes sake I desire thee and for the saluation of thine owne soule For doubtlesse if thou ponder seriously this onely Testimonie of this great learned Papist all affection and partialitie set aside thou canst not
Gods meere fauour grace and good pleasure without all desertes of Man Seuenthly that our Vocation our Iustification and our Glorification are the effectes of Predestination I therefore conclude that Good workes are not the cause why Gods children possesse Heauen as their inheritaunce seeing it is the effect of Predestination yet that they are the ordinarie way and meanes by which God decreed in his eternall purpose to bring his Elect to Heauen For as he ordayned the end that is to say the Kingdome of Heauen or Eternall life so also ordayned he the way and meanes to attaine the same that is to say Vocation Iustification Fayth and Good workes Yea euen among Men whosoeuer intendeth the Ende intendeth also the Meanes The 6. Conclusion Good workes in a godly sense very vsuall frequent in the holy Fathers may truly be sayd to be meritorious that is to say they please God and are so acceptable in Gods sight that of mercie he rewardeth them farre aboue their desertes This Conclusion is sufficiently prooued by the reasons alleadged in the first Conclusion I will here onely annexe the testimonie of Bernard that famous and learned Popish Abbot In one place he hath these wordes Sic non est quod iam quaeras quibus meritis speremus bona praesertim cum audias apud Prophetam non propter vos sed propter me ego faciam dicit Dominus sufficit ad meritum scire quod non sufficiant merita So there is no cause that thou shouldest now aske by what merites we hope for Glorie especially since thou hearest the Prophet say I will doe it sayth the Lord not for your sake but for mine owne selfe It is enough to merite to know that our merites are not sufficient Againe in an other place the same Bernard hath these wordes Deest gratiae quicquid meritis deputas Noâ—â— meritum quod gratiam excludat Horreo quicquid de meo est vt sim meus nisi quod illud magis sorsitan meum est quod me meum facit Gratia reddit me mihi iustificatum gratis et sic liberatum a seruitute peccati It degenerateth from Grace whatsoeuer thou ascribest to Merit I will no Merite that excludeth Grace I abhorre whatsoeuer is of mine owne that I may be mine owne vnlesse perhappes that is more mine owne which maketh me mine owne Grace iustifieth me freely to my selfe and so deliuereth me from the bondage of sinne In an other place the same Bernard hath these wordes Iam vero de vita aeterna scimus quia non sunt condignae passiones huius temporis ad futuram gloriam nec si vnus omnes sustineat Neque N. talia sunt hominum merita vt propter ea vita aeterna debeatur ex iure aut Deus iniuriam aliquam faceret nisi cam donaret Nam vt taceam quod merita omnia Dei dona sunt et ita homo magis propter ipsa Deo debitor est quam Deus homini quid sunt merita omnia ad tantam gloriaÌ„ denique quis melior est Propheta cui Dominus ipse tam insigne testimonium perhibet dicens Virum inueni secundum cor meum Veruntamen et ipse necesse habuit dicere Deo non intres in iudicium cum seruo tuo Domine Now touching eternall life we know that the sufferinges of this time are not worthy of the glory to come no not if one endure all For the Merites of men are not such that for them eternall life is due by right or that God should do some iniurie if he gaue it not For to let passe that all Merites are the giftes of God and so man is rather debter to God for them then God to man What are all Merites to so great Glorie In fine who is better then the Prophet to whom our Lord giueth so worthy a testimonie saying J haue found a man according to my heart howbeit hee had need to say to God Enter not into iudgement with thy seruant O Lord. Thus writeth the deuote and religious Abbot Bernard who though he liued in the greatest mist of Poperie and so was carried away with some errours of his time yet did he teach most Christian doctrine almost in all his workes And because he was reputed a great Papist and of high esteeme in the Church of Rome his testimonie is euer most forcible against Papistes the Pope and Church of Rome Out of this his most learned and Christian Discourse I obserue many godly memorable Lessons First that our best workes doe merite nothing Secondly that our greatest and best merit is this viz. to know that our supposed merites are not sufficient Thirdly that how much soeuer be it more be it lesse We ascribe to Merites so much doe we derogate from Gods grace And consequently seeing we may not derogate from the Grace of God in any respect it followeth of necessitie that we cannot challenge any thing of Merite Fourthly that Grace doth iustifie vs freely and consequently that our Workes doe not iustifie at all Fiftly that though one man could suffer as much as all men doe yet could not that man condignely Merite heauen Sixtly that eternall life is not due to mans Merites Ex iure that is to say Condignely and of right Seuently that God should doe no man wrong if he gaue it not But doubtlesse if Good workes did merite Heauen God should doe wrong to many a man in not giuing it For to withhold and keepe a mans right from him is a notorious and knowen wrong Eightly that a Man is more indebted to God then God to Man And this reason my L. Abbot Bernard yeeldeth for the same viz. Because Heauen or Eternall life is the free gift of God The 7. Conclusion Good workes euen by Popish doctrine without the mercie and promise of God in his Sonne and our onely sauiour Christ Iesus doe not condignely merite Heauen This is soundly prooued by all the reasons of the third Conclusion But I will prooue it by other euident meanes S. Augustine hath these expresse wordes Vae eâ—iam laudabili vitae homiâ—â—m si remotu misericordia â—iscautias â—am Woe euen to the best liuers on earth if thou extend not thy Mercie to them For this cause doth the holy Prophet desire God Not to enter into iudgement with him And he addeth this reason Because 〈◊〉 mâ—n liuing can 〈◊〉 iustified in his sight Againe the same Prophet confesseth in an other place That if God deale extreamely in punishing what is done amisse none lyuing no not the best of all iâ— abâ—e to endure his iustice Abbot Bernard hath these expresse wordes Peccatum separans inter nos et Deum penitus auferri non poterit donec liberemur a corpore The sinne that separateth vs from God can not wholly be taken away while we remaine in this world He speaketh of Concupiscence euill desires Loe originall
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
excessiue eating Vse dayly abstinence refection without gluttonie or excesse for it profiteth thee nothing to haue an emptie Belly two or three dayes and after to fill the Panch while it may hold Thus the Popes owne Decrees teach vs and it is to be well obserued For doubtlesse Popish Fastes haue this effect most vsually the richer sort stuffe their bellies and fill their panches at Dinner with great varietie of Wines and delicate Meates Yea at all times they drinke Wines and eate Peares Apples Rasinges Figges and Simnels especially in their Collations at night they eate conserues of Quinces Cheries Wardens and like dainties which farre exceed the best Dinners of the poorer sort And this I protest for edification-sake I heere disclose the same that my selfe heard one Recusant once say at dinner that he did eate the more at dinner on the Fasting day that so he might put away Hunger vntill the next day What I haue heard touching this Subiect if I should here relate the same would seeme strange to many a one I speake of thinges heard by report the other I speake of my owne hearing this by the report of others An other Decree of Pope Pius doth yeeld vs this instructioÌ„ These are the words Nihil enim prodest homini ieiunare et orare et alia religionis bona agere nisi mens ab iniquitate et ab obtrectationibus lingua cohibeatur To Fast and Pray doth not profit a man any thing neither yet to do other dueties of Religion vnlesse he keepe his Minde from iniquitie his Tongue froÌ„ euill speaking An other Decree borrowed from S. Austen hath these wordes Ieiunium autem magnum et generale est abstinere ab iniquitatibus et ab illicitis voluptatibus seculi quod est perfectum ieiunium in hoc seculo Quasi QuadragesimaÌ„ S. abstinentiae celebramus cum bene viuimus cum ab iniquitatibus et ab illicitis voluptatibus abstinemus The great and generall Fast is to absteine from iniquitie and vnlawfull pleasures of this world and this is the perfect Fast in this world We keepe as it were a Quadragesima or Lent of abstinence while we liue well and Christianly while we absteine from sinne and from vnlawfull pleasures But an other Decree borrowed of S. Hierome shall be the vpshot of this game These are the very wordes Audiant itaque qui ea quae necessaria sunt corpori subtrahunt illud quod per Prophetam Dominus loquitur Ego Dominus odio habens rapinam holocanstorum De rapina vero holocanstum offert qui temporalium bonorum siue ciborum nimia egestate vel manducandi vel somni penuria corpus suum immoderatè affligit Let them therefore who withhold or take from the body thinges necessarie for it heare what our Lord sayth by his Prophet I the Lord hate the robbery of burnt Offeringes Now he offereth burnt Offeringes of Rapine or Roberie who afflicteth his body immoderately either with too much want of temporall good thinges or of Meates or with the penurie of eating or of sleepe This Discourse if my Tryall be annexed to it is enough concerning this Subiect To S. Hierome this in briefe is my answere viz. That the Epistle fathered on him is a counterfeit as which agreeth not with the true Hieroms Doctrine else where as is alreadie prooued To which I adde which I haue also prooued that if wee suppose and admit it to be a Tradition of the Apostles yet doth mine assertion stand firme and vntouched viz. That notwithstanding that Tradition yet was Lent-fast free voluntarie and not commaunded by any Law To S. Austen I answere first that the Sermon which our Jesuite citeth is not his but a counterfeit My reason is at hand because S. Austen as is already prooued affirmeth constantly that the Apostles made no Law for Fasting This is already prooued Secondly that in things indifferent such as I haue prooued Lent to be euery one is bound to obey the Law of that Church in which he lyueth And so he that keepeth not Lent-fast may truely be said to sinne Thirdly that S. Epiphanius and S. Austen did not reprooue Aerius for denying popish Lent-fast which was at that time vnhatched but for denying the Churches Authoritie in appoynting Fasting-dayes vpon what cause soeuer Which my selfe doe constantly auouch to be an Heresie indeede For when the Church vpon speciall causes appoynteth Fasting dayes then all that for infirmitie may ought to absteine and not to contemne those Fastes as Aerius taught Howbeit I say withall that the auncient Church condemned it for an Heresie in Montanus to appoynt ordinary times of necessarie and Religious Fasting when there was no speciall cause so to doe B. C. That which he bringeth concerning S. Spiridion his eating of Flesh in Lent all circumstaunces considered hurteth not vs but maketh against himselfe For we deny not but that in some cases Flesh may be eaten without violation of that Fast. T. B. I answere First that S. Spiridions eating of Flesh all circumstances duely considered maketh so much against Popish Lent fast as will make both the Jesuites and the Popes heart to pant when they shall seriously ponder my answere in that behalfe Secondly that our Jesuite truly graunteth that Papists may in some cases eate Flesh in theâ—â— holy Lent For first seeing the Pope can bring all Soules out of Popish Purgatory Secondly seeing he can dissolue that Matrimony which Christ himselfe instituted Thirdly seeing he can make a vowed Popish Monke to become a truly marryed man Fourthly seeing he can authorize the Brother to marrie his owne full and naturall Sister Fiftly seeing his owne will is a reason sufficient to doe whatsoeuer pleaseth him Sixly seeing he may iudge all but none iudge him Seuenthly seeing he can doe as much as Christ him selfe could doe Eightly Seeing none may say vnto him Why doest thou so Although he carry many thousandes of Soules to Hell Nynthly seeing he hath the right of both Swords the Spirituall and the Temporall and by vertue thereof deposeth Kings and translateth their Kingdomes Tenthly seeing he can by the fulnes of his power change the nature of things and of nothing make somthing all which is already prooued it followeth by an ineuitable illation that by the Popes Dispensation all Papistes may eate Flesh aswell in the time of Lent as at other times of the yeare This is confirmed by the vsuall practise aswell of Seminarie Priestes as of Iesuites Iesuited Papistes within this Land For a famous Jesuite made offer to a Gentleman that if he would become a Papist he should haue Licence to eate Flesh in Lent among Lollards that by so doing he might liue without suspition and escape daunger of the Lawes Now let vs duely examine the circumstaunces of S. Spiridions eating of Flesh in Lent Cassiodorus in the Tripartite Historie hath these expresse wordes Instante iam Quadragesima quidam
ex itinere venit ad eum quibus diebus consueuer at cum suis continuare ieiunia et die certo comedore medios dies sine cibo consistens Videns itaque peregrinum valde defectum perge inquit suae filiae laua peregrini pedes et cibos appone Cumque virgo dixisset nec panem esse nec 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quarum rerū solebat nihil habere reconditum propter ieiunium orans primū veniamque petens filiae iussit vt porcinas carnes quas domi salitas habebat coqueret Quibus coctis sedens cum peregrino positis carnibus comedebat et rogabat vt vna cum eo ederet peregrinus Quo resutante Christianumque se profitente propterea magis inquit resutare non debes Omnia enim munda mundis sicut sermo diuinus edocuit A certaine friend of S. Spiridion came to him in time of Lent at what time hee with his familie were wont to continue their Fast and to eate at a day appoynted absteyning all the meane dayes from the first day of their Fast to the last not eating any meate at all Hee therefore perceiuing the Stranger to be very weary willed his Daughter to wash his Feete and to set meate on the Table And when the Virgin answered that they wanted both Bred and Meale which thinges they vsed not to keepe in time of their Fast hee first prayed and then commaunded his Daughter to boyle the Swines flesh or salt Bacon which she had in the house which being made readie and set on the Table S. Spiridion sate downe with the Stranger and eating thereof desired the Stranger to eate and take part with him When the Stranger refused saying hee was a Christian S. Spiridion answered that therfore he ought not to refuse to eate with him because hee was a Christian adding this reason that Gods word taught all thinges to be pure to the pure Nicephorus a famous Historiographer of high esteeme in the Church of Rome reporteth the same Historie in the same sense and meaning vsing more plaine and euident wordes in the last periods which are these Ex amicis quidam ad eum ex itinere longinquo venit et quidem eo tempore quo ipse ieiunaret Certis enim quibusdam diebus a cibo omni abstinens postea vescebatur A ceraine friend came from farre euen at that time when he kept this Fast For he absteyned some certaine dayes from all maner of Meate and after his Fast did eate Thus writeth Cassiodorus thus Nicephorus Out of whose Narrations I obserue these very memorable instructions First that after these graue Historiographers had made mention of Lent-fast they by and by added these words At which time S. Spiridions custome was to Fast. Whereby they giue vs to vnderstand that he Fasted of his owne free accord not by compulsion of any setled Law For if Lent-fast had been vnder commaundement and not left free to euery ones arbitrement in vaine should these graue Writers haue made mention of S. Spiridions custome in that behalfe But as I haue already prooued some fasted a longer time some a shorter some after one maner some after an other And for that end is it that these famous Historiographers doe so distinctly relate both the time and the manner of S. Spiridions Fasting Secondly that these Writers affirme S. Spiridion to haue fasted but some certaine daies as if they had said the Stranger came not onely in Lent but euen at that time of Lent when S. Spiridion kept his Fast. For though the time of euery ones abstinence were tearmed Lent yet was there such difference therein that some ended when others began the same in so much that Nicephorus and other graue Writers doe more then a litle admire how they all in such and so great varietie could call their abstinence Lenton-fast Thirdly that S. Spiridion with his whole Familie marke the wordes Cum suis absteine from all kind of Meate during the whole time of their Fast And consequently that S. Spiridions Lent was not the Fast of fourtie dayes For neither himselfe and much lesse his whole familie some being of young and tender yeares was able to endure so many dayes without all kind of Meate Marke well these wordes A cibo omni abstinens This is so cleare and euident by vsuall Popish practise that whereas in former times the Papistes did not dine in Lent vntill the ninth houre which is with vs three a clocke in the after noone they are this day dispenced withall to shuffle vp their Prayers so to dine at noone And why I pray you must this be done Because forsooth their bodyes are not able to endure one dayes fast vntill three a clocke in the after noone Ergo S. Spiridions Lent continued not the space of fourtie dayes Our Fryer Iesuite volens nolens must this confesse Fourthly that neither S. Spiridion nor any one of his familie did eate any Meate vntill the end of the Fast And consequently that Popish Lent-fast is nothing correspondent to that Lent-fast which S. Spiridion vsed in his time Fiftly that seeing S. Spiridion did not interteine the Stanger without Bread albeit he had none in his owne house for doubtlesse he had Bread to his Flesh it followeth of necessitie that he got Bread of some of his Neighbours and consequently that all his Neighbours did not keepe Lent after his maner and at his time Which yet they ought and would haue done if Lent had been commaunded by any setled Law Sixtly that S. Spiridion brake off his Fast that he might eate and be merrie with the Stranger Whereby we may learne that his Fast was voluntarie not by compulsion of any Law Seuenthly that S. Spiridion vrged the Stranger euen to eate Flesh in Lent who doubtlesse would neuer haue once mooued him to transgresse any Apostolicall Law Ergo Lent-fast was voluntarie not commaunded by any Law Eightly that S. Spiridion when he vrged the Stranger to eate flesh in Lent did not alleadge necessitie or want of Meate but taught him plainely out of Gods word that all Meates as well Flesh as Fish were pure vnto the pure Lastly that S. Spiridion told the Stranger plainely and constantly that he ought rather to eate Flesh in Lent then to refuse it because hee was a Christian. As if he had said It is the badge of an Infidell not of a Christian to thinke he may rather eate Fish then Flesh. For the complement of doctrine concerning Lent-fast let vs heare attentiuely I pray you what Iosephus Angles that famous popish Byshop and Fryer telleth vs. Two memorable Doctrines doth he teach vs Th' one that Lent-fast is satisfactorie for our sinnes Th' other that Christ did not institute Lent-fast as the Romish Church obserueth it In one place he hath these expresse wordes Tale ieiunium est propriè et realiter et sacramentaliter satisfactorium Ratio est