Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	die_v	earl_n	william_n	10,476	5	7.6296	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A07868	The Iesuits antepast conteining, a repy against a pretensed aunswere to the Downe-fall of poperie, lately published by a masked Iesuite Robert Parsons by name, though he hide himselfe couertly vnder the letters of S.R. which may fitly be interpreted (a sawcy rebell.)	Bell, Thomas, fl. 1593-1610.	1608 (1608)	STC 1824; ESTC S101472	156,665	240

The Jesuites Antepast CONTEINING A Reply against a pretensed aun swere to the DOWNE-FALL OF POPERIE lately published by a masked Iesuite Robert Parsons by name though he hide himselfe couertly vnder the letters of S. R. which may fitly be interpreted A SAWCY REBELL Esay 38 verse 1. Put thine house in order for thou shalt die and not liue AT LONDON Printed by William Iaggard dwelling in Barbican 1608. To the Right Honorable my very good Lord Thomas Earle of Dorset Lord high Treasurer of England and one of his Maiesties most Honourable priuy Counsell ⁂ IT is a constant and vndoubted truth approoued by all Canonicall Scriptures ancient Councels holy Fathers Ecclesiasticall Histories and Right reason it selfe that as there is but one onely GOD so but one Faith and one Religion Hence commeth it Right Honorable that the Pope and his Iesuites with other his Popish Vassals employ their whole wits learning study care industry and diligence to instill into the cares and harts of the multitude and common people that the Religion which this day they professe is the old Roman Religion which Saint Peter and S. Paule first planted in the Church of Rome And for this end they indeau●ur with might and maine yea euen with fire and Fagot to perswade or rather to enforce all Christians to call it the Old Religion and to professe and beleeue it to bee the Catholique and Apostolique Faith whereas the truth is farre otherwise as God willing shortly will appeare Which if the Vulgar sort did once vnderstand they would no doubt stand at defiance with the Pope and from their hearts detest his late start-vppe Romish Doctrine There is a Sect of Fryers at Rome called the Franciscanes who haue by little and little swarued from their first institution and become so licentious and dissolute that another sort of Fryers commonly called the Capucheues haue accused them to haue departed from their Ancient and Primitiue order and therefore do the Capucheues tearme themselues the reformed and true Franciscanes indeede This is this day our case in the Church of Noble England and in many other Churches within the Christian World The Capucheues hold fast keep still and constanty defend all the Ancient Orders of the first Franciscanes they onely reiect and abandon that which by litle and little crept into their Order viz superstition abuses and neglect of Discipline Euen so is it this day with our Church of England she holdeth-fast keepeth still and constantly defendeth all and euery iote of the old Romane Religion reuerencing it as Catholique and Apopostolique Doctrine she onely reiecteth and abandoneth Heresies Errours superstition and intollerable abuses by little and little brought into the Church For neither did most Noble Queene Elizabeth in her time neyther doth our most gratious Soueraigne King IAMES who this day most happily raigneth ouer vs set vp or bring into the Church any new Religion but onely reformeth the Church by the example of King Iosaphat King Ezechias King Iosias and other godly Kinges in their dayes and reduceth it to the Primitiue order and purity of the old Romaine Religion This to be so none can in conscience deny that will with a single and vpright eye this day behold the godly setled Canons of this Church of England For the late Bishops of Rome haue in many points of great importance swarued and departed from the Doctrine of their Ancestors whereof no doubt many Papists euen at about Rome it selfe would this day if they durst for fear of fire and Fagot accuse the Pope himself What shall I say of Hieronymus Sauonarola that famous Preacher and Dominican Fryer Was not be burnt with Fire and Fagot because he preached openly in the famous Citty of Florence against the licencious liues of the Pope and his Clergy and against superstition and abuses crept into the Church I wote it was so it cannot be denyed What Did not Iohannes Geilerius a famous Popish Preacher at Argentorate oftentimes complain to his trusty friends not daring to acquaint otheres therewith that the Thomists and Scotists had brought auricular confession to such a miserable point as none possibly could performe the same He did so their owne good friend Beatus Rhenanus doth contest the same with me What Did not Franciscus à Victoria that ●amous Popish Schoole-doctor complaine grieuously in his time of Popish intollerable dispensations Did he not publish to the view of the world that the Church was brought to such a miserable state as none were able to endure the same Did hee not cry out against the late Bishops of Rome and desire Clements Lines Siluesters His own Book is extant in print the world knoweth it to be so What shall I say of the Popes errors in Faith and Doctrine Was not Pope Liberius an Arrian Heretike Was not Pope Anastasius a Silestorian Hereretique Was not Pope Celestine condemned for erronious doctrin did not Pope Iohn the 22. of that name teach publikely a most notorious heresie Did he not commaund the vniuersity of Paris that none should be admitted to any degree in Theologie but such as would sweare to defend that heresie perpetually Did not the King of France with the aduise consent of the whole vniuersity for that end cause his dānable opinion to be cōdemned with the sound of Trumpets Adrianus who was B of Rome himselfe Alphonsus à Castro Melchior Canus and Viguerius all foure being very learned and famous Papists are constant witnesses of this truth Doth not Nicholaus de Lyra a famous and learned Popish Writer boldly and constantly affirme in his learned Commentaries that many Popes haue swarued from the Faith and become fl●t Aposta●aes in their Romish seates He doth so it cannot bee gaine-said What shall I say of the Popes liues conuersation Was not Pope Iohn the eight of that name belying her sexe and clad in Mans attire with great admiration of her sharpe wit and singuler learning chosen to bee the Bishop or Pope of Rome Did she not shortly after by the familiar helpe of her beloued Companion bring forth the homely and shamefull fruites of her Popedome Is this true Is it possible Then farewell Popish Succession the chiefe Bulwarke of Romish Faith and Religion For seeing no Woman is or can be made capable of holy orders that succession which is deryued frō our holy Mistris Iohn Pope cannot possibly be of force Yet is this story confirmed to be true by the vniforme assent of many Papistes of great esteeme euen in the Church of Rome viz of Sigebertus Gemblacensis Marianus Scotus Matheus Palmerius Martinus Polonus Philippus Bergoniensis Baptista Platina Bartholomeus Carranza and others Was not Pope Iohn the twelft made Pope by violent meanes Did not his Father Albericus being a man of great power and might enforce the Nobles to take an oth that after the death of Pope Agapitus they would promote his Son

not be compared with things diuine euen so the nature of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Ghost is vnited inseperably and by his word as by brightnes hee hath vouchsafed to shew himselfe vnto vs. Fondly therefore doth our Iesuite dispute when he would proue Christs body to be both the figure and the thing figured out of the apostles words wherfore by the word Figure vnderstandeth the Essence and equality of God Hee vseth a Metaphoricall speech for the dulnes of our capacities who can vnderstand nothing in the admirable diuine mysteries but by similitudes drawne from Creatures To our Iesuites second Obiection that Seth was both a true man and withall the figure of a true man I make this answere viz That it maketh against himselfe The reason is euident because as I haue prooued out of Haymo the figure of the thing figured in humaine Creatures are different and the one distinguished from the other And the Iesuite must needes graunt so much or else say as I think he will not for shame that Seth was Adam and his owne Father But in Christes body the case is otherwise for the Papistes hold that Christes body in the Eucharist is Idem corpus numero the same body in number with his body on the crosse and his body now in heauen If they shall say otherwise then perforce must they say that which they dare not that Christ hath moe bodies then one S. R. I returne Bels Argument vppon himselfe because if figures must needes be inferior to things figured the Eucharist is some nobler thing then bread T. B. Our Iesuite careth not what he say so hee seeme to say somewhat so gladly would he and his fellowes haue the vulgar sort to think that they haue answered The Downfall of Popery But God be thanked they still fall downe that striue against it I aunswere First that albeit all figures were not inferior to the things figured yet should my manner of disputation bee good against Bellarmine because my argument is deduced out of his own ground and therefore called after their vse Argumentum ad hominem Secondly that our holy Eucharist is far nobler then bare Bakers bread viz Christs true and reall body sacramentally euen that very body which was nayled on the crosse that very bloud which with the spear issued out of Christs side All which I haue prooued at large in my Suruey of Popery and there haue answered al that possibly can be said for the Popish reall presence S. R. Neither Christs whole body nor part thereof is in the Eucharist before the pronuncication of the last word yet are not the former words superfluous For the last worketh the transmutation not by his owne vertue alone but with the vertue of them also or rather God worketh all when the last word is pronounced T. B. Behold here gentle Reader what vncertaintie is in popish faith and Doctrine For first our Iesuite telleth vs that either the last word in their supposed consecration worketh transubstantiation alone or with the help of the rest or else God worketh all when the last word is spoken Marry which of these is the truth that hee cannot tell vs. Secondly their Angelicall Doctor and Saint Aquinas saith that this conuersion is not like to naturall conuersions but is altogether supernaturall wrought by the onely power of God Thirdly the same Saint Aquinas telleth vs that this conuersion is doone in an instant Fourthly if either fit matter want or any word of consecration or the intention of the Priest nothing is changed it still remaineth bread Now then on the one side euery action that God doth is done in an instant the reason is euident because God is of infinite power to whose action no resistance can be made All learned papists graunt this to be so On the other side euery action that man doth is successiue in time because man is of finite and limited power the words therefore of consecration either worke nothing at all and so they are ciphers which to hold is absurd in popish doctrine or else transubstantiation is effected in time which is repugnant to Gods infinite power Heere I must tell our Iesuite that he passeth ouer with silence two most notable contradictions whereof he speaketh not one word for feare of biting I told him in the Downefall that Berengarius was compelled to confesse and beleeue that Christes body is broken with hands and yet doth Bellarmine graunt that it is not brokē with hands Ergo it is broken with hands and not broken with hands What can be a plainer contradiction None at all S. R. Catholiques thinke indeed that when the Priest wanteth both actuall and virtuall intention or omitteth any essentiall worde that there is no Consecration and the priest sinneth therein greeuously but the people worshipping erroneously vpon inuincible ignorance offend no more then did Saint Iohn when hee worshipped an Angel as God or as did Iacob when he lay with Lia who was not his wife thinking verily she had beene his wife Rachell T. B. This is horrible impiety that by Popish Religion men women are compelled to adore that with diuine worship as the euerliuing God whith perhaps euen by the Popes owne faith and beleefe is nothing else but a piece of bread Yet is it farre greater impiety and slat blasphemy against the sonne of God to excuse the people from sinne which commit openly such palpable and grosse Idolatry But inuincible ignorance saith our Iesuite doth excuse them as it did S. Iohn and Iacob Howsoeuer the case stand with S. Iohn and the Patriarke Iacob whereof I am not now to dispute ignorance can neuer excuse Idolatry Hee saith Christ that knoweth the will of God and doth it not shal be beaten with many stripes He that knoweth not the will of God and yet doth things worthy of stripes shal be beaten with few stripes And we are taught in Ezechiel that the wicked shall die in his iniquity though the watchman gaue him no warning The man of God which beleeued the old Prophet that lyed vnto him sinned greeuously as appeared by his punishment because he transgressed the word of the Lord albeit hee offended ignorantly thinking hee had done the will of God S. R. What maketh it against the masse that three or foure Catholiques did in a difficult matter before it was defined by the Church dissent from the rest Let Bell if hee can shew this diuersity now since the Councell T. B. In the Downefall of Popery I proued out of Durand that onely the forme of Bread is changed in the Eucharist that the matter of Bread remaineth stil. Out of Rupertus the Popish Abbot that the bread is vnited Hypostatically to the sonne of God That Caietanus Henrieus Capreolus are of another opinion That Iohannes Parisiensis helde also that the bread was assumpted but in a different maner from the opinion of Rupertus That