much Chapter 9. Proouing That true Merite and condigne Merite is all one That the regenerate doe Good works and receiue reward aboue their desertes That Good workes doe follow Iustification but goe not before the same That the best Workes of the regenerate are stayned with sinne and in rigour of Iustice deserue eternall death That Good workes are so necessarie to attaine eternall life as the way and meanes by which God hath decreed to bring his chosen to it but not as the cause thereof as without them it can not be had That Good workes are the effectes of Predestination depending vpon it not it vpon them That Good workes in a godly sense may be called Meritorious that is they so please God that of mercie he rewardeth them That without the mercie and promise of God they doe not merite Heauen That Charitie is not the forme of Fayth That Fayth as a worker doth not iustifie but respectiuely as an instrument apprehending Christes merites and applying them vnto vs. That Good workes though they be neither the efficient nor the formall nor the finall cause of Iustification which euer goeth before them yet are they the materiall cause and cause sine qua non as the Schooles tearme it the cause or condition without which Iustification shall not haue effect That Good workes must be done for three respectes That Gods Promise doth not make Good workes to be condignely worthy of the reward That condigne merite of Workes was not an Article of Popish fayth for more then 1540. yeares after Christ. Chapter 10. Proouing That Transubstantiation is a Monster lately begotten in Germanie and borne in Rome Chapter 11. Proouing That popish Inuocation doth not onely make Saintes the mediatours of Intercession but also of Redemption That it maketh Saintes ioynt purchasers of saluation with Christes most sacred blood so it be not in the same degree That it was not hatched for more then 1160 yeares after Christ. Chapter 12. Of the popish Communion vnder one kind Chapter 13. Of popish priuate Masse Chapter 14. Of Pope Martins Dispensation Chapter 15 Of worshipping of Images Chapter 16. Of Church-seruice in the vulgar tongue Chapter 17. Of the peeces of popish Masse Chapter 18. Of the mysteries of the popish Masse Chapter 19. Of kissing the Popes feete Chapter 20. Of praying vpon Beedes Chapter 21. Of changing the Popes name Chapter 22. Of the Paschal Torch Chapter 23. Of the popish Pax and the mysterie thereof Chapter 24. Of the Popes Bulles Chapter 25. Of the popish Agnus-dei Chapter 26. Of Candelmas-day Chapter 27. Of the dolefull Oath which popish Byshops make to the Pope Chapter 28. Of the popish Lent-fast Chapter 29. Of the annulling of popish Wedlocke Chapter 30. Of the Popes falsely pretended Superioritie ouer and aboue a generall Councell Chapter 31. Proouing That the Fayth and Doctrine of the Church of England is the old Romane Religion The Iesuites Proeme B. C. INtending to note the principall vntruethes of Bels Pamphlet I haue thought good first to salute his Epistle and see what holsome stuffe hee presenteth in that to his Patrons T. B. I Answere First that If I should stand vpon euery falsehood slaunder and coozening tricke which the Iesuite hath published and handsomely paint him out in his best beseeming colours time would sooner fayle me then matter whereof to speake Howbeit as I meane for the most part to let passe his slaunders his rayling wordes his fooleries his absurdities his contradictions and his impertinent trifles so will I by Gods holy assistance confute all the partes and parcels of his foolish and ridiculous Pamphlet not omitting any thing of any moment in the same Secondly that our Iesuite hath passed ouer in deepe silence my principall and chiefest groundes argumentes authorities reasons as not able to say any thing against them which the iuditious and honest Reader will soone perceiue with all facilitie Thirdly that our Fryer doth but snatch at peeces heere there with the which he thought he might best deale at the least in some colourable shew of wordes But let vs hearken I pray you to that attentiuely which he saith he found in my dedicatorie Epistle B. C. The Minister falleth roundly to the matter presenting his Patrons with a tricke of his occupation in his very first entraunce his wordes be these The visible Church sayth Bell as writeth Egesippus remayned a Virgin free from all heresies and corruptions during the life of the Apostles that is to say about one hundred yeares after Christ to which time S. Iohn the Euangelist was liuing but after the death of the Apostles sayth hee errours by litle and litle crept into the Church as into a voyde and desart House This Collection which Bell hath made is powdred with lies and iugling trickes thicke and threefold Bell belyeth both Egesippus and also Eusebius whom be quoteth in the third Booke of his Historie in the two and thirtie Chapter as the relator of those wordes of Egesippus Read the place he that please no such thing shall there be found nor the name of Egesippus so much as once mentioned The Minister both abuseth his Patrons and others with a notorious vntrueth of his owne fathering that vpon Eusebius which is not there to be found Neither can this dealing of his proceed from other roote then meere malice as whose braines are employed about nothing more then the hammering of lyes cauils and corruptions against the Catholicke fayth T. B. I answere First that the Jesuites accusation which here he maketh against mee is too too grieuous and more then intollerable vnto godly eares For he chargeth mee first to haue powdred mine assertion with lyes and iugling trickes Then to haue done the same thicke and threefold Thirdly to haue belyed both Egesippus Eusebius Fourthly he impudently affirmeth that no such thing can possibly be found as I haue alleadged out of Eusebius Fiftly that my position is so false and so farre from the trueth that the name of Egesippus is not so much as once mentioned Sixtly that I haue of meere malice slaundered Egesippus and Eusebius being men of great learning Secondly that seeing the Diuell is the Father of Lyers the Jesuite may very well be thought to be his only Sonne But how shal this be prooued All that shal read his booke must needes thinke he sayth the trueth because he affirmeth it so impudently confidently I would say This text of Christes holy Ghospell may well be verified in the Jesuites their accursed Iesuited crew They loued the prayâ—e of men more then the glory of God The truth is neuer ashamed she will shew her selfe to the confusion of the newly hatched sect of Jesuites of the late start-vp Romish fayth and religion These are the expresse wordes of Eusebius as Ruffinus a very learned Father who liued aboue 1200. yeares agoe hath translated them Post haec idem scriptor
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
Thalassius the reuerend Byshoppe of Caesaria did the like in these expresse wordes His quae per consensum ordinata sunt inter amantissimâ—s Episcopos Maximum et Iuuenalâ—m et nos consentimus To these thinges which are ordered by consent betweene the most beloued Byshops Maximus and Juuenalis wee also giue our consent Diogenes the reuerend Byshop of Cyzice did the like in these expresse wordes Consentio his quae a Paetrebus factae sunt I giue my consent to that which the Fathers haue decreed Sixtly all the Fathers of the Councell did the same these being their expresse wordes Omnes reuerendissimj Episcopj clamauerunt nos ita dicimus et consentimus his quae a Patribus dicta sunt All the most reuerend Byshoppes showted Wee say so and wee giue our consentes to those things which the Fathers haue decreed By these manifold testimonies it is cleare and euident that the Fathers who were assembled in Councell at the Emperours commaund decreed and confirmed peace betweene Maximus and Iuuenalis as also that they sought to the Emperour not to the Pope for the decision of their controuersies Neither is Pope Leo so much as once named in that action of the holy Councell What therefore shall wee or what can wee say to our lying Iesuite but that as hee began with lying and deceitfull dealing so he meaneth to continue his falsehood his lying his falsifications and his conny-catching trickes vnto the end Secondly that our Jesuite seemeth not to haue read Sâ—zomenus himselfe but to haue mistaken the Chapter by some note sent him from his best aduisors for to heare that Poperie is prooued the New religion doth so gall and trouble them that they can not sleepe quietly in their beddes for thinking how to withstand the same Many of their deepest heades haue conspired against the trueth and Robert Parsons that brazen-faced Fryer was put in trust to gather their instructions and to publish the same in the English tongue Leonem ex vnguibus I know the Lyon by his pawes The Narration of Sozomenus is in the eight not in the seuenth Chapter No no Sozomenus in the 7. Chapter cutteth the Popes throate and striketh the Jesuite starke dead these are the expresse wordes Romanae vero Ecclesiae Episcopus et sacerdotes per occidentem haec in suaÌ„ contumeliaÌ„ vergere duxerunt etenim sententiaÌ„ eoruÌ„ qui Nicaeae conuenerant quaÌ„ inde ab initio per omnia approbabant nec dum reliquerant sed ad illius normaÌ„ sentiebant et AthanasiuÌ„ ad se venientem amicè susceperunâ— causamqueillius ad se traxerunt But the Byshop of the Church of Rome and the Priestes throughout the West iudged the things to tende to their reproch for they had not yet forsaken their Sentence and Decree who were assembled at Nice which from the beginning they approoued in all thinges but followed it in their iudgements as the rule and friendly receiued Athanasius when he came to them and tooke his cause into their handes Thus writeth Sozomenus by whose relation it is euident that not the Pope alone but all the Byshoppes assembled togeather in a lawfull Synode effected that which our lying Jesuite would deceitfully father vpon the Pope Athanasius of Alexandria Paulus of Constantinople and Marcellus of Ancyra being vniustly molested by the Easterne Arrianizing Bishops sought to Julius then Byshop of Rome for his helpe and countenance as to the chiefest Patriarch who by reason of his place was of great authority and highly esteemed Pope â—ulius willing to afforde the sayd Byshops the best helpe he could called together the Byshops of the West and with their Decrees in a lawfull Synode declared the Easterne Byshops to haue offended against the Councell of Nice whose Canons all the faythfull in the Christian world were bound to reuerence and obey And thus the holy Byshoppes vniustly deposed from their seates were againe restored to their places by force in deed of the Nicene Canons For neither could the Pope alone nor yet the whole Synode of Westerne Byshops haue restored them but that their definitions were firmely grounded vpon the holy Nicene Canons For as we see by Sozomenus his Narration the Byshoppe of Rome with the Byshoppes of the West followed the Nicene Canons as their rule in all their Decrees resolutions and proceedinges whatsoeuer B. C. In his argumentes against the Superioritie of the Byshop of Rome this is one Seuenthly the famous Councell of Chalcedon gaue the Byshoppe of Constantinople equall authoritie with the Byshoppe of Rome in all Ecclesiasticall affayres In which wordes is one vntrueth cunningly couched For he calleth that heere the decree of the Councell which was by the ambition of Anatolius Byshoppe of Constantinople effected in the absence of the Romane Legates If Bell can prooue that this surreptitious Decree of the Easterne Byshoppes was euer confirmed then were it some thing which he bringeth But the Byshoppe of Rome his Legates withstood that their indirect proceeding pronouncing it to be contrary to the Decrees of the Nicene Councell T. B. Though it be the meere trueth that the Romish fayth and doctrine this day taught beleeued and violently with Fire Faggot obtruded vpon many thousands of people is the New religion yet doth that trueth so gall pierce and wound the Pope and his Iesuited Popelings that they can not endure the noyse or sound thereof For which respect our Jesuite turning himselfe this way that way and euery way but to the trueth omitteth sixe truethes by me briefely touched in my Triall but prooued at large in my Suruay and beginneth to cauill and scornefully to bicker with the seuenth thinking by meanes of confusion and disordered proceeding to couer and hide the nakednesse and newnesse of rotten Poperie and to dazell the eyes of his Readers that they shall not behold and discerne the trueth But it will in time preuaile maugre the malice of the Pope of his Iesuited vassals and of the greatest Diuell of Hell Two thinges the Iesuite heere toucheth in which the maine poynt and issue euen prora et puppis of the controuersie of the Popes falsely pretended Soueraigntie doth consist Th' one concerneth the Councell of Nice th' other the Councell of Chalcedon For the exact examination of which difficulties I put downe certaine Aphorismes hoping by Gods holy assistaunce to hit the nayle on the head and to make the heartes of the Pope and his Popish crew as heauie as any Lead Aphorisme first The most famous generall Councell of Nice did confine and limit the iurisdiction of the Byshop of Rome as well as of other Byshoppes euery where Behold the proofe and marke it well First the Nicene Councell in the first Canon hath these expresse wordes De his qui communione priuantur seu ex clero seu ex laico ordine ab Episcopis per vnamquamque Prouinciam sententia regularis obtineat vt hi qui abijciuntur ab alijs non recipiantur
is also a manifest vntrueth T. B. I answere first that as our Fryer is bold vntruely to charge me with vntruethes so I must be bold to returne the same vntruethes vnto himselfe and for his iust demerites reward him with the Whetstone Secondly that while our Fryer Jesuite would very gladly impose vpon me two vntruethes so to hide the nakednesse of Poperie he hath committed no fewer then three notorious Lyes First he saith roundly though vntruely that Roffensis the Byshoppe of Rochester speaketh nothing of 250. yeares This is his first notorious Lye I prooue it sundry wayes First because he telleth vs resolutely that the Greeke Fathers beleeued not Purgatorie for the space of 1517. yeares consequently not for the space of 250. yeares Secondly that after many pluralities of yeares Purgatorie and Pardons were receiued Thirdly that Purgatorie was a long time vnknowen Fourthly that afterward some beleeued it by litle and litle How sayest thou now sir Fryer doth your Popish Byshoppe say nothing of 250. yeares Are not 250. contayned in 1517. yeares Doe not many pluralities of yeares something touch 250. yeares Doest not thou ô Fryer extend the age of the Primatiue Church how truely shortly will be seene vnto 250. yeares And yet doth the Byshoppe tell thee that both Pardons and Purgatorie were vnknowne to the primatiue Church Ergo I must score this vp for a flatte and knowne Lye Secondly he sayth impudently that the Byshop doth not denie that Purgatorie was alwayes beleeued in the Church This is his second notorious and shamelesse Lye I prooue it by a three-fold argument For first the Byshop sayth plainely in expresse wordes that the Greeke Fathers S. Chrysostome S. Basill S. Gregorie S. Epiphanius and the rest of those great Learned men and stout Champions of the Church beleeued not Purgatorie for the space of 1517. yeares Secondly that the Fathers of the Latine Church beleeued it not for many yeares Thirdly that afterward some beleeued it by litle and litle Where I wish the Reader to obserue seriously this word deinde afterward for it striketh dead confoundeth the Iesuite and prooueth manifestly that Poperie is the New Religion The case is so cleare and euident as euery Child may easily perceiue the same For that which was beleeued afterward must perforce be vnbeleeued at the first Againe that which was sometime vnknowne must needes be sometime vnbeleeued or else our Fryer must needs say which for his Lugs he dareth not say that the Pope forsooth and his Iesuited Popelinges beleeued they know not what His third notorious Lye is this viz. that I vntruely charge their Byshoppe of Rochester in fathering vpon him that the Church of Rome beleeued not Purgatorie for the space of 250. yeares after Christ. For I haue euidently and irrefragably deduced out of the Byshoppes expresse wordes that the Church of Rome beleeued not Purgatorie for more then 250. yeares thrise told yea not for the space of more then one thousand yeares I prooue it once againe to the Iesuites and the Popes euerlasting shame Marke well my Discourse for Christes sake gentle Reader for in so doing thou canst not but abhorre and detest Poperie as a fond and new Religion I protest vpon my saluation that I beleeue as I write as also that the late Bishoppe of Rochester whom our Fryer nameth Roffensis which word onely connotateth the place where he was Byshoppe but is not his name prooueth the same effectually this is the proofe First the Byshoppe telleth vs constantly that the Greeke Church neuer beleeued Purgatorie Secondly that the Latine Church did not beleeue it of a long time Thirdly that afterward some few beleeued it by litle and litle Fourthly that it was generally beleeued not but of late yeares Fiftly that Pardons began to be sought for and to be graunted when the people stood a while in feare of Purgatorie paines To which I adde that Pardons beganne not vntill Bonifacius the eight 1300. yeares after Christ as I haue alreadie prooued out of Platina the Popes deuoted vassall and sometime his Abbreuiator Apostolicus And consequently that seeing such Pardons as I speake of in this place were not knowen for the space of 1300. yeares after Christ and seeing withall that they were in vse shortly after Purgatorie began to be feared it followeth by a necessarie and ineuitable illation that Purgatorie was not knowen and beleeued for the space of 1200. yeares at the least And so I trow nay am well assured not for the space of 250. yeares after Christ euen by the flatte testimonie of their great learned Popish Byshop my late Lord of Rochester B. C. As I haue prooued against him in the Dolefull Knell out of S. Denis S. Pauls scholler and Tertullian yea and to his vtter confusion conuinced out of himselfe T. B. I answere first that when our Fryer is at a non plus then would hee be thought to haue done that els where which he is not able to performe in deed and therefore doth he many times send me to this inuisible Booke of which more at large God willing before the end of this Discourse Secondly that if euer I can see the Booke as I hope to doe if any such Booke be extant in rerū natura I shall with speed conuenient frame mine answere to the same not doubting but the Confusion will be his owne after due examination of the same And in the interim let him this know by the way and before hand that his Booke is a sillie and dolefull thing indeed as which by his owne confession heere hath no better Authors to relie vpon then a counterfeite Denis and a Montanizing Tertullian Thirdly that what hee can possibly gather out of all my Bookes the same hath hee in this present pretensed Refutation set downe at large whether to his owne shame and confusion or to mine let the indifferent Reader iudge B. C. In this place I will adde the Testimonie of his brother Perkins who in his Probleme confesseth That Purgatorie was first receiued by Tertullian the Montanist wherein is one open vntrueth to weete that Hee was the first for hee onely affirmeth it but prooueth it not and no maruell when hee can not seeing most certaine it is that it came from the Apostles Non temerè c. Not without cause sayth S. Chrisostome these thinges were ordayned of the Apostles that in the dreadfull mysteries commemoration should be made of the dead for they know that thereby much gaine doth come vnto them much profite T. B. I answere first that our Fryer in one place calleth M. Perkins The Puritane of England and in an other place obiecteth my Booke penned against them Howbeit heere hee must needes be my Brother and I oppressed with his Authoritie Secondly that our Fryer hath no sooner obiected M. Perkins against mee but foorthwith hee oppugneth his Assertion Thirdly that he affirmeth it for a most certaine
trueth that Purgatorie came from the Apostles Which more bold then wise affirmance I returne vnto our Fryer for a most certaine and shamelesse Lye for a most notorious Slaunder and for an intollerable Blasphemie against the blessed Apostles of our Lord Iesus I prooue it sundry wayes First because S. Chrysostome was one of the chiefest and best Learned Fathers of the Greeke Church who as my Lord of Rochester hath told vs very plainely and resolutely neuer beleeued there was any Popish Purgatorie while they were lyuing heere on earth and consequently that Purgatorie can neuer be truely fathered vpon that great learned holy man Secondly because those Homilies from whence our Fryer would gladly fetch Purgatorie-fire are counterfeite not S. Chrysostomes indeed Whereof this is an argument insoluble that the Greeke Fathers did neuer beleeue Purgatorie For if S. Chrysostome had taught Purgatorie in his Bookes Byshoppe Fisher that glorious so supposed Popish Martyr could not truely haue written and constantly auouched to the whole world as he did that the Greekes neuer beleeued Purgatorie Thirdly that if the Apostles had taught Purgatorie then could not so many so Learned so holy Fathers of the Greeke Church haue been so long time euen till their death ignoraunt thereof Nay if the Latine Church in their dayes had receiued Purgatorie as a tradition Apostolicall they would neuer haue withstood it but most reuerently haue admitted and most Christianly beleeued the same Fourthly that if we suppose and graunt our Fryer thus much to cheare vp his spirits a while viz. that they are S. Chrysostomes wordes which he citeth in his name yet will it not serue his turne to build Popish Purgatorie therevpon For the words do onely prooue this and no more to weete that th'Apostles taught Commemoration of the dead Which my selfe am so farre from disliking that I haue many yeares agoe approoued it in my Suruay of Poperie Yea the Papistes in their publike Prayers make frequent and vsuall Commemoration of their Martyrs whom they for all that deny to be in Purgatorie-fire and freely graunt to be in Heauen And so they can not inferre Purgatorie out of the Commemoration of the dead To this I adde that Prayer for the dead which is more then Commemoration may in a godly sort be vsed as I haue shewed at large first in my Motiues and afterward in my Suruay More then which the Iesuite can not inferre out of his Author as his Marginall note doth declare I therefore conclude that our â—esuite hath runge out a notorious vntrueth when he telleth his Reader that Purgatorie came from the Apostles B. C. Heere the iudicious Reader may also note how the Minister contradicteth himselfe In his Suruay intreating of Purgatorie he sayth Thus by litle and litle it increased till the late Byshoppes of Rome made it an Article of Popish Fayth Where in the Margent he noteth the time thus In the yeare of our Lord 250. Heere he sayth that the Church of Rome beleeued it not for the space of 250. yeares After which as he telleth vs it increased by litle and litle And so in this place he maketh the seed of Purgatorie not to haue been sowen before the yeare 250. and afterward to haue increased till it came to perfection There he affirmeth that the seed was sowen before and increased by litle and litle vntill it became ripe and perfect Poperie which was in the yeare 250. And so Purgatorie was sowen and not sowen growen and not growen an article of Fayth and not an article of Fayth in the same one yeare 250. I will not deny but the Minister hath some skill in botching togeather of old endes of Diuinitie gathered out of the Ragge market of Caluin and such like Geneua-Merchants yet I feare mee it will be hard for him so to cobble the sayinges togeather that the flaw of a contradiction appeare not T. B. I answere first that where our Fryer pretendeth some feare that I can not defend by any cobling my contradiction by him so supposed I am so free from it that I weene his heart will pant so soone as he shal peruse my answere to the same For so God helpe me I woonder he is not ashamed so to write O tempora O mores I would not haue imagined that the Maister Deuill of Hell had so possessed him as to make him the instrument of such notorious execrable and plaine diabolicall Lyes Neuer did any man heare know or read such shamelesse palpable and grosse vntruethes Who will not exclaime and cry out of Poperie that shall read this Fryers Answere and this my Reply ioyned with my Tryall and my Suruay in which hee would seeme to ground his deuillish and abhominable Lyes Fie fie how can he thinke that any of witte and iudgemet will beleeue him Hee perceiueth right well that the trueth published in my Bookes can neuer be truly answered and therefore sillie Papistes who dare not for feare of Popish tyrannicall censures read my Bookes must perforce receiue and beleeue his most execrable Lyes for the trueth Oh that they would once read my Bookes nay but this one Reply with a single eye and indifferent iudgement all parcialitie set apart Hee knoweth that hee falsely accuseth mee his owne conscience though neuer so badde can not but condemne him Euery child may easily discerne that the trueth is on my side The case is so cleare my wordes so plaine and the trueth thereof so apparant as euery iudicious and honest Reader must needes thinke him worthy to haue a Whetstone tyed at his Girdle a Foxe-tayle in his necke and a Fooles-bable in his hand If Poperie through mortall wounds receiued were not past recouerie if the trueth published in my Bookes were not vnanswereable if the Iesuite were not at a Non plus not able to defend the Pope and his late start-vp Romish Fayth he would neuer thus delude the world with his most notorious Lyes and deceitfull dealing In my Suruay marke wel for Christs sake these are my expresse words in the third part and sixt Chapter Afterward Origen being too much addicted to his allegoricall speculation fayned many odde things touching Purgatorie as the Ethnicke Plato whom he much imitateth had done before him After Origen others began to call the matter into question others rashly to beleeue it others to adde many thinges to Origens conceit Thus by litle and litle it increased till the late Byshops of Rome made it an Article of Popish Fayth In my Booke intituled The Tryall of the new Religion these are my expresse words First we see that the Greeke Church neuer beleeued Purgatorie to his dayes I speake there of Iohn Fisher late Byshoppe of Rochester and so it was vnkowen to them 1517. yeares Secondly that the Church of Rome beleeued it not for the space of 250. yeares after which time it increased by litle and litle These are my very wordes in both my Bookes The
whole care industrie and diligence to see what helpe might be had in that behalfe his best resolution is to say with the old doting man of Carlton That it is either one thing or other For first he freely confesseth that it is not in the Old law Secondly that it is not in the Scripture of th'Apostles Thirdly that we must either hold this or that but he can not tell whether Fourthly that how soeuer we thinke or say of this Popish Auricular confessioÌ„ this perforce we must resolue to be the trueth viz. that it is grounded vpon Vnwritten tradition without all maner of Scripture This is it which our Papistes must euer flie vnto as to their best and last trumpe For which respect their learned and canonized Martyr the late Byshoppe of Rochester confessed plainely that the holy Scriptures will not serue their turne these are his expresse wordes Contendentibus itaque nobiscum Hareticis nos also subsidio nostram oportet tueri causam quam scriptura sacra Therefore when Heretiques contende with vs we must defend our cause by other meanes then by the holy Scripture Thus writeth Byshoppe Fisher the Popes canonized Saint and glorious Martyr a Learned man indeed who as we see for all his Learning was not able to defend Poperie by Gods word and therefore he fled from the holy Scriptures to vnwritten Traditions as Scotus did afore him And for the same respect Couarruuias a famous Popish Bishoppe and a great learned man confessed and published to the whole world that howsoeuer the trueth was that which their Pope did must of necessitie be defended These are his expresse words Nec mâ—latet c. Neither am I ignorant that S. Thomas affirmeth after great deliberation that the Byshoppe of Rome can not with his Dispensation take away from Monkes their solemne Vow of Chastitie This notwithstanding wee must defend the first opinion least those thinges which are practised euery where be vtterly ouerthrowne Behold here gentle Reader that howsoeuer the Popes opinion be whether true or false that skilleth not the same wee must defende of necissitie And why I pray you must this be done Because forsooth sayth Couarruutas otherwise Poperie will be turned vpside downe Sixtly because their famous Cardinall Caietanus affirmeth roundly that Auricular and Secret confession is against Christes institution as also the Precept that vrgeth vs to the same For albeit hee approoue Confession as instituted by Christ yet doth he adde a double restriction First that it was Voluntarie then that it was neither Secret nor of All sinnes Which twaine for all that the late Byshoppes of Rome affirme and vrge as necessarie to Saluation Marke well the next Conclusion out of the Popes owne Decrees The Seuenth Conclusion Popish Auricular Confession was not an Article of Popish Fayth for the space of 1215. yeares I prooue it because their famous Fryer and reuerend Popish Byshop Iosephus Angles affirmeth peremptorily and without all And 's or Ifs that none were Heretikes for the deniall of the necessitie of Popish confession vntill the Decree of their late Councell of Latheran which was holden 1215. yeares after Christ. And the Fryer Byshoppe yeeldeth this reason for the same viz. Quia nondum erat ab Ecclesia declaratum Because the Church of Rome had not before that time declared it to be so To which I adde for the complement of this controuersie that the Holy Auncient Fathers those stout Champions and mighty Pillers of Christes Church were neuer acquainted with Popish Auricular confession I prooue this by a double argument First by the fact of the holy Byshop Nectarius then by the ioynt-testimonies of Nicephorus and Rhenanus Concerning Nectarius that holy and worthy Byshoppe of Constantinople hee abolished the Law made for Confession so to auoyde the great Vices which ensued therevpon Where the Reader must obserue two thinges with mee th' one that in the Auncient church Publike Penaunce was inioyned to those who publikely denyed the Fayth in time of Persecution And that some were so zelous and so highly esteemed the sacred Ministerie that although they did not denie the Fayth publikely yet for that they had some doubtes therein and were troubled in their mindes they voluntarily disclosed their secret griefes to Gods Ministers humbly desired their Godly aduise submitted themselues to doe what was thought expedient by those Ministers whom the Church had placed to inioyne Penance for publike sinnes Th' other that notwithstanding the whoredome of the Deacon and other vices neither would that holy Byshop Nectarius euer haue attempted to abolish Confession if it had been Gods ordinance neither would so many famous Byshops haue imitated his fact And yet is it most certaine as shal be seene by and by that all for the most part Easterne-Byshops did follow his opinion Yea euen S. Chrysostome who succeeded Nectarius at Constantinople that goodly Patriarchall seate of the World Concerning Nicephorus and Rhenanus their owne expresse wordes shall heere be layde open to the Reader Nicephorus after he hath told vs what Nectarius did immediatly addeth these wordes Quem etiam ferè Orientales Episcopi omnes sequuti sunt Whom almost all the Byshoppes of the East did follow and imitate Againe he addeth toward the end of that Chapter these wordes Itaque de quorundam maximè vero Eudaemonis Ecclesiae eius Presbyteri patria Alexandrini Consilio ne postea in Ecclesia Presbyter paenitentiarius esset Nectarius statuit suadentibus illis vt cuique permitteretur pro conscientia et fiducia sua communicare et de immaculatis mysterijs participare Therefore Nectarius being aduised by sundry especially by Eudaemon an Elder of that Church borne in Alexandria made a Decree through their perswasion that from that day no Priest should heare the Confessions of the penitentes but that euery one should be permitted to communicate and to be partaker of the holy Mysteries as his owne Conscience and Fayth did mooue him Beatus Rhenanus after he had discoursed at large how the Auncient Church appoynted Priestes ouer the penitent that they might giue them counsaile how to make satisfaction according to the Canons which themselues did not vnderstande and withall had prooued out of S. Cyprian S. Chrysostome S. Basill S. Ambrose S. Hierome S. Bede Tertullian Hesychius Theodulphus Theodorus Bertramus Rabanus and Nectarius all which he alleadged for his opinion he deliuered his owne iudgement in these wordes Non aliam ob causam complurimi hic testimonijs vsi sâ—mus quam ne quis admiretur TertullianuÌ„ de clancularia illa admissoruÌ„ confessione nihil loquutum quae quantum coijcimus penitus id temporis ignorabatur For no other cause haue I heere vsed the testimonies of so many Writers but least any should maruell that Tertullian spake nothing of that secret Confession which as I thinke was vtterly vnknowen at that time Loe Tertullian spake not one word of Auricular confessioÌ„
â—ffes that euery Sinne is mortall of it owne nature Our reuerend Byshoppe Roffensis hath these expresse wordes Quod peccatum Veniale solum ex Dei miseri oâ—dia Ventale sit in hoc tecum sentio That a Veniall sinne is only Veniall through the mercie of God not of it owne nature therein doe I agree vnto you Loe the Popish glorious Martyr my Lord of Rochester who was as learned as any Byshoppe or Pope of Rome confesseth honestly and truely that euery Sinne is mortall of it owne nature The famous and great learned man Ioannes Gersonus otherwise a great Papist can not denie this veritie for these are his words Nulla offensa Dei est Venialis de se nisi tantummodo per respectum ad Diuinam misericordiam qui non vult de facto quamlibet offensaÌ„ imputare ad morteÌ„ cum illud posset iustissime Et ita concluditur quod peccatuÌ„ mortale et veniale in esse tali non distinguuntur intrinsece et essentialiter sed solum per respectum ad Diuinam gratiam quae peccatum istud imputat ad paenam mortis et aliud non No offence of God is Veniall of it owne nature but onely in respect of Gods mercie who will not de facto impute euery offence to death although hee might most iustly doe it And so I conclude that Mortall and Veniall sinnes as such are not distinguished intrinsecally and essentially but onely in respect of Gods grace which imputeth this sinne to the paine of death and not the other Many other like sentences the same Learned man hath but these may suffice to content any reasonable minde Jacobus Almaynus Durandus and Michael Baius teach the very same Doctrine as our Jesuite in this Chapter doth freely graunt not able to gainesay the trueth therein Now out of the Doctrine of this great Learned man who was of high esteeme in the Councell of Constance I obserue these golden Documentes First that euery Sinne is Mortall of it owne nature Secondly that no Sinne is Veniall saue onely in respect of Gods mercie Thirdly that God may most iustly condemne vs for the least Sinne we doe Note seriously gentle Reader this word iustissimè most iustly for it confoundeth our Jesuited Papistes and striketh dead Fourthly that Mortall and Venial sinnes are the very same intrinsecally and essentially and doe but differ accidentally that is to say they differ in accident but not in essence and nature in quantitie but not in qualitie in mercie but not in deformitie in the subiect but not in the obiect in imputation but not in enormitie saue onely that the one is a greater Mortall sinne then is the other For as M. Gerson auoucheth learnedly God may most iustly condemne vs for the least sinne we do howsoeuer our Jesuites and Iesuited Papistes doe flatter themselues in their cursed deformed Venials The Second Conclusion Euery Sinne is against the Law of God and not onely besides the Law as the Popish Thomistes Jesuites would haue it I prooue it by many argumentes First because we must giue an account of euery idle word at the generall doome as our Lord Iesus telleth vs which doubtlesse we should not be bound to doe if the least idle word were not against Gods Law For how can God a most iust Iudge condemne vs iustly for that sinne which of it owne nature is Veniall He can not doe it for his Iustice sake The Jesuite S. R. in his pretensed Answere to the Downe-fall of Poperie is bold with God in that behalfe These are his expresse wordes Hee is no wise person who will fall out and be offended for euer with his friend for euery triffle as the taking up of a Straw nor hee is a iust Prince who should inflict death for stealing a Pinne And I beleeue Bell would thinke himselfe vniustly handled if he were so dealt withall Wherefore if God should doe this we should neither account him a wise Friend nor a iust Prince These are the words of S. R. that shamelesse Jesuite whom B. C. our Fryer his brother calleth a Learned man Secondly because S. Austin defineth Sinne thus Peccatum est transgressio Legis Sinne is a transgression of the Law The same holy Father in an other place defineth Sinne in this manner Peccatum est dictum velfactum vel concupitum aliquid contra Legem aeternam Sinne is a word deed or thought against the eternall Law of God And what the eternall Law is he sheweth in the words next following which are these Lex aeterna est ratio Diuina vel voluntas Dei ordinem naturalem conseruari iubens perturbari vetans The eternall Law is the reason or will of God which commaundeth the order of Nature to be kept and forbiddeth it to be broken Thirdly because S. Ambrose defineth Sinne after the same manner in these expresse words Quid est N. peccatum nisi preuaricatio Legis diuinae et caelestium inobedientia praeceptorum For what is Sinne but the transgression of Gods law and disobedience to his heauenly preceptes Loe Sinne sayth S. Ambrose is nothing else but the Transgression of Gods law that is to say nothing else but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as S. John tearmeth it and as Arias Montanus doth interpreat it Fourthly because Josephus Angles that famous Popish Fryer and Byshoppe teacheth the same doctrine euen in that Booke which he dedicated to the Pope himselfe these are his expresse wordes Omne peccatum veniale est alicuius Legis transgressio Patet quia omne veniale est contra rectam rationem et agere contra rationem est agere contra Legem naturaleÌ„ praecipientem non esse a regula rectae rationis deuiandum Euery Veniall sinne is the transgression of some Law This is euident because euery Veniall sinne is against right reason and to doe against right reason is to doe against the law of Nature which commaundeth vs not to decline or swarue from the rule of right reason The same religious Fryer and learned Popish Byshoppe hath in an other place these wordes Regula qua bonitas nostrarum actionum mensuratur vel est temporalis et est recta ratio nostri intellectus vel est aeterna quae est voluntas diuina cui subordinatur temporalis Ideo N. aliquid est contra rectam rationemque est contra voluntatem Dei quae est regula aeterna Et defectus istarum regularum est vniuersa malitia nostrarum operationum The rule with which the goodnes of our actions is measured is either temporall and it is the right reason of our vnderstanding or else it is eternall which is the will of God to which the temporall is subordinate For therefore is any thing against right-reason because it is against the will of God which is the eternall rule And the defect of these rules is the whole malice of our actions This is the constant and plaine Doctrine of the Popish
it is alreadie prooued in the third Conclusion To which I adde that the holy Fathers when they speake of Venial sinnes doe euer vnderstand Small sinnes respectiuely In which sense my selfe do willingly admit Veniall sinnes as also sinnes Veniall by the mercie of God But withall I wish the Reader euer to remember what Gersonus Almaynus Baius Durandus and Roffensis teach vs viz. that euery least Sinne is Mortall of it owne nature which is the flat Doctrine I heere defend Thirdly that the difference amongst the Learned Popish Doctors concerning Veniall sinnes is a matter of small importance which I exhort the Christian reader in the bowels of our sweete Redeemer neuer to forget For it doth plainely conuince if nothing else could be sayd in that behalfe that Poperie is the New religion What is Popish fayth a matter of Small moment Is it not necessarie to saluation If the Pope will say it I am ready to confirme it Roffensis Baius Almaynus Durandus and Gersonus all being both learned and zealous Papistes affirme constantly the force of trueth compelling them that euery Sinne is Mortall of it owne nature Contrariwise the Pope his Jesuites and Jesuited vassals affirme teach and beleeue as an Article of Popish Fayth that many Sinnes are Veniall euen of their owne nature This notwithstanding our Jesuite telleth vs roundly though nothing Clerkly that the difference is but small So then Articles of Popish fayth are small or great as it pleaseth the Pope His bare Will as we haue heard and seene is a warrant sufficient in euery thing as who can change the nature of thinges if we will beleeue him and of nothing make some thing Fourthly that my selfe hold no Opinion teach no Article of Fayth defend no Position but such Opinions Positions and Articles as the best learned Papistes haue holden taught and defended before mee For my woonted maner euer hath been is and shall be to wound the Papistes with their owne Weapons and to conâ—ound the Pope with his best Learned Proctors B. C. This being so let vs consider what a notable vntrueth the Minister offereth to the view of his Readers when he sayth Almaynus Durandus Gerson Baius and other famous Papistes not able to answere the reasons against Veniall sinnes confesse the trueth with the Byshop that euery Sinne is Mortall Hee doth cunningly abuse them in leauing out those wordes of it owne nature which ought to be added after their opinion and himselfe likewise doth adde in citing of Roffensis immediately before T. B. I answere first that the vntrueth our Fryer speaketh of proceedeth from his owne lying lippes as by and by it will appeare Secondly that our Fryer doth falsely peeuishly vnchristianly and impudently abuse both his Reader and mee when he chargeth me to abuse my Authors in leauing out their wordes What wordes sir Fryer haue I left out These wordes forsooth of it owne nature sayth our Iesuiticall Fryer O malitious Jesuite Where is thine Honestie where is thy Christianitie where is thy Fayth where is thy Conscience Art thou become a flat Atheist art thou at defiance with true dealing Thou seemes to make thy soule saleable for the Popes pleasure Doth not thine owne Penne condemne thee when thou grauntes that I added the same wordes in citing of Roffensis immediatly before Let the indifferent Reader be an indifferent Iudge betweene vs. I added the wordes immediatly before as our Fryer truely sayth it therefore had been an irkesome tantologie to cite them againe in the next wordes following especially seeing I affirme the Popish Doctors Almaynus Durandus Gersonus and Baius to hold and defend the selfe same opinion that Byshoppe Fisher affirmeth to be the trueth Againe the Controuersie consisteth precisely in this speciall poynt viz. Whether euery sinne be Mortall of it owne nature or no. I defende the affirmatiue the Iesuite the negatiue And consequently I must perforce speake of Sinnes as they are in their owne nature O worthy defender of late start-vp Poperie Thou perceiuest right well that Poperie is the New religion indeed and not able to withstand the truth nor to answere mine inuincible reasons and groundes Thou fleest from that which is in question to impertinent extrauagant and friuolous cauils so to dazell the eyes of thy Readers least they behold the newnesse of late Romish Religion Out vpon such beggerly Religion as which can not be defended but by cauils coozenage lying and deceitfull dealing B. C. After this vntrueth immediatly followeth another Yea the Jesuite S. R. quoth hee with the aduice of his best Learned friendes in his answere to the Downefall of Poperie confesseth plainely and blusheth not thereat that the Church of Rome had not defined some sinnes to be Veniall vntill the dayes of Pius the fift and Gregorie the 13. which was not fiftie yeares agoe In which wordes he blusheth neuer a whit to slaunder that Learned man and wholly to corrupt his meaning Hee sayth not that the Church of Rome had not defined some sinnes to be Venial vntill the dayes of Pius the fift and Gregorie the 13. as this licentious cast-away corruptly fathereth vpon him For he knew well that to beleeue Veniall sinnes was an Article long receiued before the times of those Popes But he affirmeth onely that to hold Veniall sinnes onely to be such by the mercie of God was censured and condemned by those Popes Why did Sir Thomas his sinceritie cut away these wordes by the mercie of God Forsooth because that without lying and corruption he can obiect nothing against Catholike doctrine T. B. I answere first that our impudent Fryer lyeth egregiously when he chargeth mee to slaunder S. R. his learned Brother For vpon my saluation I auerre it I deale christianly honestly and sincerely I neuer change adde or take away any one iote of that which I finde in mine Authors Would to God our Iesuites did so deale with mee Secondly our Fryer lyeth impudently when he vttereth these wordes Hee sayth not that the Church of Rome had not defined some sinnes to be Veniall vntill the dayes of Pius the fift and Gregorie the thirteenth For these are S. R. his expresse wordes True it is that Byshoppe Fisher and Gerson were in that errour but that was both before it was condemned in the Church as it was since by Pius the fift and Gregorie the thirteenth In which wordes the Jesuite S. R. telleth vs two memorable poyntes of Doctrine Th' one that Fisher and Gerson were in an Errour Th' other that the Errour was before the Church had condemned it So it onely remaineth duely to examine what the supposed Errour was The Iesuite B. C. heere telleth vs plainely if wee may beleeue him that the Popes Pius and Gregorius condemned that opinion onely which holdeth Venial sinnes to be onely such by the mercie of God I admit the Assertion I like the Narration I onely reiect the Popes friuolous vnchristian and
euery whit God make mee this day and euer thankefull for it and for all other his manifold mercies and fauours towards me we all returned to the Colledge with great ioy and speed The Rector of the Colledge could no way be perswaded but that I had receiued some secret and inward mortall wound albeit neither my self felt any neither could their eyes or wits discerne any hurt at all saue onely that my face was something bloody by reason of the fall I got while perceiuing the imminent danger which afore I feared not I made haste to haue escaped from the same for it had neuer bin knowne or heard in Rome that any man woman or child euer escaped with life being once in that kinde of danger to wit in the curtesie of the furious and raging Buffaloes Many gaue their censures concerning the wonderfull fact and rare euent the generall resolution was this Viz. That J might fight with Buffaloes in England and haue the vpper hand My selfe did deeme their censure to be probable and this day me thinketh the same is brought to passe though Gods name bee blessed for it in the farre different sense and meaning from that which either they or my selfe did then imagine I sought God then but found him not because I sought him not in trueth and according to his holy will I thought then being blinded with late start-vp Poperie that I should fight against the true professours of Christes Ghospell whom I then reputed Heretiques and spirituall Buffaloes But our most mercifull God whose wisedome reacheth from end to end mightily and disposeth all thinges sweetly ordayned me in his eternall purpose a vosteriori hoc fa â—lè infertur to a farre more honorable and sacred Warfare viz. to encounter the trayterous Jesuâ—tes and â—esuited Gunpowder Popelinges valiantly to fight the battaile of Christes Church against those most furious brainelesse cruell Buffaloes of mens soules Whose legierdemaine coozenage periurie pride malice theft murders fraud feigned miracles and infinite cunnicatching trickes the gentle Reader may finde at large soundly prooued out of the Bookes which the Seminâ—rie-priestes haue published to the World in my Booke intituled The Anatomie of Popish tyrannie Which Booke whosoeuer shall with iudgement and a single eye peruse can not but perceiue the Jesuites to be Firebrands of all mischiefe and most vgly monsters of the World B. C. Not long after he hath these wordes For first it is a constant Maxime quoth he that the Pope and none but the Pope must iudge in all Controuersies of fayth and doctrine Nay it is rather a most constant Maxime that Bell seldome writeth any thing that is true False it is that the Pope and none but the Pope is the Iudge in all matters of Fayth and Doctrine For a generall Councell also is Iudge yea and by the opinion of many learned Diuines the Pope iudging alone without a generall Councell may erre T. B. I answere first that the Iesuite not able to answere the trueth by me soundly defended seeketh to get the victorie by crying out against the trueth This is cleare to euery iudicious Reader Secondly that our Fryer sayth truely That by the iudgement of many learned Papistes the Pope may erre without a generall Councell To this Doctrine I willingly subscribe as which is the very trueth that I defend For mine vsuall manner euer is in all my Bookes to confound Poperie with the best Lerned Popish Writers I hold and defende no point of doctrine but such onely as great learned Papistes hold and defend with me This my ioy this is my credite this the honour of the cause in hand that I constantly hold with the now Church of England euery Article of the old Romane Religion onely condemning and reiecting erroneous superstitious childish and ridiculous additamentes of late yeares by litle and litle crept into the Church Thirdly that I haue prooued so largely in the Downe-fall of Poperie that the Pope onely is the Iudge of all controuersies in Religion as to say more in that behalfe may be thought actum agere and a thing altogether needlesse Three thinges onely will I now poynt at referring the indifferent Reader for the proofe to the Downe-fall of Poperie The first is this viz that the Pope staying at home himselfe sendeth his Legates to the Councels to supply his place to whom for all that O monstrum horrendum he can not commit his Authoritie The second is this viz. that no Byshoppe in these our dayes can haue voyces in Councels but such as will sweare obedience to the Pope before their admittaunce and promise to defend his Canon Law The third is this viz. that it is not in Popish Councels as in humaine affayres and assemblies where moe voyces euer doe preuaile But all the force power strength and authoritie of Councels doe and must depend vpon the Popes will and pleasure For after the Fathers there haue fasted long prayed much consulted grauely deliberated maturely decreed constantly commaunded strictly and accursed seuerely neither can others nor yet them selues tell what shall be of force therein For all must be as shall best content the Popes humour sitting right stately in his pontificall Chaire at Rome To which I adde that the Pope abuseth the World shamefully when he taketh vpon him to call togeather all Byshoppes in the Christian world to decide and determine controuersies in Religion and for all that will approue nothing that they decree vnlesse the same be agreeable to that which himselfe decreeth alone in his pontificall Chaire at home As also in that he condemneth and reiecteth all Councels which doe not consent in all poyntes to his Legates who for all that must not yeeld to any thing which swarueth from their Charge and Commission receiued from the Popes mouth In which Charge this is euer the principall and maine poynt that they suffer not the Popes Superroyall power and falsely pretended Prerogatiues of the Church of Rome to be any way abased or gainesayd This Addition hath a double Confirmation at hand th' one from the Rhemistes th' other from S. R. that great learned Iesuite The Rhemistes tell vs roundly blush neuer a whit thereat that generall Councels are not needfull saue onely for the better contentation of the weake people and their onely ground which they stand vpon is this viz. that the Pope is so diuinely priuileadged and assisted by the Holy Ghost as he can neuer erre iudicially in any matter of Fayth Which assertion if it were true as it is most false for which let the Christian reader duly peruse my Christian Dialogue there were no great need of Councels in very deed The Iesuiticall Fryer S. R. Robert Parsons is the man telleth vs peremptorily that the Popes Sentence is the Decree of the Catholique Church These are his expresse wordes True it is that B. Fisher and Gerson were in that errour
but perforce abhorre and detest Poperie as a New Religion by litle litle crept into the Church The Jesuites like Gypsies haue inuented a tricke of fast and loose assigning to their Pope a double person Priuate and Publique As a Priuate man they graunt he may both be deceiued himselfe and also deceiue others But that he can erre as a publique person or as Pope of Rome they vtterly deny For if they should once graunt this poynt which is a manifest and knowne truth Poperie would soone be turned vp-side downe Howbeit my saluation I gage for the tryall Fryer Alphonsus decideth the controuersie so plainely as all the Jesuites and Jesuited Papistes in the world are not in trueth able to withstand or gainesay the same Alphonsus sayth constantly and plainely without all And 's and Ifs that Pope Celestine erred not as a Priuate man but euen as Pope and publique person O sweete Iesus ô mercifull God! ô most louing Father how great is the malice and blasphemie of Iesuites and Jesuited Papistes against thine euerlasting Trueth and holy Name With what face can the Iesuiticall Cardinall Bellarmine tell vs that Pope Celestine erred onely as a Priuate man and not as Pope or Publique person When the Papistes like the Popes Decrees then they say hee defined as Pope and Publique person and that none may withstand his definitiue Sentence or once examine the same as is alreadie prooued to their euerlasting shame But when their Pope is conuinced to haue erred so grossely that they know not possibly how to defende him then they are not ashamed to say that hee erred but as a Priuate man Thirdly that the Pope erred in a poynt of great consequence euen in a matter of Popish Fayth viz. that Matrimonie was so dissolued by reason of Heresie that the faythfull man or woman might marrie againe the Hereticall partie lyuing Which thing sayth Alphonsus was manifest to euery one to be an Heresie and their late Councell of Trent hath defined it to be so Fourthly that this Decree and Definition of Pope Celestine was in those dayes enrolled in the Popes Decretals Fiftly that Alphonsus saw and read the same Sixtly that the sayd Decree can not this day be found amongst the Popes Decretall Epistles Where I note by the way and heartily wish the Reader to obserue the same that the decrees of our holy Fathers the Popes haue bin such so much against lately hatched Poperie as they are this day ashamed to bring the same to light But let this be our comfort herein that God hath at all times stirred vp some learned Papistes otherwise deuoted to the Pope who haue boldly vsed their Pennes and Wittes such is the force of trueth to discouer and lay open to the view of the world the deceit coozenage liegerdemayne and cunnicatching tricks of wicked Popes Jesuites all Iesuited Papistes so farre foorth I euer meane as is necessarie for the common good of his Church Now whether our Jesuite be a most notorious lyer or noe let the Reader iudge For if Alphonsus say that the Pope can not erre as Pope and Publique person I am content to be the lyer But if he constantly hold and defend the contrarie as the vndoubted trueth then iudge and censure our Fryer in this as in many other thinges for a shameles and impudent lyer best worthy of the Whetstone I wish he may haue it weare it about his necke as a testimonie of his condigne desertes The 9. Chapter Of the condigne so supposed merit of Good workes FOR the clearer manifestation and illustration of the trueth of this Controuersie I thinke it not amisse to proceed therein by way of Conclusions Which being soundly effected I purpose in God to answere and confute a thing very easie to be done the childish cauils ridiculous euasions and cunnicatching trickes which our Fryer vseth in pleading for the life of their New Religion The first Conclusion The Regenerate doe Good workes which are acceptable in Gods sight and receiue reward farre aboue their Condigne desertes This Conclusion is prooued by many textes of holy Writ Iob is enrolled among the Godly and those that feared God euen by the testimony of God himselfe Abel was slaine of his brother Cain because he feared God and did Good works The Scripture sayth that Noe was a iust man and perfect who therefore with his Familie found fauour in Gods sight in time of the generall Deluge The Angell of God saluting the blessed virgin Marie pronounced her holy aboue all Women Zacharias and Elizabeth his wife were both iust walked in all the Commaundements of God Abraham Moses Dauid Gedeon Sampson Samuel and many others did Workes acceptable in Gods sight Cornelius is highly commended in holy Writ for the Good workes he did Thus much for the former part And for the latter part the Scripture is likewise plentifull Christ himselfe promiseth to reward Good workes so liberally that he will not suffer so much as a Cuppe of cold Water giuen in his name to passe without reward For which cause Moses is said to haue had respect vnto reward And S. Paul teacheth vs that the passions of this life are not worthy of the glory to come In briefe the Popish Fryer Iohn de Combis a very learned Papist in his Theological Abridgement affirmeth it to be a maxime with God euer to reward vs aboue our well doinges and to punish vs lesse then our euill demerites These are his expresse wordes Et hoc pates quod Deus semper remunerat supra meritum sicut punit citra condignâ—m And this is euident because God euer rewardeth aboue our merites and punisheth vs lesse then we be worthy Where I may not passe ouer in silence the blasphemie of the Rhemistes against the effect of Christes Passion while they affirme Christ not to haue so fully satisfied for our sinnes but that wee are still bound to satisfie each man in particular for his owne sinnes For most true it is as I haue prooued in sundry places of this Discourse that Christ hath so sufficiently satisfied for all his Elect and so answered the iustice of God for punishment of their sinnes as they are freely discharged thereof Yet must they willingly suffer to be made conformable to Christ in Suffering as they looke to be like him in Glorie Their sufferings are indeed a condition required to their Glorification but neither a Cause thereof nor any Satisfaction for their sinnes The case is cleare the Scriptures doe euery where insinuate the same They are onely Conditio sine qua non of our Glorification and the necessarie and infallible effectes of our Predestination which they euer follow as Fruites doe the Tree for the afflictions of Gods children though they be a cause working eternall Glorie in the sense afore touched as they be the way by which God hath appoynted them to passe to Glorie yet neither are
God Wherefore he requireth Gods Promise to be added to mans Merite as Aquinas Durandus and Angles had done before him In one place he hath these expresse wordes At vt bono operi debeatur merces ex iustitia conuentio vel promissio necessaria est Non enim tenetur vnus alterius obsequium acceptare nisi conuentio interuenerit Deus autem non promisit mercedem vitae aeternae nisi per Christi gratiam regeneratis et adoptatis But that reward be due of iustice to good Workes a couenant or promise is necessarie For one is not bound to accept the seruice of another vnlesse there be a couenant But God promised not the reward of eternall life saue onely to the regenerate through the grace of God In an other place he hath these words Sed facilis est responsio Nam dicitur Deus reddere debita nulli debens quia nihil vlli debet absolutè sed solum ex promissione dono suo Pari ratione dicimus Deo reade quia promisisti non dicimus redde quia accepisti quoniam fundamentum primum debiti diuini non in opere nostro sed in eius promissione consistit But the answere is easie For God is said to pay debts though he be debtor to none because he oweth nothing to any absolutely but onely in respect of his promise and free gift In like manner wee say to God giue because thou hast promised We say not giue because thou hast receiued Because the chiefe foundation of Gods debt doth not consist in our worke but in his Promise freely made vnto vs. In an other place he hath these wordes Primum igitur opera iustorum remoto pacto vel promissione non esse meritoria vitae aeternae ex condigno siue ex iustitia ita vt non possit Deus sine iniustitia talē negare mercedem satis probatum est scriptura siquidem patres vbicunque dicunt Deum fidelem esse iustum in reddendo praemio semper aut ferè semper mentionem faciunt promissionis First it is prooued sufficiently that the workes of the iust Gods couenant and promise set apart are not meritorious of eternall life condignely and iustly so as God can not deny such reward without iniustice For the Scripture and the fathers whensoeuer they say God is faithfull and iust in rendring reward do euer or almost euer make mention of his promise Thus writeth Cardinal Bellarmine that famous Iesuited Fryer Out of whose doctrine I obserue many worthy Lessons to the confusion of the Pope and all his Popish vassals First that Gods promise is so necessarie to attaine reward that without it no reward can iustly be required Secondly that no reward is due to any but onely to the regenerate Thirdly that the reward is not promised for any merit in mans worke but for Christs sake and merit Fourthly that man can require nothing of God absolutely but onely for his couenant and promise sake Fiftly that God is no mans debtour absolutely but onely by reason of his free gift and promise made to man Sixtly that the chiefe foundation of Gods debt consisteth in Gods free gift and promise made to man Seuenthly that the workes of the best liuers doe not merit eternall life iustly and condignely but onely by reason of Gods couenant and promise Eightly that both the Scripture and the Fathers do either euer or almost euer make mention of gods promise wheresoeuer they tell vs that God is faithfull and iust in rewarding mans workes Much more I could say out of Bellarmine but this is sufficient to euery indifferent Reader The 12. Conclusion Condigne merite of Workes was not an Article of popish faith for more then a thousand fiue hundred and fourtie yeares after Christ. And consequently it must needs bee a rotten ragge of the new Religion as which was hatched so long after the old Roman Catholique Apostolike religion The proofe of this Conclusion is at hand because the late popish Councell of Trent made it an Article of popish Faith accursing condemning to hell all such as deny or not beleeue the condigne merit of mans works The Iesuit S. R. in his pretensed answere to the Downfall of Poperie had no other shift in the world to saue the credite of their Councel and as it were to hide the nakednesse of that vnchristian and plaine diabolical course but to denie the councel to haue decreed cōdigne merite to be an Article of Popish faith For saith hee the Councell hath no word of condigne merit but onely of true merit And after he hath cited the words of the Councell he addeth these of his owne Here are good works defined to be true merite of Glory without determining whether they be condigne merite thereof or no. Thus saith our Iesuite shewing himselfe to be either too too malicious or else a very noddie For to merite truely and condignely is all one Otherwise our Iesuite must tell vs which is vnpossible to be done how one can merite a thing truely and for all that not worthily and condignely deserue the same Well we haue it freely granted because it can not be denied that the Councell of Trent defined true merite but not condigne merite of workes to bee an Article of popish faith And consequently the Iesuite must volens nolens confesse that the Councell defined condigne merit vnder the name of true merite For better confirmation whereof I will adde a testimonie that woundeth the Iesuite at the heart and is indeed incurable It is the Iesuites owne sword which he hath put into my hands to kil him as one wearie of his life because Poperie is prooued the new Religion These are his owne expresse words I neither adde nor take any word syllable or iote away as I desire to be saued Because as I thinke saith our Iesuit onely condigne merite is true merite O sweete Iesus O heauen O earth O all Saints in heauen and all creatures on earth be ye this day iudges betweene the Iesuites and mee The Iesuite denieth the Councell to define condigne merite but graunteth it to define true merite This done O wonderment of the world the same Iesuite within two leaues next following as a madde man bereeued of his wits and senses constantly affirmeth onely condigne merit to be true merit but doubtles if onely condigne merit marke well my words for Christs sake be true merite as the Iesuite truely writeth against himselfe his Pope and Councell and withall if the Councell defined true merit as the Iesuite likewise truely granteth and my selfe affirme it followeth of necessitie that the same Councell defined condigne merit equiualently and Poperie to be the new Religion The truth Gods name be blessed for it must needes in time preuaile now sir Fryer let vs heare your goodly sermon B. C. Bell denieth the Fathers to haue ascribed any Merite to Good workes proceeding from Grace for any dignitie or
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
and his successors and that their fayth can not fayle B. C. What followeth What but that Bell hath abused the good Reader with an vntrueth T. B. I answere that this in very deed followeth and that of meere necessitie that our Iesuiticall Fryer is a most impudent and shamelesse lyer Which thing I haue prooued againe againe in euery Chapter most euidently I therfore must perforce conclude that seeing the late Byshops of Rome Pius Paulus Iulius haue taken in hand roundly and most Antichristianly as I haue prooued in my Tryal and more at large in the Downe-fall of Poperie to dissolue that Matrimonie which the true Church of God durst neuer dissolue for the space of more then fifteene hundred yeares after Christ the same can be nothing else but a very filthy rotten Ragge of the New Religion The 30. Chapter of the Popes pretended Superioritie ouer and aboue a generall Councell B. C. BELL beginning with false asseueration to tell vs of the late opinion of the Popes Superioritie ouer a Generall Councell interlaceth also an other shamelesse vntrueth against the Rhemists T. B. I answere that our Fryer still continueth one and the selfe-same man that is to say an impudent and shamelesse lyar as he first began For within foure lines hee compriseth and coucheth two most notorious Lyes The former is touching the late Opinion of the Popes Superioritie ouer a generall Councell I affirme that the Popish opinion which holdeth the Pope to be aboue a generall Councell is a late vpstart Fayth and Doctrine neuer knowne to the Church of God for the space of more then fourteene hundred yeares after Christ. This our Fryer calleth a False asseueration but prooueth it not at all Hee is an honest man we may if we will beleeue his bare word But I by the power of God shall prooue the contrary to be the trueth and that out of hand The latter is concerning the Rhemistes which shall be cleared God willing by and by B. C. The Rhemists quoth hee that Iesuited brood tell vs plainely if we will beleeue them that there is no necessitie of a Generall or Prouinciall Councell saue onely for the better contentation of the people Thus hee chargeth them yet not noting any particular place But I will helpe him it is in their Annotations vpon the Actes T. B. I answere that our Fryer sheweth himselfe what he is aswell heere as else where He is so full of Charitie forsooth that he will needes helpe me for his owne intended gaine though he be thereby prooued a lying swaine for in the next Page following hee hath these expresse wordes This vntrueth the Minister had set abroach once afore in his Downe-fall and quoteth the place very orderly in this manner Rhemes test in Act. 15. Loe in one page our Fryer chargeth me of purpose to haue omitted the quotation so to delude and deceiue the Reader In an other page he graunteth freely that I haue set it downe very orderly Behold this changeable Camelion who both accuseth and acquitteth me with one breath Concerning the slaundering of the Rhemists wherewith he chargeth me this is mine answere that in very deede the slaunder fitly agreeth to himselfe which he would vntruely impose vpon mee I prooue it First Because the Rhemists plainely declare their meaning in this briefe Marginall note Though the Sea Apostolique it selfe say the Rhemists haue the same assistance yet Councels be also necessarie for many causes In which wordes they graunt as much in effect as I either affirme or require Secondly because the causes which our Rhemists name may easily be reduced to that one of mine viz. For the better contentation of the people for the controuersie is this Whether the Popes Iudgement be infallible in it selfe without a Generall Councell or no. The Rhemists answere that Papistes hold the affirmatiue viz. That the Popes Iudgement is infallible and is assisted of God euen as a generall Councell Thirdly that if the Papistes will stand to the deny all of mine Assertion then must they perforce grant against them-selues which willingly they would not that they haue no infallible trueth in their Church saue onely the Determination of a generall Councell I heare it I receiue it I like it I willingly subscribe vnto it Let the Papistes therefore defend this Doctrine That the Popes Iudgement without a generall Councell is fallible that he may Iudicially erre and be deceiued and let a lawfull generall Councell determine all controuersies and no doubt all Christians in the world will yeeld thereunto But Sir Fryer Hic labor hoc opus est For in these last and worst dayes of ours the Pope will stay at home and whatsoeuer or howsoeuer the Councelles shal decree yet must nothing be of force saue that onely which the Pope liketh to confirme as he sitteth in his Chaire at Rome This I haue prooued at large in the Downe-fall of Poperie and in my Christian Dialogue by euident demonstrations B. C. What can Bell fetch from Alphonsus to iustifie his iniurious charge of the Rhemists Alphonsus was one of those Diuines that thinke the infallibilitie of Iudgement to be in a Councell and not in the Pope alone And hee bringeth this reason Because otherwise it were in vaine with so great labour to assemble so many Byshops togeather This informeth vs very well what Alphonsus his opinion was But where doth hee say that the Rhemistes teach that the Determination of a generall Councell is needlesse saue onely for the better contentation of the people because the Popes Iudgement is infallible Hee speaketh not one word of the Rhemists and no marueile for he could not being dead many a faire day before the Rhemes Testament was published T. B. I answere that I can fetch so much from the famous and learned Papist Alphonsus as is able to kill the Pope with all his Jesuites and Iesuited Popelinges For first the Pope with his Jesuites and Jesuited Popelinges auouch most impudently and would enforce all Christians to beleeue the same that Christ built his Church vpon S. Peter and vpon his successors the Byshops of Rome and also that Christ prayed for Peter and for the Byshops of Rome that their Fayth should neuer fayle But Alphonsus condemneth that opinion for Hereticall while hee affirmeth the infallibilitie of Fayth to rest in a generall Councell not in the Pope alone Secondly Alphonsus confuteth the Rhemists most soundly euidently while he affirmeth generall Councels to be gathered in vaine if the Popes Determination and iudgement were infallible Thirdly Alphoâ—sus is one of those Learned popish Writers euen by the Iesuites free confession in this place which I wish the Reader neuer to forget who defende the trueth with vs against the Pope his Iesuites and all his Iesuiteâ— Popelinges For I doe not hold or defend any Article or poynt of Doctrine as I haue often sayd and heere our Fryer vnawares graunteth the same such is the
Brytaines did at their conuersion receiue the Latine Seruice first by Eleutherius about the yeare 179. after Christ and againe by Gregorie about the 596. yeare yet can no more be truely inferred therevpon if we graunt the Latine tongue to haue been then decayed in Brytaine same onely that the Romanes deliuered their Church-seruice in the Latine tongue which then was their vulgar Language being altogeather ignoraunt of the Brytaine tongue and that the Brytaine for the loue they bore to the publique Prayers and Church-seruice which they receiued at their conuersion to the Christian faith did euer after vse and retaine the same in the Latine tongue in which they first receiued it Fourthly that seeing by Christes commandement deliuered by his Apostle All thinges in the Church ought to be done to edification it followeth of necessitie that the Latine vsage of the Brytaines in diuine Seruice was a Ragge of a New religion as which was about 179. yeares younger then the old and repugnant to Apostolicall doctrine For S. Paul spendeth no lesse then one whole Chapter that only to prooue that euery Nation ought to haue their Church-seruice in their vulgar knowne tongue If the Trumpet sayth he giue an vncertaine sound who shall prepare him selfe to the Warre So likewise you except ye vtter by the tongue manifest speech how shall it be knowne what is spâ—ken for ye shall speake in the ayre Againe thus If I know not the meaning of the voyce I shall be to him that speaketh an Aliant and he that speaketh shall be an Aliant to mee Againe thus Wherefore let him that speaketh with the tongue pray that he may interpret For if I pray with the tongue my spirit prayeth but my vnderstanding is without fruite Where I wish the Reader to obserue with me that the Spirit in this place is taken for the spirituall gift of Tongues as S. Chrysostome vpon this place doth witnesse S. â—heophilact is consonant to S. Chrysostome He calleth the Gift the Spirit sayth Theodorus My Spirit prayeth that is my spirituall Gift to speake with Tongues sayth Phoâ—us Againe thus If thou blesse with the Spirit how shall he that occupieth the roome of the vnlearned say Amen at the giuing of thankes seeing he vnderstandeth not what thou sayeth Againe thus I had rather speake fiue wordes with my vnderstanding in the Church that J may instruct others then ten thousand wordes in an vnknowen tongue Againe thus Let all things be done to edification Fourthly that our Jesuite gableth as a lying pratler while he impudently auoucheth that by Bels allowance the Latine vse in Church-seruice where the people vnderstand it not is found Catholique and Apostolicall For Bell hath plainely prooued it to be vnsound Prophane and Diabolicall as also that the vse of publique Seruice in the vulgar Tongue came neither from Wittenberge nor Geneua But from the Primitiue Apostolicall and succeding Churches for many hundred yeares togeather Whosoeuer shall with a single eye and sound iudgement peruse the Sixteene chapter afore-going and ioyne my Suruey with it can not but cleerely behold as in a Glasse of Christall the trueth to be as I haue written Lyranus a famous and great learned Papist in his learned Commentaries vpon S. Pauls Epistles doth so plainely so constantly affirme that in the Primatiue Church the publique Prayers and all other thinges were in the vulgar Tongue as none that shall read him seriously can possibly stand in doubt thereof Yea S. Basil auoucheth expressely that the Egyptians the Lybians the Thebanes the Palestines the Arabians the Phaenicians the Syrians and generally all Christian Nations of what Language soeuer they were had their common Prayers and Seruice in their vulgar Tongue But our Rhemishes obiect S. Pauls words against S. Paul in this manner Also when a man prayeth in a strange Tongue which himselfe vnderstandeth not it is not so fruitfull for instruction to him as it be knâ—w particularly what he prayed Neuerthelesse the Apostle forbiddeth not such praying neither confessing that his spirit heart and affection prayeth well towardes God though his minde and vnderstanding be not profited to instruction as otherwise it might haue been if he vnderstood the wordes Neither yet doth he appoynt such a one to get his strange Prayers translated into his vulgar Tongue to obtaine thereby the aforesaid instruction To this I answere first that I haue alreadie prooued out of S. Chrysostome and other Fathers Theodoretus Theophilactus and Photius that S. Paul doth not vnderstand by the word Spirit the Heart and Affection but the Spirituall gift to speake with Tongues Secondly that it is cleare by many textes of the Apostle that the word Spirit doth so signifie as I haue sayd Thirdly that if we should graunt the Spirit to signifie Heart and Affection as the Rhemistes absurdly expound it yet could not that serue their turne because S. Paul willeth to pray not onely with Spirit but also with minde and vnderstanding As also for that S. Paul in an other text commaundeth expressely That all thinges â—e done in the Church to edifying Which is no other Doctrine indeed then Christ himselfe teacheth in his holy Ghospell This people saith he draweth neere vnto me with their mouth and honoureth me with the lippes but their heart is farre from me Fourthly that the Apostle commaundeth him that hath the gift of Tongues to pray that he may interpret his strange tongue himselfe or that some other should interpret it or else to keepe silence in the Church For this cause doth S. Chrysostome constantly affirme that Prayers not vnderstood of him that vttereth them are altogeather vnprofitable Thou seest sayth he how by litle and litle he is come to this poynt that he declareth him to be vnprofitable not onely to others but also to him selfe seeing the minde of such a man is voyde of fruite For if a man speake onely in the Persians Language or in any other strange Tongue and doe not vnderstand those things which he speaketh he shall be to himselfe as he that vnderstandeth not the meaning of the voyce This and much more to the like effect sayth S. Chrysostome of those that had the gifts of Tongues and vnderstood not what they spake What thinke you sir Fryer would he haue sayd if he had heard the vnlearned Papistes babling on their Beades and Primers what they did not vnderstand Nay if he had heard that which now adayes is very frequent among the vnlearned Papistes both men and women how they choppe and change clippe and mangle the wordes so as they either haue a contrarie or ridiculous sense or else plaine none at all but stand as Cyphers and Voces non significatiuae For this is a truth so well knowne as it can not without blushing be denied that many popish Priestes haue been so ignoraunt that they neither vnderstood their Portesses
dayes the Byshoppes of England now so called haue had and kept a continuall and vninterrupted succession of Byshoppes successiuely so sound firme and inuiolable as the Church of Rome is not able to shew the like This succession is so clearely prooued in my Christian Dialogue as none with right reasoÌ„ can deny the same Fourthly that the Church of England now so called hath euer since the time of King Ethelbert constantly kept all and euery Article of the old Romane Religion which she receiued from the auncient and purer Church of Rome No Papist liuing is able to giue any true instance against this irrefragable assertion Fiftly that as in processe of time many superstitious grosse and palpable errours yea flatte Heresies haue by litle and litle crept into the Church of Rome euen so hath our Church of England through the sway of the time been deeply stayned polluted with the same Sixtly that our Church in the time of King Henry the eight began to be reformed in some Articles of Fayth and Doctrine but the reformation was not perfect vntill the raigne of King Edward the sixt In which Reformation no New Article of Fayth or Religion is added to the former but the former Fayth and Religion is onely refyned purged purified and such Superstition Errours and Heresies abolished as were by litle and litle brought into the Church All and euery iote of the old Romane Religion remayneth still in our Church permanent and inuiolable But some perhappes will heere demaunde of me how the Church of Rome did so degenerate from the auncient Fayth and so foulely corrupt the old Romane Religion To whom I answere in this manner First with Egesippus that auncient and learned Father that during the life of Christes blessed Apostles the visible Church remayned a Virgin free from all Heresies and corruptions but after their death Errours by litle and litle crept into the Church as into a voyde and desart House Secondly with Franciscus a Victoria that famous popish Fryer and great learned Schooleman that by litle litle the Papistes were in his time brought to such inordinate dispensations and to so miserable a state that they were neither able to endure their owne griefes nor remydies assigned by the Pope for the same That Clemens Lâ—nus and Syluester were very good Byshoppes of Rome but that the latter Byshoppes comming after them successiuely were wicked men and nothing comparable to the olde Byshoppes there Thirdly with Iosephus Angles that famous Popish Byshoppe euen in that Booke which hee dedicated to the Pope himselfe that the Romish Religion changeth euery day Fourthly with the fiue famous Popish Doctors Iohannes Roffensis Jacobus Almaâ—nus Gersonus Durandus and Michael Baius that euery sinne is mortall of it owne nature and that the old Romane Church did so beleeue vntill the time of Pope Pius the fift that is about 1560 yeares after Christ at which time Veniall sinnes werâ— hatched in the Church of Rome This is such a constant knowen trueth as neither the Jesuite S. R. nor yet the Iesuite B. C. his deare brother can tell in the world what answere to frame to the same Fourthly with Polidorus Virgilius that famous Popish Writer that the Popish Legistes and Canonistes of latter dayes haue so wrested the holy Scriptures to their owne sense and liking as Coblers doe gnaw with their teeth and stretch out their filthy skinnes Fiftly with Platina the Popes deare Vassall and trustie Friend that in his dayes the Popedome was brought to that passe that who so could goe before others in Bribes and Ambition hee onely should haue the place Sixtly with Couarruuias that worthy popish Arch-byshoppe and learned Canonist that in these dayes either the Popes opinion must be defended or else Poperie can not stand Lastly with Iosephus Angles writing to the Popes deare Holynesse that albeit the old Church of Rome did by the commaundement of the Apostles excommunicate all non communicants in the time of the Masse or Liturgie yet hath the late Church decreed that it shall be lawfull for all Lay persons to receiue the Eucharist onely at Easter Much more I might and could say if I thought not this sufficient So then the Fayth and Doctrine this day professed and authorized in this our Church of England is indeed the old Romane religion purged refined and restored to the primatiue and most auncient puritie in King Edwardes dayes in whose happy raigne was the perfect and complete Reformation But the Fayth and Religion it selfe came from S. Peter and S. Paul yea euen from Christ himselfe their Jesus and our Jesus world without end To whom with the Father and the holy Ghost three in the distinction of persons and one in the vnitie of diuine essence be all Honour Maiestie Power Glory and Dominion now and euermore Amen A Caueat to the Christian Reader THE masked Jesuite in his Preface to the Reader laboureth with might and maine to perswade his Readers that I dare not performe that challenge which I made to the Fore-runner his wordes are these I the meanest of many millions doe accept of his Challenge and doe vndertake to defend not onely these two poynes of Iosephus Doctrine and Pope Martins Dispensation which he hath singled out as matters important but also all the rest so it may be with that equitie and fauour which was graunted to the Protestantes in France And vpon the same conditions doe prouoke him with a counter-challenge to the defence of his Bookes And a litle after he telleth his Reader That hee sendes me as many Challenges as will stand betweene Charing-crosse Chester and as many Dares as will reach from Darby to Darington To which I answere in this manner First that the Jesuites are accused and charged by their deare Breathren the popish Secular Priestes with Pride Ambition Couetousnesse Coozenage Theft Crueltie Murther Treason and all wickednesse that can be named Yea of Fryer Parsons that trayterous Iesuite they giue this testimonie in particular viz. by Parsons platformes Secular Priestes must depend vpon Blackwell and Blackwell vpon Garnet and Garnet vpon Parsons and Parsons the Priestes Bastard vpon the Deuill Peruse my Anatomy of popish Tyrannie and there thou shalt finde this trueth with great varietie of like matter Secondly that in all my Challenges I require but one onely Condition which the Iesuite passeth ouer in silence because he meaneth not to performe the same The Condition is this viz. That the Iesuite which shall accept the Challenge must put downe his name with his addition in print and send it to me Which if it be once performed during my life I promised vpon my saluation to doe what in me lyeth to procure a false conduct for the safe comming safe abyding and safe departure of him whosoeuer he be that shall accept and vndertake the true performance of the Challenge in maner aforesayd Thirdly that the Jesuite
well for Christes sake See Suruay part 3. chap. 6. and marke it well A.D. 250. See the Tryall chap. 5. and marke it well O braue Purgatorie the Greeke Church neuer beleeued thee The Iesuite hath as many lyes as words For this see the Anatomie of Popish Tyrannie His first lye His second lye His third lye His fourth lye His fift lye No vntrueth but what proceedes froÌ„ the Iesuiâ—es penne A.D. 250. I speake of the late Byshops of Rome O sweete Iesus who seeth not Popery to be the new Religion It is already prooued that the Fryer is a most impudent lyer The Iesuite snatcheth at this peece that peece but toucheth not the principall Act. 20. V. 27. Act 26. V. 22. Lyr. in 20. cap. Act. Apost Carthus ibid. Ioh. 5. V. 47. Aug. contra Adriantum cap. tom â— pag. 121. Polydor. libr. 6. cap. 1. The Iesuite B.C. p. 67. graunteth that Scotus is of the same opinion S. R. pag. 284. S.R. pag. 285. S. Austin tract 49. in Iohan. to 9. S.R. pag 286. S. Cyril lib. 11. in Ioan. cap. 68. Chrysosto 2. Thesâ— ho. 3. Epiphan Haeres 65. nos â—quidem vniusâ—uiusque quaestionis inuentionem non ex proprijs ratiocinationibus dicere poâ—â—imus sed ex scripturaruÌ„ consequentia Popish confession is neither commaunded by Christ nor by his Apostles Ex Leone Papa de paenitent dist 1. cap. quamuis Loe wise and religious Papistes hold that Confession was ordained by the law of man Syluest de Confes. secundò part 4. Couarruv â—om 1. par 1. pag. 155. Scotus in 4. libr. sent dist 17. q. 1. Loe Popish Confession is either one thing or other this or that they can not tell what The Papists cannot endure the written testimonie of Gods trueth Roffensis art 37. adâ— Luth. Pag. 11. Couar to 1. part 2. Cap. 7. Par. 4.11.14 in med what the Pope holdeth that must be defended Caietan cap. 20. in Iohan. Ponder well the next Conclusion A.D. 1215. Ab Innocentio 3 et â—â—is Angles in 4. S. paâ—â— 1. pag. 255. Popish auricular confession was not heard of in old time Nicephor lib. 12. cap. 28. f. Nicepho lib. 12. cap. 28. Auricular Confession is not necessary Rhenan in annot in lib. Tertul. de pae Loe Auricular Confession not heard of in the auncient Church Popish Confession is vnpossible euen by the confession of Papists Marke well for Gods sake Who will not be at defiance with Popery that deepely pondereth these thinges Out vpon Poperie it is flatâ—e Heresie Suruay part 3. cap. 12. pag. 504. Scotus can not tell what to say of their Popish Confession Lay away vnwritten Traditions and Poperie is at an end De Paenit Distinct. 1. cap. quamuis De paenit dist 1. cap. quamuis Ios. Angl. in 4. S. part 1. pag. â—54 Ios. Angles vbi supra pag. 255. The best learned Papistes doe vtterly condemne Popery for the New religion Ezech. cap. 18. vers 4. Rom. 6.23 Ar. Mont. in 1. Ioh. 3. Beda in 1. Ioh. 3. Carthus in 1. Iohn 3. Lyr. in 1. Iohn 3. Deut. 27.25 Gal. 3.10 Roffensis art 32 aduers. Luther p. 32â— Gers. de vit spiâ— lect 1. pag. â— Popish mortall Veniall sinnes are not distinguished essentially Marke this poynt well for it is of great consequence Mat. 12. v. 36. S.R. Pag. 268. O sawcie Fryer thy impudencie is intollerable Aug. de cons. Euang. lib. 2. C. 4. cont faust lib. 22. cap. 27. Ambros. de parad C. 8. Iosephus Angles in 4 S.P. 215. Iose. Angles in 2. sent pag. 249. Marke well this Popish Doctrine for it confoundeth the Pope Deut. 27.25 Gal. 3. v 10. Iacobi 2. v. 10. This Argument striketh dead Mat. 12. v. 30. Durand in 2. sent Dist. 42. q. 6. Ios. Angles in 2. sent pag 275. The Romish religion changeth often See and note well the Iesuites Antepast P. 109. et pag. 119. I highly reuerence the old Romane Religion Away with Popish workes of Supererogation Vide Bellarm. tom 3 â—0 l. 1216. Mat. 5. V. 22. Mat. 10. V. 15. There is great nequalitie in mortall sinnes Luk. 10. V. 14. Note Chap. 28. Esa. 59. V. 2. 2. Cor 6. V. 15. Psal. 5. V. 4.7 S. R. pag. 270. pag. 271. S.R. pag. 271. Ioh. 14. V. 23. Ioh. 15. V. 10.14 Ioh 14 V. 21. S.R. pag. 27â— Ioh. 15. V. 14. Deu. 27. V. 25. Gal. 3. V. 10. Mat. 12. V. 36. In prima Figura et modo Barbara Nauar. in Euchirid Cap. 21. Nu. 34. No sinne so small which breaketh not Gods fauour For we must neither turne to the right hand nor to the left Deut. 5.32 Caiet in 20. cap. Iohan. Mat. 12. V. 36. S.R. pag. 271. God will beatâ— our Iesuites for starting out of the way of his Commaundementes Psal. 5. v. â— Ioh. 15. v. 14. Nullum omâ—ino peccatum potest in Deum referri S.R. Pag. 268. O horrible Blasphemy what will not Iesuites write Marke well my wordes Esa. 55. v. 8. Rom. 9. v. 20.21.22 Rom. 11. v. 33. â—4 55 Mat. 10. v. 28. Genes 3. v. 6. Gen. 19.26 Limbus Puâ—rorum pontifiâ—ius Euery sin is of infinite deformitie â—altâ—m obiectiue S. R. Pag. 277. Euery Child of God will say it seeing it is against gods Law S. R. pag. 276.277 The Iesuite confoundeth himselfe while he graunteth euery sinne against the order of nature to be mortall Mat. 12. V. 36. The order of Nature before Adams fall Mat. 12 V. 30. Euery sinne is against Gods Law Away therefore with Popish works of supererogatioÌ„ No no prinâ—ipaliter S. R. pag. 186. S. R. pag. 278. Loe the Iesuite vnawares graunteth the trueth against his Pope and himselfe Fiue great learned Papistes are of Bels opinion Note well that the Fathers call small sinnes Veniall respectiuely See Chap. 2. Conclus 7. The Popes Fayth is confuted by Popish Doctors Poperiâ— without lying can not be defended O lying Frier there is no trueth in rotten newly inuented Poperie The maine poynt of the Controuersie Poperie is a beggerly Religion O most impudent Iesuite The Authors Protestation S. R. Pag. 281. Marke the falsely supposed errour Sinnes onely Veniall by mercie are mortall of their owne nature Nature and Mercie are farre differens This Ergo girdeth the Pope Vixit Pius A.D. 1565. Vixit Gregor A.D. 1572. Concl. 1. huius cap. ex Gersono et alijs The Romish Church beleeueth it can not tell what S. R. pag. 281. Veniall by Mercie can not be Veniall of it owne nature Tertiò Principaliter S. R. pag. 281. Out vpon rotten Poperie it consisteth of lying and forgerie See and note the tryall The Iesuite truely is at a Non plus A Poke full of Plumbes is the defence of Poperie Egomet tum eram testis oculatus Their Blood Bones Haire and Apparell are reserued honoured as the Reliques of Gods Martirs See and marke well the 29. and the. 30 Chapters The appeale of the Priestes is compared to the appeale of Alexander Martinus Polonus in Chronicho Polonus vbi supra