wresting the holy scriptures that their owne deere brethren and great Doctors cannot for shame deny or conceale the same Polydorus virgilius a famous Papist hath these wordes Non secus isti c. These Popish Legists and Canonists doe now and then so wrest and wrieth the holy Scriptures to that sence which themselues like best euen as Coblers doe gnaw with theyr teeth and stretch out their filthy skinnes This is that which the famous Papist Doctor Fisher the late bishop of Rochester did freely confesse in his answere to the Articles of maist Luther which he could not in truth withstand or gain-say These are his expresse wordes Contendentibus itaque nobiscum haereticis nos alio subsidio nostram oportet tuâ—re causam quam scriptura sacra Therefore when hereticks contend with vs we must defend our cause by other meanes then by the holy Scripture These are the expresse wordes I neyther adde any thing nor take any thing away of their famous popish Byshop of their holy saint of their glorious martyr a learned man indeed who laboured with might maine for the Popes vsurped soueraignty and defended the same in the best manner he was able and to the vttermost of his skill and yet for all that he hath bolted out vnawares against his will such is the force of truth so much in plain tearmes as is enough to ouerthrow all Poperie for euer and to cause all people that haue any care of their saluation to renounce the Pope and his abhominable Doctrine to their liues end For our learned Popish bishoppe being put to his best Trurmpe telleth vs very plainely and without all dissimulation his mouth being now opaned by him whoe caused Balaams Asse to speake that they must not because forsooth they cannot defend and maintaine their popery by the authority of the Scripture but by some other way and meanes viz by mans forged inuentions and popish vnwritten vanities which they terme the Churches Traditions Now gentle Reader how can any Papist who is not giuen vppe in reprobum sensu for his former sinnes and iust deserts read sueh testimonies against Popery freely confessed and plainly published to the world and that by the pennes of most learned and renowned Papists euen while they bestir themselues busily to defend their Pope and his popish doctrine and for all that continue Papists still and carryed away headlong into perdition beleeuing and obeying that doctrine which as themselues confesse can not be defended by the holy Scripture Methinkes they should be ashamed to hold and beleeue that doctrine in defence whereof they can yeeld no better reason Covorruvius a famous Canonist and reuerend Popishe Byshop hath these wordes Nec me latet c. Neither am I ignorant that Saint Thomas affirmeth after great deliberation that the byshop of Rome cannot with his dispensation take away from Monkes their solemne vow of chastity this notwithstanding we must defend the first opinion least those things which are practised euerie where be vtterly ouerthrowne Behold here gentle Reader that howsoeuer the popes opinion be the same we must defend of necessity and the reason is added because otherwise popery cannot consist Fie vpon that Religion which must haue such poore and beggerly shiftes for the maintenance thereof Much like stuffe I might recount of Popish pardons and Purgatorie c. but for those matters I referre the Reader to my Booke Intituled The wofull cry of Rome CHAP. 2. ¶ Conteining a sound confutation of the Iesuites answere framed to my argumentes against the Popes primacy THe Iesuite S. R. in the first Chapter against my first Article is so troubled to answer my reasons grounds and authorities that one while hee affirmeth otherwhiles denyeth the selfe-same thing so mightily confounding both himselfe and his Reader In the down-fall of Popery I proued euidently that the Pope taketh vpon him to depose Kings and Emperours from their royall thrones and to translate their Empires and regalities at his good will and pleasure To which S. R. answeareth that I belie the Pope but let vs heare his owne wordes S. R. I must needes tell him that he vntruly auoucheth vs to say that the Pope is spiritually aboue all powers and Potentates on earth T. B. I must needes tell you Maist. Iesuite that you vntruly charge me with vntruth yea that you roundly controule your selfe and giue your selfe the lye I proue it first because your selfe confesse the wordes which I alledged out of Bellarmine that Popish and Iesuiticall Cardinall to be truly fathered vpon him viz that when any Prince of a sheepe is made an hereticke or swarueth from the Romish religion which is all one with you Papists then the pope may driue him away by excommunication and withal coÌ„maund the people not to obey him and therefore depriue him of his dominion ouer his Subiects Secondly because you M. Iesuite confesse freely that Pope Zachary did iustly depose Childrick King of Fraunce Thirdly because ye likewise grant freely that the Pope deposed king Henry the eight and Queene Elizabeth and for better assurance hereof you tell vs the same tale in another place But let all indifferent Readers hearken seriously what the Popes owne deare Fryer telleth vs his wordes are set downe in the Down-fall of Popery but S. R. could not see them because he knewe not what to say to them thus doth he write Vt pace omnium c. To speake by the fauour of all good men this sole nouelty I will not say heresie was not yet knowne in the worlde that his priests who maketh an hypocrit to raigne for the sinnes of the people should teach the people that they owe no subiection to wicked Kinges and that although they haue taken the Oath of fealty yet do they owe them no allegiance neyther are periured that thinke ill against the king yea he that obeyeth the king is this day reputed an excommunicate person and he that taketh part against the king is absolued from the crime of Iniustice and periury Thus writeth Sigebertus a Learned popish Fryer so liuely painting out our very case this day in England as if hee were liuing euen now amongst vs. Where we see that the popes own Monks friers haue thought as il of the popes dealings in former times as we think of his proceedings in these latter daies as also that to absolue Subiectes from their allegeance is not onely a Nouelty but euen a flat Heresie Let all popish Recusants marke this point well and defie the Pope and all his absolutions from their allegeance for as the secular popish Priests haue truely written Popery is this day inseparably linked with Treason But what saith S. R. Let vs heare him againe S. R. And much lesse did we euer tell you that the pope hath temporall superiority ouer all Princes on earth but teach the quite contrary Againe if Bell reply that some Cannonists
keeping when the defect is pardoned which is a farre different thing from saying that Christs keeping is counted our keeping And he meaneth that our keeping is defectuous because we keep not the commandements ad vnum apicem as he saith to the last iot or title but thorough Veniall sinnes haue neede to say Fogiue vs our Trespasses which Veniall Trespasses being pardoned we are accounted to do all Gods Commandements T. B. I answere first that it is a meer calumny to charge me with saying that Christs keeping is our keeping I onely said then and now say againe that wee fulfill the Law in Christ which is such a truth as you are neuer able to refute the same Secondly that I haue proued already that euery sinne is deadly of it owne nature and consequently that it is too great arrogancy in our Iesuite to expound S. Austen after his owne fancy hauing neyther authority nor reason so to do Thirdly that when our Iesuite confesseth that their Veniall sinnes are pardoned he vnawares confesseth that they cannot keepe Gods Commandements I prooue it because God either hath forbidden their Venials or is well pleased with them If he be well pleased with them then are they no sinnes at all for God is not well pleased with sinne If hee haue forbidden them then are they against his precept and consequently seeing the Papistes graunt that they cannot liue without their Venials they must also graunt of necessity that they cannot keep Gods holy Precepts And therefore it is time for all Iesuites and Iesuited Papists to say with S. Iames Wee all offend in many things And with the Prophet Dauid Enter not into Iudgement with thy seruants O Lord for none liuing shall be iustified in thy sight I therefore conclude with Saint Austen that all the Commandements are then reputed as done when whatsoeuer is not done Is of mercy forgiuen And with S. Hierome that the true wisedome of man is to know that he is vnperfect S. R. Saint Hierome confesseth that God hath giuen possible Commaundements least he should be Authour of Iniustice He saith likewise that he is to be detested as a blasphemer that saith God hath commaunded any impossible thing S. Austen also saith that God could not command any impossible thing because he is iust T. B. This Obiection is as a Bulwarke for Popish supposed Condigne Merite of vvorkes I therefore both proposed it in the Downefall and answered it in the same place My answere is there to bee seene at large to which I referre the Reader This is the summe and effect thereof viz that God commaunded nothing which was eyther impossible in it selfe to be done or to bee doone of man as man The same ie there prooued at large Touching S. Hierome I will adde a little because our Iesuite affirmeth him to be on his side The truth is this that S. Hierom in 3. whole books against the Pelagians hath no other scope purpose or intent saue onely to proue against them out of the holy Scriptures that none liuing doth keepe Gods Commaundements which hee prooueth no other vvay but because all haue sinned and done euill in Gods sight Three thinges therefore are cleere and certaine with S. Hierome First that all haue sinned and cannot bee iustified but by the mercy and fauour of God These are his wordes In multis offendimus omnes Non pauca peccata sed multa non quorundam sed omnium posuit Omnes n. quae sua sunt quaerunt non ea quae dei sunt We all offend in many things He put not a few sinnes but many not the sinnes of some but of all For all seeke the things that are their own and not the things that are Gods Again thus Neque n. homo potest esse sine peccato quod tua habet sententia sed potest si voluerit deus hominem seruare sine peccato immaculatum sua misericordia custodire Hoc ego dico quod deo cunctâ— possibilia sunt homint autem non quicquid voluerit possibile est maxime idesse quod nullam â—egeris habere creaturam For man cannot be without sinne as thou thinkest but God is able if it please him to preserue a man from sinne and to keep him immaculate by his mercy This I also grant that all thinges are possible to God but it is not possible for man to doe whatsoeuer hee would especially to bee that which thou hast not read any Creature to haue Againe thus Hec cuncta percurro vt oftendam à nullo legem esse completam per legem mandat a omnia quae continentur in lege Sequitur ergo non liberi arbitry potestate sed de clementia conseruamur I runne ouer all these thinges to shew that none hath fulled the Law and by the Law all the Commaundements contained in the Law Ergo we are preserued Or saued not by the power of free will but by the clemency Or mercy of God Secondly that all the elect people of God though they be sinfull in themselues by transgressing Gods law yet are they iust by the mercy of God in Christ Iesus The former pâ—rt Saint Hierome prooueth thus Non est homo iustus c. There is none iust vppon the earth none that doth good and sinneth not Againe There is no man that sinneth not Againe Who knoweth his sinnes cleanse mee from my secret faults Againe Enter not into iudgement wâ—th thy seruant for none liuing can bee iustified in thy sight These and many like places saith S. Hierom are euery where in the Scriptures by which it is manifest that none liuing can be without sinne The latter part the same holy Father prooueth thus Audi eundem euangelistam si confiteamur peccata nostra sidelis instus est vt dimittat nobis peccata nostra mundet nos ab omni iniquitate Tunc ergo iusti sumus quando nos peccatores fatemur iustitia nostra non ex proprio merito sedex dei consistit misericordia conclusit n. â—â—eusoâ—ma sub peccato vt omnibus misereatur Et haec hominis summa est iustiâ—a quicquid potuerit habere virtutis non suum putare esse sed Domini qui largitus est Heare the same Euangelist If wee confesse our sinnes he is faithfull and iust to forgiue vs all our sins and to cleanse vs from all iniquity Then therefore are wee iust when wee confesse our selues and our Iustice doth not consist of our owne merite but of Gods mercy For GOD hath shut vp all vnder sinne that he may haue mercy on all Againe in another place thus Haec est hominis vera sapientia imperfectum esse se nosse atque vtit a loquar cunctorum in carne iustorum imperfecta perfectio est This is the true wisedome of man to know that hee is vnperfect and that the perfection of all the iust in the flesh is
Dionisius and Aquinas wee may learne sufficiently if nothing else were saide that howsoeuer Paule plant or Apollo water yet will no increase followe vnlesse God giue the same I therefore conclude that we do not beleeue this book or that Booke to be Cannonical because this man or that man or the church saith so but because the Scripture is ' axiopistos because it hath in it selfe that dignity that verity and that Maiesty which is woorthy of credite in it selfe The declaration of the church doth make vs know and beleeue the scripture but is onely an externall help to bring vs thereunto We indeed beleeue the Scripture this or that Booke to be canonicall because God doth inwardly teach vs and perswade our harts so to beleeue For Certes if we should beleeue this or that booke to be canonicall because the Church saith so then should the formall obiect of our faith and the last resolution therof be man and not God himselfe as Areopagna Aquinas the truth it selfe teacheth vs. Sixtly because we cannot be assured that the Church telleth vs the truth For how can the Church perswade vs that she knoweth it to be Gods word If aunswere be made that shee knoweth it of another Church then I demaund againe how that other Church can performe it And so either contrary to all Diuinity Phylosophy and right reason Dabitur processus in infinitum Or else they must say they receiued it by Tradition from the Apostles and thē are they where they began For first they cannot make vs know that assuredly Againe our Iesuite confuteth that answer when he liberally telleth vs that many partes of the Bible were long after the daies of the Apostles doubted of and consequently their Apostolicall so supposed Tradition is of no effect If answere be made that the Church knoweth it by Reuelation then their famous Bishop Melchior Canus telleth them plainely and roundly that it cannot bee so These are his expresse wordes Nec vllas in fide nouas reuelationes ecclesia habet For the Church hath no new Reuelations in matters of Faith If answere be made that the Scripture saith the Church cannot erre and so her testification is an infallible rule thereof we admit the answer we hold the same the controuersie is at an end the victory is our own Onely we must adde this which is already proued that that Church which cannot erre is not the late Romish church but the congregation of the faithfull Lastly the Scripture it selfe in many places telleth vs expresly that it is the word of God First wee haue in the foure Euangelistes these vvordes expressely set downe The Holy-Ghost of Iesus Christ according to Matthew Marke Luke and Iohn Secondly Saint Luke affirmeth in the beginning of the Actes of the Apostles that he made a Book of al those thinges which Iesus both did and taught meaning that gospell which is the third in number Thirdly wee are taught by Saint Peter that no prophesie of Scripture is made by any priuate motion but that holy men of God spake as they were mooued by the Holy-Ghost Fourthly S. Paule telleth vs That he receiued that of our Lord God which he deliuered in the Scripture Fiftly the same Apostle affirmeth that That Gospell of God 〈◊〉 written which was promised by his Prophets in the holy Scriptures Sixtly S. Iohn receiued his Reuelation from Christ which he was commaunded to write Lastly and this striketh dead When the rich Glutton tormented in Hell desired of our holy Father Abraham that one might be sent from the dead to his Bretheren then liuing Abraham answered that they had Moses and the Prophets whom ther ought to heare and beleeue And Christ himselfe told his Apostles that all thinges must needes bee fulfilled which were written of him in the Law of Moses in the Prophets and in the Psalmes Yea Christ tolde the two Disciples going toward Emmaus that they ought to beleeue all thinges which the Prophets spake and therefore beginning at Moses and all the Prophets hee did interpret to them in all the Scriptures the thinges which were written of himselfe And consequently the Scripture it selfe doth plainely tell vs that it is the word of GOD. For out of these wordes of the holy Scripture wee haue these points of Doctrine most cleerely deliuered First that our Sauiour Christ spake them Secondly that all things must be beleeued which are written in the Law in the Prophets and in the Psalmes Thirdly that all things foretold of Christ in the Law the Prophets and the Psalmes were fulfilled indeed Fourthly that Christ did interprete the chiefest partes of all the Law the Prophets and the Psalmes I therefore conclude that it is the word of GOD. As also that the dignity the excellency and the Maiesty thereof dooth insinuate no lesse vnto vs. S. R. Neither is Bels comparison true For wee beleeue not the Olde Testament to bee Gods word for any Tradition which the Iewes haue but which the Catholique church hath from the Apostles and their successors Who deliuered to the church and she to vs as well the Old as the New Testament for Gods word T. B. You contradict your selfe good Maister Fryer as who tels vs right plainely in another place that many parts of the Bible were doubted of a long time after the Apostles For if you had receiued by Tradition from the Apostles all the Scriptures both of the Old and New Testament ye could neuer so long after the Apostles haue bin in doubt of many partes thereof For by your supposed Tradition you had the same assurance for the whole as for the parts And consequently seeing you graunt your vncertainty for many parts you must perforce graunt the same vncertainty for the whole And so you confesse vnawares and against your wils so much in effect and true meaning as I contend to proue viz that your vnwritten supposed Apostolicall Traditions are as vncertaine as the winde and not an infallible rule of faith S. R. Bels third solution is that the New Testament is but an exposition of the Old and therefore may be tryed and discerned by the same But Sir Will you indeed try the New Testament Will you take vpon you to iudge Gods word And if you will try Gods word by what will you try the Old Testament Surely by Tradition or by nothing T. B. I answere that I admit both the Old Testament and the New because I beleeue God speaking in the same This is prooued already Againe seeing the Law and the Prophets and the Psalmes are approoued by Christes owne Testimony as we haue heard already and seeing withall that the New Testament is but an exposition of the Old as I haue prooued in the Downefall it followeth of necessity that the Old being receiued the New cannot be reiected Neither is he Iudge of Gods word that discerneth one Scripture by another◠because hee maketh not himselfe but Gods word
Octauianus to the Popedome Was not the oth accomplished and bee named Iohn Was he not a great hunter and a man of licencious life Did he not keepe women openly to the notorious scandall of the Church Did not some of the Cardinals write to Otto King of the Saxons to come besiedge Rome so to afflict him for his sins Did not the Pope perceiuing it cause the Cardinals nose to be cut off that gaue the counsel his hand that wrote the letter Martinus Polonus a Popish Arch-Bishop sometime the Popes owne Penitentiary affirmeth this to bee a constant truth Did not Pope Siluester the second a French-man borne Gilbertus by name promise homage to the Deuill so long as he should accomplish his desire Did he not so often expresse his deâ—ire to the Deuill as he made homage vnto him And was he not first made Archbishop of Rhemes then of Rauennas at the last Pope of Rome Did not the Deuill knowing his ambitious mind bring him to honor by degrees When he was made Pope was hee not desirous to know of the Deuill how long he should liue in his pontificall glory Did not the Deuill answere him so long as he said no Masse in Hierusalem The story is long he that can read and desireth to know it at large may find it in Martino Polono aboue named Did not Pope Benedict the eyght appear corporally after his death as it were riding on a blacke Horse the Deuill Did he not desire the Bishop that saw him to cause some Mony to be giuen to the poore because all that he gaue afore time was gotten by robbeâ—y and extortion Petrus Damascenus affirmeth it Was not Pope Formosus a periured person Did not Pope Iohn degrade him after he had been Bishop of Portua Did he not take him sworn that he neither should be Bishop nor euer returne to the city of Rome Did not Pope Martine absolue him of his oath Came hee not to Rome and shortly after was made Pope Did not Pope Stephanus the sixt persecute Pope Formosus Did hee not cause his dead body to be brought forth into his consistory the papall ornamentes to bee taken away a laical habit to be put on the dead corps two fingers of his right hand to be cut off and so his body to bee put into the graue Did not Sergius the third cause Pope Formosus who now had beene dead almost ten yeares to be taken out of his Tombe and to bee set in a Chaire with pontificall attire vpon his backe and then his head to bee cut off and cast into Tyber Platina Carranza and Polonus affirme it for a constant and knowne truth Did not Pope Vrbanus the second absolue subiects from their fidelity and alleageance which was dew vnto their Soueraigne so that whosoeuer obeyed the King was reputed excommunicated and they that took part against the King were resolued from the â—â—ime of periury and Iniustice Did not Pope Boniface the eight challenge the right of both Swordes Did hee not depriue Phillip the French King and giue his Kingdome to him that could get it Sigebertus and Nauclerus proclaime it to the World If I should enter into the full discourse of these Mysteries time would sooner faile me then matter whereof to speake Let it suffice for the present to call to mind the ladder of eight steppes by whch the late Bishop of Rome did climbe vp to their tyrannicall primacy the killing of Christ in the Popish Masse the pluralities of bodies ascribed vnto him the sensible touching breaking and chewing of Christs Reall and naturall bodie without teeth the absurdities impossiblities and contradictions which necessarily insue vpon their falsely and fondly imagined reall presence their intollerable and blasphemous dispensations the Brother licenced to marry his owne naturall Sister persons ioyned in wedlocke by God himselfe and dissolued by the Pope Saint Pauls flat doctrin of Concupiscence to bereiected Condigne merits of Mans workes established damnable sinnes to be made Veniall Bishops not to haue voyces in Counsels vntill they first sweare to deâ—end the Pope and his damnable decrees that Papistes can keepe the Commandements and adde thereunto works of supererogation These and many like execrable assertions the Gentle Reader shall finde in this small Volume to be truely iustified against the Pope and his Iesuited Popelings Many years are expired since I first wrote against the Papists They haue desperately aâ—firmed that my Bookes were answered many yeares agoe yet this is the first answere indeede that euer was published against any of my Books which was pretended to be such a worthy thing that it must needs haue a fore-runner to come before it to exhort Men to prepare themselues worthily to receiue it as if forsooth this saucy Rebell S. R. were Christ himselfe and his fore-ruâ—ner Saint Iohn the Baptist. VVhat hee hath performed in his supposed aunswere and my selfe in this my Reply I refer it to the iudgement and censure of the indifferent Reader The worke such as it is I haue Dedicated vnto your Honour as an externall signe of thankefulnesse for the Honourable fauours receiued at your Lordships hand The Almighty increase your Christian zeale towardes his Gospell and so blesse your faithfull seruice to your Prince and Countrey as your most Honorable place and calling doth require Your Honors Seruant in Christ Iesus Thomas Bell. The first Article Of the Popes falsly supposed SOVERAIGNTY Chapter first Of certaine Aphorismes for the better instruction of the Reader Aphorisme 1. MAny reasons might be alledged why so many at this day doe so greedily though foolishly and vndiscreetly embrace the late Romish religion but these few to giue a tast shall suffice for the present The first reason is because they expect a day as prophane Esau did when they may kill their true and naturall Soueraigne Gods sacred and annointed Lieutenant as I haue proued elsewhere at large and so aspire and be aduaunced to great wealth dignitie But let them remember proud Hammons end least they be hanged on the gallowes which they intend and prepare for others The second because our gratious Soueraigne as did his noble predecessors K. Edward and Queene Elizabeth of famous memory laboureth to win Papists with lenity and long sufferance and by reading preaching to bring them to the light of Christes Gospell whereas the Pope neuer ceaseth to burne burne with fire and fagot whosoeuer holdeth and defendeth any one article contrary to his late hatched Religion yea if one passe by an Image or their house of Inquisition which they terme the Holy-house and do not reuerence thereunto it is enough to cast that man into the sayde disholy prison Which kind of punishment if it were vpon iust cause executed within his Maiesties Dominions shortly few or no disloyall subiects would be found within his kingdomes Which is not my bare opinion onely but euen Saint Austens in the like subiect
in defence of late start-vp Popery His Doctrine smelleth of nothing but of winde vanity and leasinges His first lye is this That the glosse saith not de nihilo but de nullo The second lie is this that I affirme the glosse to say in all cases and at all times The third lye is this that the words by me alledged are taken out of Iustinian The 4. lie is this that the glosse speaketh of Ciuill contracts Lies abundant for one short sentēce And why doth our Iesuit thus shamefully heap lyes vpon lyes Doubtles because he now seeth the halter about the Popes necke the Pope ready for his trechery to be hanged on the Gallowes as one that is conuicted by the flat Testimony of his owne sworne Vassals of most notorious blasphemy against the sonne of God For first to make of nothing something is vndoubtedly propper to the blessed Trinity the Father the sonne and the Holy-ghost three in distinction of persons and one in Vnity of substance And consequently if the Pope can make something of nothing he must perforce be another God This consequence our Iesuit and his Pope dare not admit in verball phrase although they practise it in reall act and that the truth may euidently appeare beecause it is a matter of great consequence I will examine euery parcell of the Iesuites aunswere seuerally by it selfe S. R. The glosse saith not the Pope can make de nihilo aliquid but de nullo aliquid T. B. This is a most notorious lye I referre my selfe for the truth hereof to al indifferent Readers that haue the popes decretals and can read and vnderstand the same And if the glosse say not de nihilo as I affirme but de nullo as our Iesuite saith let me be discredited for euer Oh sweet Iesus Who could euer thinke that the Papists would bee so impudent as to deny the expresse words of the text Nay I will proue it by the circumstances to the Iesuites euerlasting shame and confusion For first if the assertion were borrowed from the ciuill law and meant of ciuill contracts pacts or stipulations as our Iesuite impudently auoucheth but against his owne conscience if he haue any left then shuld it not be aliquid but aliquod as euery meane Gramarian can and will testifie with me Againe the glosse saith the Pope can change the Nature of thinges by applying the substance of one thing to another But doubtlesse when the Emperor maketh that to be a ciuill contract which afore was none hee doeth not apply the substance of one thing to another but onely commandeth his subiects to accept that for a law which before was none Thirdly no mortall man can apply the substance of one thing to another and so change the nature thereof Although the Pope take vppon him to chaunge bread into Christs body And therefore when the glosse addeth immediately and of nothing he can make something hee meaneth of that diuine power which is propper to GOD alone Like as Antoninus affirmed as is already proued that the Pope doth challenge power super omne quodcunque est ouer euery thing whatsoeuer is and hath any being and consequently ouer God himselfe And so whether he be Antichrist or no I referre it to the iudgement of the Reader for if the Pope be aboue God I dare not take vpon my selfe to bee his iudge Neither will it serue to say that Saint Antoninus doth not affirm the Pope to be aboue God For though he say not so expressely yet doth hee affirme so much virtually when he telleth vs that hee is aboue euery thing that hath being For God hath not only a being but such a supereminent being as surpasseth all intelligence and is the cause of the being of all creatures S. R. Neither yet in all cases and at all times as Bell addeth T. B. If our Iesuite were not intrinsecally as it were made of lying he would neuer for shame delight so much therein These are my wordes in my Booke and yet the truth is that as man can in some cases at some time make one thing of another so in all cases at all times to make something of nothing is proper to God alone Yet the lying and impudent Iesuite not able to encounter me nor to gainesay my proofes and reasons laboreth with might maine to disgrace me with the Reader to get the victory with flat lying Our slanderous and rayling Iesuite reporteth my wordes in this manner for saith Bell it is a thinge proper to God to make something of nothing in al cases and at al times So then all that I said was this viz That though man can at sometime in some cases make one thing of another yet to make of nothing something is proper to GOD alone neither is man able to performe the same S. R. The foresaide words are taken out of Iustinian where the Emperor saith that because he can make to be accounted a stipulation where none is much more hee can an insufficient stipulation to be sufficient T. B. The foresaid words cannot bee found in Iustinian it is a lye with a witnes The Popish Religion cannot be defended but with falshood deceit and leasings The residue is confuted already S. R. Which Bell would apply to creation and the making of Creatures of nothing as God made the world T. B. I both would and haue applyed it so in very deed and I haue proued it so sufficiently as the Iesuit cannot tel what to say to the same and therefore did he bethink him to betake himselfe to his accustomed art of Lyeng The second Article Touching the Masse Chapter first ¶ Of the reall presence of Christs body in the popish Masse S. R. THough saint Thomas teach that Christes quantity is also in the Sacrament yet affirmeth hee it not as a point of faith In like manner Bellarmine in the place which Bell citeth teacheth and truly that Christes quantity is in the Sacrament but not with Bels addition As a point of Fayth T. B. Here I perceiue I haue an Eele by the tayle Anguis est elabitur Doe our Papists teach that which they beleeue not to be true And doe they that in the Sacrifice of their most holy so supposed Masse Who would haue beleeued it if our Iesuite Parsons had not said it But good Sir tell me this Doe you teach that of your reall presence in your holy Masse which ye beleeue not to be true Then doubtlesse your silly subiects your Iesuited Papists haue neede to looke to your fingers Then must they remēber Christs rule Beware of false prophets which come to you in sheepes cloathing but inwardly are rauening Wolues And if you teach vs as ye beleeue then must your doctrin be an article of your faith Againe two Popes Vrbanus the fourth and Innocentius the fifth haue confirmed Aquinas his Doctrine for Authenticall and strictly commaunded to admit and receiue all that he hath written
Fooleries and Contradictions the Papistes fall while they busie themselues to fight against the truth S. R. Bell Obiecteth out of Theodoretus that the Haebrewe Bookes were Translated into all Languages This is nothing against vs who deny not but Scripture hath bin and may bee vpon iust and vrgent causes translated into all languages so it be not vulgarly vsed and common to all kind of vulgar people T. B. You say you deny not but Scripture hath beene and also may bee Translated into the vulgar Languages yet you adde two restrictions by which you in effect vnsay that which you had saide before First you say it may be in the Vulgar languages so it bee not vulgarly vsed What is this Fast and loose your Legierdemaine To what end I pray you shall it and may it bee turned into the vulgar Languages That the vulgar people may Read it or no If you say yea then may it be vulgarly vsed For that is to bee vulgarly vsed to be read vulgarly If you say no then in vaine do you graunt it to be Translated into the vulgar tongue Secondly you say it may also be Translated so it be doone vppon iust and vrgent causes You should haue doone well to haue named those iust and vrgent causes But Sir seeing the thing may bee doone and seeing also there may bee iust and vrgent causes why it should bee doone how commeth it to passe that none may doe it vnlesse the Pope licence him thereunto How happeneth it that none may read it when it is translated vnlesse hee haue the Popes licence so to doe How chanceth it that it was neuer done since the Bishop of Rome aspired to his vsurped prymacy This would I learne S. R. The Holy Fathers affirme that there are vnwritten Apostolicall Traditions Bell and some few start-vp Heretiques deny it Whether beleeue ye Christians T. B. Bell denyeth not simply that there bee no vnwritten Apostolicall Traditions It is a notorious calumny sor I willingly admit vnwritten Traditions as is apparant by my Bookes published to the World But I constantly reiect all vnwritten Traditions whatsoeuer which are obtruded as necessary to saluation or as necessary parts of doctrin because al such things are contained in the written Word Other Traditions not contrary to Gods Word which the Church obserueth I am so farre from condemning them that I both willingly admit them and highly reuerence the same And if you were constant to your own writings you would subscribe to this my doctrine For you graunt in many places that all thinges necessary for saluation are contained in the holy Scripture Which being granted you contradict your selfe when yee vrge vnwritten Traditions as necessary points of Christian Faith S. R. There are certaine and vndoubted Apostolicall Tradions This is against Bell. T. B. It is not against Bell for Bell admitteth as we haue seen already such vnwritten Traditions as are repugnant to the holy Scripture and haue euer beene approued of the whole Church But such neither are Articles of the Chrian faith neither necessary to Saluation S. R. But I prooue it because the Traditions of the Bible to be Gods word of the perpetuall virginity of our blessed Lady of the transferring of the Sabboath and such like are certaine and vndoubted T. B. Crambe bis posita mors est saith the Prouerbe This Cuckow song soundeth often in our eares This irkesome Tautology of yours doth you good seruice The perpetuall virginity of the most blessed Virgin I admit with all reuerence and semblably I approoue the translation of the Sabboath As this is not the first time ye vrged thē so neither the first time I answere them But neither are they repugnāt to the holy Scripture nor necessary points of Doctrine To the Tradition of the Bible which is euer your last and best trump aunswere shall bee made God willing in the ende of this Article It is the most colourable thing you can alleadge and the onely foundation vppon which you continually relie I therefore reserue it for the vpshot and to entertaine you with such a collation as may be to your best liking S. R. Bels conclusion is that Traditions are so vncertain as the learnedst Papists contend about them and hee prooueth it because S. Victor contended with the Byshop of Asia Saint Policarpe with Saint Anicetus Surely he meaneth that these men were Papists or else his conclusion is vnprooued and consequently Papistes and Popery were 1400. yeares agoe T. B. Two thinges our Fryer vrgeth neither of which vvill do him any seruice viz my meaning and the proofe of my conclusion My meaning is cleerely vttered when in the Downefall I affirmed Saint Policarpus Saint Policrates and other holy Fathers to bee so farre from acknowledging the Byshop of Rome to bee the supreme head of the Church and that he could not erre that they all reputed themselues his equals touching gouernment Ecclesiasticall that they all reprooued him very sharpely that they all with vniforme assent affirmed him to defend a grosse errour to hold a false opinion and therefore they with might and maine withstand his proceedings Whereas this day if any Bishops Magestrates or other Potentates in the World where Popery beareth the sway should doe the like they might all roundly be excommunicated and not onely deposed from their iurisdiction but also to be burnt with fire and Fagot for their pains Thus I then wrote so as our Fryer could not doubt of my meaning but that malice carryeth him away to lying Well but how is my conclusion proued Thus forsooth I alleaged this great contention among the holy Fathers to proue the vncertainty of obtruded vnwritten Traditions in these our dayes My Argument was A maiori ad minus as the Scooles tearm it viz that if the Fathers of the most ancient Church when she was in good estate and stained with very few or no corruptions at all could finde no certaintie in vnwritten Traditions much lesse can wee trust to vnwritten Traditions in these dayes when the Pope and his Iesuited Popelinges employ all their care study industry to bury the truth of Christs Gospell vnder the ground And so haue I both prooued my conclusion and also our Fryer to be either full of malice or a very foole S. R. Bell denyeth the keeping of Lent to be Apostolicall because Saint Crysostome writeth That Christ did not bid vs imitate his fast but be humble and to bee certaine because Eusebius out of Ieremy writeth That in his time some thought wee ought to fast one day some two daies others more and some fortie Here Bell sheweth his lacke of iudgment in citing a place clearely against himselfe For here Saint Ireney Eusebius affirme cleerely that at the beginning there was one manner of fasting Lent appointed though some afterward either of ignorance or negligence did breake it Which prooueth not the said Tradition to be vncertain in the whole
So as it may truely be said that some sinnes are Mortall some Veniall though not in Popish sence and meaning For though sinnes be mortall in their owne Nature and not at all Veniall yet are all sinnes Veniall to the Faithfull by the great mercy of GOD who imputeth no sinnes to his elect Children wheÌ„ he beholdeth their Robes washed made white in the bloud of the immaculate Lamb. These I say must bee well marked and firmely imprinted in our remembrance viz Nonâ—n imputat his qui fideliter ei dicunt dimitte nobis debita nostra For hee doth not impute their sinnes to them who faithfully desire pardon for their sinnes Sinnes therefore are Veniall but to whom Not to Atheists denying God not to Pharisees boasting of their Condigne workes not to Infidels denying Christes merits not to impenitent persons who eyther dispaire or take delight in sinne but to the faithful who euer haue a feruent desire to do Gods holy will and to keepe his Commaundements And though of ignorance or frailty they often fall into sinne yet do they foorthwith bewayle their sinnes humbly craue pardon for the same and apply themselues wholly to woorthy fruites of repentance Fourthly that when we either want charity or haue it not in that degree and perfection which the Law requireth we forthwith commit sinne and become guilty in that behalfe Fiftly that we sinne euen in doing that which we can no way auoyd Hereof Saint Austen yeeldeth this reason viz that if we can auoid it then our present will is culpable in default if we cannot auoyd it theÌ„ will past was the cause thereof For as the same holy father saith elsewhere is to be seen in the Downefall euery such sin of ours is voluntary eytheir in the worke it selfe or else in the Originall that is to say in the Protoplast Adam whose will in Gods iust iudgement is reputed ours because we were in his loynes as in the beginning and root of all mankind To which I adde that though the Deuill cannot auoyde sinne yet cannot our Papists deny but he both sinneth heynously and voluntarily yea the Phylopher telleth vs That the drunken man deserueth double punnishment For we must euer haue in minde that our necessity of sinning is punishment iustly inflicted vpon vs as proceeding from our voluntary sinne in Adam I likewise adde for a complement and consummation of the doctrin which I now deliuer and defend that Celestine against whose errours Saint Austen wrote this Booke Deperfectionciustitiae defended Mordicus as a resolued vndoubted doctrine That vvhatsoeuer Man could not auoyde but doe of necessity could not truely bee called sinne nor for sinne be iustly imputed to him To whom Saint Austen answered that albeit wee cannot in this corruption of Nature liue wholy without sin but so farre onely as our nature is healed yet might we haue auoided sin perfectly and wholly before Adams fall which is enough to make vs truly and formally sinners in Gods sight Let his wordes bee well marked and remembred and this controuersie wil soone be at an end For it is all one as if S. Austen had sayde Though we cannot now liue without sinne but sinne of necessity yet are our sinnes iustly and truely imputed to vs because we sinned voluntarily in Adam and by that means most iustly brought this necessity vpon vs. This Doctrine the Papistes Volentes Nolentes must admit or else accuse God of Iniustice for condemning Infants eternally for that sinne which they cannot possibly auoyde For infants dying without Baptisme they affirme to perish euerlastingly S. R. As for Bels dilernma it is easily aunswered and might haue been better left out as himselfe writeth in the margent For though Infantes after they haue sinned and eaten the Apple in Adam cannot avoyde the guilt of Originall sinne but must needs contract it by origine from Adam Yet becautse as Infants sinned in Adam so they might haue not sinned in him but haue auoided the guilt of sinne falsely dooth Bell say they could not possibly auoyde it And I wonder why Bell hauing taught beefore that Concupiscence the effect of Originall Sinne is voluntary hee will now say that Infants could not possibly auoyde Originall sinne But it is his custome to gainsay himselfe T. B. I answere First that in the Downefall of Popery these words are written indeed in the Margent Omittatur haec clausula meo indicio But I protest that neyther did I write them neyther did they please mee when I espyed them Many like faultes are in many of my Books which I cannot deale withall If I had Money at my will as our Iesuite hath to defray my charges while my Bookes were at the Presse I could then so handle the matter as such faults should not offend his worship How this Marginall note crept into the place I may coniecture and bee deceiued This I am assured of that our Iesuites can do greater matters This euery child may know that I wrote it not but our lesuite will needes haue it so For if I would haue had it left out it was in my power to haue effected the same this supposed which I deny that it was mine owne act Secondly that our Iesuit killeth himselfe with his own sword For I contend against him that all sinnes are voluntary in Adam and the Law possible to haue bin kept in him which the Iesuite vnawares doth heere confesse against himselfe This is the maine point in Controuersie viz whether that which we cannot auoyd may bee sinne in vs or no. I hold the Affirmatiue out Iesuite the Negatiue I reply that infantes are guilty of that sinne which they could not avoyde and consequently that that may be sinne in vs which wee cannot avoyde But withall I constantly affirme that infants sinned voluntarily in Adam because they were in his loynes as also that we might haue kept the commaundements in innocent Adam though after corrupt Adam we cannot possibly performe the same This notwithstanding I deny that infantes could any way haue avoyded Originall sin For I cannot conceiue how a childe can avoyd that sin which was committed before he was borne For though it was once in Adams power to haue auoyded all sinne and so to haue freed all his posterity from all sinne yet was it neuer in any Infants power to haue caused Adam to keep Gods holy precept which seeing no Infant was able to performe neyther could any Infant possibly haue auoyded sin Our Iesuite therefore must learne to know that it is one thing to say that it was in Adams power not to haue transgressed Gods Lawe another thing to say that it was in our power before wee were borne to haue kept Adam from that transgression Which seeing it was neuer in our power neyther were wee euer able to haue auoyded the same and consequently neither to haue auoyded sinne Thirdly where our Iesuite saith it is
as it doeth and may appeare to the indifferent Reader in his learned Epistle to Vincentius the third because for the better successe and more free passage of the late Romish Religion the laicall people are commanded by Popish Canon-law vnder paine of Excommunication not to reason at all in matters of Faith and Religion and the learned semblably not to examine or discusse how farre the Popes power doeth extend whatsoeuer or howsoeuer he command them to beleeue For the Popes law hath made it Sacriledge to dispute of his power or to call it into question so writeth their owne deare Doctor and popish Fryer Franciscus à Victoria the first man that brought the Popish School-doctrine into Spaine yea the Popes owne decrees are consonant to the same these are the expresse wordes Similiter de iudicio summi pontificis alicui disputare non licet In like maner no man may dispute of the iudgment of the Pope or high-priest The fourth because neyther any of the layty nor yet of the Cleargy can vnder paine of Excommunication read eyther the olde or the new Testament translated into the vulgar tongue or any other booke of Controuersie or Diuinity set forth by any not professed Vassall vnto the Pope vnlesse such person or persons be especially licenced of the pope so to doe Aphorisme second The multitude of the vulgar and rude people become Papists vpon this false and sandy foundation supposed of them to be a receiued Theologicall Maxime viz that the late start vp Romish Doctrine is the auncient Catholike faith and the olde Roman religion And therefore when soeucr they speake of any Papist meaning to expresse his sect and profession they tell vs he is one of the old Relion but they are grossely deceiued herein they may haue zeale I grant with the Apostle but not acording to knowledge For the doctrine this day taught and defended by the Pope his Iesuites and Iesuited Papists is indeed the new Religion and farre different from the true catholick and olde Roman religion Would to God all simply seduced Papists would deepely ponder this point and seriously meditate vpon the same I doe with all my heart reuerently receiue and admit the old Roman religion preached by Saint Paule and S. Peter in their daies at Rome but withall I vtterly abhorre and detest that Doctrine which the late Popes and Byshops of Rome deliuer for the same In regard hereof I neuer in any one of my Bookes oppugne simply and absolutely the Roman faith and religion but the late Romish faith and doctrine Where I wish the Reader to obserue and marke attentiuely this word Late for it doth significantly declare a cleere difference betweene that doctrine which is novv taught in the church of Rome and that which S. Paule and S. Peter deliuered to the Romans in their life time Which because the common vulgar sort of people cannot distinguish such is their ignorance they are perforce carried away with the sway of the time Marke the next Aphorisme Aphorisme third We know and the Papists knowe that theyr reformed Franciscans now commonly called Capuchenes can tel right well that their other dissolute Franciscans haue swarued from their auncient order albeit they can neither tel wheÌ„ where nor by whom that dissolution first began yet they proue it à posteriori by their auncient rules euidently And euen so do we proue by the holy scriptures the true touch stone of truth that the Papistes haue swarued from Apostolicall doctrine albeit we could not as yet we can assigne the time place and persons when where and by whom such Antechristian alteration first began Let the Reader marke this point well that that Sect of Papistes which is called Franciscans doe boast of their succession continuance and by reason of their antiquity will needes be the true Franciscans but the Capuchens which are nothing but reformed Franciscans tell them that they are the true Franciscans who haue â—ely put away and abolished all superstition and dissolution which by little and litle crept into their order Euen so say we that we are the olde and true Catholickes or Romans who keepe stil that saith and doctrine which saint Paule preached to the Romans and haue only put away and abolished that superstition Idolatry and erroneous doctrine which by little and little crept into the Church They will needes be the true and olde Catholicks as is said of the dissolute Franciscans but we tell them as their Capuchens tel their disordered Franciscans that they are the deformed bastard Catholicks vnworthy of the name of Catholicks And that we are the reformed and legitimate Catholicks who keep still and hold fast all Apostolicall doctrin and haue onely abolished out of the church of God al Superstition Idolatry and errors contrary to the scriptures and the Gospell which the Apostles preached and left in vvriting to all posterities Obserue diligently the next Aphorisme Aphorisme fourth First Popish primacie began in the yeare 607. Secondly Priestes mariage was neuer prohibited till the yeare 385. Thirdly Popes pardons were neuer heard of till the yeare 1300. Fourthly popish Purgatorie tooke no root in the Romish Church till the yeare 250. Fiftly inuocation of Saintes adoration of Reliques was not known till the yeare 370. Sixtly Popish pilgrimage began in the yeare 420. Seuenthly the merite of Workes de condigno was disputeable about the yeare 1081. Eightly the communion vnder both kindes was neuer thought vnlawfull till the yeare 1414. Ninthly the Popes Bulles were not authenticall till the yeare 772. Tenthly Auricular confession was not established till the yeare 1215. Eleuenthly Generall Councels were euer summoned by the Emperours That all these heads of Popish doctrine crept into the Church by little and little in the yeares aboue named I haue proued at large ten yeares agoe in my Booke of the Suruey of Popery as also partly in my Booke of Motiues to which bookes I referre the Reader for better satisfaction therein This creeping of late Romish religion into the Church by little little Victoria a Popish fryer famous school-Doctor witnesseth in these wordes Paulatim ad hanc c. By little and little we are brought to these inordinate dispensations and to this miserable state where we are neyther able to endure our owne griefes nor remedies assigned for the same and therefore must wee perforce inuent some other way for conseruation of the Lawes Giue me Clements Lines Siluester and I will commit all thinges to theyr charge But to speake nothing grieuously against these latter Popes they are doubtlesse inferiours to Popes of old time by many degrees Thus writeth this learned Popish Fryer who if he durst haue spoken plainly would haue told vs mirabilia But it sufficeth that Popes were worse and worse and that errors by little and little crept into the Church Aphorisme fift The vsuall practise of Papists in their Commentaries Bookes and Glosses haue beene such and so intollerable in