be neuer so simple are actually contained in scripture eyther clearely or obscurely T. B. This doctrine is good I approue it with all my heart and willingly subscribe vnto it with my pen. If our Iesuite will stand to this Doctrine we shall soone agree S. R. For surely the Prophets and Euangelists writing their Doctrin for our remembrance would omit no one point which was necessary to be actually known of euery one especially seeing they haue written many thinges which are not so necessary And this thing teacheth S. Austen when he sayth those thinges are written which seemed sufficient for the saluation of the faithfull T. B. This Doctrine I likewise approue it is the verie same that I defend Keepe thee heere Iesuite and we shall not contend S. R. Methinks S. Austen plainly auoucheth that God hath procured euery thing to be clearly written which to know is necessary to euery mans saluation The same teacheth S. Syril saying Not al things which our lord did are written but what the writers deemed sufficient as well for manners as for Doctrine that by right saith and workes we may attaine the kingdome of Heauen S. Chrisostome sayth what things soeuer are necessary the same are manifest out of the scripture T. B. This doctrine I still approue as which the Reader may find to be taken out of the Downfall And so our Iesuite doth heere subscribe vnto my Doctrine though hee take vpon him to oppugne the same For the truth is mighty will in time preuaile This being so I haue no neede to stand long vpon this point For as the Reader seeth the Iesuite approoueth that Doctrine which I in the Downefall do defend S. R. Truly said Saint Ephiphanius that we may tel the inuention of euery question out of the consequence of Scriptures He saide not out of the Scripture For all cannot be taken thence as himself writeth but of the consequence of them Because all questions are resolued out of the scriptures or out of that which followeth of them as the effect of the cause T. B. This also is sound Doctrine and the very same which I defend in the Downfal And consequently the very weapons which our Iesuite hath put into our hands are sufficient to defend vs and our cause against him For if the Reader shal remember these grounds and these positions freely of him granted and withall haue recourse vnto the Downfall he shall be able with all facility to answere to all that the Iesuite obiecteth in this Article S. R. All points of Christian faith cannot be sufficiently and immediatly proued out of scripture For there is no place of all the scripture which sufficiently proueth all the rest to be cannonicall our B. Lady to be a perpetuall Virgin and. the Sabboth to be lawfully translated from Saturday to Sunday T. B. Now our Iesuite forgetteth himselfe and what doctrin he hath already deliuered It were a sufficient answere to tell him that hee heere confuteth himselfe But for the Readers helpe I will breefely aunswere his particulars To the first I say it is soundly and largely answered in the Downfall of Popery In regard of breuity I referre the Reader to the place quoted in the Margent To the second I answere first that I willingly acknowledge the most blessed Virgin to be the Mother of true God and true man and to haue bin a perpetuall Virgin both before Christs byrth and in his byrth and after his byrth Secondly that albeit I defend as our Iesuite also hath granted all things necessary to be beleeued vnto saluation to be contained in the holy scriptures yet do I not deny but willingly graunt and reuerently admit many things receiued by the perpetuall consent of the church and not repugnant to the written word as true wholesome and godly For I am perswaded with S. Austen that whatsoeuer is neyther against Fayth nor against good manners may indifferently be obserued for their society amongst whom we do conuerse Againe it is one thing to say that all necessary points of fayth and Doctrine are contained in the holy scriptures another thing to say that nothing not contained in the scripture hath bin receyued by tradition may be admitted for a truth It cannot be convinced out of the scriptures and therefore no matter of fayth that Saint Peter and S Paule dyed together at Rome yet do I admit it for a truth as receiued by Tradition from the Primatiue Church and testified by vniforme consent of al approued antiquity To the third I haue already said inough both in my Booke of Suruey and also in the Regiment of the Church For in things indifferent the Church may determine what is most expedient for the due circumstances of times places and persons S. R. God sayth Bell forbiddeth vs to adde to his word I answere that such places make nothing against Traditions which are necessary to mans saluation because such are indeed Gods word though vnwritten T. B. I answere our Iesuite with his owne words which follow immediately and are these for the two first places onely forbid adding to Gods word any thing of our own heade or which is mans word as may be proued by the reason of the forbiddance viz least we be disproued found lyars as no doubt we might by adding mans word which is subiect to lye but not by adding Gods worde which neuer can proue vntrue though it be not written Thus writeth our Iesuite confuting himselfe so sufficiently as more needs not be required In these words he telleth vs two things the one quite opposite to the other First he truly saith confuting himselfe that the Scripture forbiddeth to adde of our owne head any thing which is but mans word and subiect to falshood and lying This is good But secondly hee addeth that to adde Gods word though vnwritten is a lawfull thing but this is a silly begging of the question as the Schooles tearme it For I deny that vnwritten Word to bee Gods Word which our Iesuite should prooue but cannot And our Iesuite hath already confessed that all necessary pointes of faith are contained in the Scriptures written Word And consequently it is to late to tell vs now of adding or admitting the vnwritten Word I admit his former assertion as consonant to the Scriptures this latter I reiect as childish vaine and friuolous I proue it because euery word of God is to be admitted as a matter of faith and yet all matters of Faith are written as is already proued and granted This therefore not being written must be hissed out of the Schoole of Christians S. R. Bell alleadgeth the Prophets words To the Law rather and to the Testimony This place maketh nothing for him First because the Prophet nameth not onely the Law but Testimony also which comprehendeth Gods vnwritten word Secondly because Esay doth not absolutely bidde vs recurre to the Law
pulled downe O holy Worshippers of Deuils But this was but the errour of the common people and no Tradition from the Pope Alasse alasse could such a publique concourse of people bee in such a famous place as Ferrara and flock together to adore and worshippe an Idoll in the Church and the Gouernors of the Church be ignorant thereof Nay would the people haue yeelded any such worship and adoration if theyr Pastors or the Popes Catch-poles had not induced them so to do It is vnpossible they receiued it by Tradition And whosoeuer shall enquire such matters of them shall find that their ready answer viz that their ancestors haue beene taught to do so S. R. The Scriptures saith Bell are called Canonical because they are the rule of Faith therefore all things are to bee examined by them And for this cause saith he Esay sent vs to the Law and to the Testimony to try the truth c. Aunswere The Bible alone is called Canonicall Scripture because it alone of all Scriptures the Church followeth as an infallible rule in beleeuing or defyning any thing But it neither is nor is called the onely Cannon of Faith T. B. First our Iesuite granteth that the Scripture is the onely rule Cannon which we must follow in beleeuing defining any thing That done he by by telleth vs that it neither is nor is cald the onely Cannon of Faith This is a wonderment doubtles The Scripture is an infallible rule to be folowed in beleeuing or defining any thing This is true hold thee here good Fryer But what followeth The Fryer will haue one foot further though it cost him dear But it neither is nor is called the onely Cannon of Faith Loe first hee graunteth the Scripture to bee an infallible rule of Faith and then he denieth it to be the onely rule of Faith Is not that worthy to be the onely rule of Faith which is the infallible rule thereof Shall we forsake the infallible rule betake our selues to a fallible rule Ther is no remedy the Pope will haue it so The Scripture therefore by Popish grant GOD reward them for their kindnes is the infallible rule of our faith but not the only rule of the same for vnwritten Traditions must bee a ioynt-rule of Faith with it The scripture is an infallible rule yet not the totall but partiall rule of the Christian faithâ— Well let vs holde fast that which our Iesuite hath graunted afore viz that all things necessary for our saluation are contained in the Scripture And let vs thereupon conclude that Popish faith is as vnconstant as the wind and let vs adde withal that it is execrable blasphemy against the sonne of God to make mans Traditions a partiall rule of our faith For as Christ teacheth vs they worshippe him in vaine that for doctrines deliuer the Precepts of men Read the Downfal Saint Paule telleth vs That the Scriptures are able to make vs vvise vnto saluation Which being so we stand in need of no more it is enough Let vs reply vppon the written truth and let the Papistes keepe their vnwritten vanities to themselues Nay let vs remember what our Iesuit hath told vs already euen in these expresse wordes For surely the Prophets Euangelists writing their Doctrine for our better remembrance would omit no one point which was necessary to be actually knowne of euery one especially seeing they haue written many thinges not so necessary These are the Iesuites owne words in the Page quoted in the Margent And yet they containe fully as much as I desire and the whole trueth now in Controuersie whereby the Reader may perswade himselfe that it is the truth that I defend and which the Papistes oppugne maliciously confessing the same vnawares S. R. Bell saith Saint Iohn bids vs Try the spirites but he speaks not of Apostolicall spirits nor of Traditious Besides hee bids vs not try them onely by scripture and therefore hee maketh nothing for Bels purpose T. B. What an aunswere is this Saint Iohn saith our Iesuite speakes not of Apostolicall spirits nor of Traditions Saint Iohn speaketh of doubtfull spirits and consequently of al spirits all Doctrines not grounded contained in the holy scriptures Againe our Iesuite sayth Hee bids not trie them by the scripture Saint Iohn indefinitely bids try the spirits and seeing he nameth not the way though after he giueth some generall markes thereof we haue to follow the infalliable rule of Iudging aad defining euery thing which Rule or Canon as our Iesuite hath freely granted is the scripture S. R. Bell saith the Berhaeans examined the truth of S. Pauls Doctrine I aske of him whether they were faithful whilst they examined it or faithlesse If faithlesse why proposeth hee them to vs an example to imitate If faithfull How coulde they examine whether that were true or no which they assuredly beleeued to be Diuine truth Wherfore they examined not the truth of S. Pauls Doctrine but searched the scriptures for confirmation and encrease of their faith And this kinde of examining which disallow not T. B. I answere that the faithfull though they beleeue the Articles of the Christian faith yet may they without doubting or staggering examine vnwritten Traditions and what Doctrine els soeuer not expressed in the Holy scripture Take heed of false Prophets which come to you in sheeps clothing Search the scriptures try al things hold fast thaet which is good Beleeue not euery spirit but try the spirits if they bee of God The spirituall man Iudgeth all things By these Textes of holy writ it is very cleere that we are not bound rashly to beleeue all preaching and much lesse all vnwritten popish Traditions If wee do we shall vnawares adore the deuill in Hermannus as is already proued Neither did the Berhaeans search the scriptures onely for the confirmation of their faith but for the Tryall of the trueth as the Texte auoucheth And they searched the scriptures daily if those things were so Loe they examined the Doctrine if it were consonant to the scripture But heere it may bee obiected that if euery one be a Iudge confusion will abound in the Church To this Obiection I haue answered at large in my Booke Intituled the Golden Ballance To which place I referre the Reader which shall desire satisfaction in that behalfe S. R. Bell faith that in S. Cyprians dayes neyther tradition was a sufficient proofe of Doctrine nor the Popes definitiue sentence a rule of fayth These be both vntruths For he onely thought that humane and mistaken tradition was no sufficient rule as hath bin shewed before T. B. S. Cyprian was resolute that all traditions must be exactly tryed by the Holy scripture as is proued at large in the Downfall and partly in this reply already It is needlesse heere to iterate the same S. R. S. Hierom writing to Damasus saith thus Decree I pray you if it
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
The Jesuites Antepast CONTEINING A Reply against a pretensed aun swere to the DOWNE-FALL OF POPERIE lately published by a masked Iesuite Robert Parsons by name though he hide himselfe couertly vnder the letters of S. R. which may fitly be interpreted A SAWCY REBELL Esay 38 verse 1. Put thine house in order for thou shalt die and not liue AT LONDON Printed by William Iaggard dwelling in Barbican 1608. To the Right Honorable my very good Lord Thomas Earle of Dorset Lord high Treasurer of England and one of his Maiesties most Honourable priuy Counsell â‚ IT is a constant and vndoubted truth approoued by all Canonicall Scriptures ancient Councels holy Fathers Ecclesiasticall Histories and Right reason it selfe that as there is but one onely GOD so but one Faith and one Religion Hence commeth it Right Honorable that the Pope and his Iesuites with other his Popish Vassals employ their whole wits learning study care industry and diligence to instill into the cares and harts of the multitude and common people that the Religion which this day they professe is the old Roman Religion which Saint Peter and S. Paule first planted in the Church of Rome And for this end they indeauâ—ur with might and maine yea euen with fire and Fagot to perswade or rather to enforce all Christians to call it the Old Religion and to professe and beleeue it to bee the Catholique and Apostolique Faith whereas the truth is farre otherwise as God willing shortly will appeare Which if the Vulgar sort did once vnderstand they would no doubt stand at defiance with the Pope and from their hearts detest his late start-vppe Romish Doctrine There is a Sect of Fryers at Rome called the Franciscanes who haue by little and little swarued from their first institution and become so licentious and dissolute that another sort of Fryers commonly called the Capucheues haue accused them to haue departed from their Ancient and Primitiue order and therefore do the Capucheues tearme themselues the reformed and true Franciscanes indeede This is this day our case in the Church of Noble England and in many other Churches within the Christian World The Capucheues hold fast keep still and constanty defend all the Ancient Orders of the first Franciscanes they onely reiect and abandon that which by litle and little crept into their Order viz superstition abuses and neglect of Discipline Euen so is it this day with our Church of England she holdeth-fast keepeth still and constantly defendeth all and euery iote of the old Romane Religion reuerencing it as Catholique and Apopostolique Doctrine she onely reiecteth and abandoneth Heresies Errours superstition and intollerable abuses by little and little brought into the Church For neither did most Noble Queene Elizabeth in her time neyther doth our most gratious Soueraigne King IAMES who this day most happily raigneth ouer vs set vp or bring into the Church any new Religion but onely reformeth the Church by the example of King Iosaphat King Ezechias King Iosias and other godly Kinges in their dayes and reduceth it to the Primitiue order and purity of the old Romaine Religion This to be so none can in conscience deny that will with a single and vpright eye this day behold the godly setled Canons of this Church of England For the late Bishops of Rome haue in many points of great importance swarued and departed from the Doctrine of their Ancestors whereof no doubt many Papists euen at about Rome it selfe would this day if they durst for fear of fire and Fagot accuse the Pope himself What shall I say of Hieronymus Sauonarola that famous Preacher and Dominican Fryer Was not be burnt with Fire and Fagot because he preached openly in the famous Citty of Florence against the licencious liues of the Pope and his Clergy and against superstition and abuses crept into the Church I wote it was so it cannot be denyed What Did not Iohannes Geilerius a famous Popish Preacher at Argentorate oftentimes complain to his trusty friends not daring to acquaint otheres therewith that the Thomists and Scotists had brought auricular confession to such a miserable point as none possibly could performe the same He did so their owne good friend Beatus Rhenanus doth contest the same with me What Did not Franciscus à Victoria that â—amous Popish Schoole-doctor complaine grieuously in his time of Popish intollerable dispensations Did he not publish to the view of the world that the Church was brought to such a miserable state as none were able to endure the same Did hee not cry out against the late Bishops of Rome and desire Clements Lines Siluesters His own Book is extant in print the world knoweth it to be so What shall I say of the Popes errors in Faith and Doctrine Was not Pope Liberius an Arrian Heretike Was not Pope Anastasius a Silestorian Hereretique Was not Pope Celestine condemned for erronious doctrin did not Pope Iohn the 22. of that name teach publikely a most notorious heresie Did he not commaund the vniuersity of Paris that none should be admitted to any degree in Theologie but such as would sweare to defend that heresie perpetually Did not the King of France with the aduise consent of the whole vniuersity for that end cause his daÌ„nable opinion to be coÌ„demned with the sound of Trumpets Adrianus who was B of Rome himselfe Alphonsus à Castro Melchior Canus and Viguerius all foure being very learned and famous Papists are constant witnesses of this truth Doth not Nicholaus de Lyra a famous and learned Popish Writer boldly and constantly affirme in his learned Commentaries that many Popes haue swarued from the Faith and become flâ—t Apostaâ—aes in their Romish seates He doth so it cannot bee gaine-said What shall I say of the Popes liues conuersation Was not Pope Iohn the eight of that name belying her sexe and clad in Mans attire with great admiration of her sharpe wit and singuler learning chosen to bee the Bishop or Pope of Rome Did she not shortly after by the familiar helpe of her beloued Companion bring forth the homely and shamefull fruites of her Popedome Is this true Is it possible Then farewell Popish Succession the chiefe Bulwarke of Romish Faith and Religion For seeing no Woman is or can be made capable of holy orders that succession which is deryued froÌ„ our holy Mistris Iohn Pope cannot possibly be of force Yet is this story confirmed to be true by the vniforme assent of many Papistes of great esteeme euen in the Church of Rome viz of Sigebertus Gemblacensis Marianus Scotus Matheus Palmerius Martinus Polonus Philippus Bergoniensis Baptista Platina Bartholomeus Carranza and others Was not Pope Iohn the twelft made Pope by violent meanes Did not his Father Albericus being a man of great power and might enforce the Nobles to take an oth that after the death of Pope Agapitus they would promote his Son
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
in two places at once which is that indeed which I intende to proue For if it were not as I say the women might haue replyed effectually against the Angell thus albeit Christ be risen as you say yet may he be also in the sepulchre still for he may be in two places at once But the Angell of GOD reputing it a thing cleere and euident that Christes body could not bee in two places at one and the selfe-same time concluded directly and forcibly as hee thought Christs absence in the sepulchre because he was risen againe S. R. Bell citeth Durand whom he saith holdeth the same opinion True it is that Durand thinketh the quantitie of Christs body not to bee in the Eucharist yet he both affirmeth and prooueth the substaunce of his bodie to bee there T. B. Durand holdeth indeede that Christ body is in the Eucharist yet after another manner then the Pope and his Iesuites do at this day for hee affirmeth that the matter of bread remaineth still Neuerthelesse as wee heere see Durand denyeth the quantity of Christes body in the Popish Masse and euen so doe I with Durand and with other learned Papists The Iesuite confesseth heere inough to his vtter shame and confusion viz That their doctrine is so foolish and vnsound that the best learned of them cannot agree therein S. R. Bell alledgeth Saint Austen that Christ as man is in some place of heauen for the manner of a true body Againe that his body must be in one place Item that hee cannot be at once in the Sunne the Moone and on the crosse according to his coporall presence In all which places he speaketh of the naturall manner of bodies being in place T. B. This is a short answere but as vnsound as short Let the Reader peruse my Booke the Downefall of Popery and hee shall see the Iesuites folly Saint Austen writing to Durandus hath these words cū ergo sit corpus aliqua substantia c. When therefore any substaunce is a bodie the quantity thereof is in the magnitude of the bignesse but the health or soundnesse is not the quantity but the quality thereof The quantity therefore of the body could not attain that which the quality could For the partes being so distant which could not be together because all seuerallie keepe their spaces of places the lesse lesser places and the great greater places there could not be in all the places seuerally the whole or so much but there is a larger quantity in the larger parts a shorter in shorter partes and in no part so much as in the whole For if spaces of places bee taken from bodies they shal be in no place and because they shall be in no place neyther shall they haue any being at all Out of these words of this holy father and most graue writer I obserue first that euery quantitatiue bodie hath one part distant from another Secondly that the same parts occupie distinct places Thirdly that two quantities cannot bee in the same place and at and the same time Fourthly that a greater quantity must haue a greater place and that it cannot be contained in the lesser Fiftly that no one part can containe so much as the whole Sixtly that when bodies are without places they then loose their Natures and beings I therefore conclude that it is impossible for Christs Naturall body to be contained in a little round Popish cake and his whole body in euery little part thereof All which for all that the Papists this day most impudently and blasphemously do auouch CHAP. 3. ¶ Containing the confutation of the Iesuites third Chapter of the second article S. R. NOw let vs heare Bels or rather the diuels Arguments against Masse T. B. Our Iesuite before hee come to my Arguments hath many fond impertinent digressions of the Popish masse for answere whereunto I referre the Reader to my Suruey of Popery where he shall finde answered whatsoeuer can be said in that behalfe It is now impertinent and nothing to the question in hand ro stand vppon those points But our Iesuite will not aime at the marke because hee knoweth he cannot giue the vpshot Now in Gods holy name I defie both the Iesuite and the deuill speaking as it may seeme within him and hartily pray God if it be his holy will to forgiue him Credidi propter quod loquutus sum I defend nothing God is my witnesse but that which as I am perswaded in my conscience is the truth S. R. The Apostle telleth vs that Christ rising from the dead dyeth no more the Papists tell vs that Christ dyeth euery day nay a thousande times a day in the daily sacrifice of their masse But better might we say that Bels tale of the Papists containeth a thousand vntruths T. B. Go on Iesuite plead for thy selfe what thou canst delight not in lying for the truth in time wil preuail If your Doctrine be true Christ dyeth a thousand times nay ten thousand thousand times a day in your most blasphemous Masse S. R. Bell will wring the contrary out of Bellarmine as water out of a flint First because he granteth that a sacrafice implieth intrinsecally the consumption of the thing sacrificed But this is answerd out of Bellar. teaching that Christ hath two kinds of being to wit naturally and sacramentally And the consumption of his sacramentall beeing in the Masse is no killing because is is not by reall separating his soule and body but onely by consuming the Sacramentall formes in which he was sacramentally T. B. We see heere freely graunted to vs that a sacrifice implyeth intrinsecally the consumption of the thing sacrificed Let vs hold this while wee haue it or else our Iesuite will out of hand take it from vs. Then let vs adde this vnto it viz That no liuing thing after it be consumed can stil haue life in it And consequently eyther Christ is not truly sacrificed in the Popish Masse contrary to the doctrine of the Pope and his Iesuites or else he is there consumed a thousande times a day and so often killed in the Masse For to be consumed is more then to be killed The case is cleere euery childe may perceiue it But what hath our Iesuite no euasion Yes forsooth but it is a very silly one Christ saith he hath a double kind of being a being naturall and a beeing Sacramentall According to the latter he dyeth in the sacrifice of the Masse but according to the former he still lyueth in heauen What a wonderment is this Christ is both liuing and deade at once both sacrificed and not sacrificed at once both consumed and not consumed at once If these be not flat contradiction my skil is naught let the reader iudge Now methinkes this is in deede and in plaine termes the Iesuites answere and consequently the best answere that all the Papists in Europe can make for hee hath learned and heard the best aduise of them
it is that the Ataxia disorder and concupiscence in the regenerate is repugnant and disagreable to the will of God and consequently it must be sinne indeed And as for the opinion of Saint Austen I haue proued at large in the Downfall out of fiue seuerall places of his workes that it is both the punnishment of sinne the cause of sinne and sinne it selfe S. R. As blindnes of hart saith Bell out of Austen is sinne punnishment of sinne and cause of sinne so concupisence of the flesh is sinne punnishment and cause of sin But I aunswere that Saint Austen compareth concupisence with blindnesse of heart in the materiall disorder of sinne T. B. I answere that I know not whether I should pitty the ignorance of our Iesuite or exclaime against his mallice For first Saint Austen cannot bee expounded as Maister Fryer saith though Bellarmine his Brother hath lent him his solution For if Saint Austen had meant materially not formally he would neuer haue called it sin the thirde time after hee named it twice sinne matterially before viz when he called it the cause of sinne and the punnishment of sinne Yet after both these he addeth that it is sinne formally For else he had saide no new thing Secondly because our Iesuite confuteth himselfe vnawares when he writeth thus Saint Austen prooueth by the blindnesse of hart that it was not onely punishment and cause of sinne but also sinne that is naught cuill and disorderly because it is against the rule of reason which is to be sinne materially though it want the form of sinne which is voluntarines This is his answer Now I pray you Gentle Reader iudge indifferently between mee and this Fryer First hee graunteth that Originall concupisence is naught euill and disorderly Secondly that it is against the rule of reason and all that he can say for himselfe is this that it is indeede sinne materially but not formally Where if I may finde an indifferent Reader the victory is mine own GOD is my iudge I speake as I thinke For to be against the rule of reason is formally sinne Which Saint Austen as is already proued declareth euidently when he defineth the eternall law to be nothing else but the reason or will of God The reason is confirmed because Saint Austen compareth it with the blindnes of hart which as euery good Christian knoweth is sinne most formally For if master Fryer Parsons shall deny blindnesse of heart thorough which man beleeueth not in God to bee sinne formally he will be hissed out of all good schools howsoeuer our holy Father the Pope sitting in his chaire vppon men◠shoulders giue him ten hundred thousand yeares pardon for the same Nay I will yet say more to our holy Fryer maister Robert Parsons the Author of this fond presensed answere to the Downfall of Popery viz that in the last precept of the Decalogue or Ten commaundementes Thou shalt not lust is prohibited not onely actuall and voluntary concupiscence but the very Originall and Fountaine of all concupiscences with all her involuntary branches I prooue it first because that concupiscence actuall wherewith wee couet that that is another mans and not our own is forbidden by all the sixt seuenth and eight precepts of the second Table This doeth our maister Christ teach vs when hee saith That whosoeuer shall see a woman to lust after her hath already committed adultery with hi◠in his hart The same doctrine teacheth S. Iohn when hee sheweth the hatred of our brother to be agaiust this precept Thou shall not kill Secondly because if no other thing were prohibited in this commandement but actuall concupiscence there shoulde bee but nine precepts in the Decalogue seeing the last shoulde bee no newe Commaundement but only a bare recitall or repetition of the nine former precepts Thirdly because S. Paul granteth himselfe to be carnally sold vnder sin by reason of original concupiscence and not actuall against which he fought stoutly and neuer gaue consent vnto it Fourthly because that which the Saints of God detest call sin by the iudgement of the holy ghost must needs be sin properly But so it is that S. Paul in the name of all the Saints of God detesteth this Original cōcupiscence calleth it sin and mourning tearmeth himselfe vnhappy for it and desireth to be deliuered from it Ergo it must needs be sin properly Fiftly to say that it is called sin figuratiuely and vnproperly is against that generall rule which all Diuines haue deliuered when the scriptures must bee vnderstood properly and when figuratiuely viz that then they are taken figuratiuely whē the sence which the words in their proper signification yeeld do not agree with other scriptures and the Analogy of faith but are repugnant vnto the same Now no scripture can bee produced which denyeth that Originall concupisence with the involuntary motions thereof is properly sin Nay the Apostle aboue twelue times in one Chapter plainely and simply calleth it sin neither will it helpe to say that the scripture freeth Gods children from sinne For as saint Austen sayth they are not deliuered from sinne so that it is not in them but that it is not imputed to them And the Prophet teacheth the same doctrine when he pronounceth The man blessed not who hath no sin but to whom the Lorde imputeth no sinne And the Papists must either recall their doctrine in this point or else cry fire and faggot for their chiefe maister Petrus Lombardus sur-named the Maister of sentences whose Booke to this day is publikely Read in the schoole of Diuinity for thus doth he write Secundum animas vero iam redempti sumus c. But touching our soules wee are redeemed in part not wholly from the sinne not from the paine neyther wholly from the sinne or fault For we are not so redeemed from it that it be not in vs but that it rule not ouer vs. Lo Maister Lombard that famous Writer graunteth first that we are redeemed in part but not in the whole Secondly that wee are not wholly redeemed from sinne Thirdly he telleth vs how we are redeemed from sin viz that albeit sin shall remain in vs yet hath it not such dominion ouer vs that it can enforce vs to consent therevnto Lo the greatest and best learned Papists teach the same doctrine that I do Sixtly Saint Austen affirmeth plainely that Originall Concupiscence is prohibited by this Precept Thou shalt not Lust and not onely the habituall concupiscence it selfe but also all the actuall involuntary motions thereof Thus doeth hee write as the Iesuire Bellarmine alleadgeth him These thinges saith Bellarmine are spoken after Saint Austens mind who by this precept Thou shalt not Lust vnderstandeth all the motions of concupiscence euen the involuntary to bee prohibited in some sort and that the consent to these motions forbidden by that other precept follow not thy concupiscence Thus writeth our Iesuiticall
the Fathers and my selfe with them doe willingly admit and greatly reuerence many vnwritten Tradâ—tions beeing consonant to the Holy Scriptures but neither as matters of Faith nor as partes of necessary doctrine but as thinges tending to order comelinesse in the worship of God and administration of his sacraments In this kind of Traditions I willingly agree with Saint Chrisostome Saint Basil S. Ambrose and other fathers Neither would I wish any to bee too curious in this kind of Traditions It is enough to heare of theÌ„ to whom the chiefe care of the church is committed that it is a Tradition of the Elders and so haue I answered enough to all friuolous obiections of our Iesuite especially if The Downefall be well marked The rest which I let passe is sufficiently confuted there Saint Chrisostoms meaning is plainely as I haue said Hence it may apeare because in the former part of this Obiection he will admit nothing without the scripture In thinges concerning faith and Doctrine euer vnder stande in the latter part of the Obiection he admitteth vnwritten Traditions and wil not haue vs too curious in receiuing them In thinge which are indifferent euer vnderstand S. R. Bell citeth Byshop Fisher because in one place hee calleth the Scripture the store-house of all truths necessarie to be knowne of Christians and in another sayeth that vvhen Heretiques contend with vs wee must defend our cause with other help theÌ„ by the holy scripture His meaning is that when we dispute with Heretiques we ought to haue other helpes beside scripture T. B. His meaning is as you say and I approue the same But why doth he require other helpe then the scripture seeing the scripture as he graunteth is the store-house of all necessary truths Shall I tell you You will not thanke me for my paines I haue set downe at large in my Booke of Motiues what this your holy Byshoppe hath written of Purgatory and Pardons I will now recount the argument onely referring the Reader to the place First Maister Fisher telleth vs that the Greeke church neuer bel eeued Purgatory Secondly that the Latine Church and Church of Rome did not beleeue the sayd Purgatory for many hundered of yeares after S. Peters death whose successor for al that the Pope boasteth himselfe to be Thirdly that this Purgatory was not beleeued of all the Latine Church at one and the same time but by litle little Where I wish the Reader to note by the way that Popery crept into the Church by little and little and not all at one time which is a point that galleth the papistes more then a little I weene Fourthly that Purgatory was beleeued in these latter dayes by speciall reuelation of the holy Ghost Fiftly that Pardons came not vp till Purgatory was found out for in Purgatory resteth the life of Pardons as which if ther be no Purgatory are not worth a straw Sixtly that Purgatory was a loug time vnknowne Seauenthly that Purgatory could not be found in the Scripture of a very long time Eightly that it was not wholly found out by the scriptures but partly by Reuelations And heere wee see that verified which our Iesuite out of Bellarmine telleth vs viz that the holy Scripture is but a partial rule of faith For if it be a totall rule of fayth the Pope as Maister Fisher affirmeth must both want his Purgatory and be bereaued of his pardons Ninthly that pardons were not heard of or knowne to the Primatiue Church Tenthly that then Pardons began when men began to feare the paines of Purgatory This is the summe of that worthy Doctrine which Byshop Fisher hath published to the world euen at that time when he defended the Pope and Popery after the best manner he could He that shall read his words in my Motiues at large cannot but detest the Pope and all popish faction Hence it is most apparant why the Byshop sayd that they must vse other helpes then the holy Scripture for the maintenance of their Religion for the Scripture is but a partiall rule of popish faith as wee haue heard alreadie S. R. Bell citeth S. Thomas that whatsoeuer Christ woulde haue vs to read of his doings and sayings he commanded the Apostles to write as with his own hands But this maketh nothing against vs both because S. Thomas saith not what Christ would haue vs beleeue but what hee would haue vs read and Traditions be such as Christ would haue vs beleeue though we read them not As also because S. Thomas speaketh not of all points of beleefe but onely of Christs sayings doings besides which the very sayings and dooinges of the Apostles recorded in their Acts and Epistles or testified by Tradition are to be beleeued T. B. I answere First that Popery is this day a most miserable Religion and woe vnto them that do beleeue and obey the same This is or may bee euident to euery one throughout this whole discourse Secondly that Aquinas auoucheth very plainely as I sayde in the Downefall that all things necessary to our saluation are contained in the Scriptures For in Christs deeds are contained his myracles his life his conuersation in his sayinges Semblably are contained his preaching his teaching his doctrine and consequently whatsoeuer is necessary for vs to know If then this be true as it is most true for the papists may not deny the doctrine of Aquinas that whatsoeuer Christ would haue vs to know of his myracles of his life of his conuersation of his preaching of his teaching of his doctrine the same is written in the Scriptures then doubtlesse none but such as will Cum ratione in sanires can deny all thinges necessary for our saluation to be contained in the holy scriptures Yea if our Iesuite will stand to his owne doctrine plainly auouched in this present Pamphlet this Controuersie is at an end for we agree therein These are his expresse words For surely the Prophets and Euangelists writing their Doctrine for our better remembrance would omit no one point which was necessary to bee actually knowne of euery one especially seeing they haue written many things which are not so necessary And this teacheth S. Austen when he sayth that those things are written which seemed sufficient for the saluation of the faithfull Thus writeth our Fryer Iesuite Out of whose words I note first that the Prophets and Apostles wrote their doctrine for our good Secondly that they left no point vnwritten which was necessary for vs to know Thirdly that he yeeldeth a reason why all thinges necessary are written viz because the Prophets Euangelists haue written many things which were not so necessary for vs to know Fourthly that S. Austen teacheth vs the same doctrin viz that all things necessary for our saluation are committed to writing and set downe in the Scripture yea the Iesuite affirmeth in another place out of the same Saint Austen that all things are plainly set downe
tels vs the same tale in your next wordes which are these Because Byshops must not examine the Doctrine which the Pope deliuereth iudicially out of S. Peters chaire as supreme pastor of Gods Church but onely that wherein hee vttereth his owne priuate Opinion Thus writeth our Iesuite truly telling vs the Popish faith Which Doctrine if any but a Papist had deliuered it few or none woulde haue giuen credite thereunto O sweet Iesus I wonder how any Papist hearing such Doctrine published in print by our Iesuites so deare so neare to the Pope himselfe and duely pondering the vanity thereof and the blasphemy therein contained can still be a Papist and not defie the Pope his damnable doctrine What shal we do with holy scripture Is it the infallible rule of faith Is it superior to the Popes iudiciall sentence No no if the Pope define against it his sentence must bee obeyed neyther may any Byshop much lesse euery priuate man examine the same or else cal it into Question Apage Apage fire faggot for such rotten Popery God will vomit it out of his mouth S. R. As our Sauiour commandeth the Iewes to follow what the Scribes taught out of Moyses chaire but to abstaine from their priuate leuen T. B. You pope sitteth in Cathedra pestilentiae not in Cathedra petri I haue proued it elsewhere at large here I wil adde one point or two for the Readers better satisfaction in this behalfe Iohannes Gerson a famous Papist and chansellor of Paris teacheth so plainely that Popes may erre not only as priuate men but euen as publicke persons in their publick and iudicial decrees of faith and manners as none for very shame can deny the same that shall eyther read or heare his words Thus therefore doth hâ—e write Propter quod insuper apparet falsitas doctrinae papae Iohannis 22. quae damnata fuit cum sâ—no buccinarum coram â—ege Phillippo per Theologos Parisienses credidit potius Theologis Parisiensibus quam â—uriae By reason whereof appeareth further the falshood of the Doctrine of Pope Iohn which was condemned by the sound of Trumpets before king Phillip by the Diuines of Paris the king beleeued rather the diuines then the court of Rome Out of these words I note first that the Doctrine of pope Iohn the 22. of that name was condemned at Paris as false and erroneous Secondly that his Doctrine was condemned with the sound of Trumpets Thirdly that it was condemned in the presence of the king of France Fourthly that the king gaue more credit to the Diuines of Paris then to the Court of Rome that is then to the pope and his Cardinals Fiftly that the great Learned Doctours of the most famous Vniuersity of Paris gaue sentence against the popes Opinion Sixtly that neyther the king nor the learned papistes did in those dayes graunt such authority to the Pope as now adayes the Pope arrogantly challengeth to himself vvhereuppon it followeth consequently that the Pope taught false Doctrine euen in a weighty matter of faith To which is consectary that his Doctrine was publicke as which was publikely condemned at Paris and that in the presence of the King But now kings must not deale in such matters where the Popes holinesse beareth any sway Yet thus dealt the King of France with the Pope almost 300. yeares ago I thinke it not amisse heere to insinuate to the Reader how the kings of France haue vsed the Popes Messengers Boniface the eight falling at variance with King Phillippe the faire woulde needes excommunicate him but there was neuer excommunication cost Pope so deare as that did him for his Nuncios were committed prisoners his Bâ—lâ—es burnt and Bonifâ—ce himselfe being taken by Naueret Chancellor of Fraunce presently after dyed for very sorrow Wherein king Phillippe did nothing but by the Counsell consent of the whole Clergy of France So Bennet the 13. otherwise called peter de Luna interdicted Charles the sixt and his Realm but the king sitting in his Throne of Iustice in the Parliament or high Court of Paris the 21. of May. 1408. gaue sentence that the Bull should be rent in pieces and that Gonsalue and Conseloux the bearers thereof should bee set vpon a pillory and publiquely notified and traduced in the pulpit Which decree was accordingly put in execution in the moneth of August with the greatest scorne that could be deuised the two Nuncioes or Legates hauing this inscription vppon their Miters These men â—re 〈◊〉 to the Church and to the King These words are put downe by the French papists in their book called the Iesuites Catechisme translated into English by the secular priests But because our papists stand so much vppon this â—ond and most foolish distinction of the popes double person and that hee cannot erre in his publique sentence and decrees I will haue once a bout againe to beate it better into the Readers head that the Pope both may erre and hath De facto erred in his iudiciall sentence and publique Decree Marke well my discourse Pope Adrian saith Alphonsus a very learned man and a zealous Papist hath these expresse wordes Nou ssâ—â—e fertur de Iohâ—nne 〈◊〉 qâ—ò◠publice docuit 〈◊〉 ab omnibus teneri mandauit quò◠〈◊〉 purgatae aâ—te fiuale iudicium non habent stolam quae 〈…〉 facialis visio Dei vnâ—uersitatem Parisieasem ad 〈◊〉 duxisse dicitur quod nemo in ea poterat gradum in Theologiâ— adipisci 〈◊〉 primitus hunc errorem iurassâ—tse deâ—ensâ—râ—m porpetuo ei adhaesurum Last of all it is reported of Pope Iohn the 22. that hee publiquely taught declared and commaunded all men to hold that the soules of the iust before the day of iudgment haue not the Stole which is the cleare and faciall vision of God And hee is reported to haue induced the Vniuersity of Paris to this that none should take degree in Theologie but he that did first sweare to defend this error to adhere to it for euer Thus writeth Adrian who himselfe was Byshoppe of Rome And Alphonsus a man of high esteeme in the Church of Rome after he had reckoned vppe fiue Heresies setteth downe this for the sixt That the soules of the iust do not see God till the day of doombe ascribing the said Heresie to the Armâ—nians as to the Authors thereof and to the Greekes together with pope Iohn as to the patrons and Defenders of the same Heere the Gentle Reader must obserue seriously lest he be sedused with the colorable glosse of the Iesuit Bellarmine who seeing the force of this Testimony to ouerthrowe the highest point in popery bestirreth himselfe mightily in defence of the popish faith He telleth vs forsooth if we will beleeue him as none will that haue either any wit or reason that pope Iohn erred in deede as Adrian and Alphonsus witnesse but he did that as a priuate man sayth our Iesuite not as pope of
vs. And what is the cause Forsooth saith S. Austen because they onely heare a sound in their outward eares but not the heauenly Preacher sounding in their harts S. R. Well saide S. Austen I would not beleeue the Gospell vnlesse the Authority of the Church did moue me thereto This place so stingeth Bell as he windeth euery way to auoyd it T. B. Howsoeuer in your opinion it stingeth me yet haue I so sufficiently aunswered it in the Downfall as there is no need heere to adde any thing in defence thereof Neuerthelesse some few Annotations I will adde for explication sake First when S. Austen saith I wold not beleeue the Gospel vnlesse the Authority of the Church did moue me thereto He meaneth of himselfe as being a Manichee not as being a christian As if he had said If I this day were not a Christian but a Manichee as I once was I woulde not beleeue this Gospell which I wish thee to embrace vnlesse the Churches Authority did moue me to the same For these are S. Austens own words Si ergo invenirem aliquem qui Euangelio nondum crèdit quid faceres dicenti tibi non credo Ego vero Euangelio noÌ„ crederem nisi me Catholicae Ecclesiae commâ—veret authoritas If therefore I shoulde finde one that yet beleeueth not the Gospel what wouldst thou do to him saying to thee I beleeue it not I doubtlesse would not beleeue the gospell vnlesse the authority of the Catholicke church did mooue mee therâ—unto Loe he speaketh of him that beleeueth not the gospell and of himselfe not being a christian not of himselfe or any other that professeth the gospell Where I am to admonish the Reader that here as in many other places of my Bookes this period last recited is vnperfect in the Downefall For my selfe being absent from the Presse as dwelling farre off many faultes escape the Printer That this is the true meaning of S. Austen I proue it first because in the very same Chapter hee confesseth that the Authority of the Gospell is aboue the authority of the Church Secondly because in the Chapter aforegoing after he hath discoursed of many notable things in the church Consent Miracles Antiquitie and Succession he addeth that the truth of the Scriptures must be preferred before them all These pointes and reasons I cited before out of Saint Austen which because they confound our Iesuite hee impudently denieth them affirming that Saint Austen saith not so These therefore are S. Austens owne words in the first Chapter Quòd si forte in euangelio aliquid apertissimum de Manichaei Apostolatu 〈◊〉 pâ—tueris infirmabis mihi catholicorum anthoritatem qui iubent non credam If happily thou canst finde in the Gospell any manifest thing of the Apostle-ship of Manichaeus thou shalt discredite the authority of Catholiques to mee who commaund mee not to beleeue thee Againe in the fourth Chapter he hath these wordes Apud vos sola personaâ— veritatis pollicitatio quae quidem si tam manifesta monstratur vt in dubium venire non possit praeponenda est omnibus illis rebus quibus in Catholica teneor With you onely soundeth the promise of truth which if it bee prooued so manifest that it cannot be doubted of it is to be preferred before al those thinges that hold me in the catholique church Loe in the former place Saint Austen graunteth freely that the authority of the Scripture is aboue the authority of the church And in the latter that the truth of the Scripture must be preferred before all other things whatsoeuer Away therefore with our lying Fryer and giue hearing to his fables no longer Secondly the faith that proceedeth from the Church for TestificatioÌ„ is but humaine and not diuine For none saue God onely can beget faith diuine in vs. It pleaseth GOD to vse externall meanes and Ceremonies for the confirmation of our Faith but the grace power vertue is from himselfe alone The Law was giuen by Moyses but grace and truth came by Iesus Christ. I prooue it First because a supernaturall effect must needes bee produced of a supernaturall cause and consequently diuine faith beeing a supernaturall effect cannot proceede from the Romish Church Secondly a corporall agent cannot ascend and penetrate a spirituall obiect as a materiall Sword cannot penetrate an immateriall Spirit and consequently neither produce an immateriall effect as is faith diuine Thirdly no immateriall and spirituall accident can bee receyued into any corporall subiect and consequently no corporall subiect is apt to produce a spirituall effect Fourthly Saint Austen saith plainly that it is a greater woorke to iustifie a man then to create the VVorlde but no power saith the Popish Angelicall Doctor Aquinas which is vpon earth can concurre to creation Ergo neither to iustification and consequently neither to the producing of Faith diuine Thirdly when saith is wrought and begotten in vs we may not diuide the worke giuing part to God and part to the Church but we must ascribe the whole to GOD the true Author of the whole Therfore after S. Paule had tolde the Corinthians that he had laboured more aboundantly then all the Apostles hee forthwith added these wordes Yet not I but the grace of God which is with me For though maÌ„ be not in his actions as a brute beast or block but free from all coaction and constraint yet hath he no power but from aboue neither hath he any part more or lesse in producing Grace Faith or the supernatuall effects For though it be Gods pleasure to vse mans externall acts and operations for the exercise of his faith wheÌ„ he meaneth to produce supernaturall effectes yet dooth hee himselfe solely and wholy of himselfe produce the same effectes And heere I must tell the Reader of a great defect in the Latine Vulgata editio which the late Councell of Trent extolleth to the Heauens and withall Papists are bound to vse and beleeue It saith thus Yet not I but the grace of God with mee as if forsooth part were imputed to grace and part to the act and woorke of Saint Paule Whereas indeed the Apostle ascribeth the whole to God and vtterly refuseth to take any part to himselfe Which the Article â— in the Greeke left out in the Latine Vulgata editio maketh plaine and euident For after Saint Paule had saide That hee had laboured more then all the Aopostles he by and by addeth this correction Yet not I but the grace of God which is with me And heere because sensible things worke most in sensile persons let vs take an example of the Napkins and Partlets which were brought from Saint Paules body vnto the sicke for the Napkins by touching Saint Paules body receiued no inherent vertue to worke Miracles The Text saith plainely that God wrought the Miracles by the hand of Paule The Napkins and Handkerchiefes were but outward tokens to confirme the faith of