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
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
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